NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 + + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

 SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION 

 AND WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + 

 61st MEETING 

 + + + + + 

 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2009 

 + + + + + 

 The meeting came to order at 

9:00 a.m., in the Coral Room of the Doubletree 

Hotel Albuquerque, 201 Marquette Avenue 

Northwest, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Paul L. 

Ziemer, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman 

JOSIE M. BEACH, Member 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member (via telephone) 

MARK A. GRIFFON, Member 

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member 

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 

PHILLIP M. SCHOFIELD, Member 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

 Official
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1a

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH CONTRACTER 

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE 

ARMIJO, ROBERTO 

BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAC 

BEAVERS, DANNY, U.A. LOCAL 412 

BRADFORD, SHANNON, NIOSH 

BREYER, LAURIE, NIOSH 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

CANO, REGINA, DOE 

DEGORMO, DENISE, SIUE 

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW, LOCAL PETITIONER 

FITZGERALD, JOE, SALIANT 

GLOVER, SAM, NIOSH 

GURULE, CANDIDO, LANL 

HAND, DONNA, NWF 

HANSON, JOHN, SIUE 

HAYES, SAMMIE, LANL 

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TIDUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE, SEN. UDALL 

KIMPAN, KATE, ORAU 

KNOX, WAYNE 

KRAMER, SANDY, WESTINGHOUSE PETITIONER 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

LEWIS, GREGORY, DOE 

LEWIS, MARK, ATL INTL 

LEYBA, JERRY 

LOCKEY, JAMES, UCMC 

LOVELACE, JAN, ANWAC 

LUCERO, THERESA, LANL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU 

MEW, JIM, ABRWH 

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 

ORTIZ, LLOYD, LANL 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 

SALAZAR, LARRY, LANL 

SCHUSTER, WALTER, LANL 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1b

THOMPSON, JENNIFER, PETITIONER REP 

TINABREW, CLIFF 

WADE, LEW, NIOSH 

ZACCHERO, MARY JO, ORAU
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

A-G-E-N-D-A 

PAGE

Welcome..................................... 4 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development 

 SEC Petition (83.13)...................... 8 

SC&A New Technical Support Contract........ 44 

Tyson Valley Powder Farm 

 SEC Petition (83.13)..................... 59 

Science Update............................. 96 

General Steel Industries 

 SEC Petition (83.13).................... 129 

Hood Building SEC Petition (83.14)........ 212 

Blockson Chemical SEC Petition (83.13).... 260 

Public Comment

 Ms. Jan Lovelace .................... 325 

 Ms. Jenifer Thompson ................ 340 

 Ms. Terrie Barrie ................... 345 

 Mr. Jason Broehm .................... 346 

 Ms. Donna Hand ...................... 356 

 Mr. Danny Beavers ................... 361 

 Ms. Sammie Hayes .................... 364 

 Mr. Jerry Leyba ..................... 369 

 Mr. Wayne Knox ...................... 373 

Adjourn 
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

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

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

9:08 A.M. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Good morning 

everyone. We're ready to begin our 

deliberations this morning so I'll ask 

everyone to be seated and we will get 

underway. 

 First of all, I have a couple of 

regular housekeeping reminders. The first is 

a reminder to register your attendance with us 

today in the registration booklet out in the 

corridor. 

 Also, if you are a member of the 

public who wishes to address the assembly 

later today at the public comment period, 

please sign up in the sign up sheets that are 

also at the table just outside of the room. 

 And finally I'll remind you that 

there are copies of the agenda and of the 

related documents that pertain to this meeting 

on the table in the back of this room. And 

please help yourself to those as appropriate. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Let me ask our Designated Federal 

Official, Mr. Katz, if he has any additional 

comments for us this morning. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, Dr. 

Ziemer. Welcome everybody to the second day 

of the Board meeting. 

 I just want to -- this is really 

addressed to the people on the phone in 

particular. Yesterday we had a lot of audio 

problems. Even in the room it wasn't 

particularly pleasant at times with feedback 

and so on. 

 But the people on the phone had, I 

think, a quite terrible experience with the 

sounds of wind blowing through and so on and 

shuffling papers and so on. And the set up -- 

I think they've worked to improve the audio 

set up today. I think it should work out. 

 But please, folks on the phone, if 

you find that it's not working for you still, 

let us know and we'll try to make other 

arrangements. But I apologize for the bad 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

experience that you had yesterday. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And perhaps I 

might add to that a reminder to mute your 

phone when you're not speaking because we did 

have some sidebar conversations which you may 

not have realized were broadcast to the group 

here. 

 And not only to protect your own 

privacy but to keep the lines clear so others 

can hear, please mute your phone when you're 

not speaking which, during the regular 

session, should be most of the time. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Paul? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, comment, 

yes, Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Could I make one 

comment? We finished up late last night and 

we're all pretty tired including everybody 

left in the room was pretty tired. But I 

would just like to thank the petitioners for 

their presentation yesterday as well as the 

people who spoke on behalf of the petitions 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

last night. 

 I thought it was some very 

compelling information -- actually very 

disturbing to hear what had happened to some 

of the claimants. But I thought much of the 

information was very useful to use. And I 

think will be useful to the Board in going 

forward with the evaluation of this petition. 

 So I really, at least speaking 

personally and I think on behalf of other 

members of the Board also, I'd really like to 

thank you for the effort that you put into 

bringing the group together and getting this 

information to us. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Certainly your 

comments are completely in order and I think 

reflect the thanks of the full Board for those 

who participated, not only for their 

participation but for the clear and compelling 

statements that many of them did make. So, 

indeed, we do thank you very much. 

 And, again, we will have another 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

public comment period later today as well. 

 We have several other petitions 

before us this week to consider. And the 

first of those is the Westinghouse Atomic 

Power Development petition. That will be -- 

the evaluation report will be presented by 

LaVon Rutherford of NIOSH. 

 Then we will have an opportunity to 

hear from the petitioners. And then we will 

proceed from there. 

 So, LaVon, welcome. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. 

Ziemer. Again, I'm LaVon Rutherford. I am 

the Special Exposure Cohort Health Physics 

team leader for NIOSH. And I'm going to talk 

about Westinghouse Atomic Power Development 

and the SEC Petition. 

 This petition was received on 

August 13th, 2007. We had petitioner-proposed 

class of testers, laboratory researchers at 

the L Building, including the K Building from 

1942 through 1944. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The petition qualified for 

evaluation on October 16th. And the basis was 

no monitoring data. 

 During our initial evaluation of 

this petition, we recognized that there was 

information that supported that the covered 

activities that were previous described by the 

Department of Energy for this site were 

actually not -- did not occur at this 

facility. 

 They had, on the Department of 

Energy's site; it indicates that Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development produced the uranium 

for Enrico Fermi's stacked fuel experiment. 

Based on our review, the uranium was actually 

produced at the Bloomfield site, not at the 

East Pittsburgh site. 

 In February 2008, we contacted the 

Department of Energy with this concern and 

provided them reference material to support 

our conclusion. 

 In June of 2008, the Department of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Energy sent a letter to NIOSH and the 

Department of Labor concurring with our 

assessment that yes, we agree with NIOSH that 

it appears that the work, the actual uranium 

production for the Enrico -- the stacked fuel 

experiment was actually produced at Bloomfield 

and not at the East Pittsburgh site. 

 In September of 2008, the 

Department of Labor issued a letter to 

Department of Energy and NIOSH concluding that 

without a public revocation of the 

documentation on the considered site's 

database as being erroneous, it would not be 

appropriate to remove the years from 1942 

through 1944. 

 And during this time period, we 

continued to research and look for activities 

that may have occurred during that time 

period. We had recognized that there was a lot 

of information about Westinghouse and their 

work for MED during that time period. 

 And although we had concluded 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 

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the activities of uranium production were not 

conducted at the East Pittsburgh site, we felt 

like there were probably other activities. 

 In October of 2008, we sent 

correspondence to the Department of Energy and 

Department of Labor concerning evidence of 

uranium enrichment work that was potentially 

occurring at the East Pittsburgh site during 

the indicated covered time period. 

 If we all remember, 1942 through 

1944 was the time period we were working to 

produce the atomic bomb and we were analyzing 

four different uranium enrichment options. 

 NIOSH decided to proceed with the 

evaluation based on these uranium enriching 

activities during the time period. We felt we 

had enough documentation that supported that 

it was clear that those activities had 

occurred at the East Pittsburgh site. 

 We issued our approved evaluation 

report on January 22nd, 2009. 

 A little background, Westinghouse 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Atomic Power Development is located in East 

Pittsburgh. It is located within the original 

Westinghouse Electric Company/Electric and 

Manufacturing Company facility. 

 The Westinghouse research 

laboratory is located in East Pittsburgh. 

Forest Hills is also considered to be part of 

the site. 

 So there are two separate areas. 

There is the East Pittsburgh and then a short 

distance away, there is the Forest Hills site. 

They are all considered part of Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development under the facility 

designation. 

 Documentation supports that 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development was 

involved in pilot scales/laboratory scale 

studies of uranium enrichment work using a 

method with an ionic centrifuge, which is a 

modified magnetron. 

 The sources that we went to to look 

for information about the activities were 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 

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

site profiles, existing site profiles, and 

technical information bulletins. We had an 

interview with a former Westinghouse Atomic 

Power Development employee. 

 We looked at existing claim files, 

documentation provided by the petitioner and I 

would like to say the petitioner, Dr. Sandy 

Kramer, is in the audience, up front. 

 And the documentation provided by 

the petitioner really was what led us to the 

uranium enrichment activities in the 

beginning. There was a lot of good information 

provided there. 

 We looked at our site research 

database. We also did data captures. Our 

data capture efforts, we did a number of data 

captures. We had the Westinghouse collection 

at Senator John Heinz History Center. We 

picked up, if I remember correctly, 30 or so 

documents about the facility there. 

 The Department of Environmental 

Protection in Pennsylvania, DOE Germantown, 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

DOE Legacy Management, NNSA, the NRC, a lot of 

these are standard searches because what we've 

learned over time during these petition 

evaluations, there are some of these sources 

that have information not only about their 

existing facility but also about other 

facilities, AWEs, and such. 

 And so we do a lot of searches 

through their electronic databases, Washington 

State University, Washington University 

libraries, our DOE Opennet, internet searches, 

CDER, and various DOE locations. 

 Our previous dose reconstructions, 

we have 17 claims right now for Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development. Now we have 14 that 

meet the class definition of 1942 through 

1944. The other three claims are outside of 

the current covered period. 

 And I'll answer the question now 

before it comes up, we are exploring why we 

have those claims. 

 We completed one dose 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction for an individual within this 

class. However, that dose reconstruction was 

based on internal and external dosimetry from 

a period outside of our evaluated covered 

period. 

 Talking about Westinghouse's side 

operations, Westinghouse was deeply involved 

in 1942 through `44 period with a number of 

other companies and universities in 

researching various uranium enrichment 

processes. 

 They provided the centrifuges for 

the pilot studies and work on the mechanical 

centrifuge. They did a lot of the electrical 

work for the electromagnetic calutron at Y-12. 

 Gaseous diffusion, they supported 

Kellex/Pierpont and the initial pilot studies 

of the gaseous diffusion process and then the 

ionic centrifuge. 

 The ionic centrifuge, don't ask me 

to go into details on this because that's one 

of the reasons why I'm going to recommend 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 

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

class because I don't have a lot of good 

process description on this. 

 But it's generally what I 

understand by this is that it is a 

modification of a magnetron and uses a very 

similar process to the calutron operations at 

Y-12 in that the magnetic flux and deflection 

of the U235 mass versus a 238 allows you to 

separate them out. 

 There's no indication that the work 

with radioactive material occurred at 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development for any 

of the enrichment methods with the exception 

of the ionic centrifuge. 

 As I had mentioned, we have found 

documentation that supports there are a number 

of things that Westinghouse was producing at 

that time in support of the enrichment but we 

only have clear documentation that the ionic 

centrifuge work was done at the East 

Pittsburgh site. 

 Based on documentation available 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 

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH, again I mentioned that they were 

involved in the ionic centrifuge uranium 

enrichment method. And as I had mentioned, it 

is very similar to the calutron operation. 

 We have no detailed process 

information about this. We have -- we don't 

even have a good process description of how 

this actually worked. We have no information 

-- if you look back on the facility database 

website, it talks about K and L and actually 

the petitioner had identified K and L 

buildings as potential location for the work 

that occurred. 

 From what we've been able to 

uncover, K and L building were contaminated 

with uranium and thorium. However, they were 

contaminated with uranium and thorium because 

of the early filament work that was done at 

Westinghouse in the 1920s at the East 

Pittsburgh site, earlier period. 

 In 1918 and 1919, they were looking 

at uranium as a filament. They also looked 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 

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- they were using thorium as well. And so 

there was a lot of work that was done at the 

East Pittsburgh site during that period. 

 In 1920s, early `20s, that work 

actually shifted to the Bloomfield site where 

the actual lamp division was moved from 

Westinghouse East Pittsburgh to the Bloomfield 

site at that time. So that what we believe is 

the contamination that existed in K and L 

could have easily come from the early filament 

work that was occurring in the 1920s. 

 So we cannot specifically -- and we 

have no clear documentation that outlines the 

exact location this work occurred. As I had 

mentioned earlier, the Forest Hills site has a 

number of laboratories. 

 It could have occurred there. But 

there are also places within the existing site 

at East Pittsburgh that the work could have 

occurred. 

 Also, source material, we have no 

information. We have one document 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 

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

indicates that the work may have been 

laboratory-scale quantities. 

 However we also have an interview 

that talks about a number of different runs 

trying to increase the enrichment process or 

trying to increase the enrichment process 

using the gas material. And so I can't be for 

sure if it was -- what is pilot-scale 

quantities. 

 Our internal sources of exposure, 

the work associated with the electromagnetic 

enrichment separation used a uranium 

tetrachloride. It was converted -- heated and 

converted into a gas from. 

 We had potential inhalation from 

that conversion as well as the work involved 

in the separation. External sources, we have 

photon and beta exposures from the electronic 

magnetic separations and we have potential 

neutron exposures from alpha-N reactions with 

the chlorine. 

 We also could have, again, 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 

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

knowing the details but knowing the Y-12 

operation, there were X-rays produced in the 

calutron operations. Those may have been an 

exposure concern here, too. It is not clear. 

 Internal monitoring data, we have 

no bioassay data for the class period and we 

have no general area breathing zone air 

sampling for the class period. 

 External monitoring data, we have 

no film badge or pocket dosimeter data and no 

area radiation surveys. Again, this is a 

unique operation. 

 We looked at the calutron 

operations. Can we use some of the activities 

associated with the calutron? 

 But knowing the specific details of 

the process was one concern. And also 

recognizing from the 1942 through 1947 period 

at Y-12, we have an SEC because of the 

calutron internal exposure. So it made it 

very difficult using that as a surrogate. 

 Our evaluation process is a two-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

prong test, which was employed many times. Is 

it feasible to estimate the level of radiation 

dose with sufficient accuracy? If that answer 

is no and then is there a reasonable 

likelihood that such radiation doses may have 

endangered the health of members of the class. 

 We've found that the available 

monitoring records process description and 

source-term data are not adequate to complete 

dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy 

for the evaluated class. 

 We use existing procedures to 

reconstruct external exposures from medical Xrays for non-presumptive cancers or cancers or 

claims that do not meet the SEC criteria. 

 Our table, again, internal 

exposures cannot be reconstructed, external 

can't, medical X-rays, we will reconstruct for 

those cancer claims that come back to us. And 

our feasibility determination is the August 

13th, 1942, which is the date associated with 

the establishment of the MED, Manhattan 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Engineering District, and December 31st, 1944, 

which is the end of the covered period. 

 Again, the health endangerment, 

evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates 

some workers in the class may have received 

chronic exposures through intakes of 

radionuclides and direct exposure to 

radioactive materials. And consequently we 

find that health may have been endangered for 

those workers. 

 Our proposed class, we looked at -- 

because we knew this was pilot work and -- or 

at least we thought it was pilot work from the 

information that we had, we looked at ways to 

try to limit this class and try to get it to 

specific locations. 

 In the documentation that we had, 

we could not come up with a good argument and 

a good reason to isolate it to specific 

locations within the facility. 

 We also had talked about do we want 

to look at specific job titles but after three 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or four years of SECs, we recognize that 

specific job titles are very tough. 

 Not only are they tough because 

somebody has got to make that determination 

but job titles change over time. And it is 

not clear that we could even come up with job 

titles. 

 We talked to the Department of 

Labor about a proposed class definition of 

using researchers and scientists involved in 

ionic centrifuge operations and they could not 

administer that class. Therefore, we came up 

with all AWE employees who worked at 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development, August 

13th, 1942 through December 31st, 1944. 

 And, again, our recommendation. 

The feasibility, we cannot reconstruct for 

that period. And health was endangered. 

 Questions? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much, LaVon. 

 Dr. Lockey? 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: One question. Why 

couldn't they identify a class? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Use the 

microphone please. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: The question comes 

down to how you are going to be able to 

determine -- it's not clear, especially if you 

look at testers. That was one of the titles 

that was used in individuals that were 

involved in the operation. And the records 

that they had, it was not clear that they 

could identify testers, researchers. 

 And then the other question also 

came up upon -- okay, who cleaned up the 

material at the end of the day? Was it the 

maintenance workers? Was it the scientists? 

Was it this -- and you start realizing okay, 

how can I separate those individuals out? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Of the people you 

have identified so far, so they all fulfill 

the 250-day requirement? 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, I 

apologize. I did not look at that. I can 

find that answer out quickly. And get back to 

you. I know that most of them -- I believe 

most of them do. And most of them continued 

employment well beyond the `44 period. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and also, 

you didn't mention this, but were there any 

indications of quote, incidents, that were 

identified in that period? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: There was an 

incident with the -- there was an atom smasher 

at Westinghouse in the early years but that 

was before the covered period. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And also, on the 

medical X-ray are you just assuming annual Xrays or did Westinghouse have a practice that 

you could identify? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, we had no 

documentations so we're just assuming 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 

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

annual X-ray. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that you are 

assuming that did have that, right? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Actually it was 

fairly common during those days. Okay. Thank 

you. 

 Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: You said you had 

three individuals outside of the petition. 

How far outside the petition dates? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: 1950s, 1960s -- I 

think if I remember correctly, because I just 

looked at these this morning, all three of 

them were in the `60s period. And some 

actually had went early into -- as well into 

the late `50s. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Were they there 

when this work was being done? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, they were not. 

And, you know, recognize Westinghouse was 

doing a lot of -- in the `50s, `60s, 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 

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

commercial work, fuel work at the time. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bradley Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we know when 

they tore this down? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have a document 

that supports that at the end of the 1944 

period, that they ceased all activities with 

this. And we don't have documentation that 

says that all the material was removed at that 

time, you know. 

 But based on the documentation that 

-- it's called the Smyth Report, some of the 

HPs will probably remember that report, it is 

a pretty detailed summary of the activities 

that occurred during the production of the 

first atomic bomb. 

 And in the Smyth Report, it talks 

about the activity shifting to the East 

Pittsburgh site because that actually -- the 

ionic centrifuge was actually started at the 

University of California at the same time 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 

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the work was done with the calutron. 

 And they stopped the work at the 

University of California and shifted -- 

[Identifying information Redacted] for 

Westinghouse actually took that activity back 

to the East Pittsburgh site to continue pilotscale studies and that is discussed in the 

Smyth Report. 

 And it says in the Smyth Report 

that at the end of 1944, that that activity -- 

that all operations with the ionic centrifuge 

ceased. But I don't know about disposition of 

materials. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I was 

wondering about when the centrifuge was torn 

out or anything else like that, if we knew. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can't tell you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or was there a 

decommissioning at all or a clean up of this 

site to your knowledge? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, there is a 

decommissioning work that was done on 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 

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

site. And I can't remember the period but I'm 

believing that the site itself, if I remember 

-- I don't even want to say because if I say 

it, I'll be wrong. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Was that a FUSRAP 

site? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it was 

actually for a short period. And then they 

took it off the FUSRAP. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I was just 

looking at the ER report. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, Josie, I 

missed your sign there. Go ahead. 

 MEMBER BEACH: No problem. Page 

17, 1946, it said Westinghouse and other 

companies coordinated with MED for the 

disposal of the centrifuge equipment. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now the centrifuge 

-- recognize that that centrifuge equipment 

was actually the centrifuge -- the mechanical 

centrifuge that was being tested for -- at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Standard Oil facility. That was not the 

centrifuge that -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: So it was a 

different one. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: LaVon, I do 

appreciate that you are pretty good at 

anticipating our questions and the one that I 

had underlined before you started was the 

laboratory scale because I know I'll remind 

the rest of us that -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- in the past, 

we've excluded some buildings in Y-12 -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- because it was 

lab-scale operations. So I'm appreciative to 

hear the distinction -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- that it could 

have been a bigger pilot or you just don't 

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 

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We don't know. We 

don't know. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- because 

otherwise I would be wondering why in this 

case -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. And that was 

-- like you mentioned, there was a lot of 

detailed discussion on that Y-12. And because 

of the fact that we had good descriptions of 

those laboratory-scale quantities, we were 

able to exclude those. And the Board 

concurred with this. But we just do not know 

the exact quantities. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think that is an 

important point in this one so I appreciate 

you pointing that out. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jim Neton? 

 DR. NETON: Just to clarify, I 

think the laboratory-scale operations that 

were exempted at Y-12 were truly like 

analytical laboratories, not production 

laboratories. So that is really 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 

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

distinction in my mind. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim. 

 Okay, again, LaVon, thank you very 

much. 

 And I think we're ready to hear 

from the petitioner. And Sandy Kramer is 

here. Sandy, welcome. And we're pleased to 

hear from you. You can use either mic that 

you are comfortable with. Use the podium. 

 DR. KRAMER: I'm not going to have 

too much to say because most of anything I 

could say was said much better by Mr. 

Rutherford, much better than I could say. 

 I was introduced by Mr. Rutherford 

as Dr. Kramer. I do have a Ph.D., however it 

is in political science so my knowledge and 

understanding of anything that has to do with 

chemistry and physics is limited to the one 

course I took in physics at Princeton. And 

may I say that was the hardest course, as far 

as I was concerned, that I have ever 

experienced. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I'm not going to ask for any 

questions because I don't think I'll be able 

to answer them if they are scientific in 

nature. However, if anyone that has a 

question that is not scientific in nature, I 

would be happy to address it. 

 The reason I'm here today is 

primarily to thank the Board, ladies and 

gentlemen of the Board, and the other 

individuals who are involved in the 

proceedings to this point, thank them for the 

work that they did in putting together a 

presentation. 

 I also want to thank Denise Brock, 

who could not be here today due to 

[Identifying information Redacted], and I 

especially want to thank [Identifying 

information Redacted], who is co-petitioner, 

who is unable to be here today because she is 

holding a bedside vigil for [Identifying 

information Redacted] who is [Identifying 

information Redacted] of [Identifying 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information Redacted]. And otherwise she 

would be here. 

 As far as the other petitioners, I 

have never spoken to them or met them. 

 I must say that I think Mr. 

Rutherford covered a lot of ground. I 

encountered similar ground but I did not have 

the wherewithal to obtain the reports that he 

did obtain. 

 So, therefore, I would suggest that 

should you have any questions on any of the 

material that was covered, that they be 

addressed back to Mr. Rutherford. 

 But at this point in time, other 

than once again saying thank you, I will ask 

if there are any questions of a general nature 

or of a specific nature, specific to my 

particular petition that you might wish to 

ask. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, apparently 

not. We do thank you for being here and for 

participating in 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 

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Board members, do you have any 

further discussion on this? This appears to 

be a fairly straightforward petition and 

recommendation. 

 Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have no comments. 

I'm prepared to make a motion if the Board is 

ready for it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I maybe have a 

comment here. Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I'm prepared to 

offer a friendly amendment to the motion. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MEMBER MUNN: Why don't you go 

first? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay, well -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Do go ahead, Dr. 

Melius. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Oh, no, no, no. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Please provide the 

amendment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think 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 

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tongue is still in his cheek. Why don't you 

go ahead with your motion? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I move that the Board 

accept the recommendation of NIOSH that this 

SEC be accepted as written and that the 

petition be granted and rescind our 

recommendation to that effect to the 

Secretary. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. The motion 

basically is to recommend to the Secretary 

that this petition be granted and that an SEC 

class be added. 

 Dr. Melius? 

 I need a second. Okay. There is a 

second. 

 Do you have a comment or -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I have actually a 

rather lengthy friendly amendment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: It might speed up 

the process. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is this 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 

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

official wording? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: This is the 

official wording. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Just for 

clarification for those particularly who may 

be new here, we actually have some official 

wording that goes to the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services. I guess in this case it 

will still be an Acting Secretary. 

 But in any event, the motion, as 

presented by Ms. Munn, was a general motion. 

What will actually go to the Secretary -- and 

Dr. Melius has graciously served as our 

wordsmither on these because I think he has 

the boilerplate in his laptop, so is this -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: This is actually 

the updated boilerplate -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The updated, 

okay. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- with the recent 

changes that have -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Good. Very good. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- boilerplate 

changes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So here -- and 

then we will not have to deal with this later 

in the week. Okay. So here is the official 

wording. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: The Board 

recommends that the following letter be 

transmitted to the Secretary of DHHS within 21 

days. Should the Chair become aware of any 

issue that in his judgment would preclude the 

transmittal of this letter within that time 

period, the Board requests that he promptly 

informs the Board of the delay and the reasons 

for this delay, and that he immediately works 

with NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of 

the Board to discuss this issue. 

 The Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated the 

SEC Petition 0096 concerning workers at the 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant, 

WAPDP in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania under 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the statutory requirements established by 

EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 

83.13. The Board respectfully recommends 

Special Exposure Cohort status be accorded to 

all AWE employees who worked at the WAPDP in 

East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from August 

13th, 1942 through December 31st, 1944, for a 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 

works days occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with work days 

within the parameters established for one or 

more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

 The Board notes that although NIOSH 

found that they were unable to completely 

reconstruct radiation doses for these 

employees, they believe that they are able to 

reconstruct the occupational medical dose. 

 This recommendation is based on the 

following factors, 

 1. The WAPDP was involved in the 

earliest research and development work for the 

manufacture of atomic weapons. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 2. NIOSH was unable to locate 

sufficient monitoring data or information on 

radiological operations at this site in order 

to be able to complete accurate individual 

dose reconstruction for the potential 

internal/external radiation exposures to which 

these workers may have been subjected. The 

Board concurs with this conclusion. 

 NIOSH determined that health may 

have been endangered for the workers exposed 

to radiations at this facility during the time 

period in question. The Board concurs with 

this determination. 

 Based on these considerations and 

discussions held at our February 18th Advisory 

Board meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the 

Board recommends that this Special Exposure 

Cohort petition be granted. 

 Enclosed is the documentation from 

the Board where this Special Exposure Cohort 

class was discussed. The documentation 

includes transcripts of the deliberations, 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

thereof, and related documents distributed by 

NIOSH. If any of these items are unavailable 

at this time, they will follow shortly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

That is the formal wording that is used. 

 I do have one question, Dr. Melius, 

in mentioning on the bullet points the lack of 

internal and external monitoring data and so 

on. Did you mention process information? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I actually 

mentioned radiological operations. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That's 

fine. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: The source and 

process. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That's 

fine. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I wanted to make 

sure that we covered the waterfront. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Right, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That is 

the motion. We need to do a roll call vote. 

Did we determine that Mr. Gibson was on the 

line? Yes, Mike, are you on the line? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I'm here, Paul. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Mike is 

here. Thank you. So we'll be sure to include 

him. 

 MR. KATZ: All right, okay, so 

calling the roll now, Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Aye. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. The motion 

carries. There are no nays and no 

abstentions. I didn't mention how the motion 

carried other than there were no nays. 

 Okay. Thank you very much. And we 

will proceed to prepare and send those 

materials to -- actually they go through the 

Director of NIOSH or of OSHA actually -- no 

NIOSH -- I'll get it right. It is Christine 

Branche. And that will get transmitted to the 

Secretary. 

 Now I think that the -- we're 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 

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

little ahead of schedule and we don't want to 

begin the Tyson Valley thing until 10:30 I 

don't believe. We will have a petitioner on 

line for Tyson Valley, is that correct -- at 

10:30? 

 MR. KATZ: It's a possibility. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. So we need 

to keep that as a time certain. So I'm 

wondering if -- if Mr. Cohen is agreeable, if 

we could go ahead with the SC&A Technical 

Support Contract portion of our agenda. 

 Sandy, is this okay to move you up 

in the schedule? 

 DR. COHEN: Well, I haven't written 

it yet. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's even 

better probably. We don't want you to be 

prepared too far in advance here. But we 

welcome Sandy Cohen. And as many of you know, 

that it's -- SC&A is Sandy Cohen and 

Associates that has the contract for the 

support of this Board. So welcome, sir. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. COHEN: Thank you very much. 

 I'd like to express my appreciation 

to the Board for you confidence in SC&A to 

continue our work in support of the Board. 

You don't often get a chance to do that kind 

of thing. So I wanted to do that. 

 You know it is always gratifying 

from both professional and financial 

perspectives to be awarded a competitive 

contract. 

 However there is a special 

satisfaction in being awarded a competitive 

contract as an incumbent, particularly after a 

five-year incumbency. To me this implies that 

we must have done a pretty good job over an 

extended period of time. 

 Our work for the Board has been 

particularly challenging. Our deliverables 

must not only meet or exceed the expectations 

of the Board but they are also carefully 

reviewed by many other interested parties. 

 We routinely interact 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 

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

coordinate with NIOSH and the Department of 

Energy and must communicate effectively with 

claimants, petitioners, and other interested 

parties. In fact, over the past couple of 

years, even Presidential candidates have 

expressed an interest in our work. 

 I've been in government consulting 

for about 37 years and thought that I had seen 

everything. But I have to tell you there have 

been aspects of the work on this contract over 

the past five years that were entirely new to 

me. And at the risk of appearing less than 

fully knowledgeable about the particulars of 

the project, I thought that I might share a 

few of these with you today. 

 We can label this discussion a view 

from the front office although I don't 

actually inhabit our front office. My 

observations fall into the following four 

categories: learning curve, objectivity, 

special interests, politics, and Sunshine, and 

disposition of findings. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Not long after we initiated the 

work on this contract, we realized that we had 

a big problem. Although we had naively agreed 

to the government schedule and level of effort 

estimates, both the time and the effort 

actually required to perform some elements of 

the work turned out to be significantly 

greater than the government's estimates. 

 The discrepancy was most serious in 

our reviews of the adequacy and completeness 

of the site profiles. This work was performed 

in accordance with detailed procedures, which 

we developed initially and which were 

evaluated and approved by the Board. However, 

it took a lot more time and effort to conduct 

the reviews in accordance with these 

procedures than either we or the Board had 

anticipated. 

 Contributory to the schedule 

slippage were delays in obtaining some of the 

references in the site profiles. You may also 

recollect that one of our first reviews 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 

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the site profile for Bethlehem Steel, which 

was particularly challenging. 

 Interestingly, I recall that our 

ultimate review deliverable had more pages in 

the report than that of which we were 

reviewing, which was not helpful for our case. 

 Ordinarily, this kind of problem is 

worked out between the contracting officer and 

the contractor. This one, however, blew up 

and resulted in teleconferences attended by 

members of the Board and representatives from 

NIOSH in addition to the contractor and the 

CO. It became quite contentious and for a 

while there, I was concerned about the future 

of the contract. 

 Ultimately this all worked itself 

out. The Board realized that this was a 

first-of-a-kind effort and that the original 

level of effort estimates were informed 

guesses at best. And our subsequent -- and 

after we had experienced our own learning 

curve, our subsequent costs for site profile 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reviews came down, although not as far down as 

the original government estimate. 

 I like to think that the government 

believes that although SC&A's work under the 

direction of the Board has added some burden 

to NIOSH's workload, the overall program has 

benefitted from this burden. 

 As the work proceeded, we realized 

that one of our most significant challenges 

was to deliver balanced and objective 

technical evaluations unencumbered by the 

exuberance or preconceived notions by any of 

the individual contributors. 

 Although we had recognized the need 

for unquestionable technical expertise and a 

diversity of skills well before we wrote our 

proposal, we had not given as much thought to 

the mechanisms required to deal with differing 

perspectives or dare I characterize them as 

biases present in all of us. I believe that 

good technical people do their very best to 

overcome any biases they might have in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

course of performing high-quality scientific 

work. 

 Nevertheless, it is good management 

practice to maintain vigilance on behalf of 

objectivity and to emphasize the need for 

objectivity to the individual contributors. 

One technique that we have implemented is a 

rigorous internal review of all reports for 

balance and objectivity as well as technical 

validity before they are delivered to the 

client. 

 I've been observing the 

extraordinary efforts that the project team 

has put forth to produce our work products and 

insist that we continue these internal reviews 

so that our products are technically 

defensible. 

 This brings me to another unusual 

aspect of this contract. The Board is charged 

with advising HHS on the scientific validity 

and quality of dose reconstructions and SEC 

petition reviews performed by NIOSH. Although 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our job is to support the Board in these 

endeavors, because the Board has no 

contracting authority, our contract is 

necessarily with NIOSH. 

 The potential for conflict of 

interest was identified early on and was even 

dealt with in GAO evaluations. It has been my 

impression that the Board and NIOSH have bent 

over backwards to address any perception of 

conflict of interest. 

 NIOSH has assigned designated 

federal officials who are unaffiliated with 

the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support as the contracting officers' technical 

representatives. And the OCAS cooperates 

fully in our pursuit of information and does 

not exert any influence over our 

investigations or findings. 

 Another new twist, at least to me, 

is related to the political high profile of 

this contract. At least policies concerning 

EEOICPA -- I hate that acronym -- 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 

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bipartisan, all of the politicians, regardless 

of political party or ideology, are anxious to 

ensure that their constituents get deserved 

remuneration under EEOICPA. 

 I recollect the first time that 

John Mauro informed me that we were requested 

to meet with Senate staffers about a 

particular facility concerning the claims of 

constituents. He asked for my advice on what 

to do. I said absolutely not. 

 My response to John is based on a 

general rule that most contractors abide by. 

That is to pass on the request for information 

from the press or from Congress to our 

clients. While members of our project team 

were encouraged by the government to attend 

these meetings and my advice which, by the way 

I still hold to, was ignored. 

 We have since met with several 

Congressional staffers, even those of a couple 

of Presidential aspirants, including one 

incumbent. We have also met with the staffs 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of the House Committee on the Judiciary, who 

were responding to a relevant GAO report. 

 The project team must achieve a 

balance between the control of sensitive 

information, that is information covered by 

the Privacy Act and also classified material, 

and the need to perform all work in the 

sunshine. 

 There is also attention between the 

need for the Board's work to be performed 

independently of NIOSH and DOE while at the 

same time coordinating those activities with 

NIOSH and DOE for the sake of efficiency. 

 My understanding is that 

considerable effort has been put forth by all 

parties and procedures have been developed to 

define how NIOSH and its contractors and the 

Board and its contractor will coordinate site 

visits, data capture, and worker interviews at 

DOE sites while maintaining the independence 

of the Board's investigations. 

 These procedures also address 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 

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

complexity of having SC&A draft work products 

reviewed by DOE for sensitive information and 

also by NIOSH for Privacy Act information 

without infringing on the Board's independent 

oversight mission. I expect that there will 

be continuing challenges in achieving these 

competing requirements. 

 When this technical support 

contract was originally envisioned, my 

recollection is that there was no explicit 

consideration given to the way in which our 

findings would be resolved. The original 

statement of work described the various 

reviews required and specified the 

contractor's deliverables associated with 

these reviews. 

 And, by the way, it has been my 

observation that for many of our contracts in 

the past, the report goes on the shelf and 

that's the end of it. However, in this case, 

it didn't take long for the Board to realize 

that there had to be a mechanism established 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for the resolution of the contractor's 

findings and recommendations. 

 I have observed that the issues 

resolution process and the tools used to track 

and document that process has also placed a 

burden on project resources. I understand 

that methods used to resolve and document the 

resolution of issues is a work in progress. I 

look forward to hearing more about the 

effectiveness of these methods in helping the 

program achieve and document issues 

resolution. 

 I'd like to conclude by once again 

expressing my appreciation to the Board for 

selecting SC&A as your contractor. I assure 

you that SC&A's management will thoroughly 

support the project team in meeting the 

numerous technical and administrative 

challenges that we're certain to encounter in 

the future. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

much, Sandy. We appreciate those comments. I 

know that your comments are not designed to 

provoke any discussion but nonetheless since 

we have you here, it would seem appropriate -- 

and I'm kind of in the habit of asking the 

Board and I think if you are agreeable, to 

give the Board members opportunities if they 

do wish to ask you anything about the 

operation as you see it or anything related. 

 DR. COHEN: I'd be glad to attempt 

to answer some questions. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I'm not going 

to ask you a question but I do want to express 

the thanks for the Board to you for the teams 

that you've put together and the ability of 

those folks to develop -- to help us both 

develop procedures and approaches to some of 

the thorny problems that you identified as you 

addressed us. 

 Ms. Munn, you have your banner up 

there. You have a comment? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I do. So does 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mr. Melius. I notice that the good doctor is 

not in his chair. So I don't know whether he 

wanted to address Dr. Cohen or not. 

 In any case, welcome, Dr. Cohen. 

It is a pleasure to see the face behind the 

name. And a further pleasure to see that you 

have identified in your brief remarks a couple 

of the items that appeared to be thorny issues 

for us as well. 

 I can't help but comment that 

personally I believe your position with 

respect to both those items is a parallel 

position of mine. And it is much appreciated. 

 Your organization is not in an easy 

spot. And as you pointed out, the confluence 

of conflicting goals is difficult for everyone 

concerned. But you have provided us with an 

excellent team that has worked diligently with 

us in an attempt to smooth out these larger 

problems that this confusing situation has 

presented. 

 So you certainly have the thanks 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from this Board member. And thank you very 

much for being here. 

 DR. COHEN: Thank you. 

 Are there any other questions? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

comments? Jim had his flag up. But he had to 

leave. Or did he? 

 MEMBER BEACH: I think it was up 

from the last -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, from before. 

 Okay. 

 Okay, very good. Again, thank you, 

Sandy, for being here with us this week. 

 I'm going to go ahead and let us 

begin our break. It is a few minutes early 

for that but since we always seem to have a 

way of extending breaks beyond their scheduled 

time, so I'll give you a little extra time 

this time. 

 But we do need to come back 

together promptly at 10:30 since that is 

basically a time certain with the petitions 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for the Tyson Valley Powder Farm discussion. 

So we will recess until then. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 10:01 a.m., and 

resumed at 10:34 a.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're now ready 

to resume our deliberations. 

 The next item on our agenda is the 

petition on what is called the Tyson Valley 

Powder Farm. This is an SEC 83.13 petition 

that LaVon Rutherford will present on behalf 

of NIOSH. And then we may hear from the 

petitioner by phone as well. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Thank you, 

Dr. Ziemer. 

 Again, I'm LaVon Rutherford. I'm 

going to talk about Tyson Valley Powder Farm 

Special Exposure Cohort Petition. 

 This petition was received on June 

13th, 2008. We had a proposed class of all 

employees who worked in any are at Tyson 

Valley Powder during the applicable covered 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

period from January 1, 1942 through December 

31st, 1949. That is the entire covered period 

designed under the DOE facility database 

website. 

 The petition qualified for 

evaluation on August 4th, 2008. The 

petitioners had provided an affidavit that 

there was, to the best of their knowledge, no 

monitoring data. And based on our review, we 

concurred with that, that there was no 

personal or area monitoring data. 

 A little background about the site, 

Tyson Valley Powder Farm is located in St. 

Louis, Missouri. In 1941, the U.S. Army 

purchased some land, undeveloped land. They 

had purchased that land approximately 25 miles 

southwest of St. Louis. 

 It was established as the Tyson 

Valley Army Powder Storage Farm, also known as 

Tyson Valley Powder Farm. The original 

primary function of this site was to receive, 

store, issue, and test explosives. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 On May 10th, 1946, the U.S. Army 

declared the Tyson Valley Powder Farm site as 

surplus. During that time, the Atomic Energy 

Commission was looking for an area to store 

some byproduct material and scrap material. 

And so the Atomic Energy Commission began 

using the buildings at Tyson Valley Powder 

Farm immediately after closure. 

 Our earliest reference to the AEC's 

desire to use that facility is February 13th, 

1946. At some time between February 13th, 

1946 and June 28th, 1946, the AEC began to 

store radioactive material on the site. So 

what we have used is we have used the February 

13th, 1946 as basically our start date for the 

purpose of this, as I just mentioned. 

 Our sources that we used to get 

information, again, we always look through 

site profiles, technical information, 

bulletins, and procedures for information. We 

also performed interviews, looked at the 

existing claimant files. As you notice, 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 

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have one claimant. 

 We looked at documentation provided 

by the petitioner. We also did our site -- 

looked through our site research database. 

And we performed data capture efforts. 

 Our data capture efforts included a 

historian for St. Louis Area Weapons Work. 

She's not truly a historian. She is actually 

a professor of political science. That is Dr. 

Denise DeGarmo, who is the audience. 

 The Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, St. Louis Office, and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, St. Louis County Library, 

DOE Germantown, Legacy Management, NSA, NRC, a 

lot of these you'll notice are very -- are 

ones that you would see on the previous 

petition because, again, these are sources 

that over time we realize provide information 

on more than one site. And so we go back to 

those sources. 

 Washington State University, 

Washington University libraries, National 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Archives, DOE OpenNet, internet searches, CDER 

database, and various DOE locations. 

 A previous dose reconstruction, we 

have one claim for this site. And that 

claimant is actually -- the survivor is 

actually the petitioner. And that claim meets 

the class definition. 

 And one-dose reconstruction was 

completed. We have no internal or external 

monitoring data from that plant. 

 A little background on Tyson Valley 

Powder Farm, documents indicate that the AEC 

may have used as many as five igloos to store 

uranium and uranium byproducts. These igloos, 

we know for sure at least two of them and 

these igloos contained storage area of a 

maximum of 100,000 pounds. 

 There is no information as to how 

the material was placed, stored, or removed 

from the site. And the AEC continued to use 

this site until its permit was revoked on July 

1, 1948. We do have some documentation 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 

 63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

indicates that the material was actually moved 

in that June time frame from the site. 

 NIOSH did not find any evidence of 

other areas at Tyson Valley Powder Farm being 

used for radioactive material storage or 

operations. The radioactive material stored 

on this site, uranium scrap materials, they 

were scrap materials contaminated with 

uranium. We had the bottom third of the slag 

biscuit. 

 And you'll notice that some of 

these have quantities because we did, through 

our review of documentation, we were able to 

uncover some source quantities for some of the 

material. You'll also notice that some of 

them will say unknown. Slag biscuit and also 

the C-slag, which was the top two-thirds of 

the slag. 

 Pitchblende residues, these 

residues were generated prior to 1948 with an 

unknown amount. And the raffinates or 

byproducts of the uranium ore processing, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you'll remember during Mallinckrodt period, 

the 1946-48 period was a prime time when the 

high-grade pitchblende ore was being processed 

at Mallinckrodt. 

 We do not have clear documentation 

that says the high-grade ore was stored at 

this site but we do know -- or the pitchblende 

or byproducts were stored at this site but we 

do know that pitchblende or byproducts were 

stored there during this period. 

 And that is the period when highgrade pitchblende ore was being processed. So 

because of that, we had to assume that the 

high-grade pitchblende ore byproducts were 

there. 

 Potential internal radiation 

exposures during the class period -- and I 

want to go back to the one claimant we have, 

who just happens to be the caretaker of this 

site during that period -- I forgot to mention 

that. 

 Tyson Valley Powder Farm workers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had the potential for internal radiation 

exposure from uranium residues through 

inhalation and ingestion of airborne uranium 

dust and exposures from radon and radon 

progeny while working at this site. 

 Uranium metal scrap would present a 

low risk from an internal exposure because 

most of that was in metal from. However the 

pitchblende ore residues would present the 

greatest potential for internal exposure from 

the potentially high levels of radon 

generated. 

 External exposures could have 

resulted from drums and barrels containing 

uranium scrap and residues. The exposure 

rates would have varied depending on the 

source term. Photon exposures may have 

resulted from radionuclides in the uranium 

decay chain and beta exposures as well. 

 And based on the information that 

we have, we do not believe neutron exposures 

would have been in any significant from 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 

 66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Tyson Valley. 

 Personal area monitoring data, 

internal monitoring data, we have no bioassay 

data for the class. We have no general area 

or breathing zone air sampling for the class 

period. 

 External monitoring data, no film 

badge or pocket dosimeter data. And no area 

radiation surveys. 

 Again, as earlier, it is a twoprong test. Is it feasible to reconstruct the 

radiation doses for individual members with 

sufficient accuracy? If no, is there a 

reasonable likelihood that their health was 

endangered? 

 Our determination, we found that 

the available monitoring records, process 

descriptions, and source-term data are not 

adequate to complete dose reconstruction with 

sufficient accuracy for the evaluated class. 

We will use existing procedures to reconstruct 

external exposures from medical X-rays. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And our table, again, February 

13th, 1946 -- again, that February 13th date 

is the date where we know the AEC had 

contacted to use the Tyson Valley Powder Farm 

so it would be the earliest possible date that 

material could have been on site through June 

30th, 1948, which is when we know the material 

was removed from the site and no longer at 

Tyson Valley Powder Farm. 

 You'll notice in comparison to the 

covered period, the covered period on DOE 

facility database is 1942 through -- up to 

1949. Our review of records and information 

indicates that there was no material -- AEC 

material on site prior to that February 13th 

period. 

 Health endangerment, the evidence 

reviewed in this evaluation indicates some 

workers may have accumulated chronic radiation 

exposures through intakes of radionuclides and 

direct exposure to radioactive material. 

Consequently, we have determined that 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 

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

health may have been endangered. 

 Our proposed class is all AWE 

employees who worked at Tyson Valley Powder 

Farm in St. Louis, Missouri from February 

13th, 1946 through June 30th, 1948 for the 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 

work days. 

 Again, our recommendation, 

feasibility is no, health endangerment is yes. 

 Questions? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Again, we thank 

you, LaVon, for that presentation. 

 Josie, you have the first question. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Hi, LaVon. I 

realize with just one employee, do you know 

how many employees worked during that time 

period? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know there 

were a number of buildings on the site but I 

do not know how many people actually worked 

during that period. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And also did 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 

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hold any worker outreach meetings? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We didn't hold any 

worker outreach specifically for that area. 

We did try to find people to interview. And 

we actually went to the St. Louis Bureau -- 

and I'm trying to remember the exact names and 

talked to a few people that were familiar with 

the assessments that went on during that 

period. 

 And asked them for additional 

potential contacts that they may have that we 

could talk to and we did not get any hits on 

that. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Wanda. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, Wanda is 

next? Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: LaVon, do you have 

any concept of how the igloos were constructed 

and how they were sealed? Ordinarily, storage 

igloos of that type are not areas where 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

personnel are likely to be entering unless 

they are bringing things in and bringing 

things out, which is a relatively short period 

of time. Do you have any of that information? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, we do not have 

any information on whether they were open or 

if they were sealed or, you know, recognizing 

the fact that the radon generation from the 

pitchblende ores, if they were sealed, would 

have built up in the igloos as well. 

 And if there were any inspections 

at all that would have occurred, it would have 

been an exposure potential to the caretaker. 

 Now the possibility would be can 

you limit that class based on that to just 

people that could have entered those igloos. 

 If we were to have enough knowledge 

that said that they were closed and sealed, 

which we don't, but we actually went to -- our 

proposed class at the Department of Labor was 

individuals that entered those five igloos. 

 And the Department of Labor came 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

back to us and said there is no way was can 

administer that class as defined. And, 

therefore, they recommended that we change the 

class to what we have defined it as, as all 

AWE employees. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: I think Ms. Munn 

asked my question because being familiar with 

these igloos, they are normally sealed after 

they are filled and there's no entering except 

to go get the material when you take it out. 

 So this is, in my estimation, sort 

of a presumptive exposure. If this were a 

criminal investigation, you would have no 

proof that a crime has been committed. So it 

is sort of a strange situation we haven't 

always faced before. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Other comments or questions? 

 LaVon will catch Mark but very 

quickly is there any evidence that there 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 

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contamination left behind or any remedial 

action that occurred later? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't recall. I 

don't remember reading anything on that at 

all. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think first off, 

I will follow up on Paul's -- I mean there is 

some indication that there was some FUSRAP 

investigation on this site, right? And I 

don't know if you found any reports on that 

and whether they, in any way, quantified the -

- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, I know that 

the land was actually cleaned -- I mean that 

the land was deemed cleaned and turned over to 

the City of St. Louis. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But you had no 

reports on that? You couldn't find any on 

that? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: 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 

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess the other 

questions are along the same lines that have 

already been asked but, you know, if I heard 

you right, I heard you say you can actually 

limit -- you know, you've got potentially five 

igloos, 100,000 pounds per igloo. And if I 

assume worst case, it is all pitchblende. Why 

can't I bound doses on -- I'm just trying to 

rationalize this compared to other sites that 

we work on. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Well, I 

mean from a sufficiently accurate -- if you 

are looking at 100,000 pounds of high-grade 

pitchblende ore, what are your radon 

concentrations going to be to the lung? I 

don't think that's -- I mean I think that Dr. 

Neton would agree with me that I think that 

would step outside the bounds of sufficiently 

accurate. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that's not 

plausible probably? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I'm just 

trying to get a sense of this compared to 

other evaluations that we look at. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, if you knew 

the masses and assumed that was all -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. And the 

other issue is -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- you could 

calculate the radon output but you don't know 

much about the igloos in terms of the buildup 

and diffusion out and so on. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, the air exchange 

rates as well. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: But, LaVon, refresh my 

memory, we don't -- do we know much at all 

about the process involved in the loading of 

these igloos? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: And that was the 

other point -- 

 DR. NETON: How this material was 

really transferred, that's one of the big 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issues. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We don't know how 

it was transferred, the storage inspections 

that were done, and how the material was 

removed at all. And that was mentioned 

earlier. And we also don't know the 

concentrations that was, you know, the 

processed ores. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I'll give 

you -- I'm just wrestling with this, you know, 

this notion of, you know, clearly some 

pitchblende ore went there. It may not have 

been the highest concentration. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we don't 

know. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But your 

determination was that assuming it was all the 

highest grade pitchblende was -- didn't fit 

the method -- didn't fit the sufficiently 

accurate test. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I wouldn't say -- 

I would say that that, along with the fact 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that we know nothing about how the material 

was placed -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- and how the 

material was stored, inspections that were 

performed, how the material was removed from 

the site. And recognize during that two-year 

period, it wasn't just we put it in one day 

and we removed it at the end of the period. 

It was placed over time, built up into those 

igloos. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. And just 

the last thing -- John has a question -- just 

is the last one. I'm trying to understand the 

`46 determination that the site was -- from 

`42 through `49 or whatever -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- but you didn't 

find any indication until `46 that anything 

was stored there, is that -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. Based on 

what we have, the Army was still using 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 

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

facility. It was the Army's facility up until 

1946 when they declared the site was surplus. 

 And at that time -- at that time the AEC 

inquired about using the facility for storage 

of radioactive materials. 

 And the February 13th date that we 

had identified is actually the date where we 

have that official request by the ACE to use 

the site. We used that date even though we 

know material didn't go in that day but the 

next day that we have that we know material 

was there, it was already there. And that was 

in June of that year. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But how did DOL 

define the time frame for the site? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I do not know. We 

have all of the documents the Department of 

Labor has. And -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I mean if it 

was Army before that, it shouldn't have been 

defined as an operating period, correct? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I agree. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean I think we 

have to sort that out. That's pretty 

important here. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we will go 

back to the Department of Labor with a letter 

and with all our reference material to show 

that where we believe that the `42 through the 

`46 period should not be a covered period. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Just a quick follow 

up on that part of it, just make sure that 

there is a note to come back to the Board with 

that -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- information 

because I think it helps us understand -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- this designation 

-- site designation issue and time period 

because we keep running into this a lot with 

these sites. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: LaVon, who is the 

official employer at this site? Was Tyson 

Valley Powder a company? Or just the name of 

the location? These weren't Mallinckrodt 

people were they? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, I do not 

recall. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the reason 

I ask that when we say they are employees, who 

are they employees of? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, Tyson Valley 

Powder Farm. And the Department of Labor 

determines whether a claim is accepted under 

this program. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I understand 

that. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: So they are the 

ones that have defined the facility. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They'll make the 

determination. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: 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 

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's more of a 

curiosity thing. I'm just wondering, you 

know, it is fairly clear cut if you are a 

Mallinckrodt worker that you worked for 

Mallinckrodt. It's not clear who they are 

working for here. 

 And I don't know if Labor is even 

prepared to answer that now. But Jeff, you 

don't happen to know, do you, who the employer 

is for Tyson Valley Powder? 

 MR. KOTSCH: No, not really. 

Actually LaVon sent us, I think, four cases. 

We had our Denver Office look at them. And I 

just don't remember who the, you know, who the 

employer was listed on there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe the 

petitioner will be able to, you know, inform 

us on that in a moment. 

 Any other questions? John Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Just a few facts. 

I applaud Mark for trying to provide an upper 

bound by assuming it was all pitchblende 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 

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as LaVon stated, there was scrap materials, 

which were simply contaminated with uranium, 

and then there were the slag biscuits, which 

have a lower concentration of uranium. 

 And the pitchblende, according to 

LaVon's slides is only .29 percent U308, which 

is sort of a medium to low concentration ore. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I think you 

are supporting my argument, John, that, you 

know, probably all 500,000 pounds wouldn't be 

pitchblende. And they've got other data that 

they can subtract off of that 500,000 to get 

that number down. And maybe, you know, it’s 

not so unreasonable. 

 That was sort of my point that 

maybe they can reconstruct. I'm just trying 

to understand this juxtaposed to other sites 

that we've looked at where we've said that we 

can't do it. 

 The only final item I ask LaVon is 

on the one slide you said that you have one 

claim and you had one dose reconstruction 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 

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you completed. How did you complete that dose 

reconstruction, if I might ask? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I figured that 

question was going to come up. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it's on a 

slide. I'm sure people were thinking about 

it. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: The one claim that 

we have, who is the petitioner's actual 

survivor -- is an A4 prostate cancer. Now 

you'll wonder why we qualified a -- or why we 

used a petitioner with a prostate cancer. And 

if I say anything I'm not allowed to say -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It might be too 

late. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- I'm sure our 

attorneys will -- are looking at me -- I will 

make sure that -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It might be too 

late. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- there were 

other issues with the claim that allowed it 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 

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

qualify. However, the cancer that was 

evaluated and the dose reconstruction was 

completed was for a prostate. 

 And as you know from an internal 

exposure perspective, you can throw an 

enormous amount at that. And so that is what 

it was set at. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I want to ask now 

if the petitioner is on the line. I'm not 

sure -- I won't identify her unless she is on 

the line. Okay, hold on just a moment until 

we get the mic -- okay, now if you would -- we 

would be pleased to hear from you if you so 

desire. And you can identify yourself. 

 MS. BARNETT: Thank you. If 

you're not hearing me, please let me know. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we hear you. 

 MS. BARNETT: My name is Eileen 

Janette Barnett. And I'm representative for 

[Identifying information Redacted], who is the 

claimant for his deceased [Identifying 

information Redacted]. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And I want to thank you for giving 

me this time for some comments. Well, this 

claim has been in the works for more than five 

years. And I know it has a way to go or not. 

 So I'd just like to comment on here and now. 

 In its long process, I somehow had 

the idea that if it were to ever get to NIOSH, 

it would be like reaching Nirvana. That here 

would be experts in investigation and 

resources of information or at least as many 

as were available to NIOSH. 

 So whatever the ultimate decision 

on this case, I think I had the right idea. 

So I want to thank all of you for all of your 

labors. 

 And my [Identifying information 

Redacted] and I would also like to express our 

appreciation for the communication we've had 

in letters and telephone calls, e-mails, and 

even personal contact. 

 I wish we could remember 

everybody's names there but especially we want 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to thank NIOSH Ombudsman Denise Brock who -- 

well, she has a gift for explaining 

complicated things, making this complicated 

process a little more clear. And also for 

clearing a path for us. Thank you, Denise. 

 Last and very important, we just 

want to remember Clete Barnett, [Identifying 

information Redacted]. He worked at Tyson 

Valley Powder Farm in 1946 and `47. He was a 

remarkable man with many unfulfilled dreams 

for his beloved Kentucky farm. 

 He loved his farm, his family, and 

his country. Well, he'll never be forgotten. 

 Again, thank you for this time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much, Eileen, for your comments. 

 MS. BARNETT: Sure. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Board members, 

any other questions or discussion? 

 It would be in order to have a 

motion regarding this particular petition. 

Well, the Chair does not want this matter 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 

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

drop for lack of a motion. So is there anyone 

who wishes to make a motion regarding this 

recommendation? 

 Ms. Munn, with some fear lest it be 

modified, let's proceed. And we can proceed 

as we did before. We understand that we need 

a motion on the floor. We'll get the wording 

if it is so ordered. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It is what? My 

motion that we accept the recommendation of 

the NIOSH investigators and that the Secretary 

be advised accordingly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Is there a second to the motion? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: I second. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey 

seconds the motion. 

 Dr. Melius, do you have some 

wording all ready for this particular one? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I have a friendly 

amendment, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 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 

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: A lengthy friendly 

amendment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Lengthy friendly 

amendment, okay, here we are. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. The Board 

recommends that the following letter be 

transmitted to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services within 21 days. Should the 

Chair become aware of any issue that in his 

judgment would preclude the transmittal of 

this letter within that time period, the Board 

requests that he promptly informs the Board of 

the delay and the reasons for this delay, and 

that he immediately works with NIOSH to 

schedule an emergency meeting of the Board to 

discuss this issue. 

 The Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated SEC 

Petition 00115 concerning workers at the Tyson 

Valley Powder Farm in St. Louis, Missouri, 

under the statutory requirements established 

by EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and 42 CFR 83.14. The Board respectfully 

recommends Special Exposure Cohort status be 

accorded to all atomic weapons employer, AWE 

employees, who worked at the Tyson Valley 

Powder Farm in St. Louis, Missouri, from 

February 13th, 1946 through June 30th, 1948, 

for a number of work days aggregating at least 

250 works days occurring either solely under 

this employment or in combination with work 

days within the parameters established for one 

or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

 The Board notes that although NIOSH 

found that they were unable to completely 

reconstruct radiation doses for these 

employees, they believe that they are able to 

reconstruct the occupational medical dose. 

 This recommendation is based on the 

following factors: 

 1. Tyson Valley Powder Farm was 

involved in the storage of materials from the 

early manufacture of atomic weapons. 

 2. NIOSH was unable to locate 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sufficient monitoring data, information on 

operations at this site, and source-term 

information at this site in order to be able 

to complete accurate individual dose 

reconstruction for the potential 

internal/external radiation exposures to which 

these workers may have been subjected. The 

Board concurs with this conclusion. 

 3. NIOSH determined that health 

may have been endangered for the workers 

exposed to radiation at this facility during 

the time period in question. The Board also 

concurs with this determination. 

 Based on these considerations and 

discussions held at our February 18th Advisory 

Board meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the 

Board recommends that this Special Exposure 

Cohort petition be granted. 

 Enclosed is the documentation from 

the Board meeting where the Special Exposure 

Cohort class was discussed. The documentation 

includes transcripts of the deliberations, 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

thereof, and related documents distributed by 

NIOSH. If any of these items are unavailable 

at this time, they will follow shortly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much, Dr. Melius. 

 I need to insert here -- and 

perhaps some clarification, LaVon, I'm looking 

back in the evaluation report itself versus 

the slide and I'm noticing that the evaluation 

report shows that you can reconstruct external 

dose. 

 And I -- Jim, what wording did we 

have on that in the friendly amendment? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: They couldn't 

construct external. They could reconstruct 

occupational doses. I was going by the 

slides. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm seeing -- and 

LaVon, in the evaluation report, page 24, I'm 

noting that NIOSH says it can reconstruct 

external dose, including medical X-ray, 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 

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

also gamma and beta. And it only shows 

internal not feasible. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Unfortunately, I 

believe we have an error in our table under 

here because what we -- if you actually review 

earlier in the report, we actually say that we 

could reconstruct some of the external dose. 

But without the quantities, the significant 

source-term quantities, we could not 

completely define the external dose. 

 And that's what it should have 

said. And so the external table should have 

been no. And I'm really kind of surprised. 

I'm wondering if somehow or another we have an 

error. I'll have to issue a revision of the 

report to show that the external doses are no 

with the exception of occupational medical Xray. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So that 

what you have in the slide is -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Is correct. It is 

correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- what was 

intended and what is in the letter then is 

correct. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. It is 

correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I thought 

from the narrative in the report, it appeared 

that you could not reconstruct external dose. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. I 

apologize, I somehow missed that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry, I missed 

that earlier until I was just reviewing it 

again. So we will assume that the evaluation 

report will be corrected or modified so that 

it is in agreement with what we were told here 

in the oral presentation as well as what the 

narration in the report itself states. And 

that's Table 7-1 in the report. 

 Board Members, you've heard the 

motion and the official wording. Are you 

ready to vote then? It appears that we are. 

And we'll take a roll call vote. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, that was yes. 

 Mr. Griffon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Abstain. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Aye. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 The voting is 11 in favor and one 

abstention. Thank you very much. The motion 

carries and we will proceed to transmit the 

appropriate materials. 

 I'm going to skip ahead now on the 

agenda since we have a little time. 

 Let me thank Ms. Barnett for being 

with us today if she's still on the phone. 

Thank you again for your comments. 

 We're going to move ahead then on 

the agenda. We have already heard from Mr. 

Cohen. And we want to keep the afternoon 

schedule basically fixed so that we will do 

the General Steel Industries SEC Petition at 

1:15. We'll do the Hood Building petition at 

3:00. And Blockson Chemical at 4:00. 

 In the meantime, we have some items 

that we can move up in the schedule. And from 

tomorrow morning's agenda, one of those items 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is the Science Update. And I understand Dr. 

Neton is prepared to present that to us now. 

 So, Jim, if you would, we'll 

proceed on the Science Update. 

 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

 I'm here to present an update on a 

few issues that have come to fruition since 

the last time the Board met just a few short 

months ago. So there's -- it's hard to come 

up with earth-shaking scientific progress when 

the Board seems to meet so frequently these 

days but I do have a few things I'd like to 

report on today. 

 The first one as I mentioned, I 

think, in my last presentation that we were 

undertaking a verification and validation of 

the NIOSH-IREP Program itself, specifically 

that refers to the current version that is 

used by the Department of Labor and NIOSH and 

also the version that is posted on our 

website. That is version 5.5.3. 

 As the bullet indicates on 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 

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

slide, this effort was undertaken to insure 

that the program operated with the parameters, 

equations, and assumptions that were described 

in the formal documentation of the program. 

 And by formal documentation, I'm 

referring to two or three documents actually. 

 The first one is the -- what I call the Green 

Book, the National Academy of Science's Review 

of the NIOSH or the NCI Version of IREP that 

was undertaken several years ago followed by 

the documentation that is online for the 

version of NIOSH-IREP that is on our website. 

 And then finally, the third piece 

of documentation is the recent publication of 

the NIOSH-IREP article in a special edition of 

the Health Physics Journal that appeared, I 

think it was the July issue of Health Physics 

last year. 

 It is a very extensive, nice write 

up of IREP. If no one has read that yet, I 

would encourage you. It is very good bedtime 

reading. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Okay. The approach that was 

undertaken here had sort of a three-prong 

attack. One was to compare the equations and 

the risk models that were used in the code to 

those described in the formal documentation. 

That is, you know, were the models actually 

transcribed into the program itself. 

 And then also to compare any 

numerical data that were in there -- did we 

transport the numerical data properly in there 

-- some of these assumed fractional 

distributions and such. 

 And then to make sort of a micro 

version of NIOSH-IREP using Excel and Crystal 

Ball. The program is so large it couldn't 

possibly run on an Excel/Crystal Ball 

combination. Well, it would be very difficult 

to make it run that way. It runs on an 

Analytica engine platform now. 

 But we created this scaled-down 

version of the risk models. And independently 

generated the equations and the numerical data 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

used in the program itself. 

 Now if you remember, IREP is a 

probabilistic model so we took a two-tact 

approach. One was to actually do 

deterministic calculations, you know put in 

values and make sure the equations actually 

came out exactly correctly. 

 And the other aspect was to do the 

probabilistic runs and make sure that the 

outputs were within certain proscribed ranges 

of acceptance. 

 I should have mentioned up front 

that this was undertaken by our contractor, 

Senes Oak Ridge, that maintains the IREP 

program for NIOSH. 

 The verification and validation 

exercise basically demonstrated to us, at 

least, our mind, at least, that the code 

actually worked as intended. But with a code 

this size, I guess I shouldn't have been 

surprised that there were some 

inconsistencies, which we'll call findings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here that were identified in the V&V of the 

program. 

 Fortunately, they appear -- they 

don't appear -- they did effect only isolated 

portions of the code. There were no systemic, 

huge issues identified. And the magnitude of 

those expected changes -- 

 MR. KATZ: Jim, can you hold one 

moment? 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. Folks on the 

phone, are you having a hard time hearing? Go 

ahead and try again and let's just see. 

 DR. NETON: Okay. The magnitude of 

the changes in the probabilistic causation 

calculations are expected to be small. And 

I'd just like to go over those three -- 

 MR. KATZ: Sorry, sorry to 

interrupt. This is not the Blockson petition 

but are you having a difficult time hearing 

still on the phone? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Four o'clock. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: At four o'clock. But 

anyway, I just want to ascertain all your 

quality. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can ask Mike. 

 MR. KATZ: I don't know how we 

could -- Mike, are you having a difficult time 

hearing as well? 

 Okay, Jim, can you maybe just speak 

more into the mic or something? 

 DR. NETON: Sure. 

 The first finding that Senes 

discovered was that there was an error in the 

estimate of the risk in the calculation for 

the acute lymphocytic leukemia model. And it 

was due to something very simple, which was 

the spelling of lymphocytic. The code said if 

this equal lymphocytic, go here. And since it 

was spelled wrong, it never went there. 

 But it was in the quadratic term of 

the calculation. If you remember, all models 

within IREP assume a linear no-threshold dose 

response relationship with the exception 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 

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

leukemia models. The leukemia models, for 

acute exposures to low linear energy transfer 

radiation, that is photons and beta particles, 

has a quadratic term built into it. 

 So without the quadratic term in 

there, it would really only effect acute 

exposures to low linear energy transfer 

radiations that were a fairly high magnitude 

because at the linear portion -- or the low 

dose portion, the linear term predominates. 

And only until you get into the higher 

portions does the quadratic term kick in to 

any appreciable extent. 

 So based on this, the revised 

version could result in higher values for 

probability of causation for some cases of 

acute lymphocytic leukemia. 

 The second finding was an error 

that was discovered in the uncertainty 

equation for the age dependency modifier for 

Group 2 cancers. So remember, this is not the 

age dependency calculation. It is 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 

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

uncertainty in the age dependency calculation. 

 And I just have a little footnote 

here that reminds folks of what Group 2 

cancers are. They are listed here and those 

are the cancers for which there were fewer 

numbers of cases in the Hiroshima Nagasaki 

survivor dataset, the Radiation Effects 

Research Foundation dataset. 

 And because of that, the models are 

a little simpler than the more complex models 

like Group 1 that could do things like sex -- 

corrections for sex and stuff like that in the 

risk calculations. 

 So it would be these cancers that 

would be effected. It would not affect any 

cases that were diagnosed after 50 years of 

age. 

 I should note that the beginning of 

a very long equation for the GSD -- the 

geometric standard deviation -- is listed 

here. And the error was that little two was 

left out. And if you notice the term that 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 

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

two is in is subtracted from the first term, 

it would actually result in a smaller 

geometric standard deviation if the two were 

included. 

 Because of that, the corrected 

version would result in lower probability of 

causations for cancers. So in this case, the 

PC, if, you know, any effect was observed, it 

would be to decrease the probability of 

causation. But even with that, we would 

expect this to be small because remember, this 

is the uncertainty term in another term that 

was effected. 

 And the final finding that was 

noted in the Senes' review was an error in the 

uncertainty of the modifier for age dependency 

in the National Institutes of Health lung 

model. If you recall, we actually run two 

lung risk calculations within NIOSH-IREP. 

 One is the original one that was 

published with the code. The second one is 

what we call the NIH lung model because 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 

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is what the NIH is using. And that particular 

code was modified to include some additional 

analysis done by Preston et al from the RERF 

that incorporates some additional data on the 

effect of cigarette smoking I believe. 

 When we modified NIOSH-IREP, we now 

run both of those models and pick the one that 

has the higher probability of causation. The 

error that was in this calculation was a 

reversal in the sign -- a plus or minus sign 

associated with the terms, again, in the 

geometric standard deviation calculation for 

the age dependency modifier. 

 It is a little less certain in this 

case how the effect is going to go. The 

revised version could be either slightly lower 

or higher depending on a combination of ages 

at exposures and ages at diagnosis. 

 But nonetheless, our initial review 

of this indicates that the effect on any case 

would probably be within plus or minus .5 

percent on the PC calculation itself. So 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 

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fairly small but not inconsequential 

difference. 

 So given that we have done this and 

identified these particular issues, you know, 

what are we going to do about it? And 

obviously we are going to update the current 

version of IREP 5.5.3 to a new version that 

we're going to call 5.6 that corrects these 

algorithms. 

 We already have what we call an 

enterprise edition in place running in the 

background that we're evaluating right now. 

And, of course, we will do a verification 

validation of all those corrections to make 

sure they function properly. 

 But as importantly, I think, we 

will identify the specific claims effected and 

we're working through those issues now and 

issue a program evaluation report and rework 

any claims that were effected by these errors. 

 It was a fairly interesting 

exercise. I'm really glad we did it. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

should have mentioned up front that this was 

undertaken by primarily -- there were some 

stakeholders' concerns about this, about the 

adequacy of the verification/validation. 

 And I was quick to point out early 

on that it's not that it wasn't verified but 

not in this rigorous of a manner. I mean they 

were all independently verified, the 

calculations. 

 But it wasn't done by a third party 

un-associated with the calculations -- more 

like you'd see with a very rigorous V&V that 

we've done with sort of a nuclear power planttype application. 

 Senes Oak Ridge has completed all 

of this. We're in the process of correcting 

this as I indicated. 

 And right now we have a very short 

draft report out but we're expecting -- 

actually just before I left, I received a 

draft report that is 400-plus pages that goes 

through all of the mechanics and nuts 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 

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bolts of what was done here. 

 And as soon as I can review that 

and we approve it for release, we'll put that 

on our website and make it available to the 

public. 

 Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: We usually have 

questions at the end but -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes, that's fine. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- this one seems 

pertinent now. You said an independent 

review? I mean -- 

 DR. NETON: Well, it was someone 

not associated -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- Senes developed 

the IREP that is online, right? The NIOSHIREP? 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean there was 

NIH-IREP but this is Senes doing the V&V on 

Senes' product. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I'm sorry. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: What I really should 

have said was that it was someone not 

associated with developing the code in the 

first place. The coders weren't doing the 

V&V. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So it was another 

party at -- 

 DR. NETON: Another party -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- Senes? 

 DR. NETON: -- within Senes -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: -- that was doing the 

independent calculations, which is somewhat 

traditional on how those things go. 

 Okay. Any other questions on IREP 

before I move into another issue? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: That spelling 

error is sort of interesting. And I'm -- I've 

never done a code evaluation but I assume they 

didn't find it by going through and looking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for spelling errors but they did it in a 

mathematical way and then they figured out 

that's what happened. 

 DR. NETON: I don't know but I 

would suspect that's probably what it was. 

That the two -- you know, they reprogrammed it 

and the numbers were coming out different. So 

they had to go back and figure out, you know, 

what caused that difference. And that's when 

they identified the spelling error. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: And once having 

done that, then I think they might have been 

alerted to looking for other things -- you 

know, other spelling errors or something. 

 DR. NETON: Right. But remember, 

you know, this whole undertaking was someone 

independently coded those equations in Crystal 

Ball and Excel and came up with answers. And 

then ran both programs and compared the 

numerical outputs. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: And if the numerical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

outputs varied, then that would lead to a sort 

of a hunt as to what was causing the issue. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Probably Microsoft 

spell check was -- you know we're using Google 

searches now. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I might add 

to that, it pegs my mind here or spurs my 

recollection is that I can misspell something 

when I go into Google or any of the search 

engines and they figure out what I'm really 

after. I don't know if they're just using 

spell check but they seem to be pretty smart. 

 And the minor misspelling of a word 

like lymphocytic, I would hope in the future 

that the program would be able to figure out 

that that is what was meant -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- because I 

could see -- well, enough said. 

 DR. NETON: I'm not sure you want 

programs doing that because sometimes when I 

mistype something in Google -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand. 

 DR. NETON: -- it gives me some 

options that aren't really what I was looking 

for. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That aren't what 

you want, right. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think we should 

make it clear though that it wasn't a search 

for a spelling error. That it was a 

mathematical determination. And that would 

show up other errors, too. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Very 

good. 

 DR. NETON: And, of course, no 

errors are acceptable in this program. But I 

was actually quite gratified that, you know, 

the ones that were found resulted in fairly 

small differences. So that speaks, I think, 

to the level of rigor that went into it in the 

first place I believe. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, go ahead, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Jim, you want to proceed? 

 DR. NETON: Okay. The next issue, 

which has been on the agenda for quite some 

time now -- it's picking up some steam now -- 

is the chronic lymphocytic leukemia issue, you 

know, should it be a covered cancer. 

 We're continuing to pursue the 

possible addition of CLL. And, you know, as I 

indicated on this slide, we've engaged in a 

couple of rounds of subject expert reviews to 

make a determination in that regard. 

 You might recall, we commissioned a 

review panel very early on, a couple of years 

ago, to actually ask a number of experts 

should chronic lymphocytic leukemia be 

considered radiogenic in the first place. 

 If the answer we got back from the 

review panel was a resounding no, then we 

thought our job would be done. The experts 

say no. And as long as we have some good 

scientific justification, our job would be 

over. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 But that's not the way it came out. 

 The review panel of five experts, the 

majority of the reviewers supported the 

inclusion of CLL. 

 And I think I reported on that a 

while ago, that they found no substantive 

reason why CLL couldn't be caused by radiation 

exposure, even though the epic studies that 

have been conducted cannot really make a 

determination that CLL, there isn't some kind 

of dose response relationship. It doesn't 

mean that it couldn't be radiogenic. 

 So the majority of the reviewers 

chimed in that CLL certainly could be 

radiogenic, and that review was completed way 

back in 2005. This has been a much more 

complicated issue, though, than I would have 

envisioned when we first started it. 

 But when we also needed a way to do 

dose reconstructions for chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia, and I reported last time that, with 

our contractor, Senes Oak Ridge, we developed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a probabilistic dose reconstruction method. I 

reported in some detail on that. 

 But we wanted to, you know, we 

wanted to poll the experts, does what we're 

proposing make sense? So we did a second 

round of review, and requested input on some 

five specific issues related to the etiology, 

the development of chronic lymphocytic 

leukemias. 

 And as I mentioned, these were 

based on a Senes-generated white paper that 

came out August 12th, 2008. It's a fairly 

thick document. They reviewed -- extensive 

review of the literature on this. But we 

wanted to get some expert hematologists' 

opinions. 

 Review comments were solicited, as 

indicated here, in October 2008, and we 

finally received all -- the last set of 

comments from the last reviewer January 2009, 

last month. 

 I just listed here the five 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questions that we asked the panel to consider. 

 I don't expect to make anybody hematologists 

here, but they essentially refer to the nature 

of what mature lymphocyte precursors are 

involved here. 

 The development of lymphocytes 

themselves is a fairly arcane science that not 

many people really are aware of, and to what 

extent these precursors circulate. 

 Once, you know, you identify the 

precursor for a chronic lymphocytic leukemia 

cancer, do they circulate? Are they localized 

in different organs? Are they systemic? What 

is a residence time if they do become 

systemic? 

 And then there are some posttransformation transfers. Once you get a 

clone, can it migrate throughout the body? 

 So would it be reasonable to assume 

or not that the point of diagnosis where the 

CLL was originally located was its point of 

origin? Those kind of questions. We're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

really trying to get our hands around what is 

going on here. 

 So we've got those review comments 

in. In general, they're supportive of the 

approach that we've developed. I see nothing 

in these comments so far that would invalidate 

what we've been proposing. 

 But we are going to prepare a 

point-by-point evaluation of these last rounds 

of comments. They're fairly technical. And 

then we will finalize a risk model and dose 

reconstruction approach, and prepare a 

transmittal package for the HHS Secretary's 

Office to take up this issue. 

 And that's the last slide I have. 

So I'd be happy to answer any questions if 

anybody has any. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jim, can you 

remind us -- or is it premature to ask this -- 

what would be the, quote, organ of interest 

for which the dose is calculated? 

 DR. NETON: It would be a -- 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 

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is difficult to describe, but it's a 

probabilistic dose reconstruction model. In 

other words, we would calculate doses to the 

various organs that the tumor could have 

originated, in which the tumor could have 

originated, and assign certain probability 

distributions for the doses to those different 

locations. 

 Because there is no one site that 

one can identify, it could either be the bone 

marrow, or it could be generally distributed 

throughout any of the lymphatic tissues. And 

once you do that, it's a very unwieldy, 

complex problem, and I think it lends itself 

to probabilistic modeling because the science 

is really not that well understood. 

 But I think we've got enough input 

from the subject experts in order to put some 

reasonable bounds around, you know, where 

these tumors could have originated. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then once you 

did that, then is it appropriate to assume 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that you would select the one for which the 

probability of causation was the greatest? 

 DR. NETON: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or are these 

somehow combined? 

 DR. NETON: They would be combined. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: It would be -- that's 

one of the issues, and I addressed this the 

last time. One of the locations that it could 

-- a CLL tumor could originate is the 

tracheobronchial lymph nodes. 

 And we all know from the lymphoma 

program evaluation report that we've done that 

you can get extremely high doses to the 

tracheobronchial lymph nodes from inhalation, 

because that's the ultimate deposition site 

for insoluble material to a large degree. 

 Once you do that, you end up 

assigning such high doses to the 

tracheobronchial lymph nodes that virtually 

every chronic lymphocytic leukemia case 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

becomes compensable with the current models, 

which is inconsistent with the science -- with 

the epidemiologic science. 

 In other words, you would see a 

huge rash of CLL tumors in weapons complex 

workforce if that were true. So that's why 

we've opted to do some apportioning of the 

dose to the various sites, and do it on a 

probabilistic basis, and move forward that 

way. 

 This is a -- you know, I feel badly 

that this issue is taking so long to resolve, 

but it's probably the most complex issue that 

we've undertaken in this program to do a dose 

reconstruction and develop an associated risk 

model. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think you've 

answered my question. And I think it's -- I 

don't understand how you're going to do it. 

But it seems like you gave a lot of biology 

that sort of convinces you that this is 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 

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reasonable thing to do, but then you don't 

really have any epidemiology to come up with 

these models. 

 DR. NETON: Right. Well, the risk 

model itself is going to -- well, would be a 

lymphoma model, because CLL behaves more like 

-- the risk model is more closely associated 

with a lymphoma than a leukemia, because 

leukemia, if you remember, is very radiogenic. 

 I mean, a one or two rem variation 

can be a compensable dose for leukemia. So it 

would be a lymphoma model, but with the 

addition of a very long latency tail, because 

CLL has a long latency period. It's known to 

have a very long latency time. 

 So it would be an adaptation of the 

lymphoma model that we would use. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: First a follow up 

with Jim, I mean I think your approach sounds, 

you know, basically sound and so forth. I 

think this is sort of akin to some of the work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that's been attempted, and actually I think 

you use in IREP with some of the other lowincidence cancers, and based on BEIR studies, 

and so forth. 

 And BEIR and some of the other 

current research has been trying to -- how do 

you model those cancers when they're not 

strongly radiogenic, and are low incidence. 

And this one, I think, what you're trying to 

do is to fit both the epidemiology -- what you 

have -- 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- and you know 

what it -- you have sort of an upper limit, 

you know, it's not -- you're not finding an 

excess. But so then how do you come up with a 

realistic model that is then based on some 

biology to do? And I think it is very 

complicated. 

 DR. NETON: It is. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And this may have 

been addressed last time, but at what point 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

does the Board get involved in this? 

 DR. NETON: I meant to review that 

process in my mind, because it's been quite a 

while since we've been engaged in rulemaking. 

 And maybe Ted Katz, who has been involved in 

the regulations, could speak to that issue. 

 MR. KATZ: Sure. And I can be 

corrected if I get something wrong with the 

lawyers. But this would be rulemaking; this 

would have to be rulemaking, because we'd have 

to change the probability of causation rule. 

 So as we did with the other rules, 

once there's a notice of proposed rulemaking, 

then there would be the comment period, and 

during that comment period, the way we handled 

it in the past is then the Board reviewed it, 

had meetings, discussed it, made their 

recommendations. 

 Those were taken into account 

before the public comment period was closed, 

and then final rulemaking was done. And then 

there a presentation subsequently, too. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I suggest that 

you explore, because I think it would be 

better in terms of process and so forth, is 

involvement of the Board at an earlier stage? 

 I think prior to rulemaking, you have 

technical reports. 

 And I think, you know, much like 

we're reviewing sort of the science 

implications, I think it would be helpful, and 

I think you can do that in a way that doesn't 

violate the rulemaking. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean I can -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I'm not asking for 

an answer, but I'm just asking to explore that 

issue. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I mean I think I 

can speak to that a little bit right now, 

though, because I have experience with other 

rulemaking that NIOSH does outside of this 

program, too, and on technical matters, before 

we go into rulemaking, if you want to evaluate 

technical matters, certainly you can. That'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 

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not proscribed. So yes. 

 DR. NETON: I think the various 

pieces and parts that we've developed 

certainly can be shared with the Board, and 

I'd be happy to do that as long as it's 

legally appropriate. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, no, I just 

think -- I mean, this is controversial, 

because of the -- what's traditionally been 

found. And I think it's worth sort of 

exploring the -- talking about the science 

independent of the regulation and so forth. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: I just have one 

question. When the first Board -- the first 

panel looked at this, was their conclusion 

that it's biologically plausible, or --? 

 DR. NETON: Yes. It wasn't 

unanimous. The majority -- I think I said the 

majority. I believe that three out of the 

five definitely indicated it was biologically 

plausible. There was no reason it's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

plausible. I guess that's a little different 

take. 

 And then the other two were sort of 

ambivalent a little bit. It could be, it 

could not be. 

 But three were very strong that 

there's no reason that it couldn't be 

radiogenic. There's no unique mechanism to 

the development of CLL that lends itself to 

only being caused by chemicals, for example. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. Thank you. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And I think that -- 

the argument is more of that sort of negative 

argument. You can't say it's not. There's 

not some risk. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, no, I 

understand that. I was trying to figure -- I 

don't remember what the first Board said, so I 

was trying -- so here's the question, is it 

biologically plausible? I think the answer 

is, yes. I would say yes to that, also. 

 Has it been proven? No. But is it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

biologically plausible? Yes. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: How do you prove 

there's no risk? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: You can't, because 

it's a rare tumor, and it doesn't occur that 

often, and it's a difficult issue. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Other 

comments or questions? 

 Thank you, Jim. We'll look forward 

to further updates on both of these issues 

then. Thank you. 

 In view of the time, we're 

approaching the lunch hour. In any event, 

we're a few minutes ahead, but we'll go ahead 

and recess. 

 We will return, and let's plan to 

be here promptly at 1:15 so that we can get 

underway with the General Steel Industry's SEC 

Petition. And also we will have some folks by 

phone involved with that one, as well. 

 So we need to stick close to 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 

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

schedule. So we will recess until 1:15. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 11:35 a.m., and 

resumed at 1:22 p.m.) 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

1:22 p.m. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are ready now 

for the afternoon session. 

 The first item on our agenda this 

afternoon is a petition, an 83.13 petition for 

General Steel Industries. 

 We're going to hear first from Dave 

Allen at NIOSH, who will present the NIOSH 

evaluation report. And then we will hear from 

a couple of the petitioners by phone following 

that. 

 So let's proceed with -- hang on 

just a moment. We need to double check on the 

phone here and make sure the petitioners are 

here. 

 MR. KATZ: Dan, are you with us? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: That's great. 

 And Patricia? 

 MS. COGGINS: Yes, I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Great, 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 

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Then let's proceed, and hopefully 

the connection will be a little better than 

this morning. 

 And Dave, if you would stay close 

to the mic so that the petitioners, 

particularly, can be sure to hear you. 

 MR. ALLEN: I'll try to stay close 

to the mic, but keep reminding me. I have a 

knack of pulling away from it. So if you have 

to remind me several times, I'd appreciate it. 

 I'm here to present the General 

Steel Industries' SEC Petition, which you'll 

hear me refer to as GSI routinely throughout 

the presentation. 

 The background for General Steel 

Industries is that it is classified as an 

atomic weapons employer from 1953 to 1966, 

with the residual contamination period 

extending from the end of the cover period 

through 1992. 

 The reason they are a covered site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is they performed radiography on uranium metal 

that came from the Mallinckrodt site. To do 

this, they used betatron machines, which I'll 

discuss a little more later. 

 Their job was to perform these Xrays and hand over the film to Mallinckrodt. 

They did not evaluate the film for defects, et 

cetera. They did develop the film, look at 

it, make sure they had a good X-ray shot. But 

they did not do the evaluation or any voids or 

whatever that Mallinckrodt was looking for. 

 Also I wanted to point out there 

were two betatron buildings on site. One that 

was referred to as the old betatron machine 

was built in 1952, and it was reported to have 

a maximum energy of 24 MeV photons, which is 

pretty high photon energy. 

 Another one that is referred to as 

the new betatron machine was actually built 

about the same time in Eddystone, 

Pennsylvania. In 1963, the sister site -- the 

work at that sister site was consolidated 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 

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Granite City, Illinois at this site, and so a 

new betatron building was built, and that 

betatron was moved to Granite City, Illinois 

to the GSI site. It is reported to have a 

maximum energy of 25 MeV. 

 On the screen, you see a couple 

drawings. These are schematics of the layout 

of the betatron buildings themselves. And I 

put these up here mostly to point out that 

these were not small X-ray units. These are 

actual buildings that were built for this 

purpose. 

 In the center, you will see what 

the operators refer to as the shooting area. 

That's where the radiography actually took 

place, where a large casting or something can 

be moved into, and the head of the betatron 

machine could be manipulated by a crane in 

that area to set up the X-ray shot that they 

wanted to take. 

 The thick-looking walls you see 

around that shooting area are, indeed, thick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

walls. They were intended to be shield walls. 

They're reported to be ten feet thick. They 

were composed of a sandwich of one foot of 

concrete on the inside and the outside, with 

the eight-foot void in between filled with 

sand. 

 The areas outside of that, you'll 

see some office-looking areas. Those are the 

control room and some offices. The 

electronics for the machine were actually 

above the control room on the second floor. 

 There were other sources of 

radiation at the site, primarily associated 

with the radiography of one type or another. 

They had some isotopic sources. They did have 

a 250 kVp portable X-ray unit. 

 What I wanted to point out mostly 

was that the 25 MeV is a high enough photon 

energy to actually cause activation in various 

materials, including steel. We don't usually 

think of it that way. 

 We usually think of neutron 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

activation in materials. But if a photon gets 

to be a high enough energy, above the 10 to 13 

MeV threshold value, you can actually get 

activation with these. And these did have a 

high enough photon energy to produce some 

activation in steel, uranium, et cetera. 

 There was also internal exposure 

from the uranium they handled. Some people 

thought that wouldn't be there simply because 

it was your large pieces of uranium metal. 

People aren't known to inhale 100-pound pieces 

of uranium metal. 

 But uranium is fairly active 

chemically. It will oxidize fairly easily. 

And you will get oxidation products, and any 

time you're handling that, then some oxidation 

will rub off, become lose contamination. And 

that can become airborne or be ingested. 

 A summary of the petition, it was 

submitted February 25th, 2008. It qualified 

for evaluation May 15th of 2008, and it was 

submitted to the Board on October 3rd, 2008. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The class proposed by the 

petitioner, essentially -- it's a little long, 

but essentially it's all operators for the 

entire covered period and the residual period. 

 What I wanted to point out just 

because there may be something about this 

later is that she actually included the 

location as 1417 State Street, Granite City, 

Illinois. And I don't know exactly the motive 

for doing that, but I suspect there was a lot 

of misconception about this site originally. 

 When EEOICPA was first started, it 

was called the Granite City Steel Site. As it 

turns out, there is a Granite City Steel Site 

very close by. Eventually they bought out 

this site. And that created a great deal of 

confusion early on in the program to the point 

to where this site was officially renamed the 

General Steel Industries Site. And I suspect 

that's the reason for putting down the address 

is to make sure we're all talking about the 

same facility. If not, it was a good move 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

even if wasn't. 

 The period we evaluated is the 

same. There is one exception there. If you 

look at the bottom, you'll see that we said 

the covered period is through June 30th of `66 

instead of December 31st of `66. 

 The difference there is that the 

DOE website tends to just put down the year in 

most situations. We looked into the reason 

for the end date on the covered period, and it 

was purchase orders that actually ended at the 

end of the fiscal year in `66, which, at that 

time, was June 30th of 1966. 

 But the entire period is covered. 

That last six months we call residual versus 

covered -- versus operational period. That's 

the only difference in these two descriptions 

here. 

 Sources of available information 

include Appendix BB. That is the GSI appendix 

we put together to describe our exposure 

model. And that is appendix to Battelle-6000. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We also, as usual, have ORAU 

Technical Information Bulletins, as well as 

procedures. We have information on the Site 

Research Database, which includes FUSRAP, as 

well as some worker information and some of 

the information DOE used to make this a site. 

 We have interviews with the current 

and former GSI employees. And I'd like to 

point out on that one, that was actually -- a 

great deal of information came from a couple 

of worker advocates that put together meeting 

of the workers and actually had those meetings 

transcribed. 

 We weren't at the first two 

meetings, but we were allowed to attend to 

second two meetings. So we were there, plus 

we have the transcripts. 

 After the appendix was written, 

there was another meeting of some of the 

workers that were most familiar with this. 

And we have the meeting minutes from that. 

And we did attend that one, also. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We have case files from the NIOSH, 

claims tracking that is, primarily dealing 

with the individuals more than the site, but 

there is some site information there. 

 And eventually we were able to find 

film badge data from 1964 to 1973. This came 

from Landauer. It says employees here. I 

wanted to point out that doesn't mean every 

employee at GSI. Essentially it's the badged 

employees at GSI, which appears to be the 

radiographers and those closely associated 

with the radiography. 

 The basis for the petition was that 

people were not monitored. And other than the 

film badge data that I had just pointed out, 

that seems to be the case. The petition 

included affidavits from a number of workers 

that said they were not monitored and were 

never offered a dosimeter. 

 Testimony from workers backed that 

up, including that some were actually badged, 

but it's not a large part of the population. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

It was those -- essentially radiographers, 

radiographers' assistants, I think the film 

processors, and some of the supervision in the 

betatron buildings. 

 But it did not include everybody in 

the betatron buildings. There were plenty of 

other people that worked to move large steel 

castings or repair the castings that were not 

badged. 

 We found nothing as far as internal 

monitoring. That's kind of consistent with 

what they did. I don't think a lot of people 

thought there would be any internal dose at 

the facility, at least at that time. 

 And I already mentioned the last 

one, that many people were associated with 

these castings. 

 As far as the time line, the 

appendix was approved June 25th of 2007. And 

as I already mentioned, February 25th of 2008 

is when we received the SEC Petition. And 

March 17th, 2008, SC&A submitted a review 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 

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Appendix BB; they submitted that to the Board. 

 Right about that same time frame, 

in March 2008 is when we received the Landauer 

film badge data. And I just wanted to point 

out that was not available to us during the 

appendix, and it was not available to SC&A 

during their review of the appendix. 

 June 26th, 2008, the Board 

established a working group for the purpose of 

reviewing the Battelle-TBDs as well as 

Appendix BB. And as I already pointed out, 

October 3rd is when we submitted the 

evaluation report to the Board. 

 Before I'm asked, I did want to 

point out on there that the appendix review 

was actually taken up by the Procedures 

Working Group of the Board that tasked SC&A 

with reviewing it. That's why you see the 

SC&A review was actually completed before 

there was a working group. The working group 

actually was established, and that work was 

handed over from the Procedures Working Group. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The appendix is essentially a -- 

it's a very proscriptive exposure matrix on 

how we would do dose estimates for individuals 

that worked at GSI. Some of the exposures 

that were evaluated include external dose in 

the betatron operations through the shield and 

by shine. 

 Those of you that are not familiar 

with shine, all I'm saying there is it is 

possible for radiation, including photons, to 

essentially bounce. The shield walls I showed 

you earlier only went up one story. They did 

not go the whole way up the sides of the 

building. 

 They also -- there was no shielded 

roof. It was just a typical industrial roof, 

and it was possible for radiation to scatter 

off the castings, essentially over the shield, 

bounce off the air, and come back down to the 

ground level. 

 So while the ten-foot thick shield 

walls are very thick, and it is possible 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 

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the shine would be a more significant dose 

than what's transmitted through the shield. 

 We also evaluated the activation of 

the steel castings -- 

 MR. KATZ: Dick, could you maybe 

just speak up or something, I think they're 

having a hard time hearing you on the phone. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay, I can try to get 

a little closer here. 

 MR. KATZ: That's much better. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The external 

dose from the activated castings was also 

evaluated. As I said, these can get activated. 

 Therefore, they're radioactive, and they're 

emitting some radiation after the X-ray shot. 

 The same is true with the uranium 

metal. At that point there is activation. I 

would also include that it is above the 

threshold to cause fission, so there's 

actually fission products associated with this 

uranium. 

 Internal dose from the uranium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

corrosion products, I already mentioned that. 

 Also, since the uranium could be activated or 

have fission products in it, we had to account 

for the internal dose from those. Any time 

you're inhaling the uranium, if it were 

activated or if it had activation or fission 

products in it, you would also be inhaling 

those. And we had to account for that. 

 And the last thing I have on my 

list there was the internal dose from the 

activated castings. And by those I'm talking 

about the steel castings, which was the normal 

operation at the site, the bulk of the 

operation. 

 Their purpose in X-raying these was 

to find internal flaws, such as a void. If 

they found that, they would often try to 

repair a casting rather than recast a huge 

casting. That would involve grinding out that 

void and filling it with welding material. 

And grinding out something that was freshly Xrayed, that could be activated, obviously is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

source of internal exposure. 

 When we modeled the external dose, 

we used Attila and MCNP software. Both are 

software packages that have some advantages. 

One has an advantage over the other, but we 

used a combination of both to try to 

accomplish this task. 

 The betatron buildings were 

modeled, and the dose rate outside the shield 

determined during the operation of the 

betatron, so as I mentioned earlier, it's 

possible the shine is higher than the dose 

that's actually transmitted directly through 

the shield wall. 

 I say possible because we never 

really modeled those separately. We just 

modeled it all in one large chunk. That gave 

us the dose rates outside the shield during 

betatron operations. 

 But again, after the operations, 

the castings could be radioactive, the uranium 

obviously is radioactive before and after, 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 

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

so we also tried to account for that 

externally by essentially -- we tried to do 

this in a bounding way by essentially hitting 

a large piece of steel or uranium. 

 By large piece, I mean something 

thick enough to where the beam could not be 

transmitted through to find a usable -- to 

obtain a usable X-ray, and wide enough to 

encompass the entire beam. 

 The beam of the betatrons are known 

to be fairly narrow compared to typical X-ray 

machines, and so we used a very wide, very 

thick piece to absorb all of the energy from 

the betatron machine to try to bound how much 

activation could be in that piece. 

 For the internal dose, as I 

mentioned earlier, we really had no 

information. What we attempted to do in the 

appendix was to find a bounding estimate. I 

did mention earlier that GSI was not 

responsible for evaluating the uranium, the 

internal structure of it. They were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

responsible for producing a good X-ray film 

and then handing that over to Mallinckrodt. 

 Because of this, there was no 

worker testimony that they ever manipulated 

the uranium. There's no indication that they 

ever did other than handling it to set up the 

shot and transport it to and from. 

 But there was no indication that 

they would have ground out any defects or 

anything like that. In fact, there was quite 

a bit of indication that it was actually a 

sample of uranium that they were X-raying. 

They were called betatron slices. 

 And from what the operators said, 

essentially even the uranium was too dense for 

the betatron to get through. They had to -- 

Mallinckrodt had to take a slice of the 

uranium ingot and X-ray that. So the only 

good explanation for that would be they were 

X-raying a sampling of an ingot for part of 

their QA program. 

 So based on that, it doesn't look 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

like GSI ever did any repair of the uranium 

metal. I'm not sure how they would. But they 

wouldn't have done any kind of abrasive work. 

 It was handling the material, handling the 

uranium to get it in there to X-ray it, 

setting up the X-ray shot, handling it to get 

it back out of there. 

 In order to bound that, we used 

uranium slug models from Battelle-6000. When 

they were producing uranium slugs, they were 

handling uranium metal very similar to what 

GSI did. 

 But the uranium slug also included 

some abrasive work, where they would cut rods 

to smaller pieces, and they would also machine 

the ends of these rods, so we included -- this 

airborne model here would include some cutting 

of uranium metal, some machining of uranium 

metal, and that should produce a higher 

airborne evolution than simply handling the 

uranium metal. 

 But there was plenty of handling 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 

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

slug production, also. That's why we think 

that that is a bounding case. 

 Dose from the uranium fission 

activation products, we did an estimate based 

on the MCNP runs on how much of the material 

would be uranium versus fission products or 

activation products, and we simply increased 

the dose estimate in the appendix to try to 

account for that, again in a bounding fashion. 

 Internal dose from activated steel 

castings, we considered that and evaluated it, 

and we included that in the TBD, or the 

appendix, I'm sorry. 

 I mentioned earlier we did 

eventually get the film badge data that was 

available from Landauer. The data we have 

indicates pretty much what we were told. The 

radiographers in the later years were badged, 

not in the earlier years. It was not all GSI 

employees. It was only those very closely 

associated with the radiography. 

 It appears to be on a weekly -- or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it was on a weekly film badge exchange 

frequency. They reported a reporting level of 

ten millirem, everything ten millirem or more 

was reported as the number, everything less 

than that was simply reported as a capital M, 

meaning monitored. 

 And the vast majority -- that's how 

the vast majority of the readings came out. 

It turns out about 99.7 percent of the badges 

were reported as less than ten millirem on the 

weekly reads. 

 I have a couple example dose 

reconstructions for you. These were put 

together using the appendix. The first 

employee is a GSI employee from 1951 to 1982. 

 His job description was a welder, and the 

CATI indicated he did work in the betatron 

sometimes. 

 Not all the weld repairs were done 

in the betatron building. Sometimes a lot of 

repairs were done outside of the building. 

The casting would be moved out, a number 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 

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

repairs done while they were X-raying 

something else. But this individual indicated 

he was associated with the betatron machine at 

least that time, so we gave him the 

radiographer dose. 

 The appendix does not -- the 

appendix has two different exposure models in 

it for external dose. One is radiographers, 

and one is everybody else, essentially. And 

for radiographers, it's not limited to those 

that have a job title of radiography. It's 

anybody that would be associated with the 

steel castings within a couple hours after 

they were X-rayed. That's to account for the 

weld repairs done on these steel castings. 

 This particular individual, male, 

born in 1923, and diagnosed in 1988 with lung 

cancer. From the Appendix BB, that produces a 

dose of approximately 63 rem external dose, 

almost 29 rem internal dose, and an X-ray dose 

of a little over one rem, for a total that's 

29.981 rem. That combined with 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 

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

demographic information produced a probability 

of causation of 58.91 percent. 

 The next example I got is an 

employee that was working at GSI from 1963 to 

1973. This particular person was a laborer, 

but in reality for radiographers, that's 

actually a very good time frame. That seems 

to be the time frame when they were doing a 

great deal of radiography. The betatron 

machines were working 24/7 around the clock. 

 This individual was a laborer, but 

again, he said he was associated with the 

betatron machines, or some of the castings 

that were X-rayed. He was male, born 1914, 

diagnosed in 1988 with prostate cancer. 

 The model dose from Appendix BB for 

this situation gives him 10.395 rem of 

external dose. The internal dose listed on 

the slide is zero, and that is largely because 

the uranium is the primary internal dose, and 

while it concentrates in the lungs, it will 

not concentrate in a prostate. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 There is actually some dose 

accounted for in there. It just ended up 

being less than one millirem. We also gave 

him the medical X-ray dose of 100 millirem. 

So the total was 10.495 rem. That combined 

with his demographic information produced a 

probability of causation of 11.8 percent. 

 And you've seen slides like this a 

number of times. Essentially the evaluation 

report was -- it used the guidelines in 42 

CFR. It was issued on October 3rd, 2008. 

 Again, you've seen this slide, a 

two-prong test for SEC petitions. The 

evaluation determined that we could -- I'm 

sorry -- two-prong test is whether or not it 

is feasible to estimate the dose, and 

secondly, whether or not there is a reasonable 

likelihood that such radiation dose would have 

endangered the health of the members of the 

class. 

 NIOSH's feasibility from the 

evaluation report found that we could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruct the dose to the members of the 

class, and therefore, a determination of 

health endangerment was not required. 

 And last slide is the summary, 

essentially reiterating that the evaluation 

report decided we could reconstruct all the 

routes of exposure at GSI. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, 

David. 

 We'll take a few minutes for some 

questions. I did want to mention for the 

record, just so that the transcript agrees 

with the slides on the dose reconstruction 

number one, the total rem to the hypothetical 

person was 92.981, not 29. 

 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just so the 

written record or the transcript agrees with 

what we saw. 

 Okay. Wanda Munn, question or 

comment? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Dave, I guess I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- I'm missing something in your presentation 

of internal exposure. On the one hand, I 

heard that the X-rays were not read there. 

They were read at Mallinckrodt. 

 And knowing how production 

activities occur, then it would seem logical 

that any void or inclusion that was identified 

by the X-ray would not immediately be repaired 

at this site. 

 So I'm trying to reconcile in my 

mind why the internal exposure would be based 

on the premise that someone would be grinding 

or working hands-on with this material during 

the very immediate period following its 

activation. Am I missing -- and I know I'm 

missing something, but I'm not sure what I'm 

missing. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, you're probably 

missing it because I didn't explain it well. 

 What I was saying in there, I think 

it's two different subjects is what we're 

talking about. There's internal exposure from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

uranium, but there's also internal exposure 

from grinding on the steel -- the activated 

steel castings that would get activated from 

the betatron X-rays. 

 From everything we're told, it is 

typical for them to try to repair those 

quickly. It depends a great deal on the 

situation whether they're doing a whole lot 

more shots on a very big casting, or whether 

they're doing one shot to see if the repair 

was good, find out it wasn't, and they run in 

there and try to do another quick repair on 

it. 

 It doesn't sound like it was 

unusual on the steel castings for them to 

perform a repair soon after the X-ray. As far 

as the uranium, I was simply trying to point 

out that there was no information that they 

would repair anything with the uranium 

castings. 

 And so the slug production that we 

used should be a bounding situation, because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there was some grinding in that. We were 

simply very limited on the internal exposure 

for uranium at GSI. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I would think 

that would be a very generous bound, but it's 

surprising to me that, as a matter of course, 

the repairs would be attempted without having 

the benefit of the actual X-ray reading from 

Mallinckrodt. But if that's what happened, 

that's what happened. 

 MR. ALLEN: No, I mean, I'm not 

sure I understand your question. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the whole 

purpose in taking the X-ray was to identify 

whether there were voids or inclusions in the 

metal. What's the quality of this casting? 

 MR. ALLEN: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And if you take the 

X-ray, and then send it to essentially the 

other company to evaluate the work that's been 

done, then -- 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I think I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understand. There's a little bit of 

confusion. I mean, GSI's primary work did not 

include this uranium. They made tank turrets, 

they made steel turbines. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I understand. I 

understand. 

 MR. ALLEN: And when I'm talking 

about an immediate repair, I'm talking about 

the steel castings that they produce. As far 

as the uranium, there was no indication that 

any repair was ever done. But it was 

certainly -- all I was trying to say is it was 

certainly not done at GSI if there was. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I guess my question 

really revolves around the timing. It was 

difficult for me to imagine why, if the X-ray 

was going to have to be read before any 

activity occurred, whether that would not 

decrease the amount of radiation significantly 

because of the time lapse from activation to 

the time they handled it. 

 But what I think I'm hearing from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you is they went ahead and -- even though they 

were not actually reading the X-rays, they 

really and truly were responding to what they 

saw on the X-ray, and went ahead and attempted 

the repair before they actually sent it all 

off to Mallinckrodt. 

 MR. ALLEN: No, no. I mean 

Mallinckrodt -- when I was talking about they 

got a good X-ray, and they sent those to 

Mallinckrodt, that was only for the uranium. 

I mean, GSI evaluated the X-rays for the 

steel. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And not for the steel 

at all? 

 MR. ALLEN: No. Mallinckrodt had 

nothing to do with the steel castings. 

 MEMBER MUNN: All right. Fine. 

That explains it. Thank you. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. John 

Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: I have several 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questions just to try to clarify or understand 

what you've done. 

 You mentioned in slide 13 uranium 

fission -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Stay close to the 

mic there, John. 

 MEMBER POSTON: All right. You 

mentioned in slide 13 uranium fission, and I 

was a little bit unsure what you were talking 

about. Are you talking about spontaneous 

fission? 

 MR. ALLEN: No, we're talking 

about. It is possible for a high-energy photon 

to cause a fission in uranium. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Of course. But 

it's in the middle bar range. It's extremely 

small, the probability is. 

 MR. ALLEN: It did not -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Is vanishingly 

small above about eight MeV. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and it did not -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: I've looked at 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 

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in great detail. It goes almost to zero. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and these were 25 

MeV. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: And I mean, we had to 

account for it. It did not make a large 

difference in it, but we did account for it. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. Second 

question, on activation products, you're 

talking about photon activation of steel and 

other things? 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. On slide 15, 

you indicated this worker was a welder that 

might have entered the area. Was he badged? 

 MR. ALLEN: I don't know of any 

laborers or welders that were badged. It was 

pretty much people assigned to what I would 

call the NDA department. I'm not sure if 

that's what they called that department or 

not. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. So in your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evaluation of the dose on the next slide, the 

external dose, what did you do? Assume that 

he got ten millirems a month? 

 MR. ALLEN: We gave him the 

radiography external dose. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well if you have 

90-something percent -- 97 percent were less 

than ten millirem -- 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but again, that's 

the film badge data, and that came about after 

the -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, that's what 

I'm asking. What assumptions did you make to 

cover the period where they weren't badged? 

And obviously, this worker wasn't badged 

during the period that you had badges. So 

what -- I'm trying to understand what you did. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, the details are -

- 

 MEMBER POSTON: I mean, you've got 

63 rem here. That's a huge dose for a worker 

who's not routinely in a radiation area, 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 

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I'd like to know how you did that. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, the assumption on 

the radiographers in the appendix was that 

they're right outside the shielded area during 

the radiography, and they're in on the casting 

almost immediately afterwards. 

 And from our indications, there 

were certainly laborers, possibly folks moving 

the castings, and possibly repairs done in 

that time frame. Essentially running in there 

right afterwards. 

 That was how we modeled it. It was 

an exposure scenario based on how long the 

shot took, how much dosage rate they'd be 

getting outside, versus how much dose they 

would be getting from the casting. And it 

does decay away fairly quickly. 

 But that made the exposure scenario 

important in these situations, how close they 

would be, for how long, what kind of dose 

rate, et cetera. Without getting into the 

details of the appendix, it's hard to go much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

more than that. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I don't 

remember the number, but you said that there 

was 90-something percent of 97 percent of the 

badges were marked with an M, which means that 

they were minimal dose, below minimal 

detectable. Is that correct? 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's correct. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. So if I take 

-- if I assume that each worker wore the badge 

and they got minimal dose of ten millirem, 

that's 520 millirem a year. Well, but there's 

52 weeks in a year, 520 millirem per year, and 

I'm having a heck of a time getting to 63 rem. 

That's my problem. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, the appendix was 

put together as a model that was intended to 

be conservative. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, it sure is. 

 MR. ALLEN: And apparently it was. 

 But there are some other issues that have 

been raised as far as the badges, whether they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were worn all the time, et cetera. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Because you don't 

have any indication this guy worked there for 

120 years. 

 MR. ALLEN: No. 

 MEMBER POSTON: So I just -- it 

doesn't come together. It doesn't make any 

sense to me. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, and 

incidentally, on the Landauer films, the M 

actually stands for minimal, not for 

monitored. It represents lower limit, or they 

were below the limit of detection. 

 Brad Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just wanted to 

know, who processed the film badges for GSI? 

Was it done on site, or was this a 

subcontractor? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Landauer. 

 MR. ALLEN: Landauer. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Landauer did? 

Okay. One of the questions I had was, 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 

 164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

talking with some of the petitioners and stuff 

like that, they were talking about, in the 

earlier years, that some of the film cradles, 

or whatever that they were using, had nickel, 

and aluminum, and some other -- and that they 

actually activated those, too. Did we look 

into --? 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, anything exposed 

to the beam could be activated, but the film 

is generally on the opposite side of the steel 

that's being X-rayed. Essentially the dose to 

the film casing should be similar to what 

would be necessary to expose that film. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN: It's going to be 

considerably less than what the direct beam of 

that betatron is. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I think in 

talking with petitioners, something about that 

the film cradles that they were holding the 

film in actually become activated and they 

didn't know about it for quite a while, 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 

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

then they changed to another type of film 

cradle that was going on there. 

 On the contamination issues and so 

forth like that, there was actually a spread 

outside of the facility -- they actually found 

it up and down the tracks, if I'm not 

mistaken. But from my understanding of what 

you were saying, it was only in the calutron, 

or -- 

 MR. ALLEN: Betatron? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. 

 MR. ALLEN: You're talking about 

the uranium contamination? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: I don't know of any -- 

you're talking about that FUSRAP survey, I 

assume. They found during the FUSRAP survey 

some fixed uranium contamination on the floor 

of the old betatron as well as in a vacuum 

cleaner that was a permanent structure inside 

that betatron building. 

 There are also railroad tracks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

inside. They found it on those. I don't 

remember a story about outside of -- railroad 

tracks outside the building, but -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: My understanding 

was it was outside of the building. The 

tracks that went through, they'd actually 

bring the large castings in there. They'd Xray them in there, they'd grind them, and 

they’d repair them. And then taking it out, 

there really wasn't that much of a cleaning 

process. 

 And I was just wondering if we were 

looking at what spread outside of this 

facility, or -- 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, the way the 

appendix was written was to model it as if 

everybody was inside that betatron with the 

uranium contamination in there which, from 

what you're saying, there would still be the 

source of the uranium contamination. So 

essentially we put everybody at the source for 

the whole 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 

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Other 

questions before we hear from the petitioners? 

 Okay. Then we will proceed with 

Dr. McKeel. Sorry -- Dan? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, yes, sir. Can 

you hear me all right? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We can hear you 

very well. Please. 

 DR. McKEEL: All right. Good 

afternoon to the Board. We've all done a lot 

of work thus far, and we're pleased to be 

speaking about the SEC 105 petition. 

 My credentials include an M.D. 

degree. I've held 36 NIH-funded research 

grants, was on the Medical School faculty at 

Washington University for 31 years, tenured 23 

years, had almost 200 peer-reviewed research 

articles and abstracts, and one book that I 

was the lead author. 

 I was a member of the initial 

Mallinckrodt SEC team. I've been a co-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

petitioner on three SECs, 79 at DOW, 88 at 

Texas City, and this one, and I've made 

numerous comments on the EEOICPA CFR rules and 

Board matters. 

 The general comment that I would 

like to make is that it was, at the outset of 

this SEC, it was distressing that it took too 

long before NIOSH put the petitioner, Ms. 

Coggins, in contact with myself and 

[Identifying information Redacted], given the 

fact that we have been interacting with this 

site for about three years before the SEC was 

finally filed. 

 Thereafter, Ms. Coggins had me 

authorized as a co-petitioner through other 

contacts than NIOSH. 

 I want to say at the outset that 

the petitioners, and particularly advocate 

[Identifying information Redacted], have 

supplied the Board, its contractors, and NIOSH 

with truly massive amounts of GSI dose related 

and worker outreach information that NIOSH had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not and possibly was unable to obtain on its 

own. 

 All of this information has been 

well documented, has been discussed somewhat 

in other venues, and it's just too numerous to 

review here. So I'm going to concentrate on 

matters that just affect this SEC, and NIOSH's 

recommendation to deny the SEC. 

 I have a number of bases on which 

we challenge the NIOSH recommendation to deny 

this SEC. First and overall is that, from the 

very beginning in 2005, [Identifying 

information Redacted] and I have presented 

data that we hoped supported the idea that 

monitoring data was insufficient, and should 

have been the basis alone for awarding an SEC 

-- SEC 83.14 to GSI. 

 Now we are at least four years down 

the road from that point. NIOSH and SC&A 

models have been produced that conflict with 

one another, and I'll go into that in just a 

minute. And then we have Landauer film badge 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

data that conflicts with both of those models. 

 The bottom line is that NIOSH and 

SC&A are still far apart on defining an 

accurate dose for GSI betatron workers, let 

alone the other workers who are treated 

differently for DR purposes. 

 This is despite the presence of 

TBD-6000, its Appendix BB, the SEC 105 

evaluation report by NIOSH, and a white paper 

from NIOSH from November 2008 when the TBD6000 work group last deliberated. It is our 

feeling that this evaluation report should be 

considered in concert with all of these 

tightly-related technical documents. 

 I wanted to review for the Board 

where we are today as far as arriving at an 

overall bounding dose for the GSI workers. 

And I'm referring now to two tables that were 

in the white paper generated by NIOSH in early 

November of 2008. 

 And I'm referring to the last two 

tables in that document, the first of which is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

called Estimated Annual External Exposures of 

Betatron Operators. And since we can't look 

at this together, I'm going to walk you 

through that table. 

 The column headings are Year, 

External Exposure in Roentgens Per Year for 

SC&A and NIOSH, Neutron Dose for SC&A Only, 

and a footnote A, note that neutron doses were 

not assessed by NIOSH. And you might have 

discerned that from Mr. Allen's presentation. 

 And then there were skin doses for 

SC&A and NIOSH, comparing hands and forearms 

and other skin, and the vertical columns were 

broken down by year, 1952 to seven, 1958, 1959 

through `60, and then individually `61, `62, 

`63, `64, `65, and `66, the last year of the 

AEC contract period. 

 And I think overall you can say 

that there were huge differences between the 

SC&A and the NIOSH external exposure estimates 

that we feel cast serious doubt on their 

ability to accurately perform dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction. 

 And moreover, the final table, 

which was the film badge data, shows an even 

higher discrepancy. So for example, the 

external roentgen per year doses were two to 

six times higher for SC&A modeling than for 

NIOSH's. NIOSH doses varied more over time 

than SC&A doses, only SC&A calculated neutron 

doses, as I mentioned, and the SC&A skin doses 

were 1.4 to 10 times higher than NIOSH's, 

depending on the year that was mentioned. 

 So for instance, the peak external 

exposure calculated by SC&A was 13.6 rems per 

year in 1965. By NIOSH, it was 2.1, et 

cetera. 

 The film badge exposures in the 

next table were only .7436 and stayed steady, 

interestingly, by SC&A's calculations from 

1952 to 1965, and then dropped by about 50 

percent in 1966. 

 I should mention that, coincident 

with this data, there are some conflicting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

statements in Appendix BB and in the white 

paper, and actually, in this evaluation report 

whereby NIOSH is attempting to justify its 

extrapolation of film badge data in 1964, 

five, and six, the only that it has back to 

cover the period of 1953 to 1963. 

 And in one place it's stated that 

that 1964 data should be bounding, because 

that's the peak year, whereas the purchase 

order data in Appendix BB, as interpreted by 

Mr. Elliott, states that, in 1962, for 

example, there were 378 uranium hours spent, 

and only 28 in 1964 for the, quote, peak year. 

 So anyway, that data needs to all 

be reconciled. And the key point that I want 

to state just up front is that there really is 

a very large discrepancy. 

 The second point I want to bring to 

the Board's attention is some work from the 

SEC Issues Work Group from 2006 related to an 

SEC that was awarded to the IAAP, Iowa Army 

Ammunition Plant, radiographers on July 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 

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

5th, 2005. 

 The work group, the SEC Issues Work 

Group met on January the 6th, 2006, and they 

developed four criteria for assessing SECs. 

And they named their final conclusions, Key 

Considerations for Board Review, and they 

noted timeliness, fairness, understandable, 

and the fourth one was consistency. 

 And I want to read that, quote, 

consistency in evaluating SEC Petitions, NIOSH 

and the Board must try to be consistent in 

applying relevant criteria to each petition. 

Both NIOSH and the Board must be mindful of 

precedents established in earlier reviews. 

 And I want to read you, therefore, 

the precedent that was established by IAAP, 

and this is directly relevant. Here is the 

transcript from that IAAP radiographer 

discussion by the Board from July 5th, 2005, 

starting on page 178. 

 Dr. Ziemer notes -- and they're 

talking now, the Board is talking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

radiation sources, and what they were at IAAP 

that the radiographers used. And this 

discussion is between the Board and Dr. Neton 

at NIOSH. 

 Page 178, Dr. Ziemer says, I have a 

question. Maybe Larry or Jim can answer it. 

Do we know whether these radiographers were 

using X-ray equipment, or whether they used 

nuclides, you know, industrial? Were they 

sources or X-rays? 

 An unidentified person by the court 

reporter says, sources, I'm sure. 

 Dr. Neton says, I believe they were 

both. So there were some nuclides with 

nuclide-based radiography equipment. I 

believe that one of them may have been a 

cobalt-60 source, if I'm not mistaken. 

 Dr. Ziemer says, so we have limited 

information on what was used for -- I mean, I 

would sort of make some -- raise some 

questions similar to what Mark did. 

 Dr. Neton says, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Dr. Ziemer says, it seems to me 

radiographers would be much easier to scope or 

to envelope than others. 

 Mr. Elliott says, I think it again 

shows how many were done in a given time 

frame. We couldn't put a number on that, 

couldn't quantify that, that amount of the 

source. 

 Dr. Ziemer says, yes, well, you 

know -- 

 And Mr. Elliott says, or which 

source was used, whether it was X-ray or 

cobalt-60. 

 Dr. Ziemer says, well, you know, if 

you tried to do this in a medical facility, 

and I'm looking -- 

 Dr. Anderson says, yes, right. 

 Dr. Ziemer says, you can figure it 

pretty close, what physical -- how many 

exposures you can physically make in a day. I 

mean, there are some limits to it even for 

fast workers. I was actually a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

surprised that we couldn't scope this one out, 

but you're right. We don't know exactly. 

Adjust -- 

 Mr. Elliott says, again, a hard 

body to please. 

 And Dr. Ziemer says, obviously 

there's a variety of issues. The shielding is 

an issue. The distance is, apparently. No 

dosimetry. 

 Well, the IAAP radiographers were 

pretty much in the same situation as were the 

GSI radiographers when all this began in 2005 

and `06. And I think there are some 

conclusions that form a precedent and that 

need to be considered when you're considering 

an SEC for the betatron operators at GSI. 

 For IAAP, NIOSH concluded it could 

not use IAAP radiographer 1955 film badge 

data, which it had, to extrapolate back to the 

April 1948 -- back to the April 1948 to March 

1949 SEC class period. There was, quote, 

apparently no dosimetry for the SEC period, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just as NIOSH stated was the case for GSI 

during all 2005 and `06 when we first began 

interacting about GSI. 

 The same situation exists for GSI. 

 There is badge data only for 1964-`66, but 

none for 1953-`63 of the covered period. In 

one case, NIOSH said it could not extrapolate 

backwards. This time, NIOSH says it can 

extrapolate backwards to the earlier time 

period for GSI. 

 At IAAP, of great interest, an SEC 

was actually awarded when no nuclear weapons 

material was onsite at IAAP, and this is an 

integral part of the transcript. 

 At IAAP, there were four workers 

who were deemed eligible for the SEC for 

radiographers, even though only one had a 

radiographer job description. 

 Number four, the IAAP radiographer 

SEC covered a shorter period than 250 days. 

 And finally, the Board recommended 

the IAAP radiographers' SEC on 7/5/05 without 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

being sure of the exact nature of all the 

onsite radiography sources. This is certainly 

the case now at GSI where the isotopes have 

not yet been well characterized. 

 This was despite the fact that the 

sources at IAAP had been described in an 

earlier worker meeting held a few months 

before on March the 21st `05. 

 And the minutes of that worker 

meeting, page 414, state as follows, and I 

quote, site description. [Identifying 

information Redacted] next asked the groups to 

address the site description section of the 

document. The following issues were 

discussed. 

 There was a flash X-ray. Six 

million mega electron volt, MeV machines were 

missing from the document entirely, one worker 

noted. Explosions in progress were X-rayed 

weekly, sometimes multiple shots, which would 

have been a significant dose. 

 Then they have a couple of 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 

 180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about the number of workers in the building. 

And the final comment is this. One and two 

million electron volt X-ray units were used 

for high explosives, HE. A six MeV X-ray was 

used at the firing site on at least a weekly 

basis to monitor the hydro shots. And that's 

the end of that. 

 The petitioners also challenged the 

idea in OCAS IG-003 that all sources must be 

considered only in the covered production 

period, but not in the residual period as a 

misreading of the EEOICPA as amended statutes. 

This guidance needs to be revised, or at least 

much better justified. 

 The key points for General Steel 

and other sites is that, during the 

operational period, there's no disagreement 

that all sources must be considered in the 

dose calculations. 

 Point number four of their 

challenge is that, on October the 9th, 2008, 

there was a worker outreach meeting sponsored 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

by SC&A, and at that meeting, a consensus was 

reached that the average GSI work week was 65 

hours, versus only 46 hours noted in Appendix 

BB. 

 This fact, that we consider 

established, has not yet been incorporated 

into Appendix BB or into GSI dose 

reconstructions, even though more than 80 

percent of all DRs given to NIOSH had been 

completed. That factor alone could effect the 

total dose for all those workers who have been 

denied. 

 Point number five, McKeel on 

11/10/08 requested to the TBD-6000 Work Group 

that NIOSH furnish him with NIOSH film badge 

dataset characterizations in return for their 

request for him to share his data from GSI 

from Landauer, which he had obtained in 

January of 2007, 14 months before NIOSH 

obtained their dataset, according to Mr. 

Allen, in March of 2008. 

 I said that I would be unable 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 

 182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

turn over my data unilaterally unless there 

was some reciprocity, and some conditions were 

met whereby we could exchange this privacy 

protected information, and also that I was 

able to learn something about the NIOSH 

Landauer dataset, in particular interested in 

the percent of that data that was readable. 

 SC&A admitted that their 1964 data, 

a lot of it was illegible. I wanted to verify 

with the Department -- I can't do this -- I 

wanted NIOSH to verify with Department of 

Labor that all the badge data that they had 

was actually for GSI employees. 

 And then I was particularly 

interested in disclosing the data capture 

process and dates whereby they obtained the 

Landauer data, because my data from Landauer 

has fewer workers represented than NIOSH 

claims it has, which variably, according to 

SC&A and NIOSH, is 89 to 108 names, and in my 

dataset, there are only 52 names, so there's a 

discrepancy 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 

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I also want to mention, again, 

point number six, that there is a lot of 

missing monitoring data. There is the scant 

Landauer external film badge data for photons 

only for `64 to `66. There is no bioassay 

data. And I've already mentioned that the 

peak year for the AEC uranium work was not 

covered by the badge data available. 

 Now one thing that has not been 

widely discussed -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dan, we're going 

to interrupt a minute. We've got some noise -

- somebody's on the line that's competing with 

your -- 

 DR. McKEEL: There's a sawing noise 

on the phone. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, it sounds like 

someone's sharpening a pencil or something. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So others on the 

line, if you're -- other than Dan, if you 

would please mute your phones. Thank you. If 

you do not have a mute button, use star six. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Okay, Dan. Proceed. 

 DR. McKEEL: Thank you very much. 

 I wanted to -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the 

scratching person is still scratching or 

whatever that is. Again, please mute your 

phones if you're not speaking. 

 Go ahead, Dan. Sorry about that. 

 DR. McKEEL: That's okay. 

 I wanted to mention that two 

workers who were both isotope workers who 

underwent the AEC training for isotope workers 

at GSI actually furnished us, and we furnished 

NIOSH, with three film dosimetry reports that 

were headed AEC Annual Reports. 

 And at least one of those was from 

1962, which is earlier than the 1964 date on 

which the Landauer film badge data existed. 

 Now both of those men are alive. 

We know them. They had kept these reports in 

their personal possession until they shared 

them with us. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And what I think is extremely 

important about that is they were not marked 

as being from Landauer, but from another 

corporation that subsequently was purchased by 

Mallinckrodt. And we have those reports, and 

they show external photon doses for the full 

year. 

 So there must have been some 

monitoring that was going on at GSI before 

1964, and neither ourselves, nor NIOSH, nor 

anyone has gotten those data. So there is 

definitely existing but missing data somewhere 

and I just think that needs to be considered. 

 The next section I have is that we 

would like to point out a number of 

uncertainties that we believe are in the 

doses. One is that, of the two betatron 

buildings, the new building built in 1963 was 

located a few feet away from, and adjoined, 

and was connected to building number ten, 

where a lot of work went on. 

 And there have been calculations 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from SC&A, in particular, that the betatron 

radiation, the shine, clearly went through the 

wall. There was a thin ribbon door protecting 

the railroad tracks and leading into building 

ten. And that shine could go through those 

doors and expose the men in building ten. And 

we feel that those workers' doses have not 

been well calculated. 

 We also know that there was a small 

concrete wall roofless building in building 

six, sort of an inner structure that held the 

small cobalt-60 source, and was serviced by an 

overhead crane operator. 

 And that small source was in pretty 

much constant use for X-raying railroad truck 

assemblies, and the badges -- there were many 

badges -- there was an estimate of maybe 300 

workers in that building who were very, you 

know, right around that concrete block 

building, who wore no badges. 

 So there were a group of exposed 

but unmonitored doses, and nobody has made 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 

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

attempt to calculate those doses at all. 

 As a matter of fact, if you listen 

to Mr. Allen, and have read all of these 

documents, there are no dose calculations 

given for the two cobalt-60 sources, the 

iridium-192 source, or for the portable 250 

kVp source. 

 Another uncertainty that I would 

like to correct is that all -- and this is in 

reference to Ms. Munn's question -- the X-rays 

were taken -- the film was exposed at GSI, and 

adjacent -- and really as part of the betatron 

building, and we've visited there and been 

there, was a film development room, an 

exposure room. 

 So the films were taken out of the 

machine and read instantly, and there was a 

class of workers at GSI called film readers. 

And it was their job to look at the film right 

away, even before it was dry, read it, see 

where the big defects were, and, you know, 

sign a checklist that was sent back 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 

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mallinckrodt along with the X-rays themselves. 

 And the final reading was done at 

Mallinckrodt, but the initial reading was done 

on the spot at GSI so that the casting could 

then be sent out to the floor to be 

immediately repaired, fixed, and often sent 

back to the betatron to be re-X-rayed to look 

for defects. So that's a partial answer to 

that. 

 The other point that is not very 

well worked out in the NIOSH document is that 

there were approximately, over time, perhaps a 

hundred betatron operators, but there were 

3,000 workers maximum at the GSI plant, so 

that the betatron workers were a small part of 

the workforce, and there were multiple sources 

there, and many workers were exposed. Some 

were betatron operators who would leave the 

betatron building. We know that they 

routinely left their badges when they exited 

the betatron building. 

 They would go and do work 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 

 189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

building ten or building six. They could be 

re-exposed to shine there, or from the small 

cobalt source in building six. Then they 

would return back to the betatron building. 

So there's that numerical thing. 

 Another fact that is true that 

makes the dose very uncertain is that nobody 

has obtained the AEC licenses for the sealed 

isotopic sources or, you know, for the cobalt60 or the iridium-192 sources. And those 

licenses would obviously help to fully 

characterize the other sources, including 

their strength and so forth, the amount of 

curies. 

 Another point that relates to Dr. 

Poston's comment is, although the NIOSH 

document recognized the fact that steel metal 

castings and uranium can be activated by a 24 

five MeV betatron, they say that the main 

activation product is iron. 

 And there are many studies in the 

literature, including one by Dr. Ziemer 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 

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Guo, on medical X-rays, linear accelerators, 

that show activation of instruments in a 

radiography suite for medicine. 

 [Identifying information Redacted], 

who was a researcher at the Milwaukee School 

of Engineering, testified before the Board and 

shared his data with them, where he was one of 

the first people to show that, not only were 

industrial castings activated by the 

betatrons, very similar to the one at GSI, but 

there were many more activation products than 

iron alone. 

 And he mentioned in his published 

work carbon-11, aluminum-28 and 29, chromium49, chromium-51, manganese-56, iron-52, 

nickel-57, and nickel was definitely a 

component of the film cassettes, cobalt-61, 

copper-61, copper-62, copper-64, zinc-63, 

zinc-65, silver-106, and silver-108, all of 

which he had measured produced by betatron 

irradiated industrial parts. And we've given 

those references previously to the Board, 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 

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH, and to SC&A. 

 The NIOSH evaluation report also 

makes the important assumption that recycled 

uranium was used at GSI in 1953 to `66, 

resulting in the following activation and 

fission transuranic being present onsite. And 

that reference would be TBD-6000, Section 

5.2.1.2. 

 And I quote, therefore, for the 

timeline evaluated in this report, and in the 

absence of definitive information about the 

origin of the processed uranium, it is assumed 

that the uranium contained the following 

contaminants: plutonium-239, neptunium-237, 

technetium-99, thorium-232, and thorium-228, 

end quote. 

 So we asked, were the effects of 

the betatron 24, 25 MeV X-irradiation on these 

orders by SC&A or NIOSH. We think they 

probably were not. 

 And we would note that the 

literature includes studies on such issues, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and we mention one in particular, The Physical 

Review, Volume 77, Issue 3, pages 329-336, of 

exactly that betatron irradiation and its 

effects on those transuranics. 

 Point D, another point is there 

were no real neutron doses measured. 

Proton/neutron ratios were not calculated, 

although in one technical document, it was 

noted that such a study was underway, but it's 

never been reported as far as I'm aware at 

GSI. 

 And we also have information from 

[Identifying information Redacted], who was 

[Identifying information Redacted]’s boss and 

the Dean of the Milwaukee School of 

Engineering. He has testified to us and given 

us information about the large numbers of low 

energy neutrons that are measured when linear 

and circular accelerators activate concrete in 

buildings, such as the old and new betatron 

buildings at GSI. So that's another 

unaccounted for source of exposure to these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

workers. 

 As I've mentioned, five of the six 

source terms at GSI were ignored in Appendix 

BB, and even in the evaluation report, and Mr. 

Allen even just referred to them as some 

isotopes. 

 But specifically, there were two 

betatrons, there were two cobalt-60 sources, 

there was one iridium-192 gamma source, and 

there was a 250 kVp portable X-ray source. 

 Another error, we believe, in the 

dose calculations at GSI is that the Appendix 

BB, and the white paper, and SC&A's review of 

the evaluation report all go into calculations 

about the distance from the betatron cone to 

the external target, whether it was six or 

nine feet, and so forth. 

 But the fact of the matter is, and 

we've provided many photographs of this, lots 

of testimony from the workers, they were 

often, during the setup period and the take 

down period, when they were adjusting these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

activated film cassettes, they were lying on 

the castings, their bodies were in physical 

contact with the casting. 

 So all of those distance 

measurements are really a futile exercise, 

because they moved between the betatron nose 

cone, when it was off, the casting, and as I 

said, were in intimate contact with the 

casting. 

 There is some confusion that 

remains about the basically prohibited 

practice of betatron head flipping is not the 

same as the common practice, although somewhat 

dangerous, of the betatron operators imaging 

large castings that were on railroad cars on 

the railroad tracks within the building, and 

that they were not the same two procedures. 

But anyway, these doses must be accounted for, 

and they really have not been, we believe. 

 Mr. Allen mentioned that there was 

some indication that betatron slices of 

uranium were used, but the official documents, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 195

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the purchase orders, mention, in addition to 

the slices, that Mallinckrodt sent over ingots 

and dingots, which we all know are so large 

that it would be hard for any beam to pass 

through them. But anyway, that's what the 

purchase orders say the purchase orders were 

for. 

 Let's see, we also have one 

affidavit that was shared with SC&A, and we 

assume, therefore, with NIOSH, of a worker, a 

betatron worker, who was accidently exposed in 

the betatron building to the large cobalt-60 

source. And although this may be not to the 

level of exposure that would result from a 

criticality incident, which NIOSH seems to 

insist on, the gentleman was sent to the 

hospital, and according to him, an AEC report 

was generated from that incident. 

 We also have the use in the dose 

calculations that NIOSH came up with, the use 

of surrogate data from other places that 

really belies the fact that Mr. Elliott 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

admitted several times in 2005-6 that GSI, 

because of the use of the betatrons and the 

work they did there with the large castings as 

well as the uranium, was a unique site. 

 Finally, there is confusion 

currently in the dose reconstructions already 

done as to exactly how the NIOSH is applying 

the classes of workers that Mr. Allen 

outlined. That is, there are some workers 

classified as being betatron operators, and as 

Mr. Allen said, it clearly is stated that 

those people should include anyone who is 

exposed to the activated castings within two 

hours of coming out of the betatron. 

 But we know -- and then the other 

group would be the non-betatron operators who 

aren't exposed to the betatron or the castings 

within that two-hour time frame. And 

actually, that's pretty clear. 

 But we also note from individual 

workers who have had claims assessed that 

there is a confusion, and that some of them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are being classed as non-betatron operators 

when, in fact, they worked as film readers in 

the betatron buildings. So we don't believe 

those criteria are being used in the way that 

Appendix BB indicates they should be. 

 The other thing I want to mention 

is that it's pretty clear that a whole bunch 

of purchase orders from Mallinckrodt and AEC 

are missing. And that would be particularly 

for the years 1953 up through 1957, when the 

old betatron was operating, and when even 

Mallinckrodt, the original Mallinckrodt 

Destrehan Matrix, indicates that betatron 

slices were made and sent over to GSI in 1953. 

 So those purchase orders are 

missing, and that introduces another 

uncertainty into the equation. 

 We also note that GSI produced 

other things for Mallinckrodt than just Xraying uranium. And we have one purchase 

order, for instance, from Weldon Spring in 

1962 that specifies piston rods per MCW Sketch 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

360416. 

 And it mentions the weight and 50-

pound material was austenitic manganese steel, 

et cetera, and patterned per MCW sketch. So 

GSI was doing other work for Mallinckrodt 

Downtown and probably for Weldon Spring as 

well. 

 And then we need to mention that 

nobody has recovered the large amounts of 

missing betatron shot records, which is the 

log sheet of exposures, exposure times tied to 

particular castings. None of the X-ray film 

reports that were sent back to Mallinckrodt or 

the checklists showing that the X-rays were 

actually taken have been recovered. 

 None of the uranium shipping 

manifests that would absolutely prove how much 

uranium was shipped back and forth to 

Mallinckrodt, none of those have also ever 

been captured. 

 So that's the dose uncertainty 

measures that we want to mention. And we 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 

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

getting there to the end fortunately. 

 There are a number of still 

unresolved findings between SC&A, NIOSH, and 

the Board on GSI technical reports. Appendix 

BB has 13 SC&A findings, the white paper about 

seven. And hopefully if the SEC evaluation 

report is reviewed by SC&A, there will be some 

additional findings to be resolved. 

 There is an additional matter to be 

resolved, which is [Identifying information 

Redacted]'s statement, that film badges were 

linear to one MeV photon but were not linear 

for betatron 24/25 MeV photons. 

 And as I will say in a minute, Mr. 

Neton admits that that needs to be 

investigated. Dr. Neton, in fact, has pledged 

to do so. 

 Finally, I'd like to mention that 

the TBD-6000 Appendix BB Work Group met on 

November the 10th and certainly discussed many 

of these documents, not the SEC evaluation 

report. But obviously there's much more work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that needs to be done on resolving the 

outstanding issues. 

 On November the 10th, Dr. Neton 

gave a very useful summary of things that 

needed to be done to resolve this SEC from 

NIOSH's point of view. And from the 

transcript of that work group, I'll mention 

the following: 

 He said we need to develop dose 

calculations for the two cobalt-60 and the 

iridium-1992 gamma sources, the 250 kVp X-ray 

machine, and that appears on pages 322, 329. 

 He said maybe we need to go back 

and readdress some of those unmonitored 

exposures. We haven't done that yet, at least 

to anybody's satisfaction I can tell so far. 

So key in on the cobalt-60 and the 250 

millicurie, at least somehow address the 250 

kVp and the iridium-192, either using what 

[Identifying information Redacted] has 

provided and other information. 

 And then he went on to say that 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 

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

need to review the high doses that are in the 

McKeel/Landauer datasets that apparently NIOSH 

and SC&A have not identified. One would be a 

reading from 1969 of an isotope operator at 

GSI who got 38 rems in one year. 

 We need to, according to Dr. Neton 

and I agree, we need to determine the 

implications of workers not always wearing 

film badges outside of the betatron 

facilities. 

 And finally Dr. Neton says, and I 

agree, that we need to resolve issues 

regarding film sufficiency to accurately 

capture betatron photon doses. 

 So, therefore, the petitioners 

request the Board take several actions. 

 One, we ask that the Board task 

SC&A to review the NIOSH SC&A evaluation 

report. In the response to the November white 

paper on page eight, SC&A states, some of 

these issues are discussed in the SEC Petition 

Evaluation Report for GSI, and they cite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Buker, et al, 2008, we read but did not 

formally review this report. 

 Second, we ask that the work group 

on TBD-6000 complete the NIOSH SC&A dispute 

resolution process to include Dr. Neton's 

answers to carry over from that November the 

10th work group meeting, to bound the doses 

for the two cobalt-60 and the iridium-192 and 

250 kVp sources, to establish the film 

sensitivity as being accurate to betatron high 

MeV radiation, and to resolve discrepancies 

between my and the Landauer GSI film badge 

datasets. 

 Hopefully, the work group will 

eventually make a recommendation to the full 

Board. The petitioners strongly believe the 

correct recommendation will be to overturn 

NIOSH recommendation to deny SEC 105. 

 We base our belief on the 

timeliness considerations, on the missing 1953 

to `63 purchase orders and film badge data, no 

bioassay or real neutron data, consistency 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mandate from the January 2006 SEC Issues Work 

Group regarding the IAAP radiographers when an 

SEC was awarded when no nuclear weapons were 

on site from 1948 in April to March of `49, 

and the widely discrepant Landauer, NIOSH, and 

SC&A film badge and computer modeling dose 

estimates at GSI. 

 And we also point to the large 

amount of probably difficult to resolve or 

maybe irresolvable technical issues that came 

into focus at the November 2008 TBD-6000 Work 

Group meeting. 

 I thank the Board for listening and 

I certainly appreciate their time and efforts 

on this matter. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much, Dr. McKeel. 

 I want to see if Patricia Coggins 

is still on the line. Patricia, are you 

there? 

 Patricia, if you have muted your 

phone to need to un-mute it. We're 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 

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hearing you if you are responding. 

 DR. McKEEL: Patricia, are you 

there? 

 MS. COGGINS: Hello? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Patricia, 

is that you? 

 MS. COGGINS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Do you 

have some additional comments for us this 

afternoon? 

 MS. COGGINS: I think Dan covered 

it quite well. Just one thing that I wanted 

to add, I was reading through some literature 

that I found online and I came across this 

draft and it is really ironic that Dr. McKeel 

was talking about uncertainties. 

 This is the possible implications 

of draft for the ICRP recommendations, 2005. 

And it is the Nuclear Energy Agency. But 

basically it deals with uncertainties and they 

do have to -- it's on page 13 of the draft -- 

but that they have to be taken into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

consideration for the dose models or the 

management, the assessment, require use of 

assumptions, this sort of thing. 

 And another question I suppose I 

have is, is it possible that I could be in the 

same room and receive the same dose as you but 

it effect me differently? Is that an 

uncertainty? You know I wonder about things 

like this? Is my immune system maybe 

different than yours? Am I more susceptible 

due to my DNA? 

 That's why I have problems with the 

dose reconstruction. It's almost like it is 

all just black and white. And that we aren't 

all different. 

 Another part of that draft under 

the exclusions page is -- it was at B at the 

bottom. And it says in terms of exclusion of 

natural sources based on specific activity, it 

was agreed that it is hard to control the 

health impact of radionuclides by only 

considering the specific activity. 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 

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

different situations, the same specific 

activity could lead to very different doses. 

 So these kinds of things when I 

read it, I just -- you know without proper -- 

without enough data, without correct 

monitoring, I don't know how they come to this 

conclusion, you know? 

 So that's just basically all I had 

to say. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Thank 

you. 

 MS. COGGINS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We appreciate 

your comments as well. 

 Board members, one thing is evident 

on this particular case, and as you know, we 

do have a work group that has been dealing 

with TBD-6000, 6001, which includes -- and 

Appendix BB, which covers General Steel 

Industries. And SC&A has been working with us 

on this. 

 However, we do not have a tasking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for SC&A specifically on reviewing the 

evaluation report. It would be in order for 

us to formally task SC&A to do that. And, in 

fact, is the next logical step in terms of 

where that work group has to go in order to 

address many of these issues that have arisen 

both in terms of the questions the Board has 

asked of NIOSH and the issues raised by the 

petitioners. 

 So I would like to entertain a 

motion to task SC&A to begin the review of the 

evaluation report. If the Board is in 

agreement with that, I would entertain such a 

motion. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: How about if I 

second it? You've already -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The Chair doesn't 

make motions. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I'd like to 

make a motion that we task SC&A to look into 

this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tasking is to ask SC&A to review the -- or to 

evaluate the review -- let's get the right 

words here -- review the review. And they 

will work with -- they would then work with 

the work group and the normal process would 

ensue to resolve this. 

 There are issues on TBD-6000 yet 

and that matrix has been developed. And there 

are some open issues on that as well as on the 

Appendix BB. So this would be an extension 

really of that work. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I'll second that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the motion 

has been seconded. 

 Any discussion on the motion? 

 All in favor just raise your hands 

quickly. 

 Okay, and Mike, if you're on the 

phone -- 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and Mike votes 

yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The motion carries. And we 

officially are tasking then SC&A to formally 

begin that particular part of the process. 

 Also, the -- well, I guess I'll 

report this later but we do have a proposed 

date for the next meeting of that group. And 

I'll talk about that when we report on the 

work groups later. 

 Any other discussion on this 

particular item right at the moment before our 

break? Or questions for either the 

petitioners or for NIOSH? 

 MS. DONEGAN: Yes, I have a 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, is this 

Patricia? 

 MS. DONEGAN: No, this is Anita 

Donegan. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Anita, I'll 

allow the question although normally this is 

not the public comment period. But I will 

allow the question. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. DONEGAN: Okay. I had -- I was 

not initially able to secure my father's 

medical records before NIOSH did their dose 

reconstruction. And the Department of Labor 

reviewed them. 

 And I don't think that they were 

sufficient. I don't think that their staff or 

whoever reviewed it, you know, reviewed it 

correctly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. What I'm 

going to suggest, if you would -- 

 MS. DONEGAN: He worked there for 

22 years. He's been dead 35 years. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Since this 

Board cannot deal with individual cases, I'm 

going to ask that once we take our break here 

and go offline, that you leave a contact 

number with our designated federal official so 

he can get you in touch with the proper person 

to deal with your particular issue if that is 

all right. 

 So stay on the line for just 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 

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

moment. 

 MS. DONEGAN: All right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we're going 

to recess here. We will recess then for 15 

minutes. And then we need to come back 

shortly after three. We're scheduled to 

address the next petition on the Hood 

Building. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 2:56 p.m., and resumed at 3:14 

p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are ready to 

resume. We are going to consider now an SEC 

Petition, an 83.14 Petition, which is 

designated as the Hood Building. And we'll 

learn a little bit more about where the Hood 

Building is. 

 And the presenter on that is Dr. 

Glover. Sam, welcome back to the podium. And 

he will present the evaluation report from 

NIOSH. 

 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Am I close enough to this mic? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, get as close 

as you can. 

 DR. GLOVER: Get as close as I can. 

It makes it hard because we're trying to look 

at the report. So we'll do the best we can. 

 This is actually something we 

started over a year ago. And it was started 

out as an MIT 83.14. And as we presented 

that, it was actually pulled back because of 

the site definition. And we're going to 

explain the nuances of that. 

 There may be some descriptions and 

some comments by the Senators from the state. 

 So I hope to provide some response and 

understanding of why we had to do what we did. 

 So this is an 83.14 petition. It 

was submitted by an EEOICPA claimant whose 

dose reconstruction could not be completed by 

NIOSH due to sufficient dosimetry-related 

information. The claimant was employed by MIT 

during the DOE period as a machinist. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I want to provide a little bit of 

background about MIT because the Hood Building 

starts in 1946 but it hit the ground running 

because its activities were transferred from 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

 So MIT begins as an AWE with the 

formation of the Manhattan Engineering 

District in 1942. They had a diverse mission, 

including uranium extraction, which began in 

`42 and expanded in July of `44. 

 The work included melting casting 

uranium metals, extracting uranium from lowgrade ores, and they worked with a wide range 

of enriched uranium for the production of 

uranium and uranium alloys. 

 One of the things that they were 

particularly involved with was beryllium 

crucible development. And that's where Los 

Alamos got their crucibles to actually cast 

the first plutonium materials. 

 That beryllium activity is what 

drove for the consolidation of all those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

activities at MIT to be put offsite in a 

single facility known as the Hood Building. 

So they actually were getting beryllium, the 

first occupational beryllium diseases. 

 So this facility was a four-story 

facility known as the Hood Building. The AEC 

purchased a former ice cream plant and 

warehouse from the Hood Milk Company located 

at 155 Massachusetts Avenue. 

 Now as we talk about this site 

description, memos indicated by NIOSH indicate 

that the earliest the move could have occurred 

was May 9th, 1946. And so that's why we start 

this class definition as of May 9th, 1946. 

 And the move was documented to be 

completed as of August 14th, 1946. All MIT 

work for the AEC was consolidated into the 

Hood Building in 1946. 

 So although the Hood Building is 

included in the DOE facility listing for MIT, 

the Department of Labor considers this a 

separate designated facility from 1946 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 

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

1963. And I provided a copy of the description 

by DOL what the designated facility is. 

 MIT operated that facility from `46 

to `54 at which time it ceased to operate it 

and a new company known as Nuclear Metals, 

Incorporation assumed responsibility for the 

Hood facility. They left the building in 1958 

at which point the Hood Building then was 

demolished in 1963. 

 So as I mentioned, the actual 

facility description, a facility is actually a 

physical entity so in this case, the Hood 

Building is not part of MIT. 

 The original SEC we were going to 

put forward was based on MIT. And so, 

therefore, it mixed two separate facilities. 

We had to pull that back. 

 We followed up with multiple 

organizations to get better documentation to 

understand this transformation and how 

different things occurred for the record, the 

information. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We conducted interviews with 16 

former workers of the Hood facility with 

employment starting all the way back to 1947. 

 And they were -- their patience -- they were 

just outstanding in giving us information and 

being willing to show us and take time, really 

just amazing for them to show up. 

 We conducted certainly a lot of 

additional data captures, making sure we 

understood as best as we possibly could all of 

the activities that occurred in the Hood 

facility. This has really provided only -- I 

don't certainly expect you to read this. It's 

in the packet. It also describes the website 

where you can read the facility as it exists 

now. There are still some things that need to 

be resolved and we'll talk about those. 

 So as we talk about the Hood 

facility, diverse activities occurred. They 

dealt with metallurgical work involving 

uranium, uranium alloys, as well as thorium. 

They extruded uranium, highly enriched uranium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as well. They worked with thorium powder and 

alloy preparations. 

 They did enriched uranium work, 

again including highly enriched uranium. They 

conducted research on a wide range of tracers 

and radioactive materials, looking at 

activation of fission products and organic 

properties, a variety of standard researchtype activities -- that main radiological -- 

that big metallurgical research in thorium and 

highly enriched uranium, however, is the main 

concern. 

 As we talk about this -- that class 

definition, if you go to the cases we have 

now, there are currently no cases listed as 

the Hood Building. It is something that has 

to be developed -- the Department of Labor has 

to put people in a particular facility. 

 Right now they are either listed as 

MIT from `46 to `54 or Nuclear Metals, Inc., 

from `54 to `58, at which time they occupied 

the Hood facility. So these are things 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 

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Department of Labor will have to work out as 

we go forward with this class. 

 So they need to review the MIT and 

the NMI cases to determine their eligibility 

in the Hood Building. Currently MIT also does 

not have a residual contamination period so 

that's something -- that is an action that is 

going to be in our shop for dealing with the 

MIT period. So those activities that occurred 

in a separate facility, not part of this Hood 

Building description, but as part of the MIT 

description. 

 There is also a separate facility 

known as the 224 Albany Street. And it was 

basically an outgrowth. 

 When the business was going so 

well, about a quarter mile down the road, they 

rented a facility. That also needs to be 

vetted by the Department of Labor whether 

that's part of the Hood Building or whether it 

is a separate entity. 

 But the activities were similar, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were part of the Hood Building. The 

operations would be like Los Alamos renting a 

facility offsite. 

 So information related to the 

radiation exposures during the DOE period -- 

so we have operations involving uranium ore, 

metals, enriched uranium, and thorium. We 

feel there is insufficient information to 

determine the source term or complete range of 

chemical forms of these materials. 

 External sources of radiation 

include beta and photon sources primarily from 

uranium and thorium progeny and from X-ray 

radiographing testing. Many operations and 

sources of internal and external dose existed 

throughout the Hood facility -- Hood Building 

I should say. 

 So available information for dose 

reconstruction, we have limited documentation 

on job titles or assignments. We do have some 

documented radionuclides, including uranium, 

natural and highly enriched, thorium in 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 

 220

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

variety of chemical forms and for many 

different activities, as well as other fission 

products. 

 So internal monitoring data, some 

claims had uranium urinalysis for natural 

uranium but these were very limited and only 

for a few years. We found a few results of 

uranium by activity in 1957 and 1958. And 

these ranged up to 200 dpm. This would have 

been associated with highly enriched uranium 

results. So they clearly were having some 

fairly high exposures. 

 No thorium or fission product 

bioassay monitoring is available. 

 External monitoring data, based on 

interviews, essentially everyone at the 

facility was issued a badge. However, we've 

only received results -- some results from 

1947 and 1951 through `58. These are very 

limited. We certainly do not have all of the 

data. 

 So feasibility of internal dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction. NIOSH has obtained uranium 

bioassay and breathing zone samples for a 

handful of workers in the Hood Building during 

a few years. Doses from highly enriched 

uranium and thorium operations cannot be 

reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. Based 

on that, health endangerment determination is 

required. 

 So summarizing, we feel that using 

existing methods, that natural could be 

evaluated for internal dosimetry but not 

enriched uranium or thorium. For external, we 

don't have all the data but we would certainly 

use whatever data is available. In medical Xrays, we would use our standard approaches. 

 So for heath endangerment, the 

evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates 

that some workers in the class may have 

accumulated chronic radiation exposures 

through intakes of radionuclides and direct 

exposure to radioactive materials. 

 Consequently, NIOSH is specifying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 222

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that health may have been endangered for those 

workers covered by this evaluation who were 

employed for a number of work days aggregating 

at least 250 work days within the parameters 

established for this class or in combination 

with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

 So dose reconstruction for the Hood 

Building, given the lack of complete personal 

external monitoring records, workplace 

monitoring records, and incomplete source-term 

information, it is not feasible to completely 

reconstruct all external or internal doses. 

 For non-presumptive cancer claims, 

NIOSH will use individual external and 

internal monitoring data that are available to 

complete dose reconstructions. NIOSH will 

also reconstruct internal dose for natural 

uranium metal handling operations using 

existing methods such as TBD-6000. 

 NIOSH will reconstruct medical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doses using the complex-wide TBD for 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-rays, 

which you guys are very familiar with. 

 So our recommendation for the 

period May 9th, 1946 through December 31st, 

1963, NIOSH finds that radiation dose cannot 

be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy, 

feasibility, no, and we believe there is a 

health endangerment. 

 Our proposed class includes all 

employees of the DOE, its predecessor 

agencies, and their contractors and 

subcontractors who worked in the Hood Building 

in Cambridge, Massachusetts, from May 9th, 

1946 through December 31st, 1963 -- I think we 

read this. I won't read that all the way 

through. 

 I'll take any questions. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much, Sam. 

 This is another one where there 

appears to be a gap between the designated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

years -- I guess it's DOL-designated years or 

DOE, whichever. And the years covered by the 

petition, that is the petition goes to `63 but 

the facility -- let's see, looking at your 

description, I think it went to `68, was it? 

 DR. GLOVER: It was destroyed in 

`63. It was demolished. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, it was 

demolished in `63. 

 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess I read 

this wrong. 

 DR. GLOVER: So for the entire 

period of -- the Department of Labor has 

established the Hood facility -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So they do 

coincide. I guess I read that wrong. 

 Okay, thank you. 

 Wanda Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Do we have any idea 

who was responsible for all those badges? Was 

it a part of the MIT operation? I think it is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a shame they all just disappeared into the 

dust somewhere. But I'm wondering who was 

responsible for them originally. Do we even 

know? 

 DR. GLOVER: Through the worker 

interviews, I believe we do know. I believe 

that was Landauer. MIT, they are looking at 

some of their records to try to reconstruct 

that. 

 During our worker interviews, they 

actually, unbelievably remembered the task 

number that was associated with this -- the 

guys from 1947 remembered this. And so using 

that information, that's how MIT ties their 

dosimetry records with what task you were 

working on. And so they are looking at those 

to make sure that we use as much available 

information as we can. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's a shame they're 

not there. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, I now see 

where -- what gap I was looking at. You have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the MIT designation for the period `46 to `54. 

You have the NMI designation from `54 to `58. 

 Okay. 

 Now I'm really asking about what is 

the status after `58 up to `63. Did somebody 

else operate that or own that building? 

 DR. GLOVER: To the best of our 

knowledge, it was unoccupied. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Unoccupied. 

 DR. GLOVER: But that is to the 

best -- we certainly have not been able to 

verify that. That was from a news clipping. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 Okay, Jim, you have a comment? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: The other gap would 

be the years prior to 1946? 

 DR. GLOVER: The Hood Building was 

not being used. But there was activity at MIT 

and I believe that is what was covered in the 

original evaluation report. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think I've 

heard a complete explanation for what's going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on there -- sort of what's happened to the MIT 

years. 

 DR. GLOVER: It would, of course, 

have to be a separate SEC evaluation. We 

would have to have a separate class definition 

because it is a separate facility. So by law, 

I can't -- because they're separate. 

 However we have no claims at MIT. 

And so it would create a situation where I 

create an SEC -- or not -- that we recommend 

an SEC for a facility with no claims. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: One minor 

clarification. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hold off a 

second, they're having trouble hearing on the 

phone. 

 MR. KATZ: Could you please just 

try to speak a little closer to the mic if 

possible? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: One minor 

clarification is it is not that we don't have 

any claims. We don't have any claims with 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 

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

presumptive cancer at this time. However, we 

are reviewing additional things with those 

claims as well to see if things like -- that 

happened -- that occurred with Tyson Valley 

may occur at this facility as well. 

 But we are looking at that. And -- 

but as Sam mentioned, we have no claims of 

presumptive cancers. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Ask if everyone 

on the phone is having trouble. 

 MR. KATZ: Is everyone on the phone 

having difficulty hearing? 

 This is not Blockson. It's the 

Hood Building. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: MIT. 

 MR. KATZ: MIT. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Blockson is 

at four o'clock local time here, which would 

be six o'clock East Coast time and five 

Central. 

 Okay, go ahead. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Just a related 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 229

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

question. The other facility that was used, 

what is the status of that in terms of its 

designation? 

 DR. GLOVER: We're going to provide 

all the information that we have to the 

Department of Labor who can choose to include 

that under the Hood facility description. But 

it will be based on their determination. 

 Right now though it is a separate 

entity. It is separate from the actual 

facility. So at this time, it's not part of 

this designation. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I just ask 

procedurally what -- how this works in terms 

of the SEC recommendation that we make? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, are you 

asking -- on this petition if we, for example 

-- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Are you -- the way 

I just heard it described, it sounded as if 

this petition would then somehow encompass 

that other area. Or would we need a new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

petition? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It would not 

encompass the other campus area, right Sam? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: No, I'm talking 

about the neighboring building, not the MIT. 

 DR. GLOVER: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, the 

neighboring, oh. 

 DR. NETON: I think I can answer 

that question. The Hood Building, as it 

currently stands is a single stand-alone 

facility but there is this other facility -- 

the Albany Street facility or whatever it is 

called -- currently that has no status at all 

as an AWE. 

 If the Department of Labor added as 

part of the Hood Building as a covered 

facility, it would just be subsumed into that 

facility definition. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, but -- 

 DR. NETON: It would not require 

another SEC Petition. It would be -- that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the facility. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, but our 

definition is the Hood Building. 

 DR. NETON: Right. The Hood -- it 

would probably stay the Hood Building and 

other -- much like what happened at Chapman 

Valve. Chapman Value now includes that other 

-- remember that other -- the Dean Street 

facility was added. And they didn't change 

the Chapman Valve designation. They just 

added Dean Street to the Chapman Valve 

coverage. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, but what 

happens to what we're approving as an SEC? 

The class definition that we're basically 

approving, would that automatically encompass 

something that's -- this refers to the Hood 

Building. It wouldn't refer to the -- 

necessarily to the neighboring building. I 

mean this is sort of an odd -- 

 DR. NETON: Well -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- I understand why 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you did it but -- 

 DR. NETON: -- well, what's odder 

is currently there are no covered cases -- 

covered claims under this definition. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, that was one 

of my other questions. 

 DR. NETON: That's a different 

issue. But, you know, you raise a good 

question. I'm not certain because we went 

through the Dean Street facility at Chapman 

and we went to great pains to determine was 

there really covered exposure at that 

additional portion. But -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I'm just worried 

about our recommendation then getting -- 

 DR. NETON: Well, I suspect if the 

recommendation covered the Hood Building and 

the address was provided, then it would be 

okay. I don't know. I guess I really can't 

answer what happens if the Albany facility was 

added then. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, 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 

 233

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

raise a related question. In principle, we 

don't know what went on at the other building. 

 We don't know, for example, if you could, in 

fact, construct doses there. Perhaps you 

would find out you had good information. I'm 

just hypothesizing. 

 But we don't know the status of the 

workers in the other building so to 

automatically add it just because it is an 

expansion of this program seems to me to have 

some pitfalls. 

 DR. NETON: I agree, yes. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I mean not only 

what you say but we really, as a Board, we 

have not considered that building. It would 

be one thing if we had the information and DOL 

was just - 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- had to make a 

decision -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's 

basically the point I was 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 

 234

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, yes, right, 

right. 

 DR. GLOVER: You raise a good 

point. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And then the other 

question I have, while you're -- don't go 

away, Jim. 

 DR. NETON: Don't go away? 

 (Laughter.) 

 MEMBER MELIUS: He is anyway. 

 DR. GLOVER: I would briefly speak 

to that if you'd like. The 224, we did 

discuss some of it in the report. We did 

research that. They did use radioactive 

materials. And people were transient back and 

forth. It was the overflow facility. 

 They were doing similar works, 

including extruding uranium at that facility. 

 They were storing uranium rods and all the 

material. And I understand it is a 

complexity. And I didn't know how else to 

address 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 

 235

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I think you 

just helped a lot. Because I think we just 

need to make sure we have on the record some 

consideration of that and some information on 

that particular building. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So 

everything you said about the, quote, Hood 

Building, actually applied to both is what 

you're telling us. 

 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's an 

important point. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. Can I ask a 

follow-up question? It was why are we 

considering this when we don't have a case? I 

mean -- 

 DR. GLOVER: Those individuals did 

work -- I mean I can't say they -- the DOL 

puts people in places. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay, okay. 

 DR. GLOVER: But they were clearly 

Hood facility workers. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 236

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Yes. This is just 

clearly an artifact of the way this situation 

evolved. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Okay. But 

you just sounded more doubtful than skeptical. 

It was like well, we don't have any. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: And isn't the concern 

with the other building -- isn't the concern 

with the other building the Department of 

Labor's concern not ours? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it is. The 

point I was trying to make is if that building 

were tacked on after the fact and we had not 

evaluated -- and Sam has assured me now that 

we have -- but had we not evaluated what went 

on there, it would be a little awkward to say 

that we had properly addressed our 

responsibility to assure that whatever work 

went on there was eligible for the SEC. That 

was the only point I was making. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it just seems 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to me that the whole issue is the Department 

of Labor's issue and not really one for us. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think at 

this point, it is, yes. 

 Other comments or questions? 

 Thank you, Sam. 

 I don't think we have a petitioner 

for this but we do have a comment, I believe, 

from Sharon Block of -- oh, Jason, you're 

going to read a letter first. And then we'll 

hear from Sharon. Thank you. 

 MR. BROEHM: Yes, Sharon asked me 

to read this letter from Senators Edward 

Kennedy and John Kerry from Massachusetts. 

It's actually written to Dr. Christine Branche 

as Acting Director of NIOSH but we'd like to 

read it into the record here to get the issues 

on the record: 

Dear Dr. Branche: 

 We're writing to bring your 

attention to a Special Exposure Cohort 

Petition filed on behalf of former employees 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

of Cambridge, Massachusetts, pursuant to the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act. 

 MIT was involved in radiological 

operations from the 1940's through the 1960's 

in a number of different capacities. During 

this time, its employees were exposed to 

radiation materials in their work. 

 On February 4, NIOSH issued an SEC 

Petition Evaluation Report on the MIT SEC 

Petition. The report recommends approving the 

addition to the Special Exposure Cohort of all 

the MIT employees who worked at the Hood 

Building, 155 Massachusetts Avenue, from May 

9, 1946 through December 31, 1963. The report 

will be presented to the Advisory Board on 

Radiation Worker Health at the Board's 

February 18, 2009 meeting. 

 We support the recommendation by 

NIOSH to add the workers to the cohort, but we 

are concerned that the scope of NIOSH'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 

 239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

recommendation is too narrow and leaves out 

workers who deserve to be included. Our 

concern relates to both the time period and 

locations covered. Specifically, NIOSH's 

recommendation does not include MIT employees 

who performed uranium extraction studies from 

1942 to 1946 or who conducted research and 

testing on processes for melting and casting 

uranium metal from 1944 to 1946. In addition, 

NIOSH's recommendation does not include 

workers at the facility located at 224 Albany 

Street, adjacent to the Hood Building. The 

NIOSH report confirms that there were 

radiological activities during the 1942 to 

1946 time period and at the 224 Albany Street 

facility, but it gives no explanation why 

workers employed during this time or at this 

location were excluded from the 

recommendation. 

 When Congress enacted EEOICPA, it 

was our intent to compensate sick workers for 

their extraordinary sacrifice to the nation'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 

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

nuclear weapons program. The Act's goals can 

be met only if SEC Petitions are processed 

fairly and expeditiously. Narrowly construing 

the class of workers covered by the Cohort 

does not accomplish this goal. Consequently, 

we would appreciate an explanation of the 

decision by NIOSH to exclude employees who 

worked during the 1942-1946 time period or at 

the 224 Albany Street location from its 

definition of the scope of the MIT Special 

Exposure Cohort Petition. 

 Thank you for your consideration of 

this issue. If you have any questions or 

additional information to provide, please 

contact Sharon Block in Senator Kennedy's 

office at 202-224-5441. 

 With respect and appreciation, 

 Sincerely, 

 Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Jason. 

And am I correct in assuming that Dr. Branche 

or her staff will be replying to that letter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

since it's not really directed to the Board 

per se? Is that correct? 

 Thank you. 

 Then we'll hear from Sharon Block, 

who is on Senator Kennedy's staff. Sharon, 

are you one the line? 

 MS. BLOCK: I am, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

Please proceed. 

 MS. BLOCK: Thank you. And, you 

know, I think the letter, you know, basically 

expresses Senator Kennedy's and Senator 

Kerry's concerns. And, you know, I want to 

thank the Board for looking into these issues. 

 And, you know, Senator Kennedy's 

concern always is that the process is made as 

easy and expeditious as possible for his 

constituents and for all the former energy 

workers. 

 And so we just appreciate the 

Board's consideration of this petition in a 

way that won't require other workers to 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 

 242

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to come back and file separate petitions or 

start this process over again. And just to be 

sure that this one is proceeding in a way that 

covers, you know, as many workers as are 

eligible and deserve to be covered. 

 So anyway, we appreciate your time 

and attention to this. And look forward to 

getting Dr. Branche's answer to the letter. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much for that input as well. 

 The Chair is trying to determine 

what we can use. We want to keep the Blockson 

discussion at a time certain at four o'clock. 

 We do have -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: We need to finish 

this up. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, we need to 

finish this, yes. I'm -- we're so streamlined 

that I thought we had already done what we're 

thinking about doing. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I had that quick 

nap. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

 Well, the Chair will allow us to 

finish, I think, in all good conscience, it 

would be good. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: That will keep us 

alert if we could just move things around 

enough. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, this 

time of day, you know, it's six o'clock in 

Lafayette so that's my excuse and I'm sticking 

to it. 

 (Laughter.) 

 Okay. Here we go. Further 

discussion on the Hood Building SEC -- Brad 

Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just 

questioning what was going on from `42 to `46? 

What -- was that building in the process or 

what? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, can you 

answer that question? 

 DR. GLOVER: Yes, the Hood facility 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

did not become part of the process until 1946. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, hold on just 

a minute. We got some talking on the line. 

If you're on the phone line, would you please 

mute your phones? Thank you. 

 Sam? 

 DR. GLOVER: So the Hood facility 

was basically a milk company, which the AEC 

purchased. So it had not activities nuclear 

related to this AEC stuff until 1946. All the 

work, it was done at the MIT campus. And then 

it was shifted to the Hood Building as of May 

9th, 1946. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So we're 

separating out just the Hood Building. I 

guess I wanted to make sure - how are we not 

missing the work that was done at MIT? I 

guess the campus -- I realize there's no 

petitions or whatever but so that we don't 

have to revisit this. 

 DR. GLOVER: Unfortunately because 

one is an atomic weapons employer, the other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is a -- it is a separate -- truly a separate 

facility and designation. I don't think they 

can be encompassed with one another. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the work they 

did there at MIT specifically would have to be 

handled in a separate petition, for example. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. The only 

other question I have on the dates as well is 

with the Albany Street building. The 

petitioner or this letter states it was from 

1942 to 1946. And if we write our 

recommendation for later years, how would 

those earlier years be covered? 

 DR. GLOVER: That was -- that's the 

MIT campus itself, not the 224 Albany Street. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, I was thinking 

-- 

 DR. GLOVER: 224 Albany Street 

would have occurred during the Hood Building 

time frame. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, okay. Thank 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you. So it's fine. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jim, you have an 

additional question? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: No. Brad -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, we're good. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- stole my 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Other 

comments? 

 PARTICIPANT: I have a question. 

 MR. KATZ: On the phone, this is 

Board deliberation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. If there 

are no more questions on this one, it would be 

in order to have an appropriate motion. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: So moved if Jim's 

got one ready to go. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Mr. Presley 

is moving. And is there a second? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Second. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Phil has 

seconded the motion to recommend approval 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 

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this -- or recommends that we approve -- I 

don't want to use the word approve -- the 

motion is to recommend to the Secretary that 

there be this class added to the SEC. It has 

been seconded. 

 And, Mr., Dr. Melius -- Mr. 

Professor Dr. Melius, do you have an 

appropriately worded statement that we will 

use? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And I would hope 

that Mr. Presley would consider it to be a 

friendly statement. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Always. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: The Board 

recommends the following letter be transmitted 

to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

within 21 days. Should the Chair become aware 

of any issue that in his judgment would 

preclude the transmittal of this letter within 

that time period, the Board requests that he 

promptly informs the Board of the delay and 

the reasons for this delay, and that he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 248

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

immediately works with NIOSH to schedule an 

emergency meeting of the Board to discuss this 

issue. 

 The Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated SEC 

Petition 00101 concerning workers at the Hood 

Building in Cambridge, Massachusetts under the 

statutory requirements established by EEOICPA 

and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13 and 

42 CFR Section 83.14. The Board respectfully 

recommends Special Exposure Cohort status be 

accorded to all employees of the Department of 

Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their 

contractors and subcontractors who worked at 

the Hood Building, Cambridge, Massachusetts 

from May 9th, 1946 through December 31st, 

1963, for a number of work days aggregating at 

least 250 works days occurring either solely 

under this employment or in combination with 

work days within the parameters established 

for one or more other classes of employees in 

the SEC. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The Board notes that although NIOSH 

found that they were unable to completely 

reconstruct radiation doses for these 

employees, they believe that they are able to 

reconstruct portions of the external and 

internal doses for some workers. 

 This recommendation is based on the 

following factors: 

 1. The Hood Building was involved 

in a variety of operations related to atomic 

weapons development and production. 

 2. NIOSH was unable to locate 

sufficient monitoring data or source-term 

information at this site in order to be able 

to complete accurate individual dose 

reconstructions for the potential internal and 

external radiation exposures to which these 

workers may have been subjected. The Board 

concurs with this conclusion. 

 3. NIOSH determined that health 

may have been endangered for the workers 

exposed to radiation at this facility during 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the time period in question. The Board also 

concurs with this determination. 

 Based on these considerations and 

the discussions held at our February 18th 

Advisory Board meeting in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, the Board recommends that this Special 

Exposure Cohort petition be granted. 

 Enclosed is the documentation from 

the Board meeting where this Special Exposure 

Cohort class was discussed. The documentation 

includes transcripts of the deliberations, 

copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

thereof, and related documents distributed by 

NIOSH. If any of these items are unavailable 

at this time, they will follow shortly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. You've 

heard the motion as seconded. Are you ready 

to vote? Any further discussion? 

 Bradley? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just want to 

make sure, especially with this letter here, 

that I guess we help Dr. Branche out or NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

does, that the people understand why we have 

to divide this like this, especially them 

calling out the years because it was kind of 

confusing to me and until Sam explained it to 

us, it was totally separate -- the years, the 

MIT era of it, that this be taken care of. 

 I just want to make sure that they 

understand the legalities of why we did what 

we did. I just -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Certainly that 

will be in the transcripts. I would be 

reluctant to discuss that in the letter 

because that would probably confuse -- 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. I just 

want to make sure -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- that as they 

respond to this letter -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

And Christine, I think, will make that clear 

in her letter. And those who are advising her 

will make sure that that is the case. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I just -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I would also, after 

we've dealt with this particular motion, I 

would like to offer possibly a motion but 

certainly some discussion of a way of dealing 

with the Albany Street facility so that we 

can, you know, be efficient in terms of how we 

deal with that depending on what Department of 

Labor does and so forth. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: But let's -- I 

think we need to do that after we've dealt 

with this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And before we 

vote -- and I want to follow that up with one 

comment. If we're able to, we still would 

like to get hard copies of the motions for the 

Board members for tomorrow. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And particularly 

for the staff people, I want to make sure Jeff 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sees those. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And if we need 

some alternate wording that would allow the 

other building once the determination is made 

to be tacked on readily, if we need to say 

anything, we need to catch that early. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean the intent 

is there. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, two things. 

One is as soon as we finish this, I will give 

Nancy the letters so we can get them printed 

off and so forth for that. We're just waiting 

until we got the third letter done. 

 Secondly, actually what I was going 

to propose was that we, you know, designate 

you, Dr. Ziemer, to, you know, depending on 

the timing of when this happens and what the 

ruling is, see I don't think we can add the 

Albany Street facility until DOL has made a 

determination. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: So we can't include 

it in the letter. But if something needs to 

be modified to do that and it can be done 

easily, you know, then I think we can 

designate -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's why 

 I want to -- I would like to make sure that 

if Labor thinks, for example, it would be 

helpful to say something like the Hood 

Building and its associated facilities or 

something like that -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- we could do 

that easily. We obviously don't want to name 

a building that is not yet part of the 

consideration. So in any event -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I just say that 

what I was going to do was offer a motion -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- to the effect 

that that is the understanding of the Board. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

That should these facilities be included in 

the definition, that then, you know, we would 

consider them as part of this SEC. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think we will 

formalize that so it is in the record. So 

we'll do that as soon as we vote. Let's have 

a roll call vote on this one. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 (No verbal response.) 

 MR. KATZ: That's a yes. 

 Mr. Griffon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 The motion carries, 12 for, none 

against, and no abstentions. 

 Now the Chair recognizes Dr. 

Melius. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I would like to 

offer a motion that the Board go on record 

that in our review of this, that should the 

Albany Street -- 224 Albany Street facility be 

included in the site designation for 

definition for the Hood Building site, that it 

would be, you know, the determination of this 

Board that the Special Exposure Cohort 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 257

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

provision should also apply to work in that 

facility. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 Is there a second? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I second it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 Any discussion? 

 And this would appear in the 

transcript as a supporting document so that if 

there was a need to change that designation -- 

remember the final designation really gets 

made by the Secretary. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's not by us 

and it's not by NIOSH. We are both advising 

the Secretary. We don't make the 

determination. The Secretary will. 

 And perhaps by the time that gets 

through the chain of things, that final 

decision will have been made on the auxiliary 

building. 

 So are you ready to vote? I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 258

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think -- well, just for the record, let's do a 

roll call again on this since it could effect 

what's in the SEC. 

 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

 Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Aye. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 The motion carries. Thank you very 

much. 

 We are pretty much on schedule here 

now. And we are ready to move to a report on 

Blockson Chemical SEC. At the moment, the 

status of this is that there actually is a 

motion that has been tabled over the last 

couple of meetings. 

 But the work group has gone back 

and done some additional things. So we'll 

hear from Wanda Munn, the Chair of the work 

group. And also, I believe we have some of 

the petitioners who may wish to comment by 

phone on this as well. 

 Ms. Munn, I believe, has a more 

formal presentation here. So she'll approach 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 260

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the podium and we have some visuals to assist. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The first dozen of 

these slides will be absolutely nothing new. 

Everyone on this Board has had them forwarded 

to you. You've seen the first 12 of them at a 

prior meeting. We're going through them 

primarily to make sure that the record, again, 

reports the early activities of this group and 

what the group is consisting of. 

 The first thing I have to do is 

decide how to get down to the next slide. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They're having 

trouble hearing you on the phone, Wanda. So 

if you can get any closer -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think I can 

get much closer to it. Oh, all right. I'm 

trying up and down instead of sideways. Thank 

you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Stand by. We're 

trying to get the slides going here as well. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The work group 

members, as you know, consist of myself as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Chair, Mike Gibson, Dr. James Melius, Dr. 

Genevieve Roessler, Bradley Clawson is our 

alternate. 

 You know that we had two SEC 

Petitions that were qualified in 2006. The 

technical basis document underwent a total 

revision before we ever undertook our work. 

We had a couple of near-site meetings with 

workers and rather extensive conversations 

with others. 

 We had the technical contractor, 

SC&A, review both the site profile and the SEC 

Petition as well as the evaluation report. 

They issued seven findings. Those seven 

findings you have seen before. I don't think 

I'm going to go through them. That doesn't 

serve us. You know what they are. We have 

discussed each of them at great length. 

 From now to the present, we have 

had the work group operating. We've had 

technical teams operating. We've interacted 

with the workers. We have issued white papers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and internal papers for permanent records. 

Every finding has been resolved to the 

satisfaction of both NIOSH and SC&A. And 

we've had additional detailed questions 

addressed from each meeting to each meeting. 

 We've brought this to the Board 

before and we will -- I'm going to make every 

effort to try to fully embrace the scope of 

what we've done. 

 As a responsive action to the 

requests from some of the early morning 

meetings of the Board, the work group 

revisited indicated concerns. We had three 

questions asked of the members at one of our 

earlier meetings. 

 We asked them about the SC&A 

review, the NIOSH SEC report, and the site 

profile. The questions specifically were of 

the seven identified findings of significance 

from SC&A, they reported all issues resolved. 

 Do you accept this report? The answer was 

yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 263

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Question number two was NIOSH has 

sought information in depth for all activities 

on this site. And as reported, they have 

adequate data to reconstruct or bound 

radiation doses. Do you accept this report? 

Two members voted yes, two said no. 

 With respect to the site profile, 

which has been completely rewritten, reviewed, 

and revised at length, do you accept the 

current site profile? Two members voted yes, 

two voted no. 

 At our meeting in June of 2008, the 

work group Chair made the recommendation that 

we accept the NIOSH position. The statement 

that I made at that time was accurate data 

exists to reasonably bound with sufficient 

accuracy any radiation exposure which could 

have resulted from employment at Blockson 

Chemical Company during its contract period as 

an atomic weapons employer. That statement is 

supported by our contractor. 

 At that time because several 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 

 264

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reports that the work group had been involved 

with had only recently come forward, there was 

some concern of Board members that they had 

not had full opportunity to review those 

materials. 

 At that meeting in St. Louis, we 

were requested to table my motion with the 

expectation that it would allow additional 

information to be disseminated to whoever 

wished to have it. Specifically the request 

was more information about radon. 

 Pertinent supporting documents were 

to be distributed and reviewed. And we left 

the issue as tabled. We did that. 

 We provided in August a radon white 

paper, which was produced by SC&A and was 

distributed to the full Board. I provided 

previously issued contractor reports, which 

indicated the closed seven initial findings 

and other salient internal working documents. 

 And at that time, several 

transcripts of our meetings, which had been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

backed up, were released so that 

simultaneously you received access to the 

minutes of not only the meetings of the Board 

that were pertinent to our discussion but also 

to all of the work group meeting minutes. 

 In September at that meeting, the 

Board opted to leave Blockson tabled. The 

report that I made to you at that time had to 

do with the activities that had occurred and 

exchanges between the work group members, 

NIOSH, and SC&A. 

 The Board felt that additional 

attention needed to be paid to the radon 

issue. They were not content with the 

material that we brought. 

 We had a teleconference on December 

12th to attempt to move that issue forward. 

We had more technical exchanges, rather 

extensive discussion on the validity of the 

model. NIOSH and SC&A concurred on the 

process. Two members of our work group 

disagreed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 266

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We had an additional teleconference 

on January 23rd, 2009. We reviewed the 

history. We reaffirmed the radon resolution. 

 One work group member questioned the model. 

And we requested that a written basis be 

provided to us for our relaying that 

information to you. The member indicated that 

he would prefer to bring his own 

recommendations. 

 NIOSH and SC&A have agreed that 

some site profile issues remain. But that all 

of the SEC issues have been resolved. 

 The current status is that we have 

sent you an additional report with the 

compilation of the history of what this work 

group has done. We sent it to each of you 

with specific references so that you would 

have easy access to the URLs that would direct 

you to the documents with the most effect on 

what we were doing. One work group member 

rejects the model and will comment to you 

later today. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 267

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Stand by just a 

minute. Wanda, we're having some phone line 

trouble. 

 MR. KATZ: People on the line, 

there is a discussion going on. Are you 

having a hard time hearing the discussion? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's pretty loud 

here in the room so I'm not sure what the 

problem is. Is it a phone line problem? Here 

in the room it is very loud. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Is the reporter 

saying he also does or does not hear the phone 

line? 

 COURT REPORTER: I hear you fine. 

I just am not hearing the people on the 

telephone. 

 MEMBER MUNN: He's not hearing the 

phone lines. So the problem is with the phone 

line. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The phone line is 

not picking this up. I don't know if it is 

faulty equipment or what the problem is here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it doesn't seem 

to be working either direction. 

 MR. KATZ: Are you hearing Ms. Munn 

right now? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're trying to 

get it as loud as we can here without -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the Court 

Reporter can't hear them well. 

 COURT REPORTER: I'm hearing you 

fine. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But he's hearing me 

fine. 

 COURT REPORTER: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So it's not this 

microphone. The problem is with the phone 

line clearly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think it 

is either the phone lines or the equipment. 

 MR. KATZ: I can't say but I think 

if everybody on the phone would mute -- if 

everybody -- they have a mic here. If 

everyone on the phone would just mute 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 

 269

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

phones, Wanda will speak as loudly as she can. 

 But if it is a problem with the phone line, 

I'll check with the people that deal with the 

phone line. But there's nothing else we can 

do, I think, at this point. 

 PARTICIPANT: Mr. Katz, we can hear 

you perfectly clear. Can Wanda use your 

chair? 

 MR. KATZ: That's fine, yes, if 

that will work. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'll need to move my 

computer equipment if I do that. That doesn't 

seem reasonable. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Will this mic 

work? Take this mic over -- it's a hand held. 

I don't know if it is the mic or the location 

in the room or what. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Do you hear me any 

better now on the line? Did we get any 

response from the people on the line when I 

speak into this microphone? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that 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 

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

better? 

 MR. KATZ: Is that any better? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: It seems -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: How about A-B-C-D-EF-G-H-I-J -- 

 MR. KATZ: Is that clear? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: That's better. 

Okay, carry on. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Better? 

 The current status, as I was 

saying, is that the Board has our entire 

referenced history and has, I hope, had 

adequate opportunity now to revisit whatever 

you wish to revisit. One of our work group 

members rejects the model and wants to make 

comments and other recommendations today. 

 One of our Board members who is not 

a member of the work group still questions 

stratification of radon. We've fortunately 

had a late report from Dr. Anigstein sent to 

all the members of the Board addressing that 

question with respect to the stratification 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 

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

radon and airflow within the building, the 

single building which, as you will recall, is 

the focus of our attention here. 

 We had, during that teleconference 

on January 23rd, we reviewed the history, and 

we reaffirmed the radon resolution. We still 

have the question respective to the model. 

And it is going to give us -- it was asked a 

written basis for that position. NIOSH and 

SC&A agree. Some site profile issues remain 

but the SEC issues are closed. 

 And the recommendation of the work 

group Chair that I had made earlier, you have 

already seen. That is still currently on our 

scope as being tabled. It's time for it to 

come off if we're going to make any definition 

with respect to a decision today. 

 There is no further action that can 

be seen that this work group can take. We 

have nothing further to bring to the Board. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 272

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Let me ask Board members, do you 

have any questions for Wanda or comments at 

this point? There is a tabled motion, which I 

will ask or call for a motion to bring it off 

the table unless there's other discussion 

because we cannot debate a motion to un-table. 

 Yes, Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just want to 

clarify on the presentation, Wanda; I think 

you said there was a report on the 

stratification. I think that was based on my 

comments on concentration gradients. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I don't think 

there was a report. I know there was an email reply to my question. But I don't think 

there has been any formal report from SC&A. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think your mic 

is kicking in and out. Is it? Is his mic 

kicking in and out? 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, it was not a 

formal report. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Dr. Anigstein gave to 

us the information that he had placed, I 

believe, in earlier reports -- internal 

reports that the work group and SC&A had been 

involved with. I don't believe that there was 

anything new. I think it was a recompilation 

if I am correct. Am I correct Dr. Anigstein 

or John -- one of you? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There were two -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Use the mic. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There were two 

later reports -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Get real close 

and talk real loud. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Get close and 

talk loud. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. There were 

two later reports. There was the original 

report that was submitted in June -- no, 

excuse me, in July -- towards the end of July 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 274

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and then there was a PA cleared version of the 

same report produced in August. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was in 

response to the direction that we got at the 

June St. Louis meeting to produce -- actually 

it was requested by Mr. Gibson, I believe -- 

sorry -- it was Mr. Griffon. 

 Was to have a more detailed model. 

 There was a very preliminary model presented 

at that meeting. And then Mr. Griffon asked 

for more clarification and more explanation of 

the model, equations. And that led to the 

production -- that led us to produce this much 

longer report which included a Monte Carlo 

analysis, which would take in all the 

variability. 

 The idea was the first -- the one 

that was presented at the June meeting had a 

bunch of what-ifs. If the radon release was 

this and it was A, and if the air exchange 

rate was B, then the radon concentration would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 275

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be C. And then if you had different values, 

there would be different radon concentrations. 

 And Mr. Gibson questioned that. He 

said well, we need more than one -- you know 

we can't have a bunch of numbers. We need one 

number. So that inspired us to say well, if 

you do it as Monte Carlo calculation, you can 

pick off say the 95th percentile or the median 

and you will have, you know, concrete values 

we can do. 

 So we just did a much more detailed 

model, documented it, presented equations. 

Since then -- afterwards there were some 

comments back from NIOSH and we went back and 

looked at it a little further. 

 And there was also a request by Dr. 

Roessler at the meeting where this original 

report was presented, I believe it was October 

15th in Cincinnati that we narrow the gap -- 

we narrow the range of the two very variable 

parameters. We narrowed the ventilation rate 

in Building 40 and we narrowed the range 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 

 276

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the radon releases from the sulphuric acid. 

 So we did some further 

investigation and decided that the radon 

releases can't be any higher than 70 percent 

that was measured in showers. And we thought 

that the agitated tank is not going to be any 

higher than that. And then also we managed to 

pro rate the ventilation rate based on the 

building size and we came with a narrow range 

of that. 

 So that report was sent out later. 

 And I have the report here -- in December -- 

it was produced in December. And the -- yes, 

I have it right here, December, it is dated 

here December 2nd. And that was basically a 

rework of the Appendix B of the previous 

report. And simply produced a narrower range. 

 And because this was a narrow 

range, the 95th percentile was reduced from 

something like, if I recollect, 60-odd 

picocuries per liter and it came down to 36 

picocuries per liter. And other parts 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 

 277

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

distribution also came down somewhat lower. 

 And then there was a three-page 

report that was produced as a result of some 

exchanges with NIOSH about ventilation rates. 

 NIOSH had produced a memo from Dr. 

Naomi Harleyha questioning whether the 

ventilation rates could, in fact, be as low as 

we had assumed when our assumptions were based 

on measurements done by Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory on some buildings I think in 

Washington State. 

 And, again, we narrowed that down -

- I'm sorry, I'm losing track. I had already 

gone over that. 

 We produced a three-page report 

answering why -- defending our ventilation 

rates. And that was -- I transmitted those to 

you, Wanda, just a couple of days ago. You 

had them earlier but I just thought as a 

reminder. 

 But I did not address the 

stratification of radon. We really had no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 278

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basis for that. 

 I'll just, as long as I'm at the 

microphone, to save time, I'll just restate 

Dr. Mauro's comment was that even though there 

may have been different concentrations of 

radon in different parts of the building, 

workers typically did not stay in any one 

location. 

 The workers testified they had 

different duties and they moved around so even 

if there was a radon hot spot, no one worker 

would have been there for every one of his, 

you know, eight hours, 250 days a year in that 

one spot. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean that gets 

at my precise question. I didn't ask whether 

that scenario you just described, I would 

agree with that. But I asked if there was a 

chance that the gradients achieved -- you know 

this model assumes instantaneous mixing. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So if 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 

 279

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

gradients are established in this building, 

and I'm not sure number one how wide are the 

gradients that are there, that exist, you 

know, in terms of picocuries per liter, what 

is the range of values we might see in 

different operations? 

 And number two, if you assumed an 

occupancy say -- and I think John's words in 

the e-mail were randomly moved around the 

building, I don't think people would have 

worked randomly around the building. I think 

they probably would have been in different 

process areas for -- they worked throughout 

the buildings. I wouldn't dispute that. 

 But could they have been at one of 

the higher operation areas where, you know, 

with a higher gradient for enough hours -- say 

two hours out of their work day that it would, 

in fact, not be bounded by the current model 

on the table. 

 And then the second part of my 

comment here is that we don't have a current 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 280

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

model on the table. That's the other problem. 

You know because this is SC&A's report. And I 

think that NIOSH is agreeing with the general 

model but not necessarily the parameters used 

in the model. I may be wrong on that one. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But anyway my 

first point is that I'm not saying eight hours 

per day, 250 days a year. I'm saying could 

there be a scenario. Because we have to look 

at can we bound doses for all workers, you 

know, all cancers, that sort of thing. So 

that's the question. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Again, in my 

opinion, there could be gradients. Actually 

the fact that it would always be the same 

concentration everywhere in the building 

actually it is unrealistic. So this is a 

simplified model. 

 However, the response to that 

objection is we recommend that you use the 

95th percentile. And that already accounts 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 281

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for these variations. In other words, if we 

knew that this model exactly modeled within 

the best likelihood of what the concentrations 

experienced by the workers were, then it would 

be logical to use the 50th percentile. This 

is the most probable resolution. 

 But by using the 95th percentile, 

which is considerably higher, the 50th 

percentile is about six picocuries per liter. 

 The 95th percentile is 36 picocuries per 

liter. So you are allowing for these 

excursions from the, you know, from the mean, 

from the median. 

 And also just -- I can just take 

advantage of this opportunity to throw in an 

additional comment as to the wide range -- 

there were some wide ranges of input 

parameters. But the actual distribution has a 

GSD of approximately three, which does not 

seem to be an unreasonably wide range. 

 This wasn't done with very precise 

definition. I just looked at the median -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 282

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because it's not actually normal but I looked 

at the median and the 95th percentile, took 

the ratio, and said were it to be a log 

normal, it would be a GSD of three. 

 And if we did it more precisely, 

you might get a slightly different number. 

But I don't think it would be very different. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And Dr. Neton has a 

comment with regard to this same issue, I 

believe. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Let's 

hear from Neton and then back to Mark. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I'd just like to 

respond to a couple things that Mark brought 

up. First at the working group, in several 

instances the last two times we've had 

meetings, NIOSH has put a model on the table. 

 We're embraced the model that would 

have a geometric mean of three picocuries per 

liter with a 95th percentile of 17 picocuries 

per liter, which is slightly different than 

the upper bound on the SC&A model. And those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

two differences really surround the 

ventilation rate, the lower bound of the 

ventilation rate. 

 Actually, that's the only 

difference we disagree on right now is what is 

the lower bound of ventilation rate in the 

1950s air building. So there is a model that 

NIOSH has proposed to use. 

 And I'm on the record several times 

stating this I think as recently as the last 

Board meeting or as late as the last Board 

meeting. 

 Secondly, though, this 

concentration gradient thing was never really 

brought up in the working group session. I 

mean this is a new issue that you are raising 

here but there's a number of things that can 

be said about that. 

 First, is the model makes no 

adjustments for seasonal variation. I mean it 

assumes essentially that the ventilation rate 

in that building stays constant throughout 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 

 284

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

entire year. 

 Secondly, one has to look at the 

way these tanks were structured. These 

digesting tanks, to my recollection now and I 

haven't looked at this for a little while, ran 

the entire length of the building. And they 

went almost to the ceiling of a two-story 

building. 

 So we're not talking about a small 

little vat in the middle of the room where 

somebody would be routinely looking in and 

mixing and adding reagents or such. It's a 

huge tank that would, you know, evolve radon 

essentially linearly throughout the entire 

building, going down the whole length of the 

building near the ceiling which had openings. 

 There's still some debate whether 

there was active exhaust ventilation but 

nonetheless, there were openings for that to 

escape. So for a worker to be exposed to a 

highest concentration gradient, which would be 

right at the release point, one would have 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 

 285

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be up on that deck -- 

 MR. KATZ: Excuse me. Could the 

people on the telephone who are having a 

conversation please mute your phone? Thank 

you. 

 DR. NETON: One would have to be on 

the top of that deck peering into those tanks 

on a routine basis to have some sort of 

concentration gradient like you're talking 

about. 

 Thirdly, our model that we've 

adopted here, we feel comfortable with because 

it is not only based on the SC&A parameters 

that were put forth to develop this Monte 

Carlo model but there is also a weight of the 

evidence issues behind this. 

 We provided to the working group a 

summary of all available radon monitoring 

information in the wet phosphate processing 

industry that were available. None of the 

values that were recorded in those studies 

approached anything close to what we 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 

 286

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

proposing to use in this model. 

 Admittedly, those were more laterera measurement -- I think the earliest one 

was in the `70s -- but nonetheless, it is 

consistent with what we're trying to present 

here. 

 The other issues, we had a 

measurement in Blockson in 1985 or 

thereabouts, I forget the exact date, and it 

was extremely low in the building that was 

measured at that time frame. I forget what it 

was but it was well below what we're proposing 

to use here. 

 The third thing that we provided to 

the working group was that if one looks at the 

evaluation done by Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, not for this project, for an 

epidemiologic project that was done years ago 

of the Mallinckrodt workers, the reconstructed 

radon exposures for workers at Mallinckrodt 

are equal to or below the upper bound of the 

SC&A proposed value. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And that is a facility that 

processed uranium ore in very high 

concentrations of uranium. I forget the exact 

number but hundreds if not thousands of times 

higher -- more highly concentrated uranium 

than what was processed at Blockson. 

 For those reasons, we feel very 

comfortable that the distribution we're 

proposing adequately bounds the radon 

exposures for workers at Blockson Chemical. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, 

Jim. 

 Mark, do you have a follow up on 

that? 

 I want to give the petitioners an 

opportunity to comment if they are on the 

line. Okay, if either of the petitioners are 

on the line and wish to comment, this would be 

the time to do is. Are either of the 

petitioners from Blockson on the line? 

 MS. PINCHETTI: Yes, this is Kathy 

Pinchetti. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 288

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Kathy. 

Thank you. We'd appreciate getting your 

comments. 

 MS. PINCHETTI: Well, I think the 

work group knows where I stand. I still have 

a problem with the comparison between Joliet 

and Florida. I know they had a phosphorous 

plant there and that's maybe where the Rocky 

Flats came from but there is a big difference 

in weather and, you know, just the ability to 

ventilate that often as, you know, if it was 

80, 90 degrees outside as opposed to 85 below 

wind chill. 

 And also just the idea about the 

25-year-old spot of radon that was found, it 

sounds like that's what they're basing the 

radiation in order to, you know, postulate 

what happened 60 years ago. 

 So I know this is all very 

scientific but I just can't get a grasp of, 

you know, why we're basing the decision on 

those things because it just seems like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 289

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

grasping on straws. And we've been at this 

for going on three years now. 

 And I appreciate all the work that 

the work group and the Board has put into it 

but it just doesn't seem like we can come to a 

conclusion where it is unanimous. 

 And so I just feel that maybe the 

Board should consider accepting Blockson as an 

SEC. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, 

Kathleen, for those comments. 

 There may be an additional 

petitioner on the line. Is there? 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

Dan McKeel. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan, I think 

we have to limit this right now to the 

petitioners on Blockson. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I'm not really 

the petitioner but I did participate in the 

work group and there is a major document, I 

believe, that hasn't been discussed 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 

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

afternoon. So somebody needs to bring it to 

your attention. And I'm asking to please 

allow this exception. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. We'll 

allow it. 

 DR. McKEEL: Very quickly, SC&A has 

mentioned John Mauro several times. They have 

applied the draft surrogate data criteria to 

Blockson. And I don't believe I've ever seen 

that report made but I assume it exists. 

 And I wonder if, you know, that 

doesn't need to be taken up and considered 

before this SEC is voted upon because as Kathy 

just said, the Board's conclusion and the work 

group's conclusion depends a lot on surrogate 

data that fills in the gaps from those few 

numbers of urine samples that they had at 

Blockson. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I 

understand your comment, Dan. I'm going to 

let Jim Neton reply because I don't believe 

that they are asserting that they're using 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 291

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

surrogate data per se. 

 DR. NETON: Right. There's a 

couple of issues here. One is I was going to 

say that the Congressional staff person who 

talked about using the Florida phosphate data, 

I'd like to correct for the record that we're 

no longer proposing to use that Florida 

phosphate data, which was surrogate data. 

 We have now fully adopted the Monte 

Carlo source-term model, which is allowed for 

under our regulation. So that's not a 

surrogate data issue. 

 I thought that's where Dr. McKeel 

was going but then he mentioned something 

about urine data. The urine data was used at 

Blockson was from actual Blockson workers. We 

did not use surrogate urine data to 

reconstruct -- 

 DR. McKEEL: My point was that SC&A 

applied the surrogate data criteria and I 

wonder why they did that if it doesn't apply. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I think they did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 292

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that because originally we had proposed -- 

NIOSH had proposed a surrogate model using 

Florida phosphate industry data, which we have 

since abandoned. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that no longer 

is the approach being used. And Dr. McKeel's 

point was that actually the surrogate data 

criteria have not been formally approved by 

the Board at this point. So that would have 

been an issue otherwise. 

 So but thank you, Dan, for the 

comment. 

 Again, let me check again to see if 

the other petitioner is on the line. 

 Okay, apparently not. 

 Dr. Melius has a comment. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, can I just 

clarify a couple of points since I've been 

referred to here today? One was actually what 

Jim just said which was I think you have to 

remember where we started with this was using 

the procedure based on basically -- mostly 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 

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Florida phosphate data. And that had some 

limitations as it applied to Blockson which 

led to where we are now. 

 To just clarify what Jim said, I 

think, if I remember right from the last time 

I asked you, you would still use that in other 

circumstances. You are saying you are only 

abandoning that procedure relative to 

Blockson? 

 DR. NETON: We would reserve the 

right to use that data if it were more 

appropriately -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: -- more appropriate for 

a given facility. But right now, yes. It's 

off the table for Blockson, that's correct. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I just wanted to 

avoid you being quoted a year from now or -- 

 DR. NETON: Thank you. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: -- at another site. 

 Secondly, and I'm not trying to 

cast blame on this issue but I think it has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 294

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

also been complicated by the fact that somehow 

SC&A got put in -- we had a reversal of roles. 

 SC&A got put in the position of developing 

the methodology. And then NIOSH reviewing it. 

 And when Jim says they've adopted 

this model with certain parameters, that's 

true. But it has sort of been, I think, a 

piecemeal process is a fair way of putting it. 

 And I think one of the difficult 

things is trying to wrap your arms around this 

whole issue because there are bits and pieces 

of information in various places. And no 

single document that sort of adequately 

summarizes the proposed model nor one that -- 

the one that NIOSH appears to be adopting nor 

a document that adequately and comprehensively 

critiques it and supports one or the other. 

 But I really have some serious 

concerns about SC&A being put in the position 

of developing procedures and models and so 

forth. I think there is a point at which that 

can be useful in terms of critiquing or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

pointing out alternative approaches. 

 But I really think we need to try 

and keep our roles separate. And that NIOSH 

should be the one developing and proposing at 

least the final procedures that will be 

developed. 

 As I said, I don't think this was 

badly intentioned but I think it certainly 

complicates our ability to sort of move 

forward and understand and have an independent 

review of a procedure or model that's about to 

be adopted. 

 I don't think this was something 

that -- I also should add that NIOSH proposed 

it happened. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me comment on 

that as well because I know there has been 

some conversation back and forth on that 

issue. And Board members all know that one of 

my ongoing issues is to make sure that our 

contractor does not do NIOSH's work. So I 

agree with that in principle. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 However, we do know that over the 

past five years, there are a lot of things 

that have emerged at various sites. And I'll 

just cite as an example the high-fired 

plutonium issue which really had its origin, I 

think, in the SC&A critiques. And now has 

become part of the program in a way. 

 And it's often, particularly in our 

work group activities, it often happens as 

these ideas arise, it's not always clear whose 

idea it really is. It comes out of the joint 

efforts of the Board and the work group or the 

work group and the contractor and NIOSH to 

address some of these issues. 

 And to some extent, I think this 

occurred here with good intentions to try to 

address the issue. So whose model it is, it's 

not quite clear. I know that Jim had proposed 

things and NIOSH -- or SC&A had proposed some 

ideas. So they sort of came together. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I'd just like to 

suggest that this is part and parcel to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

way the comment resolution process has been 

established. I can point back to the very 

early days with Bethlehem Steel where exactly 

this sort of scenario emerged where SC&A had 

some serious criticisms of our models. 

 We went though various discussions 

and deliberations over a period of almost a 

couple years, I believe. And what emerged was 

sort of a composite model of NIOSH's approach 

that incorporated the relevant or the good 

portions of the comments that SC&A had 

provided. And I think that we were better off 

for it. 

 I don't see that this is really 

that different from what happened at many of 

the sites. Nevada Test Site is undergoing the 

current same situation. So I think it is a 

good thing. I'm not -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: And essentially every 

resolution process that can be called to 

memory instantly, NIOSH has produced its 

product, SC&A has reviewed that product, has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 298

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

brought before us the issues that they felt 

were of major concern. 

 And the next step, which usually 

takes a number of months in complicated cases, 

is a resolution process which involves a great 

deal of technical exchange between the 

contractor and NIOSH. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That is the 

resolution process as has been presented to us 

in the past. What comes out of that 

resolution process, whether it was initiated 

by NIOSH or whether it was initiated by the 

contractor is our attempt to do the best 

science possible and to serve resolution. 

That appears to be what has occurred here. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I'd strongly 

disagree. And I think if one looks at the 

reports and the transcripts of those various 

meetings, I think what one sees is that what 

was a critique of the use of the Florida data 

and suggestion of an alternative approach then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

became in the next document a fully developed 

model for adoption. 

 And then what one sees is that then 

NIOSH being SC&A -- well, NIOSH critiquing the 

SC&A model and suggesting other parameters and 

so forth. So as I said, I don't think it was, 

you know, badly intentioned or whatever. 

 On one hand, I can claim I wasn't 

at the meeting where this was assigned to SC&A 

to do but I can also probably say that if I 

was at that meeting, I'm not sure I would have 

objected at the time. It's just as it 

evolved. 

 And frankly I would feel different 

probably about it if I didn't still have 

ongoing concerns about the basic model and 

approach that's being approached. And I think 

it still comes back to the basic thing is I 

don't believe that for reasons -- a number of 

technical reasons that this is an adequate 

model. And that it provides a sufficient 

basis for accurate individual dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 300

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction. 

 And it is mainly this issue of 

mixing with that -- it's very hard to model 

concentrations within a building. And the 

more complicated that becomes, the less good 

the models are. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 Any other general comments? 

 I guess at this point I want to ask 

the Board if you feel like you are ready to 

take action and to do that, we would require a 

motion to remove the original motion from the 

table. 

 The original motion -- and I may 

need some help in recalling this so I'll 

paraphrase it but I believe the original 

motion that was before us was a motion to 

concur with the NIOSH recommendations. 

 Now it is possible I have that 

reversed. But I believe that was the motion. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, that was the 

motion. It was the motion that was made 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 

 301

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

individual, not as the Chair of the working 

group, simply because we did not have 

consensus of the work group. 

 It was my action. It was my 

motion. And it was tabled at the request of 

Josie and the majority of the Board. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. The 

motion was tabled. And what I'm saying is if 

you are ready to take action, then the next 

step is for a motion to remove that from the 

table and it will be before us for discussion. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I so move. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Motion to remove 

the original from the table -- 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Second. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and second. 

This is not a debatable motion. It takes a 

majority to remove it from the table. If the 

motion passes, then we have before us a motion 

to concur or agree with the NIOSH 

recommendation on Blockson. 

 I'm going to ask for a roll call 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 302

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

vote on the motion to bring the Blockson 

petition or the Blockson motion from the table 

to put it before us. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 303

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No. 

 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And the 

motion, therefore, fails. And the Blockson 

document remains on the table which means we 

will not act on it today. 

 I would like to ask the Board -- I 

don't know if the work group is in a position 

to do anything further but nonetheless if this 

Board wishes to instruct along those lines, 

then it is certainly in order, yes. 

 Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think, you 

know, the one and maybe this item, Jim, I 

apologize if this wasn't officially on the 

record as a question, but, you know, I don't -

- this is sort of for the good of the order 

too, I don't think we're definitely at 

loggerheads on this. I think, you know, that 

we will come to a point where we will get it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

off the table and vote on it. 

 But I still have remaining 

questions about this concentration gradient 

issue. And, you know, I'm sitting here 

thinking in my mind with the 95th value that 

SC&A lays out there, quite a bit higher than -

- about double, I guess, of the one that NIOSH 

is proposing, you know, does that value 

establish based on instantaneous mixing bound 

some of these gradient situations? And I'm 

not sure I accept Dr. Anigstein's argument. 

 But I would like to see that maybe 

assessed in a document that I can look at and 

look at the model myself. So I'm not saying 

that it can't be done. 

 The other question is, you know, I 

think Jim mentioned today, and I wasn't aware 

of, I think it is an entirely differently 

study that you referenced today, the ORAU 

study done outside of this program I guess. 

 DR. NETON: It was done outside 

this program by Oak Ridge Associates. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right so some of 

these other values -- 

 DR. NETON: It's included in our 

site profile though. We've documented it and 

I've provided that to the working group. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I think part 

of -- 

 DR. NETON: It's available. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- part of the 

confusion for me in this process has been I 

was invited to one or two work groups maybe 

but then I'm not formally on the work group 

often. So sometimes I've asked these 

questions. 

 But they weren't in the work group 

discussions because I wasn't a member of the 

work group. But I would like that assessed if 

possible. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me suggest 

something as a possible way forward. And it 

appears to the Chair that further work group 

sessions on this may not be so fruitful 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 

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

perhaps -- and the focus seems to be on the 

radon gradients and the model -- I wonder if 

it would be of help for NIOSH to give a formal 

presentation to the Board on the model at our 

next meeting with, perhaps, advanced copies of 

that made available. 

 Now I'm concerned about the 

possibility that then we get into a cycle 

saying now we need SC&A to critique this and 

it goes on and on. But it appears that at 

least part of this is understanding the 

parameters and the conditions of the model and 

its limitations and those various issues 

surrounding that. 

 And, again, I'm throwing this out 

because I want some reaction from the Board 

members. Would you find this helpful so that 

we can see if we can resolve this or come to 

some kind of closure on that issue and try to 

-- in fairness to the petitioners to try to 

not keep the Blockson thing sort of 

perpetually in limbo? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 307

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Dr. Melius, a comment? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. I think the 

concept is good because I think it is 

important that all of the Board members hear 

the technical issues because that is what 

we're talking about. And I think it would be 

helpful. And, frankly, I think helpful to at 

least -- I can say for myself on the work 

group, to hear how other people view those and 

other people on this Board do that. 

 I think it would be helpful to the 

extent that that is feasible to do for their 

also to be a document developed by NIOSH that 

lays out comprehensively what their proposed 

approach will be. 

 And thirdly -- and I'm not sure 

that this needs to be done in conjunction with 

what you just proposed, Dr. Ziemer -- but it 

is something that -- I have a major concern 

with -- that sort of SC&A has lost its 

independence in reviewing this issue. We've 

had -- once they moved from the group that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 308

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

now proposing how the dose reconstructions 

will get done, how can they be the independent 

reviewer of that process? 

 And that we think of another mode 

or another way of getting an independent 

review of this approach, which I think, would 

be helpful and so forth. 

 I don't think I would propose that 

as the first step. I think what you proposed 

may be sufficient. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I'm a 

little reluctant to have us go down that path 

because that can continue -- people protecting 

their own good ideas, including ones that 

NIOSH picks up from the contractor in the 

future. 

 But if necessary, I think we could 

ask our contractor to bring in a different 

person to critique -- I mean you have access 

to other experts. I don't know the extent to 

which SC&A is sort of taking great pride of 

ownership in this idea but we need to give 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that some thought. 

 I understand what you're saying. 

I'm not sure how one would do that it an 

efficient way that would be useful. 

 Jim? 

 DR. NETON: I'd just like to raise 

another question that is in my mind and that's 

the issue of the difference between this being 

an SEC issue versus a site profile issue. 

 In the past, you know, we've been 

able to come -- move forward if there has been 

general agreement that the issue at hand is no 

longer an SEC issue. That is it is generally 

agreed that we can establish some plausible 

upper bound for that exposure scenario. 

 And then move that back to a site 

profile issue, which would be debated, you 

know, just like through the comment resolution 

process like any other issue. 

 And somehow that seems to be not 

available in this situation. I've not heard 

any discussion about can there be a plausible 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

upper bound. 

 SC&A and NIOSH still disagree on 

what the plausible upper bound might be but, 

you know, we still agree that it can be 

established in one way or another. So I'd 

like some feedback for our sake, you know, on 

this issue. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Mark, do 

you want to add to that? I think you were 

asking about that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean I 

think you have my comment that -- I guess 

that's what I was asking to be assessed -- 

whether the model on the table which, you 

know, would be NIOSH's, would bound these 

scenarios where you have concentration 

gradients for workers occupying those 

locations a little more frequently that -- 

 DR. NETON: Right. But there's a 

difference between saying NIOSH's model could 

bound it or a plausible upper bound could be 

established using that model. I've never been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 311

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

able to get agreement from the working group 

that using this approach is even valid. I 

mean it has been -- the legality of this 

approach has even been challenged several 

working group meetings ago. 

 So I'm reluctant to go and make all 

those, you know, elaborate development on an 

effort when the basic premise of using a Monte 

Carlo probabilistic model is not acceptable. 

And I have no assurance from anyone that that 

type of approach is acceptable. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I guess part 

of what I'm thinking about is the reality, I 

think, is that the radon is not going to 

instantaneously mix. 

 So if we accept that as the first 

premise, then that's my question is if you 

have, you know, if the model is not realistic 

enough, then maybe we can't use it. So I 

think that gets to what you were just saying. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But let me point 

out, and this is more generic, Mark, but 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 

 312

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

never have instantaneous mixing in practical 

situations. And so all models are based on 

the fact that that doesn't occur. 

 Now if the mixing -- there's a 

difference between instantaneous and really 

slow. There's some things where those 

gradients -- well, we can't -- we don't need 

to have the debate here but models are exactly 

what they are. They are models. They are -- 

and models are only as good as they 

effectively predict something to some agreedupon level, in our case, if there is 

sufficient accuracy. And that's sort of a 

debate on its own. 

 But whether you're talking about 

let's say a weather model, I almost hesitate 

to bring this up because this could make 

things worse, but I always like the quote that 

one of my colleagues makes about models. And 

he is a model person -- a model expert, not a 

model person. I'm going to get in big trouble 

here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 313

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Anyway -- and he says basically all 

models are poor but some are helpful. And we 

need to really assess that, I think, is what 

you're saying. You're not going to have 

instantaneous. 

 And what you're really saying is to 

what extent is that an important issue? Does 

this model really allow you to fairly bound 

the doses? 

 Jim, I'm not sure when you're 

talking about the legality of the 

probabilistic approach or the Monte Carlo 

approach. That's like -- that's a very 

accepted technique. It's like saying can I 

use calculus to calculate something. 

 What -- I didn't quite follow what 

-- 

 DR. NETON: Well, there was some 

challenges raised about use of a source-term 

model, and in particular a source-term model 

using probabilistic assumptions. And, you 

know, I don't know. I mean is that on 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 

 314

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

table? I guess I think it is. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It seems to be from 

the Chair's point of view. That's one of the 

reasons why I said there's no way we can go 

any further. 

 But if some of the statements that 

were made during work group sessions are not 

going to be the nexus of any presentation that 

NIOSH makes with respect to the model, then, 

of course, it makes perfect sense for the 

entire Board to see what the model is going to 

be and to have the entire Board that wishes to 

participate and comments with that model 

before them to make comments. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But if we're going to 

take the position that -- which has been 

suggested -- that no model is possible or no 

model is acceptable, then there's -- this is 

an exercise in futility. 

 So first one needs to accept, I 

think, the Board members sitting around 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 

 315

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

table need to accept the fact that if NIOSH is 

going to bring us something, there is a 

possibility that it can be accepted. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 John, comment? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, with all due 

respect to SC&A and also to what Dr. Melius 

had to say, I interpreted your comment and 

your suggestion that we should serve as the 

experts. I mean yes, we have SC&A to assist us 

in doing NIOSH evaluations. 

 But Mark is perfectly capable of 

doing an evaluation of the model. I'm 

perfectly capable. And most of the people 

sitting here at this table are perfectly 

capable of looking at scientific facts and 

making a decision. 

 So I interpreted your remark that 

let’s do something as a Board instead of 

relying on our contractor. So if there is a 

concern about the contractor is compromised in 

some way, your suggestion eliminates 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 

 316

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because we're not asking them to look at the 

model. We're asking ourselves to look at the 

model and exercise our own judgment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think you 

are supporting what I said. I was concerned -

- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Very much so. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- that if we 

asked NIOSH to present this, that we would not 

say let's turn it back to SC&A for another 

iteration. But let's see if we can come to 

closure on it. 

 But let's look at other comments. 

Jim? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: It's also why I 

agreed with your suggestion, Dr. Ziemer. I 

think that's helpful. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And I think 

secondly, I would just like to clarify for the 

record that while I would be willing -- I 

would be willing to accept to a source-term 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 317

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

model in this case, I will say that I am very 

skeptical of it. But I can be convinced. So 

I think it is worth the time and effort to do. 

 And it is something that we're 

going to have to look at in other situations 

also. So we might as well deal with it now 

and talk it through as a Board. And I think 

that is the best way to do this. 

 I think the work group has done 

what it could. And has accomplished a lot. 

But there is this one issue that we really 

need to deal with as a Board. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know if 

we are at a consensus point on that. And, 

Jim, I'm not even completely clear what it is 

I've asked you to do. 

 And it may be that we would want to 

return to this tomorrow. 

 The general idea here, I think, was 

for NIOSH to present to us what there are 

proposing to do to bound the doses and to 

consider these issues. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 318

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I'm not even sure fully what that 

looks like. But it appears to me to be a 

model with some parameters and perhaps some 

conditions of how it is used and that kind of 

thing. 

 John, did you have a comment? And 

then we'll go back to Jim. 

 MEMBER POSTON: I want to make sure 

that we don't let the thought drop. You 

original suggestion was that we would be 

provided with a document prior to this 

briefing -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or in advance, in 

advance. 

 MEMBER POSTON: -- so that we would 

have time to review it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But I 

want -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: And think about it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- I'm not even 

sure what it is -- that's why I say what I'm 

asking you for. If I'm not sure, 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 

 319

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Jim is sure. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I think I have a 

sense for what you are looking for. And I'm 

fairly confident was can provide a revised -- 

whether it would be a revised site profile or 

an addendum to the site profile or something 

of that nature that would outline the 

parameters of the model and how we would use 

it in dose reconstructions along with some 

example dose reconstructions using that model. 

 We'd be more than happy to do that 

by the next Board meeting. I'm very confident 

we can do that because the parameters are all 

there. The model has been developed. 

 I think we'd need to do some 

shoring up to address maybe some of Mark's 

concerns that I'm hearing today. But we'd be 

happy to do that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Anyone? Let me 

ask if there are any Board members that would 

feel that that is not the direction to go at 

this moment. Otherwise I'm going to take 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 

 320

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

by consent that we will proceed along those 

lines. If you have additional thoughts, 

insights, or brilliant ideas tomorrow during 

our Board work session that pertain to this, 

we'll have perhaps an opportunity to further 

elucidate the path that will be followed. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: We'll schedule a 

session tomorrow evening. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And ask for 

brilliant ideas. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 I think that brings us to at least 

temporary closure on this agenda item -- not 

closure but closure for today. 

 We are going to recess until 7:00 

p.m. at which time we will have our public 

comment period. So I think you all for the 

good work today in helping us get through all 

these issues. And we'll see you at seven 

o'clock. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 321

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: And thank you, everyone 

on the phone, for bearing with us and all our 

technical difficulties. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:02 p.m., to resume at 

7:05 p.m.) 

E-V-E-N-I-N-G S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

7:05 p.m. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay, we're 

going to give it a whirl and see what occurs 

here. 

 So I'd like to welcome the folks 

who are here assembled as well as those who 

are on the phone. This is the public comment 

session of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health. 

 We do need to remind you of the 

ground rules again. First of all, we ask that 

you -- if you are speaking, there is a tenminute time limit. So in courtesy to others 

who wish to speak, please -- oh, Dr. Roessler 

has asked to reduce that to five -- only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 322

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

joking, Gen -- no, it is a ten-minute time 

limit. And please adhere to that in order to 

allow others the time that they need as well 

toward the end of the session. 

 Mr. Katz, our designated federal 

official, will remind you of the ground rules 

as far as the redaction policy. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Just to remind 

everyone, there is a verbatim transcript being 

taken. So whatever you say will be there and 

it will be up on the NIOSH website. If you 

give us your name, then your name will appear 

in the transcript. 

 If you identify other people, 

though, third parties, generally speaking 

their name will be redacted and some of their 

information might be redacted as well to 

protect their privacy. 

 Let's see what else I need to cover 

here. I think that -- the policy for this -- 

for people who are here, the policy is on the 

back table. And for people who are not here 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 323

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but can get to the website, the full policy is 

on the website with the agenda for this 

meeting. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: I think that covers it 

pretty well. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much, Mr., Katz. 

 We have several individuals who are 

here by phone this evening. We're going to 

begin with Jan Lovelace. Jan, are you on the 

line? 

 MS. LOVELACE: Yes, I am. Can you 

hear me? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we can, Jan. 

So if you would proceed, that will be fine. 

 MS. LOVELACE: I've been having a 

terrible time with my phone and I've listened 

in some today and it has been very sporadic in 

what I could hear. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, please 

proceed. We can hear you quite well here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 324

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. LOVELACE: Okay. Well, my name 

is Jan Lovelace. I'm 67 years old. And I'm a 

living widow from the Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

area. 

 I thank you for allowing me to 

speak on behalf of my [Identifying information 

Redacted], as his wife and authorized 

representative. 

 I have typed notes out here as I 

want to say the correct things and not, you 

know, jump around. 

 He has been sick -- worker claims 

program -- he has been in the program for 

seven years and five months. And perhaps what 

I have to say will help others. 

 I was hesitant as I have been told 

by our previous attorney if you ask questions 

or cause trouble, DOL will deny you for sure. 

 I don't want to believe that statement. 

We've already had five denials. And 

[Identifying information Redacted]. 

 My [Identifying information 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 325

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Redacted] has five [Identifying information 

Redacted] and medical illnesses. He is 

bedridden or recliner-ridden -- you know, 

that's the only two places he is. 

 We've had five denials on Part B 

and one denial on Part E. We and others 

believe that these errors -- and a call to 

NIOSH sent my head spinning last week when it 

was confirmed over some of the things we have 

been told. 

 I hope you'll forgive my voice as I 

have a cough and I'm also a hillbilly, 

speaking with a fast Southern. 

 I think this meeting is important 

and I've been listening in as best as I could. 

Most voices are not picking up and I hope I'm 

speaking clearly enough. 

 I'll try to be brief and hit only 

the high spots or as I consider the low spots 

in our case. Perhaps at this meeting are 

persons from DOE and DOL that can make 

changes. And because of that, I am making 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 

 326

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

statement. 

 I realize this meeting is mostly 

for the SEC Petitions but many sick workers 

across this nation need to have files examined 

and the SEC classifications passed for more 

sites. We also need more forums around the 

country where discussions can be held and an 

easier claims process. 

 I'll try to be brief. As I stated, 

[Identifying information Redacted] has been in 

the claims system for seven years and five 

months. We've had 15 different claims 

examiners whose names I have and several 

others we've talked with. Most have 

compounded the errors. 

 Seven plus years is a long time to 

keep trying to proving your job made you sick. 

It's hard not to make this personal but 

perhaps others can be helped. 

 I was told by an examiner last 

summer and I quote, since you're wanting 

something from DOL, you should not be critical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 327

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of errors. Well those errors have effected by 

[Identifying information Redacted]'s files and 

his denials. The examiner's statement has 

scared me from making some statements and 

relaying some events even tonight. 

 While I'm happy so many have been 

paid, many more a denied. Much good has come 

from the program along with much heartache, 

tears, frustration, and even anger at times. 

 I believe missing records and 

errors have added to the frustration of 

claimants and I know the administration cost 

of the program has risen from errors. 

 The problem of missing files and 

errors appears nationwide. My question being 

one, who is accountable or responsible to make 

changes in claimant's files or find their 

missing files? And I know this is going up so 

maybe if someone can respond to that later. 

 As a former DOE worker, my section 

head asked me to shred papers numerous times. 

 Some were sexual harassment files, alcohol on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 328

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the job, incident reports, lab accidents, and 

other reports. I followed orders, never 

dreaming 25 years from then other workers 

might need those files. We did our job, never 

realizing how dangerous even an office job 

could be. 

 The sick workers would much rather 

have had their lives and their families intact 

rather than continually having to make claims 

and live in hospitals and doctor's offices. 

And many have gone to their graves. 

 Money cannot give back lives but it 

can ease the burden of sick workers' families 

and make the workers' last days easier. 

 [Identifying information Redacted] 

is [Identifying information Redacted] now and 

considered [Identifying information Redacted]. 

His one doctor asked me last week will he 

outlast the claims process. After being in 

the claims program for seven years and five 

months, I don't know. Today he told me, I 

will not [Identifying information Redacted] 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 329

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

yet. He knows I'm truly involved in this for 

his sake and others. 

 His doctors have written letters 

and boxes have been furnished and the 1990 

Industrial Safety Report from ORNL, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. It states he received 

numerous pure chemical and radiation exposures 

plus carbon monoxide daily. 

 How do the dose reconstruction 

personnel overlook such obvious data? Even 

the DMC did not have the 1990 Industrial 

Safety Report with his exposures or illnesses 

listed. 

 It appears that sending a remand 

back for dose reconstruction sometimes only 

produces the same words, the same denials, and 

even reduced probability. Lists of buildings 

and toxic exposures are not acknowledged. 

 Most recently [Identifying 

information Redacted]'s FAB branch examiner on 

October the 10th, 2007, requested another 

remand for his fourth cancer. That sent 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 

 330

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

file to storage. It did not get back to the 

district examiners. It took me calling daily 

and weekly to different people until December 

the 8th to find his file. 

 Now five months since the remand 

and now [Identifying information Redacted] has 

been diagnosed and biopsied. His file has 

just gone this month to NIOSH. They told me 

in October we would have an answer within two 

months from the remand. Will it be two more 

months added to the five already past? His 

[Identifying information Redacted] December 

20, 2008 has taken a large toll on him. This 

is not the first time his file has disappeared 

for a month. 

 Thirty-two years of working for the 

Department of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

at two sites, the Y-12 weapons plant in 1959 

to 1964, and the ORNL X-10 plant from 1974 to 

2000 -- and only the last eight years he 

worked are records available with a few 

scattered files from the other 24 years 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 

 331

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

available. How can that be a fair evaluation 

of a worker's claim? 

 His file we received from 

Department of Labor contained five other 

worker's files and social security numbers. I 

asked who received [Identifying information 

Redacted]'s other records. This has happened 

to others also, which I'm sure you have heard 

about. 

 Who is responsible to help us? Why 

does a sick worker have to continually prove 

there are sick from working in a nuclear 

plant? Facts prove it, but when the records 

are missing, that does not mean the exposures 

did not happen. 

 We know of his exposures, and those 

years are missing. We also question if the 

other workers' medical files we received were 

used to deny his claim. 

 When you see the year in question 

missing from a medical file, it is a problem. 

 He has page eight listed as 1986, page nine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 332

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is missing, and page ten picks up with the 

year of 1988. 

 Mr. Turcic -- I hope I said his 

name correct -- wrote to our Congressman, Zach 

Wamp in 2005 that [Identifying information 

Redacted] did not work a monitored job. He 

did. He worked the same job as a fireman for 

27 years, and 1987 is the year we reported two 

definite exposures, his call ins, and his 

dosimeter readings off the chart. 

 All his cards now have the same 

zero, same handwriting and all. Why must sick 

workers prove they became sick from working 

their jobs at a nuclear facility? The facts 

are known. The contamination is there in 

laboratories, in buildings, and even on the 

ground, particularly the nuclear burial 

ground. 

 Over 400 buildings are to be 

demolished and destroyed due to contamination 

at Y-12 and ORNL, which is also called X-10. 

And that's the list I have from 2008. 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 

 333

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

maybe more have been added. 

 My question has been, before, are 

employees still in these buildings? Yes, they 

are. [Identifying information Redacted] went 

to the nuclear burial ground every day he 

worked. And even recently, 70 mason jars of 

radioactive material were found on the near 

surface. 

 The fireman had to drive there to 

check for fires and put out fires. And also 

to get the dead animals from under the 

reactors. Eight firemen working this same job 

at ORNL have been diagnosed with cancer below 

the waist. Six received their settlements in 

2001 and 2002 with no problem. And I'm very 

happy for those. 

 The eighth was recently diagnosed 

with colon cancer, and filed his claim in 

December 2008. But [Identifying information 

Redacted] was singled out as a low exposure 

position. Who is accountable to make a change 

to classify him as a high exposure position? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 334

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I have written and called all offices about 

this for many years. 

 These firemen were HAZMAT-trained 

workers, first responders trained to handle 

chemicals and radiation fields or alarms. 

Daily, the firemen answered alarms, and then 

sometimes they might find out what they 

stepped into. Surely they should all be 

classified as high exposure. 

 They go to the alarms with their 

badges and dosimeters underneath their 

fireproof turnout gear. How can that give a 

fair reading? 

 [Identifying information Redacted] 

remembers standing in liquids spilling out of 

barrels from the underground storage nuclear 

areas. He said that was frightening to him 

even then, not knowing what it was or what was 

going to happen. 

 When I called about his 

classification to Jacksonville into NIOSH last 

week, the NIOSH representative -- her 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 335

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

statement stopped me cold. And I quote, you 

know when you file for other cancers, it 

usually lowers the percentages. It certainly 

has happened to us already. 

 NIOSH lowered his [Identifying 

information Redacted] from 30.262 rems in 2004 

to 1.825 rems when we submitted [Identifying 

information Redacted] number two and 

[Identifying information Redacted] number 

three. And that was his denial in 2005. 

 The statement in each denial, and I 

quote, we have better computer modules to 

determine exposure. That sure stings. NIOSH 

and DOL will still have him listed as a 

laborer, foreman, fire inspector, and up to 

commander, like he was a foreman, not a 

HAZMAT-trained worker going to the nuclear 

burial grounds, and every contaminated 

building, lab, and grounds every day he 

worked. A nuclear fireman for 27 years is not 

a low-exposure position as stated in each 

denial. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 336

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Well, I stuck my pages together 

here, just one more please, and we've had 15 

claims examiners, and each one has made an 

error, and even compounded the errors from the 

previous person. 

 Who has the authority to make these 

changes? I've asked NIOSH. They say DOL. 

DOL says NIOSH has to make it. Our problems 

have been errors and lost files. And many of 

my letters about errors have been written from 

the hospital. My laptop, my printer, and I 

follow the ambulance to make a personal 

statement. 

 It is a terrible life to live 

packed up to go to the hospital for the last 

ten years. More horrible and heartbreaking is 

to go first thing each morning, all during the 

day, and any time I'm up at night -- and the 

last thing I do at night is to see if 

[Identifying information Redacted] is 

[Identifying information Redacted]. 

 So far I've been able to care for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 337

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

him by myself, as we do not qualify for any 

services, even from Veterans, since we have a 

small bank account. Private nursing is our 

only option, and our savings will not allow 

that. 

 Unexplained [Identifying 

information Redacted], and other medical 

problems sure ruin your life, as does months 

at a time in the hospital. 

 Tennessee Senator Bob Corker's 

office called today to ask for an update, if I 

had heard anything. Senator Lamar Alexander's 

office and Representative Zach Wamp's offices 

have also been involved. Mostly their 

questions have been answered by form-type 

letters, and no resolution to getting his job 

classification changed from low exposure to 

high exposure. 

 Senator Corker's aide today stated 

this job classification for high exposure 

seems to be black and white. And she also 

stated, we've called and written everyone 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 

 338

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the top of DOL and NIOSH, and we can't get an 

answer. Who can? 

 I could go on for hours about the 

problems we face, and frustration, and wanting 

[Identifying information Redacted] to have the 

best care he can have keeps me questioning. 

Even with insurance, our savings are going 

down fast. The 401(k)s we saved when we both 

worked have diminished, and may not last. 

 When you receive a 1,074 dollar, a 

572 dollar, and a 275 dollar-type co-pay, 

which were just both from last week, it does 

not take long for us to have to take out 

15,000 to 20,000 dollars for the last five 

years to pay his medical bill 

 Please make the claims process 

easier for the sick workers, and consider 

other sites and years for Special Cohort 

Exposure. 

 I thank you for your time, and 

hopefully, clarification of [Identifying 

information Redacted]’s file. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 339

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much. 

 Just to remind others who are on 

the line, when you're not speaking, please 

keep your phones on mute. We are having some 

feedback from other sidebar conversations. 

 And thank you, Jan, for your 

comments to us. 

 Next we'll hear from Jennifer 

Thompson, who is a petitioner representative. 

 Jennifer, are you on the line? 

 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I am. 

 Good evening. This is Jennifer 

Thompson. I am the designated petitioner 

representative for Rocky Flats Special 

Exposure Cohort Petition 00030. 

 I wanted to begin by saying that 

I'm very disappointed in the ongoing delays 

that have been experienced by individual Rocky 

Flats claimants, and throughout the Rocky 

Flats SEC Petition process. And this is just 

one more example where delayed actions 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 

 340

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

resulted in injustice for Rocky Flats workers. 

 And what I'm speaking to is the 

issue regarding the Ruttenberg dataset that 

has been a topic of conversation for the last, 

I guess, eight months or more. And this is 

just another example of where the delayed 

actions have resulted in an injustice for 

Rocky Flats workers. 

 It is also another in a long track 

record of inaccuracies from determining what 

facilities had ionizing radiation, to 

determining what particle size to use for dose 

reconstruction. And now the statements 

regarding the Ruttenberg data. 

 This program has had a track record 

of NIOSH confidently stating something as a 

fact that later turns out to be an error. The 

only question is, did the individuals making 

these comments know they were in error, or 

simply is it just a matter of ignorance? 

 In either case, the result is the 

same. Rocky Flats workers with cancer 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 

 341

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

died waiting for NIOSH and our government to 

make good on a long-standing promise. 

 The Rocky Flats SEC petitioners 

would like to have the following questions 

answered: 

 Why did the Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support state that the NIOSH and 

Ruttenberg dataset overlapped 100 percent? 

 What took so long for NIOSH to 

obtain the Ruttenberg dataset and examine it 

closely? 

 How many workers, how many Rocky 

Flats workers have been denied compensation 

under the SEC because of the negligence in 

obtaining this crucial data, and in examining 

it closely? 

 What will be the protocol for NIOSH 

when comparing the Ruttenberg/Rocky Flats 

dataset with the NIOSH set, and how long will 

it take for NIOSH to make that comparison? 

 Will SC&A be tasked to participate 

in the Rocky Flats dataset comparison 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 

 342

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH versus Ruttenberg data, and then what 

impact does this have on the Rocky Flats 

Special Exposure Cohort Petition? 

 Then that's all I have. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jennifer, while 

you're on the line, and Mark Griffon is here, 

who's making some notes, but on your first -- 

the first question you raised, the line broke 

up a little bit, and we didn't catch that 

fully. Would you mind repeating that first 

question, because Mark Griffon is making -- 

 MS. THOMPSON: The first question I 

read? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. THOMPSON: Okay, why did the 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

state that the NIOSH and the Ruttenberg 

dataset overlapped 100 percent? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much. 

 As I said, Mark Griffon was making 

some notes on those comments. And as 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 

 343

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, he's working with that work group, and 

we'll keep you apprised as things proceed. 

 Thank you very much. 

 MS. THOMPSON: You're welcome. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Next we have 

again on the line Terrie Barrie. Terrie, are 

you with us? 

 MS. BARRIE: Hello, Doctor. I 

really didn't have comments prepared. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I wasn't 

sure. I know that perhaps you were there in 

supporting Jan, but -- 

 MS. BARRIE: Questions to 

Jennifer's questions -- or answers to 

Jennifer's questions need to be forthcoming 

immediately. This database issue has been 

going on for some time now, and I think the 

Rocky Flats claimants need an answer as soon 

as possible. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Thank 

you, Terrie. 

 We also are in possession of some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 344

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Congressional letters which will be read into 

the record, and I believe Jason is prepared to 

do that for us this evening. 

 And I think, Jason, are there three 

letters that need to be read into the record? 

 MR. BROEHM: Yes, I have three 

statements. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. BROEHM: So the first is from 

Congressman John Shimkus. 

 So it says, Dear Board Members, 

Thank you so much for allowing me the chance 

to have this letter read into the record. I 

know you've heard from many other elected 

officials, concerned citizens, and most 

importantly, former workers over the last two 

days. 

 For the last seven years, I have 

been intricately involved in the on-going 

battle on behalf of the workers of Dow 

Chemical in Madison, Illinois, many of whom 

live in my district. Recently, dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 345

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstructions finally started taking place, 

and within the last month, some of the former 

workers finally began receiving their 

compensation. 

 For your longstanding attention and 

work on this, I thank you. However, we still 

have much work to do, both legislatively with 

the Act itself, and through the existing 

process. 

 Dr. Denise DeGarmo is with you 

tonight. Dr. DeGarmo has been very helpful to 

many of the workers and to my office on 

continuing to find information that might be 

useful to extend the SEC for the Dow workers. 

 I commend her and her work, and 

thank her for her dedication. It is worth 

noting Dr. DeGarmo neither gets compensated 

for this, nor reimbursed for her trips to your 

Board meetings. She acts out of an interest 

for the workers. 

 Dr. DeGarmo submitted materials to 

the Department of Labor in November -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 346

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hold on just a 

minute. 

 MR. KATZ: Folks on the telephone, 

I know it's probably not that easy to hear, 

but it's got to be more difficult to hear if 

you're carrying on conversations, as well. 

 So please, if you would mute your 

phones, we will try to crank up the volume 

here as much as possible. But that will help, 

as well. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sit here, Jason, 

and maybe that will help. We're going to have 

the individual reading the comments come 

closer to this phone speaker. Perhaps that 

will help. 

 I know there's apparently still a 

buzz on the line, but we'll try this. 

 MR. BROEHM: Okay. 

 Dr. DeGarmo submitted materials to 

the Department of Labor in November that 

directly impact the Dow case. At that 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 

 347

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

she was told the review would be complete well 

in advance of this meeting. Unfortunately, 

such review is not complete, and we are in yet 

another waiting game, a game we find ourselves 

in all too often when it comes to Dow. 

 I realize as a Board you do not 

control the Department of Labor, but I would 

urge you to urge the Department, as I have, to 

proceed as expeditiously as possible on this 

review. 

 Additionally, I would like to also 

take this opportunity to thank Dr. McKeel for 

his help with the Dow case, and also urge 

quick action on his FOIA requests. Sincerely, 

John M. Shimkus, Member of Congress. 

 And now I have two statements from 

Senator Schumer, Senator Charles Schumer, from 

New York. The first one is on the Linde 

Ceramics SEC Petition. 

 Thank you to the Board for 

affording me this opportunity once again to 

petition for Linde Ceramics' application 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 

 348

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have an extended time frame at their site 

added to the Special Exposure Cohort. I 

understand that these meetings are very long, 

and I appreciate how accommodating the Board 

has been in allowing me to offer my support 

for this important application. 

 I'm extremely supportive of the 

Linde SEC Petition, and I respectfully urge 

you to recommend adding the extended time 

period at this facility to the SEC. In the 

past, there had been some issues with this 

particular petition, but I hope that this year 

will yield some progress. 

 The Linde Ceramics facility, 

located in Tonawanda, New York, produced fuel 

for the Department of Energy for years. In 

the process, many employees, both during these 

years and in the residual period, were exposed 

to toxic and radioactive uranium. 

 The site profile for this facility 

does not adequately take into account a number 

of factors, and there is strong reason 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 

 349

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

believe that it will underestimate applicants' 

exposure, and thus the probability of 

causation. 

 To risk uniformly and consistently 

underestimating the probability of causation 

at a site violates the statutory requirement 

of a claimant-friendly process. In a case 

such as this, it is imperative that the Board 

acknowledge the shortcomings of the available 

information, and recommend adding the site and 

time in question to the SEC. 

 Especially in light of the fact 

that there is already a class of the SEC at 

this site, it is readily apparent to me and to 

many of my colleagues that there is simply a 

paucity of reliable information for this 

location. 

 It is unacceptable to delay adding 

these other time periods to the SEC, as well. 

 These men and women are ill and dying. 

Simply said, they cannot afford to wait any 

longer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 350

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Our country built this nuclear 

arsenal, and with it, our global dominance on 

the backs of Linde Ceramics' plant's workers. 

 After everything that our government has done 

to these men and women, after everything that 

they sacrificed for our continued safety, we 

must take action. 

 Their great sacrifice merits our 

greatest thanks, and we can show some small 

share of what we owe to these men and women by 

supporting their appeals for restitution. 

 Again, thank you for allowing me to 

submit testimony for your consideration. I 

respectfully request that you recommend 

granting this petition, and I thank you for 

your time and consideration. 

 And now I have a second statement 

from Senator Charles Schumer from New York, 

this one relating to the Bethlehem Steel SEC 

Petition. 

 Thank you for allowing me to 

address the Board today on the critical issue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 351

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of admission to the Special Exposure Cohort 

for Bethlehem Steel, located in Lackawanna, 

New York. As you all know, I have been 

strongly advocating the creation of a class in 

the Special Exposure Cohort for Bethlehem 

Steel for many years now. 

 The veterans of this facility are 

sick, and many are dying. We owe it to these 

men and women to recognize their service and 

their sacrifice with an admission to the SEC. 

 Today, members of the Bethlehem 

Steel Action Group are advocating for the 

site's admission to the SEC. I'm humbled by 

the self sacrifice and tenacity of their 

members in continuing this fight. 

 I hope that I and all of my 

colleagues in the Congress who are supporting 

this application are able to live up to the 

high standard that these wonderful activists 

have set. 

 In constructing its site profile 

for Bethlehem Steel, NIOSH relied very heavily 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 352

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on data from Simonds Steel in Lockport, New 

York to fill in the gaps in the available data 

for Bethlehem. 

 In the years since the site profile 

was completed, it has become apparent that the 

use of surrogate data in Bethlehem site 

profile is much higher than in most other 

profiles. Furthermore, the accuracy of the 

comparison between Bethlehem and Simonds has 

been challenged time and again by former 

workers. It is my strong belief that the 

estimated surrogate profile cannot, by any 

means, accurately reflect the situation in 

Bethlehem Steel. 

 In light of all of the unknown 

variables at this site, I think it only 

reasonable for the Board to acknowledge that 

the available data is not sufficient to create 

a workable profile. The profile that exists 

now cannot live up to the statutory mandate of 

a, quote, claimant-friendly, unquote, 

assessment. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 353

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Bethlehem's admission into the SEC 

is the only appropriate course of action in 

such a case. The SEC's broad reach is the 

only tool that will guarantee that the former 

workers of Bethlehem Steel receive the care 

and compensation that Congress has rightly 

deemed their recompense. 

 Please recommend adding a class to 

the SEC for this site as quickly as is 

reasonably possible. The men and women who 

have worked for Bethlehem Steel, manufacturing 

fuel for the nation's nuclear weapons, are 

veterans of America's brutal Cold War, 

although they may not wear the uniforms that 

we commonly recognize in our veterans. 

 We owe our continued safety to 

their hard work and sacrifices. These heroes 

deserve our gratitude and rightful 

compensation. With so many of these veterans 

aging and ill, it is imperative that this be 

done as quickly as possible. Simply said, 

they cannot afford to wait any longer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 354

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Again, thank you for the chance to 

address you today, and thank you for the 

careful consideration that you give to this 

and all of the petitions you consider. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much. 

 And next, we'll hear from Wayne 

Knox. 

 MR. KNOX: I'll go last. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wayne wants to go 

last, okay. Then we'll skip to Donna Hand, 

and I'm going to suggest that all of the 

participants now sit here by this phone 

receiver or speaker for the benefit of those 

on the line. 

 Those on the line are you still -- 

I know there's probably still a buzz, but can 

you hear better this way? 

 PARTICIPANT: No, we can't hear 

you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, well, we're 

doing the best we can, I think, so -- 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 

 355

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we're getting the speakers right up here by 

this phone unit, so that's about as good as we 

can get it. 

 And here's Donna Hand. 

 MS. HAND: My name is Donna Hand. 

I'm from the Florida Nuclear Workers of 

Florida organization. I'm a claimant 

advocate, as well as an authorized 

representative. 

 I would like to establish that 

there are some issues concerning the SEC 

Petitions qualification procedures, that 

within the statute or the regulations 83.9, it 

says that, if you go underneath the claimant 

end of it, that you must include certain 

identification material. 

 That was done in the Pinellas Plant 

SEC Petition. However, on January the 26th, 

`09, we received a letter stating that our SEC 

Petition did not qualify after their 

evaluation. 

 Now according to the 83.9, you must 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 356

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

include the proposed definition specifying 

facility. We did, Pinellas Plant. Location, 

we did all areas within the boundary plus the 

temporary plant. 

 It was in the very sentence of the 

qualification period, it says, we cannot 

include the temporary plant because it's not 

in the site profile. However, in two of the 

site profiles and in the SC&A audit review, it 

has the temporary plant. This process was 

started at the temporary plant, and they 

completely ignore that. 

 The third issue is job titles 

and/or job duties. We did that. We did the 

job titles and our job duties. That was 

required, and we even included first and 

second tier subcontractors. This was 

administration, janitors, construction 

workers, maintenance assemblers, processors, 

testers, and et cetera. 

 Then it says the period of 

employment relative to a petition. We did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 357

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that, from 1956, so the small, temporary 

building would be covered, all the way up 

until 1997. 

 The processes and everything ended 

up in about 1994. But from `94 to `97, they 

were decommissioning and decontaminating. 

Those workers stayed on and decommissioned and 

decontaminated that site. Therefore, 1997 

would be the cutoff date. 

 Again, it did not qualify, and 

according to the regulations, the satisfying 

requirements under 83.9 means the petition 

will -- which is mandatory -- will receive a 

full evaluation by NIOSH, the Board, and HHS 

as described under 83.13 through 83.16. 

 We did the qualification, we met 

the requirement, and we included that. Then 

why are they denying us a qualification? Why 

are they denying us a full review? 

 You already had an issue today in 

the SEC Petition about a temporary building. 

This is coming up again. That's why I knew 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 358

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that I needed to put that temporary building 

in there. 

 And to deny the qualification 

because it wasn't there, I'm bringing it to 

their attention. If they're not using it, 

that means they're missing that dose 

reconstruction for those workers and those 

claimants. 

 If the classified information is 

not available to you, last night I gave you 

the sites and the regulations that said, this 

still has to be done in a timely manner. And 

in a timely manner means, you treat that 

documentation as if you don't, so therefore, 

if you do not have that data, you have to give 

them a SEC Petition, because you cannot do it 

with sufficient accuracy. 

 They keep on saying significant and 

primary. Nowhere in the law do I see the 

words significant and primary. I see, 

characterize your occupational environment, 

and if they're unmonitored, the potential 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 359

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposure to radiation. And it defines 

radiation. 

 The law, as far as I've seen -- so 

please, will somebody point it out to me where 

it says, only use significant and primary? 

 I went ahead and checked how NIOSH 

defines significant. Well, in 10 CFR Part 

83.5, Appendix D, significant contamination is 

contamination in excess of those found in 

current occupational radiation protection 

service contamination values. So if you're 

going to use that, then you'd better use those 

values to say that that's significant. 

 Thank you very much. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much, Donna. 

 Next is -- it looks like Danny 

Beavers. Is it Beavers? Yes, Danny. Again, 

if you will come up here, Danny, hopefully our 

folks on the line will be able to hear it a 

little better. 

 MR. BEAVERS: Thank you. I didn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 360

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

really know I'd signed up to talk, but I will. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

know. 

 MR. BEAVERS: I have dealt with 

this program since it started, since we 

started the program. And in working with it, 

I worked in Los Alamos for many years as a 

pipefitter. And I think the program was set 

up to do the right thing, and pay people that 

worked doing these projects, and not always 

knowing what the outcome was going to be for 

their health. 

 It just seems like obstacles have 

been put in their way, and anything we can do 

to make it easier for them to be compensated 

for what they did, or their spouses or loved 

one, to not have to put them through the -- 

what they are having to go through now to get 

compensated, it seems like it would be morally 

the right thing to do. 

 And to see the money that is spent 

even right now through these types of meetings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 361

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and situations all over the country, it just 

seems like it's going backwards. And I don't 

understand why it's so difficult, why it's 

trying to be made so difficult when the 

Government did the right thing by passing the 

law initially, and it's gotten to the point of 

where they have -- I've seen the difference in 

payments since the SEC for Los Alamos was 

passed recently. I know members of mine whose 

fathers passed away years ago, and their 

claims are readdressed, and they were 

compensated now. 

 Some of them, their mothers have 

died, and they're the survivors, so they got 

compensated, but their parent, or their mother 

went through all those years in debt for 

medical bills left for a spouse that passed 

away working in an environment that, at the 

time, he may not, or probably did not know 

what it may cause to his health while he was 

doing his job. 

 And all of us go there just to do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 362

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our job. You don't know that you're going to 

-- I don't think any of us would go work in an 

environment where they would say, you're going 

to die in ten years after you work here. 

 So I mean, the right thing to do is 

just try and make it as easy as we can for the 

surviving members or the person that's ill to 

live their last days knowing that their spouse 

or their family will be taken care of when 

they're gone. And I think that was the intent 

of the law initially, and I would just speak 

in favor of the petition that was submitted 

for Los Alamos. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you for 

your comments. 

 And then Sammie Hayes. 

 MS. HAYES: Since I am vertically 

challenged, I'm glad you didn't want me to 

stand. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. You're 

welcome to sit here by the telephone speaker. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 363

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. HAYES: I just wanted to thank 

the Board for sitting here and listening to 

all of us. It must be really depressing -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just get close to 

the phone. 

 MS. HAYES: -- very -- okay -- very 

depressing to sit here and listen to all of 

the suffering that has gone on because of 

people's work environment. 

 I'm Sammie Hayes, and my husband 

died May of 2005, and he was the claimant, and 

after he passed away, I continued his claim. 

 He worked for LANL at MAC 1 in Shop 

13. Now what is Shop 13? Shop 13 is the shop 

where they cut all those exotic metals. One 

of them was uranium. Others were beryllium 

and lithium. 

 And he was an operator/technician. 

 His job included cleaning up the machines, 

and they also had to store or pack the chips 

that these machines put out after the machined 

item was finished. He was exposed to all 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 

 364

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this stuff, the cleaning fluids, the 

radiation, and all of the nasty stuff that was 

there. 

 One of his other positions, and one 

of the other things within his job, he assumed 

the position or the task as a nuclear 

materials custodian. Do you know what that 

means? 

 That means that he had to account 

for every ounce, or very small amounts of 

nuclear materials that went into that shop and 

came out. This is a hands-on task. So 

further exposures. 

 I listened to NIOSH try to defend 

why they did not recommend approval of this 

petition, and I was very upset with the fact 

that they said they had new -- new data. My 

question is, where did that data come from? 

That data was not there between the years of 

2001 and 2005 when this process started. 

 I worked for Johnson Controls in 

Human Resources, and I worked with 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 

 365

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

individuals who were gathering the data from 

LANL. They couldn't find it. It was not 

there. 

 So where did this data come from if 

they are filling in all of these holes in 

data? I would like to know. When did they 

find it? Did they pull it out of their hat or 

something? 

 The other thing is, is it reliable 

data? If they didn't have it in those 

previous years, and they now have it, where 

did it come from? I know this is -- I'm 

repeating myself, but it does not make a whole 

lot of sense. 

 I'd like to know also how they 

could -- how they figured my husband's dose 

reconstructions, either as an 

operator/technician, which he was, or the 

nuclear materials custodian. I mean, this is 

two -- one position that includes two very 

important pieces. 

 Where did they -- how did they do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 366

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this? They denied his claim. They've denied 

it twice or three times. And they can never, 

ever explain exactly why they denied it, 

because they have all of these charts, these 

charts that nobody but them can read. 

 Frustration level is very high. 

I've listened to a lot of these people here 

who have had untold illnesses. I watched my 

husband die for three years. When you watch 

somebody you love, the person who was your 

soul mate, die, you want to take somebody out 

and wring their neck, because you know that, 

in their environment, they were exposed to 

stuff that causes -- he had three separate 

cancers, and he was exposed to stuff that 

caused stuff. 

 NIOSH is in the business of 

guesstimating. They call it probabilities. 

It's guessing. And they cannot prove that 

it's not. 

 I state my case. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 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 

 367

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Sammie, for sharing that with us. 

 The last speaker on the list is 

Wayne Knox. And is Wayne with us? Okay. 

We'll stand by just a minute. 

 MR. LEYBA: Do the people on the 

phone get an opportunity to get involved? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we will do 

that here in just a moment. 

 Mr. Knox, are you ready to go, or -

- I have someone on the phone that wishes to 

speak. Do you have some materials that you 

need to distribute? Why don't you start 

distributing those, and gentleman on the 

phone, if you wish to comment, tell us your 

name, and then you may proceed. 

 MR. LEYBA: My name is Jerry Leyba. 

I'm with LAPOW, Los Alamos Project on Worker 

Safety. And I'm also a claimant. 

 I worked as an RCT, radiological 

control technician at GA-55 and at CMR, and I 

want to make a comment for the SEC for Los 

Alamos National Laboratory. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 368

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I feel that the Radiation Advisory 

Board, NIOSH should approve this SEC for LANL 

due to the lack of data that is correct data 

that was given by the Institute of 

Occupational Medicine to NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction under the IREP model, which I 

feel has nothing to do with the workers at Los 

Alamos and other nuclear facilities around the 

country, because they are based on survivors 

of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

 And also, a lot of the people that 

are involved with LAPOW who have been denied, 

denied, denied, when we look at the statistics 

on Department of Labor's website, I believe 

there's about 17,000 who have filed claims for 

LANL, and only approximately 130 of them were 

approved, and that is less than one percent. 

 I feel that the things that took 

place at GA-55 over at CMR during the Tiger 

Team, all the chemicals that we had there that 

we took out by dump truck loads, and also with 

the physicians, a lot of the physicians in Los 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 369

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Alamos are not willing to give medical 

evaluations. And I wonder why that these 

doctors are not as cooperative, and make the 

claimants go in circles. 

 I feel that -- I've been denied 

myself four times. As an RCT, I worked at 

doing bag outs, or filters, or 

decontamination. I felt a lot of the exposure 

that came from PU-238, 239, we worked with 

cobalt-60, cesium-137, and I know there is a 

lot of exposure for people who worked there 

for more than 30 years, and yet when they get 

their records, how can their records being 

showing 0.001 millirem. That is incorrect 

data. 

 And we know that the Department of 

labor and Department of Energy had to tell the 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Institute of 

Occupational Medicine, that the data that they 

were sending for dose reconstruction was not 

accurate. 

 And I feel that the LANL SEC should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 370

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be approved, because there are many claimants 

who are really having a hard time. It's 

frustrating. They're very depressed. They 

don't know what more they have to do with 

sending medical information to you folks. 

 I feel that it is time for the 

Radiation Advisory Board and NIOSH to face up, 

as I heard the comments last night by 

[Identifying information Redacted], and what 

happened to her [Identifying information 

Redacted], and also to [Identifying 

information Redacted], and also the testimony 

that [Identifying information Redacted] gave, 

and the petition that [Identifying information 

Redacted] presented to you folks. 

 As a representative of the Los 

Alamos Project on Worker Safety Nuclear Group 

Study, and also for UPTE, University of 

Professional and Technical Employees, it is 

time for the Radiation Advisory Board and 

NIOSH to give serious consideration on this 

LANL SEC Petition. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 371

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I thank you much for listening. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much for those comments. 

 Next we'll hear from Wayne Knox. 

Wayne? Stay very close to there. 

 MR. KNOX: Okay. Great. I feel 

privileged to be up here. Now I can make some 

decisions. 

 Thank you very much for inviting me 

to come up to the head table and talk. 

 The Board has heard a tremendous 

amount about problems that have occurred at 

the site, and I know it's difficult to believe 

that all of these things actually go on. No 

one, to my knowledge, has come up and shown 

you anything in writing and proof as to what 

really went on. 

 I have that proof, and I want to 

present it to you in terms of documentation, 

and in terms of a video. I have supplied to 

you more documentation over there, and I have 

provided four videos that actually show what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 372

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is going on in terms of the exposures of 

people at the DOE sites, in particular, one 

site. 

 I am not suggesting that this 

occurs at all DOE sites, but I'm taking one 

case, and running through a dichotomy of it, 

and show you what really has happened. 

 I provided you some examples of 

what is contained in this package. I have a 

stack more of this documentation available to 

provide further support to what I say if you 

need it. 

 So let's start with number one. 

Number one is a certification whenever waste 

is analyzed, disposed of, it has to be 

certified. This certification here is a 

certification from the Department of Energy 

Plant Manager and a Project Manager which 

certifies that, to their best knowledge and 

belief, true -- that this information is true, 

accurate, and complete. 

 And they also acknowledge that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 373

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are submitting this with the understanding 

that there are possible fines and imprisonment 

for knowing violations. 

 Number two is the information that 

was presented to me as a Project Manager, 

which states the amount of tritium that was 

contained in the sludge that we were supposed 

to mix. You will note that, under tritium in 

the sludge, it has NA. However, if you will 

move over further to the right to the last 

column, you'll note that, in the liquid 

potion, the liquid sitting on top of the 

sludge, there is some tritium. 

 I consider this to be unusual. 

Tritium generally does not behave in this 

manner unless there is some weird chemistry 

going on. 

 I inquired about this 

inconsistency, and they said they had an 800-

page validation and verification report that 

was performed by SAIC which said no tritium 

was in the sludge. You needed no protection 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 374

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from tritium. 

 Westinghouse wrote the radiation 

work permit. And as you can see where I have 

circled there, there are no provisions for 

protection from tritium. There is no 

monitoring of tritium. And just as a note, 

tritium requires specialized protection, and 

it requires specialized monitoring. 

 Number four, being a good health 

physicist, I said that we should cut this tank 

in this manner just in case, because the first 

thing you think about as a radiological 

engineer is the engineering design to prevent 

exposures from people. 

 I submitted this engineering 

design. It was rejected. It was rejected 

because they said, if one of my workers were 

to cross hands, were to cross this imaginary 

boundary, it would be a confined entry 

violation. I don't think that's true. 

 The next sheet, number four, we 

started mixing the sludge inside of a tank. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 375

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

And this report says that the levels of 

organic compounds, the smell inside of the 

tent, rose very high, and we had to evacuate 

the tent. At that time, no tritium was in the 

sludge. There were, obviously, organic 

compounds. 

 We evacuated the tent. 

Westinghouse provided no organic filters, 

because nothing was going to be released. 

They provided no -- no organic filters on the 

exhaust of the tent, which I requested that 

they do. They refused. They also refused to 

elevate the exhaust point, so there was a 

ground level release of material so strong 

that the radiation technician refused to go 

near the exhaust to collect the sample. 

 Number six, you'll see the IH -- 

the Industrial Hygiene people came over and 

made measurements inside of the tent, and in 

the viewing gallery where we were standing, we 

could smell it. They made these measurements 

inside of the tent. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 376

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now, these are measurements of 

organic compounds. Tritium can be bound with 

organic materials. The dose conversion factor 

for organic-bound tritium is greater than that 

of tritium and water, and certainly of tritium 

and air. 

 I have provided you a list, and 

number 7A and B, of all of the individuals 

that were exposed to this, believe it or not, 

there were 32 inspectors evaluating the work 

of seven people. All of them were exposed, 

unknowingly, to tritium at this point. 

 I have the names, the event, and 

you can go back to my records and see when 

they signed in and out of my site. I took the 

sludge samples and split it. I gave one to 

Westinghouse to analyze, and another one to a 

laboratory, an independent laboratory to 

analyze. 

 Westinghouse analyzed the sample 

and refused to give me the results of the 

analysis. I had to go through the Freedom 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 

 377

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Information to get this. They refused to give 

me, the Project Manager, the analysis of the 

sludge. 

 And as you can see in 8A, you have 

the split sludge sample. If you flip back to 

the back, Westinghouse reports the tritium 

concentration is 4,176 picocuries per gram. 

Perhaps not that exciting to most, but why 

would you not give the results to me? 

 And by the way, it was in my 

contract that I would evaluate all of the data 

and turn it over to Westinghouse as the 

Project Manager. 

 And going through the Freedom of 

Information Act, which took about three years 

to get this information, I find that there is 

-- it looked like acid. If you look at nine, 

where I have acid, you can go over and you can 

see the sample number is 1143898. It was 

exposed to acid. 

 You should never use acid in 

analyzing tritium -- preparing tritium. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 378

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

talked to the radio chemist about this, and he 

said, that's what they used. They used acid 

in preparing sludge and soil samples for 

tritium analysis. 

 The procedure that they used is in 

number ten, which I again got through the 

Freedom of Information Act. It says that you 

that for analyzing the tritium. 

 Number 10B is a statement from them 

concerning the soil samples and they indicate 

that they use this procedure for tritium but 

tritium is lost during the process because 

they use concentrated nitric acid. So we are 

analyzing tritium in soil -- are we? Or are 

we boiling it off? 

 That material was packaged. 

Whenever you package tritium, you are required 

to monitor the offgass because tritium will go 

any place it wants to go, trust me. You have 

to monitor any container of tritium. You 

didn't do that because there was no tritium 

there. That tritium was shipped and stored 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 379

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for three years. 

 The results of the -- I finally got 

the results from the laboratory -- again going 

through the Freedom of Information Act -- it 

was 37,000 picocuries per liter -- per gram, 

I'm sorry, in there. 

 Now this material was shipped. I 

have the shipping record. Its number -- I 

brought mine out. But I have the shipping 

record where no tritium is specified in the 

shipping manifest. So you have a situation 

where all of these people along the line have 

been exposed to tritium. Sitting in the 

warehouse, sitting in storage for three years, 

and then shipped from Savannah River up to Oak 

Ridge. 

 Oak Ridge again measures the 

tritium before they incinerate it -- before 

incineration -- and they get roughly 57,000 

picocuries per liter with one sample. Now 

this is after three years of decay and, of 

course, that is a 12-year half-life but 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 

 380

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

also have offgassing for a three-year period. 

 You can see the value of the 

tritium measured up at Oak Ridge here on page 

13B. Now why did all of this happen? There 

were a number of possibilities. Well, they 

wanted to save money. They wanted to complete 

it fast because the faster they complete it, 

the more money they make. 

 They were under an incentive awards 

program, the Mod-100 program, which offered 

them an incentive award for getting the work 

done fast and cheap. And workers don't 

matter. 

 The same philosophy was adopted 

when we were building the bombs and 

maintaining it. Workers didn't matter because 

it is going to be difficult for anyone to go 

back and reconstruct what we did. 

 If you look at number 14, another 

reason. In 1996 -- by the way, this work 

occurred in 1998 so I have been digging for 

ten years now -- but in 1996, Westinghouse 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 381

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sent tritium-bearing waste to Oak Ridge and 

mischaracterized it. I have the report. 

 And Oak Ridge said no, you can't 

bring any more waste into this state. The 

State of Tennessee prohibited Westinghouse 

from shipping tritium-bearing waste into the 

state. 

 So how else can I get rid of 

tritium-bearing waste is for it to be not 

there and for us to take advantage, we overly 

exposed workers in order to get rid of this 

tritium-bearing waste. By the way, this 

tritium-bearing waste was burned in Oak Ridge 

along with plutonium -- I didn't tell you -- 

there are a lot of other stories, sidelines to 

this -- but that tritium-bearing waste was 

burned in Oak Ridge in excess of the 

incinerator burn limit. 

 The plutonium that was there was 

burned in an excess. Westinghouse found 

cyanide in the first preliminary sample but 

refused to analyze it in the second sample, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 382

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

shipped it based upon the results of the 

second sample, again to Oak Ridge, it was 

burned up there. It was re-analyzed at Oak 

Ridge and burned. 

 All along this pathway, workers 

were exposed. I challenge you -- I have all 

of the data, I have the videos, you have my 

sworn statement, you have the names of all of 

the people who know what went on. I challenge 

you now to reconstruct that dose. 

 And may I say since people have 

claimed that they could accurately do this, 

please show me that you can accurately 

reconstruct this dose. I have all of the 

available data. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And thank you. 

Wayne, were you wanting this distributed to 

the Board members? Is that -- -- 

 MR. KNOX: Oh, well that, I would 

assume -- I think Dr. Elliott said that if I 

provided him information, he would look at 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 

 383

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We'll pass 

it on to NIOSH. Thank you very much. 

 I want to check with the folks on 

the phone. Was there anyone else on the phone 

line that wished to address the assembly this 

evening? 

 MR. RINGER: Yes, I would. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Proceed. 

Give us your name please. 

 MR. RINGER: Yes, my name is Jerome 

W. Ringer, calling from Phoenix, Arizona, and 

this is in regards to Blockson Chemical 

Company. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. RINGER: Okay? I kind of wrote 

this out but this is in response to the 

decision of our fathers and my brothers on the 

other -- on the line with me here -- my 

father's claim in regards to Blockson Chemical 

Company. 

 Our father's case number, and I'll 

just put down the last four numbers, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 384

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

[Identifying information Redacted], it was 

determined that our father was present. His 

percent was 48.4 percent. This did not come 

as a surprise to me or my brother. As was 

usual, we fell short again -- 1.6 percent. 

 This is hard to believe since my 

father started working at Blockson Chemical 

Company in the month and year of October of 

1950, a year before the reconstruction even 

started. And what was different than the 

conditions there between `50 and `51. 

 As we stated in the previous 

letters that my father worked as a laborer, 

which means he was employed -- his employment 

conditions would have been to do what no one 

else would want to do. I'm sorry to be 

stumbling here. I'm just a little tired in 

Arizona here tonight. 

 Handling trash, sweeping, and I'm 

sure he was going into buildings to remove 

unwanted items which I believe that were 

contaminated. We believe just because our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 385

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

father was not assigned to a certain area, his 

exposure to contamination materials would have 

been greater than someone that was assigned to 

a hazardous area. 

 With less safety procedures that 

were advised, if any, to our father, he would 

have had no idea of what type of material he 

was handling and coming in contact with. 

 Also as a laborer, we are sure that 

he had many foremen that would advise him of 

where to go and what to do without considering 

the safety and the health hazards of our 

father. 

 I was employed as a laborer at 

Joliet Army Ammunition Plant and I can say 

without a doubt I was directed into two places 

for clean up where other personnel at the 

location had safety equipment and protective 

clothing, which I did not. 

 Personally what upsets me the most 

is my father was in the United States Navy 

protecting our shores and saving lives and 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 

 386

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

return his life was taken by -- from 

employment from a chemical plant in the United 

States of America with no medals or 

compensation. What kind of justice is there 

for our father? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much. 

 Were there any others on the phone 

lines that wish to comment? 

 MS. CLAYTON: Yes, this is Dorothy 

Clayton. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Repeat 

your name for us. 

 MS. CLAYTON: Dorothy Clayton. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, please 

go ahead Dorothy. 

 MS. CLAYTON: Okay. I believe the 

Board has a copy of SC&A Nevada Test Site SEC 

Report, Interview, and Evaluation of Clayton 

Records. I was wondering where the other 

interviews are. They seem to be missing. 

 Is there anyone there from SC&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 

 387

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that can - 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dorothy, we may 

have to get back to you on that. When we 

leave the line here, if you'll stay on, I'll 

get a contact number from you and then we'll 

follow up. Is that agreeable? 

 MS. CLAYTON: And also in the 

report, they only list minors as being exposed 

to high dose rates of radiation. There were 

all types of crafts working there, 

electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, 

carpenters. But it only refers in here to 

minors. And they were a valuable part of the 

test site, of course, but not the only ones 

there at that site. 

 And also, another thing, there was 

a news release on the DOL website dated 

February 4th of this year which states that 

48,510 claimants across the country have been 

paid more than five billion dollars in 

compensation. 

 And I'd like to ask someone -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 388

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

maybe [Identifying information Redacted], she 

was mentioned in this article, in this news 

release -- why have only 167 dose 

reconstruction claims been paid to the Nevada 

Test Site claimants since the beginning of 

this program in 2001. 

 That number, 167, comes from the 

DOL website. I personally doubt that it is 

that high of claimants that have been paid 

because everyone that I'm working with, all 

the widows, they have not been paid. Every 

claim is being denied and has been for years 

since I've been working with them. 

 So I'd like to find out why only 

167 dose reconstruction claims have been paid. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: [Identifying 

information Redacted] is not here. She was 

here yesterday but was having to leave this 

morning, I believe. So she's not here. 

 I will answer in kind of a general 

sense. In essence I think what is reflected 

there is that that number -- and I don't 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 

 389

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

personally that's the correct number -- but in 

any event, the number of claims paid by Labor 

would reflect the number of cases for which 

the probability of causation was found to be 

50 percent or greater. So that is what that 

number should be reflecting. 

 And to the best of my knowledge, 

and I don't know how up to date their website 

is, but it was my understanding it is fairly 

up to date. But I can't personally verify 

that. 

 MS. CLAYTON: I was given that 

information from one of the employees at 

Department of Labor. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. CLAYTON: But it is on their 

website. But I was sent a memo -- now this 

back when the program first started -- but I 

just received this just a little while back 

that might shed a little bit of light on that. 

 This was a memo from Jeff Eagan of 

the DOE when the DOE has the program instead 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 390

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of the DOL. This memo went from Jeff Eagan to 

Dr. Lew Pepper, Boston University NTS Project. 

And this is what he was telling -- Mr. Eagan 

was telling Dr. Pepper to do. 

 He says here is our proposed 

process to expedite the filing of silicosis 

claims under the EEOICPA. These cases will 

have special handling because of the unique 

nature of their illness. Have your workers 

contact Ms. Judy Keating -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

 MS. CLAYTON: -- ASAP. They should 

identify themselves to her as NTS workers with 

silicosis referred by you. She will get the 

names, addresses, and phone numbers and 

expedite a claims packet out to them with a 

personalized letter offering them full support 

to fill out these claims forms. 

 There will be special tracking for 

this group of referrals. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dorothy, on those 

Part E claims, I should make you aware 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 

 391

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this Board does not get involved in the Part E 

of the program. So you would need to deal 

directly -- it now is fully under the 

Department of Labor. So you would need to 

contact the Labor people on that particular 

thing. 

 But if you will stay on the line 

after we complete here this evening, I'll get 

a phone number from you because we have a 

person here that can follow up with you on the 

SC&A question that you asked. 

 MS. CLAYTON: Okay. I will stay on 

the line. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Anyone else on the phone lines 

tonight that needs to make a comment? 

 Is there anyone here in the 

assembly yet this evening that has further 

comments? 

 If not, I thank you all and the 

Board will reconvene again in the morning for 

those that are interested in participating. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 392

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

 Thank you all for your comments and 

participation tonight. We are recessed. 

 And Dorothy, stand by. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter was concluded at 8:23 p.m.)