NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

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 MOUND

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

MAY 13, 2010

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight 

Savings Time, Josie Beach, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

JOSIE BEACH, Chair

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU Team

JEFFREY KOTSCH, DOL

JENNY LIN, HHS

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

BRANT ULSH, DCAS
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

Ted Katz

Call to Order and Roll Call................. 

Josie Beach

Introduction, Background and Purpose........ 

Brant Ulsh

NIOSH discussion of proposed SEC Class...... 

Joe Fitzgerald

SC&A questions and remaining issues......... 

Work Group

Questions and general discussion.......... 42

Adjournment

 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 (10:04 a.m.)

3 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, and 

5 welcome, everybody. This is the Advisory 

6 Board on Radiation Worker Health, Mound Work 

7 Group. I'm Ted Katz. I'm the Designated 

8 Federal Official of the Advisory Board, and 

9 we're going to begin the meeting with roll 

10 call, and please, for all Agency related 

11 participants, please state your conflict of 

12 interest situation in the roll call as well. 

13 Beginning with Board Members with the Chair.

14 CHAIR BEACH: I'm Josie Beach, 

15 Mound Chair. No conflicts with Mound. 

16 MEMBER PRESLEY: Robert Presley, 

17 Working Group Member. No conflicts.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, 

19 Working Group Member. No conflicts.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, 

21 Working Group Member. No conflict.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. And Phil, any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 chance you've joined us yet?

2 (No response.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, let's go 

4 on to the NIOSH-ORAU Team.

5 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. No 

6 conflict.

7 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh, NIOSH. No 

8 conflict.

9 MS. JESSEN: Karin Jessen, ORAU 

10 Team. No conflict.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. SC&A.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Joe Fitzgerald. 

13 No conflict.

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, 

15 no conflict.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, no 

17 conflict.

18 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, no 

19 conflict.

20 MR. KATZ: Great. Welcome to you 

21 all. And then, HHS and other government 

22 officials, or contractors for the feds.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

2 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

3 DR. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

4 DOE.

5 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, Labor.

6 MR. KATZ: Welcome to you all. 

7 And finally, but not least, members of the 

8 public. Any members of the public who would 

9 like to identify themselves?

10 (No response.)

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil 

12 Schofield, Work Group Member, no conflict.

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, great. Glad you 

14 could make it, Phil.

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Thanks.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. I haven't heard 

17 any more, so please let me just remind 

18 everyone to mute your phones. Use *6 if you 

19 don't have a mute button. *6 to come off of 

20 mute, and Josie, it's your agenda.

21 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Well, good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 morning everybody, and welcome to Mound's 

2 first conference call. Our agenda for this 

3 morning's meeting has been posted on NIOSH's 

4 web site. The purpose of our meeting today is 

5 to discuss NIOSH's proposed additions to the 

6 SEC based on radon at Mound. 

7 The Mound SEC petition covers 

8 periods from February 1st, 1949 to August 

9 17th, 2007. Radon is -- was identified as 

10 item number two from the Mound Issues Matrix, 

11 and is based on an assessment of the 

12 following: NIOSH's Evaluation Report dated 

13 December 19th, 2007, the Mound SEC petition 

14 0090, and a partial review of documents, SC&A 

15 Site Profile Review, and Working Group meeting 

16 of April 1st, July 14th, October 27th, those 

17 were in 2008, and then May 27th and 28th of 

18 2009. And our most recent meeting, January 

19 5th and 6th of 2010.

20 NIOSH formally conveyed by email 

21 to me, on December 21st, 2009, that they had 

22 been struggling with this issue for a number 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 of weeks and had been unable to come up with a 

2 suitable method for bounding radon doses for 

3 individuals who were exposed to radon and 

4 thoron and actinium, in room SW-19 at Mound. 

5 They said that they were leaning 

6 strongly towards recommending an additional 

7 Class to the SEC for this scenario, and they 

8 were going to discuss administration of the 

9 Class Definition with DOL shortly. 

10 NIOSH has reported that they have 

11 been, and continue to work with DOL to come up 

12 with a Class Definition that DOL can 

13 administer, and as far as I know, this issue 

14 is still currently unresolved, but that is 

15 NIOSH's story to tell, and so with that, I'll 

16 turn it over to NIOSH. And NIOSH will start, 

17 followed by SC&A, and then of course the Work 

18 Group questions. So, Brant, if you're ready, 

19 take it over.

20 NIOSH DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SEC CLASS

21 DR. ULSH: I'm ready. Thanks, 

22 Josie. And actually, thanks for that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 timeline. That, that solves some of the 

2 things that I needed to talk about. 

3 Basically, to pick it up from the end of what 

4 Josie said, last Friday, I think it was on 

5 Friday, because there was a flurry of 

6 activity, the Working Group should have -- and 

7 SC&A should have received our Draft Evaluation 

8 Report for radon.

9 Now one thing I need to clarify 

10 here. For administrative reasons, that not 

11 all of which, I'm sure I can explain, this 

12 Class is an 83.14. So, basically it's one 

13 that we are proposing. And I think that's 

14 because in the original 83.13 Evaluation 

15 Report, we said that we could do it, and 

16 rather than go back and revise that, we just 

17 initiated an 83.14 to cover the radon Class. 

18 So, with that, when I sent that 

19 out last Friday, I indicated that there was a 

20 caveat, and that is that the exact wording on 

21 the Class Definition is still being discussed. 

22 So you shouldn't consider that final. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 those communications have continued since last 

2 Friday. I have been in contact with Jeff 

3 Kotsch, and he is on the line, so we've had a 

4 couple of rounds of question and answers back 

5 and forth, and so they're still considering 

6 the aspects of this that relate to how they 

7 would administer the Class. So that is 

8 somewhat of an open issue.

9 What we have proposed -- that is, 

10 NIOSH -- is that the doses, the actual doses 

11 that we cannot reconstruct, relate to leaks 

12 from a tunnel that were under room SW-19. And 

13 this tunnel, just to give you some 

14 geographical perspective here, if you recall, 

15 the first Class that we designated, from 1949 

16 to `59, dealt with radium, actinium and 

17 thorium separations activities that occurred 

18 in what was called the old cave. 

19 And there were some -- that was a 

20 pretty messy operation, and at the end of that 

21 operational period, they initiated some D&D 

22 measures that eventually involved concreting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 in the whole facility -- that is, the old cave 

2 facility. And that occurred, or concluded, in 

3 1959. So that was the end of the first Class 

4 Definition.

5 And subsequent to that, they put 

6 office space up above the old cave facility. 

7 And that office space is in room SW-19. And 

8 in between, there are some tunnels, a tunnel 

9 with a couple of different parts. Now, this 

10 tunnel is not occupied. It's only, I think, 

11 two feet and some inches in dimensions, in 

12 terms of height. So it's not a tunnel that 

13 people routinely access, or anything like 

14 that. In fact, there's indications that it 

15 was an isolated area, and that's why the radon 

16 concentrations built up so high in that 

17 tunnel.

18 The problem is, from 1959 up 

19 through 1979, NIOSH has not discovered any 

20 radon monitoring in this area. And that's 

21 really the crux of the problem, why we're 

22 recommending a radon Class. And now, let me 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 clarify here. Unless I specify otherwise, in 

2 this meeting, when I say radon, I'm not only 

3 talking about radon-222, which is what you 

4 would be most familiar with, but I'm also 

5 talking about radon-219 and -220, and that is 

6 actinon and thoron, respectively. And their 

7 daughters. So it's a little bit different 

8 than we might talk about, you know, with radon 

9 in your basement.

10 So between 1959 and `79, we really 

11 don't have any data. In 1979, if I can just 

12 kind of give you a simplified timeline of the 

13 events that we -- as we know them. In 1979, 

14 an employee who had an office in SW-19 had a 

15 strange lung count. It showed up with some 

16 positive -- an indication of an intake in 

17 strange places. And they did -- they 

18 initiated an investigation based on that. 

19 And we have the notes from the 

20 health physicists who conducted the 

21 investigation, and that's where I'm drawing a 

22 lot of my data from. And, so that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 investigation happened, beginning on or about 

2 June 19th, 1979.

3 And at that time, they became --

4 you know, when this employee showed up with a 

5 strange count, they of course were interested 

6 in where he could have picked up this intake. 

7 And so they sampled in his office, and that 

8 occurred in late June of `79. And they 

9 sampled on the floor near his desk, and they 

10 measured 66.8 picocuries per liter.

11 Now, at this point, they weren't 

12 thinking about different radon isotopes. They 

13 were thinking radon-222. So keep that in 

14 mind. The next month, in July of `79, they 

15 sampled from a hole in the floor in his 

16 office, that they subsequently discovered, and 

17 they measured 780 picocuries per liter at that 

18 hole in the floor. And then they also measure 

19 80.2 picocuries per liter near his desk, at 

20 that time. 

21 Now, to put this into perspective 

22 a little bit, the, the RCG for a controlled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 area for radon is 100 picocuries per liter. 

2 So at, at his desk, it's less than the RCG, 

3 but at the hole in the floor, it's much higher 

4 than the RCG. And that -- I hope the 

5 importance of that will become evident as we 

6 go along here.

7 All right. Let me see. Let me 

8 find in my narrative here where I am.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brant, this is 

10 Brad. Where did, where did we get these -- 

11 because I didn't see these measurements from 

12 the very beginning of this. Is this --

13 because when we interviewed this individual, 

14 he didn't have these -- what the complete 

15 limits were at. So I was just wondering, 

16 where did we come up with this stuff?

17 DR. ULSH: These are from -- the 

18 HP's transcribed their note, his note. His 

19 handwritten notes that are in the SRDB, Brad. 

20 And I transcribed them, because, you know, 

21 they are a little difficult to read.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 DR. ULSH: So I just made up a --

2 I typed his notes up for my own use. But his 

3 handwritten notes are in the SRDB.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. That's 

5 what I wanted to know. Thanks.

6 DR. ULSH: Sure.

7 DR. MAURO: Brad, this is John 

8 Mauro. Just to offer perspective. I seem to 

9 recall a rule of thumb. Two hundred -- I 

10 don't know if this is right. No. Two rem per 

11 picocurie per liter to the lung. In other 

12 words, if you're continually exposed to a 

13 picocurie per liter, the dose to your lung --

14 now, not whole body dose, dose to your lung --

15 and this is radon, is I believe, two rem. 

16 It's probably something that is 

17 important to confirm. That's a number that 

18 sort of sticks in my head. And I'm not sure 

19 if I got it right. If anyone in the room --

20 it helps orient us in terms of the magnitude 

21 of the insult of being exposed to radon, and 

22 what levels are a problem, what levels may not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 be a problem. And I'd like to also point out 

2 that in general, like the EPA guideline for 

3 residences -- now, not occupational, is four 

4 picocuries per liter.

5 DR. NETON: Right. John, this is 

6 Jim. You have to keep in mind the statement 

7 that Brant made early on, and it's -- they 

8 were assuming, when they were making these 

9 measurements, and these are with E-PERMS, that 

10 it was one hundred percent radon-222.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

12 DR. NETON: These E-PERMS were not 

13 calibrated for radon-219 or -220, so 

14 essentially, these early measurements -- this 

15 is part of the reason we have problems with 

16 reconstructing anything here. We don't know 

17 what those numbers mean.

18 DR. MAURO: Oh okay. I got you. 

19 Okay.

20 DR. NETON: If you've got a, you 

21 know, four second half-life radon-219, you've 

22 got radon-220 in here, and so part of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 confusion in this entire investigation was, it 

2 took them quite some time to realize that it 

3 was actually a mixture of these three 

4 radionuclides. 

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. So we have --

6 it's very different to convert those levels to 

7 what --

8 DR. NETON: Yes. Those, those 

9 numbers really couldn't be determined from 

10 these measurements.

11 DR. MAURO: Got you. Okay.

12 DR. ULSH: I do, I do think, 

13 though, that at least qualitatively, we can 

14 say, if you combine the three different radon 

15 isotopes and their daughters, the 

16 concentration is high at the, at the hole 

17 where they are leaking into the room, and the 

18 cracks in the floor. And they're somewhat 

19 less high near his desk. But I wouldn't go 

20 much further than that at this point.

21 So to pick up, in July -- late 

22 July of `79, they also sampled in the office 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 that was next door. Now, to clarify, SW-19 

2 was divided up into three separate office 

3 spaces with partitions. Now, I don't know the 

4 details about those partitions, in terms of 

5 whether they were full wall or not. But there 

6 were three different offices, and they sampled 

7 in the office next to the one where the hole 

8 was, and they measured 27.5 picocuries per 

9 liter. And as we have just discussed, you 

10 have to keep in mind the limitations of those 

11 measurements at this point. So they are 

12 somewhat less than what they measured in the 

13 office with the hole.

14 And at this point, the health 

15 physicists began to suspect that there were 

16 other radon isotopes, and that their daughters 

17 were contributing to what he was seeing.

18 So now we move to the next month, 

19 in August of `79. And that hole in the floor 

20 that they discovered was sealed, and it was 

21 vented to an exhaust duct. And the sampling 

22 that they took subsequent to this, and it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 the same kind of sampling we've been talking 

2 about, shows that it reduced the radon 

3 concentrations near the employee's desk by 

4 about a third. 

5 Okay, so they're continuing on 

6 now, and in September of `79, the tunnel that 

7 they discovered, that underlied this office 

8 space, was sampled through a hole that they 

9 drilled in a manhole cover. And they detected 

10 about 6,000 picocuries per liter. Now, that's 

11 hot. And I've already described this tunnel 

12 to you. 

13 In October, so it's the next 

14 month, an HP went in a bubble suit and mapped 

15 that tunnel. And there were a couple of 

16 sections of it, one of which underlies this 

17 office space, and one which was right adjacent 

18 to it. Later that month, they sampled in that 

19 other section, and they measured 88,000 

20 picocuries per liter. So these are extremely 

21 high levels in this tunnel. 

22 Early in 1980, so a couple of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 months later, they installed a ventilation 

2 system to take air from the tunnel and vent it 

3 out of the stack. And they sampled along a 

4 base of the wall in the office area and that 

5 indicated, quote, "it indicated a drastic 

6 reduction in radon leaks." 

7 Okay, that occurred in early 1980. 

8 The exact date is not specified. Now, in 

9 March 5th of 1980, they sampled again the 

10 site, the employee's desk. And they measure 

11 8.2 picocuries per liter. And this was with a 

12 calibrated instrument, and so this is the 

13 actual date that we proposed to end the SEC 

14 period for radon.

15 Now, it's important for me to 

16 point out here, that we are not saying that 

17 radon concentrations went to zero. We are 

18 simply saying that at this point, it stopped 

19 being an unrecognized and uncharacterized 

20 hazard, and it became something that they 

21 recognized and remediated, and took measures 

22 to address. But --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 DR. MAURO: Excuse me, Brant, this 

2 is John again. That measurement that was 

3 made, the eight picocuries per liter, was that 

4 one of your short-term measurements, or was 

5 that taken over a long period of time?

6 DR. ULSH: Let me check on that, 

7 John. Hold on just a second. I think I can 

8 come up with that pretty quickly.

9 DR. MAURO: And I bring it up only 

10 because my experience is, radon concentrations 

11 vary dramatically over time. And if it's, if 

12 it's an integrated number, an average over an 

13 extended period of time, you get a better 

14 sense of the magnitude of the exposure that 

15 workers in that environment might have 

16 experienced.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay, that's a good 

18 point, John. So let me tell you what we've 

19 got here. From the HP's notes. On 3/5, that 

20 sample is a grab sample, beside his desk. So 

21 it is a short-term sample, and they measured 

22 8.2 picocuries per liter. But over the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 time period, this is March 3rd, 1980, through 

2 March 11th, 1980, they put in -- let's see. 

3 He says it's an RDT-310 PERM, and they are 

4 calibrated to read that instrument, and the 

5 result was 15.4 picocuries per liter. And he 

6 says, "considering the difference in the two 

7 sampling techniques, this compares well with 

8 the 8.2 picocuries per liter value shown 

9 above." 

10 They then measured in the office 

11 next door, and, let's see. That was from 

12 March 14th up to April 18th, 1980, so the --

13 you know, the month following. And they 

14 measured 7.7 to 13.4 picocuries per liter. 

15 And that's pretty much the end of the story 

16 from those notes. So they confirmed that the 

17 remedial measures that they took had 

18 drastically reduced the radon concentrations.

19 DR. MAURO: And let me just --

20 sorry, it's John again. Now, it would be fair 

21 to say that the locations where those 

22 measurements were taken are the locations 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 where one would have expected, if there were 

2 elevated levels above the old tunnels, this is 

3 where you would expect to see them. Are there 

4 any other locations -- buildings or rooms, 

5 where there may have been some type of 

6 connection that could have had a problem? Or 

7 are these the ones where, I guess, based on 

8 the layout, you would expect there to be a 

9 problem, if there was a problem?

10 DR. ULSH: Well, I can only speak 

11 for myself, John, and say that these are where 

12 I would expect to find the problems. The 

13 offices are right above the tunnel, and there 

14 are cracks that communicate between the office 

15 and the tunnel. So that's where I would 

16 expect them to be.

17 Now of course, and this may be 

18 something that the Working Group wants to 

19 discuss, we can't prove a negative. I mean, 

20 we can't prove that the radon didn't go 

21 anywhere else in the building. However, keep 

22 in mind how we've, currently, at least, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 defined the Class. I mean, my position is 

2 that these exposures occurred -- if there was 

3 a lung dose, and there obviously was a lung 

4 dose that occurred in SW-19, and I cannot 

5 estimate -- I can't put a reasonable upper 

6 bound on that dose, for the guy who showed up 

7 with the lung count, and to be honest, anyone 

8 else who worked routinely in that room. I 

9 can't estimate their lung dose either. 

10 However, DOL has weighed in and 

11 said that they can't really administer a Class 

12 that's defined as one room. And on that 

13 basis, we expanded the Class to be all of RW -

14 - R and SW building. So it's anyone who 

15 worked in that building.

16 Now, I know that we're going to 

17 want to talk some more about the exact Class 

18 Definitions but I think that kind of, maybe 

19 makes the point there, is the question that 

20 you're asking a bit moot, because we've 

21 expanded it to be the whole building.

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, I misunderstood. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 I thought, after a certain date, you were 

2 claiming you can reconstruct the doses, but 

3 prior to a date, you could not.

4 DR. ULSH: You are correct, John. 

5 In terms of time, we're saying, prior to 

6 March 5th, 1980, we cannot reconstruct a dose, 

7 but after, we can. But for that time period 

8 where we're saying we cannot reconstruct the 

9 dose, that applies to all of R and SW 

10 buildings.

11 DR. MAURO: And then after that, 

12 you -- to say you can reconstruct a dose, is 

13 based on these measurements that were taken, 

14 where you saw somewhere between seven and 

15 fifteen picocuries per liter.

16 DR. ULSH: Yes, that is correct. 

17 That's where they observed the high radon 

18 concentrations that communicate directly with 

19 the radon source term. And so that's why we 

20 put some stock in the measurements.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Brant -- this is 

22 Josie. When you say "all of SW", you are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 talking SW-3, 17, 18, 19, so that includes all 

2 --

3 DR. ULSH: Every -- every room in 

4 R building, and in SW building. Every room.

5 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

7 Can I ask a question on that? Is -- Labor is 

8 concerned that they cannot identify any 

9 restrictions on access to the, sort of source 

10 room, versus the rest of the building, or --

11 DR. ULSH: Well, let me give a 

12 little more perspective to bring you up to 

13 current -- the current situation, Paul. And 

14 then I'll let Jeff Kotsch maybe speak for 

15 Labor. 

16 Currently, we have proposed, 

17 anyone in R and SW, based on our earlier 

18 conversations with Labor. However, this issue 

19 is still not settled yet, because then the 

20 question becomes, how do you identify the 

21 population of workers who worked in R and SW 

22 buildings?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 I originally came out with the 

2 position that you can identify those workers 

3 because these buildings were tritium 

4 buildings, so they housed extensive tritium 

5 operations, some of which the Working Group, 

6 and SC&A and NIOSH have discussed extensively. 

7 And so, we had heard from workers, 

8 and we have documentation, that anyone who 

9 went into this building, anyone who worked in 

10 this building, had to leave a urine sample. 

11 So I had proposed that that's a way that you 

12 could identify who worked in this building. 

13 Now, subsequent to my taking that 

14 position, we had some interviews in 

15 Cincinnati, and this was maybe, I don't know, 

16 maybe a month ago. And one of the 

17 interviewees -- and when I say "we," I'm 

18 talking about, these were interviews conducted 

19 by SC&A with some former workers, and we were 

20 afforded the opportunity to participate. And 

21 one of those interviewees said well, yes, you 

22 were supposed to. I mean, it was clear 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 policy, and it was clearly marked that you 

2 were supposed to leave a tritium urine sample 

3 if you came into the building, but it's 

4 possible that someone could have come in, say, 

5 for instance, to go to a meeting, or to visit, 

6 you know, other areas of the building, and he 

7 may not have left a urine sample. That's 

8 plausible.

9 So, okay. That raises a question 

10 now. But when we thought about it some more, 

11 that's a little different, saying, if I just 

12 went in for a meeting, I might not have left a 

13 sample. But if I worked in this building for 

14 250 days, I don't think it's plausible that 

15 you could have not left a single urine sample. 

16 

17 And to test that, I talked to two 

18 of the people that were, that were in those 

19 interviews. And they both agreed with that 

20 position. And to quote, one of them said -- I 

21 asked if it would be plausible for you to work 

22 250 days in these buildings, or visit 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

29

1 days, and not leave a urine sample. And one 

2 of them said that would be most unusual. I 

3 would go so far as to say it could not happen. 

4 The other one said -- the other person that I 

5 talked to, said it's not possible. I don't 

6 see how you couldn't have left a sample. If 

7 you went in on an RWP, or if you worked 

8 maintenance, you had to leave a sample. Even 

9 if you went in only once, for five minutes. 

10 But both of them did agree with the statement 

11 that, you know, maybe if you went in for a 

12 meeting, you wouldn't. 

13 I then talked to a total of eight 

14 people, and I have to say that these are 

15 people who work on the NIOSH and ORAU Teams, 

16 so they were easy for me to reach out and talk 

17 to, and all of them said the same thing. So 

18 we're getting a consistent story here, that it 

19 would have been possible to go in, maybe for a 

20 meeting or, you know, deliver a letter, or 

21 whatever. But it's just not plausible for 250 

22 days in these buildings, and you wouldn't have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 left a single tritium urine bioassay. So 

2 that's why I'm confident in that position.

3 Now, we are still discussing this 

4 with DOL, and they have some questions, and 

5 you know, we are answering those questions. 

6 But the Class Definition issue is not settled. 

7 So, Jeff, I don't know if you want to add 

8 anything further at this point.

9 MR. KOTSCH: Not other than --

10 excuse me. Not other than, yes, we are still 

11 reviewing. I mean, our basic concern, I 

12 think, is how -- you know, I guess the 

13 availability of those tritium records to be 

14 able to do that. We have talked to DOE 

15 earlier, and we could not put people in those, 

16 in the R or SW building, you know, through 

17 employment records. So that's the reason we 

18 talked further with NIOSH and said, you know, 

19 we can't do it that way, but you know, is 

20 there some other way. 

21 But you know, I think the bottom -

22 - or one of the bottom lines for us is, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 know, the availability and the completeness of 

2 the tritium record. You know, the -- whether 

3 we can figure whether they indeed left at 

4 least one, you know, bioassay sample. But 

5 anyway, the bottom -- you know, we're still, 

6 we're still reviewing that issue.

7 DR. ULSH: So that's the long 

8 answer to your question, Paul.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, thanks.

10 DR. MAURO: And Brant, this is 

11 John Mauro. I have a question now. The 

12 interviews regarding the tritium sampling 

13 practice, which was found very disciplined, 

14 they were from people that worked there for a 

15 certain time period. Now, the time period of 

16 concern regarding the Class -- does it extend 

17 decades before the time period these people 

18 spoke about? Because I certainly would 

19 understand why you would take a position, 

20 listen, you know, based on the interview from 

21 the people you spoke to, as applying to the 

22 time period that they experienced it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 Are we talking about, though, the 

2 time periods that may go well before then, 

3 also? Where perhaps that level of discipline 

4 was not in place?

5 DR. ULSH: Okay. That's a good 

6 question, John. To clarify, I told you I 

7 spoke to a total of eight workers. Two of the 

8 workers that I talked to were the ones that 

9 SC&A interviewed in Cincinnati, about a month 

10 ago. And those two workers were there from 

11 before the Class Definitions till after the 

12 Class Definitions. So they span the entire 

13 Class Definition period. And those are the 

14 two that I quoted to you directly here, 

15 earlier. 

16 The other ones that I talked to, 

17 that worked on the NIOSH-ORAU Team, were there 

18 after that. So, I mean, they were -- I mean, 

19 they had some knowledge of historical practice 

20 but they worked in a time period that was 

21 after the radon Class. 

22 DR. MAURO: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 DR. ULSH: Sure.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer 

3 again. Just a follow up question. Once a 

4 person had access -- the so-called tritium 

5 workers, to that facility, is it unrestricted 

6 access to any part of that building?

7 DR. ULSH: That's a good question, 

8 Paul. I don't know if access to all parts of 

9 the building was granted once you were on 

10 tritium bioassay -- I really don't know the 

11 answer to that.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: The reason I ask 

13 that, of course, was that, you know, you sort 

14 of start out with the room, which was -- or 

15 the three rooms, or whatever it was, over the 

16 tunnel. And the question kind of arises, is 

17 that area itself restricted in any way, or is 

18 it just an office, or offices, that anybody 

19 could have wandered into once they were in the 

20 building anyway. 

21 DR. ULSH: Well, let me give you 

22 what I know, and it's, it's incomplete. At 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 least in later time periods, I'm talking about 

2 after the Class, there was a differentiation 

3 between SW building and part of R, because 

4 that was a tritium facility, but then the 

5 other part of R building was an alpha and 

6 tritium. I think that's the way it went. But 

7 that's after the time period, so I don't know 

8 if that really applies.

9 I can tell you that, that the one 

10 interviewee that told us that you could have 

11 gone in for a meeting also did explicitly say 

12 that you could have gone into SW-19, even, 

13 just to, you know, deliver a letter or 

14 whatever, I don't know if he said that part, 

15 but you know, temporarily just go in --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but you're 

17 not going to get 250 days out of that.

18 DR. ULSH: Right. But he did 

19 specifically mention SW-19, so --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it certainly 

21 wasn't, it wasn't a restricted area in any 

22 way. It was just an office.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 DR. ULSH: I don't think it was 

2 restricted. I don't know. The weight of the 

3 evidence suggests to me that it was not 

4 restricted in terms of the time period that we 

5 are considering --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

7 DR. ULSH: From `59-`79, because 

8 there were routine -- it was routinely 

9 occupied as office space.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

11 COURT REPORTER: Who asked that 

12 question?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was Paul 

14 Ziemer.

15 COURT REPORTER: Okay. Thank you.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Brant, this is Josie 

17 Beach. I have a question for you. You said 

18 that after March 5th, 1980, you would be able 

19 to reconstruct dose for individuals working in 

20 those areas. Can you describe how you plan to 

21 reconstruct dose?

22 DR. ULSH: Okay. Well, first of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 all, we're recognizing that this would only 

2 apply to a few cancers. It would be lung and 

3 respiratory tract cancers, I think, that we 

4 would consider radon dose for.

5 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

6 DR. ULSH: But I think that what 

7 we would do, is bound it based on the highest 

8 of the measured concentrations after the 

9 remediation occurred. So it would be 

10 somewhere in the neighborhood of, I would 

11 guess, I'm just looking here. Maybe 15.4 

12 picocuries per liter. Don't hold me to that 

13 exact number, but that's a ballpark estimate.

14 CHAIR BEACH: And that was taken 

15 when?

16 DR. ULSH: The 15.4 was taken over 

17 the time period of March 3rd, 1980, to March 

18 11th, 1980.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So do you 

20 have anything from 1980 to, say, I don't know, 

21 into the `90s?

22 DR. ULSH: Well, I can tell you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 that the time period I've taken you up to so 

2 far is from the health physicist's notes. 

3 There were some follow-up documents that were 

4 prepared, and these are memos that are also in 

5 the SRDB. And it's from the same health 

6 physicist, but to different people. There's 

7 one dated in 1982, where apparently they, they 

8 weren't satisfied with those levels that they 

9 had measured. They were below the RCG, but 

10 they, you know, for ALARA purposes, they 

11 wanted to reduce them. 

12 So in 1982, they went in and did 

13 some further sealing, and measured for radon14 219 and 222. And what they found was that the 

15 219 decay products is comparable to what would 

16 be a guideline value for an uncontrolled area, 

17 for example, in a residence. And, let's see. 

18 Only trace quantities of radon-222 decay 

19 products were observed. This is due to normal 

20 background. And these were measurements that 

21 were taken in March and April of 1982, and 

22 this is in SW-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

38

1 And then sometime -- I can't tell 

2 you exactly when, because I mean, we have this 

3 detailed account up to 1980, and then the 

4 people that I talked to here, former Mound 

5 workers, said that in 1990, which was right 

6 around when they were working there, that 

7 area, SW-19, was no longer routinely occupied. 

8 So they didn't have office space in there 

9 anymore. They, they did say that people could 

10 go in on a short-term, temporary basis to do 

11 specific jobs, but not routinely occupied. 

12 But I don't know when that happened, any more 

13 definitely than some time between 1980 and 

14 `90. 

15 And then the next piece of 

16 information that I have is a memo that's dated 

17 April 3rd, 1990, and it says on March 27th, 

18 1990, that health physicists made some 

19 measurements in this room. It's a little 

20 convoluted. It's an indirect method. And 

21 they were looking for radon-219 and they 

22 measured 0.2% and 0.1% of the DAC for radon-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 219. So this is about 0.7 picocuries per 

2 liter. 

3 So the answer -- the long answer 

4 to your question, Josie, is that at periodic 

5 times after 1980, we have confirmatory 

6 sampling that shows low measurements. It was 

7 also told to me anecdotally, that when people 

8 went in after 1980, so around, you know, in 

9 the 80s and 90s, when they did work in these 

10 rooms, they did radon monitoring. But we 

11 don't have that data. We haven't located it.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Brant, this is 

14 Arjun. Are there any measurements from other 

15 rooms that you've come across?

16 DR. ULSH: The only -- well, the 

17 measurements that I've seen from other rooms, 

18 Arjun, are all relatively close by to SW-19. 

19 They measured daughter products outside, you 

20 know, right outside of SW-19. And they were 

21 low. But I don't have measurements from other 

22 rooms in the building.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: I found a 

2 document, 1994 radon levels in SW-11. It 

3 doesn't seem to be a complete document. I 

4 found several documents that were pieces of 

5 documents, actually, so it's a little bit 

6 difficult to interpret. But, so far as I can 

7 see, these were measurements in SW-11, in 1994 

8 --

9 DR. ULSH: Okay.

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that were more 

11 than 700 picocuries per liter of radon. And 

12 apparently they were vented. They were, they 

13 were doing some venting at the time. I don't 

14 have a diagram of the physical arrangement or 

15 whether measurements were made. I can give 

16 you the SRDB number.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay, yes. What is 

18 that, Arjun?

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: 8691.

20 DR. ULSH: 8691 SRDB. Okay. I 

21 will take a look at that. I am not familiar 

22 with it. Let's see, you said SW-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

41

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes.

2 DR. ULSH: Oh, I see SW-11. It is 

3 right next door to SW-19.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, so it might 

5 have had some communication with this tunnel. 

6 Apparently, these were -- I suspect these 

7 were D&D type of, you know, measurements they 

8 were doing, in connection with, with D&D 

9 activities or planned D&D activities. So I'm 

10 not sure of the configuration or the state of 

11 decommissioning of the building. 

12 But you can see right away, as 

13 soon as you open it, the -- it says average 

14 weighted concentration, 737.6 picocuries per 

15 liter emitted from the building, you know. 

16 Then they have a stack flow number of 2.5 

17 curies, and so on, so there is some data 

18 there. It is a little bit hard to figure out.

19 DR. ULSH: That gives me a little 

20 bit more information. I was thinking -- as 

21 you were describing that, I was thinking that 

22 SW-11 is where the stack was when they pulled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 the air out of the tunnel and sent it up a 

2 stack. So I think what you're looking at, now 

3 I don't know, because I've got to go look at 

4 this document, but I think what you're looking 

5 at is measurements of the gas that was pulled 

6 off of the tunnel and sent up the stack, and 

7 that's measured in the stack. But again, I 

8 have to look at that document to make sure.

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. As I say, I 

10 did, I did not know, I could not interpret 

11 from this document what it was.

12 DR. MAURO: And Brant, this is 

13 John. I think that's a very important 

14 question, if that was a measurement made in 

15 the room, as opposed to a measurement made at 

16 a stack. It changes everything.

17 DR. NETON: John, I would be 

18 surprised if that's actually a room 

19 measurement. This is Jim. But I might make 

20 one, one observation here. One statement. 

21 That, you know, this is an 83.14 petition, 

22 initiated by NIOSH, to add a Class. It in no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 way precludes the extension of this radon 

2 Class beyond the date prescribed, which I 

3 think is 1980. All we're saying with this 

4 Class Definition right now, is that we have 

5 identified, at this point in time, a Class 

6 that we would like to add, and get resolution 

7 for these claimants as soon as possible. And 

8 it would not, you know, bias any further 

9 evaluation after the, you know, the Class 

10 Definition ends.

11 DR. MAURO: Fair enough.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Jim, that's a good 

13 point. Thank you, Brant. Are you, do you 

14 still have more for your presentation?

15 DR. ULSH: Are you talking about 

16 today?

17 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, this morning. 

18 DR. ULSH: No. No, that's pretty

19 much all I have, Josie.

20 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Any other 

21 questions for Brant, before Joe comes in with 

22 his questions and comments?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob 

2 Presley. I don't.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Okay, thanks.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I -- this is 

5 Ziemer. I am okay on it.

6 CHAIR BEACH: Thank you. Phil, 

7 Brad?

8 (No response.)

9 CHAIR BEACH: Joe, are you ready?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm ready.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Good morning.

14 SC&A QUESTIONS AND REMAINING ISSUES

15 MR. FITZGERALD: We originally 

16 raised the radon issue in the Site Profile 

17 review back in 2006-7. And, at that time, we 

18 had a number of issues, one of which was we 

19 felt there was a, a radon issue for the R and 

20 SW complex as a whole. No, no single room, 

21 even though, admittedly, you know, we have 

22 this series of measurements in SW-19. Based 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 on our interviews of former rad techs that 

2 were in R building, for example, you have a 

3 circumstance, just backing up a little bit, in 

4 terms of operations.

5 Imagine you have a, you know, a 

6 radium cave with large quantities of radium, 

7 thorium and actinium. It was a real -- a 

8 hotbed. And the remedial action was 

9 essentially to, you know, bulldoze over it, to 

10 sort of landfill it in place, and then to put 

11 a concrete cap over it, and then build the R 

12 and SW complex on top of it, in the 60s. And 

13 in the process, there was a tunnel that was 

14 constructed, as Brant had mentioned.

15 But as far as having, you know, 

16 sort of a worst case scenario, you have a 

17 substantial radium, thorium and actinium 

18 source term under this building. The tunnel 

19 affords a convenient accumulation point, which 

20 sort of gives you a perfect storm, where you 

21 have a concentration of these gases under the 

22 building. Now that tunnel, as we point out in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 the Site Profile, ran under several or more SW 

2 rooms, including 19, 11, I think 3, and 

3 abutted the foundation of R building. 

4 So, you know, as far as a conduit, 

5 what we expressed in the Site Profile at that 

6 time was a concern that certainly there was a 

7 chance of infiltration along that foundation 

8 line. And with the amount of intrinsic 

9 pressure involved with the radon, certainly 

10 would be a substantial source.

11 And more so, and this is based on 

12 our interviews with the rad techs, former rad 

13 techs in R building. You know, you had, 

14 because it was a tritium operation, obviously, 

15 you had negative pressure in the R and SW 

16 complex, a lot of fume hoods and what have 

17 you. And what they told us is, you know, 

18 when you -- during the operating day, when you 

19 turned the fume hoods on, when the fume hoods 

20 were operating, they literally would peg out 

21 on their counters -- this is in R building, 

22 not SW-19 -- over fissures and cracks in their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 foundations, they would peg out with their 

2 counters.

3 And their concern, of course was 

4 the, was the -- what was streaming through is 

5 radon, and as we know now, probably actinon 

6 and thoron as well. So what we expressed at 

7 that time, and what we carried forward into 

8 the SEC evaluation, was a concern that you had 

9 a large source underlying the, underlying SW10 19 as a room, but certainly with the tunnel, 

11 and the fact that it was essentially bulldozed 

12 and capped, a source that would contribute to, 

13 likely, multiple rooms in both SW and R. And 

14 with the interviews, and not only the rad 

15 techs, but a couple of HPs, it looked like 

16 certainly there was a radon issue in that 

17 building.

18 Now, historically, and we can pick 

19 this up as well, management attributed a lot 

20 of the elevated radon to an adjoining coal21 fired plant that wasn't too far away, so they 

22 were -- you know, when radon came up as an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 issue in that building, they tended to 

2 attribute it to environmental sources. But 

3 clearly, there was this technically enhanced 

4 natural source that was under the building.

5 Now, I want to go back to -- and 

6 this gets to our issue. Certainly the reason 

7 there was a flurry of measurements in 1980,

8 there was an individual that was sitting at a 

9 desk in SW-19, who happened to be lung 

10 counted, and they found a relatively 

11 substantial alpha count in his lungs which 

12 they were concerned about being plutonium. 

13 And they could not figure out how somebody who 

14 was sitting in an office in SW could in fact 

15 be exposed to plutonium. And that, that led 

16 to the, you know, the supposition that it must 

17 be radon. And that's where the measurements 

18 come from.

19 And you know, again, there was the 

20 venting that Brant talked about, in terms of 

21 the early part of `80 to alleviate the 

22 situation because they were seeing a lot of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 that streaming through. But I want to make 

2 the point that the step function of claiming 

3 mitigation in 1980 -- there's two issues for 

4 us. One is the fact that we believe the 

5 evidence, weight of the evidence points to a 

6 much broader concern, exposure pathway for 

7 radon, actinon and thoron in the SW/R complex, 

8 beyond SW-19. I think there's a number of 

9 data points for that, a number of interviews 

10 for that. 

11 And also, this question of 1980 

12 being the step function where you could rely 

13 on that measurement in 1980 as being, in a 

14 way, credible enough to base dose 

15 reconstruction. I think we, again, have 

16 concerns over that. And starting with the 

17 individual, for example, that was lung tested 

18 originally. They lung tested him again. They 

19 did a lung count on him in the Fall of 1980, 

20 about six months after mitigation.

21 And this is in the October 24th, 

22 1980 memorandum, subject Elevated Radon Levels 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 in SW-19. And they were certainly hoping to 

2 go back and just demonstrate that after they 

3 did all the venting and what have you, that 

4 this individual sitting there, in fact, his 

5 lung counts would go down. 

6 Unfortunately, his lung counts 

7 went up. And there's a paragraph or two in 

8 that memorandum which speaks to, you know, 

9 their concern about, you know, it says here. 

10 Several questions still remain. If the radon 

11 has been reduced by a factor of ten, why were 

12 so-and-so's latest lung counts as high as or 

13 higher than before? You know, what is the 

14 significance of these lung counts? And they 

15 went back and tried to figure out what was 

16 going on, but what they were surmising was 

17 that the air entering the room contained radon 

18 at high concentrations, but with low 

19 concentrations of decay products, because 

20 there was little delay. In other words, the 

21 equilibrium issue. 

22 However, now there was not enough 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 time for a daughter to build up to a 

2 significant level, equilibrium with radon. 

3 But now, the potential existed for decay 

4 products to build up to very high levels. And 

5 now it appears that the radon is more aged 

6 when it enters the room, and the decay 

7 products are approximately 30% equilibrium 

8 with the radon. 

9 My reason to raise this, and you 

10 know, certainly we can go back to this, is 

11 that yes, they did mitigate, they did put a 

12 pipe in there. But certainly they were 

13 questioning exactly what was going on in that 

14 room. And with radon, I think you have a real 

15 challenge, because I think you have both the 

16 variability with the operations, meaning that 

17 you have to be very careful when you take the 

18 measurements. I mean, I think some of these 

19 notes that Brant and I have looked at, it's 

20 made very clear that if you take the 

21 measurements during the operating day, you're 

22 going to get a much different measurement than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 if you took it on the weekends, because you 

2 have the fume hoods and negative pressure 

3 drawing in the radon from below. So you are 

4 going to have somewhat higher levels.

5 The other issue is just simply if 

6 you take a PERM over a week versus a grab 

7 sample, the -- certainly the sampling over a 

8 week, this is John's issue. It's going to be 

9 much, much more credible than a grab sample, 

10 because again, the variability of the radon is 

11 going to be substantial over time and it's 

12 only averaged by taking it, perhaps, over a 

13 week or two. And that's made clear by these 

14 notes as well. 

15 But in this particular case, I 

16 didn't see any documentation that, frankly, 

17 resolved the question. But the whole source 

18 of the concern, which was this individual in 

19 SW-19, was in the end not necessarily resolved 

20 as of the fall that year, primarily because 

21 they didn't see a whole lot of difference in 

22 the decay products they were picking up in his 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 lungs.

2 Another issue, and again, I'm just 

3 going to walk through the same documentation 

4 that I think we're all looking at, and I think 

5 Brant referred to as well. There's a 1990 

6 memorandum, which talked about going back and 

7 doing additional measurements. Brant referred 

8 to that, and the reason, and this is based on 

9 the memorandum itself. The reason they were 

10 going back, was they were seeing, quote, 

11 radon-222 concentrations that had recently 

12 been measured in the area that were an 

13 appreciable fraction of the DAC.

14 So they were seeing elevated radon 

15 levels in SW-19 that were of concern in 1990 

16 because they have approached appreciable 

17 fractions of the derived air concentration. 

18 And they called this individual back, he's the 

19 same one who did the `80 measurement, to take 

20 additional measurements. 

21 And so, and his measurements -- he 

22 did some confirmatory measurements in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 different places -- were relatively low and 

2 the memorandum goes on to say, this is 1990, 

3 goes on to say they couldn't quite figure out 

4 why the disparity. But then he makes the case 

5 that you've got to be very careful where you 

6 take your measurements because given the 

7 variability of how the radon was flowing into 

8 the room, if you chose one location over 

9 another, you could get a much different 

10 answer. That was sort of his bottom line. 

11 And beyond that, you know. The 

12 question of whether SW-19, in the measurements 

13 taken there, and I say measurements with a 

14 quotation, with an asterisk, because 

15 essentially there was only one measurement 

16 taken after the mitigation, and then they had 

17 taken some later. But I think the ones that 

18 were taken later tended to vary over time. We 

19 have one data point in `82, one data point in 

20 this 1990 memo that is mentioned.

21 You don't essentially have, I 

22 don't believe, a credible number that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 could base dose reconstruction on, because 

2 it's a grab sample, you have the variability 

3 that was demonstrated by all these 

4 measurements, and I can't say that there's 

5 enough substantial documentation that would 

6 show that the measurement in SW-19 was 

7 bounding of all the other locations where --

8 in SW and R, where you might, in fact, have 

9 had a very similar crack. 

10 You know, cracks in foundations 

11 are extremely common. In fact, again, when we 

12 interviewed these rad techs, they would 

13 purposely put their counters over these cracks 

14 in R building to see the radon. And, I don't 

15 see how one can bound all of the complex on 

16 this one location. Particularly after it's 

17 shown that there's a variability even in that 

18 one location.

19 So that's kind of where we're 

20 coming from, that essentially there's enough 

21 information that raises doubt about, one, 

22 whether in fact the mitigation in SW-19 was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 effective, and whether those resulting 

2 measurements are credible enough that you 

3 could use those for dose reconstruction over 

4 the next twenty years or so, and two, that 

5 they would be bounding of other locations in 

6 the R and SW area, given, certainly the 

7 interview feedback we've gotten from, I think, 

8 reliable witnesses. These are rad techs that 

9 did measurements and monitoring throughout R 

10 and SW, that we did during the Site Profile.

11 And that's, I think that would be 

12 what I would put on the table at this point.

13 WORK GROUP QUESTIONS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION

14 CHAIR BEACH: This is Josie. 

15 Just, Joe, from what, from what you've stated, 

16 it appears that we have the same issue in the 

17 later years, after the 80s, that we had in the 

18 earlier years.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I don't 

20 think, you know, the fact that the, you know, 

21 again, radon was not on their screen. It 

22 wasn't something that the health physics staff 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 was concerned about in R and SW. I mean, they 

2 were concerned about plutonium, concerned 

3 about tritium, but you know, again, radon was 

4 considered not a big deal.

5 They brought someone from the 

6 environmental group, in fact, to do the 

7 sampling only after they had this high lung 

8 count which they could not explain otherwise. 

9 And that's when they discovered the source of 

10 the exposure coming through the crack.

11 But to, again, to hang the dose 

12 reconstruction on the one measurement, the 

13 grab sample that was done after mitigation, 

14 giving some of these variables and 

15 uncertainties some doubt, I think is premature 

16 and there's enough evidence that -- you talk 

17 about weight of evidence. I think the weight 

18 of evidence actually tilts the other way. 

19 That in fact, the, that the source of radon, 

20 actinon and thoron exposure was pretty 

21 ubiquitous in R and SW and was substantial 

22 enough that concerns were raised over time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 about how to deal with it. 

2 And they were sealing cracks if 

3 they found them, but I can't see how one can 

4 conclude that, in fact, all the cracks and the 

5 foundation sources, and what have you, were 

6 identified and in fact mitigated sufficiently, 

7 so --

8 CHAIR BEACH: Wasn't there, during 

9 an interview, I believe it was the Draper 

10 interview in March of `08, that stated that 

11 they noted counts of 100,000 cpm in the 

12 elevated alpha activity on the first floor?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes. In 

14 our interviews, we interviewed on the Site 

15 Profile as well as on the SEC. We raised this 

16 issue to just about all the health physics 

17 staff. And, you know, certainly in that 

18 interview, he noted, yes, you know. They had 

19 some big issues on the -- he characterized it 

20 as the first floor of SW building, where they 

21 were seeing elevated radon fairly constantly. 

22 He mentioned 100,000 cpm, but I'm not sure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 what that means. He didn't, certainly, 

2 provide any additional information, but again, 

3 radon was not an unknown question there. I 

4 think the confusion at the time was, you know, 

5 management attributing it to environmental 

6 sources inversions, when in fact, I think it 

7 was known by a smaller group of folks that 

8 there was a technically enhanced source right 

9 under the building.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Right, right. Thank 

11 you. 

12 DR. MAURO: Joe, this is John. 

13 I'm thinking about this now. It sounds like 

14 there's a boundary -- it's a boundary 

15 question. Am I correct -- 1980 is the date 

16 that NIOSH is proposing as being -- prior to 

17 then, they cannot reconstruct the -- rate the 

18 exposures to radon and thoron, etc, but post 

19 1980, they feel, at least right now, they 

20 think they can, notwithstanding some of the 

21 concerns that we're raising now. But, as Jim 

22 pointed out, the door is still open regarding 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 post-1980, pending resolution of some of the 

2 concerns that we're discussing right now. 

3 But I'd like to go to the period 

4 that, as I understand, NIOSH is prepared to 

5 grant or recommend an SEC Class to, and what 

6 I've heard, and please confirm it if I'm 

7 saying this incorrectly, clarify, that all 

8 workers, prior to 1980, that entered this 

9 facility and were monitored for tritium, 

10 represents the Class. The argument being that 

11 prior to 1980, before any remedy was put in 

12 for the radon problem, there clearly was the 

13 potential for substantial exposure to radon 

14 prior to the remedy. 

15 And second, the people that had 

16 the possibility of being exposed for 250 days 

17 prior to that time period can be defined as 

18 those people that had bioassay, had tritium 

19 bioassay, because they would not have entered 

20 that area at that time. And, did that, did 

21 the way I just described that as being, in 

22 essence, NIOSH is prepared, is leaning in that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 direction, to recommend that Class? As far as 

2 post-1980, that's sort of still to be 

3 discussed.

4 DR. ULSH: That's pretty close, 

5 John. Just to clarify, you might have said 

6 this, I'm not sure, but yes, we are saying 

7 that -- right now, we're saying that the 

8 exposures occurred in SW-19, but we can't say 

9 exactly who was in there, so it's all of R and 

10 SW, and that can be identified as people who 

11 gave tritium bioassay. 

12 Now, we grant that someone could 

13 have gone in periodically, I mean, just, you 

14 know, to attend a meeting or whatever, without 

15 leaving a sample, even though that was in 

16 contravention of the policy. However, we felt 

17 that -- the story that we have heard is that 

18 it's not plausible to be in those buildings 

19 for 250 days without leaving a tritium 

20 urinalysis sample.

21 DR. MAURO: Now the two were --

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Now wait a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 minute, John. I think what I'm saying, 

2 though, is that we don't accept the premise, 

3 even though I understand that with Labor, that 

4 construct is the only way that Labor can 

5 approach this, we don't accept the premise 

6 that one can confine the exposure pathway to 

7 SW-19 because the implication is, then, that 

8 the upper bounding, if any dose reconstruction 

9 would be considered after 1980, would be based 

10 on a measurement after mitigation in SW-19, 

11 when in fact, what we're saying is that that 

12 happened to be one measurement, one location 

13 amongst probably many that were seeing an 

14 exposure pathway, an influx of radon, thoron 

15 and actinon. And there's no way to know if in 

16 fact that was the bounding concentration to 

17 dose reconstruction.

18 DR. MAURO: But that's post-`80. 

19 Is that right? See, I'm trying to separate 

20 out--

21 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, who 

22 was speaking?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 MR. FITZGERALD: That's Joe 

2 Fitzgerald.

3 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

4 COURT REPORTER: I see.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, but what --

6 the statement you just made, Joe, was that 

7 you have a number of concerns, post8 remediation or post-1980.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, 1980 as a 

10 date is simply the only date that a -- that 

11 measurements were taken from between the early 

12 days and between -- until later in the time 

13 frame.

14 DR. NETON: Joe, that's not true. 

15 I mean, there's also the fact that they 

16 vented the tunnel right with the stack --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, no. I'm 

18 just saying that the reason we're -- you know, 

19 1980 figures in this conversation is because, 

20 you know, the measurements were taken and 

21 mitigation was done --

22 DR. NETON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 MR. FITZGERALD: And all I'm 

2 saying is that, you know, the measurements 

3 that were taken need to include the fact that 

4 the whole origin of this issue, the canary in 

5 the mine, which is this individual, his lung 

6 count did not change, in fact it went up. And 

7 the other issue is the one grab sample that 

8 was taken after mitigation I don't think can 

9 be surmised as reflective of elsewhere --

10 other locations. It happens to be one data 

11 point, but, you know, I think we're taking a 

12 leap --

13 DR. NETON: Well, Joe. I think we 

14 disagree on those facts, but I don't think 

15 that that should preclude this Class from 

16 moving forward as defined, because we can talk 

17 about this other stuff at future meetings. I 

18 mean, I take some exception with what you're 

19 saying, but again, if we look at the Class as 

20 defined right now, I think we've got it 

21 bracketed. And I was a little confused about 

22 your SW-19 issue. I mean, we are proposing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 that it's R and SW buildings. Everyone in 

2 those buildings is in this Class.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I don't 

4 disagree, Jim. I'm just saying, though, that, 

5 you know, with the explanation that it is by 

6 virtue a construct that Labor can work with, 

7 and I accept that, and I understand it, I just 

8 don't want for future discussions to have as a 

9 premise that there's any acceptance of the 

10 data in SW-19 even though it's being used to 

11 construct the pre-1980 SEC Class, to indicate 

12 or suggest that there's some acceptance of 

13 that information as indicative of dose 

14 reconstructability beyond the 1980.

15 DR. NETON: It's certainly a 

16 starting point.

17 DR. MAURO: I think that -- I 

18 think this is good. I mean, what I'm getting 

19 -- see, what I'm hearing is that it's probably 

20 a good idea right now to say well, then let's 

21 talk about pre-1980 and the way in which the 

22 Class is defined. And let's agree that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 are certainly post-1980 issues that we -- that 

2 are very much at play here.

3 So, but let -- so what I'm 

4 hearing, though, is that defining the Class 

5 the way you did, let's just -- thinking 1980, 

6 we are all in agreement that certainly there 

7 should be a Class that goes up to 1980. Then 

8 the only other question is, you know, how do 

9 you implement that, who is to be included?

10 Now, what I understand is that the 

11 people that will be included are all the 

12 workers that worked there for 250 days that 

13 had bioassay done -- all the workers that had 

14 bioassay data. And now, my question is, are 

15 there areas, rooms, buildings that, pre-1980 

16 now, where people could have gone in and have 

17 been there for 250 days or more, but not had 

18 bioassay, not had tritium bioassay samples? 

19 I mean, that's really the heart of 

20 the matter. Because I think we are all in 

21 agreement, fine. I mean, up to 1980, 

22 certainly. Maybe longer, but certainly up to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 1980 there is no argument. So as time -- in 

2 terms of time, that's the box we're in. And 

3 the question is, how big is that box? Is 

4 there a degree of comfort that the tritium 

5 strategy, by way of defining who should be in 

6 the Class, is one that is dependable, or is it 

7 possible there are people that may belong in 

8 that Class that, you know, that we are going 

9 to miss because of the tritium approach to 

10 defining the members of the Class?

11 Are there rooms, are there 

12 buildings, were there activities going on in 

13 rooms or buildings that, where -- that people 

14 could have been there for more than 250 days 

15 but did not get bioassay samples. And I think 

16 that -- you know, if we sort of 

17 compartmentalize and could come to some 

18 agreement regarding that boundary, and not 

19 worry too much about post-1980 right now, 

20 because clearly we have significant issues 

21 post-1980. Maybe it's not, you know, maybe --

22 you know, maybe we can hold that -- I'm making 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 a suggestion now. Hold that aside, because we 

2 certainly are going to have some issues there. 

3 But can we somehow come to a place of 

4 agreement regarding the pre-1980 Class?

5 DR. ULSH: All right. Let me 

6 summarize the information that comes to bear 

7 on exactly the question that you just asked. 

8 We have, first of all, let me --

9 COURT REPORTER: Who is speaking 

10 now?

11 DR. ULSH: This is Brant Ulsh. 

12 COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

13 DR. ULSH: Let me start with what 

14 the documented policy was. And this is from 

15 MD-20209 Health Physics Precautions Manual, SW 

16 and R buildings, tritium areas. It says, 

17 urine samples must be submitted by everyone, 

18 worker or visitor, who is involved in any 

19 operation in the SW building. And that 

20 applies to the R building. I have a similar 

21 document for R building. 

22 Now that's the policy. So the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 question then is, okay, how closely was the 

2 policy followed? Well, let's look at what the 

3 workers have told us. Starting with the 

4 interview that was conducted in Cincinnati, 

5 when the one interviewee told us that it was 

6 clearly the policy, and it was clearly marked 

7 and everyone knew it, that you were to leave a 

8 urine sample, but if you went in for just a 

9 short period, it's plausible that you may not 

10 have.

11 Now, all three of the interviewees 

12 that I talked to agreed with that statement. 

13 They also said, however, though, that it is 

14 not plausible that you could have been in that 

15 building for 250 days and not left a single 

16 tritium urine sample. And I read you the 

17 quotes.

18 DR. MAURO: Right.

19 DR. ULSH: And I talked to eight 

20 other -- I mean eight workers total, that all 

21 supported exactly that position. 

22 DR. MAURO: And what -- so the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 workers that were there pre-`80 --

2 DR. ULSH: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: What were the years 

4 they were there? I mean, what is the time 

5 period we are talking about? 1980 back to 

6 when?

7 DR. ULSH: Let's see. One of the 

8 interviewees, I just recall off the top of my 

9 head, started in the 50s. I don't know. Do 

10 you recall -- I mean, it was in the 50s or 60s 

11 at least. Do you recall, Joe, the three 

12 people that we talked to on --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: That went back to 

14 the 50s. These guys were there for quite a 

15 while.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. And the Class 

17 starts when?

18 MR. FITZGERALD: `59.

19 DR. ULSH: `59.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh. So you're talking 

21 about a Class that begins `69 and goes to `80- 

22 DR. ULSH: No, no, no. `59 to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 `80.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, `59. I'm sorry, I 

3 didn't hear you. `59-`80. And what we have 

4 is some interview information from workers 

5 that says that practice that you just 

6 described, the person that described it, at 

7 least one or two people were there.

8 DR. ULSH: Three.

9 DR. MAURO: Three people were 

10 there from 1959. I just want to get the facts 

11 in my head right, so. So the level of 

12 evidence that we have, besides -- in addition 

13 to written policy -- by the way, that written 

14 policy that you described, where that was what 

15 they did, is -- that was written early. I 

16 guess that was written, you know --

17 DR. ULSH: I think the copy I 

18 have, I think is 1979, so it's right at the 

19 end of the Class; however it is issue -- it's 

20 a late issue, and there are like five previous 

21 issues that we're trying to track down now.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay, so in theory, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 have two levels of evidence. This is what I'm 

2 trying -- see, I'm trying to get my hand on 

3 the box, pre-1980 box. And how we make sure 

4 we didn't miss anybody. 

5 The evidence -- one is that there 

6 is actually some written policy that's --

7 right now, you're saying you have the 1979 but 

8 you might be able to find some other paper 

9 that goes before that, that makes that 

10 statement.

11 DR. ULSH: Well, it's the previous 

12 issues of the same document.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess I have a 

14 question for Jeff Kotsch. This is Joe 

15 Fitzgerald. In terms of constructing the 

16 Class, certainly it's -- we're trying to 

17 prove, a little bit prove the negative, you 

18 know, were there any exceptions where 

19 somebody, from a security reason, might have 

20 had access to R and SW but may not have been a 

21 tritium operator, or somebody that was 

22 considered a rad worker, and did not leave a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 sample, and that would, you know, I think that 

2 would be probably pretty difficult, given the 

3 state of the records, to prove. Is there any 

4 way to simply say, you know, those who got 

5 tritium bioassays or someone that could 

6 demonstrate, you know, 250 days or more, I 

7 mean, sort of an or part to this thing, 

8 meaning that there might be exceptional cases, 

9 I don't know what they are and I haven't --

10 certainly haven't looked at the data from that 

11 standpoint. But if they were in the building, 

12 you know, in that history, and you're talking 

13 thirty years.

14 Were there individuals who were in 

15 the building, exposed to radon, but not 

16 considered, you know, tritium workers per se. 

17 Maybe they were in a office environment 

18 somewhere in the corner of the building, or 

19 something -- that might come forward and say 

20 that, you know, yes I was in the building for 

21 more than 250 days but I, you know, didn't --

22 wasn't on a routine tritium bioassay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 MR. KOTSCH: Joe, this is Jeff 

2 Kotsch, Labor. And that's, and that's kind of 

3 what we wrestle with. I mean, to us, the --

4 if there's a criterion for tritium bioassay, 

5 that's like, one of the -- it's like --

6 monitored, or should have been monitored, for 

7 some other Classes, but anyway. It's, you 

8 know, it's one of the indicators that puts 

9 somebody in the Class. 

10 And then we were, since we can't 

11 really put people in those buildings we were I 

12 think generally thinking that we would just 

13 look for 250 days employment on-site, you 

14 know, in tandem with, you know, the tritium, 

15 or evidence of, you know, leaving a urine 

16 sample.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, my sense is, 

18 probably a tritium bioassay would be 98-99%, 

19 maybe even more encompassing, but what bothers 

20 me is there just might be, over that length of 

21 time, you know, a small handful of people that 

22 could have been in that building, you know. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 And may not have been known to the people that 

2 Brant and I talked to. They might have been -

3 - who knows, secretaries, clerks, they might 

4 have been thought of as not rad workers, per 

5 se, but you know, occupied office space, or 

6 something. 

7 I just, you know, again, I think 

8 you almost need to have that additional 

9 criterion.

10 MR. KOTSCH: Well, this is Jeff 

11 Kotsch again. That's an issue with, you know, 

12 most sites, you know, where we go on our -- we 

13 almost always go on a case by case basis and 

14 look at the available evidence and try to, you 

15 know, figure out whether the person could have 

16 been in there or not.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

18 DR. ULSH: Let me, let me tell you 

19 again what the policy says. Urine samples 

20 must be submitted by everyone, worker or 

21 visitor, who is involved in any operation in 

22 the SW building. Same with R building.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 CHAIR BEACH: Brant, well that's 

2 true --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but that, 

4 again, I think the interviews, Brant, to me 

5 suggested that if you had a security clearance 

6 you could be there. Now, the only question 

7 is, we don't think you could be there enough 

8 days to matter, but I think that opens the 

9 door somewhat.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is --

11 CHAIR BEACH: And this is -- oh, 

12 go ahead, Paul.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer here. 

14 I just wanted to comment on that. I think, 

15 Joe, what you're suggesting is someone who in 

16 fact, could have been there an extended period 

17 of time, but somehow didn't get their urine 

18 sample taken. Is that correct?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes. And 

20 I--

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, how about, 

22 how about a definition that said, it sort of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 like, was monitored or should have been? How 

2 about provided tritium samples, or should 

3 have? Because, clearly under the policy, they 

4 should have if they were in there for extended 

5 periods.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think that 

7 would work.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, see I -- this is 

9 John. I like the idea that there is a vehicle 

10 to leave the door open and not, you know, for 

11 this possibility, you know. And what I'm 

12 hearing, it sounds like that is the standard 

13 practice for Labor. That they wouldn't just 

14 automatically, just draw a line if it was --

15 oh, no tritium sample, nope, you're not in the 

16 Class. 

17 It's not that simple. There are 

18 these other considerations. And that's all I 

19 was really asking.

20 CHAIR BEACH: Jeff, this is Josie 

21 Beach. How soon, I know that we're going to 

22 present this at the next, at the Board meeting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 next week. Will you have a definition ready 

2 for us by then, do you think?

3 MR. KOTSCH: I'm sorry, Josie, was 

4 that for me?

5 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, Jeff. That was 

6 for you.

7 MR. KOTSCH: I mean, NIOSH creates 

8 the definition. We're just trying to, you 

9 know, work with them as far as how we would 

10 implement it.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, okay. I 

12 understand.

13 DR. ULSH: The status right now, 

14 Josie, is we have a draft definition on the 

15 table with Labor --

16 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

17 DR. ULSH: But Jeff and I, and, 

18 you know, the rest of the people at NIOSH and 

19 Labor are still figuring out whether that 

20 definition is, is workable for DOL.

21 DR. NETON: The whole thing is, I 

22 think we all agree it's R and SW building. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 It's how to administer that. That's really 

2 the bottom line right now.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Right. Because I 

4 agree that we should have some provisions for 

5 the exceptional cases of workers that may have 

6 been in R and SW for the 250 days, but without

7 bioassay. And I also believe that we should 

8 leave post-March 5th open for further Work 

9 Group discussions.

10 DR. NETON: Well, it's not 

11 specifically dealt with in the ER. I mean, 

12 it's sort of implied. There's nothing that 

13 prevents that date from being extended later, 

14 by virtue of granting this 83.14. 

15 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

16 DR. NETON: I mean, we've done 

17 this before where oftentimes we'll run up 

18 across a situation where we clearly know we 

19 can't reconstruct something, we'll do the 

20 83.14, and if we see something else, we'll 

21 just add to it. But this gives the, you know, 

22 the claimants a, you know, efficient process, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 where we can get things going as soon as we 

2 identify an issue. And I think --

3 MR. KATZ: Josie, Josie, Jim, this 

4 is Ted Katz.

5 DR. NETON: Yes.

6 CHAIR BEACH: Hi, Ted. 

7 MR. KATZ: Actually, all of these 

8 83.14's do explicitly address what you're 

9 concerned about, Josie, because they all 

10 specifically state that a second Class can be 

11 defined down the road based on the research.

12 DR. NETON: Okay, you're right. 

13 Thanks for reminding me of that, Ted.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Thank you.

15 MR. KATZ: It's boilerplate that's 

16 in all these 83.14's that leaves that door 

17 open for further research beyond the 

18 boundaries of the Class that's specified in 

19 the 83.14. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Josie, this is 

21 Ziemer again. I have a sort of a procedural 

22 question. Is this, today's meeting, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 information only, or does the Work Group need 

2 to make a recommendation on this suggested 

3 Class for the full Board meeting?

4 CHAIR BEACH: Paul, I believe that 

5 we need to make a recommendation for the Board 

6 meeting. I do think that the sticking point 

7 might be the Class Definition, at this time. 

8 Since we don't have that --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think we 

10 understand the intent of it, so if the wording 

11 can be remained, or remain to be sort of 

12 worked out for final resolution, I think we 

13 can go ahead, in principle, it would seem to 

14 me, to, to prepare a recommendation.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Right, and I do 

16 agree with that. If the other Work Group 

17 members agree as well.

18 (No response.)

19 CHAIR BEACH: So, with that 

20 silence, are there any other questions? 

21 (No response.)

22 CHAIR BEACH: Comments?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. 

2 Could I ask Jeff Kotsch one question?

3 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jeff, or Brant. 

5 Would it be -- if this monitored for tritium, 

6 would it be during any time that there were 

7 one tritium sample, that worker would be --

8 DR. ULSH: Any time between 1959 

9 and 1979, one tritium urinalysis.

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, great. 

11 Thanks.

12 CHAIR BEACH: So Brad, or Phil, 

13 are you both still with us?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I'm still 

15 on the line.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Any comments or --

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No, if we could 

18 reopen it --

19 COURT REPORTER: Is that Brad, or 

20 Phil?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

22 And I'm kind of inclined, let's go for this, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 because we know up to that date, there's just 

2 no way they can do a dose reconstruction.

3 CHAIR BEACH: And Brad, are you 

4 still with us?

5 (No response.)

6 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. I knew we'd 

7 probably lose Brad. So, Paul and -- you're in 

8 agreement, also, with this?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So is there 

11 anything formal, Ted, that we need to do to 

12 make our recommendation, or --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I think part 

14 of this is basically we understand that both 

15 NIOSH and SC&A are in agreement on those early 

16 years, that there's not agreement after that, 

17 and that's what leaves the door open on the, 

18 on the post-`80 years. To talk to Joe's 

19 point, I don't think taking this action 

20 suggests that -- we basically haven't come to 

21 any closure on the later years by doing this. 

22 So that door is still open.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 CHAIR BEACH: And I would hope 

2 that we would see the wording of the Class 

3 Definition prior to Wednesday morning, next 

4 week.

5 DR. ULSH: I would hope so too, 

6 Josie, we'll do our best.

7 MR. KATZ: So is Bob Presley still 

8 on the line?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIR BEACH: I didn't think he 

11 was. He said he only had an hour.

12 MR. KATZ: That's okay. I mean, 

13 that's still three of you, which is a majority 

14 of the Group, that concur. Which is good for 

15 a recommendation.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And Ted, do 

17 we need to do anything formal, or are we, we 

18 okay with -- that we all -- that three of us 

19 concur with --

20 MR. KATZ: I think that's fine,

21 what you said on the record. You all 

22 concurred there should be a Class up to 1980 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 and that the definition is not completely 

2 resolved for administrative reasons. But your 

3 intent is clear.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Then I would 

5 conclude that we're finished with our 

6 business, unless somebody or anybody has 

7 anything else.

8 DR. ULSH: Well, actually, I do 

9 want to state that, I mean, Joe got to give 

10 his, you know, his impressions of the 

11 different documentation, and I never got a 

12 chance to respond to that --

13 CHAIR BEACH: Oh, okay.

14 DR. ULSH: And there are 

15 definitely some points in there that I need to 

16 elaborate on, but we can do that later, if 

17 that's what you want to do. It's beyond the 

18 `80 period.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I, again, I 

20 do think we have some more discussion, now 

21 that we've kind of bifurcated this thing, and 

22 I would look forward to just having that in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 the Work Group.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I did have one 

3 additional question, and I think I know the 

4 answer to it, but I'll go ahead and ask it 

5 anyway, because this is in the time period, 

6 actually, after the Watras event in 

7 Pennsylvania, where high activity was found in 

8 a worker, and it turned out the home was 

9 contributing, not only contributing, was the 

10 main source.

11 In this case, we have an 

12 identified source in the work facility, but 

13 was there ever any follow-up in the person's 

14 home to determine whether or not there was any 

15 contribution? I know that through parts of 

16 Ohio and certainly Indiana, as well as 

17 Pennsylvania, there are these high radon 

18 areas, as well.

19 DR. ULSH: I'm not aware of 

20 anything like that, Paul. I can't say that 

21 there wasn't, but I don't have any --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I assumed that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 there wasn't or it would have been in the 

2 record. But I thought I would at least ask, 

3 because particularly with Joe's statement that 

4 although we have just grab samples after 1980 

5 --

6 DR. ULSH: That's not accurate, by 

7 the way.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Pardon me?

9 DR. ULSH: That's not accurate, by 

10 the way. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, well. Okay. 

12 Grab samples and the E-PERMS and so on. But 

13 there's a lot of difference between many 

14 hundreds of picocuries per liter and samples 

15 which are running in the eight picocuries. I 

16 mean, you do get variations, but usually not 

17 two orders of magnitude over time and season. 

18 But in any event, the implication -- it 

19 appears that they were very close to ambient 

20 on the samples post-`80, which then does raise 

21 that question, why are the lung values still 

22 up, where is that coming from? So I wondered 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 what other follow-up had been done, or any 

2 later lung -- do we just have that one set of 

3 lung samples, or were there any later, like in 

4 subsequent years?

5 DR. ULSH: I can speak to that a 

6 little bit, Paul. This is from the memo that 

7 Joe quoted from, dated October 24th, 1980. 

8 There is additional text, and here's what it 

9 says, let me just read it. 

10 Since our lung counter is not 

11 calibrated for radon decay products, it is 

12 difficult to judge the significance of this 

13 employee's lung count. We do know, however, 

14 that Argonne and Los Alamos -- at Argonne and 

15 Los Alamos, persons have been counted in 

16 similar lung counters and have shown elevated 

17 counts due to high radon levels naturally 

18 occurring in their homes. It is my opinion 

19 that the radon decay production concentration 

20 in SW-19 could account for the elevated lung 

21 counts and the erratic nature of the lung 

22 counts. In other words, it is my opinion that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 someone breathing air containing a 

2 concentration of radon decay products at or 

3 near the non-occupational MPC of 1/30th of a 

4 working level, could produce a lung count 

5 which is elevated above the normal or baseline 

6 count.

7 DR. NETON: Right, and -- this is 

8 Jim Neton. I can certainly attest to that. 

9 I've whole body counted hundreds, if not 

10 thousands of people in my career, and it was 

11 not unusual to have people show up with 

12 elevated lung counts that received fairly low13 level exposures in their homes. And it's not 

14 just really inhalation in the air, there is 

15 radon in a lot of well water. And during my 

16 research for my dissertation, I ran across a 

17 number of people that were elevated in the 

18 morning because they had just showered with 

19 radon-containing water. So it doesn't take 

20 much to have an increased lung count for radon 

21 exposure. It's not a very good indicator of 

22 the magnitude of the exposure.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I suppose 

2 this discussion is for another day, but at 

3 least somebody has been giving some thought to 

4 those, that part of it, as well.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John. Just 

6 one quick question. When you say taking a 

7 lung count, are you looking at that bismuth8 214 photopeak? 

9 DR. NETON: No, that, see that --

10 John, this was a phoswich detector, and if I 

11 remember the old Mound phoswich detectors, 

12 they just did a ratio of two regions. I mean, 

13 you couldn't even really --

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Got it.

15 DR. NETON: You weren't even 

16 looking at peaks, necessarily. 

17 DR. MAURO: Okay. Okay. 

18 MR. KATZ: Okay.

19 CHAIR BEACH: So, this is Josie 

20 Beach again. I would say that that concludes 

21 our meeting for today, and we will schedule 

22 another Work Group meeting in the near future. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 And Brant, will you be sending that via 

2 email, or --

3 DR. ULSH: Are you talking about 

4 the finalized Class Definitions?

5 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

6 DR. ULSH: Yes, as soon as we get 

7 some agreement with Labor and -- between us 

8 and Labor, I will definitely fire it off to 

9 the Working Group as soon as --

10 DR. NETON: Well it should go to 

11 the whole Board, actually, at that point.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

13 DR. ULSH: Okay, all right, then 

14 that's what I'll do.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

16 Thank you very much.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 11:26 a.m.)

20 

21 

22