1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

118th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

AUGUST 24, 2017

+ + + + +

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

Mountain Time, in the Courtyard Marriott, 3347 

Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico, James M. 

Melius, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chair

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member*

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member*

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

BLAZE, D'LANIE

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

DOMINA, KIRK, Toxic Substances Board

ELLIOTT, JOHN*

ELLIOTT, MICHAEL*

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FROWISS, AL

GRIFFON, MARK, Toxic Substances Board

JOHNSON, DARRELL*

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LORENZEN, WILLIAM*

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS

TOMES, TOM, DCAS*

VEALE, FRANCIS*

VIOLET, ARLENE*

WORTHINGTON, PAT, DOE
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Contents

Welcome and Introductions......................... 4

Metals and Controls Corp. SEC Petition............ 5

(1968-1997; Attleboro, MA)........................ 5

Grand Junction Facilities SEC Petition........... 59

(1986-2010; Grand Junction, CO).................. 59

Area IV of Santa Susanna Field Laboratory........ 71

SEC Petition (1991-1993; Ventura County, CA)..... 71

Lunch........................................... 106

Savannah River Site SEC Petition................ 107

(1972-2007; Aiken, SC).......................... 107

Adjourn......................................... 170
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

2 (8:29 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Introductions 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: You might want to write 

5 that down. And welcome. And I'll let Ted do the 

6 introductory stuff.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Welcome, everyone, 

8 this is the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

9 Worker Health, Day 2 of our meeting here in Santa 

10 Fe.

11 And for people on the phone, just the 

12 preliminaries. The agenda for today, and for 

13 yesterday of course, and all the materials that 

14 we'll be discussing today are posted on the NIOSH 

15 website for this program under Schedule of 

16 Meetings, today's date.

17 You can go there, pull up all the 

18 documents, including the background reading. 

19 Follow along as you wish. There is also a web 

20 conference link that's specified on the agenda, 

21 at the top of the agenda.

So, if you want to see the slides as 

they're presented, as opposed to following 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

through on your own with the slides that are 

posted there, you can do that to, join that web 

conference.

And finally, for everyone listening on 

the phone, please keep your phones muted, to help 

with everyone's audio quality, yourselves on the 

phone, as well as the people in the room. And if 

you don't have a mute button on your phone, press 

*6, that will mute your phone. Thank you.

So, I'll get to roll call now. And I 

can just mention ahead of time, the Board Members 

have no conflicts for any of the sessions today. 

So, we don't need to address those. So, let's 

run down the list.

(Roll call)

CHAIR MELIUS: So, our first item on 

the agenda today is Metals and Controls 

Corporation, which is an SEC Petition. And Jim 

Neton's going to present.

Metals and Controls Corp. SEC Petition 

(1968-1997; Attleboro, MA) 

DR. NETON: Okay. Thank you, Dr. 

Melius. This is a Metals and -- I'm going to 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

present the Petition Evaluation Report for Metals 

and Controls Corporation. It's SEC Petition 

Number 00236.

Before I get started I would like to 

acknowledge the efforts of our NIOSH subject 

expert on this Evaluation Report, Pete Darnell, 

and the ORAU team specifically, Pat McCloskey, 

who did the bulk of the work putting this report 

together.

The Petition was received just about 

a year ago, September 1st, 2016. And it's a 

pretty lengthy Class. I think I'll read it in 

one time for the record, just so it's there.

It's all facilities construction 

maintenance workers, including lubricators, 

oilers, industrial pipefitters, engineering 

technicians, mechanical, electrical, structural, 

maintenance supervisors, electricians, plumbers, 

millwrights, carpenters, instrumentation 

technicians, chemical handlers, waste treatment 

operators, and all production workers, including 

machine operators, helpers, and repair and 

maintenance, commonly called R&M workers who 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

worked in Buildings 4, 5, 10, interior areas, and 

Building 5, 10, 11, 12, 17 exterior areas at 

Metals and Controls Corporation in Attleboro, 

Massachusetts, during the period from January 

1st, 1968 through March 21st 1997.

You can see that this is essentially 

a combination of building trades workers. And it 

does include all production workers though. So, 

it's essentially anybody that worked in the 

plant. But specifically doesn't address 

administrative type worker.

The Petition was qualified under Part 

83.13, which is the case where we receive a 

Petition from a qualified person, or eligible 

person who files a Petition, as opposed to the 

83.14, where it's a NIOSH self-initiated 

Petition.

It was qualified on November 14th, 

2016. And like most Petitions that are Petitions 

for the residual period, it qualified based on 

lack of monitoring data.

The Petition Class we evaluated is 

essentially identical, with a few grammatical 
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

commas thrown in, as the Class that was 

petitioned.

A little background and history. 

Metals and Controls is a fairly large site 

located on 100 acres in, like I said, Attleboro, 

Massachusetts. It's about 30 miles south of 

Boston.

The covered period for, the covered 

operations for AWE included January 1st 1952 

through December 31st 1967. And there's a fairly 

lengthy residual radiation contamination period 

from January 1st '68 through March 21st, '97.

The Board might recall that all the 

AWE operations were added to the SEC under 

Petition 149, back in 2009. And that was an 83.14 

Petition, that is, a Petition self-initiated by 

NIOSH, where we determine an infeasibility for 

reconstruction of doses during that time period.

So, the Petition itself now, of 

course, specifically only deals with the entire 

residual contamination period, this new Petition 

that is.

Radiological operations at the Metals 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Controls did begin in 1952. And it started in a 

couple of buildings. It originally started in 

Building 4, and moved some operations into 

Building 3. And included a fairly complex 

mixture of work for the Navy, Air Force, and other 

Government agencies.

In fact, the bulk of the work 

conducted, radiological work conducted in the 

covered period was work for the Navy. It's 

estimated that about 90 percent of the work 

during that time period, radiological work, 

involved fabrication of fuel for the Navy.

In 1957 all radiological operations 

were moved to Building 10. And I'll talk about 

this a little later. But Building 10 contained 

a fuel manufacturing area.

Just for a point of reference, in 1959 

Metals and Controls merged with Texas 

Instruments. And although I'll still refer to 

them as Metals and Controls as I go through the 

presentation.

I mentioned a variety of operations 

during the AWE period, fabrication of enriched 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

uranium for the Navy, which was primarily 93 

percent enriched uranium. Also, production of 

foils for the Government, and research, and some 

commercial customers.

The did process a fair amount of 

depleted uranium. I believe it was for Argonne 

National Laboratory. They took derbies, and made 

various pieces and parts out of the natural 

uranium, depleted natural uranium.

The did limited research and 

development, and fabrication work with thorium, 

included making thorium fuels, alloys, and foils 

for Brookhaven.

Early in the 19, no, mid, I think the 

late 1960s they did produce some electrical, 

self-illuminated circuit breakers that had radium 

in them. That was conducted in Building 1. That 

activity was a covered exposure during the 

covered period. But is not relevant to exposures 

during the residual contamination period, the 

radium exposures, that is, in Building 1.

Also, during the residual 

contamination period -- Well, all radiological 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

operations stopped in 1967 at the site, except 

for these fuel fabrication for the High Flux 

Isotope Reactor. And it was work done for Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, and some other 

Government researchers.

The High Flux Isotope Research Reactor 

operations, however, are not covered exposure 

under EEOICPA during the residual period.

Now, that's not a NIOSH determination. 

There's actually a letter in the Site Research 

Database from the DOE, issued in 2001, that made 

this determination. Basically concluding that 

the HIFR was a, used for peaceful operations, and 

not related to the nuclear weapons programs.

So, that complicates things a little 

bit. You have this ongoing operation in Building 

10 during the residual period that is not covered 

exposure.

This is just a diagram of the site. 

You can see there in the sort of central part of 

the diagram, Buildings 3, 4, and 10, where all 

the radiological operations occurred.

Just south of Building 4, I don't know 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

if you can see it from the audience, but there's 

a little blurb of a Building 5, a little building 

there. And that was a radioactive materials area 

where they stored and processed some of the waste 

during the site. And that became contaminated.

And just to the east of Building 10, 

a little bit south and east you see Buildings 11 

an 12. In between those buildings was 

essentially a waste burial grounds, where they 

took and disposed of some of the waste products 

from the operations.

But and large, those are the only 

areas of this 100 acre site, comprised of some 20 

buildings, that involve contamination with 

covered exposures.

A little bit about Building 10, where 

they moved the fuel manufacturing operations. It 

was a building separated by floor to ceiling 

partitions, and had two separate areas, an unclad 

fuel machining area, and a clad fuel machining 

area.

And they were completely separated, 

had different ventilation systems, and such. And 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

they were not intermingled. They were handled 

separately, and processed separately.

And in Building 10 was also this High 

Flux Isotope Research Reactor area, where no 

unclad material was allowed. This is a depiction 

of that building. And you can see the large area, 

labeled CMA, the clad materials area, or clad 

machining area.

It's pretty large. It's about ten 

times larger than the unclad machining area, 

which you see in the lower left hand corner. And 

just to the south of the unclad machining area 

you see the HIFR area, where the High Flux Isotope 

Reactor work was conducted.

There's a fairly long 

decontamination, decommissioning program at this 

site. At the end of commercial operations in, of 

radiological operations in Building 3, 4, and 10, 

with the exception of the HIFR area, they were 

cleaned. That was in 1967, finishing in 1968. 

So, they were D&D'd at that time.

And no covered radiological work after 

those AWE operations was conducted in those 
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

buildings, with the exception of the HIFR. And 

surveys were taken at that time to demonstrate 

they were clean. Unfortunately the site could 

not locate those surveys in 1982.

So, they ended up re-surveying the 

site in 1982 to demonstrate that they were still 

indeed clean. We'll get into that a little bit 

later.

As I mentioned, the rad waste 

materials from the radiological operations was 

processed inside/outside of Building 5, and then 

shipped off site. And again, limited on site 

burial between Buildings 11 and 12.

Okay. In 1981 the site started to 

initiate a site wide D&D, because the HIFR 

operations were coming to an end. And that would 

have been the end of all radiological operations, 

both commercial and, well, AWE finished in '67.

And so, D&D was performed in the HIFR 

area by contractors. It was not done by the M&C 

personnel. Building 10 had the highest pre D&D 

contamination levels. They did a fairly 

comprehensive grid survey with the highest values 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

about 1260 dpm per 100 square centimeters, and 

external exposure rates .15 mR per hour.

In 1983 the NRC allowed for initial 

release of the AWE processing areas. That's 

Building 3, 4, and 10. Now, this gets a little 

confusing. But in 1982 they D&D'd the HIFR area, 

and they thought they were done with D&D.

But what happened over time was little 

pockets of contamination showed up, not on 

necessarily accessible surfaces, but like burial 

grounds between Building 11 and 12, and some 

burial activities near Building 5. So, what you 

see here is sort of a listing of what happened in 

those D&D operations after 1982.

In '84 ORISE did a survey. And they, 

it was basically a gamma survey of the areas. 

And identified pockets of buried materials. So, 

they did a remediation in '92 through '93. The 

found some more pockets. And finally in 1994, 

around '93 the burial grounds were done, Building 

11 and 12.

But once they started finding more and 

more buried contamination they decided to re-
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

survey the metals recovery area, metals areas. 

And it turns out they did find more 

contamination. But they were again on more 

inaccessible surfaces, joints between concrete 

cracks, underneath equipment, that sort of thing.

So, in general, the surveys that were 

done earlier were valid. But again, there was 

still contamination that would not allow the site 

to be free released to the public without, you 

know, cleaning up the rest of the material.

And this just sort of finishes the 

issue. In '95 the NRC did a site wide 

comprehensive characterization. A little more 

remediation occurred in '95, to clean up some of 

the more accessible areas again. And finally, in 

1997, which is the end of the residual period, 

the NRC did a site wide release for unrestricted 

use of the site.

Okay. So, what do we have available 

to reconstruct exposures during this time period? 

There's about 600 documents in the SR, Site 

Research Database, that were collected over time 

from various locations.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

We have documents and affidavits 

provided by the Petitioners. And we have our 

normal data searches that we conduct, such as 

internet searches, on the OSTI, Office of Science 

and Technology, DOE Legacy Management Database, 

those types of internet websites.

And we also have guidance available 

from some of our own documents, TBD-6000. We 

used NUREG/CR-5512 to estimate ingestion. And as 

we do in many residual contamination instances, 

we rely on OTIB-70 to model doses.

Just a little bit about the number of 

dose reconstructions from the site. There's 448 

claims that were submitted for dose 

reconstruction. What's interesting to me is the 

number 314, which is dose reconstructions 

completed for energy employees who started their 

employment during the period under evaluation.

So, 70 percent of the claims we have 

are affected by this SEC Petition, which is 

higher than I expected. But it turns out that 

the site had a large number of employees. I think 

in the early '60s the site population was
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

somewhere around 6,000. And it diminished down 

over time in the '80s to around 1,000, in that 

ballpark.

So, it's a pretty large site, with a 

very active population in the '60s, which is the 

residual contamination period. So, I guess it 

shouldn't be surprising that we have that many 

claims affected.

And as you would expect, this is a 

residual contamination period. So, we have very 

little, limited personnel monitoring data, 

whether it's external or internal.

So, the potential for exposure is, as 

I talked about earlier, is inhalation, ingestion 

of uranium and thorium source terms. And for 

internal. And then, of course, there would be 

external photon and beta exposures from those 

materials.

So, the internal monitoring data. We 

have a fair amount of routine contamination 

survey data. We have survey data that we can 

take from the end of the operational period.

Remember, I said they surveyed the 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Buildings 3, 4, and 10 in '68. And it was 

decontaminated, and determined to be clean. They 

couldn't find the data.

So, what we did is, we went back a 

little prior to that, and used some of the data, 

survey data from just at the end of the 

operational period, thinking that would provide 

a good starting point for bounding exposures in

the residual period.

For comparison we actually did review 

some of the data in the residual period for the 

commercial activities, just to make sure there 

was no major disconnect between what was going on 

in the HIFR area, and what was going on in the 

rest of the site.

Similarly, with the external 

monitoring data, we had film badge data from the 

end of the operational period that does include 

exposures from both residual contamination and 

ongoing operations. But we could not figure out 

any way to separate those two. So, we just 

combined them together. Or we just didn't try to 

separate them.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And again, we looked at the film badge 

data, and survey contamination, survey, 

radiological survey data, as a sanity check on 

what we were using, to make sure we, there was no 

major disconnect there.

Okay. So, we found that the available 

monitoring records, those beginning survey data, 

ending survey data, and film badge results, are 

available so that we can develop a dose 

reconstruction approach for this time period.

So, to estimate internal doses in this 

time period we took the 200 plus survey data 

entries that were taken before the D&D was 

completed, and took the 95th percentile value.

So, we had a starting point, or what 

the surface contamination values were at the 

beginning of the residual period. And in the 

1982 timeframe we had 7,000 survey data points at 

the end of the operation, at the end of the HIFR 

operations, that, and were compiled. And we took 

the 95th percentile of that.

Then we used the TIB-70 approach to do 

a source term depletion rate, as we normally do, 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

using a re-suspension factor from those surface 

contaminations of ten to the minus six, so that 

we can get an air concentration data.

So, if you fold that all together, and 

for a certain breathing rate you end up with a 

curve that looks something like this, which is 

the annual inhalation of alpha emitting material. 

Not just uranium, but these are gross alpha 

measurements.

So, we started somewhere around 14 dpm 

in 1967 or '68, and diminishing down to somewhere 

around one dpm in the 1997 timeframe. So, this 

is our standard TIB-70 approach, where you take 

the starting survey contamination data, ending 

data, and develop an intake, inhalation intake 

based on that.

I did mention that these were for, 

these surveys were gross alpha surveys, not 

isotope specific. We do know that they processed 

both uranium and thorium. So we will, in the 

case of dose reconstruction for this time period 

we'll take the most claimant favorable intake of 

either uranium and thorium for the cancer being 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

evaluated, and use that in the dose 

reconstruction.

The amount of activity ingested can be 

computed using the survey contamination data, and 

using the NUREG/CR-5512 value of ten to the minus 

four of square meters per hour of ingestion, 

which we've used in the past.

Okay. External dose is a little more 

straightforward. We had 162 film badge results 

from the end of the operational period. These 

are Landauer film badge results. And we located 

the 95th percentile in that distribution.

And by the time, we added in missed 

dose, two dose film badges. And in doing that we 

ended up estimating a total exposure at the end 

of the operational period of 165 millirem per 

year, which would include ongoing operations at 

the HIFR.

We also looked at film badge data for 

non-covered work during the residual period in 

the HIFR area. And that came out, based on five 

quarters of data in the '70s, to 193 millirem per 

year.
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So, given the uncertainties involved 

in all of this we ended up using a claimant 

favorable constant distribution of 200 millirem 

per year, assigned for every year, with no source 

term depletion.

Medical x-ray is not covered in the 

residual contamination period. So, we didn't 

have to worry about that for this evaluation.

So, the intakes of these external 

doses for the residual will apply to all 

personnel with primary responsibilities in the 

rad area, both the intakes, internal inhalation 

intakes, and the external doses.

For administrative or non-production 

personnel we're going to assume that the workers' 

exposures were ten percent of those associated 

with the production workers. And that's 

something that's defined right in TBD-6000. So, 

that's what we intend to use.

So, just to wrap it up here. We're 

in the residual contamination period. We believe 

that we can reconstruct between 1/1/68 and 

3/21/97 internal exposures and external 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

exposures. And we believe that there is 

sufficient accuracy to estimate both the internal 

and external for all members of the evaluated 

Class. And that's it for my presentation.

CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you. Thank you, 

Jim. Questions from Board Members? Josie?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim?

CHAIR MELIUS: Oh, I'm --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, this is Paul 

Ziemer. And I wanted to let you and Ted know 

that I came on the line just as Jim was starting. 

So, I am here today. I just missed the roll call, 

I guess.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Well, welcome. 

We started on time for a change. Almost on time 

anyway. Thanks, Paul. Good. Josie, you had a 

question?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Jim, you 

partially answered it. There's so many questions 

I have with this site. But your Class Definition, 

you excluded the administrative Class.

And as you were going through this, I 

know there's a lot of buildings where interior 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

was an issue. But there's several buildings 

where exterior is an issue. And looking at, just 

briefly at the cleanup in the different years, I 

wonder if ten percent is an adequate number.

And I know you can't get into that 

now. But that would be a question I'd have for 

administrative personnel. We know that that can 

be a very different set of people that would be 

in and around those areas.

DR. NETON: Right. I meant to say 

this, and I didn't. The cleanup, the D&D work 

that was done after '80, and starting in '82 and 

later, was done by subcontractors.

MEMBER BEACH: Right.

DR. NETON: It was not done by Metals 

Controls personnel. And they were done under 

some fairly well defined health and safety plans. 

We have copies of them. They were well described. 

Where they would actually cordon off areas, use 

HEPA filters, ventilation, those sort of things, 

to minimize exposure. So, we're pretty 

comfortable with the fact that we don't believe 

that on site personnel were unduly exposed during 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

those D&D efforts.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes. And my concern 

isn't really the D&D efforts. I realize those 

would be monitored, and closely cordoned off. 

But those areas were available for access 

potentially before D&D. The D&D years weren't, 

were several years after.

And then, what was going on around 

Building 1 at -- Your slide said everything was 

released unrestricted except for Building 1. I 

didn't realize Building 1 was part of the 

contaminated areas. And when I went back to look, 

I couldn't find anything.

DR. NETON: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: But you mentioned it in 

your slides.

DR. NETON: Yes. I noticed that going 

over it this morning too. And I think, well, all 

I know that happened in Building 1 that was 

radiological work was those electrical circuit 

breakers that had radium in them.

And if there was some residual 

contamination from radium it wouldn't be covered 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

anyways. Because that's not an AEC derived 

source of exposure.

That was done for, I forget if it was 

the Navy, some armed forces. It was done for the 

military. And so, that wouldn't be covered. But 

you're right. It would be best to know what that 

was. I really don't know that.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thanks.

CHAIR MELIUS: Other Board Member 

questions? Yes, Henry.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. You started 

with the survey data from '66/'67. How did that 

compare to the 1982 data?

DR. NETON: It was higher. What we 

did, to be clear, is we took, the '82 data was a 

fixed contamination survey, not a smear.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

DR. NETON: And we used an approach 

where in general it's assumed that ten percent of 

the contamination is loose, out of total 

contamination value. So, we when we took ten 

percent of that I think it was probably about, I 

can't remember now, quite a bit lower. I can't 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

tell you exactly.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

DR. NETON: Not an order of magnitude, 

but much lower than the data that we started with 

in 1968.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Because I was just 

looking at your decay curve there. It looks to 

be pretty regular --

DR. NETON: Yes.

MEMBER ANDERSON: -- which I would 

assume would be --

DR. NETON: Well --

MEMBER ANDERSON: -- different if you 

start from the high --

DR. NETON: Well, if you have two 

points you can generate a pretty smooth curve.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

DR. NETON: I mean, but --

MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, that's --

DR. NETON: To be fair. Let me just 

bring that up. You can see, you can get a rough 

idea if you look at that graph. The data points 

were in '82. So, you're somewhere around four 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

dpm in '82, and 14. So, that ratio would be the 

difference. You know, it's all scalable from 

that graph. So, 4/14ths.

MEMBER ANDERSON: And the graph is 

starting from the '66 data?

DR. NETON: Yes. The starting point 

was the 1966/'67 survey data. The ending point, 

I probably should have showed that on this graph, 

was the '82 data. And we fit an exponential, 

just like we do, TIB-70 recommends, through those 

points to estimate in between all the intervening 

years.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Brad.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. I just a 

clarification question. We're using TBD-6000 for 

that to do it?

DR. NETON: Well, 6000, only to the 

extent we're using some of the concepts in it. 

We're not using any surrogate data from 6000. 

We're using the fact that a ten to minus 6 degree 

resuspension factor is valid.

We're using the concept that ten 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

percent of, the administrative people have ten 

percent of the exposure to the production 

workers. That's about the only two things out of 

6000 that are used. Again, we have site specific 

data here that we're using.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I'm just 

trying to get a clarification on that. Now, has 

SC&A even looked at this?

DR. NETON: They have not.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. I actually have 

a question on the earlier D&D effort. I think 

you said the original SEC Class went through '67, 

but the D&D was '67 and '68?

DR. NETON: Right.

CHAIR MELIUS: And so, who did it in 

'68? I mean, was that contracted out? Or was 

that people on the site? Or don't we know?

DR. NETON: I don't know that --

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay.

DR. NETON: -- the answer to that 

question.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. Trick question. 

Yes. Because I think theirs would be different.
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. NETON: Yes.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

DR. NETON: You're right.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. A different 

approach. Okay. Other questions from Board 

Members? Paul, Gen, anybody on the line? Okay. 

Well --

PARTICIPANT: Yes. The Petitioners 

are on the line here.

CHAIR MELIUS: Well, we'll call on you 

in a little bit.

PARTICIPANT: Okay. I'm sorry. I 

misunderstood.

CHAIR MELIUS: That's okay. I was 

looking for, we have a couple of Board Members 

that are on the line. I have a couple of Board 

Members who --

MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. I have 

no question.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Paul? Okay. 

Dave, and then whoever.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. My only question 

was, I think it was, may have been covered. But
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

is SC&A going to review this? Or are we going 

ahead today?

CHAIR MELIUS: We're not, we haven't 

decided that yet.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay.

MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave Kotelchuck. 

That was my question.

CHAIR MELIUS: Well, hold on. Maybe 

we could give the Petitioner time to talk. And 

we have a few more questions of the Board Members. 

So, Loretta?

MEMBER VALERIO: Can you hear me? Is 

this on? Okay. So, I actually have two 

questions. One is, looking at the Petition 

Class, I'm wondering are laborers and custodians 

considered part of the repair and maintenance 

group? That's the first question.

And the second half of that question 

is, who handled the waste? How was it shipped? 

Because you said it was limited. So, who handled 

it? Who moved it --

DR. NETON: Which --
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER VALERIO: -- the radioactive 

waste? And --

DR. NETON: During which period, I 

guess? During the residual period?

MEMBER VALERIO: During the residual 

period.

DR. NETON: Yes. There was really no 

waste generated at that point until the D&D 

operations occurred. All radiological operations 

stopped, AEC radiological operations stopped in 

1967.

And from '67 to '82 the HIFR was in 

place. But that was not AEC activity. So, any 

waste generated during the HIFR would not be 

covered exposure in the residual period.

MEMBER VALERIO: Okay. So, what about 

during the covered period?

DR. NETON: It's an SEC during the 

covered period. So, I don't know the answer to 

that. But it's, you know, all employees are 

considered covered under the SEC during that 

period.

MEMBER VALERIO: Okay.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

(Off microphone comment)

DR. NETON: I don't know the answer to 

that question.

CHAIR MELIUS: Loretta, you have 

another question? Or, you got your hang tag up 

there. Okay. Okay. If there are no further 

questions then Petitioners who would like to make 

comments, you may.

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. This is Michael 

Elliott. I am one of the Petitioners on this SEC 

Petition. And first, I want to thank Dr. Melius, 

and all the esteemed Members of the Board for 

allowing me to speak.

I want to make sure that, I submitted 

a written statement to the Board on August 18, 

2007, 2017, excuse me. And I'm hoping that 

perhaps you have that. That's where the majority 

of what I'm going to say today is drawn. So, 

hopeful you've got that. And if you don't, would 

you let me know? I'll make sure that I get it to 

you.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay.

MR. ELLIOTT: Can you -- Dr. Melius, 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

did you receive my written statement?

CHAIR MELIUS: I don't believe so. 

And I don't think anybody here is familiar with 

it. So, if you could resubmit it, that would --

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: -- be helpful. But go 

ahead and make any comments now.

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. And to whom 

should, I submitted it to Josh Kinman. To whom 

should I submit the written statement?

CHAIR MELIUS: We, it would be to 

Josh. That would be the person. He's not here 

today. So, we --

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: -- don't have any way 

of knowing what happened to it.

MR. ELLIOTT: That's fine. That's 

fine.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: I just wanted to make 

sure that you got it.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. And just ask, 

when you submit it to Josh this time, make sure 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you ask for a confirmation, so you know, and we 

know. Okay?

MR. ELLIOTT: Got it.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Thank you very 

much.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. I'd also like to 

start off, before I read my statement, I'd like 

to clarify and correct one statement that Dr. 

Neton just made during his presentation.

He incorrectly characterized the 

Class of employees that we asked to be covered. 

He said that all production workers during the 

residual period are part of this Class.

We absolutely did not say that. We, 

in fact, defined the Class very, very narrowly. 

If he were to look at Section E of our Petition, 

he would see that we limited it to facilities 

maintenance workers, and he did a good job 

describing what those job titles are within the 

facilities maintenance workers Class.

We included repair and maintenance 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

workers, equipment repair and maintenance workers 

who worked in, but only those who worked in 

Buildings 4 and 10.

And we included production workers, 

limited to just the production workers who worked 

on the machines within Building 4 and 10, that 

were identified in the documents we submitted as 

having contamination.

So, things like the Lewis Mill in 

Building 4, the M-110 wire drawing machine, the 

Bickhart (phonetic) wire drawing machine in 

Building 10. We were very specific.

It was a very limited, small, small, 

the number of production employees would be --

you know, really much less than the facility's 

maintenance workers. The major Class here is the 

facility's maintenance workers. It is not 

production workers. Am I clear?

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, you're clear.

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Thank you. So, 

I'm not sure how that confusion got started. All 

right. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity 

to address the Advisory Board on Radiation and 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Worker Health, in response to NIOSH's summary of 

its SEC Petition Evaluation Report.

We, the Petitioners, and by the way, 

with me here is John Elliott, one of the other 

Petitioners. We do have legal counsel with us, 

Arlene Violet. John's [identifying information 

redacted] is with us. And our health physicist 

is on the call as well, William Lorenzen, who was 

one of the health physicists during the 

decommissioning project in the 1990s.

We the Petitioners contend that the 

assumptions used in the NIOSH Evaluation Report 

are both inadequate and incomplete for the 

workers this Petition covers.

I will briefly review some of the 

historical context, and the work practices of 

these employees, as well as the observations of 

a health physicist, that's William Lorenzen, who 

worked on the M&C site nuclear decommissioning 

project, that support our position.

NIOSH's analysis is based on the 

assumption that the principle source of exposure 

to members of the Class under evaluation is the 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

residual surface contamination left behind in 

manufacturing areas where former atomic weapons 

facilities related operations were conducted.

And I tell you, that phrase appears at 

least a half dozen times throughout this report. 

That is their basic assumption.

This assumption is reasonable for your 

average production and office worker. But it is 

not reasonable for the Class of employees this 

Petition addresses.

A review of the work practices of the 

facility's maintenance workers, R&M workers, and 

specific production workers clearly shows that 

they encountered what could only be described as 

gross contamination.

As the project manager during the M&C 

site nuclear decommissioning project, I can 

confirm that site characterization studies 

determined that source material originating from 

atomic weapons facilities related operations was 

released in an uncontrolled manner into 

subsurface soil, into drains, utility trenches, 

onto the roof decking.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Without getting into a detailed 

critique of everything Dr. Neton just described 

in his presentation, his statement that the 

Buildings 3, 4, and 10 were cleaned at the end of 

the operational period, circa 1967/'68, is 

misleading.

Our Petition provides evidence that 

there were significant quantities of 

contamination that remained inside on the site, 

that was later removed during our decommissioning 

project, in the '95 timeframe that he kind of 

dismissed as a little more remediation.

Well, let me tell you, it was more 

than a little more remediation. Exhibit 6 of our 

Petition, which is an internal memo from 

[identifying information redacted] to the NRC 

Commission, documents large quantities of 

contaminated materials.

And I'm going to quote from that 

Petition very briefly, from Exhibit 6, which, 

what did I do with Exhibit 6? Ah, okay. Here it 

is, Exhibit 6. I'm sorry.

In this exhibit, on, and this exhibit 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

is in our Petition. On Page 5 of that internal 

memo, [identifying information redacted]states, 

"The volume of uranium contaminated waste 

generated in the interior remediation project was 

980 cubic meters, or 34,600 cubic feet of soil 

and concrete rubble. The exterior remediation 

projects generated primarily contaminated soil 

totaling 15,100 cubic meters, or 532,000 cubic 

feet."

So, I can assure you that this was 

much more than mere inaccessible surface 

contamination, as Dr. Neton would have you 

believe.

For over 25 years this contamination 

was never measured, monitored, or controlled. 

Because the source materials emitted primarily 

alpha radiation, which I'm sure as you know, can 

only be detected in close proximity to the 

source.

The released source material would 

have evaded the detection of any routine 

monitoring in a controlled manufacturing areas, 

such as what Dr. Neton was describing he used as 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the basis of his evaluation, especially given the 

remote locations where this contamination came to 

reside.

Yet, it remained present as an unknown 

hazard to maintenance and other workers who were 

completely unaware of the risks. Nor were they 

afforded any radiological monitoring or controls. 

Proper management and control only began when it 

was eventually identified during the later site 

decommissioning project between the years 1992 

and 1997.

Because of this, on almost a daily 

basis facilities maintenance workers, equipment 

R&M workers, and certain production workers were 

exposed to gross residual radioactive 

contamination, without any radiological 

monitoring or controls.

In the absence of these controls it is 

neither possible to know, nor estimate the bounds 

of the dose they received using the methods that 

NIOSH applied in their evaluation.

Here are some activities referenced in 

our Petition that illustrates the kin of 
43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

conditions that resulted in exposures to gross 

contamination. This was, these actually, I'm 

paraphrasing the affidavit by my colleague John 

Elliott.

One, drain repair work where 

maintenance workers were working in direct 

contact with contaminated residue in surrounding 

soils. No personal protective equipment or 

radiological controls were provided.

The drains were completely blocked 

with radioactive residue deposited during the 

atomic weapons program operational period. 

Please note that the drain survey, which is 

included in our Petition as Exhibit Number 1 

documents that the concentration of uranium in 

these drains ranged from 10,000 to 50,000 

picocuries per gram.

As further insult to these workers we 

have no measurement to their exposures to 

thorium, which would have certainly be present in 

the residues as well.

Two, rooftop installation of site 

services, where maintenance workers were showered 
44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

by dust and debris every time they installed roof 

penetration for roof mounted equipment.

Three, cleaning contaminated 

mechanical equipment preceding any lubrication 

tasks. Often cleaning included the use of 

compressed air, which obviously increased the 

potential for inhalation.

Four, working in the utility trench 

networks, in direct contact with radioactive 

contaminated residues.

Five, working on, in, and around 

manufacturing equipment that still contained 

pockets of residual radioactivity.

Six, working in direct contact with 

contaminated soils external to the manufacturing 

buildings, where radioactive waste materials had 

previously been buried.

All of this work was performed in 

areas where gross contamination was found, as 

demonstrated in the exhibits submitted in support 

of our Petition.

William Lorenzen, a health physicist

during the decommissioning of the M&C site 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

concluded the following, and I quote, "The SEC 

evaluation that NIOSH conducted and used to 

determine that exposures could be bounded does 

not adequately evaluate the types of exposures 

and conditions experienced by the Class of 

workers."

Please note that in addition to his 

work at the M&C site, Mr. Lorenzen also worked as 

an operational health physicist for over ten 

years in uranium and source material facilities, 

both at the Watertown Arsenal, and at Nuclear 

Metals, Inc.

In his capacity as an operational 

health physicist he was responsible for 

monitoring the work and exposure of this very 

Class of workers, and gained first-hand knowledge 

and experience with how their exposures differ 

from those of the general workforce.

Mr. Lorenzen cites several factors 

that show the assumptions used by NIOSH were 

inappropriately applied to these workers, 

including, one, breathing zone proximity to 

contamination.
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Localized airborne clouds of 

contamination were generated by intrusive and 

aggressive processes used by these workers in 

performing these tasks, and/or generated by the 

extensive levels of contamination in and on the 

surfaces, and the materials that they worked on.

Two, contamination levels in and on 

the work zones, and/or the equipment, were much 

greater than typical work area surfaces, making 

resuspension levels very high.

Three, the physical nature of the work 

these tasks required increased the breathing rate 

above that seen during typical working 

conditions.

Four, the particle size distribution 

of the airborne contaminants generated from the 

invasive, destructive, and aggressive tasks would 

be significantly different than that assumed by 

the NIOSH resuspension methodology.

In conclusion, we contend that NIOSH's 

evaluation of the SEC Petition is inadequate and 

incomplete. Because NIOSH's assumptions for 

estimating dose only recognize a small fraction 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of the total dose that this Class of employees 

received.

An objective review of the history, 

the work practices, and corresponding exposure 

scenarios for the workers in this Petition can 

only conclude that their exposures were never 

measured or monitored. And there is insufficient 

data to estimate a bounding value of the total 

dose they received.

The exhibits we submitted show an 

enormous quantity, as I mentioned, close to 

20,000 cubic meters, that have been ignored by 

NIOSH in the evaluation.

We respectfully request that the Board 

assign an independent Work Group. I think you 

refer to it as the SC&A review, to objectively 

reevaluate the SEC Petition with a complete 

understanding of the nature of the exposures that 

this Class of employees received.

We the Petitioners, and our health 

physicist, would be happy to work with the 

independent Work Group, if we can help clarify 

any of the facts. Thank you again for the 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

opportunity to deliver this statement today.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Thank you. So, 

any other questions or comments from the Board 

Members? Yes.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. This is for 

the, that you had previous dose reconstructions. 

And you note here that one claim had internal 

dosimetry, and four claims had external 

dosimetry.

How do those measure correspond with 

your estimate? I mean, most of the rest of this 

is all done kind of without measurements. And 

these claims, is there anything unusual about 

them? Or what was actually measured? And how 

does that compare to what your estimates 

generate, you know?

DR. NETON: Yes. I don't know. I, 

we have to go back and look at that, to make that 

determination.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Why were these 

individuals --

DR. NETON: Yes. I don't recall.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. Or what 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

years?

DR. NETON: Yes.

MEMBER ANDERSON: I think these might 

be, I mean, there are very few of them. But it 

seems to be the only measurements you have for 

individuals during this period.

DR. NETON: Yes.

CHAIR MELIUS: Any other questions or 

comments? If not, I mean, again, this has already 

sort of come up for Members. But our usual 

procedure is to refer to a Work Group, and get 

further evaluation. Does that seem reasonable to 

everybody? If not, I don't think we need a vote 

to do that. Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was curious. I 

was originally thinking it needed to go to the 

TBD-6000. But it probably could stand alone with 

a separate Work Group, based on what we heard 

from Jim today. I don't know if you've given 

that any thought.

CHAIR MELIUS: Either way. I'm not 

quite -- Dr. Ziemer and TBD-6000 people would be, 

might be happy not to have more to do right now. 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

They're busy.

(Off microphone comment)

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'm not, yes.

CHAIR MELIUS: So, we'll set up a Work 

Group. It's going to take some time, that's all. 

John is happy, whatever it took on that. Okay. 

Yes.

(Off microphone comment)

CHAIR MELIUS: The doc --

MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Melius, I, forgive 

me for, if I'm speaking out of turn. But I don't 

quite understand the last discussion about 

whether or not this is referred to, is it internal 

or external review group? Can you explain what 

you're thinking about?

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. We have Work 

Groups that guide the evaluation, our evaluation. 

And we have a technical contractor who reports to 

us. But all that, the direction for that all 

comes from the Board. We don't refer it to 

outside independent groups for evaluation. 

That's not permitted under our, the way we 

proceed. So, we're just --
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. ELLIOTT: Was there any question 

about that? Or --

CHAIR MELIUS: What?

MR. ELLIOTT: Was there a question 

about that?

CHAIR MELIUS: The question was about 

whether we have a, we have standing Work Groups 

that handle certain types of facilities. And 

then we have others that we refer to. We can set 

up a Work Group. The Work Group consists of Board 

Members.

And what I was pointing out, if we do 

it independently it's going to take time. 

Because I have to canvass the Board Members, 

including those not here, to see who's interested 

and willing to serve.

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: But, and some --

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: And some of what we 

decide depends on how busy the standing Work 

Group is that would maybe usually handle this 

type of facility, and has handled many of them.
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I think in this case, since they're 

back logged we'll set up a group. That will take 

some time to do.

MR. ELLIOTT: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: And obviously, we'll be 

notified however it's being handled?

CHAIR MELIUS: Oh, yes. You'll be 

notified. And when there are Work Group meetings 

you're notified, and can submit information, and 

comment as to that process. So, it's an open 

process. All our Work Group meetings are.

(Off microphone comment)

CHAIR MELIUS: What? Speak. I mean, 

you can't --

MEMBER BEACH: I was going to say, 

Bill and I were just talking that we were both 

interested in this. And then Henry jumped in. 

So, anyway, hopefully you'll go by email, and the 

normal channels.

CHAIR MELIUS: No. It's not fair to 

--

MEMBER BEACH: All right. Because I 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

think this is gearing a lot of interest in looking 

at this one.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. So, do you want 

to take it on? I mean, I can refer it to the 

6000, what I call the 6000 group. Yes.

(Off microphone comments)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Then, make up 

your mind here. Come on.

(Off microphone comments)

MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I only jumped in 

because I saw Henry grabbing your arm. And I'm 

interested in it as well. So, we'll leave it to 

you, Jim.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, yes. Okay. And 

meanwhile, I think we should task SC&A with doing 

a review, start their review. Hopefully they'll 

be in the midst of their review, and the Work 

Group can meet. And if there's other particular 

areas they want focused on, that's fine.

MR. ELLIOTT: And I was just, the last 

thing I'll make, and I promise I won't make 

another word. But I hope that whoever does the 

review will look carefully at the internal dose 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

from, you know, direct contact with this gross 

contamination, you know, in all the places where 

it came to reside, the subsurface drains, the 

utility trenches, up on the roof decking, you 

know, all the places that we documented in our 

Petition.

CHAIR MELIUS: They will receive the 

Petition, the, sort of the, what's the so called 

missing documents that you sent in earlier. If 

you resend them in we'll make sure that the 

contractor has those, as well as the Work Group 

Members, and so forth.

And again, you'll be contacted. And 

the SC&A, which is the contractor, or the Work 

Group may contact you about specific information. 

So, yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: That's great.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Melius.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, sure.

MR. ELLIOTT: And thank you to all the 

Board.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, yes.
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, also, just so 

you know, in the Site Research Database is all 

the paperwork. We've just been looking through 

it. So it, Josh did put it in there. But it's 

under the metals, it's under supporting 

documents.

CHAIR MELIUS: Not exactly helpful for 

us. Okay. So, I think that takes care of --

(Off microphone comments)

CHAIR MELIUS: Sorry. It's identified 

as -- So you have another, you're a problem there. 

We have eye problems, ear. So, it's identified 

as Board Public Comments and Comment Transcript 

Section. Boy, it's, the, it's almost as long as 

the document. Yes, okay.

I combine them all. That's all I 

have. And I have to hunt through them to find 

something. So there's no good way. So, anyway, 

let me go through this fairly brief, since 

everything's been responded to.

So, first we had a speaker who spoke 

about Carborundum. And Jim Neton responded to 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that. I think that's JN, right? That. Next we 

had a person, the issue that came up about the 

non-SEC cancers, made comments I think fairly 

similar. Again, there was a response to that.

The next two are involving Argonne 

East. And again, those were both responded to. 

They're really the, essentially they're comments 

were being followed up on.

The, another one, the next one down, 

number 5, referring to Rocky Flats, actually a 

series of comments. And again, LaVon, that one 

really didn't need a response. That was 

essentially a request.

The next ones down, nine, ten, 11, 

were related to Pinellas. And again, were sort 

of general comments of really no response was 

necessary. That's referenced there.

Then Ted got one to work, and read 

comments from, related to Rocky Flats, regarding 

the Grand Jury report. Again, LaVon responded to 

that. And then from [identifying information 

redacted]. Again, Ted read a, information again 

related to Rocky Flats, the magnesium thorium 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

alloy issue.

And then Terrie Barrie made comments. 

And again, all referencing Rocky Flats. And 

those were all responded to. So, any questions 

or comments? I mean, still --

And then below that, again for Board 

Members, there's references to the transcript, 

the portions of the transcripts related to those 

comments. So, unless there's comments or 

questions, I think we've addressed what needed to 

be addressed in those. And --

(Off microphone comments)

MR. KATZ: So, we did have one Board 

correspondence related to ANL-East, from someone 

whose father worked at ANL-East, to the Board. 

This letter was encouraging the Board to consider 

the human factor basically in these decisions.

Mentioned a memo sent to NIOSH by an 

outside consulting firm, related to the radiation 

dose information in the dose reconstruction 

program being used. And gave a little bit of 

other background.

But it's mostly, so, encouraging the 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Board's progress on this. And that for our, 

Argonne needs to be added to the SEC.

CHAIR MELIUS: And then, the other 

correspondence I think was shared among the Board 

was the, again, the lawyer referencing the issues 

regarding the non-SEC cancers.

Sort of a general letter that I think 

went to everybody. I think the Board, I will 

need to check and see if it actually got to other, 

the other groups about this. Ted?

MR. KATZ: It did. So, I shared that 

with OGC and NIOSH.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

CHAIR MELIUS: And I think if there is 

a, necessary for us to do a response as the Board, 

it would be saying that we would refer it to them, 

since the issues relate to the regulations and 

the law.

MR. KATZ: Correct.

CHAIR MELIUS: Not our place to 

interpret those issues. So, I think that's it. 

And why don't we take a short break until 10:00.
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. KATZ: Right. So, back at 10:00.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 9:31 a.m. and resumed at 

10:01 a.m.)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. If we can get 

started and seated, quiet. Our next item on our 

agenda is Grand Junction's facility, SEC Petition 

and the presentation will be from Bill Field.

Grand Junction Facilities SEC Petition 

(1986-2010; Grand Junction, CO) 

MEMBER FIELD: All right. Thank you, 

Dr. Melius. There we go.

I'd like to start out by thanking the 

Work Group, Jim Lockey, Gen Roessler and Loretta 

Valerio, and also for the great assistance we've 

had from Tom Tomes, Doug Farver and John Stiver.

So this is SEC Petition 00175, Grand 

Junction. And it's a U.S. Department of Energy 

facility in Grand Junction, Colorado.

Between 1943 and 1946, the Manhattan 

Engineering District acquired the Grand Junction 

site in order to concentrate triuranium, I guess 

that's octoxide.
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

From 1974 to '84, Grand Junction 

Facilities supported the National Uranium 

Resource Evaluation Program in the preparation of 

samples prior to analytical analysis.

And you can see here there were a lot 

of different projects over the years. Our main 

focus today will be talking about the time period 

after 1985.

Looking at a little bit about the 

chronology. On June 30th, Special Exposure 

Cohort Petition was received by NIOSH. On 

January 12th NIOSH drafted an Evaluation Report 

covering all onsite personnel who worked at Grand 

Junction Operations from January 1st, '43, 

through July 31st, 2010.

February 24th the Board voted to 

recommend adding worker Class from March 23rd, 

1943, to January 31st, 1975, to the SEC.

NIOSH informed the Board that 

additional work will continue for the time period 

January '75 through July 2010.

March 12, 2015, NIOSH drafted an 

Addendum to the Evaluation Report that addressed 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the time period from February 1st, '75, through

July 31st, 2010. The Addendum identified 

insufficient information to fully reconstruct 

internal doses prior to January 1st, 1986.

March 26th the Board voted to add a 

worker Class from February 1st, 1975, to December 

31st, 1985, to the SEC.

The Board then tasked SC&A to conduct 

a focus review of the Addendum and assess the 

appropriateness of the revised SEC time period 

and the adequacy of air monitoring and bioassay 

data.

And Work Group Activities. We met on 

October, May 2016, or rather, May 2016, SC&A 

submitted a Focused Review of the NIOSH SEC 

Evaluation Report for Grand Junction Operations 

for the Addendum.

SC&A concluded the SEC time period 

beginning in February 1st, '75, through December 

31st, '85, is appropriate based on lack of 

sufficient air monitoring data prior to 1986.

Work Group Activities focused 

primarily around one finding and there were two 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

concerns. The finding was that there was 

insufficient workplace, there are insufficient 

workplace air monitoring data that support the 

assumption that unmonitored radiation workers 

would not have exceeded 200 DAC-hours or that 

non-radiation workers would have not, would have 

exceeded 40 DAC-hours in a given year.

The finding questioned whether Grand 

Junction had implemented a workplace monitoring 

and worker bioassay program in 1991 that could be 

used to provide an upper bound intake for 

radiation and non-radiation workers.

Work Group Activities continued. 

Subsequent Work Group discussions did not resolve 

the issue. We discussed the issue for about an 

hour so we couldn't come to an agreement.

So the Work Group tasked NIOSH with 

determining activities in the 1991 era with the 

potential for generating significant air 

concentration data. And interviewing Grand 

Junction personnel and internal dosimetrist, I 

think he was interviewed twice if I recall 

correctly, for potential information about air 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

sampling and the bioassay program.

NIOSH conducted additional searches 

of air monitoring records for the period of '91 

through '93. NIOSH also interviewed a Grand 

Junction employee who had direct knowledge of 

work activities and monitoring programs that were 

conducted during the same time, during that time 

period.

Based on the employee's interview 

combined with the identification of Radiation 

Work Permits, surveys, air monitoring records for 

specific projects requiring air sampling, it was 

evident that the monitoring program was in place 

at Grand Junction during the time period in 

question.

So Work Group Summary. The Work Group 

considers the additional information in NIOSH 

references and the records sufficient to conclude 

that Grand Junction implemented a monitoring and 

bioassay program in 1991 sufficient to identify 

workers who were exposed to the site's 10 percent 

Derived Air Concentration trigger levels for 

bioassay.
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

The Work Group believes the 

information available to NIOSH is sufficient to 

document or estimate the maximum internal and 

external potential exposures to all employees 

under plausible circumstances during the 

specified period from January 31st,'86, through 

July 31st, 2010.

So it's our recommendation, it was a 

unanimous recommendation within the Working 

Group, based on the information in the original 

Evaluation Report and follow-up investigations, 

that Grand Junction Work Group recommends that 

the Board find radiation doses can be estimated 

with sufficient accuracy for employees of Grand 

Junction from January 1st, '86, through July 

31st, 2010.

So I was wondering if Work Group 

Members had any additional comments at the 

presentation? No? And I'm not sure, there's a 

petitioner on the line?

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. If the petitioner 

is on the line, you may make the public comments. 

You don't have to, you're not required, but 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

apparently not.

MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. Board Member 

questions? Yes?

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. It seems like 

the data in 1991 shows they had it in place and 

does that also carry back to '87? What about '86 

to '91? Was the same monitoring program in place 

or -- sounds very confident about '91 and beyond 

but what about that '86 timeline?

MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I think that was 

the period that was looked at. Is Tom on the 

phone? Maybe he can --

MR. TOMES: Yes, I am.

MEMBER FIELD: Okay. Could you 

provide some more details about maybe your 

discussions with the one employee?

MR. TOMES: Yes, what happened, we 

didn't discuss the 1986 time frame simply with 

that interview because he didn't work there at 

the time.

But we focused on the '91 because that 

was the finding from SC&A. But for 1986, we 
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

recommended that we assign the limiting air 

concentration value starting in '86 based on the 

information we provided in the ER Addendum.

And SC&A concurred that the limit 

would bound worker starting in 1986 but in '91 we 

recommend that ten percent of that limit would be 

a bounding intake.

MEMBER FIELD: Thank you.

MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen on the 

phone. I could hear Bill talking and I could 

hear Tom but I've been unable this morning to 

hear much of anything from the speakers around 

the table. I wonder if your mics are working?

CHAIR MELIUS: I think they're working 

and they, yes.

MEMBER ROESSLER: I can hear you, Jim, 

but I could not hear the comment that was just 

presented that Tom answered.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. The person 

handling the audio is, yes, I think we'll try to 

address that.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, it's been a 

problem all morning and makes it very difficult 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

on the phone to hear everything that's going on.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, I understand and 

they've been trying to address it and I think 

that's all we can really do.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Thanks.

CHAIR MELIUS: Thanks, Gen.

Other, oh, sorry.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, my question has to 

do with the templates. SC&A recommended that 

once the template was updated it would be 

reviewed. Did that ever get done, Bill, do you 

know?

MEMBER FIELD: It's my understanding 

it was done but maybe Tom can confirm that.

MR. TOMES: We were waiting for the 

outcome of the Board conclusion here to update 

everything finally. I believe the intention is 

to make that a Technical Basis Document after we 

conclude the, wrap up the SEC Petition.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And then that 

would be available for review after that?

MR. TOMES: Able to be available, yes.

MEMBER BEACH: All right. And then 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there was another, the finding on the 

insufficient workplace air monitoring with the 

DAC-hours for the non-radiation workers. It's, 

did that also get cleared up, that finding?

MR. TOMES: The limits of nonradiation workers?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I think it, the 

concern was the 200 DAC-hours and they shouldn't 

have exceeded 40. I just wanted to make sure 

that was clear. I didn't hear that in the 

comments.

MR. TOMES: Well, in our finds we 

addressed the fact that the ambient air 

concentration at the site itself was very low. 

And we came up with some numbers like left of one 

percent of DAC which falls below that number. 

And but the, obviously the bounding situation 

would be the ten percent DAC limit for the SEC 

purposes.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And I brought up 

the templates because that's something that we 

don't really have a trigger at times to verify or 

look at those templates and it's been brought up 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

before, so thank you.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Just a reminder 

to the Board Members regarding our audio that you 

need to, after you speak or if you could all 

check, make sure your microphones are off because 

that makes a difference. If we all have ours on 

I think it limits the volumes of that. Any other 

Board Members with questions? I think this comes 

as a motion from the Work Group.

(Roll call vote)

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, yes. So Ted will 

do the roll call.

MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks.

Anderson?

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Beach?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Clawson?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Field?

MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Kotelchuck?

MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen is absent. I'll 

collect his vote after this meeting.

Lockey?

MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Melius?

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Munn, Poston and Richardson 

are absent. I'll collect their votes after.

Roessler?

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Schofield?

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Valerio?

MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

MR. KATZ: And I'm not sure, Dr. 

Ziemer sent me a note saying he'd be absent for 

a brief period. Are you back on the line, Paul?

Okay. I'll collect his vote too. But 

the motion passes.

CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you, Ted. Okay. 

It is 10:15. We're not scheduled to take up our 

next petition until 11:30. The petitioner is 

here. I don't, are you expecting other people on 
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the line?

Okay. Then we will wait until 11:30. 

So we're on break again until 11:30.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 10:13 a.m. and resumed at 

11:32 a.m.)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, if everyone could 

get seated we'll reconvene. And next we're doing 

Area 4 of Santa Susana, the petition. And first 

we'll hear from Dr. Lara Hughes from NIOSH. Lara, 

go ahead.

Area IV of Santa Susanna Field Laboratory 

SEC Petition (1991-1993; Ventura County, CA) 

DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

This is the presentation for Area 4 of the Santa 

Susana Field Laboratory, SEC 235. This was an 

83.13 evaluation based on a petition that we 

received.

So at this point I would like to 

acknowledge and thank our ORAU Team, the NIOSH 

contractor who did the most part of this work. 

Monica Harrison-Maples and Roger Halsey, as well 

as all the members of the team that did the data 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

analysis, and also especially the data capture 

team who did a very good job tracking down data 

from the remediation period for this site because 

it turned out that in very recent years they had 

actually moved all the records off site and we 

didn't know. They were unresponsive.

So it took some effort to actually 

track the data down which happened just to be in 

Cincinnati. So it was very fortunate that we 

were able to capture 173 additional documents 

dealing with the remediation period of the site 

and managed to review the data and also send the 

Evaluation Report to the Board within the amended 

180 days which does not always happen.

CHAIR MELIUS: That's the first I've 

heard in a while.

DR. HUGHES: Right.

CHAIR MELIUS: Don't want to say that 

too loudly, but.

DR. HUGHES: So there are three 

previous Classes, SEC Classes, for Area 4, Santa 

Susana. The first was SEC 93. It was added for 

the pre-1959 period to the SEC that was done in 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2009. It was based on lack of internal 

monitoring.

The next one was SEC 158 which 

expanded the Class to 1965, or end of 1964, also 

based on issues of internal monitoring.

And the last petition was SEC 234 

which was an 83.14 Petition based on also again, 

issues with internal data, the infeasibility of 

reconstruct internal doses from americium and 

thorium. This was presented to the Board in 

December of 2016.

The current SEC 235 does not recommend 

a Class. Now the previous three Classes actually 

encompassed the entire operational period of Area 

4 so the current period that we looked at was 

actually only the remediation period.

Sorry. Okay. The petition was 

received on August 9, 2016 for the Class. The 

Class requested by the petitioner was all 

employees of North American Aviation to include 

corporate successors and self-contractors who 

worked at Area 4 of the Santa Susana Field 

Laboratory from December 31st, 1964 through 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

present.

Now when this petition was submitted, 

we had not issued the latest SEC Petition 234 

which we were working on at that point. However, 

it hadn't been presented and hadn't been 

recommended so there was a bit of an overlap 

between our work and this petition that came in.

Now that we already knew that SEC 234 

was going to be presented and hopefully be added 

so when we evaluated for qualification, we 

qualified, sorry, let me not get ahead here.

The cost we evaluated for 

qualification was all employees that worked 

during the remediation period. So when we looked 

at the remediation period to see if there was 

anything that would warrant qualification of this 

petition.

So what we ended up qualifying was all 

employees off the DOE, its predecessor agencies 

and the contractors, self-contractors who worked 

in Area 4 from August 1st, 1991, through June 

30th of 1993. Currently we do not propose to be 

adding a Class.
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

The reason why this qualified -- now 

the petition had a lot of supporting 

documentation that we reviewed but it was almost 

in its entirely focused in the pre-remediation 

period, the later operational period after 1965.

So whereas the petition itself, we 

found it not adequately support the defined basis 

for the remediation period which is really all 

that was left for us to look at.

We knew of this issue with CEP 

Controls for Environmental Pollution which was a 

bioassay contractor that the sites used as many 

other sites have in the complex.

It was suspected of data falsification 

at another site, not at Area 4, but what NIOSH is 

doing is we do not use any of the CEP data for 

dose reconstruction.

So because of this issue that we were 

aware of, we decided that the petition basis F.2 

of data falsification loss or destroyed record 

would be in some form supported. And so we 

decided to look into that this issue needed to be 

looked at a little more.
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Area 4 used Controls for Environmental 

Pollution (CEP) as the urine sample analysis 

vendor from August '91 to June '93. We did some 

research into when the contract terminated and 

found that it ended in June 1993. And so 

this report really is evaluating whether or not 

we find that this omission of this data would 

have any impact on our ability to do dose 

reconstruction during the remediation period at 

Santa Susana Area 4.

A little claim overview. We have 

currently at NIOSH for dose reconstruction, 316 

claims.

The total number of claims we have for 

workers who worked during this period that we're 

considering from '91 through '93, to '93, is 29. 

There are six of those claim workers started 

employment during that period.

Currently the number of DRs completed 

is 22. There's currently nothing active. The 

rest of them are somehow pulled or closed or in 

any, in some other form not completed with the 

DR. There's a reason for it. We looked at all 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of them.

The number of claims that have 

internal dosimetry records for the evaluated 

period is five and the number of claims with 

external dosimetry records for this period is 

ten.

A little bit of background. You're 

quite familiar with the site by now. 2,850 acres,

50 acres total, located in the Simi Hills, 

Ventura County, 30 miles northwest of Los 

Angeles. It consists of four administrative and 

operational areas, labeled I through IV.

What's labeled Area 4 is about 290 acres 

and it's the only covered area. It also went by 

the name ETEC at some point. We currently try to 

stick to Area 4 because it seems to eliminate 

confusion.

The contractor during the '91-'93 

period was Rockwell International. The 

processes, the operational processes was reactor 

testing and development. This went on from '55 

through 1988. That was the operational period. 

So reactor testing, experimental reactors of 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

various forms, fairly small reactors, the nuclear 

support operations that go with the reactor 

testing and energy research.

They also did energy and non-nuclear 

research and development. A lot of it had to do 

with liquid metal technologies.

The DOE remediation period is 1988 

through present, well, it should be the beginning 

of 1989 to present, consisted of D&D of 

structures and components, the characterization 

treatment packaging, temporary storage of the 

radioactive and mixed wastes.

The highest exposure potential during 

the D&D period would be the SNAP reactor 

development facility D&D, as well as the 

dismantling and decommissioning of the hot lab, 

the hot cells, that were present at the site.

There are three facilities that are 

still operating, not currently but at the time of 

evaluation, was the Fuel Storage Facility, the 

Radioactive Materials Handling Facility Complex, 

which is a complex consisting of nine buildings, 

and the Radiation Instrument Calibration 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Laboratory.

This is a little hard to read for 

pretty much everybody probably. I apologize. I 

thought it would come up a little larger.

Now on the left hand is the list of 

facilities and buildings. And if you see the red 

bars, is the operational period of the sites and 

the little vertical brackets to the right 

indicates the CEP Period.

And you can see there are three 

facilities still operating in a number of the 

open bars that aren't filled with the red 

consists of a facility that is still onsite but 

hasn't been decommissioned or dismantled or 

released. So there are still a number of 

facilities that they were working on at this

time.

So Internal Exposure potential during 

the D&D period was a dust obviously from 

demolition operations removal of the reactor 

activated concrete, decontamination of the hot 

cell facility which would have all kinds of 

contaminants inside, fission products, 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

activation products. So any unencapsulated 

radioactive material that was handled, stored, 

and packaged in the Radioactive Materials 

Handling and Disposal Facility.

The radionuclides of concern, 

transuranics, activation products, uranium 

compounds, limited thorium and plutonium and also 

fission products.

Now to Internal Monitoring Data 

available. The site had a state-of-the-art 

health physics program at the time. Not every 

worker was monitored for internal exposure.

They would limit the internal 

monitoring to workers that would enter high 

contamination areas or handling unencapsulated 

materials.

They had air sampling programs so any 

kind of elevated air sampling would trigger a 

special sample. The routine in vitro and in vivo 

sample was routine depending on the job 

assignment.

So in August '91 they started a 

contract with CEP which handled all their routine 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

urine analysis for uranium, gross alpha, 

plutonium, mixed fission products. What they did 

usually was the gross measurement and then they 

would follow-up if there was some kind of 

indication that it was a positive result.

Again, CEP was suspected of data 

falsification so we are not using this data. 

Again, the CEP data was baseline routine in 

nature. Air sampling was available for the same 

period also.

The site did in vivo counts that, in 

vivo whole body counts which were provided by 

Helgeson. They had a, what they typically did, 

they had a quarterly type sampling that would 

alternate between in vivo and in vitro sampling 

for critical workers that they would consider 

having a high exposure potential.

So based on our previous research at 

NIOSH, we have a coworker model, OTIB-80, that is 

available and the period for the coworker model 

just ends just prior to the CEP period.

For uranium, the last interval that we 

are using for intake calculations ends in 1988. 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

For plutonium it ends in 1986 and for mixed 

fission products it ends in 1991.

So what we did, we have the data that 

was coded and analyzed for the coworker model. 

We plotted this here. This is for uranium and 

this is the non-zero uranium results.

Okay. The gray shaded area on the 

left side of the graph is the CEP period. We 

omitted the data so what we did, we compared the 

available data from the time when we did the 

coworker model, this was still operational 

period, with the data that was available, the 

bioassay data that was available after the CEP 

period, and plotted it on this graph to just get 

an indication of what the data looks like.

The data during the remediation period 

was not of sufficient quantity to be included in 

the coworker model. However, if you do a 

comparison, there's no indication that the data 

during the remediation period would indicate 

that.

So we did this analysis for uranium. 

Plutonium looks quite similar. So the data on 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the left is the data that was used for the 

coworker model, the non-zero plutonium results 

from all the workers at Area 4, Santa Susana, 

that were available to us.

On the right is the plutonium results 

that were collected after the CEP period and 

there's no indication that there was an increase. 

The same for fission products. Mixed fission 

products was done up until 1991 after the CEP 

period. They changed to strontium-90 analysis 

mostly. Again the comparison works fairly well.

Same for gross alpha. It's no 

indication that the gross alpha values were 

higher than what's collected during the 

operational period.

In addition, this is a graph that 

shows the frequency of the whole body counts that 

were done. And as you can see, starting in 1991 

the site increased their, the number of whole 

body counts they did.

So actually during those three years 

that we're looking at they actually did a whole, 

they did a lot of the whole body counts and then 
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

we think this was due to a Tiger Team report that 

happened right around that time and that they 

were somehow held accountable for like doing more 

of this type analysis.

So for the internal feasibility, we 

found that the lack of CEP in vitro data does not 

cause an infeasibility to bound internal dose for 

monitored and unmonitored workers.

The comparison of remediation period 

bioassay data to the operational period data 

showed no indication that the coworker intake 

rates would not bound the exposure for 

unmonitored workers.

D&D and waste handling operations 

throughout the remediation period from 1989 

through present remain consistent in procedure, 

equipment, and exposure risk.

During the CEP period the site was 

performing routine in vivo whole body scans with 

Helgeson. There were no measurable exposures.

In response to the DOE concerns with 

CEP data, the Santa Susana site initiated 

confirmatory resamples analyzed by the new 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

contractor, Teledyne-Brown Engineering. These 

follow-up in vitro results confirmed no 

measurable internal exposures.

So this is our summary slide. I should 

also mention, of course external. We looked at 

the external. We have generally not had an 

infeasibility issue with the external at Santa 

Susana and that has not changed during the 

remediation period. Workers were monitored for 

external. It shows that they were during the 

operational period.

A little bit of additional information 

for the CEP data, as you may recall, what we did 

in order to do the coworker model is we were able 

to get all the scanned internal data from the 

site. Anybody that was ever monitored for 

internal -- internal or external, the data was 

scanned for epidemiological study at some point 

and the site just did hand that over to NIOSH at 

some point.

We scanned the data. So we are 

actually able to look at all the individuals that 

were monitored during this three-year period and 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

pull out, you know, everybody that was monitored 

by CEP and look.

So we have about 55 individuals that 

are affected by this CEP issue. Overall there's 

around 90 people that were monitored for internal 

during this period. So we feel there is no 

infeasibility for internal or any of the external 

components for this period.

And that concludes my presentation. 

Any questions?

CHAIR MELIUS: Questions from Board 

Members? Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I was looking at 

your whole body count and I know you said the 

Tiger Team, that may have been an indication of 

why they increased those whole body counts. But 

when you compare the work that was going on early, 

that middle section where there's not very many 

whole body counts, I was wondering if you could 

explain more of what triggered a whole body 

count. Was it an annual or was it triggered by 

something, maybe an incident?

DR. HUGHES: We are not sure. It seems 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

somewhat -- we've been trying to find out 

actually what, you know, caused this increase.

I think it might have been the D&D. 

You know, that they were more worried about 

activation product exposure, that type of thing. 

I'm not sure.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it is interesting, 

especially the time frame and the spikes and, 

yes.

DR. HUGHES: Well, I know for sure 

they were not doing it to counteract the CEP 

because they were not aware of the CEP issue 

until, you know, it was made public. I think 

that was all came to the open like in '94 period 

when they, once the site learned that the CEP was 

an issue. They issued statements to all the 

workers explaining what, you know, and that they 

were doing follow-up, that sort of thing.

But we're not exactly sure what 

triggered it. That would be my guess, the Tiger 

Team, but I'm not entirely sure so I guess I 

should have pointed that out.

MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen Roessler 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

on the phone.

CHAIR MELIUS: Go ahead, Gen.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Lara, that was a 

very nice presentation and easy to understand. I 

do have one question and my slides aren't 

numbered. It's the one under the plutonium 

bioassay results where you're comparing the 

coworker data with the data, well, you're 

comparing the red dots with the blue dots?

DR. HUGHES: Right.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. And the only 

one there that -- I mean, in all of those slides 

that you used previously that's pretty 

convincing. But this one, those plutonium 

results are really scattered and there's one up 

there and that's a log scale on the y axis. 

There's one dot way up at the top. I'd be curious 

to know what that was and --

DR. HUGHES: Right. That's the mixed 

fission products slide. Yes, we went --

MEMBER ROESSLER: Oh, there. I've got 

the wrong title there. Okay, it's the mixed 

fission products, right.
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. HUGHES: Yes.

CHAIR MELIUS: Gen, you had me looking 

to find a blue dot on the wrong slide.

MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, I'm sorry. I 

took the title above instead of below.

DR. HUGHES: We actually looked at 

that because I pulled up particular data for that 

because I wanted to know what's going on with it 

and it's a censored result.

And it's, I forget what the unit was, 

I think it was reported in microcuries and it's 

some, when I would convert it, it was very large 

and I'm not sure it, you know, we didn't throw it 

out because we didn't quite know what the deal 

was with it.

But at the same time it's a censored 

result. It wasn't labeled a positive so it's not 

a -- like one particular high result. I'm sure, 

I'm sorry if that doesn't help. I'm not exactly 

sure what's going on with it.

MEMBER ROESSLER: But you did notice 

it?

DR. HUGHES: Yes. Yes, we did.
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR MELIUS: Other Board Members 

with questions? Yes, Yes. Thank you for all the 

pictures. They really -- and the site timeline 

was very helpful. That's a really great graphic 

and maybe, Stu, you can remind some other people 

for presentations where you have a complicated 

site. It really helped us understand, us Board 

Members that are -- I wasn't looking at you, Tim.

DR. HUGHES: That credit goes to the 

ORAU Team. They came up with the slide and, yes, 

it's very helpful.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Well, thank the 

ORAU Team then. And thanks for you and Stu for 

not, you know, taking it out, I guess.

Yes, Phil?

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: On these whole body 

counts, do you know what all they were looking 

for when they did them?

DR. HUGHES: Not sure, no. I mean, 

they would look for cesium, maybe cobalt.

(Off microphone comment)

DR. HUGHES: I think so, yes.
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

CHAIR MELIUS: We couldn't hear that, 

so.

DR. HUGHES: Oh, I'm sorry.

CHAIR MELIUS: Will Stu go, we 

couldn't hear Stu and I couldn't --

MR. HINNEFELD: I asked, were they 

doing fission product counting and she said she 

thinks so.

CHAIR MELIUS: Oh, okay. I heard her 

yes, I didn't hear what the yes was for. Okay. 

Brad?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, Lara. I'm just 

looking at your whole body count and I like the 

two blips. But right there in the center where 

there's nothing but you still had work going on 

in those areas, I would just, do we understand 

why there was a lack of whole body counts or --

DR. HUGHES: No, I'm not sure. I mean, 

they were still monitoring people for internal 

but they did mostly in vitro. At that time it may 

have, you know, been the contract issues. They 

didn't have a contract with -- they didn't have 

the onsite whole body counters so they had to 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

have a contract with like the Helgeson or I think 

at some point they had -- I'm sorry, I don't 

remember.

(Off microphone comment)

DR. HUGHES: That's the SEC period, 

yes.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I just, okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Any additional 

Board Member questions? If not, we'll thank you 

very much and very helpful presentation.

And petitioner?

MS. BLAZE: I'd like to thank NIOSH 

and the Advisory Board for their work and effort 

on behalf of Santa Susan Field Laboratory and SEC 

235.

I may have some information relevant 

to the site remediation increase in whole body 

count. So I'll just skip ahead for one second in 

my presentation.

I'm D'Lanie Blaze from CORE Advocacy 

for Nuclear and Aerospace Workers, by the way.

Rockwell International indicated a 40 

percent increase of onsite radiation as a result 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of site remediation and DD&D. So that might help 

you guys with what we were looking at in response 

to Josie's question.

And it's my understanding that 

Department of Energy and Boeing have not 

disclosed all the site remediation, 

subcontractors, engaged in the ongoing 

decontamination, decommissioning and demolition 

of Area 4.

DD&D workers are currently being 

automatically disqualified from this program 

because they cannot establish their presence at 

the work site and they have not been monitored 

for radiation exposure since transitioning to 

subcontract status and their work locations and 

their job duties did not necessarily change.

They were still doing DD&D but their 

radiation badges were taken away and their 

monitoring programs were discontinued.

So far, the Department of Energy has 

been unresponsive to FOIA and Privacy Act 

requests to identify subcontractors onsite and to 

obtain employment records.
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Acceptance of SEC 235 for all workers 

onsite regardless of presumed work locations 

would be consistent with your decisions at GE 

Evendale, Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge Hospital, and 

Area 51.

It has been established that The 

Boeing Company routinely provides inaccurate and 

misleading employment verification summaries 

that misrepresent eligible Area 4 employees as 

workers who do not qualify under EEOICPA.

Therefore, we cannot reliably 

identify work locations or rule out Area 4 

employment.

New information not only raises

significant questions about data falsification 

but further establishes that it is not possible 

to conduct dose reconstruction with sufficient 

accuracy.

DOE and Boeing claim that all 

Department of Energy operations, materials, and 

only a handful of easily identified workers were 

strictly confined to Area 4. So it has been 

assumed that Area 4 employment can be easily 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

established or easily ruled out. However, 

persistent irregularities in the Boeing summaries 

have prompted a deeper look.

Now DOE and Boeing remain engaged in 

a 30-year controversial and costly environmental 

clean-up of Santa Susana, to which their 

obligations are significantly less if they can 

downplay the perception of DOE operations that 

resulted in environmental contamination and 

worker exposure. And evidence strongly suggests 

that this agenda has interfered with EEOICPA.

Documents show since 2002, Department 

of Energy and Boeing have partnered to limit and 

control worker access to this program.

Their efforts to limit eligibility to 

a handful of workers hamstrung EEOICPA for three 

years as they argued with Department of Labor 

over who should be eligible.

DOE even tried to convince Department 

of Labor that Boeing should be able to decide who 

qualifies and should be able to withhold 

employment records and radiation data for any 

worker who doesn't.
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

In 2005, however, the national office 

expanded eligibility far beyond what Department 

of Energy and Boeing had in mind by declaring the 

entirety of Area 4 to be the covered area and by 

welcoming workers who may have rotated into Area 

4 from other locations at the site.

Boeing agreed to assist Department of 

Labor by identifying which workers rotated into 

Area 4. They were permitted to create the 

Employment Verification Summary.

It has since been discovered that that 

summary falsely represents -- misrepresents Area 

4 workers who have years or decades of covered 

employment as workers who should be disqualified 

from this program.

Moreover, evidence suggests that the 

summary was engineered to only identify some 

covered employment among that original handful of 

employees that DOE and Boeing initially intended 

to acknowledge, thus the decision to expand the 

eligibility has been undermined.

This tactic has dramatically reduced 

the number of claims adjudicated. Many are 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

disqualified at the outset. Of the limited 

number that proceed to dose reconstruction, many 

arrive based on an incomplete depiction of 

covered employment.

The summary may also obscure SEC 

eligibility, changes in job titles or work 

locations, incidents and exposures, all of which 

have direct bearing on accuracy in dose 

reconstruction.

We cannot determine how many viable 

claims have been derailed because of the summary. 

Any claim where some or all employment was 

disqualified based on presumed work locations is 

deserving of another look.

Why would DOE and Boeing try so hard 

to obscure worker rotation? Under the Freedom of 

Information Act, I obtained contracts and 

documentation showing Santa Susana Area 1 was 

allocated to DOE-ETEC Energy Research to support 

DOE Area 4 programs.

These Area 1 facilities accessible to 

all workers onsite, relied on employees 

affiliated with every area of the site. They 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

routinely rotated between Areas 1 and 4 to 

perform job duties at the related facilities 

requiring transport of personnel and materials 

across the site.

This created cross-staffing and 

undocumented worker rotation. Moreover, DOE-ETEC 

Area 1 and Area 4 research also relied on rotating 

personnel and facilities at Canoga and De Soto 

until at least 2005. Support facilities have 

also been identified in Areas 2 and 3.

This documentation not only validates 

an increased number of workers whose health was 

impacted by DOE operations, but it verifies DOE's 

presence, interests, and activities site-wide.

This could increase cleanup 

obligations tenfold before environmental 

findings, potential offsite contamination, 

violations of existing agreements with the State 

of California or the multimillion dollar housing 

developments next door are even considered, in 

addition to the expanded conditions and 

considerations at Canoga and De Soto facilities.

The NIOSH Evaluation Page 14 cited the 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DOE/EPA Former Employee Interview Report, but it 

failed to acknowledge DOE's Summary Table 3.0, 

and that shows how employees responded when they 

were asked what area of the site they worked in 

while employed by the contractor.

Out of 132 workers interviewed, only 

seven stated that they never worked in Area 4. 

55 stated that they rotated between all areas.

In 2014, I provided NIOSH and the 

Board with all 300 worker interviews, wherein 

workers consistently expressed dismay that their 

Area 4 employment was never recognized under 

EEOICPA. We now understand that Boeing's summary 

is the reason.

Based on radiation records for these 

rotating workers who've been disqualified by the 

summary, NIOSH concluded that there's no good way 

to determine how long the worker was present in 

the covered area, the location of the monitoring 

in Area 4, or the duration of potential exposure. 

Over the course of about 40 years, 

rotating workers were issued visitor dosimeter 

badges at Santa Susana, Canoga, and De Soto, and 
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

wore these badges for days, weeks, months, or 

quarterly periods without adequate tracking.

Personal radiation data is often 

withheld by Boeing and it is my understanding 

that NIOSH still does not have a reliable and 

usable database that contains the data for the 

monitored workers.

Boeing claims that its extensive 

employment databases date back to the 1940s. But 

when I suggested that we compare authentic 

employment records to their summaries, employment 

records started becoming increasingly difficult 

to obtain.

Since SEC 234 was passed, and 

particularly since I submitted information on 

Area 1, DOE and Boeing have not responded to 

numerous requests to verify employment for 

several new claimants. I've had to ask the 

national office to subpoena employment records.

DOE states it has recently modified 

Boeing's contractual responsibilities to provide 

employment records under EEOICPA and the Privacy 

Act.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I've been given insufficient time to 

address these complex issues, much less to get 

into Boeing's inaccurate depiction of site 

history provided during the creation of the Site 

Profile, which has further compromised dose 

reconstruction, and on which NIOSH has based its 

evaluation of this SEC.

I provided NIOSH and the Board with a 

more accurate depiction of Area 4 facilities, 

operations, materials, and identified no less 

than 50 additional radiological facilities that 

were excluded from the Site Profile, along with 

all corresponding environmental data. Four Board 

Members left their copies behind.

I followed up with a 400 page PDF and 

supported documentation in an attempt to inform 

the Board of these issues and I now submit 

documentation on DOE-ETEC operations in Area 1, 

the support cross-staffing, and worker rotation 

site-wide.

SC&A validated the existence of DOEETEC Area 1 Operations in 2008 in its review of 

the Site Profile and I ask that this be evaluated 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

more closely.

If additional documentation on the 

summaries are needed, I'm prepared to present 

that with corresponding EEOICPA case ID numbers 

for your review in whatever format you guys need 

to look at that and if I need to redact it or 

just submit the case ID numbers, I can do that.

In closing, this is not DOE or 

Boeing's program. Their interests in an outside 

agenda must not interfere with this legislation. 

EEOICPA is a worker program and that's one reason 

why those who present information on the behalf 

of the workers should have more than ten minutes 

to do it, particularly when the Board provides 

ample time to NIOSH as it presents information 

based on data created by the contractor.

I respectfully ask that you exercise 

your authority on behalf of Santa Susana 

employees by investigating these issues and by 

passing SEC 235 for all workers onsite. If I may 

provide additional documentation, I welcome the 

opportunity as well as your questions. Please 

add my comments to the docket. Thank you.
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you. Any further 

discussion or questions from the Board? Okay. 

Any recommendations on what we should do with it 

and how we should handle this? Phil?

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: One thing that's 

still concerns me is, the D&D, is the fact that 

you looked at some of the reports put out by the 

State of California and the EPA, about hot spots 

around all areas of there and not just Area 4, it 

makes me question how extensive the D&D's been 

and how well-protected the workers are where 

they're working on this. These hot spots seem to 

be all over the place.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: I would like to 

recommend that the SC&A be tasked to review this 

ER and the Work Group take it up.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Yes, I think it 

was a suggestion. I don't know if we need a 

formal motion on it.

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'll second that.

CHAIR MELIUS: Does everyone agree? 

No, don't second. We don't have a motion. But 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you agree with it? Phil, do you agree?

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I do.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, okay. Gen or 

Paul, does that make sense to you?

(No audible response)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. So we will refer 

the evaluation to the Work Group so the Work Group 

can task SC&A in terms of following up, again, 

the focus being on the '91 to the '93, for this 

petition. Work Group has, in terms of our actions 

here today.

MS. BLAZE: Dr. Melius? That was 

NIOSH's decision to limit the SEC Petition to '91 

to '93 but I'd respectfully submit that these 

problems impact workers onsite from the outset of 

site operations to the present.

So my recommendation would be that 

considering new information about worker 

rotation, we really need to look at that 

information.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, but our charge is 

to review the recommendation from NIOSH and the 

Class that NIOSH evaluated. We don't --
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MS. BLAZE: Is there a possibility 

that NIOSH can change their decision?

CHAIR MELIUS: Well, they can at a 

later point in time but not --

MS. BLAZE: Okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: But right now we're 

limited to what was recommended by NIOSH.

MS. BLAZE: I understand. Can you 

tell me to whom I should hand this new info?

CHAIR MELIUS: To NIOSH, would be the 

best and they can put it in the docket.

MS. BLAZE: Thank you, again.

CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you.

MEMBER BEACH: Is SC&A tasked now or 

is that something the Work Group has to do?

CHAIR MELIUS: I think that they 

should, that can certainly be tasked now in terms 

of the reviewing this report --

MEMBER BEACH: Review, okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: -- under that. I think 

if the Work Group has any particular instructions 

or whatever, Work Group, you know, Chair, 

whatever it can. But again, it's focusing on 
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

this report and that's our charge and so forth. 

Some of these issues have come up before. A lot 

of these issues that have been raised, you know, 

are mostly DOL issues in terms of employment 

verification and so forth and we're limited to 

the facility and to -- yes, I know that, but just 

understood. Yes, yes.

Okay. Brad, you had your, are you 

just getting ready or -- okay. Anyway, thank 

everybody and I think we're at lunch break. So 

return here promptly by 2:00. We have a SEC and 

two reports to review -- hear about, not review 

but hear about.

Lunch 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:14 p.m. and resumed at 

2:03 p.m.)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, we will start. 

This is -- looking at the title, Evaluation of 

Monitoring of Subcontractor Construction Trade 

Workers at the Savannah River Site.

We'll start with Tim Taulbee, then 

we'll have Joe Fitzgerald. So, go ahead.
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Savannah River Site SEC Petition 

(1972-2007; Aiken, SC) 

DR. TAULBEE: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

As Dr. Melius said this is the Evaluation of 

Monitoring of Subcontractor Construction Trades 

Workers at the Savannah River Site.

Before I get going I would like to 

recognize the work of Mike Mahathy. He is the 

one who put this report together, he and his team.

They did a phenomenal job of digesting 

a large amount of data. It was very tedious, but 

they did a really good job and I hope I do it 

justice here in the presentation.

So a little of background, the goal of 

this report, or this evaluation, was to determine 

whether subcontractor construction trades 

workers were sufficiently monitored for internal 

exposure to support coworker model development.

And so if you think back one of the 

things that we have been discussing for the past 

few years amongst the Savannah River Site Work 

Group was the subcontractor construction trades 

workers, whether there data was available.
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

There was some indication early on 

that their monitoring data might have appeared in 

what was called company files, and so it, you

know, may not have made it into their personal 

files.

And so we were looking for a way in 

order to evaluate this, did this data, the 

monitoring that was done, did it make it into 

their individual files.

And as I indicated last year during

one of the updates that in June of 2016 -- okay, 

we've got a -- apparently I've got slides on a 

timing issue here. Can I back out of this?

(Off microphone comment)

DR. TAULBEE: Oh, did you. That's all 

right, I can work through this, but it might jump 

on me here periodically and I'll get back to it.

Last year we located and captured a 

fairly large set of job plans with the 773A 

building over an extended time from 1981 to 1986, 

and what these job plans were was they covered 

all off-normal work in the area, including 

operations work, DuPont construction work, 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

maintenance work, is what I am calling that, and 

then the subcontractor construction work.

These job plans, because they covered 

all off-normal work, so if operations was going 

to clean out a glove box it was on a job plan. 

If they were going to remove trash from a cell 

that was on a job plan. If maintenance was going 

in to rewire something or to re-pipe something 

that was on a job plan. 

But the routine work, the actual 

manufacturing of whatever they were doing, or the 

research they were doing, was not on a job plan.

So we had this set of job plans from 

which to look at, and here you can see some 

examples.

I'll talk about the one on the right 

here briefly, and this would be a maintenance job 

plan and you can see up at the top it's done by 

maintenance and this was to re-pipe a 125-pound 

air pressure line on the face of Cell 11.

The job plan on the left was a 

construction job plan and it's to remove and repipe the cell inflatable seal line.
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And so this is how we could go through 

these job plans and sort out whether it was 

operations, whether it was maintenance, or DuPont 

construction, or construction trades workers, and 

the construction would be the subcontractor 

construction trades workers.

So the monitoring at Savannah River, 

I'm going to talk predominantly here about the 

subcontractor construction trades workers, but I 

wanted to point out internal monitoring for 

construction trades workers, DuPont CTWs, or the 

maintenance folks, E&I technicians, was 

predominantly routine monitoring.

They were covered under DPSOL 193-302, 

but they also have incident data in there as well 

as some job-specific data. So they are 

predominantly routine monitoring, but when an 

incident happened they would have follow-up 

bioassay just like anybody else would during a 

normal operations type of scenario and they would 

have some job-specific data.

The subcontractors also had routine 

monitoring. These would be subcontractor CTWs 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

working for BF Shaw if they were the pipefitters, 

or [identifying information redacted] working as 

an electrician.

Some of them were on a routine 

monitoring, others were on an incident-based 

monitoring and/or job-specific monitoring, so it 

varied.

What we found in our evaluation is 

that the split was actually closer to 50/50 

between the two from our random sample, and I'll 

get into that a little bit later here.

So one of the first things we did was 

we went through and sorted out those job plans 

and we identified, Mike and his team identified, 

550 subcontractor CTW job pairings.

This resulted in 255 unique 

subcontract workers. So we pulled out all of the 

CTW job plans then looked at the names, entered 

them into a database, came up with 255 unique 

subcontract workers.

We randomly selected 110 of the 

subcontractors to go and do further follow up, 

and so this was a random sample. Mike didn't 
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

select these, a statistician went through and 

selected these 110 workers.

This resulted in 133 subcontractor CTW 

job pairings, okay. So what you will see is some 

subcontractors worked on more than one job during 

the time period.

We looked at the distribution of 

crafts during this to see if it was a reasonable 

random sample and what you see here from this 

particular slide is that the bulk of these 

subcontractors were pipefitters, electricians, 

and carpenters, they made up over 50 percent.

And if you think of the work that 

would be done in 773A around the cells it would 

be a lot of re-piping, a lot of electrical work, 

and carpenters did a lot of framing and work 

within the rooms, repairs, and that type of 

thing.

And so that makes up the bulk of it, 

but all of the trades were really represented. 

We've got painters and ironworkers, sheet metal 

workers, laborers, millwrights, concrete 

workers, so we really have a nice distribution of 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

all the subcontractor construction trades.

So once we have this 110 workers, last 

November Mike and his team went down to the 

Savannah River Site to look for the bioassay for 

these workers and his team found the bioassay 

data for 105 of the 110 subcontractor 

construction trades workers.

Now of the 133 subcontractor 

construction trades worker job pairings, 88 

individual subcontractor CTWs were required to 

use a respirator, and this was our trigger for 

internal monitoring that we used.

Now some bioassay results were found 

for the 105 workers, were from job plans that did 

not require respiratory use. We did not consider 

these, we sat them off to the side, we just looked 

at those that required a respirator.

Some bioassay results preceded the 

date of the job plan and were also not considered, 

we set those aside. So we only looked at 

subcontractor construction trades workers that 

were on a job plan using a respirator and we 

looked for bioassay data after that, within that 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

specified time period of one year.

We did not look at tritium for any of 

this, this was all longer-lived bioassay 

monitoring.

So here are our results, the first 

couple of years, because we have so few, we've 

combined them together. And what you will see is 

down at the bottom, if you follow the totals, 

that's the 133 job pairings.

Eighty-eight requiring respiratory 

use. And we found that 59 of the 88 

subcontractors that were required to wear a 

respirator have bioassay data. This comes out to 

67 percent of the subcontractor construction 

trades workers wearing a respirator have bioassay 

data.

We feel that this is reasonable. 

Well, why do we feel that this is reasonable for 

the development of a coworker model? Well, 

first, we use a distribution of bioassay data to 

develop the coworker model and then we typically 

assigned the 95th percentile to the unmonitored 

worker.
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So 67 percent of the data is 

sufficient as long as there isn't a bias in the 

data, if you're not missing some of the high data 

or if you don't have, you know, if there is a 

bias.

Since we are using the 95th percentile 

we were concerned are there high exposures or 

incident data present in the random sample, and 

the answer was yes, so we didn't find really any 

bias or evidence of bias.

To give an example of an incident 

bioassay data that we found, as I indicated some 

of these were positive, some of the monitoring 

for these workers was positive.

This was from an incident while 

painting in C-005, that's a room in the chemistry 

wing of 773, and in this particular bioassay the 

individual had a non-detect for plutonium, it's 

less than 0.1 dpm, but the americium was 

positive, it was 0.5.

Some of the bioassay that we found 

were from incidents and subsequent follow-up and 

these bioassays were negative. So we knew an 
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

incident happened, health physics required these 

people to go and leave bioassay samples, go and 

look at the results and they were negative.

In our report we listed examples of 

these incidents that we found to demonstrate 

that, yes, higher exposed people were involved in 

it and are part of this dataset.

One of the individual's exposure was 

so high he is actually a part of the trans 

plutonium registry, so we do have high-level data 

within this dataset so we don't see any bias.

Okay. Another reason why we feel the 

67 percent is reasonable for the development of 

a coworker model is we looked at the coworkers of 

these unmonitored workers, and by coworker I am 

saying on those job plans more than one worker 

would typically be listed, anywhere from two to 

20 might be on a job plan.

And so when we looked at the 

unmonitored workers we went back to those 29, we 

looked at them and we found that 23 of the 29 had 

somebody else on that job plan that was 

monitored.
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Now you can put a caveat on here, 

because that coworker could have been a DuPont 

operations, could have been a DuPont maintenance 

worker or a DuPont construction, or it could have

been another subcontractor CTW that didn't make 

it into our random sample, so it's a mixture of 

all of those.

But if you consider this additional 

part -- hold on just a second. I apologize for 

the interruption. Thanks, Stu.

So if you consider this additional 

data this increases from 59 to 82 of the 88 

subcontractors, or 93 percent were either 

directly monitored or a coworker on the same job 

plan was monitored for this group of people that 

we sampled and looked at.

Another reason why we feel the 67 

percent is reasonable for the development of a 

coworker model is respiratory use is a reasonable 

surrogate for the need for internal monitoring, 

but not all respirator use requires bioassay.

Some respiratory protection is 

precautionary, you'd put people in respirators in 
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

case something happens of if contamination is 

unexpectedly encountered.

If there is no contamination then 

there is no potential for an intake and bioassay 

is not necessary. So was wearing a respirator 

really necessary in all these cases? Well, yes 

and no.

The yes part is as precautionary, 

absolutely, and I'll show an example here in just 

a second, but on the hindsight when no 

contamination was found do they really need to 

wear a respirator, not necessarily.

Health physicists in general are 

conservative in an effort to prevent intakes of 

radioactive material. In a good radiological 

safety culture we would rather have a worker in 

a respirator and not need it than a worker need 

a respirator and not have it, okay.

So you're going to tend to overuse 

respirators intentionally to prevent intakes. So 

let me show an example where bioassay was not 

necessarily needed, and let me read this 

particular example here, it's very difficult from 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the screen.

But this is from a radiological survey 

logsheet of the High Bay Area behind the trans 

plutonium fuel facility in the basement of 773A. 

This was written by the rad tech at the time.

"Surveyed for construction 

pipefitters to complete jobs started yesterday. 

OGE line," that's the off-gas exhaust lines, this 

would be a contaminated line, "was bagged up and 

cut into two sections.

"No problems were encountered. 

Construction and operational health physics wore 

two pair of white coveralls, cloth and plastic 

shoe covers, cloth hood, rubber gloves, and fullface respirator for the job.

"No transferable contamination was 

detected during the job. Impactor air sample 

taken during the job calculated to less than 0.2 

times ten to the minus 12 microcuries per cc."

That's less than 10 percent of a DAC. 

So in this particular case they were going to be 

cutting into the off-gas exhaust line. This 

would be a potentially contaminated line. You 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are absolutely going to put people into a 

respirator.

Before you've cut into any of these 

lines you're going to try and flush them. 

Apparently the flushing did quite well because 

when they cut into it they didn't find any 

contamination.

They had an air sampler set up there 

in the workplace, this would be a portable 

stanchion air sampler, and according to past 

interviews with RTCs they were set at nose 

height.

It recorded no activity, it was less 

than detectable, so they are less than 10 percent 

of the derived air concentration. So did they 

really need a respirator for this job? Well, I 

think they did because they were cutting into a 

contaminated line, but was there any 

contamination, no, so there's no potential for an 

intake.

So considering this type of scenario 

did the rad tech then require them to submit a 

bioassay sample, they may not have. So this 67 
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

percent that we're talking about to develop a 

coworker model we feel would be reasonable, 

especially if you applied the 95th percentile to 

the workers in the particular case where there is 

no evidence of an intake.

The fourth reason why we feel the 67 

percent is reasonable for a coworker model is 

there will not be 100 percent compliance with 

bioassay monitoring of subcontractor employees.

This is currently in programs today. 

There is limited ability for health physics to

enforce bioassay compliance. About the only tool 

that they have is to restrict somebody from going 

into an area again if they didn't leave a bioassay 

sample.

You can put them on a restricted list 

and they can't go in again. That's about the 

only tool that you really have to keep them, or 

to compel to leave bioassay samples.

Some workers are going to refuse to 

leave a bioassay sample. I have worked in 

construction from the time I got out of the Army, 

before I started college, and my dad was a 
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

construction trades worker for 42 years running 

heavy equipment, my uncle was a boilermaker for 

45 years, I've been around construction work all 

of my life.

I can tell you that you are not going 

to get 100 percent out of this particular 

workforce, or really any workforce. If people 

don't want to leave a sample they're not going 

to.

We showed some examples to the Work 

Group last week where a couple of workers, 

subcontractors, refused to leave bioassay. One 

of them stated they were exercising their right, 

the other one indicated time was money.

So 100 percent is really not possible. 

Also, subcontractors might move to another job 

and not return. So you restrict them, they don't 

really care, they're not coming back.

The question before the Board is: how 

much data is sufficient to support the 

development and use of a coworker model for dose 

reconstruction? And that's something that, and 

I hope you all will consider and deliberate on 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

and discuss as to whether or not this is, you 

know, what level of compliance really is 

necessary.

So in summary, 97 percent of the 

subcontractor CTWs were monitored for external 

dose. I didn't present that here, but it is there 

in our report.

Sixty-seven percent of the 

subcontractor CTWs were monitored by bioassay. 

Thirty-four of that 67 there is routine 

monitoring, the remaining 33 percent were 

incident-based or job-specific. It does say on 

job-specific, but it should be or job-specific.

When you consider the unmonitored an 

additional 79 percent of those unmonitored 

subcontractor workers had a coworker on the same 

job plan that was monitored with bioassay, which 

would raise that to 82 of 88 subcontractor CTWs 

had either personal monitoring or a monitored 

coworker.

So our conclusion is that radiation 

dose to subcontractor construction trades workers 

may be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

using either the routine, they're incident-based, 

or job-specific bioassay monitoring data 

available for the individual worker.

Remember, 67 percent of these 

subcontractor workers have monitoring data, or we 

can use coworker data or a combination of the 

two, whichever may be higher.

Radiation dose to the unmonitored 

subcontractor construction trades worker can be 

bounded using the 95th percentile of the coworker 

distribution developed from the monitored 

construction trades workers.

So what we are saying basically is if 

you have six construction trades workers on a job 

and four of them are monitored, we're saying that 

we can use the 95th percentile to estimate the 

dose for the two that didn't leave the sample.

That's what we are effectively saying 

with the 67 percent. And that concludes my 

presentation on the evaluation of the 

subcontractors.

Before I go on to the status of issues 

I think Joe should give his talk and we should 
125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

discuss that some and then we'll go on to the 

other issues. I'd be happy to answer any 

questions.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, before Joe, Board 

Members have questions? Yes, Josie?

(Off microphone comment)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, go ahead.

MEMBER BEACH: First of all, on Slide 

Number 5, I was trying to capture these. Give me 

one second.

DR. TAULBEE: The pie chart?

MEMBER BEACH: The pie chart, yes.

DR. TAULBEE: Yes. 

MEMBER BEACH: So looking at that pie 

chart and you pointed out several times that all 

the subcontractors are captured, there is a 

category of other that takes up a good portion of 

the pie chart, who fits in that category?

DR. TAULBEE: Mike Mahathy, can you 

help me out on that? I believe it's construction 

trades workers not listed there.

MR. MAHATHY: Yes, they're 

construction trade workers, that includes 
126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

construction category -- let me get this slide up 

so I can --

MR. KATZ: Mike, you were very hard to 

understand.

MR. MAHATHY: Okay, sorry. Yes, I am 

looking at it now. Those were, they had down as 

just as construction, so there were construction 

workers but not specified.

DR. TAULBEE: Okay. So those would be 

unspecified construction workers?

MR. MAHATHY: Yes.

DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That's a big 

piece of the pie there, so that concerned me a 

little bit.

DR. TAULBEE: Actually, it's not, 

Josie.

The other is the one just to the left 

of the red at the very top. This goes clockwise 

around.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so it's not the 

orange section over here?

DR. TAULBEE: No, the orange section 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

is electricians.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Okay, thank you. 

It's hard to see that.

DR. TAULBEE: Yes, if you read around 

like the clock --

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So there could 

be a few people that are in that section that 

might be hard to determine who they are?

DR. TAULBEE: That's correct.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And then on 

slide 7 -- should I let someone else -- okay, 

I'll just finish my questions.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, go ahead.

MEMBER BEACH: So this date, I just 

want to be clear, is from '80 to '86, what data 

do you have for the rest of the period, the '89 

to '98?

DR. TAULBEE: We did not have job 

plans for that time period. This was the only 

time period that we had what we felt were a 

complete set of job plans for a specific area 

that was readily available and that's what we 

sampled from.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And two more 

questions, Jim, and I'm -- so last year you were 

saying 75 percent was what you needed for 

bioassay data to do an accurate coworker model, 

today you are at 67 percent?

DR. TAULBEE: The 75 percent was a 

ballpark asked by Brad of what did I think might 

be and we just basically came up with -- I was 

thinking if you've got a Work Group of ten, two 

to three construction trades workers might not 

comply.

It was a guess, but it was something 

I was asked and we threw out 75 percent. And 

looking at this data, when you consider all of 

the other information that I presented there, the 

one through four of additional follow-up and 

including the other coworkers, I am fully 

comfortable with the 67 percent, or slightly over 

two-thirds.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And then, last 

question, on slide 15, my math needs some help 

here. Sixty-seven percent of the subcontractors 

had routine bioassay and then the next bullet you 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

talk about the additional 79 percent remaining 

unmonitored subcontractors, so can you kind of 

explain that?

DR. TAULBEE: If you look at the 29 

unmonitored subcontractors, okay, 23 of them, or 

79 percent, had a coworker on the same job plan 

that was monitored.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So you are 

saying that --

DR. TAULBEE: Seventy-nine percent of 

the remaining unmonitored subcontractors.

MEMBER BEACH: So you're going to have 

to rely on your coworker that you worked with if 

they had bioassay and you did not?

DR. TAULBEE: That would be correct.

MEMBER BEACH: And that's going to 

make it into their records and it could 

potentially be more than several people on one 

job?

DR. TAULBEE: This is why in our 

conclusions we specified here that we felt the 

dose reconstruction could be done with sufficient 

accuracy using a combination of their individual 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

data, the coworker data individually, or a 

combination of the two, whichever would be 

higher.

The coworker model data, their data, 

and the coworker model data to fill in if you 

wanted, whichever would be higher.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That gets very 

complicated. So, okay, thank you.

MR. MAHATHY: Dr. Taulbee?

DR. TAULBEE: Yes, go ahead, Mike.

MR. MAHATHY: I was going to point out 

that the 79, it's not 79 percent of the whole, 

it's 79 percent of the ones that remained, so 

that's a small number actually.

DR. TAULBEE: Yes, it's 23 of 29.

MR. MAHATHY: Right, right, okay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, Brad, then Dave 

Kotelchuck.

MEMBER CLAWSON: There is a lot of 

information here, Tim, and we've been doing this 

for a lot of years now.

The thing that really bothers me on 

this is slide 15, because when we're getting into 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this we are relying on the other coworker to help 

with the coworker model to make the coworker 

model work for the subcontractors.

The thing that really bothers me about 

this is we did this for one building and we have 

an entire site to be able to do this with. It's 

already taken us how many years to be able to get 

to this point.

Myself, you feel confident with 67 

percent, and my personal opinion is that it is 

not. I have an awful lot of problem with us 

relying on other coworkers to make the coworker 

model work, but we'll work through this.

I just want to voice my concern with 

this.

DR. TAULBEE: May I respond to that?

I understand some of your concern 

there, Brad. With these additional coworkers, 

these people would be part of the dataset that we 

would be looking at.

When we were looking at the dataset, 

we are looking at large datasets, okay, in our 

random sample we selected individuals, okay, 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

these other coworkers would be part of that 

group, and that's what we would be doing.

So we're not looking at the coworker 

of a coworker, we are looking at the total dataset 

that we've got and we'd be taking the 95th 

percentile off of that and applying it. I just 

wanted that to be clear.

MEMBER CLAWSON: And I'd like to 

respond to that. I understand what you are 

saying. I want us to keep in mind why we have 

SECs, if the data isn't there, the data isn't 

clear.

This is why we have it and I really -

- we've been fighting this fight, especially with 

coworker models, this is, if I remember right, 

this is almost the sixth different shot that 

we've taken at these coworker models and I just, 

I do have a problem with it.

CHAIR MELIUS: Dave?

MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Going over 

this I am concerned about the issue of bias in 

the selection of the people. Let's go to the 

bias in the selection of the exposures. Let's go 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to slide 15.

A lot of these, it appears, other than 

the DuPont are small contractors and what worries 

me is that folks who believe they have a high 

level of exposure might simply walk away figuring 

that their employer, either their employer might 

fire them for "doing a bad job" or "not being 

careful," or they may worry, I assume since the 

Savannah River Site is a major employer in that 

area that a number of the tradesmen who are 

working in construction might hope to get a job 

in the future with the company and they don't 

want to have a record of having heavy exposure on 

the job.

Now a lot of what I am saying is 

essentially sociological, and it's hard to know 

how to pull out what's going on. There are 

certainly experiences elsewhere in other sites 

that people over the years in the industry where 

the levels were high, if you will, tried to do 

things to keep down any observation that they 

were heavily exposed.

So I am worried that the people in the 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

highest level of exposures might simply have 

walked away. One possible way, or one possible 

piece of information that might be able to sort 

things out is DuPont's a major company and 

people, I expect, who are working for DuPont want 

to continue to work for DuPont.

DuPont may well have enforced their 

rules about people leaving bioassays more than 

the small subcontractors, and half the people are 

DuPont and half are other subcontractors.

Possibly there is some way of 

comparing the DuPont and the non-DuPont to see if 

there is any difference in the kinds of exposures 

that are reported by people in those areas.

DR. TAULBEE: That was actually 

requested to us by the Work Group this past 

Wednesday during the call, was to compare the 

95th percentile of the DuPont construction trades 

workers and the 95th percentile of the 

subcontractor construction trades workers, so we 

are going to work on doing that in the coming 

weeks and months.

MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, good, good.
135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, let's stop the 

questions for now because we have other 

presentations and limited time. So, Joe.

Joe Fitzgerald from SC&A who has been 

evaluating this in a slightly different approach.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Good afternoon, 

Dr. Melius and the Board. First off I want to 

acknowledge, I guess Greg Lewis left, that's too 

bad, because actually he did quite a bit of work 

along with the Site to make our two site visits 

possible and it was a big resource issue, so I 

just want to give him a kudos even in his absence.

And, likewise, as I did at Work Group, 

just recognize Tim and his team. We had to kind 

of learn off their nickel, in terms of some of 

the protocols and the data availabilities at 

Savannah River and I think it was useful seeing 

that he and Mike Mahathy had started a few months 

before we did.

That really got us jump started, so 

that was really helpful and very collegial, and 

I appreciate it.

Yes, as Dr. Melius said, in September 
136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

of last year we were asked to do a slightly 

different cant on this thing, even though we did 

borrow from the concept of looking at a job plan, 

in this case we looked at RWPs to look at, you 

know, the bioassays, to pair bioassay results for 

a completeness analysis.

The notion was to look broader. So 

what we were doing, we used a number of different 

approaches, a computerized system called EDWS, 

which we had access to at Savannah River, it's an 

in-house search engine for their documentation 

and record, using that as well as some files that 

NIOSH had as well as some physical onsite 

searches.

What we were trying to do is, frankly, 

locate as many RWPs for the SEC period, '72 

through 1995, and use those RWPs, select from 

those RWPs to span a representative group of 

facilities, of timeframes, and operations just to 

get a more diverse sense of this question of 

completeness and adequacy, and I think it was 

very helpful to do it that way.

We identified in the end RWPs for 1982 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to '95, and I was somewhat surprised, but in 

retrospect I think there's a pretty good 

explanation for it.

We found most of the radiological work 

permits for the 1989 to 1995 period, the ones 

that were in fact most prolific with the numbers 

of CTWs or subcontractor CTWs identified, and a 

lot of this that I point out here corresponds 

with the Westinghouse early tenure at the site.

They started in '89 I believe at the 

site and certainly that coincided with a lot of 

upgrades as far as formality of the program. 

Westinghouse instituted a lot of their 

procedures, a heavier reliance on radiological 

work permits, more formalization of procedures 

and those kinds of things.

Also, at the same time was a much more 

expanded use of outside subcontractors. The 

restart a K Reactor, that effort was going on, 

involved a lot of construction trade workers 

being brought in to basically do a lot of the 

construction upgrades at the reactor.

And, I -- You know, I think Tim was 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

pointing out that tritium didn't figure in his 

review in the high-level case, but because this 

was a K Reactor, a tritium production reactor 

with, you know, certainly residual contamination 

it was the converse for us.

Actually, tritium figured more 

prominently in the RWPs that we saw for that 

period.

So, anyway, we did onsite matching of 

what we found, the 306 identified subcontractor 

CTWs with matching records, which were basically 

either on electronic fiche or hard file, and this 

was with the support of the Savannah River 

internal dosimetry staff in terms of giving us 

access to all that.

And we chose -- this is a little 

different, we didn't look at respiratory 

protection as the trigger, but we essentially 

looked at whether or not we could identify within 

the 30- or 90-day period following the RWP job 

date, in fact, a bioassay being recorded as a 

result.

And since we were dealing roughly with 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75 percent of the RWPs targeting tritium, 

certainly a 30- or 90-day made more sense than a 

year. You obviously wouldn't see much after a 

year if it was a one-time tritium exposure, so I 

think that was the approach we made.

And, again, looking at over 300 and 

given the timeframe and the resource limitations 

at Savannah River I think this was probably the 

best approach as far as getting results in terms 

of pairing and looking at the question of 

completeness.

Now surely if we had more resources 

and more time at the site I think we could be 

more specific, but I think this was probably the 

best we could do to come up with the result that 

we are looking for.

I think Tim went through this list, 

and I won't go through it again, but just to give 

you an idea of the different crafts that were 

involved in these RWPs. This was sort of the 

scope of what we saw in the RWPs that we were 

looking at.

And, I guess, again from our 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

experience were taken aback a little bit. This 

is the 1990s, we were going into this thing 

thinking that we would have a pretty uniform set 

of RWPs, we would have target nuclides, we would 

have specific dates, we really didn't think this 

was going to be an issue or a question of, you 

know, having a benchmark to compare bioassays 

against.

So we were I think surprised and I 

think we had to adapt, to some extent, to the 

fact that we had several different forms of work 

permits, some of which were specific and explicit 

about the end-of-job bioassays, some which were 

unclear, unfortunately, with target nuclides, 

some of which were, as we found, did not even 

have a date.

So we had to go and cull out the ones 

that were just not useable, but even the ones 

that we ended up having to use, again, they were 

not the uniform set that we were hoping for.

And, again, that kind of compelled 

some change in the way we presented our results 

and when we get to the results you'll notice that 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

we presented two sets, essentially, one set that 

were from RWPs that were much clear, much more 

explicit, others that were a bit more general, 

and I'll give you more information on that.

And I said earlier, of the 243 

subcontractors that had bioassay results within 

the 90 days that we were looking at, threequarters were ones that had tritium identified as 

the target, about 20 percent had plutonium, and 

the balance were mixed fission products, uranium 

and whatnot.

And these are our results. In terms 

of, and this was another thing that we were going 

to look at, the question of whether records were 

just not identifiable at all, and initially we 

were particularly concerned because we had a 

relatively high number. I think it was 18 or 19 

that the dosimetry staff at Savannah River could 

not find.

But as it turns out, you know, because 

we are dealing with handwritten records, the 

dosimetry staff is used to going through a number 

of permutations, and it's very possible after a 
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

while that you can actually identify some of

these folks just by doing comparisons, doing 

matchings from earlier years, trying different 

numbers, and as it turns out we were able to 

identify all but five using that process as far 

as identifying the workers against the bioassays.

So going from that, looking at the 306 

total RWPs, and this is the whole mix of the 

different kinds of RWPs that we're using, I found 

this surprising.

I didn't see Tim's results, but we 

came up with about 34 percent were missing, 

completeness about 66 percent. This is using the 

30-day benchmark. At 90 days that becomes 80 

percent complete, 20 percent missing, and this is 

for, again, the total number.

So we're narrowing this down to the 

197 that had -- were clear, end-of-shift bioassay 

requirements, not with some of the ambiguity on 

some of the others, that number was 71 percent 

complete for the 30-day period and 84 percent 

complete for 90 days. So, again, that's the 

spread of what we found.
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Now at the very end of this cycle, 

this is, in fact, after we got the data and after 

we had crunched the data and were preparing a 

report, I got access to the Noncompliance 

Tracking System at DOE and I was doing some 

searching, this is actually a very searchable 

database, and I looked at Savannah River and, 

again, I was a little taken aback because I had 

not been aware of the '98 Notice of Violation and 

when I looked at it I was concerned that, actually 

it was very relevant, I think, to this overall 

review and, you know, it's too bad that search 

wasn't done six months earlier because I think we 

could have addressed it in a more early sense.

And, again, all we had available to us 

was the Notice of Violation itself, what was on 

the NTS as well as the enforcement letter, which 

I made a copy for you.

The hyperlink that was listed in our 

report turned out to be in error, so I wanted to 

make sure everyone at least had a copy of the 

letter. That doesn't have the attachment. That 

hyperlink has been corrected since, so that's out 
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

there.

But the Westinghouse/Savannah River 

in '98 was cited under 10 CFR 820, and that's the 

-- I think it's the Quality Assurance reg, for 

deficient work processes, respect to full worker 

adherence to establish WSRC bioassay 

requirements, and I parenthetically mention that 

action was deferred under 10 CFR 835, which we 

have talked quite a bit about.

Again, in the letter, and I don't want 

to dwell on all of the aspects addressed in the 

letter, I think DOE acknowledged that, in fact, 

Savannah River had some pretty robust field

indicator programs that looked at, you know, 

evidence of intakes, evidence of contamination in 

the air, and I think DOE took that in 

consideration and the citation was for 820 rather 

than 835 and the action was deferred under 835.

Anyway, Westinghouse, and this is in 

the letter, found worker nonparticipation, jobspecific bioassays, that shouldn't be '95, that 

was actually May of '97, so there was actually 

two surveys, May of '97 and September of '97, but 
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

in the May timeframe they found 67 percent 

nonparticipation.

That's sort of a flip from what Tim 

and I were discussing. It's not a 67 percent 

participation, but the other way around, 67 

percent nonparticipation. Apparently, that was 

a limited sample.

Later in '97, the same year, and this

was on the heels of those results, Westinghouse 

did a complete survey of all the RWPs for the 

second quarter, this is job-specific RWPs to be 

explicit about it, for the second quarter of '97 

and they evaluated that and issued the results in 

September that found that 79 percent, in fact, 

did not provide results and that figured 

prominently in that NOV in terms of the citation 

and the follow-on of that.

There was a whole series of corrective 

actions that Westinghouse committed to. I'm not 

going to go through all of the details, but 

essentially revamped the overall program, the 

training, the forms that were being used.

It was interesting that one of the 
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

issues was fixing the RWP forms, clearly making 

that more uniform, having check-offs and having 

the information be more uniform in those forms.

So that kind of explained to me a 

little bit of why we were having such a hard time 

before that.

And I also mentioned that Westinghouse 

undertook a re-sampling of the 1997 missing CTWs. 

I think as NIOSH pointed out in the Work Group 

meeting, it's 256.

Two hundred and fifty-six CTWs were, 

they did re-sampling and the re-sampling showed 

no measurable intakes for those workers for that 

timeframe. So these re-samplings were done 

following the results that were achieved.

I guess the bottom line is this, you 

know, clearly we felt this has some important 

implications for this question that we are 

addressing, and NIOSH, as we heard in the Work 

Group, is conducting a further follow-up with 

Savannah River to get more information to 

establish if they did anymore re-samplings, 

whatever.
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Again, we didn't have time to do any 

follow-up. This was something that we wanted to 

bring to the Board's attention, to NIOSH's 

attention. It factors into this whole thing, 

but, you know, again, this was very late in the 

game.

And, finally, conclusions, we were 

tasked, frankly, last year to take the review in 

a broader sense to answer the question how 

complete is the subcontractor CTW bioassay 

database, and our conclusion is that given the 

results that we found, which is the 16 to 34 

percent missing, and I'm not getting into of the 

strategies for mitigating against that, just 

looking at the issue of how complete is it, our 

conclusion was it wasn't complete, it wasn't 

sufficiently complete.

We also felt that the NOV findings in 

'98 are of real concern because, frankly, those 

metrics are even worse. So it certainly raises 

questions for the Westinghouse era.

We don't have enough documentation 

before '89, frankly, to talk about the DuPont era 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

except for what NIOSH has done in the early '80s, 

but certainly it raises some serious questions 

about the adequacy of the data for job-specific 

bioassays that were conducted in that '90s 

timeframe.

Now the corrective actions were taken 

and put in place by the end of '98, so certainly 

Westinghouse tackled it pretty promptly, and 

looking at the NTS database we did not see any 

further citations or any further results that 

spoke to conformance issues after that date.

So after December '98 there didn't 

seem to be any further issues that we could 

actually establish.

And to echo to some extent what I 

think Tim just said, it does come down to how 

complete is complete, a question that I think 

actually Jim Neton raised at one of the earlier 

Work Group meetings.

You know, our conclusion is based on 

the fact that we felt 16 to 34 percent, certainly 

from our standpoint, isn't complete given the 

tasking that we got, but, again, I think the Board 
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

will have to address that issue.

That's the end of my presentation 

unless there is any further questions.

CHAIR MELIUS: Board Members with 

questions?

(No audible response)

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. And I think Tim 

had a few slides to finish, if you could do that 

quickly, Tim, please.

DR. TAULBEE: Yes. Okay, to finish up 

here I just wanted to give a little bit of the 

status of the issues. This is what I have been 

giving for the past multiple Board meetings.

These are kind of where we are at with 

our deliverables, and as you can see we have 

delivered all of the work products that we had 

committed to with the exception of the full OTIB81, the full coworker model.

And what I have got here on this 

particular slide is also the time period when 

SC&A has provided us comments and we're going to 

be trying to track this through when we get the 

SC&A comments and then we'll respond to them, and 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

so we'll be keeping this particular table here 

updated for the Board as requested.

To give a little bit of a summary on 

where we are at with the coworker models, this 

will be Revision 4 of OTIB-4 to contain all of 

the remaining radionuclides of interest.

The data completeness and QA 

verification has been completed. The final 

modeling is progressing and the current schedule 

of completion, delivery to the Board, will be 

November of this year.

I have listed next the current work 

following last week's Work Group meeting, and the 

first thing is to respond to the findings from 

SC&A reviews of documents submitted to the Work 

Group, and this would be both under the SEC issues 

Work Group as well as the SRS Work Group.

We are focusing right now on the 

coworker model issues and providing some of that 

feedback based upon the Work Group meeting last 

week.

We are developing responses to SC&A's 

report on the subcontractor monitoring. We do 
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

have some concerns with that and we would like to 

address those and get them in writing to the Work 

Group.

As I mentioned earlier to Dr. 

Kotelchuck, we are assessing the distributions of 

the DuPont construction trades workers versus the 

subcontractor construction trades workers.

And then as Joe indicated in his last 

slide we are doing a follow-up with the site 

regarding the '95 to '97 assessment on internal 

bioassay monitoring that led to the Notice of 

Violation of 10 CFR 830, which is the Nuclear 

Safety Management Section which follows the QA.

And we have made that request to the 

Site, they are working on providing us with their 

full packet of information, their corrective 

actions.

It appears based upon the Notice of 

Violation that Joe pointed out that they did 

assessments in '95 and '96 and '97, and so we are 

definitely interested into whether they did 

additional ones prior to this time period and 

whether they did re-sampling of the individual 
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

workers.

Because as Joe pointed out in one of 

his slides there about does this nonparticipation 

actually equal missing data, if they did resampling that data then would be in the dataset 

that we could use to develop a coworker model.

So those are questions that we are 

certainly going to try and answer and we have 

made the request from the Site. So that's where 

we are currently at.

We hope to have several, or I hope to 

have at least a couple of more Work Group meetings 

between now and the December meeting, and we'll 

keep you all updated. Any questions?

CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you, Tim. No 

questions?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I do. Okay, 

Tim, so when we take and we -- they've re-sampled 

all of these people, that's going to show us for 

that one quarter, but, still, I am sure they 

haven't gone back and re-sampled people for five 

to six years.

DR. TAULBEE: What it appears from the 
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

discussion in the ORPS report is that they 

indicated that they did not necessarily assess 

doses, or intakes, based upon the job-specific 

bioassay, that that was handled under special 

bioassay which could be a re-sampling feedback 

loop that we don't know yet.

They certainly did in 1997, that's in 

the Notice of the Violation, where they went back 

and re-sampled all of the people in 1997, not 

just one quarter, all, according to the Notice of 

Violation.

So we know they did for that 

particular year. Did they in '95 and '96, I don't 

know yet. That's where we have requested the 

data to see.

CHAIR MELIUS: Henry and then Josie.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I am just 

concerned about, you know, half of the monitoring 

seems to be done for incidents and I was wondering 

how representative of those are the various 

trades.

Are some of them more apt to have more 

incidents that will be weighted towards, you 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

know, a response to some kind of event monitoring 

versus the routine monitoring and is it randomly 

distributed through time, most incidents aren't 

necessarily like that?

DR. TAULBEE: We can certainly look at 

that. We haven't broken it down to that 

standpoint, but based upon my review of the job 

plans individually you've got pretty much an 

equal likelihood.

If a sheet metal worker is getting 

into the duct work it could be contaminated and

they could end up getting an incident. 

Pipefitters may be more inclined to get an 

incident as well because of cutting into lines.

Electricians though, surprisingly, 

would get into places that, working on the same 

jobs with pipefitters that would also result in 

incidents. So we can look at those.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Or given the 

numbers if there was a -- there could be four or 

five workers exposed at the same incident because 

they are doing a fairly large job. Do you have 

any sense on that?
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I'm just trying to, again, look at the 

representativeness, how that compares to routine 

monitoring. There's quite a bit of -- it's a 

different approach than incident.

DR. TAULBEE: Right. I don't know 

that off the top of my head, but we can certainly 

look at that and report back.

CHAIR MELIUS: I'll just say, you're 

also talking about one area.

MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

DR. TAULBEE: That's correct. What -

-

CHAIR MELIUS: And so it's going to, 

I would think that the incident response team, so 

to speak, or whatever you want to call it, is 

going to differ depending on the type of incident 

that might occur.

I think the basic trades will be 

there, but, you know, same trades, but it would 

depend and you don't know, Tim, and I mean let's 

just admit that I mean and then --

DR. TAULBEE: Well you said something 

which caused me to, because I heard it earlier 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

and I didn't think to respond at the time, is 

that during the -- you know, we just looked at 

one area, but DuPont really had a conduct of ops 

across multiple facilities.

When you get to the Westinghouse era, 

when they started introducing a lot more 

subcontractors, I think really some of that 

uniformity went away.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

DR. TAULBEE: And so, you know, I 

think even though we just looked at one 

particular area, I wouldn't expect to see much 

different elsewhere.

Now when you get into the post-1989, 

maybe, if you've got a large reactor restart and 

you've got, you know, hundreds of construction 

trades workers in one area things might be 

different.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. And I agree we 

need to treat the areas as, the eras as different, 

Westinghouse versus DuPont. Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So looking at 

this Westinghouse assessment it seems like that 
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

would supersede both NIOSH's and SC&A's samplings 

which leads us to believe that there is a 79 to 

80 percent missing bioassay data for that time 

period, is that correct, because that's the math 

I am getting?

DR. TAULBEE: If I may answer that, if 

you look at the 1997 assessment that assessment 

was for 3200 bioassay requests. Ninety-five 

percent of those 3200 requests were routine 

monitoring.

Five percent of those bioassay 

requests were job-specific monitoring. The 21 

percent participation rate was just for the jobspecific bioassay monitoring, okay.

So 3200 bioassays -- 95 percent of 

3200, whatever that number comes out to be, were 

submitted upon request. They indicated that they 

had 100 percent compliance amongst the routine 

monitoring.

And as Dr. Kotelchuck pointed out 

earlier, DuPont, or Westinghouse in this 

particular case, could compel their workers to 

leave the bioassay samples because they would 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

restrict them and they wouldn't be able to do the 

job and they'd be fired.

So the job-specific ones are more 

likely to be subcontractors, but many 

subcontractors were also on that routine 

monitoring, okay, they weren't all job-specific, 

so the 79 percent missing bioassay is just jobspecific bioassay.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yeah, I mean, it cuts 

both ways. Yeah, it cuts both ways, because then 

how do you say your --

DR. TAULBEE: But of those they went 

back and re-sampled all of them.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yeah, but you're losing 

data when you're doing that.

DR. TAULBEE: It depends upon the 

radionuclide.

CHAIR MELIUS: Yeah.

DR. TAULBEE: If it's plutonium you're 

not.

CHAIR MELIUS: Well, yeah, but it 

depends. I mean, the case -- Joe, any comment on 

that?
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yeah, I think 

you were touching on something that we found, 

that unlike -- I think you do have this diversity 

in the site, at Savannah River, and I think this 

was the genesis of wanting to have an additional 

broad scope, because the high-level caves I think 

you are dealing with, you know, again, the 

longer-lived emitters.

Whereas what we saw, and this doesn't 

surprise me either, we saw, you know, 75 percent 

of the RWPs for the early '90s were tritium, 

mainly because you did have all those 

subcontractors that were brought in because of 

the major -- and this I remember it firsthand -- 

a major, major effort to get K Reactor restarted.

That was the only source of tritium 

production in the country. So a lot of resources 

were being pumped, and more than Westinghouse 

had, so they brought in as many, you know, as 

much support from the outside.

And these workers, because they are 

operating in slightly contaminated environments 

were all, you know, tagged to RWPs that required 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

-- and standing RWPs and all these varieties for 

which tritium bioassay was required. And you do 

have an issue if you have a delay, too prolonged 

of a delay in the bioassay for tritium. So that's 

certainly one issue that stands. 

The other issue, and I know we've had 

this discussion offline already, is that, you 

know, the re-sampling I can understand. 

Westinghouse had to demonstrate to DOE that, 

despite the fact you had the 79 percent weren't 

bioassayed, that as it turns out there was no 

positive intakes.

I mean, if there were positive intakes 

I think it would have ratcheted up, you know, the 

violation and the concern incredibly, you know, 

significantly, but it doesn't answer, in my view, 

and still doesn't, the question of what about the 

time periods before?

I can understand why they'd do a resampling on the heels of an NOV, but did they do 

enough re-sampling to, frankly, mitigate the lack 

of bioassays in the earlier time periods? So 

that's kind of my offering.
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

CHAIR MELIUS: Before we go any 

further -- I don't see any hands up, so to speak, 

from the Board Members. We need to hear from the 

petitioners. Are the petitioners on the line?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, we're here.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. You are welcome 

to make comments.

MR. JOHNSON: This is Warren Johnson. 

Quite frankly, this feels like, well, essentially 

Groundhog Day. We were here roughly this time 

last year hearing roughly the same thing, which 

is we're talking about different statistics and 

whatnot, but the end result was -- just look at 

the big picture.

We've been doing this for over ten 

years. NIOSH has been creating dose 

reconstructions for over ten years that were 

wrong. They admit they were wrong. They were 

using the wrong model. This Class of worker has 

been told their dose reconstruction -- they 

weren't entitled benefits based on a dose 

reconstruction that was admittedly flawed, and 

now we're being told yet again "we think we can 
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

get it right, we'll let you know in November."

You know, one of the problems with 

this analysis is feasibility. And, you know, 

obviously, the second is sufficient accuracy. It 

hasn't been feasible to get this right for over 

a decade and we are still -- what I hear is a lot 

of statistics that result in a guess.

The numbers, as I understand it, is -

- that we just were told is 67 percent is enough, 

that's sufficiently accurate. Well, if you look 

at that, that's based on 59 of the 88 people, or 

of a sample of 88 workers who were assigned 

respirators.

You make a lot of assumptions to get 

there, that that's representative. One, you're 

assuming that everybody was properly assigned 

respiratory protection when they were supposed to 

be.

Two, you then break down that 59, 33 

percent of the 88 is when -- they are being 

counted because they were involved in an incident 

and were sampled. Well, that's not sufficient. 

The other 34 percent of the 88 were based on 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

routine monitoring. Well, we don't know, one, on 

the incidents, what were they being sampled for? 

The example was a person that was involved in an 

incident and had negative plutonium uptake and a 

positive americium. Well, what all was present? 

What all should they have been tested for?

On the routine monitoring, when did 

that take place, what was the basis, and what 

were they looking for? Were they looking for the 

correct thing?

If you're not looking for the correct 

radionuclide you're not going to find it. We're 

essentially ignoring all of the data collected 

from the worker outreach programs and the 

testimony of the various workers who often refer 

to the fact that there was no HP coverage when 

they needed it.

Well, that data is not there, you're 

overlooking that. And NIOSH referenced that the 

67 percent is good enough if there's no bias. 

Well, you know, that's a very, very small sample 

of a great deal of potential workers. How many 

of those are we excluding that had high uptakes? 
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

The second part of that is we're 

focusing on one small -- a very small part of the 

site.

Another thing is, if we look at the 

history of this, we've been told numerous times 

about, you know, what the procedures say or what 

was reported, what's the highest intake reported.

I'll point you back to 2005, SC&A's 

report, it was TR-TASK1-0003 where they note it 

was reported there was 99 uranium uptakes, in the 

history of the site, in 2000. But SC&A found 155 

positive bioassays for uranium over a 6-year 

period. So how reliable are these records? We 

know they are incomplete. There's reference to 

the destruction of records.

You know, if there were not incidents 

-- if incidents were not reported or discovered, 

there isn't going to be a bioassay for it. What 

we are going to, 79 percentile, or 79 percent 

non-participation rate on the bioassays, among 

other things that demonstrates to me is there was 

not adherence to the procedures that they were 

supposed to do.
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Just because they had a rule doesn't 

mean followed it. And, in fact, history has shown 

many, many times it wasn't followed. I don't 

think you can give the benefit of the doubt to 

the site.

I think, among other things, that's 

certainly not claimant-favorable. It's certainly 

not sufficiently accurate. It essentially 

amounts to a guess.

I've heard a number of times from the 

NIOSH --

(Simultaneous speaking)

MR. KATZ: Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. 

Warren, just one second. Hello, hello? There is 

some people having a conversation about a coffee 

shop on this line. You should have your phone 

muted or hang up, either way, but you are 

interfering with Mr. Warren trying to give his 

comments to the Board. So, please, either hang 

up or put your phone on mute. You press *6 and 

that will mute your phone and then rest of us 

will be spared of your conversation. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. KATZ: Sorry, Mr. Warren, go 

ahead.

MR. JOHNSON: No problem. I was 

referring to a number of things. I've heard 

comments from the NIOSH representative that he 

wouldn't expect to see this or he would expect to 

see that.

I believe that's speculative. That's 

making an assumption, what he expects to see. I 

think, at this point, we deserve to deal with the 

evidence that's before us, and the evidence is 

that there is a sparsity of records, there is 

widespread noncompliance.

The Tiger Team even noted that there 

was a lack of HP coverage, there was a lack of HP 

coverage with trained technicians, properly 

trained. Some of the citations are safety 

violations, and the Tiger Team report notes that 

they were using a pancake probe at too high a 

speed to actually detect anything.

You know, there's too many flaws, too 

many guesses, to begin to say that this is being 

done with sufficient accuracy.
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

As to feasibility, you know, we're 

over a decade now, and how many times can NIOSH 

get it wrong, how many times do these claimants 

have to sit and wait and suffer?

At this point, I think it's been 

proven that the dose reconstruction cannot be 

performed. One, it's not feasible. You can't 

ignore time. When it comes to feasibility you 

also can't ignore resources. How much money and 

time has been spent on this?

And then, second, they can't get to 

sufficient accuracy. We're talking about -- when 

I look at -- and you can do a lot of things with 

numbers and statistics, but when I look at it, 

what I understand from the sample was 59 of 133 

people sampled were actually monitored.

Well, that's 44 percent as I do it. 

Yes, you can then try and whittle that down, but, 

one, is that representative sample at 133 of the 

workers? And, two, you selected that sample, 

only 59 of that sample actually submitted 

bioassay.

I believe that leaves us with the 
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

coworker model that is proposed being essentially 

a guess, and that's not good enough. Sixty-seven 

percent is still a guess, but I believe it's less 

than that. It just depends on how you want to 

re-shake the numbers and what story you want to 

tell. But if we looks at the facts objectively, 

that's where we are.

This is too speculative to rely on. 

And at this point, after all this time, I believe 

it's appropriate for the SEC to be granted.

CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, all.

CHAIR MELIUS: Turning back to the 

Board, Brad, you had a comment?

MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just wondering if 

we even have a quorum.

CHAIR MELIUS: It depends on who's on 

the phone.

MR. KATZ: Paul and Gen and Bill, do 

we have any of you on the phone?

MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer, I'm on 

the phone.

MR. KATZ: That's Paul.
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MEMBER ZIEMER: Were you asking if I 

had a comment or what?

MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, I couldn't 

understand what you were saying, Paul.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, you just asked if 

I was on the phone --

MR. KATZ: Right, right. Yes, I heard 

the yes. I thought you said something else after 

that. So that's not sufficient. Do we -- Gen, 

are you on the line?

(No audible response)

MR. KATZ: And Bill?

(No audible response)

MR. KATZ: We do not have a quorum.

(Simultaneous speaking)

MR. KATZ: Bill?

(No audible response)

CHAIR MELIUS: No. So we don't have 

a quorum, so we need to suspend and we will take 

this issue up again at the Board work call, 

presuming we have a quorum.

MR. KATZ: Right. That's the Board 

teleconference. I think it's in October.
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, I couldn't 

understand if someone on the phone was trying to 

say something to us.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we have a quorum, 

is that what you are asking?

MR. KATZ: Oh, Paul, we do not have a 

quorum, so we are going to suspend, or adjourn.

CHAIR MELIUS: Adjourn and we'll take 

up this as part of our next Board work call, Board 

work call meeting, or whatever we call it.

MR. KATZ: Board teleconference.

MEMBER BEACH: So I'm going to be --

I'm going to miss that, and so will the Chair, so 

just to point that out, in October.

(Pause.)

Adjourn 

CHAIR MELIUS: We are adjourned.

MR. KATZ: Thank you. And thank you 

everyone on the line. Again, we are adjourned.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:16 p.m.)
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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