STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS

404/733-6070

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

convenes the

WORKING GROUP MEETING

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

CHAPMAN VALVE

The verbatim transcript of the Working 

Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and

Worker Health held in St. Louis, Missouri, on June

25, 2008.
2

C O N T E N T S

June 25, 2008

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 10

ELEVATED URANIUM SAMPLE 11

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 40
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken.

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material.

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported.

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available.

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response.

 -- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available.

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone.
4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order)

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D.

Principal Associate Director

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Washington, DC

 

BOARD MEMBERSHIP

1 CLAWSON, Bradley

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling

Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory

GIBSON, Michael H.

President

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200

Miamisburg, Ohio

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D.

Professor, Texas A&M University

College Station, Texas

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

BEACH, JOSIE, ABRWH

BLOCK, SHARON, SEN. KENNEDY

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON

CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH

FARRELL, RICH, NIOSH

GUIDO, JOE, ORAU

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS

NETON, JIM, NIOSH
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

1 (7:30 a.m.)

2

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

3 DR. BRANCHE: We are now going to start the 

4 Chapman Valve meeting. It is Wednesday, June 

5 25th and I am Dr. Christine Branche. I have 

6 the pleasure of being the Designated Federal 

7 Official for the Advisory Board on Radiation 

8 and Worker Health.

9 Will the Advisory Board members who are in the 

10 room please state your names.

11 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson.

12 DR. ROESSLER: Gen Roessler.

13 DR. POSTON: John Poston.

14 MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson.

15 DR. BRANCHE: Would the Board members who are 

16 also in the room please state your names.

17 MS. BEACH: Josie Beach, no conflicts.

18 DR. LOCKEY: Jim Lockey, no conflicts.

19 MR. SCHOFIELD: Phillip Schofield, no 

20 conflicts.

21 DR. BRANCHE: Two of you need to leave the room 

22 or we will have a quorum of the Board, and we 
7

1 can't have that. Thank you.

2 Would NIOSH staff in the room please state 

3 their names -- please come to the microphone.

4 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no conflicts.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, no conflict.

6 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. And thank you for 

7 talking about the conflict. I appreciate that.

8 Any NIOSH staff participating -- no, I've got 

9 more NIOSH staff in the room. Please state 

10 your name and tell us if you have a conflict 

11 with Chapman Valve.

12 MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang, NIOSH director's 

13 office, no conflicts.

14 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. NIOSH staff who are 

15 participating by phone would you please state

16 your names and state whether or not you have a 

17 conflict with Chapman Valve.

18 MR. FARRELL*: Rich Farrell.

19 DR. BRANCHE: And do you have a conflict, sir?

20 MR. FARRELL: No.

21 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. ORAU staff 

22 participating by phone would you state your 

23 names and say if you have a conflict with 

24 Chapman Valve.

25 MR. GUIDO: Joe Guido, no conflict.
8

1 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A staff in the room, please 

2 state your names and whether or not you have a 

3 conflict with Chapman Valve.

4 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no conflict.

5 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A staff participating by phone 

6 would you please state your names and whether 

7 or not you have a conflict with Chapman Valve.

8 (No response)

9 DR. BRANCHE: Other federal agency staff in the 

10 room would you please state your names and 

11 whether or not you have a conflict with Chapman 

12 Valve -- and thank you for coming to the 

13 microphone.

14 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC Washington 

15 office, no conflict.

16 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no conflict.

17 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, Department of Labor, 

18 no conflict.

19 MR. MCGOLERICK: Robert McGolerick, HHS, no 

20 conflict.

21 DR. BRANCHE: Any federal agency staff 

22 participating by phone would you please state 

23 your names and about -- tell us about your --

24 your potential for a conflict.

25 (No response)
9

1 We note that Mr. Mark Griffon has come into the 

2 room.

3 Petitioners or their representatives in the 

4 room, would you please state your names.

5 (No response)

6 Petitioners participating by phone, or their 

7 representatives, would you please state your 

8 names.

9 (No response)

10 Workers or their representatives in the room,

11 would you please state your names.

12 (No response)

13 Workers or their representatives by phone would 

14 you please state your names.

15 (No response)

16 Members of Congress or their representatives,

17 would you please state your names -- who are in 

18 the room.

19 (No response)

20 And those by phone.

21 MS. BLOCK: Sharon Block from Senator Kennedy's 

22 office.

23 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. Are there any others 

24 in the room who would like to state your names 

25 for the record?
10

1 (No response)

2 Any others participating by phone who would 

3 like to mention their names.

4 (No response)

5 Thank you. I ask that everyone participating 

6 by phone please observe telephone etiquette, 

7 and specifically we ask that you mute your 

8 lines. If you do not have a mute button, then 

9 please use star-6 to do so. When you're ready 

10 to speak you may un-mute your lines or use 

11 star-6 to un-mute your lines. It is -- it is 

12 very important that you mute your phones so 

13 that all participants by phone can hear every 

14 word that is stated by those in the room and by 

15 those who are participating by phone and wish 

16 to speak.

17 Also we ask that you not put this line on hold 

18 because your -- whatever sound or music that 

19 your hold system uses, interrupts the whole 

20 line.

21 And thank you very much, and -- Dr. Poston.

22 You don't have a quorum, so you're fine.

23 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

24 DR. POSTON: Okay. Thank you, Christine. I 

25 want to thank everybody for coming to this 
11

1 early-morning meeting, especially since I 

2 wasn't aware that it was up to me to provide 

3 breakfast, so -- sorry, Brad.

4 DR. BRANCHE: It'll come at 8:30, in time for 

5 the Board meeting.

6 DR. POSTON: I did not prepare an agenda for 

7 this meeting because we have one agenda item 

8 and everyone knows it. We've, I think, done 

9 what we call due diligence to try to get as 

10 much information as possible about the Chapman 

11 Valve site. We've looked at it carefully. I -

12 - I brought my stack of papers with me, just to 

13 -- in case we needed them, and I'm sure there's 

14 more than this, but I want to thank Jim Neton 

15 and Mark Rolfes and John Mauro for their hard 

16 work in obtaining as much information as 

17 possible.

18 You should have all received a letter from --

19 the name escapes me, from Oak Ridge --

20 DR. NETON: Oh, Ray -- Ray Folle*?

21 ELEVATED URANIUM SAMPLE

22 DR. POSTON: -- Mr. -- Mr. Folle regarding the 

23 elevated uranium sample, and Jim Neton 

24 distributed this morning a response from DOE to 

25 the -- the inquiries that we sent based on our 
12

1 last workgroup meeting.

2 So I think it's time that we focus on this one 

3 issue as what to do, remind you of somewhat --

4 some of the history. We at one time agreed 

5 that the -- NIOSH was capable of reconstructing 

6 both internal and external doses, that the ext7 - internal doses were bounding doses and that 

8 they were significant overestimates of perhaps 

9 the actual doses, and now we need to decide 

10 exactly what we're going to do.

11 We -- at one time the committee did vote unan--

12 the workgroup did vote unanimously to recommend 

13 to the Board that the SEC petition be denied 

14 because we believe NIOSH has the capability to 

15 do the dose reconstruction. However, with the 

16 elevated sample that -- well, was -- a lot of 

17 concern and so forth. We now have been looking 

18 at other things and I want to try to focus the 

19 conversation among the working group to try to 

20 reach a decision in the -- in the time that we 

21 have left today, which is about 35 minutes.

22 I'm not trying to rush to decision, but it 

23 seems to me that we're at a point where there -

24 - there's only one item and that item needs to 

25 be discussed and -- and decided so that we can 
13

1 move on. We need to let these folks at Chapman 

2 Valve know our decision and stop spending more 

3 time on this. I don't think there's much we 

4 can accomplish. I think we've come to the end 

5 of our rope.

6 Will remind you that we, at the last working 

7 group meeting and our -- at the telephone 

8 conference of the Board, we recommended that 

9 the Dean Street facility be taken out of this 

10 consideration because we have not been able to 

11 find any information on Dean Street, and we 

12 would focus only on the original facility. So 

13 we're going -- our recommendation was to go 

14 back to the -- the -- to the original facility 

15 only and not include any consideration of the 

16 Dean Street facility. So that's the -- sort of 

17 the focus of our discussions.

18 On a -- on a -- I don't know about but -- what 

19 I should say, but I have to confess to you that 

20 I was up about 3:00 o'clock this morning trying 

21 to figure out how -- how we were going to 

22 resolve this -- this to the satisfaction, based 

23 on the data. You know, I'm a scientist and I 

24 like to look at the data and the information 

25 and -- and weigh those and reach a conclusion. 
14

1 And I've spent a fair number of hours last 

2 night and this morning tossing and turning 

3 trying to work -- work this out. My view of 

4 the situation is, as -- as I've already stated, 

5 that we -- we've agreed by -- as a workgroup 

6 that the external doses can be reconstructed 

7 based on the -- on the film badge data that's 

8 available. And we've also agreed that -- that 

9 the internal doses can be bounded based on the 

10 air monitoring data that was available, and 

11 that those -- those estimates are significant 

12 overestimates of the actual exposure.

13 We are very concerned about the elevated 

14 sample. Based on Mr. Folle's letter, it 

15 appears that the -- that this is a sample -- it 

16 can't be denied that it's an elevated sample. 

17 We have been unable to conclusively link that 

18 to the activities within the -- at Chapman 

19 Valve within the period under consideration. 

20 We have a detailed report from H. K. Ferguson 

21 that outlines all the activities at -- at 

22 Chapman Valve during the period under -- under 

23 consideration, and it just appears to me, and I 

24 think to others, that if there were other 

25 activities going on at the facility using 
15

1 slightly enriched uranium that it would have 

2 been included in this report. The H. K. 

3 Ferguson report is very, very detailed and I 

4 think serves as a good indication of the 

5 activities at the facility during the time 

6 under consideration.

7 So I've played my cards face-up and I'd like to 

8 go around and have the working group members 

9 give their opinion as to the -- to the science, 

10 or lack thereof, so we can resolve this issue. 

11 Mark, would you like to be first?

12 MR. GRIFFON: Ye-- yeah, we -- I mean I'm not 

13 going to go through all those points. I -- I 

14 don't think we totally agreed on the ability to 

15 bound those things. I think I -- I 

16 conditionally agreed, but it was pending what 

17 we don't know that could have happened there, 

18 so -- but otherwise I agree with most of what 

19 you said. The one sample, the Folle report, in 

20 my opinion, is that it sort of confirms what we 

21 -- what some of us thought to begin with, that 

22 it was a real sample. And you know, if -- if 

23 it comes down -- I mean I guess it's a question 

24 of what went on there that we don't know. You 

25 know, this -- this is a real sample. We have 
16

1 no explanation for it. And do we speculate 

2 that it was likely not to have cur-- to have 

3 occurred in this time period or do we say we 

4 just don't know and it's a real sample, and 

5 other activities could have gone on here. 

6 We've run -- we're at a loss for further 

7 documents available on the site, and there 

8 could have been other projects -- I don't 

9 disagree that that one project report was 

10 pretty detailed, but were there other projects 

11 in that time period? Maybe not likely in that 

12 time period, but maybe after that time period. 

13 I know we're focused on this time period. I --

14 I just think we're getting into a little bit of 

15 speculation that -- that this sample was a 

16 result of later activities or -- or well, pro--

17 you know, maybe later activities is the most 

18 likely explanation. So that's my position, 

19 face-up --

20 DR. POSTON: Well, I --

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) it's a real 

22 sample now, all of a sudden.

23 DR. POSTON: Yeah, well --

24 MR. GRIFFON: And we have to explain it. It's 

25 a piece of evidence. It's all we have, and it 
17

1 might be a weight of the evidence issue, but it 

2 is a piece of evidence that we have no 

3 explanation for.

4 DR. POSTON: I agree. But at the same time I'm 

5 not sure, but it sounded like you were agreeing 

6 that, within the time period we're considering, 

7 it's unlikely that that sample was part of any 

8 activity.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I said I think that's the 

10 argument, and I -- I just think that's a little 

11 bit of speculation, but you know...

12 DR. POSTON: It's speculation either way, 

13 wouldn't you --

14 MR. GRIFFON: No, it's not speculation. I 

15 think we've corroborated that it's a real 

16 sample, so that's -- I don't -- I -- I think 

17 that's pretty strong --

18 DR. POSTON: Oh, yeah, sure, I --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- solid evidence so --

20 DR. POSTON: -- I agree with that completely.

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's not speculation, that's 

22 -- that's real.

23 DR. POSTON: Yeah.

24 MR. GRIFFON: Now when -- when it got there, 

25 how it got there, what caused it, that's where 
18

1 we're speculating a little.

2 DR. POSTON: That's the speculation, yeah.

3 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- that's my opinion on 

4 it.

5 DR. POSTON: That's fine. That's what I want 

6 to hear. Michael?

7 MR. GIBSON: I have to agree with Mark, you 

8 know, we do have a real sample and just the 

9 lack of evidence as to how it got there or what 

10 else may have went on at the site, it just --

11 you know, I don't think it's fair to the 

12 claimants for us just to speculate that it came 

13 from a different time period. So you know, I 

14 just -- I -- I can't feel good about just 

15 agreeing that, you know, we -- we discount this 

16 sample or we could somehow bound the doses when 

17 we don't know what else potentially went on 

18 there.

19 DR. POSTON: Well, I'm not suggesting that we -

20 - that we ignore that sample. I've never 

21 suggested that.

22 MR. GIBSON: I said just saying that we could 

23 bound the doses and not look into -- well, due 

24 to the lack of evidence about this sample and 

25 what else may have went on, I don't think we 
19

1 can discount that.

2 DR. POSTON: Yeah.

3 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but also just to -- to 

4 weigh in on that, John, I think the -- the 

5 current coworker model does ignore that sample, 

6 so -- you know. Now I -- I don't know that it 

7 -- it -- if you go down that path, that could 

8 be sort of a site profile concern more than an 

9 SEC concern --

10 DR. POSTON: Yeah.

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- but --

12 DR. POSTON: Well, it --

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- the current model doesn't --

14 doesn't account for that sample.

15 DR. POSTON: Yeah. Jim -- Jim can correct me, 

16 but I think if we included that sample -- let's 

17 just assume that -- you know, let's speculate. 

18 Let's assume that that sample was 

19 representative of the period that was there, 

20 that would only what, double the dose.

21 DR. NETON: Approximately.

22 DR. POSTON: Approximately double the dose. 

23 And -- and the bounding calculations that 

24 they've done are so -- for -- for the internal 

25 exposure are such an overestimate, they assume 
20

1 that -- a chronic exposure over a long period 

2 of time at a -- at a fixed concentration, which 

3 chances -- you know, that probably didn't 

4 exist, it makes no difference, you know.

5 MR. GRIFFON: I'll -- I'll give my --

6 DR. POSTON: Let's talk about the -- you know, 

7 in the science you know that sometimes when you 

8 --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

10 DR. POSTON: -- set bounding doses, you really 

11 are setting a huge upper bound to -- but go 

12 ahead.

13 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I'll give my tip of the 

14 iceberg example again, you know, the -- the two 

15 percent enriched sample, you know, if we all 

16 agree it's a real sample, now we don't know the 

17 -- the nature of it. Was it two percent 

18 material they were working with, or was it 90 

19 percent material they were working with that 

20 got diluted over the years and by the time they 

21 sampled it in the '90s it -- you got a two 

22 percent sample. I mean -- so I don't know that 

23 you can just, you know, say we can use this and 

24 double the -- you know, to bound. I mean 

25 that's --
21

1 DR. NETON: I just --

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- I don't think that's 

3 acceptable.

4 DR. NETON: I just have one -- one piece of 

5 information that we may be forgetting is that 

6 there are indications that there were other 

7 activities at the site that could have resulted 

8 in an enriched uranium sample being present 

9 besides AEC operations. So again, then you 

10 have to make the assumption and speculation 

11 that it was AEC operations in the 1948 and '49 

12 time period that resulted in that contamination 

13 during a time period which -- when enriched 

14 uranium was very tightly controlled by the AEC 

15 and unlikely to be shipped out to an AWE for --

16 for processing any -- any significant 

17 quantities.

18 I -- I should mention that the Folle report 

19 that I provided you is missing page 5; I noted 

20 that this morning in going over it. That page 

21 included a question that I put at the end of 

22 the -- of the transmittal to Mr. Folle, which 

23 was is there anything else that you could offer 

24 that might elucidate where this enriched sample 

25 may have come from that didn't originate at 
22

1 Chapman Valve. He pointed out several 

2 interesting observations. One was that he had 

3 discussed with some workers at the site at the 

4 time that he recalls now of them mentioning 

5 that there were operations at the -- at the 

6 facility involved with the Nautilus submarine 

7 program. Nothing specific was mentioned about 

8 contamination of materials there, but of course 

9 the Nautilus submarine program would -- would 

10 potentially involve enriched uranium.

11 A second scenario that he -- he thought could 

12 be possible was the shipment of -- remember we 

13 -- there was -- there was some information that 

14 material was shipped from Oak Ridge Y-12 

15 facility to Chapman Valve. There was one of 

16 the claimants that indicated that. And he 

17 suggested that some of the pallets could have 

18 been contaminated. He believed during that 

19 time period the contamination control practices 

20 were such that contaminated pallets could have 

21 left the facility, even if the -- you know, if 

22 it was test equipment that wasn't contaminated, 

23 it still could have had some contamination on 

24 the pallets.

25 And then a third observation he made is the 
23

1 first thing I just stated, was that, based on 

2 his knowledge of DOE operations during that 

3 time period, it would have been extremely 

4 unlikely in 1948 that significant quantities of 

5 uranium -- enriched uranium were shipped to 

6 Chapman Valve.

7 I just offer that up because that was missing 

8 from the report.

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I did have -- you 

10 mentioned that yesterday. I didn't see that 

11 page, so --

12 DR. NETON: Yeah, I'm sorry --

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- do you have it today? Do you 

14 have it with you?

15 DR. NETON: -- I couldn't get ahold of it. It 

16 was a FAX and I don't have it electronically. 

17 I certainly can provide it.

18 DR. POSTON: Well, the Nautilus program didn't 

19 start till '57.

20 DR. NETON: Okay. Well, then that excludes 

21 that. But there were indications, though, from 

22 others that Defense Department work was 

23 conducted at the facility -- besides what we 

24 heard from Mr. Folle -- but --

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I think I'm -- I'm on 
24

1 the record at -- probably at the last workgroup 

2 meeting as saying, you know, do we have any 

3 indication -- and I think the response was that 

4 this would be really hard to track through DoD 

5 --

6 DR. NETON: Yeah.

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- whether there were Naval 

8 activities there.

9 DR. POSTON: Yeah, that's true.

10 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think that could be a good 

11 possibility, later on there could have been --

12 but again, going back to this piece of 

13 evidence, I -- I just think we -- we owe an 

14 explanation on it, you know, is it -- I don't -

15 - I guess it's -- it's less likely -- in my 

16 mind it's less likely that it occurred during 

17 this time period, but is it a potential? Sure. 

18 I mean it's a real piece of data and so I don't 

19 know. That's where I'm at.

20 DR. POSTON: Genevieve?

21 DR. ROESSLER: It seems to me there's a whole 

22 lot of speculation about this one sample, and I 

23 -- I don't see any -- anything that we've come 

24 up with to support the fact that that sample 

25 comes into consideration under an SEC issue. I 
25

1 -- I feel like the bounding methods that have 

2 been proposed are adequate, so my feeling is 

3 still the same as it was when we voted whenever 

4 it was, many months ago, is that it's not an 

5 issue.

6 DR. POSTON: Brad, you're an alternate but you 

7 -- give you a chance to speak.

8 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I -- I -- and I appreciate 

9 that we're -- we keep mentioning the one 

10 sample, but let's mention something else. We 

11 only have two samples, so you have one sample 

12 that is telling you you've got this enrichment. 

13 You're telling -- and then we've got one other 

14 sample that says you've got this much. So 

15 basically you're trying to say that 50 percent 

16 of our data that we have is not there and you -

17 - you hit very good on it. It's a lot of 

18 speculation. And the wonderful thing about 

19 science is that you can speculate an awful lot 

20 and it doesn't mean you're always right. The 

21 key thing I always want to remember is that we 

22 have got to err in the way of the claimant. We 

23 have got an enriched sample here. There's no 

24 question about that. Folle has proven that. 

25 He's said that there was. From the methods 
26

1 that they used, it was a sample. And I don't 

2 see how we can take and just discard this and 

3 say well, nothing went on. Right, we can't --

4 we can't tell when this sample happened. We're 

5 trying to reconstruct things from a lot of 

6 years and I think we ought to err in the side 

7 of the claimant on this. I think that we just 

8 can't cast it out.

9 DR. POSTON: Well, the next step is to have a 

10 motion of some sort as to the action of the 

11 working group.

12 MR. GRIFFON: I mean another -- I don't know if 

13 the petitioners are on the line or anything. 

14 The other concern I would have is that we just 

15 received this DOE letter, but also the -- the 

16 other report, I -- has that been made available 

17 to the petitioner or -- or...

18 DR. NETON: It's not been Privacy Act cleared 

19 yet.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

21 DR. BRANCHE: Is the participant who's on the 

22 line who has not yet muted their phone someone 

23 who'd like to speak at this time?

24 MR. GRIFFON: Because there -- there is 

25 information --
27

1 DR. BRANCHE: Wait a second, Mark.

2 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry.

3 DR. BRANCHE: If that per-- 'cause you asked 

4 about a petitioner.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Sorry.

6 DR. BRANCHE: There's a person participating by 

7 phone who's yet to mute their line. Is it 

8 someone who'd like to speak at this time?

9 (No response)

10 If not, please mute your phone. If you do not 

11 have a mute button, then please use star-6.

12 And I think now that everyone can hear, Mr. 

13 Griffon asked if there was a petitioner on the 

14 line who'd like to speak to any of these 

15 points.

16 (No response)

17 Thank you.

18 MR. GRIFFON: I mean the -- the one thing that 

19 strikes me in the -- in the Folle re-- I -- and 

20 I would like to see that last page, but in --

21 especially that last page, I think, of the 

22 report from Mr. Folle, you asked those 

23 questions of what else could have happened, and 

24 I think it would be interesting to see if the 

25 petitioners, you know, had concerns with that 
28

1 or had comments on that at all 'cause that 

2 might corroborate that, you know, some of those 

3 things or -- I don't know.

4 DR. NETON: Well, we've already interviewed 

5 many people that worked --

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

7 DR. NETON: -- at the facility, and I think --

8 never say never, but I think, you know, we've 

9 gone to that well several times and -- and we 

10 are where we are. I don't know that we're 

11 going to get any more information --

12 DR. POSTON: Yeah, and the letter from DOE --

13 DR. NETON: -- from them.

14 DR. POSTON: -- you probably haven't had a 

15 chance to read it -- basically it provides no 

16 information.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. CLAWSON: John?

19 DR. POSTON: No new information.

20 MR. CLAWSON: There's also something else, too. 

21 You know, saying that something can't go on, I 

22 can tell you right now in the DOE world, 

23 because Idaho is an example, right now we have 

24 product there that shows on none of our books, 

25 period, except our criticality, because it's 
29

1 not our project, it's not our product, it's 

2 from another facility. So it shows up on 

3 nothing that we have, and there's nothing that 

4 says that it couldn't be that way. There's a 

5 lot of interchange between different sites and 

6 everything else like that, and that product 

7 always remains theirs. And as we have seen at 

8 many different sites, there's -- there's been 

9 lots of different exchanges and so forth that 

10 we've stumbled across or whatever else like 

11 that. And it -- I just really feel like this 

12 is an important part of it.

13 DR. POSTON: All right, I understand what 

14 you're saying and I agree with you. But you --

15 you were talking about being claimant favorable 

16 and, to me, the bounding internal doses are 

17 claimant favorable. If -- if a person doesn't 

18 exceed the probability of causation greater 

19 than 50 percent with this -- this huge bounding 

20 calculation that's done, then the chances are 

21 that they wouldn't exceed the probability of 

22 causation under any circumstances. I don't see 

23 why that's not claimant favorable.

24 MR. CLAWSON: Double their dose?

25 DR. POSTON: That's still --
30

1 MR. CLAWSON: You're saying that that wouldn't 

2 -- that wouldn't affect them?

3 DR. POSTON: No. I'm say-- I'm saying that if 

4 -- if we -- if we double their dose and they --

5 they don't exceed 50 percent, then what --

6 isn't that claimant favorable also?

7 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, it is.

8 DR. POSTON: Okay, so --

9 MR. CLAWSON: But in --

10 DR. POSTON: -- that's -- that's the point that 

11 I -- that I've been trying to make, that if you 

12 make these huge assumptions where the folks 

13 being exposed chronically for -- not for just 

14 the period they were working, but the entire 

15 period that that -- that -- that is covered 

16 under the SEC, and you assume that they're 

17 exposed chronically day after day after day 

18 after day at the same levels, and you don't get 

19 a probability of causation at 50 percent, you 

20 have bent over backwards to be claimant 

21 favorable. And that's the whole point. You 

22 know, it's not science can be wrong; it's that 

23 those calculations are claimant favorable, but 

24 we don't want to recognize that because of this 

25 one sample. If you want to double the internal 
31

1 doses, then we can ask NIOSH to do that.

2 Jim.

3 DR. NETON: Just one more observation. The 

4 reason that Chapman Valve is an Atomic Weapons 

5 Employer is specifically because of the 

6 operations that were conducted in Building 23. 

7 Now more recently the Dean Street facility was 

8 added, but there are no radiological operations 

9 that were known to have occurred there at this 

10 time, so -- so that's the reason. And we've 

11 reconstructed, we believe, and bounded a dose 

12 for the operation -- the only known 

13 radiological operations that occurred under AEC 

14 auspices in 1948 and '49. So that the sort --

15 sort of central issue, and this would not 

16 preclude any additional class coming forward 

17 based on new research, which the DOE has 

18 committed in their letter to continue doing to 

19 search for other contracts that may have been 

20 issued to Chapman Valve, and they could be 

21 reconsidered at that point. This would not 

22 prejudice any further evaluation of the Chapman 

23 Valve facility.

24 DR. POSTON: Well, I would entertain a motion 

25 to take action on this SEC petition, so the 
32

1 floor is open for a motion.

2 (No response)

3 This -- this egg is not going to hatch. We 

4 have to make a motion and decide, one way or 

5 the other, what we're going to go to the Board 

6 with. We owe it to the petitioners just as 

7 much as anything else to get this settled, one 

8 way or the other.

9 MR. CLAWSON: Well, then I'd need a little bit 

10 of time to be able to figure out what that 

11 motion would actually be. Are we -- are you 

12 saying that we are going to accept it as-is?

13 DR. POSTON: The motion can be whatever you 

14 would like. We can agree to -- that NIOSH can 

15 reconstruct the doses in a reasonable fashion 

16 and deny the petition, or we can have a motion 

17 that says that we believe that NIOSH cannot 

18 reconstruct the doses because of the slightly 

19 enriched uranium sample that causes us concern 

20 and we don't believe that they can con--

21 properly do the internal dose calculations and 

22 therefore we would accept the petition.

23 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston?

24 DR. POSTON: Yes, ma'am.

25 DR. BRANCHE: You do have at your disposal the 
33

1 option for a minority report. I mean there is 

2 a dichotomy of opinion. To be able to bring 

3 something to the Board that gives voice to 

4 whatever motion carries, and then whatever 

5 other additional considerations is fully within 

6 your scope. And then as this gets carried 

7 forward to the Board, discussed before the 

8 Board, there is also the option to present a 

9 minority opinion then as well. But it -- it 

10 does allow this to come out of the com-- out of 

11 the workgroup, before the Board, and 

12 potentially from the Board to the Secretary.

13 DR. ROESSLER: Well, given that information 

14 then I move that -- I don't -- that the 

15 workgroup has concluded that doses can be 

16 reconstructed and that the petition -- the SEC 

17 petition be denied.

18 DR. POSTON: Is there a second?

19 (No response)

20 We can't discuss the motion without a second.

21 MR. CLAWSON: Nope, sure can't.

22 DR. BRANCHE: Well, not the current motion. 

23 You want to entertain an alternative motion?

24 DR. POSTON: Is there an alternative motion?

25 MR. CLAWSON: I don't know how to word it.
34

1 MR. GRIFFON: I mean we may have to report back 

2 to the full Board that we have a difference of 

3 opinion in the workgroup and that we're not 

4 coming with a recommendation on the SEC, but 

5 here's our difference of opinion.

6 DR. POSTON: Well, that's perfectly fine.

7 MR. GRIFFON: You know, yeah.

8 DR. POSTON: Yeah. We can adjourn this meeting 

9 now, that's fine.

10 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think that's where I'm at, 

11 is that we have a difference of opinion and we 

12 should report that to the full Board.

13 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston, if I may, I'd just 

14 encourage -- we've heard one perspective about 

15 how one of the opinions would be expressed. So 

16 that we don't -- so that we can continue to 

17 move things along, I'd just encourage the 

18 alternative perspective to think now about how 

19 you'll present this when it comes up for 

20 discussion because there is a specific time on 

21 the -- on the agenda when Chapman Valve will be 

22 discussed. Given how swiftly we moved through 

23 yesterday's agenda, it is possible that that 

24 could come up today and not tomorrow, so I just 

25 --
35

1 DR. POSTON: Yeah, that's fine.

2 DR. BRANCHE: I realize that there are a lot of 

3 eyes on the specific agenda items, and we'll 

4 try to honor the time that's on the agenda, but 

5 you know it can -- it is subject to change.

6 DR. POSTON: Well, my -- my plan would be to 

7 re-- report to the Board where we are. And if 

8 I don't sufficiently cover it, then I would ask 

9 Mike or Mark to state their -- their position. 

10 I hope my -- my intent would be to provide both 

11 positions equally. And if I don't -- if I fail 

12 in that, then it will -- I'll ask them to step 

13 in and correct any errors or -- or provide 

14 additional information as required. Is that 

15 okay?

16 Mike, go ahead.

17 MR. GIBSON: I'd like to make a motion. I move 

18 that this workgroup recommends to the Advisory 

19 Board that we accept the petitioner's petition 

20 for an SEC based on the sample that was located 

21 and the lack of information that yields any 

22 other information about what else may have went 

23 on.

24 DR. POSTON: Is there a second to that motion?

25 MR. CLAWSON: Second it.
36

1 DR. POSTON: How does this work now, Christine, 

2 since --

3 DR. BRANCHE: Yes?

4 DR. POSTON: -- since Brad is a -- is an 

5 alternate as opposed to --

6 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston, to be honest with 

7 you, for every other workgroup alternates have 

8 participated --

9 DR. POSTON: That's fine, I'm --

10 DR. BRANCHE: -- equally.

11 DR. POSTON: -- just asking. Okay?

12 DR. BRANCHE: Equally in oth-- in other 

13 workgroups.

14 DR. POSTON: All right, the motion's been made 

15 and seconded. Is there discussion?

16 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I think we've -- I 

17 think we've had our arguments on the table so -

18 - at this point, but I -- I would actually --

19 I'm not sure -- I -- I was just -- the motion's 

20 out there now, but I would probably have 

21 preferred a report to the Board and have a 

22 Board come out from the motion -- I mean have a 

23 motion come out from the Board.

24 DR. POSTON: Yeah.

25 MR. GRIFFON: I'm a little tired.
37

1 DR. POSTON: Well, I -- I was --

2 MR. GRIFFON: But anyway, that -- that's my --

3 DR. POSTON: I would agree with you, Mark. In 

4 fact, I plan to vote against the motion because 

5 I think that the -- the -- what we had just 

6 agreed on, that we would present both sides to 

7 the Board so that they understand that there's 

8 a difference of opinion is the -- is the best 

9 approach and therefore I would not be in favor 

10 of this motion for that reason.

11 MR. GRIFFON: And let me -- let me just -- just 

12 -- just to explain -- I mean I -- I probably 

13 would vote against this motion on the 

14 workgroup, just to be clear on the workgroup, 

15 because I don't think we have a consen-- I know 

16 we don't have a consensus opinion and I don't 

17 want to bring a -- I think we're better 

18 bringing a -- a sort of a split report and to 

19 let Dr. Poston present that report in both 

20 views rather than have a -- a three-to-two mo--

21 or whatever the count's going to be on -- on a 

22 -- a motion to accept or deny the petition.

23 DR. BRANCHE: In theory, I --

24 MR. GRIFFON: I'd rather have a split report 

25 with different views presented rather than a 
38

1 split recommendation, if that -- I don't...

2 DR. POSTON: Mike?

3 MR. GIBSON: Can I withdraw my motion?

4 DR. POSTON: Seconder?

5 MR. CLAWSON: Do I need to second it? Second 

6 it.

7 DR. BRANCHE: So you're going to --

8 DR. POSTON: Okay.

9 DR. BRANCHE: -- present these -- these two --

10 DR. POSTON: Okay, so if -- to summarize and 

11 conclude, I guess, the idea is that when the 

12 time comes today or tomorrow, I will present 

13 the situation, that we have a difference of 

14 opinion in the Board and I'll try to do my best 

15 to present both sides of the argument or both 

16 sides of the disagreement, and I will leave it 

17 to Mike and -- and Mark to correct any mistakes 

18 that I make in representing their position.

19 DR. BRANCHE: And you know that they will.

20 DR. POSTON: Is that correct? Okay.

21 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine.

22 DR. POSTON: Is there any other business for 

23 the workgroup?

24 If not, then I think I'll declare the workgroup 

25 adjourned and we'll have breakfast.
39

1 DR. BRANCHE: We're going to mute the line 

2 until the beginning of the meeting at 8-- the 

3 formal Board meeting at 8:30 Central Time. 

4 Thank you.

5 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 

6 a.m.)

7

8

9

10
40

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of June 25, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein.

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein.

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

9th day of August, 2008.

___________________________________

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102