1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

+ + + + + 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

 84th MEETING 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY 

JUNE 21, 2012 

+ + + + + 

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

Mountain Daylight Time, in the Courtyard

Marriott, 3347 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, New

Mexico, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 2 

PRESENT: (Continued) 

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

ALLEN, DAVE, DCAS

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE*

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS Contractor

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAES, GILBERT, JR.

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 3

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

Page 

Welcome 5 

Dr. James Melius, Chair 

Medina Facility SEC Petition 6 

Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH

Petitioner 

Linde Ceramics Work Group Site 33 

Profile Review 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler 

Questions and Comments 44 

Recommendation 

Titanium Alloys Manufacturing 47 

SEC Petition Recommendation 

Dr. James Melius, Chair 

Scheduling Discussion

Dr. James Melius, Chair 51 

Adjournment 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
 
 

 

 

 

 4
 

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

2 
 (8:32 a.m.) 

3 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning, 

4 
 everybody. This is the final day of the 84th 

5 
 meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation 

6 
 and Worker Health, and we have a relatively 

7 
 short agenda. And Ted, do you want to --

8 
 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone, 

9 
 too. And for people on the phone, let me you 

10 
 let you know the agenda and documents being 

11 
 discussed today are posted on the NIOSH 

12 
 website under the Board section under the 

13 
 meeting section. If you look for today's 

14 date you'll find those materials. 

15 
 Let's do Board roll call to begin 

16 
 with. And there are no conflicts for 

17 
 sessions today, so we'll just run down and 

18 register your presence. 

19 (Roll Call.) 

20 
 MR. KATZ: Let me just also ask 

21 
 for people on the line, please mute your 

22 
 phones so that we don't have interference 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 5



1 
 with the discussions. If you don't have a 

2 
 mute button, press *6 to mute your phone, and 

3 
 please don't put the call on hold at any 

4 
 point but hang up and dial back in, if you 

5 
 need to leave the call for a piece. Thank 

6 
 you. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and the --

8 
 MS. LIN: I'm sorry for the 

9 
 interruption. And also state for the record 

10 
 that none of the Board Members present today 

11 
 have any conflict with --

12 
 MR. KATZ: I did say that, yes. 

13 
 MS. LIN: Okay, sorry about that. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, our first 

16 
 item of business today is the Medina 

17 
 facility, SEC Petition 83.14, and Stu is 

18 
 going to do it. I do note he brought his own 

19 
 water up. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Leadership 

21 
 requires advance planning. It helps if the 

22 
 computer works. Okay, here we are there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 6



1 
 Okay, I think it was Yogi Berra said it feels 

2 
 like deja vu all over again. 

3 
 The Medina Modification Center is 

4 
 a sister site to the Clarksville 

5 
 Modification Center that we talked about 

6 
 yesterday. We've treated these sort of as a 

7 
 pair in the same fashion on the basis, you 

8 
 know, I mean the initiator to really get us 

9 
 moving on this was in the same, in both cases 

10 
 to Pantex facility and decisions on the 

11 Pantex facility. 

12 
 In this case, when we reached the 

13 
 termination, the dose reconstruction wasn't 

14 
 feasible. We had a claim in-house. Sent 

15 
 that claim and a "cannot reconstruct" letter 

16 
 saying we cannot reconstruct your dose. Here 

17 
 is a Petition Form A for an SEC Petition. 

18 
 They returned the petition to us, which we 

19 
 promptly qualified and then pretty much had 

20 
 already written the Evaluation Report, so the 

21 
 Evaluation Report was finished shortly 

22 thereafter. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 7



1 
 Now this is a little puzzling to 

2 
 me, but the covered period for Medina is from 

3 
 1958 to 1966. We are providing some 

4 
 information to the Department of Energy and 

5 
 the Department of Labor to see if that is, 

6 
 and if that's a conscious decision or if 

7 
 they've overlooked something. Our 

8 
 information is that based on the similarity 

9 
 to the Clarksville description, and 

10 
 Clarksville actually even has an earlier, 

11 
 like in 1949, start date, we seem to have 

12 
 information that certainly by 1955 weapons 

13 
 were coming to Medina, and so we're checking 

14 
 with DOE and DOL to see if this should be a 

15 
 larger covered period or is there some aspect 

16 
 of the decision that they made that's not 

17 
 clear to us. You know, they may have based 

18 
 it on something that we're not aware of. But 

19 
 for what we can do today, the covered period 

20 
 is '58 to '66, and so that's what we're 

21 addressing today. 

22 
 These places were of course, they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 8



1 
 were located on military bases. This one was 

2 
 at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, 

3 
 fairly large size. And it was constructed by 

4 
 the AEC as a nuclear weapons storage and 

5 
 maintenance area. Remember, civilian control 

6 
 of nuclear weapons was considered a pretty 

7 
 important item, so the AEC would establish 

8 
 these areas and place the weapons at these 

9 
 military bases so that the civilian 

10 
 government maintained control but they were 

11 
 convenient to the military units that would 

12 be using them. 

13 
 So the AEC, the Air Force, Sandia 

14 
 and Mason & Hanger all were involved in this, 

15 
 and like I said this is the sister to 

16 Clarksville Modification Facility. 

17 
 I mentioned earlier we have a 

18 
 reference that says storage operations began 

19 
 in '55. The facilities are very similar to 

20 
 what I described or even maybe identical to 

21 
 what I described for Clarksville. The A 

22 
 structure was the pit, nuclear components 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 9



1 
 storage. C is where they did maintenance on 

2 
 that, on the nuclear component, the C 

3 
 structure. Remember the package, the capsule 

4 
 what they call it at various times, they 

5 
 usually called it the capsule in the early 

6 
 weapons. It's the nuclear fissile component 

7 
 of the weapon. There are radioactive 

8 
 materials in the other portions of the weapon 

9 
 as well though, we all know that from Pantex. 

10 
 And so the AEC operations 

11 
 transferred to Pantex in '65, and then there 

12 
 was decommissioning activities going on in 

13 
 1966. We don't have any clear date when we 

14 
 would say everything was all done, so we've 

15 
 included the entire 1966 covered period in 

16 our proposed Class. 

17 
 The numbers on the workforce that 

18 
 we have here range, are gathered again from 

19 
 summary, radiation exposure summary reports, 

20 
 where they would list number of employees and 

21 
 number of monitored employees. They usually 

22 
 would have more employees than they had 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 10



1 
 monitored employees. It certainly wouldn't 

2 
 be the other way around. But these, they 

3 
 would list the number of employees on that 

4 
 report whether they were monitored or not. 

5 
 So that's where we get our estimates for the 

6 
 workforce. 

7 
 Sources of available information, 

8 
 we did research on these some time ago for 

9 
 two development Site Profiles and gathered 

10 
 some information at that time. We have our 

11 
 own Site Research Database, of course, where 

12 
 we've gathered a fair number of documents 

13 
 related to the site, the claim files, 

14 
 information from the Pantex SEC evaluation, 

15 
 since the work at these sites was similar to 

16 
 the work that was done at Pantex with respect 

17 
 to the weapons maintenance, disassembly and 

18 
 modification. And then we have done 

19 
 some data captures, and we again as I said 

20 
 with Clarksville, we have a couple of these 

21 
 still going on that we think may be helpful 

22 
 for nonpresumptive cancers. There's no 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 11



1 
 indication that there's going to be anything 

2 
 that talks about uranium intake, which is the 

3 
 main basis for the Class recommendation. 

4 
 From our standard list of data 

5 
 searches as part of our due diligence, we 

6 
 call it a due diligence checklist actually, 

7 
 before we come forward with a recommendation 

8 
 we want to make sure we have pursued 

9 
 information in places where we know it might 

10 
 be, including the state where the place is 

11 
 located. And so we've pursued all that in 

12 our efforts to get to this point. 

13 
 Claim count for Medina, there are 

14 
 46 claims in-house for us as of the date of 

15 
 this slide, since we're recommending the 

16 
 entire Class, a Class for the entire covered 

17 
 period. All those claims in the Class years, 

18 
 38 of those have had dose reconstructions. 

19 
 Remember, just like Clarksville we prepared a 

20 
 Site Profile some years ago. We used some 

21 
 techniques that were deemed not suitably 

22 
 accurate in the Pantex discussion, and so 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 12



1 
 we've carried that decision over to these two 

2 
 sites and that leaves us, for an equity 

3 
 reason if no other, to bring these sites 

4 
 here. 

5 
 None of these claims had any 

6 
 internal dosimetry information. Some of them 

7 
 did have external dosimetry information, and 

8 
 as I said we do have essentially a complete 

9 
 list of dosimetry summary reports for the 

10 years of operation. 

11 
 Potential exposures are largely 

12 
 the same essentially as they were at 

13 
 Clarksville. We have high enriched uranium 

14 
 and plutonium on the potential internal 

15 
 exposures. In reality, there's not a whole 

16 
 lot of potential for the fissile material 

17 
 internal exposures, but there certainly is 

18 
 for depleted uranium. There's some from 

19 
 tritium. And we included radon 

20 
 gas but we don't have any radon measurements 

21 
 from Medina. But they did have gravel 

22 
 gerties there. And so we've taken this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 13



1 
 position that if you have a structure that is 

2 
 designed specifically for the nuclear weapons 

3 
 program, like a gravel gertie, the naturally 

4 
 occurring radon that would be elevated in a 

5 
 structure like that since it's essentially a 

6 
 cave, we will include in our dose 

7 
 reconstructions. We don't have any data for 

8 
 the radon at the gravel gerties at Medina. 

9 
 External exposures are from the 

10 
 uranium, plutonium. In 1955, if they were 

11 
 storing in 1955, they probably had polonium12 
 beryllium initiators and so there would be 

13 
 some external exposure from those. They also 

14 
 had radiography sources. And there's 

15 
 actually in the Evaluation Report, there's an 

16 
 account of an incident that occurred with an 

17 
 iridium source at the site at one time. 

18 
 As is the case at Clarksville we 

19 
 have seen reports or letters that would refer 

20 
 to either intentions to take tritium 

21 
 urinalysis or things like that but we've not 

22 
 ever seen any tritium urinalysis results. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 14



1 
 We've not seen anything that would indicate 

2 
 that they intended to or were taking uranium 

3 
 or plutonium urinalysis. 

4 
 For the external monitoring data 

5 
 we do have like I said, we do have the 

6 
 summary reports. And like Clarksville, NTA 

7 
 film was added but the summary reports that 

8 
 we have don't distinguish between neutron and 

9 
 photon dose, and so we don't really know what 

10 
 the neutron component is. Also as in 

11 
 Clarksville, we think we can, from other work 

12 
 arrive at a neutron/photon ratio but we 

13 
 haven't convinced ourselves of that yet. The 

14 
 presentation says we're going to do that but 

15 
 I think we still have to convince ourselves 

16 
 we have a reliable set of data. Either way 

17 
 it would affect the dose in a non-SEC cancer. 

18 
 It wouldn't affect the decision on the SEC. 

19 
 We again have statements or 

20 
 reports that talk about air monitoring. I 

21 
 believe we've even seen a report that's 

22 
 described as, or a title of a report, Air 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 15



1 
 Monitor Incident. You know, something 

2 
 happened to an air monitor so they must have 

3 
 had air monitors. Again, we've not been able 

4 
 to locate any of that data about the air 

5 
 monitoring. We also don't have any 

6 
 indication about placement. Recall that they 

7 
 did have air monitoring at Pantex but it 

8 
 wasn't breathing zone sampling, it was, you 

9 
 know, a sampler on the wall. So it's very 

10 
 difficult to draw conclusions about intake 

11 from fixed-head samplers in most cases. 

12 
 Source term data, we know what 

13 
 their source terms were, but just because we 

14 
 know that it doesn't really lend itself to a 

15 
 source term model to be able to build a model 

16 that would estimate these exposures. 

17 
 So when we get to our feasibility 

18 
 of dose reconstruction determination, we've 

19 
 concluded that the available internal 

20 
 monitoring records, process descriptions and 

21 
 source term data don't provide us a method to 

22 
 reconstruct doses with sufficient accuracy 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 16



1 
 for the Class, which is the entire covered 

2 
 period. 

3 
 And these findings are consistent 

4 
 with findings for similar, for sites that did 

5 
 the same work, Pantex, and in Clarksville, 

6 
 which we talked about, I guess it was 

7 
 yesterday. It seems these weeks get a little 

8 
 long. 

9 
 We believe we can reconstruct 

10 
 external doses from the summary reports in a 

11 
 coworker kind of approach. This slide says 

12 
 we expect to do neutron doses. In fact, 

13 
 we're really just investigating whether we 

14 
 can do that or not. There is a chance we'll 

15 
 have a neutron component of the external 

16 
 dose. And we will reconstruct X-ray, medical 

17 X-rays based on our program documents. 

18 
 Feasability determination, we 

19 
 don't believe that there is an internal dose 

20 
 that we can necessarily reconstruct. If we 

21 
 have some internal data, if we find some 

22 
 internal data we will use that data to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17



1 
 extent we can interpret it with our 

2 
 procedures for that specific person's claim, 

3 
 but we don't believe that in general internal 

4 
 dose is reconstructable. We do believe 

5 
 external dose can be reconstructed although, 

6 
 remember, I have put a caveat on the neutron. 

7 
 I'm not entirely sure we'll be able to do 

8 
 the neutron but we believe we can. 

9 
 From the health endangerment 

10 
 decision we didn't find evidence of an event 

11 
 like such as an uncontrolled criticality that 

12 
 would cause a very large dose in a small 

13 
 period of time, but we did find evidence that 

14 
 workers could have been exposed to radiation 

15 
 over a period of time that could have 

16 
 endangered their health. So consequently 

17 
 we're specifying that health could have been 

18 
 endangered for workers who were employed 

19 
 there for at least 250 days, and of course 

20 that can be aggregated with other Classes. 

21 
 So our proposed Class is all 

22 
 employees of the Department of Energy, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 18



1 
 predecessor agencies, contractors and 

2 
 subcontractors who worked at Medina during 

3 
 the entire covered period from January of 

4 
 1958 through December of 1966 for a period of 

5 
 days aggregating 250. And our recommendation 

6 
 is that it is not feasible to reconstruct 

7 
 doses during that Class period, during the 

8 
 covered period, and that the health was 

9 
 endangered for the workers. 

10 
 I'll be glad to answer any 

11 
 questions if there are any. I didn't mention 

12 
 in the presentation, it's not really relevant 

13 
 to the decision here, but the Medina site was 

14 
 a site where weapons that had been involved 

15 
 in incidents came to be inspected. So there 

16 
 is a potential, really, we haven't really 

17 
 seen much about that, but there is a 

18 
 potential for maybe HEU and plutonium 

19 
 exposure in a situation like that, that we 

20 
 would not normally have in a maintenance and 

21 modification situation. 

22 
 So there may be some potential 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 19



1 
 intake there, but again whether there was or 

2 
 not, it won't affect our decision today 

3 
 because we're basing this largely on uranium 

4 
 intakes. If we encounter in our coming 

5 
 search, data from incidents like that that 

6 
 may provide for individuals some dose we 

7 
 could include in a partial dose 

8 
 reconstruction if needed. 

9 
 Since I had some people look this 

10 
 up, I feel I also want to mention the iridium 

11 
 incident that was mentioned in the Evaluation 

12 
 Report. In the investigation report, there 

13 
 are eight people mentioned in the 

14 
 investigation report, the vendor's 

15 
 representative and seven contractor, AEC 

16 
 contractor employees. Of those seven, three 

17 
 are claimants, two have SEC cancers, one has 

18 
 a non-SEC cancer. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. As 

20 to questions for -- yes? 

21 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just wanted the 

22 
 Board to realize, Stu and Sam Glover have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 20



1 
 been working with me on this one. We were in 

2 
 Sandia. We found documentation, and it's 

3 
 been now shifted to Germantown finally that 

4 
 says that the years actually were '49. We 

5 
 found a document that called out this exact 

6 
 same one, but there was a correction to it by 

7 
 the person that wrote the paper and said the 

8 
 years were wrong and we're working on that. 

9 
 Most of the people that worked at 

10 
 Clarksville and Medina, well, we looked at 

11 
 approximately 30 percent ended up at Pantex. 

12 
 But after the explosion at Medina of the 

13 
 high explosives, which was 120,000 pounds, 

14 
 Medina stopped and all the work went to 

15 
 Pantex. Mostly the equipment from 

16 
 Clarksville and everything else actually went 

17 
 to Pantex too. They still have most of that 

18 
 equipment there. And we've got a data 

19 
 capture next week that we're looking into 

20 
 more of the dates and some earlier years that 

21 
 we're working on too. But these were sister, 

22 basically sister plants and went from there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 21



1 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And just to 

2 
 clarify for the new Members, but until the 

3 
 facility years are corrected we really can't 

4 
 really take any action on those earlier 

5 
 years, and I think what we would suspect 

6 
 would happen was that they would, NIOSH would 

7 
 come back with either an amended Evaluation 

8 
 Report or a new Evaluation Report that would 

9 
 cover those years if it was, once a facility 

10 
 designation is changed and we can go through 

11 this process again, but again just --

12 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: And that's what I 

13 
 was wondering. Would we have to go through 

14 
 this whole process again or would we just add 

15 
 on to the, because what I was trying to do is 

16 
 to make sure the Board Members knew that when 

17 
 this did come up that they understood why. 

18 
 It's like Stu says, you know, let's take care 

19 
 of these years and let's work on the earlier 

20 
 years. Let's get this taken care of. So 

21 that's why we're proceeding this way. 

22 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not exactly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 22



1 
 sure what will be involved if the covered 

2 
 period is changed. The answer might depend 

3 
 on when the covered, you know, where we are 

4 
 in the process when the covered period 

5 
 changes. So I'm not sure what will happen. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I'm a little 

7 
 reluctant of something hinging on at this 

8 
 point because I think it gets us, you know, 

9 
 we really haven't seen the information right 

10 
 now, and as we have in the past we may have 

11 
 further questions about the covered period 

12 
 and want to make at least something on the 

13 
 record to that effect. So I think it's 

14 
 better coming back to the Board and not 

15 
 trying to change now. If that change takes 

16 place next week or something that --

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That we could 

18 probably adjust. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- could, yes, 

20 
 we might be able to hold up the process and 

21 
 do something through our teleconference or 

22 
 something or a teleconference. But again 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 23



1 
 that's not like we can just schedule one. 

2 
 That's got to be noticed and so forth, but 

3 
 we'll just see what happens. 

4 
 So yes, Josie and then John? 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Can you describe a 

6 
 little bit about the external? It looks like 

7 
 in the early years, like '59, you only had 

8 
 three badge records. And are you going to do 

9 
 a coworker model or what are you --

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to see 

11 
 what we're going to do. There were not very 

12 many people monitored in some years and --

13 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it seems like 

14 the first three or four. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We'll do 

16 
 what we can. Chances are with very little 

17 
 data we might assign the maximum just, you 

18 
 know, to assign something, the highest of any 

19 
 of the readings. We haven't really gone into 

20 
 that. We just feel like with that summary 

21 
 data there if you don't do that then you 

22 
 don't have anything except medical on the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 24



1 
 partial. 

2 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John? 

3 
 MEMBER POSTON: Stu, I just wanted 

4 
 to clarify so I understand what you're 

5 
 saying. When you said summary data, you mean 

6 
 data that's reported in sort of a histogram 

7 
 the way they used to do that? 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. It's the 

9 
 old exposure history reports. This many 

10 
 people were monitored and of that number this 

11 
 many had zero to one rem. This may have one 

12 to two. 

13 
 MEMBER POSTON: I'm glad that Brad 

14 
 mentioned the explosion, because that 

15 
 certainly made, it's not classified 

16 
 information. It was in the newspapers and 

17 
 everybody knows a lot about it. But it seems 

18 
 that everybody just blew that off. They said 

19 
 it's dispersed, we don't know where it went. 

20 
 And, you know, I'm concerned. There were 

21 
 three workers involved in that explosion, and 

22 are they in the --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 25



1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, today I 

2 
 don't know the names. I don't know who those 

3 
 workers were. I'd have to see if I could 

4 
 find out if they're claimants or not. I 

5 
 thought about the iridium folks because 

6 
 clearly that was investigated in their dose 

7 
 numbers on the iridium. There aren't any 

8 
 dose numbers associated with the explosion 

9 
 because as you said they never found, there 

10 
 was depleted uranium in that building that 

11 
 blew up and they never found it. They 

12 
 surveyed it including doing aerial surveys 

13 and didn't find --

14 
 MEMBER POSTON: Even though it was 

15 
 not a nuclear explosion there was a nice 

16 
 mushroom cloud photo on the front page of the 

17 San Antonio paper. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It was a 

19 conventional explosion. 

20 
 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. The other 

21 
 thing, have you looked at the radon? Because 

22 
 there is some uranium in Texas, but in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 26



1 
 general the radon levels in Texas are very, 

2 
 very low. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we don't have 

4 
 any radon data. We're not proposing to do 

5 
 anything with radon. We don't know if it 

6 
 was, we're not saying it was very high. 

7 
 MEMBER POSTON: Well, you had it 

8 
 listed and I was wondering. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I put it in there 

10 
 because we have it in the Clarksville 

11 
 Evaluation Report. We talk about radon 

12 
 because after the covered period there was 

13 
 some radon measurements. There are no radon 

14 
 measurements here, but since there were 

15 
 gravel gerties chances are there was some 

16 
 radon. It may not amount to anything but 

17 
 either way it doesn't matter. We weren't 

18 
 going to do anything. We're not going to 

19 reconstruct any dose associated with it. 

20 
 MEMBER POSTON: Right. Thank you. 

21 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: And John, after 

22 
 the explosion the gravel gerties weren't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27



1 
 there anymore. 

2 
 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I know. I've 

3 
 seen all the stuff. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bill Field, do 

5 
 you have any questions? 

6 
 MEMBER FIELD: No, not at this 

7 
 time. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks. 

9 
 My understanding is that the petitioner is 

10 
 not on the line and does not wish to make 

11 
 comments, but if that's changed and they do, 

12 
 please say something now. Okay. This is an 

13 
 83.14 so it's not, I'm expected the 

14 petitioner would not want to be on the line. 

15 
 Do I hear any recommendation or 

16 discussion here? 

17 
 MEMBER CLAWSON: I recommend that 

18 
 we accept NIOSH's evaluation of the Medina 

19 plant. 

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: I second it. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda, I'm 

22 disappointed. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28



1 
 MEMBER POSTON: She's learning to 

2 
 share. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, any 

4 
 further discussion in the proposal to accept 

5 
 NIOSH in the proposed Class for this? 

6 
 So Ted, do you want do a roll? 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

8 
 Anderson? 

9 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. 

10 MR. KATZ: Beach? 

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

12 MR. KATZ: Clawson? 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

14 MR. KATZ: Field? 

15 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, Gibson, are you 

17 on the line? Absent. 

18 Griffon, are you on the line? 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes and yes. 

20 MR. KATZ: Oh, great, Mark. 

21 Kotelchuck? 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 29


1 
 MR. KATZ: Lemen, are you on the 

2 
 line? Absent. 

3 
 Lockey? 

4 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Melius? 

6 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Munn? 

8 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Poston? 

10 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson is 

12 absent. 

13 Roessler? 

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

15 MR. KATZ: Schofield? 

16 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Valerio? 

18 
 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: And Ziemer is absent. 

20 
 I'll collect the absent votes 

21 
 afterwards, but the vote is unanimous and the 

22 motion passes. Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 30



1 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I believe 

2 
 this has been handed out, the letter. 

3 
 Okay, and so let me do that while 

4 
 it's all fresh in mind and just sort of take 

5 
 out Medina and think of Clarksville. This 

6 
 will sound very familiar. 

7 
 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

8 
 and Worker Health, the Board has evaluated 

9 
 Special Exposure Cohort SEC Petition 00203 

10 
 concerning workers of the Medina Modification 

11 
 Center in San Antonio, Texas, under the 

12 
 statutory requirements established by the 

13 
 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

14 
 Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, 

15 incorporated in 42 CFR Section 83.13. 

16 
 Board respectfully recommends that 

17 
 SEC status be accorded to all employees of 

18 
 the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

19 
 agencies and their contractors and 

20 
 subcontractors who worked at the Medina 

21 
 Modification Center in San Antonio, Texas, 

22 
 from January 1st, 1958 through December 31st, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 31



1 
 1966, for a number of workdays aggregating at 

2 
 least 250 workdays occurring either solely 

3 
 under this employment or in combination of 

4 
 workdays within the parameters established 

5 
 for one or more other Classes of employees 

6 
 included in this Special Exposure Cohort. 

7 
 Recommendations based on the 

8 
 following factors. Individuals employed at 

9 
 Medina Modification Center in San Antonio, 

10 
 Texas, during the time period in question, 

11 
 worked on technical tasks related to 

12 
 production of nuclear weapons. The National 

13 
 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

14 
 NIOSH, review of available monitoring data as 

15 
 well as available process and source term 

16 
 information for this facility found that 

17 
 NIOSH lacked the sufficient information 

18 
 necessary to complete individual dose 

19 
 reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for 

20 
 internal radiological exposures to uranium, 

21 
 plutonium and tritium, which employees at 

22 
 this facility may have been subjected during 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 32



1 
 the time period in question. The Board 

2 
 concurs with this determination. 

3 
 NIOSH determined that health may have 

4 
 been endangered for employees at the Medina 

5 
 Modification Center in San Antonio, Texas, 

6 
 during the time period in question. The 

7 
 Board also concurs with this determination. 

8 
 Based on these considerations and 

9 
 the discussion of at the June 19-21, 2012, 

10 
 Board meeting held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 

11 
 the Board recommends that this Class be added 

12 
 to the SEC. Enclosed is the documentation 

13 
 from the Board meeting where this SEC was 

14 
 discussed. Documentation includes copies of 

15 
 the petition, the NIOSH review thereof and 

16 
 related materials. If any of these items are 

17 
 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

18 shortly. 

19 Comments, changes? Okay, good. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: Antoinette, are you on 

21 the line? Antoinette Bonsignore? 

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I am. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 33



1 
 MR. KATZ: Oh, great, because we 

2 
 finished the SEC discussion early. 

3 
 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. I figured 

4 
 you might. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Right, great. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. We will 

7 
 then move on to the Linde Ceramics Work Group 

8 
 Site Profile review presentation, and Gen 

9 
 Roessler, chair of that Work Group, will be 

10 making the presentation. 

11 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, while the 

12 
 slides are coming up, I'll comment that it's 

13 
 fun to be the last presentation on the last 

14 
 day of a meeting. But for me there's an 

15 
 advantage, because when the meeting started 

16 
 on Tuesday I couldn't talk. I'm not sounding 

17 
 very good right now, but at least I can talk. 

18 
 It's kind of slow, isn't it? 

19 
 While it's coming up I'll remind you that in 

20 
 your packet you have a copy of the 

21 
 PowerPoint, and as you see coming up here. 

22 
 You also have a copy of minutes that we had 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 34



1 
 taken at an information meeting with some 

2 
 Linde workers, and I hope you've had a chance 

3 
 to look at them. 

4 
 Also we invited you to look at 

5 
 something that was very important to the Work 

6 
 Group, it helped us confirm our decision on 

7 
 what we're presenting to you today. And 

8 
 those are, we call them maps or diagrams or 

9 
 drawings of utility tunnels. They're 

10 
 preconstruction drawings and they have been 

11 
 on the back table. I think they're still 

12 
 there back there, Jim, if you do want to look 

13 at them. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: While Gen's getting 

15 
 ready, let me just also note for the record 

16 
 that Antoinette sent in a formal statement 

17 
 which we've distributed to all the Board 

18 
 Members. 

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Right. And that 

20 was from her comments yesterday. 

21 
 So we've talked to you about Linde 

22 
 for a long time but just as a reminder, SECs 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35



1 
 have been granted for Linde from 1942 through 

2 
 1969. What we're talking about today are 

3 
 some Site Profile issues. We resolved 

4 
 everything through the Work Group in the 

5 
 Board except for two issues which we'll 

6 
 mention. Since SECs have been granted and 

7 
 workers who qualify for any one of the 22 

8 
 specified cancers or worked at least 250 days 

9 
 at the site, they would not be affected by 

10 
 what we're talking about today. It would 

11 
 only be those with nonpresumptive cancers and 

12 
 who worked for less than 250 days. We don't 

13 
 think that this affects many people, but we 

14 want to bring this to a close. 

15 
 We've been talking to you about 

16 
 Linde for some time. We started our Site 

17 
 Profile review in March 2007. As I mentioned 

18 
 we completed the SEC evaluations. The two 

19 
 Site Profile issues that exist, existed or 

20 
 exist at this point relate to the utility 

21 
 tunnels, and it relates to how dose 

22 
 reconstruction is done for the workers who do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 36



1 
 not qualify for compensation under SECs. 

2 
 The two questions are, when were 

3 
 certain sections of the tunnel built, and how 

4 
 much time did workers spend in the tunnels or 

5 
 what is the occupancy factor? We know that 

6 
 there were a number of different times when 

7 
 tunnels were built, and that's the main thing 

8 
 we're going to address today. 

9 
 Up until as recently as a few 

10 
 months ago, NIOSH and the Work Group and SC&A 

11 
 had agreement on these questions, but there 

12 
 were some worker statements that we felt 

13 
 needed clarification and we wanted to take 

14 
 this one step further and see if we could 

15 
 resolve that. So we asked to have an 

16 
 information meeting in Buffalo near where 

17 
 some of the Linde workers could be asked to 

18 
 come to the meeting. And we appreciate the 

19 
 efforts of ATL and Mark Lewis and Mary 

20 
 Elliott for arranging this. So we held that 

21 
 meeting, it was an information meeting, 

22 
 collected the information and then set up a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 37



1 
 teleconference call for the Work Group to 

2 
 formalize this on May 30th. 

3 
 At the Buffalo meeting we had five 

4 
 Linde workers, three Work Group Members, Jim 

5 
 Neton from NIOSH and as important, a huge 

6 
 table full of what we are calling these very 

7 
 important diagrams for everybody to look at 

8 
 all together. We had Steve Ostrow who 

9 
 represented Linde from SC&A, and we had the 

10 
 two ATL members, and one took notes, and 

11 
 those notes are available to you. And of 

12 
 course we had Ted Katz. Sorry about my 

13 voice. 

14 
 At the meeting I gave an 

15 
 introductory or background statement because 

16 
 we wanted to make it clear to the workers 

17 
 that we've needed some specific information. 

18 
 We clarified the fact that there are SECs 

19 
 and also pointed out the two issues that we 

20 
 wanted their input on. That it was important 

21 
 for them to tell us about these things so we 

22 could come up with a conclusion. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 38



1 
 As I said, we also had these maps 

2 
 or diagrams there. The two of most interest 

3 
 are the ones that are preconstruction 

4 
 diagrams. This is what the company laid out 

5 
 saying, this is what we're going to build in 

6 
 1957 for tunnels, and also some 

7 
 preconstruction diagrams for the tunnels to 

8 
 be built in 1961. At that point people 

9 
 gathered around the table and we had a lot of 

10 
 one-on-one discussions. This made it 

11 
 difficult I'm sure for people on the phone 

12 and people taking notes. 

13 
 But I think that was very 

14 
 productive because we were able to talk 

15 
 directly with the workers. I know Josie was 

16 
 talking to one and I was talking to one and 

17 
 Jim Lockey was talking to another one and Jim 

18 Neton was explaining these diagrams. 

19 
 And I think it helped for the 

20 
 workers, you know, this was almost 60 years 

21 
 ago, the period under discussion, for them to 

22 
 actually look at something on paper. And try 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 39



1 
 and look at points on the diagrams, 

2 
 especially the 1957 preconstruction diagrams, 

3 
 which there are two of them that in 

4 
 particular show the tunnels that are to be 

5 
 built and in our view the language says these 

6 
 are to built. 

7 
 There are other things on these 

8 
 diagrams that show, well, for example, a 

9 
 drawing of a 57-inch tunnel to be built, and 

10 
 then there are other points on it, junction 

11 
 boxes and other identifying things that 

12 
 relate to the area, the particular location 

13 
 at Linde. So we had all this 

14 
 discussion, and then at a point when I 

15 
 thought we had resolved some of the issues I 

16 
 asked the group to come back together and 

17 
 tried to again bring out the information that 

18 
 we needed and to try and come up with a 

19 
 consensus among the people there. And then 

20 
 the plan forward was to have an official Work 

21 Group meeting. 

22 
 And this is what we came up with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40



1 
 at the information meeting and then we tried 

2 
 to formalize that at our teleconference call 

3 
 in May. The number one thing is when the 

4 
 tunnels were built. This is very important 

5 
 because there are different exposure 

6 
 potentials in different areas of Linde, in 

7 
 particular if you look at this diagram. And 

8 
 I borrowed this from SC&A. Steve Ostrow put 

9 
 this together because it in a rather simple 

10 
 manner shows the three different periods of 

11 tunnel construction. 

12 
 The green line are tunnels that 

13 
 were built in 1936. There's really no 

14 
 dispute about when they were built or 

15 
 anything about them. The other two areas are 

16 
 tunnels, and these are shown in red, which we 

17 
 believe were built in 1961. And then the 

18 
 tunnels in blue built in 1957. These are the 

19 
 ones primarily under discussion because they 

20 
 are in the area of highest exposure 

21 
 potential. These tunnels, 1957 tunnels, ran 

22 
 between buildings 31 and 30. And the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 41



1 
 important point here is that NIOSH will use 

2 
 this information, this dose information, 

3 
 during these time periods. 

4 
 The other thing that we spent a 

5 
 lot of time with, with the workers, is trying 

6 
 to find out what they thought was the time 

7 
 that workers might have spent in the tunnels. 

8 
 We came up with two numbers that all crafts 

9 
 workers perhaps could have spent as much as 

10 
 50 percent of their time in the tunnels. 

11 
 That may seem like a very large number to you 

12 
 and it did to all of us, but we agreed it was 

13 
 extremely claimant friendly. All other 

14 
 workers, we came up with five percent, and 

15 
 again there we had consensus from the workers 

16 
 that this was a very claimant friendly 

17 decision. 

18 
 So after this meeting, and I guess 

19 
 I would say at this point that the Work 

20 
 Group, SC&A, NIOSH, we all are in agreement 

21 
 about the times the tunnels were built. You 

22 
 have a statement from Antoinette. There is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 42



1 
 some dispute there. I wish that Antoinette 

2 
 had been able to be at the information 

3 
 meeting with us in Buffalo. Because it 

4 
 seemed to me anyway, and other Work Group 

5 
 Members, I think, will concur that it was 

6 
 important to be there, look at the diagrams, 

7 
 see what they really meant to come to this 

8 
 conclusion. 

9 
 So that's the end of my report. 

10 
 Dr. Lockey probably is going to dash out of 

11 
 here pretty soon, and I'd like to ask if Work 

12 Group Members have anything to add to this. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead, Jim. 

14 
 MEMBER LOCKEY: Well, I find the 

15 
 meeting in New York to be very, very helpful. 

16 
 And we spent a lot of time with the workers 

17 
 who were there, reviewing the maps, 

18 
 discussing job histories, how much time the 

19 
 craft people spent in the tunnels versus the 

20 
 noncraft workers. And I think based on that 

21 
 meeting, we did have a broad consensus that 

22 
 based on the objective data that had 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 43



1 
 construction maps present where there were 

2 
 construction stamps on the maps, and that we 

3 
 were talking about 50 or 60 years prior to 

4 
 the current date, that the evidence was quite 

5 
 firm that these tunnels were built during the 

6 
 time frame that we were suggesting. And we 

7 
 did have pretty much of a consensus on that 

8 
 when we left that meeting. 

9 
 And we also talked at length about 

10 
 how much time they would spend in the 

11 
 tunnels, and we again had a consensus on that 

12 
 that we think was a very claimant friendly 

13 
 percentage in relationship to the craft 

14 
 workers spending up to 50 percent of the time 

15 
 in the tunnel. So I'm very satisfied that 

16 
 the data we're presenting to you is true 

17 objective data. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie? 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, and a nice 

20 
 presentation, Gen, and I agree with Dr. 

21 
 Lockey. The only thing when we left the 

22 
 meeting I thought was in dispute was the 1961 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 44



1 
 tunnels. And I understand now that that's 

2 
 not the case, so I'm very comfortable with 

3 
 the decision we came to on the dates of all 

4 
 the tunnels at this point. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I have sort of 

6 
 one question I think is maybe to help the new 

7 
 Members and is sort of clarifying sort of 

8 
 what exposures are we talking about and sort 

9 
 of levels of exposure? Because I think we 

10 
 dealt with that issue, I think, in earlier 

11 
 meetings in terms of, but I think that's 

12 
 important sort of context for this whole 

13 discussion also. 

14 
 MEMBER ROESSLER: Call on Jim 

15 Neton to answer that. 

16 
 DR. NETON: The main difference in 

17 
 exposures among the various tunnels would be 

18 
 to radon. The one set of tunnels that were 

19 
 constructed in 1957 and part of the 1961 

20 
 tunnels happen to be sitting underneath some 

21 
 radium contamination, so there would be 

22 
 infiltration of radon gas into the tunnels 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 45



1 
 and we would assign the radon exposures. 

2 
 But one needs to also remember 

3 
 that the site is an SEC all the way through 

4 
 1969, and radon primarily affects lung 

5 
 cancers, so the majority if not all of the 

6 
 lung cancer cases would have been compensated 

7 
 through the Special Exposure Cohort, although 

8 
 one can't say with any certainty there 

9 
 wouldn't be someone affected. But it would 

10 have minimal impact. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And can you sort 

12 
 of quantify the given estimate of what levels 

13 
 of radon exposure are we talking about 

14 assigning people? 

15 
 DR. NETON: Oh, I think it's 

16 
 around a hundred picocuries per liter. It's 

17 
 not trivial. About a hundred picocuries per 

18 
 liter, almost, yes, half of a working level 

19 
 maybe, something like that. It's only 

20 
 particularly in that one section of tunnels 

21 
 where there was some very heavy radium 

22 
 contamination where they had processed the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 46



1 
 Belgian Congo ore. It seems like it kind of 

2 
 got dumped there at one point and had not yet 

3 
 been cleaned up. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So I think it 

5 
 just helps to understand why this was an 

6 
 issue that needed to be addressed and sort of 

7 
 what that, and we at previous meetings had 

8 
 spent a fair amount of time both the Work 

9 
 Group and at the Board level to think about 

10 
 how to potentially model and what the radon 

11 
 levels were and would be used for this part 

12 
 of the dose reconstruction. Again as Jim 

13 
 said, it's almost all SEC so to the extent 

14 that it was needed. 

15 
 Other Board Members have 

16 
 questions? Bill Field, do you have any 

17 questions or anything to add? 

18 
 MEMBER FIELD: No. No questions. 

19 
 It's good to hear though that there was at 

20 
 least some consensus of the dates the tunnels 

21 
 were built. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: NIOSH do you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 47



1 
 have anything, Jim, to add to the, want to 

2 
 say about it? Okay. 

3 
 I think we have essentially a 

4 
 recommendation from the Work Group of that, 

5 
 and I think given that, I think, take that as 

6 
 a motion to the Board that this would be what 

7 
 would be used in the Site Profile. So 

8 
 further discussion on that? 

9 
 And I think we can do a voice 

10 
 vote. All in favor of accepting the Work 

11 Group's recommendation say aye. 

12 (Chorus of ayes.) 

13 Opposed? Abstain? Okay. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. We have 

15 completed that. 

16 
 Now we have a few more items to 

17 
 address, mainly Board Work Group and there 

18 
 are not a lot. I'm not sure, Ted, can you 

19 check on the Titanium letter? 

20 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The status of 

22 
 it? We have a short letter on the Titanium 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 48



1 
 Alloys facility. We have some Board 

2 
 correspondence, which what we'll do is we'll, 

3 
 two letters, one isn't complete yet. 

4 
 Representative Lujan gave us a letter Tuesday 

5 
 night when we were here, and they're actually 

6 
 going to do a followup on that letter. So 

7 
 when we get that we'll draft a reply and 

8 
 circulate that to the Board Members for any 

9 
 input. 

10 We also have a letter that we 

11 
 talked about briefly on Tuesday when Mark was 

12 
 here that again was circulated to the Board 

13 
 earlier on the Savannah River site, and again 

14 
 we'll draft up a reply. It was basically 

15 
 asking for an update on where we were with 

16 
 the site. It was from the petitioner on the 

17 SRS site. 

18 
 And I think those are the only two 

19 
 outstanding items in terms of Board letters, 

20 letters to the Board. 

21 
 I am going to read off a draft. 

22 
 And what we do just again for new Board 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49



1 
 Members, when we have a site that we've 

2 
 rejected, not approved the SEC petition, or 

3 
 essentially agreeing with NIOSH evaluation or 

4 
 different circumstances there, then we just 

5 
 do a short letter that just gets that on the 

6 
 record. 

7 
 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

8 
 Worker Health, the Board has evaluated 

9 
 Special Exposure Cohort SEC Petition 00190 

10 
 concerning workers at Titanium Alloys 

11 
 Manufacturing in Niagara Falls, New York, 

12 
 under the statutory requirements established 

13 
 by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

14 
 Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, 

15 incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13. 

16 
 The National Institute for 

17 
 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, has 

18 
 recommended that individual dose 

19 
 reconstructions are feasible for all 

20 
 employees who work in any area or building at 

21 
 Titanium Alloys Manufacturing from January 

22 
 1st, 1955 through December 31st, 1956. NIOSH 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 50



1 
 found that it has access to adequate exposure 

2 
 monitoring and other information necessary to 

3 
 do individual dose reconstructions with 

4 
 sufficient accuracy for Members of this 

5 
 group, and therefore a Class covering this 

6 
 group should not be added to the SEC. The 

7 
 Board concurs with this determination. 

8 
 Based on these considerations and 

9 
 discussions at the June 19-21, 2012, Board 

10 
 meeting held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the 

11 
 Board recommends that this Class not be added 

12 
 to the SEC. Enclosed is the supporting 

13 
 documentation from the Board meeting where 

14 
 this SEC Class was discussed. The 

15 
 documentation includes copies of the 

16 
 petition, the NIOSH review thereof and 

17 
 related materials. If any of these items are 

18 
 unavailable at this time they will follow 

19 shortly. 

20 Okay, any comments, questions? 

21 
 MEMBER MUNN: Just a question, 

22 
 that I didn't catch the number of the SEC 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 51



1 
 that you read. What was it? 

2 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: 00190. 

3 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's correct. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I might 

5 
 have either done it too fast or skipped over 

6 
 it. 

7 
 In terms of Board Work Groups, 

8 
 we've been slowly getting new Members of the 

9 
 Board into Work Groups and Subcommittees. I 

10 
 think we also have enough Members now, and I 

11 wanted to get some input on this. 

12 
 But we have a number of three13 
 member Work Groups that we did when we were 

14 
 having lots of meetings and it was becoming 

15 
 difficult to schedule meetings because 

16 
 everyone was so busy and thought that these 

17 
 Work Groups could get by with three Members. 

18 
 So I think there's enough willingness on the 

19 
 part of Board Members to participate in Work 

20 
 Groups that I will start adding people to 

21 those Work Groups. 

22 
 That would include the, I was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 52



1 
 going through them earlier. There's the 

2 
 Lawrence Berkeley one that Paul chairs that 

3 
 only has three Members. Pinellas only has 

4 
 three. The Portsmouth, Paducah, K-25 only 

5 
 has three Members, and so Santa Susana is the 

6 
 same. 

7 
 And also Mike Gibson at this point 

8 
 doesn't have really enough time or 

9 
 availability to be able to participate in 

10 
 Work Groups, so we've been moving him out. 

11 
 So over the next month I will do that. I 

12 
 will correspond with you individually by 

13 
 email about your interest and making sure of 

14 
 your interest, and then we'll deal with 

15 
 conflicts and things like that. So by our 

16 
 August Board call I think we should be pretty 

17 
 much settled on that. We haven't had any new 

18 
 Work Groups come out of this meeting or 

19 
 really the past few meetings, so I think 

20 
 we'll be pretty well set there. So does that 

21 sound agreeable to people? Okay. 

22 
 Ted, is there anything more on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 53



1 
 scheduling? 

2 
 MR. KATZ: I don't think so. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Did you follow 

4 
 up or are you going to follow up with the 

5 
 absent --

6 
 MR. KATZ: Oh no, I'm going to do 

7 
 that. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: I haven't gotten any 

10 
 feedback from them. I haven't sent them out, 

11 so I haven't done that yet. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, so if you 

13 could get that out to us so we --

14 MR. KATZ: I will. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- document 

16 
 that. And I can't remember the date now. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: For the teleconference? 

18 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Teleconference. 

19 MR. KATZ: It's August 15th. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: August 15th 

21 
 we'll do the Board teleconference, and the 

22 September meeting in Denver. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 54



1 
 MR. KATZ: The September meeting's 

2 
 in Denver, and we'll make a determination a 

3 
 little closer as to whether we actually need 

4 
 the full two and a half days or whether we 

5 
 can do it in two days. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. My guess 

7 
 is given that we're carrying over GSI, we may 

8 
 have significant action on Mound. I would 

9 
 sort of expect to have two and a half days, 

10 
 but again you can't, and then LaVon seemed to 

11 
 be working on a lot of work for us, and 

12 
 those, even the 83.14s take a significant 

13 
 amount of Board time to process and work 

14 through. 

15 
 But as we've talked earlier, 

16 
 thinking up the exact schedule is difficult 

17 
 and predicting what will take time is 

18 
 difficult because we often don't know until 

19 
 the Work Group has its last meeting 

20 beforehand. 

21 
 Any other Board business people 

22 want to bring up or --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 55



1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

2 
 Stiver. I just wanted to mention in regards 

3 
 to new workgroups that you might be 

4 
 considering. In California if there was some 

5 
 interest expressed about Simonds Saw and 

6 
 Steel that it was contingent upon getting the 

7 
 Site Profile review completed, and that is 

8 
 indeed done and has been delivered. So that 

9 
 might be something to put on the agenda --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: -- for the 

12 teleconference. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Refresh me, what 

14 do they do there? 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Simonds Saw was a 

16 
 uranium rolling, actually it was a steel 

17 
 rolling mill up in Upstate New York, and they 

18 
 had an AEC contract to roll uranium rods is 

19 basically what they --

20 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So that would 

21 
 fit into one of our current, wouldn't it? 

22 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's an SEC. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 56



1 
 There's a residual period. Does this go to 

2 
 Paul or you? 

3 
 MEMBER ANDERSON: Paul. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, when he's not 

5 
 here it would be under the umbrella, I guess. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Jim, which of these 

7 
 does this fit? 

8 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

9 
 MR. KATZ: 6000, okay. That's 

10 6000. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that's what 

12 
 I thought. Can you make sure that Paul knows 

13 that? 

14 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I mean for 

16 
 both 6000 and 6001, if those get Work Group 

17 
 and Paul's not here, and I'll follow up by 

18 
 email with him, but if you feel that the 

19 
 workload is too great, you know, or we're 

20 
 getting backed up for some reason then let us 

21 know. I don't think that's the case so far. 

22 
 Okay, any other business? Okay, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57



1 
 we'll see you all in Denver. 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Thank you, all of you 

3 
 Board Members for, this was a lot of work 

4 
 preparing for this meeting and think 

5 
 everybody did a great job. Thank you. 

6 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 
 matter went off the record at 9:29 a.m.) 

8 
 

9 
 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

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