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 

TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAYS TWO and THREE 

EXCERPT CONCERNING MALLINCKRODT SEC PETITION 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the Adam’s Mark, St. Louis, Missouri, on February 

8 and 9, 2005. 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

February 8,9, 2005 

SEC PETITION EVALUATION REPORT – MALLINCKRODT: 

NIOSH PRESENTATION OF REPORTS 

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH 

PETITIONERS PRESENTATION OF COMMENTS ON 

REPORT AND PUBLIC COMMENT 

15 

34 

BOARD DISCUSSION 135 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 256 
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. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

4 

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D.

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

MEMBERSHIP 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H.

Director 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 

Professor of Medicine 

Nashville, Tennessee 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 
5 

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 

MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D.

Director 

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund

Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I.

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington 

OWENS, Charles Leon

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-550 

Paducah, Kentucky 

PRESLEY, Robert W.

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 
 

 

6 

AGENDA SPEAKERS 

(in order of appearance) 

Mr. Larry Elliott, NIOSH 

STAFF/VENDORS 

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
7 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

AHIRA, KEN

ALEXANDER, OLIVE M.

ALEXANDER, TERRY

ALLEN, GEORGE

AMANN, DEBORAH

ANBLE, JOHN, KTVI

ARRO, MICHAEL R.

BAFARO, MARILYN, NIOSH

BASCHERT, BETTY J.

BEATTY, EVERETT RAY, SR., FERNALD ATOMIC COUNCIL

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

BELL, R. THOMAS, SC&A

BERRY, CHARLENE

BEST, CHARLINE

BEST, RAYMOND

BIEST, JOAN

BLANKENSHIP, CINDY

BOGNAN, JOHN

BOYD, JAMES

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH

BRALASKI, RITA

BRAND, ANSTICE, CDC

BROCK, DENISE, UNWW

BROWN, THOMAS, BSCAG

BRYANT, DOROTHY

BULGER, HAROLD

CALLAWAY MOOCH, FERNALD ATOMIC COUNCIL

CHISHOLM, MILLIE

COFFELT, EVELYN

CONRAD, JAMES

COTTER, GARY

COTTER, WILLIAM D.

COVALESKY, SHIRLEY

CRONK, JAMIE

CURTISS, JOANN & RICK

DANIEL, GWEN

DAVIS, RICKY, KTVI

DEEP, HEIDI, NIOSH

DEICHMAN, MATT, WBII-TV

DILLARD, HOMER & HALENE 
8 

DOLAN, JACQUELINE E.

DOLAN, WILLIAM E.

DORNFELD, DEBBIE, JIM TALENT

DOWNS, DEB

DREY, KAY

DUDLEY, MARTIN

EATON, CLARISSA, UNWW

ECHEMENDIA, AIDA

EHLMANN, PAT, UNWW

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH

ESPY, RICHARD

FAGAS, JANE

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FRISCHMAN, BILL

FULKERSON, ROBERT

GARNER, DON

GENERI, MARY

GILLARD, LORRAINE A.

GRAHAM, MAYOR, CITY OF O’FALLON

GREEN, JAMES

GREUBLATT, B., UPI

HABBIG, JOHN K.

HALLMARK, SHELBY, LABOR

HARGIS, JOHN

HARRIS, WALTER

HARRISON, KATHY

HART, ALISON, SENATOR HARKIN

HAWKINS, BRENDA

HEADRICK, WILLIAM

HEISTER, MELANIE, NCRP

HENNITS, DOROTHY

HERBERT, NICHOLE, NIOSH

HERTZ, DOROTHY

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOLLAND, MARTIN

HOLTMEYER-MAUNE, JERRINE

HODGES, CARRIE

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

HORGAN, TOM, SEN. BOND

JOHNSON, MARY L.

JOHNSON, PAT

KATZ, TED, NIOSH

KELLER, LILLIAN A. 
9 

KELLY, PATRICK, SC&A

KENOYER, JUDSON, ORAU

KIEDING, SYLVIA

KIMPAN, KATE, DOE

KLOTZ, STEVE, KTRS

KOENEMAN, BARB, UNWW

KOENEMAN, RAYETTA

KOENEMAN, TANYA, UNWW

KORDING, GLENN

KORDING, SHARON

KOTSCH, JEFFREY L., DOL

KRAICHELY, MARY, UNWW

LACKEY, MELBA

LAMBKIN, DON, UNWW

LAVERY, KEVIN M., KWMU

LEA, JEFF, KMOV

LEAHMANN, SHIRLEY

LITTLE, JAMES

LYNCH, CINDY

LYNCH, HELEN

MACK, HUY, POST DISPATCH

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCINTYRE, JOAN

MCKEEL, DAN, MD, WASHINGTON UNIV.

MCKEEL, VIRGINIA, VILLAGE IMAGE NEWS

MCNUTT, ROBERT

MESSALA, DAVE & JAN

MILLER, RELADA L., NIOSH

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP

MITAS, JIM, CONGRESSMAN AKIN

MOUSER, TERRI, UNITED NUCLEAR

MURPHY, DAN P.

MUSCKE, EDWARD C.

NAES, NORVILLE

NESVET, JEFF, DOL

NETON, JIM, NIOSH

NOVAK, JUSTINE

NUGENT, MARY, US GAO

O’HARE, FRANK W.

OJEDA, THERESA, KMOV

PATTON, JACK

PHEGLEY, RAYMOND, AIRPORT

PIPER, WILLIAM 
10 

PORTER, DIANE, NIOSH

PRESLEY, LOUISE S.

PRIEST, CHRISTINE

RACH, CHARLES L.

RAMSPOTT, CHRISTINE

RAMSPOTT, JOHN

REMPE, VIRGIL J.

RETKONSKI, RICHARD

REUSS, ANN

RINDALL, TINA, UNITED NUCLEAR

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR/BCTD

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A

ROSENTHAL, JAMES

ROTHROCK, AMY

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH

RYAN, FRAN

SACKS-LONG, DONNA J.

SCHESLER, ELAINE

SCHNEIDER, CLARENCE

SCHNEIDER, MARILYN, UNWW

SCHRUMM, RUTH

SCOTT, SYLVIA

SOMRATY, ANDREW

SOVAR, RICH AND EVELYN

SPICKETT, DAVID

SPICKETT, EVELYN

STEGER, RON

STEGER, RONI

STEINKAMP, JUDIE

STEMPFLEY, DAN, NIOSH

STRAPES, FLO

STROUSSNER, DONALD A.

STUCKENSCHNEIDER, DOLORES

STUDT, ARLENE

SUERMANN, ZELDA

SULLIVAN, MICHELLE, WBII-TV

SWABODA, JAY, ST. LOUIS LABOR TRIBUNE

TASCHLOR, JOHN

TAULBEE, TIM, NIOSH

TEAGUE, CARLOTTA, NCRP

TENFORDE, THOMAS S., NCRP

THORNHILL, CHARLENE

THORNHILL, GEORGE 
11 

TOOHEY, R.E., ORAU

TURCIC, PETE, DOL

UNDERWOOD, LEWIS, NIOSH

VACEK, PENNY, SENATOR GRASSLEY

VERHOFF, GWENDOLYN

WALKER, ED AND JOYCE, BSCAG

WATSON, DAVID P., JR.

WHITE, WALTER, JR.

WIESEHAUS, JOHN J.

WINDISCH, ANTHONY

WOLFF, TOM

WOODS, JANET

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

12 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

 February 8, 2005(1:05 p.m.) 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to call the session back 

to order again. This afternoon the Advisory 

Board begins review of the SEC petition 

evaluation for Mallinckrodt. 

Before the NIOSH presentation of their report 

on the petition, I'm going to call on our 

Designated Federal Official -- oh, I do want to 

introduce several people, and then I'll call on 

our Designated Federal Official. 

We do have some visitors I want to recognize, 

especially this afternoon. First of all, from 

Senator Talent's staff, Debbie Dornfeld*. 

Debbie, please let us recognize you. 

From Senator Bond's staff, Tom Horgan. Tom? 

From Representative Todd Atkins' staff, Jim 

Mitus*. Jim? 

Thank you. Are there any others from the 

various delegates -- delegations here? Thank 

you for being present here this afternoon in 

our meeting. 

Dr. Lew Wade, our Designated Federal Official 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

for this meeting, is going to take a few 

minutes just to remind the Board and those 

present of the process that is involved here 

with the SEC petition reviews. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, in 

my role as DFO I thought I would take a few 

minutes to just remind you of the process, and 

I've put in front of each of the Board members 

synopses from the SEC rule that sort of 

outlines the various phases and steps, and just 

to remind you that it's a continuous process 

from the filing of a petition through the 

qualification of a petition. And then the 

NIOSH program, the OCAS office, presents its 

findings to the Board. That's just going to 

happen in several minutes. And then the Board 

will deliberate and take a number of actions 

that are listed here, from making a 

recommendation to the Secretary to requesting 

additional information. I won't read all of 

those for you, but they're in front of you. 

I did want to spend just a minute talking about 

how the Secretary will decide outcomes of the 

petition, to get that clear in your mind, and 

that's Section 83.16. And to the question of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

how the Secretary will decide outcomes of the 

petition, (a) The Director of NIOSH will 

propose and transmit to all affected 

petitioners a decision to add or deny adding 

classes of employees to the cohort, including 

an iteration of the relevant criteria as 

specified under 83.13(c), and a summary of the 

information and findings on which the proposed 

decision is based. This proposed decision will 

take into consideration the evaluations of 

NIOSH and the report and recommendation of the 

Board, and may take into account consideration 

information presented or submitted to the Board 

and the deliberations of the Board. 

I really wanted to underscore again that it's 

the deliberations of the Board that are also 

important in establishing a record that the 

NIOSH director will consider when framing a 

decision document for the Secretary. So I 

think it's important not only that we move 

towards recommendation, but we also have on the 

record a full discussion so that the complete 

deliberations of the Board can be part of that 

record. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. Wade, for those 

reminders. 

We'll begin then with the NIOSH presentation by 

Larry Elliott. Larry? 

NIOSH PRESENTATION OF REPORTS

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, ladies and 

gentlemen of the Board. I hope you had a good 

lunch, and I'm going to try to not put you to 

sleep here with some dry material. I think we 

have an audience here that's very much 

interested in this evaluation report on the 

Mallinckrodt petition that we had received, and 

I'm sure that they want to hear all of this, as 

well as the Board. So with that, let me begin. 

I'm going to walk you through several factors 

here in this petitioning process. First we're 

going to talk about the petition process itself 

and where we're particularly at right now at 

this stage with this petition. I'm going to 

talk briefly about the role of the Advisory 

Board and what you are expected to do in that 

role and those set of responsibilities that you 

have. I'm also going to speak about the 

evaluation process, how we went about 

evaluating this petition. And then I will go 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

into the summary of findings from our 

evaluation report, and I'll end up with 

proposed class definitions and the findings 

that support those. 

If you have not availed yourself of a copy of 

the Mallinckrodt SEC evaluation reports -- 

perhaps this is more for the audience than they 

Board -- they are located on the back table and 

you might want to grab a copy of those to read 

through as I go through the presentation. 

 Essentially the start of this process is that a 

petition is submitted to NIOSH on behalf of a 

class of employees. And the particular 

petition that we have before us for 

Mallinckrodt was submitted on July 15, 2004. 

The initial class definition that was arrived 

at, in agreement with that -- those 

petitioners, was -- as you see here on the 

slide -- "All employees that worked at the 

uranium division at Mallinckrodt Destrehan 

Street in St. Louis, Missouri from the years 

1942 to 1957." 

 Originally the petition was submitted and 

included both Destrehan and Weldon Springs 

facilities. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

 Now the petitioning process is governed by this 

statute, the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act, in that it 

has two tests that must be met, and I'll speak 

about those in a moment. It is also governed 

and regulated by the rule that HHS published on 

processing petitions, and I'll speak to that, 

as well. 

In that rule it was determined that we could 

only accept a petition that dealt with a 

facility, and so that's why -- the original 

petition talked to Destrehan Street and Weldon 

Springs, and working with the petitioner it was 

determined that we would settle on Destrehan 

Street first. I'm sure there's some confusion 

out there about this, and so I just wanted to 

make that comment and hopefully that'll clear 

it up. In order for us to move forward on the 

Weldon Spring site we will need a petition 

submitted. 

The next step in the SEC petition process, as 

you see here on this slide, is that the 

petition itself must meet the criteria that's 

outline in our regulation. And you can find 

that criteria in Section 83.7 through 83.9. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

Mallinckrodt qualified on November 24th, 2004, 

and so you can see that there was a period of 

time where we worked with the petitioner to 

make sure that the petitioner was satisfied and 

we were satisfied with not only the contents of 

the petition, but all the supporting 

information that was necessary to qualify it. 

The next step that we achieved then was to 

notify all the petitioners and the public -- 

the petitioners were notified by a letter and 

the public is notified by a Federal Register 

notice. This is a requirement in our rule. 

Mallinckrodt qualification notice was published 

in the Federal Register on December 20th, 2004. 

Next in our process, NIOSH -- once a petition 

is qualified, NIOSH must evaluate that petition 

using the guidelines and -- that are spelled 

out in our rule at Section 83.13, and then we 

submit a summary of findings on that particular 

petition in an evaluation report, which you 

have before you. The summary of the evaluation 

report is also published in the Federal 

Register notice, and you can see the subsequent 

dates of action in this regard for this step. 

Now let me move into -- and if the Board wants 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

to talk a little more later about process and 

where we go next, we can get back to that after 

-- after I get through here, but I'd like to 

jump now into a little bit of where Lew took 

you a moment ago on roles and responsibilities 

of the Advisory Board. 

Here again, the Advisory Board's authority is 

based in the statute, Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, 

and it's also codified in our regulation 42 CFR 

part 83. And your main role in this SEC 

petition process is to provide a deliberation 

and a review, if you will, of our evaluation 

report and summary findings, and provide a 

report of your own to the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services. 

 Within those responsibilities in providing that 

report to the Secretary there are some specific 

things that you must address, and you have some 

options available to you as a Board. You can 

consider the evaluation report that we've done 

and decide that you need additional 

information, and you can seek that out before 

you make a report to the Secretary. 

The Board may also request us at NIOSH to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

follow up on information or issues that you 

identify that may not have been fully explored 

or clearly defined and understood in our 

evaluation report. 

Then you're to develop your own report and send 

it to the Secretary of HHS with your 

recommendations. And I will remind you here on 

what your report is to contain, and again this 

is located in our rule and you can find it 

under the section that Dr. Wade read to you. 

 Essentially you're to provide an identification 

and inclusion of the relevant petitions. If we 

have more than one petition, that's what you 

would be speaking to here, how many petitions 

were actually involved. That needs to go along 

with your report. 

 A recommendation that also defines the class as 

you see it. Maybe it'll be in concert with the 

definition that we provided, maybe it will be 

slightly different based upon your deliberation 

today. 

Next you should also provide a recommendation 

to the Secretary as to whether or not a class 

should be added. And you are to, in your 

report, provide a summary of your own findings 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

with regard to the relevant criteria that's 

outlined under Section 83.13 in our rule. 

 And essentially what that is is that is the 

same set of criteria that we at NIOSH have to 

use to provide you an evaluation report, and 

I'll just briefly touch on that: Determine 

whether or not it is feasible to reconstruct 

doses with sufficient accuracy -- that's one 

aspect that you must address; secondly, to 

provide a class definition, as noted earlier; 

and thirdly, if you determine that it's not 

feasible to reconstruct doses with sufficient 

accuracy, you're to address whether or not 

health has been endangered for the particular 

class. 

You can also include in your report information 

provided by the petitioners, information that 

you hear from the general public at large from 

this meeting, and any other deliberations that 

you might have as a Board. 

I think this is the last slide on your 

responsibilities, and it's just a reminder that 

we all must protect the privacy of individuals, 

even in this petitioning process. It's one 

thing for the petitioners to divulge their 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

identity, but until they do so we're required 

to protect that identity under the Privacy Act. 

Let me speak a little bit now about the 

evaluation process and what we did in the 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support at 

NIOSH. I mentioned earlier that this whole 

process is governed by the statute and by our 

rule, and the statute presents us with a twopronged test, if you will. 

 And under this statute and under our regulation 

NIOSH must establish whether or not it has 

access to sufficient information to estimate 

either the maximum radiation dose that could 

have been incurred by workers in the class 

under plausible circumstances, or by any -- or 

we must be able to estimate the radiation dose 

of members of the class with more -- more 

precisely than using a maximum estimate. 

Secondly, we have to address -- if we find that 

we cannot do dose reconstructions with 

sufficient accuracy, we must also address this 

health endangerment criteria, which is the 

second prong of the two-pronged test. And in 

that we must address whether or not an incident 

happened or could have occurred at the site 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

where -- in our mind we're talking about a 

criticality type incident, a very high, acute 

exposure that may not have been captured or 

characterized in the monitoring data 

adequately. If we don't have that, then we use 

a default determination of 250 days. This is 

one work year, and that is used for chronic 

exposure. 

We can also -- I must note here that you can 

also aggregate days across classes that have 

been added to the Special Exposure Cohort. And 

by example there, if we -- if we've placed a 

class for Mallinckrodt into the Special 

Exposure Cohort, and an individual who worked 

at Mallinckrodt let's say only had 100 days. 

But they also worked let's say at Paducah, 

which I think sometimes that happened, and they 

spent 150 days at Paducah during the time frame 

that Paducah's class exists, then they can 

aggregate those days for the two sites and be a 

member of the Special Exposure Cohort. 

To continue how we evaluated the particular 

petition at hand, we examined all available 

data and information that was obtained through 

our site profile development. We looked at 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

related facilities. We looked at the dose 

reconstructions that have been completed. We 

examined the interviews that have been 

conducted. We examined the petition 

information and materials that were supplied to 

us by the petitioners. 

We're also required by our rule to determine 

the completeness of our data search and 

examination, how exhaustive did we look for 

this kind of information and data, and so we 

have to address that. 

We are required also to evaluate the 

sufficiency of the data by looking at the 

hierarchical data that is spelled out in our 

rule on dose reconstructions. This is the 

health physics data. And that rule is 42 CFR 

part 83, and you can find that -- that listing 

of hierarchical data under Section 83.14, and 

then in Section 83.15 you'll find an 

explanation of how we go about evaluating the 

sufficiency of data for dose reconstruction 

purposes. 

We must also evaluate the issues of data 

reliability as brought forward in this 

particular petition. How reliable is the data 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

that we have before us, and so we have to 

examine that. 

And then of course, as I mentioned many times 

before, we have to evaluate whether health was 

endangered or not for the particular class 

where we've determined that we cannot do dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy. 

Okay. Let me -- that's the evaluation section 

of the presentation, and now I'm going to move 

into a summary of our evaluation for the 

Mallinckrodt petition. 

We present to you two reports today that 

address three classes of employees at 

Mallinckrodt, and the three classes are defined 

by these time frames as you see on the screen: 

1942 to 1945, 1946 to 1948, and 1949 to 1957. 

And we find distinguishing characteristics 

about these three particular time frames and 

representative classes, and I'll speak about 

those now. 

For 1942 to 1945 -- if you were here this 

morning and you heard Sanford Cohen's 

presentation of their review of the 

Mallinckrodt site profile, you will -- you will 

recognize some of the limitations that I'm 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

about to speak to here. Radiation measurements 

and evaluations of workplace dust exposure were 

not well-characterized, and they were only 

performed on an area-wide and a very episodic 

basis during this particular time frame. That 

certainly is a limitation. 

It's also a limitation for this time frame that 

we don't have good gamma measurement data. We 

have no urinalysis data, and there are no film 

badge data prior to December of 1945. 

With regard to the time period and the class 

for 1946 to 1957, we have individual dosimetry 

data and it's mainly provided and originated by 

characterizing workers who were in the highest 

potentially exposed jobs. And that also 

occurred for the same type of individuals, the 

same type of monitoring practice for later 

years. 

We have external dosimetry that began in late 

1945, urinalysis that begin in 1947, breath 

radon data that began in 1945, area radon 

sampling that began in 1946 and went through 

1957, and we have limited dust monitoring data 

beginning in 1943 and it gets better as we go 

through time. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

Let me speak now to the feasibility of dose 

reconstructions for these time periods. For 

1942 to 1945 in Plants 1, 2 and 4 we questioned 

the feasibility of doing dose reconstructions 

for that time frame. We don't think that it is 

feasible with sufficient accuracy. That is 

because we lack sufficient information to 

estimate the internal dose. There is no 

urinalysis data, as I mentioned. There was a 

lot of manual handling and transfer of very 

dusty materials in this process, in this 

operation, without ventilation, without 

workplace monitoring practices or controls to 

minimize and limit exposure. Whole body and 

lung counts were rare, if ever conducted. 

There was no dust sampling program of any note 

that we can identify. And of course no film 

badge data prior to December, 1945. 

For the feasibility of dose reconstructions for 

the time period of 1942 to 1945 in Plants 1, 2 

and 4 -- this is a continuation -- because we 

lack enough information about source term, we 

believe it's very difficult, if not impossible, 

to reconstruct doses for this time frame. 

Again, radon exposure presents another problem 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

for us in that source term information is not 

available. We don't know the quantity of 

material that moved through the process in 

those years. And we cannot distinguish between 

job categories or functions of jobs between 

workers who would have and would not have been 

exposed to the radioactive dust, as well as the 

radon. 

Let me talk specifically now about 1946 to 

1948. For 19-- for those earlier years we've 

identified that we cannot do dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy, and 

now for these two-year time frame we're 

concerned, as well. We have limited workplace 

monitoring information again. There's no 

recognized formal health physics program or 

monitoring program at this time frame. The 

diversity of processes involving the source 

terms at Mallinckrodt limit our ability to use 

the information independently of the monitoring 

data and to estimate maximum doses for 

employees. 

Some worker monitoring data is unreliable, and 

this is especially focused on the internal 

exposure to radioactive dust. And documents 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

exist that have been provided by the petitioner 

and we were aware of that raise questions and 

concerns regarding the integrity of the 

handling and the reporting of the monitoring 

information. 

 Feasibility for the time frame of 1949 to 1957. 

Beginning in 1949 Mallinckrodt established an 

operational program for monitoring of 

employees, as well as work areas -- a formal 

program. The monitoring was conducted under 

the oversight of the Atomic Energy's -- 

Commission's Health and Safety Laboratory out 

of New York. And there is sufficient 

information from the various monitoring 

activities, together with the information on 

the source term and the processes that were 

used at the time, that we can validate and 

cross-compare the different datasets that we 

have. And in your report you can read through 

the report and see the variety of dose 

information and different kinds of monitoring 

data that we have to use in that regard. 

Continuing on with the feasibility for '49 to 

'57, the petitioners have provided us with 

documentation that raises concerns about the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

monitoring practices in the early years, and 

NIOSH questions whether the data integrity 

issue outweighs the scientific and the 

technical information that we have at hand. 

NIOSH has not resolved how to weigh the 

scientific and the technical evidence which 

supports the feasibility to do dose 

reconstruction against those concerns that are 

raised about the integrity of the monitoring 

data. So NIOSH is seeking the advice of this 

Advisory Board on how to assess weight of the 

evidence in this regard. 

Now the report summary findings, and 

essentially for health endangerment for all 

three classes we have identified that health 

was endangered because of the type of process 

and the type of radioactive material that was 

employed in that process. We have not 

identified nor did the petitioner provide any 

documentation that incidents occurred, 

incidents of a criticality nature occurred, so 

our health endangerment is centered on chronic 

exposures that occurred over the course of 

time. And so we would say that it would take 

250 days to qualify to be a member of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

class. 

 Proposed class definitions. Our proposed class 

definitions are the following: All DOE, DOE 

contractors or subcontractors or Atomic Weapons 

employees who worked at the Uranium Division of 

Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street facility during 

the period of 1942 to 1945, one class; all DOE 

and DOE contractors or subcontractors or AWE 

employees who worked at the Uranium Division at 

the Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street during the 

period of 1946 to 1948; and all DOE or DOE 

contractors or subcontractors and AWE employees 

who worked at the Uranium Division of 

Mallinckrodt during 1949 through 1957. 

And for this latter class we're seeking the 

advice of the Board concerning data -- matters 

of data reliability. 

To sum up, we do not find it feasible to do 

dose reconstructions for the class from 1942 to 

1945. We find that their health was 

endangered. 

We find that the period from 1946 to 1948 we do 

not have the ability to provide sufficient dose 

reconstructions, and their health was 

endangered for that particular class. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

For the period 1949 to 1957 we're seeking the 

Board's advice before a determination is made 

about feasibility on dose reconstruction, and 

we also find that for that class health was 

endangered. 

Thank you. I'll take any questions if I can. 

I would like to -- before I take questions, I 

would like to note that LaVon Rutherford, who 

is the lead technical evaluator for this 

particular -- for Mallinckrodt and Dan 

Stempfley from our contractor are here in the 

audience, and they may help me out if I get 

into a technical question I can't field. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Larry, in order to allow us to 

proceed with particularly the public comment 

period, I think it'll be important for us to 

save our questions till the Board discussion 

period. We have been asked by the Department 

of Labor for the opportunity to make a few 

comments following your presentation since 

Department of Labor is a major player in this 

whole process. And for that purpose the Chair 

will recognize Shelby Hallmark from the 

Department of Labor to make a few remarks, and 

then we will move to the public comment 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

session. 

Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: Could I ask just one quick 

question of Larry? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just -- it has to do with 

some of the documents that we've got -- at 

least some that I want to make sure I 

understand. For your evaluation report 

regarding the feasibility and the -- the '49 to 

'57 period, that is based on this -- some of 

the work contained in the draft revision of the 

site profile -- Mallinckrodt site profile? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it is. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, so --

 MR. ELLIOTT: And in this document, the report 

that we give you, we cited the information that 

we were using from the site profile. In other 

words, we quoted it from the site profile. 

know that Mr. Griffon asked for a copy of the 

draft site profile. We provided that to the 

Board, as well, but you really didn't need it. 

I mean it elaborates more, but the information 

that we were using in this evaluation report 

from that draft site profile is fully phrased 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

in the -- in the report itself. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, thanks. That's --

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MR. HALLMARK: Dr. Ziemer --

 DR. ZIEMER: Shelby Hallmark. 

MR. HALLMARK: Yeah, Shelby Hallmark. I'd like 

to, if I may, defer my comments until after the 

petitioners have made their comments. I think 

it'd be --

 DR. ZIEMER: Fine. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- more appropriate. 

PETITIONERS PRESENTATION OF COMMENTS ON REPORT 

AND PUBLIC COMMENT

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Now we have the opportunity 

to hear from the petitioners, as well as 

members of the public. I think we'll begin 

with Denise Brock, who represents the 

petitioners, and then others can follow. 

We ask -- and I have a list of individuals who 

have signed up to address the group. And for 

this particular session we would ask that those 

who speak confine themselves to the 

Mallinckrodt situation. I can't always tell 

from the sign-up list, for example, if people 

are here from other sites or have -- or wish to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

speak on other issues, but we do want to 

reserve this particular session to those folks 

specifically from Mallinckrodt and who have 

comments relative to the petition itself. 

 So Denise, pleased to have you here today, and 

please proceed. 

MS. BROCK: Well, I'd first like to start and 

say that I have bronchitis and I'm having 

difficulty breathing, and I'm coughing a lot so 

I hope you will all bear with me because I'm 

sure when I cough it's going to be rather loud. 

First of all, I would like to thank the 

Advisory Board for meeting in St. Louis and 

affording us time on your busy agenda. We 

would also like to thank Dr. John Howard, Dr. 

Lew Wade and the OCAS staff, as well as Senator 

Kit Bond -- thank you very much, Senator Kit 

Bond and the members of the Missouri 

Congressional Delegation who have been so 

helpful in this SEC process. Welcome to the 

many claimants and members of the public who 

are here today. 

For those of you who are not familiar with me 

or the reason that I'm involved in this, I'd 

like to go over a little bit of background. My 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

father was a Mallinckrodt employee. This was 

before I was born. He worked from 1945 until 

1958. And from the point that I knew my father 

or my beginning years, my father was terminally 

ill. That affected many things in our life. 

Not just my father himself, but our entire 

family. 

His illness, which began as a lung cancer in 

1978 and then had spread to his liver, brain 

and eventually leukemia, which I hadn't even 

found out until years later, was absolutely 

catastrophic. Not just emotionally, but 

physically, financially -- anything imaginable. 

We lost our home. We lost vehicles. 

Everything you can imagine happened. But he 

never complained. 

My mother worked her entire life, and you just 

don't think much about that because it's just 

something that happened. They never 

complained. They never poor-mouthed. And I 

guess if that's all you know, that's all you 

know. 

I had some personal things happen to me as a 

child because of his illness or associated 

maybe with that illness. For example, we in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

the beginning had went to a private school or a 

Catholic school -- and maybe some of you are 

familiar with that, maybe not. But I knew he 

was terminally ill and I knew that the 

household was somewhat chaotic. We spent many 

nights, many holidays, many days in hospital 

rooms. Of course my mother had to bounce back 

and forth between a terminally ill husband, a 

job or two and two small children. 

About the age of seven -- this is pretty 

personal -- I started to urinate blood. I 

never wanted to say anything for several 

reasons. One, I was just a goofy little kid, 

and I think in the back of my mind I thought he 

was dying, maybe I caught something, maybe I 

would die, too. I also didn't want to upset 

the household any further. And then of course 

the Catholic part kicked in and I thought maybe 

I did something wrong to cause this bleeding. 

So I used to pray a lot, and life went on. 

 And eventually my father passed away in my 

brother's arms while we were still in high 

school. My mother continued to work her whole 

life. 

I also have an aunt -- my favorite aunt, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

actually, which is my mother's sister -- who is 

here today. Her name is Helen Lynch. Her 

children are my closest cousins, and my cousins 

are -- a couple of my cousins are here today. 

My uncle also worked at that facility and was 

involved in a terrible incident. He was burned 

terribly. They are here today. 

Just ironically enough, I think God works in 

mysterious ways, in the year 2000 I happened to 

hear about this law and I though wow, sounded 

pretty simple. My mom was 78 at the time, 

working full time to make ends meet. She was 

getting tired. Her health was failing. And I 

thought wow, $150,000, that would sure be 

helpful to her if a refrigerator broke down, or 

maybe she could actually pay a pharmaceutical 

bill and her house payment. I thought it would 

be quite helpful, so we filed a claim. And 

without going into all the dramatics of that, 

we have been quite successful. Her claim had 

been adjudicated positively, so in other words, 

my mother has been compensated and I'm thrilled 

with that, believe me. 

I have a co-petitioner. Her name's Patricia 

Almon* -- where is she? There she is -- don't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

leave me. She is also a survivor and she has 

also received benefits under this program, and 

she will speak later in reference to her 

experiences as a survivor and to her 

experiences in this program. 

You know, we -- we continue this fight, even 

after being compensated, and a lot of people 

don't understand that. But we do this because 

of our experiences and our passion for these 

claimants, and actually love for these 

claimants. I have stood by many bedsides 

watching these people die while waiting for 

their compensation, and I mean many. And we're 

not here beseeching you for compensation for 

ourselves. We are here on behalf of those 

workers and survivors who need an advocate and 

cannot fathom the complexity of this program. 

However, we are simple working class people. 

We do not have degrees. We cannot be called 

"Doctor" when addressed by others in this 

formal forum. We do not have science advisors, 

consultants or technical qualifications. But 

we do know how to read documents and file FOIA 

requests, or Freedom of Information Act 

requests. We do know how to interview workers. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

Our case today would be immeasurably 

strengthened if we had resources for technical 

advisors. We would urge NIOSH to consider 

small technical assistance grants to 

universities or non-profits which could help 

petitioners level the playing field. 

And what I mean by that is I am just an 

everyday person. I didn't go to school for 

this. I just have a love for these claimants. 

And I just threw myself into this with the help 

of my family and Board members. And when I 

filed this petition -- I remember when I 

originally found this -- this provision, this 

SEC provision, I thought what the heck, why 

don't I try that, and I did it. But believe 

me, it is a -- it is a very hard job. I had to 

put all of this together. I wrote the petition 

myself, and I'm sure that it was nowhere near 

as eloquent as a university might do. I did 

the best I could. But in doing so, I left 

myself in the line of fire to kind of be picked 

apart. But that's okay because I was ready for 

that. I just did the best I could. 

So I'll say no more about that other than I 

just think it would be helpful for future SEC 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

petitioners to maybe have some help because 

most of us are not doctors or have degrees in 

this area. 

I would like to give you a little bit of 

background, for those of you that don't know 

the Mallinckrodt downtown facility. It was not 

designed for manufacturing and processing 

uranium. One of the uranium facilities was a 

sash and door plant. The other was a chemical 

processing plant or pharmaceutical. None of 

these were expected to operate for more than a 

few months. Mallinckrodt ran from 1942 until 

1957 downtown. 

This was a highly secretive operation. 

According to a memo by a Mallinckrodt health 

and safety director, he wrote -- and I quote -- 

In 1949 the Mallinckrodt operations were still 

highly classified. Before 1947 only a few 

technical and management employees knew 

officially the identity of the materials being 

processed -- end quote. 

 The uranium division processed Belgian Congo 

pitchblende. During this time the United 

States government was willing to purchase any 

ore that was one-tenth of one percent pure 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

uranium. This Belgian Congo pitchblende was so 

hot, radioactively hot, it was 60 to 65 percent 

pure. 

Now with this came high levels of radium. U235, which is very rare in nature, it's about 

0.7 percent, I believe. A U-238 decay chain 

progeny includium (sic) thorium 230, ionium, 

actinium 227 and protactinium 231. And this 

plant, as our wonderful Jim Neton had spoke of 

earlier and others have described, was a 

sloppy, dirty operation. 

There was also a 1950 memo by Merril Eisenbud, 

who was the director of the AEC's Health and 

Safety Laboratory, regarding Mallinckrodt 

employees during the period of July, 1942 to 

October, 1949. He stated -- and I quote -- 

Early in 1947 the New York Operation Office 

evaluated the potential hazards in these plants 

and, after finding them to be considerable, 

recommend the necessary corrective actions -- 

end quote. Eisenbud continued -- quote -- It 

was recognized that, pending the elimination of 

excessive exposures, here was a unique 

opportunity to conduct clinical studies on a 

fairly large-sized population whose radiation 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

exposure for several years had been 

considerably in excess of any group for which 

data are available. 

 The AEC allowed this operation to continue with 

unacceptably high levels, and it seems as 

though the Atomic Energy Commission saw these 

high levels of work force exposure as an 

opportunity for human experiment rather than a 

moral outrage. The AEC and Mallinckrodt 

managed -- management both saw this as a 

liability of concern. 

A memo of January 31st, 1951 from Merril 

Eisenbud to W. E. Kelley* states -- and I quote 

-- Eisenbud's memo reveals that 17 workers had 

dose rates of 1,000 rem to the lung. Eisenbud 

reported that the body parts from Mallinckrodt 

workers were exploited as a resource for study, 

including two cadavers and a worker's knee. 

Bone and cartilage were analyzed for uranium 

uptakes. 

 Mallinckrodt's safety manager, Mont Mason, 

revealed some of the liability concerns and 

confronted his management in a 10/3/73 memo to 

Dr. Thomas Mancuso. A dust evaluation was done 

in 1949 by Mallinckrodt which resulted in the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

removal of 34 employees from further exposure. 

Mason noticed that this was -- quote -- a 

potentially explosive issue. In light of 

growing employee awareness of the presence of 

radioactive materials, he wrote -- and I quote 

-- Carefully drafted explanations and responses 

were prepared in advance of announcing the 

transfer of people. Managers, supervisors, 

medical staff and health department staff were 

all coached and -- and coordinated -- end 

quote. 

 Mont Mason reported that there was a 

significant liability concern which affected 

how Mallinckrodt recorded its data on dust 

studies. Mason's memo states -- and I quote -- 

As part of the caution and on upon advice -- 

I'm sorry, let me repeat that. I quote -- As 

part of the caution and upon advice of 

attorney, a formal report was never prepared on 

this study. Thus there was no document to 

subpoena, only lists of names with numbers and 

work sheets. There was no lengthy description 

for the basis of calculations to be pulled 

apart by the scientific community, with the 

possibility that such controversy would 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

undermine employee confidence in the company 

safety measure -- end quote. 

In this liability-averse environment, the 

company's own health and safety director cast 

serious doubts on the reliability of 

Mallinckrodt's dust study. This undermines the 

very basis for the use of Mallinckrodt records 

in dose reconstruction. 

Now to the petition analysis we're responding 

to NIOSH's slicing and dicing of our SEC 

petition into three parts. As you noted, it is 

being divided, one class for 1942 to 1945, one 

class for '46 to '48, and a third class from 

1949 to '57. This division is questionable, 

and the politics are unworkable. This SEC 

package looks like a compromise between those 

who believe there is no dose that cannot be 

reconstructed and those who recognize the 

limited amount and questionable validity of the 

data, the inexcusable circumstances under which 

these workers labored, and have read carefully 

Congressional intent. 

By breaking up this petition into sub-classes 

as proposed by NIOSH there are inequities 

created. For example, workers first employed 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

during the SEC or an SEC with fewer than 250 

days, and then their employment rolls over into 

the period when NIOSH says it can reconstruct 

dose. I have to question, how do you estimate 

the dose rates for a claimant in the SEC 

period? We already know the maximum plausible 

dose cannot be reconstructed, so how does NIOSH 

make this calculation? Splitting workers 

between cohorts and non-cohorts as proposed 

here is unworkable. 

As you can see -- I'm sorry, there are -- there 

are equity questions, as well. For a worker 

first employed in mid-1948, for example, for 

180 days and then keeps working for another 

five years would not be in the SEC. But 

someone employed 250 days and another five 

years, with the same work history and job 

exposure, will meet that SEC criteria. As you 

can see, breaking up this petition into subclasses creates brand new problems. 

So I welcome NIOSH back to St. Louis to explain 

to a room full of claimants, dying workers, who 

would be in or out of this SEC once the subparts get Congressional review. I hope that 

they can explain how they will reconstruct dose 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

for time periods when workers were still 

employed in the SEC time frames. 

What follows is our best effort to work with 

the SEC rule and its implementing procedures. 

With respect to Petition Number 00012-1 

covering 1942 to 1945, NIOSH recommends 

approval of SEC. We agree with the NIOSH 

report that it isn't feasible to estimate dose 

from 1942 to 1945. 

NIOSH states on page 15 of its report -- and I 

quote -- Workers were not individually 

monitored for external dose prior to December 

of 1945, except for a limited pilot program 

starting in June of 1945. NIOSH has not 

obtained any monitoring results from the pilot 

program. We are puzzled how NIOSH will be able 

to reconstruct external dose without person 

dosimetry badges in this period from 1942 to 

1945, although NIOSH's SEC report suggests that 

it can somehow come up with a maximum dose. 

We don't know if the term I quote, maximum 

dose, in this SEC report is the same term as 

maximal -- I'm sorry, maximum plausible dose in 

the dose reconstruction rule since the NIOSH 

SEC report does not use precisely the same 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

language that is applied in the dose 

reconstruction rule for maximizing dose. 

Moreover, it is unclear if the maximum dose 

that NIOSH asserts can be estimated will in 

fact ever be used for actually compensating 

non-SEC cases such as skin cancer. If NIOSH is 

unprepared to use the maximum dose for 

compensating workers in the absence of adequate 

dose information, what is the value in being 

able to say that you can estimate a maximum 

dose? I have been to several meetings of this 

Board where we get different answers to this 

question, and we hope that the Board will probe 

this issue to get clarity. 

Now with respect to the health endangerment 

section, first let us recall a few facts about 

this site. Workers were exposed to alpha dust 

concentrations between 1943 to '47 at 50 to 100 

times maximum allowable concentration, also 

called MAC, and some short-term concentration 

of 1,000 times MAC. This morning we heard from 

SC&A, Tom Bell, that these numbers could be 

even higher. 

 This class definition is based on the finding 

of health endangerment tied to a recommended 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

250 days of employment. Given that, number 

one, some workers inhaled dust level of 1,000 

MAC or higher during events such as common 

explosions during the magnesium reduction 

process; number two, Merril Eisenbud documented 

lung doses of 1,000 rem; and number three, we 

know large numbers of workers received 

radiation dose in excess of the maximum 

permissible body burden, it is reasonable for 

NIOSH to look at a shorter time frame than 250 

days because workers were exposed during 

discrete, exceptionally high exposure events 

where there was a complete loss of containment 

or controls. 

 NIOSH regulations permit shorter durations than 

250 days if there are discrete events with 

these exceptionally high levels of exposure. 

We would recommend 60 to 125 days, and ask the 

Board to consider this. As a minor technical 

matter, NIOSH does not allow for days worked in 

another SEC to be aggregated as part of this 

class to meet the minimum employment duration. 

This is at odds with NIOSH/OCAS procedure PR004, section 4.12.4.1.1 which requires that 

time worked can be aggregated into multiple 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

special cohorts. We do note that NIOSH did 

comply with this requirement in the SEC 

petition 12-2 for the 1946 to 1948 time period. 

And for that time period 1946 to '48, we do 

agree with NIOSH that the internal radiation 

dose cannot estimate -- cannot be estimated 

with sufficient accuracy for that period, 1946 

to '48. We note that there's no breath rate on 

monitoring from 1946 to '47, and scant data in 

1948. There is no internal dose data for 1946 

and 1947, and internal monitoring did not 

commence -- or did commence in 1948. Only half 

of the claimants report internal dose 

measurements, and SC&A's reviews raises 

questions about the viability of back 

extrapolation in this case. 

There is no isotope-specific monitoring for key 

radionuclides which were present in the 

raffinates and pack a big punch. This is 

including actinium 227, protactinium 231, 

thorium 230. Absent this monitoring data, 

we're dubious that a credible dose can be 

reconstructed. 

We attended a workshop held by SC&A in 2004 

with site experts. This revealed many workers 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

had received severe acid burns from HF and 

nitric acid. Some severe chemical burns 

required hospital treatment. Many sought 

assistance from dispensary, and in one case an 

HF release resulted in damage to the employees' 

cars. A massive repainting campaign was 

undertaken, and there was even damage to Mr. 

Mallinckrodt's personal car. 

We arranged for this workshop with SC&A to be 

taped, over the objections, we are told, by 

NIOSH. And I would be pleased to make this 

tape available to the Board or to NIOSH, 

because you will see from this session that 

open wounds were prevalent enough at the 

downtown plant to be investigated as a common 

pathway for radiation uptakes. And I have 

reviewed -- or interviewed numerous workers 

with these same stories. They described 

excruciatingly painful acid burns from HF, and 

this is not an isolated problem. It's not an 

anomaly. The failure to address this should be 

addressed in the SEC report and I do hope that 

the Board will consider this factor. 

On the issue of extrapolation, the 1950 

Eisenbud study of cumulative exposures from 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

1942 to 1949 indicated that exposures prior to 

when dust data first became available -- and I 

quote -- may have been moderately more severe, 

unquote, than in the later periods. We are 

unclear how one can credibly quantify the term 

"moderately more severe" in a back 

extrapolation. It defies common sense. 

We are also concerned that back extrapolation 

will not yield reliable internal dose estimates 

for the 1946 to 1947 time periods because of 

spotty data on job changes, according to a memo 

reviewing the Mallinckrodt records issued by Al 

Becker*, and knowing job changes after initial 

employment's so important to using surrogate 

data. 

Finally, as NIOSH notes and Mont Mason's memo 

indicates, there is substantial reason to 

question the validity of the Mallinckrodt 1948 

dust study and data -- I'm sorry -- dust study 

data due to the company's deep concerns about 

liability. 

On Monday Senator Bond underscored this point 

very effectively, and I will not restate his 

arguments. This is such an important 

consideration and one which takes this SEC 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

decision well over the top. However, in our 

view, a conclusion on the restructability (sic) 

-- reconstructability of dose can be made even 

without making a finding on the dubious 

credibility of the Mallinckrodt data. 

For these reasons we concur with the NIOSH 

finding that it is not feasible to estimate 

dose with sufficient accuracy. And with 

respect to the definition of class, the SEC for 

'42 to '45 time period and the SEC for '46 to 

'48 time period at a minimum should be combined 

into a single cohort. If the Board concurs -- 

if the Board concurs with NIOSH's evaluation 

reports this will simplify the process of 

determining covered time periods and simplify 

claimant understanding. 

Due to the discrete high exposure events, and 

for the same reasons as stated above, we 

believe the time period should be less than 

this 250 days. Again, instead, 60 to 125 days 

would be appropriate. 

For the 1949 and '57 we respectfully disagree 

with the NIOSH conclusion that it is feasible 

to estimate dose with sufficient accuracy in 

the 1949-1957 time period. First, the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

credibility of the data needs to be assessed 

for the post-1948 time period. NIOSH's 

position is that HASL did its own monitoring, 

and this means that there was verification of 

the Mallinckrodt data that was not in place 

prior to 1949. 

We are unpersuaded that the 1948 data is 

necessarily more credible than Mallinckrodt 

view. SCA's audit report notes that there were 

dramatically different results from monitoring 

by MCW and HASL of the same exposures. The 

HASL data is higher than Mallinckrodt's in 15 

cases and lower than Mallinckrodt's in 12 

cases, according to a chart in the SCA audit 

report, so we cannot answer the questions of 

who has reliable data or whether it's possible 

that neither Mallinckrodt nor HASL are reliable 

to reconstruct dose. This does not change the 

fact that there is evidence to doubt the 

credibility of Mallinckrodt data due to their 

liability concerns. 

Second, there is no isotope-specific monitoring 

for raffinates. There was frequent exposure in 

Plant 6 to raffinates whose pathways for 

uptakes are not well-understood. The 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

raffinates were de-watered in a Sperry press 

and contained actinium 227, protactinium 231, 

thorium 230, plus radium. Raffinates 

apparently were acidic and were neutralized 

with lime and a cake was created. This mixture 

likely created an exothermic reaction. The 

temperature of the raffinates is not known. 

However, possible inhalation pathways could 

include aerosolized vapors, mist, liquids 

oozing from the filter press and dust from 

loading caked materials off the filter press 

into the drums. 

Skin dose is also likely. Durations of 

raffinate exposure are not well-quantified, 

although NIOSH seems to think these were of 

relatively short duration. There is no 

isotope-specific urinalysis to quantify any 

raffinate uptakes, and the burden of proof on 

NIOSH is very high to establish internal dose, 

and it is circumstances like this that are why 

Congress created the Special Exposure Cohort. 

 Congress re-emphasized this point in the FY 

2005 Omnibus Appropriations Report when it 

urged NIOSH to grant SECs when individual 

monitoring was not performed. Dose 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

consequences from exposure raffinates are 

significant. Routine inhalation of even 

milligram quantities of Sperry cake, one 

milligram per month over a few years, has the 

potential for significant internal radiation 

doses, notably to the bone surfaces and lungs. 

Thorium 227, the main decay product of actinium 

227, is a potential concern for the lung dose, 

as well. 

Dose from the radionuclides has not been 

evaluated in any documents we have seen, and 

NIOSH has nothing in its Rev. 0 TBD to help 

answers this -- to help answer this question 

according to the section 5.2.6 of the SCA site 

profile review. As noted above, the TBD nor 

the SEC evaluation report address internal and 

external radiation dose from open wound and 

burns, which workers have testified -- 

testified were prevalent. Thus this is not a 

trivial or nit-picking issue. 

NIOSH concludes that there is sufficient 

information from various monitoring activities, 

coupled with information on radiological 

sources and processes, to estimate dose. They 

support this conclusion in the SEC report, page 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

32, by stating -- and I quote -- Since the 

release of Rev. 0 of the site TBD, new 

information and data have been retrieved that 

provides additional site information to support 

dose reconstruction. The TBD is under revision 

to include this information. The evaluation 

report is the result -- I'm sorry -- is the 

result of the formal review of the Mallinckrodt 

Destrehan site Street -- Street site, sorry -- 

unquote. This revised TBD is not available to 

the petitioners, nor has it been issued, so how 

can NIOSH issue its SEC report without having a 

revised TBD? We understand that it's still 

under review at NIOSH. 

 We learned just today that this revised TBD has 

not been presented to the Board or reviewed in 

its audit -- its audit contractor. We also 

learned today that the revised TBD when 

presented won't even address all of those 

issues, and I think we heard that from Dr. 

Neton. 

Is there a rush to judgment to deny the 1949 to 

1957 period in this SEC petition, or does NIOSH 

think that it can sell this decision when the 

factual basis for its conclusions remain 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

undisclosed? This program was created to 

overcome the secrecy and mistrust created by 

this government's conduct during the Cold War 

era. We cannot respond to something we haven't 

seen. And I hope you won't be offended, but 

this feels a little bit like I gotcha. 

 In conclusion, we urge the Board to consider 

the following actions: Number one, we ask that 

you approve the cohort for 1942 to 1957, based 

on the illability (sic) -- inability of NIOSH 

to reconstruct dose with sufficient accuracy. 

We concur with the views of Senator Bond. 

If you cannot do that, we would urge the Board 

to approve 1942 to 1948 as a single cohort with 

a -- I'm sorry -- with a 60-day to 125-day time 

frame for determining health endangerment 

today, and evaluate the merits of an SEC in the 

1949 to 1957 time frame, including the apparent 

justifications contained in the revised TBD. 

If this is the path you choose, we would 

respectfully ask that the Board and its audit 

contractor undertake a review to determine 

whether this SEC report for the '49-'57 time 

period is technically sound. After this has 

been concluded, the Board can then deliberate 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

on the weight of evidence issues that NIOSH 

wants the Board to evaluate. 

And I'd like to also say that we have great 

confidence in the work of SCA and would like 

the Board to bring their technical skills to 

bear on this 1949-'57 time period. And again, 

I would just urge you to -- to give us that 

full cohort. It seems the only way to remedy 

this and finally give the -- the justice to 

these workers that they truly deserve. 

We talk about feasibility. I believe that when 

Congress wrote this, the intent was, again, for 

this to be expeditious. There are all sorts of 

problems with this. You have all sorts of 

situations that you will hear about from 

further Mallinckrodt workers today, and I can 

just thank you again for listening and again 

ask you to please grant that full cohort. 

At this time, though, I would like to ask 

Debbie Dornfeld from Senator Talent's office to 

come up and please read a statement from 

Senator Talent. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Debbie, would you 

approach the mike, please? 

And Denise, thank you very much for -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

MS. BROCK: You're welcome. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the very eloquent presentation. 

MS. DORNFELD: I'm Debbie Dornfeld from Senator 

Jim Talent's staff. He regrets that he was 

unable to attend the meetings. He's currently 

in Washington 'cause Congress is in session 

this week, but he did send a statement that I'd 

like to read to everyone today. 

(Reading) To the United Nuclear Weapons 

Workers, thank you for all your efforts to get 

Special Exposure Cohort status for Missouri 

workers. Over the past two years I've heard 

from many of these workers and their relatives 

about their struggles to get the compensation 

they deserve. I share their frustration. This 

process has been too slow, and that has 

discouraged a lot of people from even applying 

for compensation under EEOICPA. As you all 

know, Denise Brock has been a tremendous 

advocate for this cause, and worked tirelessly 

to help pass Senator Bond's amendment last 

year. Thank you, Denise, for everything you 

have done and for your continuing efforts. 

Just like you, I am frustrated by NIOSH's delay 

in recognizing that dose reconstruction is not 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

possible on every case and that workers from 

Mallinckrodt's downtown facility and in Weldon 

Spring should be included in the cohort. I was 

pleased by NIOSH's announcement last week 

regarding workers at the downtown facility 

between 1942 and 1945, but so many workers 

remain in limbo. I will continue working with 

Senator Bond, Denise and other families of 

Mallinckrodt workers. As the program continues 

its transition to the Labor Department, 

hopefully these cases can be dealt with fairly 

and promptly so that people get the payments 

they deserve in a timely manner. Sincerely, 

Jim Talent, United States Senator. 

 Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Denise, do you 

have others from the petitioning group who wish 

to address --

MS. BROCK: I do --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. BROCK: -- Dr. Ziemer. I actually have 

Patricia Almon who would like to speak -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MS. BROCK: -- and we've got a couple of other 

speakers we would like to have up. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

 DR. ZIEMER: Please proceed. 

MS. BROCK: Thank you. 

MS. ALMON: My name is Patricia Almon, as you 

have heard, and my dad was Everett Powers, and 

he worked for Mallinckrodt for 24 years. My 

mother filed the original claim in 2001, but 

started writing letters in the early '80's to 

the President of the United States, to Edward 

Mallinckrodt, to Dr. DuPree* and to ORA (sic) 

about my father's illness. And believe me, 

they knew where it came from. 

 Dad had multiple myeloma and skin cancer. The 

myeloma caused stress fractures of the 

vertebrae. His cancer was chemo-resistent, so 

he suffered a lot of pain. While he was 

fighting the multiple myeloma, he also had skin 

cancers. He was bald and his entire scalp had 

to be chemically peeled at least twice. This 

is beyond painful. One of his nostrils was 

completely gone from skin cancer, and half of 

his upper and his lower lip. 

He fell because of the weakness from the 

fractures. Then he had to have brain surgery 

to remove the clot that formed. This is like 

recovering from a stroke. He had to relearn 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

the use of his arm, his hand, his legs and his 

speech. 

When my mother filed the claim she was 88 years 

old and becoming confused. She put 1983 as the 

diagnosis date, but I thought and my brother 

thought that it was about 1980 that he had 

become ill. Mom died in 2002, never having any 

compensation from Mallinckrodt. She died as a 

Medicaid patient. This money could have been a 

lifesaver for her. 

The DOL redid our claim, and it had to go back 

through redose, and I will -- can talk more 

about this in my public comment, because it's 

quite lengthy. One of the Department of Labor 

employees told me that all claims -- most 

claims are sent back for dose reconstruction 

for review, and this claim had an 

underestimated greater than 50 percent 

causation. This process stinks. It needs to 

be revised and the SEC for all Mallinckrodt 

years included so others don't have to fight 

this untimely process. Thank you. 

Could I call Dr. McKeel up to the microphone, 

please? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. McKeel? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

 DR. MCKEEL: Good afternoon to the Board, and 

thank you for allowing me to speak. The 

comments I want to make today address a 

perception on my part of a very serious problem 

with the reliability of the Department of 

Energy data about Mallinckrodt uranium division 

workers. 

The records in question are under the 

stewardship of Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, or ORAU. As we all know, ORAU is 

the major supplier of radiation exposure data 

for dose reconstructions. Whether this can be 

done accurately or at all for the MCW cohort as 

a class is a topic of discussion at this 

Advisory Board meeting. The topic is important 

and highly relevant to Denise Brocks's (sic) 

Special Exposure Cohort petition Number 12 

being considered. 

 My observations support the very -- the very 

serious allegations made yesterday by our 

senior U.S. Senator from Missouri that 

Mallinckrodt data has been destroyed, is 

missing, and has been fraudulently stated as 

zero instead of testing not done in government 

reports. These strong statements have been 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

amply supported and corroborated by the 

testimony of numerous former MCW workers. In 

addition, your contractor, SC&A, must ask the 

Board now for advice about the validity of the 

data they have for Mallinckrodt workers for 

1946-'57, a truly remarkable situation. 

USDOE maintains an on-line comprehensive 

epidemiologic data resource, acronym CEDR 

database, that purports by personal 

communication with ORAU senior investigators to 

contain the, quote, entire set of existing 

internal and external exposure data on 2,514 

white male MCW uranium division workers in the 

two publications I alluded to in my previous 

comments at this meeting. When I reviewed the 

CEDR MCW datasets, MCD 94 A01 and MFD 94 A01, 

as a registered user of the CEDR database, I 

was struck by some highly improbably ICD-8 

coded causes of death for these Mallinckrodt 

workers. I give you but three examples. There 

were seven cases where death was due to a 

fractured humerus, or a broken arm. There were 

seven cases where death was due to a broken 

carpal bone, a broken finger. There were 15 

cases of injuries of nerves to the forearm or 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

the thigh, and more could be cited. Were these 

data screened for accuracy? Certainly not by a 

pathologist. 

 Please note again that the two articles were 

published in 1995 and 2000, before EEOICPA was 

enacted, and that's -- they're two important 

dates. 

The crux of your task in considering the two 

SC&A evaluations of the MCW cohort SEC Number 

12 is whether you can trust the validity of the 

ORAU data. I say you cannot, and therefore 

should decide for the SEC petition and include 

all members from 1942 to 1957 as a class. 

 Please consider this conundrum. Dr. DupreeEllis* claimed she had sufficiently complete 

data to publish peer-reviewed mortality data in 

1995 based on MCW dust study data, and 

mortality studies on all 2,514 white male MCA 

workers -- MCW workers in the year 2000. These 

workers were employed from 1942 to '57, 

inclusive, and by the numbers must have 

included workers at all three MCW sites, 

including Weldon Spring and Hematite. And this 

was in the year 2000 when the EEOICPA Act was 

passed into law by Congress. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

If this was indeed true, then why has there 

been so much difficulty for NIOSH, the 

Department of Labor, workers and their families 

getting their dose and DOE medical records 

subsequently from ORAU? Note again that the 

American Journal of Epidemiology July 2000 

paper did not mention any missing or suspect 

data, as the author should have done if this 

was a known problem. 

You can decide the issue I am discussing one of 

two ways. Either the author's being employed 

by ORAU misrepresented the completeness of 

Department of Energy data in print and 

submitted the same to CEDR as electronic 

datasets; or complete MCW internal and external 

radiation dosage exposure data was in fact 

available in 1995 and 2000. During the interim 

period from 2000 until now and the SC&A 

evaluation of MCW's SEC petition 12, the onceavailable, supposedly complete data somehow 

became missing, corrupted or was lost and 

somehow disappeared. Or at best, dose data 

once available at ORAU to write research papers 

became mysteriously difficult to transmit to 

legitimate EEOICPA claimants and their 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

survivors. 

 The January 18th, 2005 NIOSH MCW site profile 

update meeting in Cincinnati has a transcript. 

And in that it reports six additional boxes of 

data relevant to the Mallinckrodt site as only 

being discovered recently. This news was 

accepted matter-of-factly by the attendees. 

This morning you heard that nobody seemed to 

know what was in those six boxes. No sense of 

surprise or outrage was conveyed in the 

transcript or at this meeting. I, as a reader, 

got the impression that this sort of delayed 

disclosure of perhaps vitally important DOE 

data had become really an accepted and 

unquestioned practice, yet we have heard from 

many here that the pace of NIOSH dose 

reconstructions is far too slow. It is 

abundantly clear that bureaucratic miscues are 

far too many for ordinary people to understand. 

Senator Bond reported yesterday that 30 

additional Mallinckrodt workers had died 

between his first and second letters to HHS 

Secretary Tommy Thompson in 2004 and '05. That 

story will continue to unfold. The time to act 

is now. I don't think any further delays will 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

be acceptable to EEOICPA beneficiaries or to 

me. 

The Advisory Board has reached a critical 

decision point. I urge you to do the right 

thing and vote now for the MCW SEC petition 

Number 12 to include all MCW Destrehan Street 

worker from 1942 to 1957 as the class of 

covered workers. 

I further urge NIOSH to sharply accelerate 

preparation of the Weldon Spring and Hematite 

site profiles and related TBDs using the wealth 

of available site experts, many here in the 

room. NIOSH and SC&A should consider the 

separate Weldon Spring and Hematite Special 

Exposure Cohort petition that was submitted 

with the MCW Destrehan Street petition as soon 

as possible. And as you heard from Larry 

Elliott, that was broken out and now must be 

resubmitted. All truck drivers and 

construction workers from 1942 to the present 

time at both -- at all three sites should be 

included in this second Mallinckrodt uranium 

division Special Exposure Cohort. 

The Board is further urged to recommend and 

vote for all positive actions to fulfill the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

original Congressional intent under EEOICPA, 

which as Senator Bond stated clearly yesterday 

has been thwarted in many significant and 

deplorable ways. 

Vote with your sense of compassion, as well as 

with your scientific minds and knowledge. Give 

these brave and trusting people the relief they 

deserve right away. Thank you for allowing me 

time to speak to the Board. I wish you well in 

your very difficult deliberations. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. McKeel. Additional 

individuals --

MS. ALMON: Yes, I have --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. ALMON: -- one more person, please. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

MS. ALMON: I would like to call to the podium 

Mary Barafor (sic), who will tell of her 

experiences with her husband's bladder cancer. 

Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Could we restate your last name, 

Mary, for our recorder? 

 MS. BAFARO: Yes, my name is Marilyn -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Marilyn. 

 MS. BAFARO: -- Bafaro, B-a-f-a-r-o. It's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

Bafaro. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Bafaro, thank you. 

 MS. BAFARO: I wanted to tell you about my 

husband, Ernest Bafaro, worked at the 

Mallinckrodt Destrehan Plant in the Uranium 

Division for about nine years, until June 16th 

of 1958. He worked at the same plant, but at 

another division until he was forced to take 

early retirement in the early 1980s. 

My husband was a workaholic. Whenever he was 

offered the opportunity to earn overtime, he 

took it. With a wife and three young children 

to support, my husband felt it necessary to do 

whatever was within his power to earn as much 

as he could to support them. Often that meant 

working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and 

often it meant he would be short-shifting -- 

coming off a 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight shift 

on a Sunday and return to the job for another 

long shift on Monday morning. 

 My husband was forced to take early retirement 

in the early 1980s on a doctor's recommendation 

because he needed left hip replacement surgery. 

He subsequently needed hip replacement surgery 

on his right hip about two years later. On 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

August the 24th of 1993 at the age of 67, my 

husband was diagnosed with bladder cancer. 

About eight months later my husband underwent 

bladder cancer surgery performed by a Dr. Raul 

Para* at St. Louis University Hospital. During 

this surgery Dr. Para removed my husband's 

bladder and used a piece of his colon to make a 

new bladder. The operation was only partially 

successful because he suffered from 

incontinence for the rest of his life. 

My husband's cancer treatment had another 

effect. The drugs administered to him during 

this treatment caused an infection that led to 

the gradual degeneration of his right 

artificial hip. When that hip had to be 

removed he was in a nursing home for three 

months without a hip. They had to pack that 

hip with antibiotics before they could put a 

new hip in. His right hip was then replaced in 

February 1994, and less than five years later 

his left hip had to be replaced. The infection 

had affected his left hip. 

 Six weeks after this left hip operation, he 

collapsed at home and was taken by ambulance to 

St. Johns Mercy Hospital where it was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

determined he had been bleeding internally 

severely. The operation to try to save his 

life required 28 pints of blood. My husband 

never regained consciousness and two and a half 

weeks later he died in the intensive care unit 

at St. Johns Hospital. But his quality of life 

went downhill fast after he was diagnosed with 

bladder cancer. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 

MS. BROCK: I believe we have one more person 

that we would like to speak. As you'll notice, 

there's a poster board in front of you. I 

don't know that everybody can see that. Those 

are some pictures that are blown up of a 

surgery from one of the Mallinckrodt workers, a 

female that had worked both at the Destrehan 

Street site and Weldon Spring. Her name is 

Marilyn Snyder. She is a very brave, brave 

woman, and we'd like for everybody to take a 

look at that and hear her -- her story. 

Marilyn? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Marilyn will approach 

the mike. We'll leave that up if we can during 

the break so folks can get a closer look at it. 

MS. BROCK: That would be great. Thank you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

 MS. SNYDER: My name is Marilyn Snyder and I 

worked at the Mallinckrodt in Destrehan and in 

Weldon Spring plant sites in '57 and '58 while 

they were refining radionuclides from the Cold 

War, and was unknowingly exposed to radioactive 

material. I was a mouth breather -- according 

to what some of the guys were talking about 

this morning, whether you're a mouth breather 

or a nose breather -- because I had a deviated 

septum. I was not monitored for exposure. 

had no idea what was being produced. I was 

young. I had an opportunity for a job and I 

took it. 

A year and a half was apparently long enough to 

be there because first cancer in 1975, I had 

colon cancer 17 years after exposure. They 

removed eight inches of colon. The second 

surgery on the colon resected the bowel. I was 

given a 30 percent chance of surviving one year 

because the cancer had metastasized to eight 

nodes. Despite severe nausea, vomiting, mouth 

sores and hair loss from two years of high-dose 

chemo in the veins, followed by two years of 

oral chemo, I did survive. 

Second cancer, I was diagnosed with breast 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

cancer in 2000 and treated with a lumpectomy, 

sentinel node biopsy and radiation, 42 years 

after exposure. 

Cancer number three, in 2001 I was diagnosed 

with a very rare cancer of the smooth muscle 

cells called leiomyosarcoma, and I'm going to 

call it LMS for short. This is a soft tissue 

sarcoma of wildly growing cells from the soft 

tissue part of the body and include fat, blood 

vessels, nerves, muscles, skin and cartilage -- 

apparently everything but bone. Lab results 

didn't show a clear margin after the first two 

surgeries. There was a time lapse of one month 

between each surgery awaiting lab results and 

rescheduling. Third surgery threatened loss of 

my leg if unable to get beyond the cancer. 

Twice -- well, then -- I got it out of order 

here. Well, twice a -- twice a day for one 

week after the surgery I received internal 

radiation through plastic tubes inserted 

through the surgical site, which is what the 

picture shows, then external radiation for 

another 35 days. 

The third surgery on my leg removed five inches 

of fibula. These are two bones between the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

knee and the ankle. The smaller bone is called 

the fibula and it controls foot movement. Two 

months after surgery I had excruciating pain in 

the surgical area and wanted to die. Even 

morphine was not effective. Every test 

possible was run at Barnes Jewish Siteman 

Cancer Center and there was no diagnosis other 

than probable nerve damage. 

 Upon research I found that LMS is a very rare 

cancer in the United States, but a major cancer 

in Japan because of exposure to radiation from 

the atomic bomb. Life expectancy is five 

years. I've made three. LMS is very 

unpredictable. It can be quiet for a long 

time, and then erupt after 20 years. It's a 

resistant cancer, not responsive to chemo or 

radiation. This disease progresses from stage 

one to stage four. I had stage three. I will 

be monitored by specialists every three months 

for the rest of my life. 

 Now I've discovered lumps on my left forearm 

and will see the oncologist after this seminar. 

In 2004 I developed a fist-sized benign tumor 

on my uterus. My doctor was going to biopsy 

until he was told about the LMS. He 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

immediately reacted and said it would require 

removal of the uterus, fallopian tubes and 

ovaries. I fully expected another cancer. 

The three cancers I've had are totally 

unrelated. I had genetic counseling, stated 

none of my cancers were family-related. At 

this time I'm waiting dose reconstruction for 

Weldon Springs, even though I've already had 

two of the 22 listed cancers that NIOSH says 

are exposed -- caused from radiation to 

exposure -- exposure to radiation, excuse me. 

My medical bills and emotional trauma have been 

astronomical. Fear of recurrence of another 

tumor is impossible to escape. 

How can you put a monetary value on the quality 

of my life and the physical and emotional 

stress of battling disease caused by exposure 

to radioactive material? Will I be compensated 

for this injustice while alive or are you 

waiting for me to die? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Marilyn, for sharing 

your story with us. 

Denise, are there others from your petitioning 

group that --

MS. BROCK: No, I don't think so. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

 DR. ZIEMER: I have others that do wish to 

speak, but --

MS. BROCK: Right, and I didn't know how you 

wanted to do that, if you were waiting till the 

public comment time --

 DR. ZIEMER: We have time for some additional 

ones now, and we'll have some more later. 

MS. BROCK: Okay. And I just want to thank 

everybody again, and I appreciate all the work 

that everybody has done on this. I just again 

urge you to please, please help these workers. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I have 

several individuals who -- well, I'm sorry... 

(Pause) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we'll proceed for a few 

minutes. Some Board members are calling for a 

comfort break and you'll have to slip out on 

your own for a while. As long as the Chair's 

comfortable... I'm sorry? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, we have a number of folks yet. 

There's a number of commenters here. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, she's one of the 

petitioners. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, you're one of the petitioners? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

All right, please, address the mike. 

MS. ADAMS: My name is Nancy Gates Adams. I'm 

the oldest child of Bert Gates, who worked at 

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works from 1943 to 1968. 

He actually retired from Mallinckrodt. I have 

a short statement to make. 

We're now in the fifth year of waiting for 

dad's claim to be paid. He was a 25-year 

employee of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works who 

suffered for the last 15 years of his life with 

lung and urinary tract disorders. He had seven 

children, all still alive, but his wife -- our 

mother -- died in 2002, never seeing any of the 

promised compensation of the EEOICPA in 2000. 

My surviving family members are discouraged and 

pessimistic about ever getting any compensation 

from this Congressional act, even though Dad 

died of bladder cancer and complications of 

severe emphysema, both of which can be directly 

linked to his exposure to radiation, thorium, 

beryllium and other dangerous substances at the 

Mallinckrodt Destrehan plant. 

The promised and undelivered $150,000 

reparation is a miserly amount if it is 

supposed to compensate us for the loss of our 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

father. We still miss him terribly. We miss 

his keen sense of humor and his charming Irish 

personality which his many grandchildren never 

got to experience. We missed him at our 

graduations and weddings, our children's 

weddings, and countless family events over the 

years. As my sister Mary Beth told me, I would 

rather have Dad. 

 However, a promise is a promise. It needs to 

be kept. How much longer do we have to wait? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Nancy. Individuals 

yesterday who agreed to postpone their comments 

till today, I'd like to give them the 

opportunity now, provided -- and I'll ask each 

of them if they are addressing Mallinckrodtrelated issues. 

 First, I believe it's Tim Manser, if I'm 

reading it correctly. It may be Terri. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Terri Mauser*, 

possibly? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mauser, okay, yes. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) She isn't here. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Donna -- and we'll give 

another opportunity this evening if there -- 

Donna Land? Clarence Schneider -- Schneider? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. James Boyd? Yes, James. 

 MR. BOYD: Thank you. My name is James Boyd, 

Jr. I am here on behalf of my father because 

my father is not able to be here due to his 

death approximately six or seven years ago. He 

was a Mallinckrodt employee for ten years. He 

worked at both plants that we talked about as 

well as Weldon Springs. He did have a 

qualifying illness. It was skin cancer, basal 

skin cancer. 

My father also suffered from other ailments 

that are not covered. He had -- at the age of 

40 he had glauco-- cataracts of both eyes, 

which we believe were induced by exposure to 

radiation, although during the procedure there 

is no way or any ability for us to prove that. 

During the same period of time that my father 

worked for Mallinckrodt, my mother had seven 

pregnancies. I am the only survivor of those 

seven pregnancies. She had two stillborns, as 

well as four miscarriages. 

I guess my biggest thing is I just want to be 

here to represent him. But one of the things 

that I do want to say to all the survivors is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

that as a child I, like Denise Brock, promise 

you one thing, that if you are not here, we 

will continue. We will make sure that these 

people who are responsible for what they did to 

you pay, one way or the other. I don't 

understand why these people aren't brought up 

on criminal charges. In today's world if 

people were exposed to this and knowingly 

exposed to it, I can't imagine that there's not 

a criminal court case filed against these 

people. It doesn't take a brilliant person to 

realize that these people have been suffering 

for years. Everybody who's here tells you of 

four or five, six different cancers. These 

people were exposed to something by a 

government that they fought for. My father was 

a veteran of World War II. Most of these 

people I know were there because they felt they 

were doing something for the U.S. government 

and they were helping their country, the 

country that my father would be ashamed of 

today because of the fact that this is going 

on. I can't believe -- he was -- he's been 

diminished to -- instead of being James Boyd, 

Sr., he's as tracking number, 18086. We get to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

hear about dose reconstruction. We get to hear 

about whether or not he's going to qualify, 

when it's proven that these people are dying 

from cancer. We wait as people die. All we 

hear about is the number of meetings. I was 

astonished yesterday when I heard the number of 

meetings that have taken place and the amount 

of money that's been spent, and these people 

are asking for $150,000 -- $150,000 is 

somewhere in the second -- I would think a 

nanosecond in the U.S. government. There's 

billions of money spent on whether fruit flies 

can reproduce in 30 degrees of temperature, and 

here we have people dying from cancer that 

served their country. It's atrocious. These 

people walked up to the microphone and said 

thank you for allowing to speak at a meeting 

from people who -- they -- you could have taken 

these people out behind the Mallinckrodt plant 

and shot them in the head, it would have been 

more of a justifying murder. These people 

deserve to be treated as individuals and with 

respect, and not tracking numbers. They need 

to be paid compensation now instead of years 

down the road. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

I'm related to Mrs. Snyder through marriage. 

Half of these people used to dance in my mom 

and dad's basement because of square dance 

(unintelligible). The community that they had 

at Mallinckrodt, they all loved working there. 

Half the people who walked up here yesterday 

told you about how they really enjoyed working 

at the plant. It wasn't because of the way 

they were treated; it was because of the people 

that worked there. This is a close-knit group 

of people who were raised to respect their 

elders. That's why they walked up here and 

told you thank you for the time. Well, Denise 

Brock and myself and some of the others, my 

sister, Mary Snyder and Jamie Crock, some of 

these others, we were raised to respect our 

elders, but we were also not raised to be 

idiots. We're not going to stand by and let 

our government let these people down. And I 

promise you this. I'll be here every meeting 

there'll be until you get paid. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, James. Next I have Pat 

Almon. Is that correct? 

MS. ALMON: That's me. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's Pat. Are you back? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

Okay. 

MS. ALMON: As you know by now, my name is Pat 

Almon. My dad, Edward Powers, worked for 

Mallinckrodt from 1943 through 1967. I first 

came before this Board in Las Vegas to tell of 

a problem of Dad's can-- work dates. One 

employee at the Department of Labor had told me 

that he had only worked at Weldon Springs. 

Another employee at the same Department of 

Labor told me he had only worked at the 

Destrehan Street site. With the help of some 

of the Board members and Denise Brock, we 

finally straightened this out. Of course, with 

those dates, he had worked at both sites. 

After many, many -- and I'm talking -- if 

anything can go wrong with a claim, it went 

wrong with ours. The first problem came up 

three years after the claim -- I filed the 

claim. My mother filed in 2001. They lost 

Dad's death certificate. Now how do you lose a 

death certificate out of a complete file? 

We finally made it to dose reconstruction. It 

made it through with an underestimated greater 

than 50 percent causation and we celebrated. 

thought justice was finally being done in some 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

small part to Dad's long death. 

Excuse me, I lost my page. 

A short time later I called NIOSH for a claim 

status update, and was told the file had been 

forwarded to the Seattle office. I called 

them, and they said no, the file was sent to 

the Cleveland office. 

I called the Cleveland office and talked to a 

claims examiner named Anessa Hamilton Woods. 

She told me the file was on her desk and would 

go out the next day. I waited another week, 

and I called her back and said I still hadn't 

received any paperwork. She said oh, the file 

wasn't on her desk; it must be on someone 

else's. And I said excuse me? I said this is 

my dad's complete -- completed file; could you 

please get back to me on where this file 

happens to be? She said she would. 

Then I asked her why the claim was in the 

Cleveland office instead of where it 

originated, in the Seattle office. She told me 

that the Seattle office was a revolving door 

and those employees couldn't handle the claims. 

When I asked how long the process was from 

being -- from making it through dose to being 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

paid, she told me it might take a long time 

because she personally had only sent one claim 

forward. She said they made so many mistakes 

in dose reconstruction on claims, most had to 

be sent back for redose. 

By this time I hung up because I was getting 

extremely angry. Needless to say, my call -- 

or next call was to Denise Brock. She couldn't 

believe what I told her this lady had said. 

She had not recorded this conversation, which I 

understand is standard, but did later state 

that this is exactly what she told me. 

But now I had a larger problem than a claims 

examiner whose mouth was as large as her ego. 

The Cleveland office said Dad's cancer 

diagnosis date was wrong. I told them I had 

tried to correct this problem in 2002 with the 

Seattle office. They told me it wouldn't make 

any difference. It did. We had no exact date 

when my mother filed the original claim in 

2001. She put 2000 -- or 1983 as this date. 

All my brother and I had were memories, since 

the paperwork was long lost. 

I asked for a copy of the complete claim file, 

and found notices to this effect from my 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

brother and myself to the Seattle office, and 

we had said the date was 1980. They used the 

date of 1987 since this was the date of his 

death. Ms. Hamilton Woods words were very 

prophetic, it had to go back through redose. 

We finally got compensated, but something that 

really upset me is that if this is happening to 

me, how many others are having the same 

problems? Many claimants are going through 

cancer, surgeries, taking many drugs, are 

elderly and want to give up the fight -- and 

fight it is. Many have said they have been 

sitting in dose reconstruction for a very long 

time. This process is not working and is 

entirely too long. We need this SEC. 

The claimants pay taxes, and taxes pay the 

government salaries. Our government is very, 

very good at helping out in times of natural 

and man-made disasters. This is all well and 

good, but these claimants have been waiting 

since the 1940's for their fair compensation. 

Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Patricia. Next, Joan 

Beast? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Good afternoon. I'm speaking to 

you today on behalf of my husband, who worked 

for Mallinckrodt for 13 years in the processing 

of uranium and died of cancer at the age of 48. 

In all of these exchanges today, I think one of 

the most important things to remember is that 

we are asking people to reconstruct activities 

that transpired 40, 50, 60 years ago, and as a 

survivor I can assure you it's been a very 

painful experience. 

It seems like a real injustice to all the men 

and women who worked for Mallinckrodt that, 

after so much time has elapsed, you would even 

try to piece together what really happened 

individually all those years ago and expect an 

accurate outcome. Unfortunately, records were 

lost, purposely destroyed, and even changed to 

protect the employer who thought they might be 

held fiscally responsible. 

In July 2001 Hal Glassman* and his staff from 

the Labor Department held a meeting here in St. 

Louis and assured all in attendance that the 

compensation program the government was 

offering would be administered in an efficient 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

and fair manner. That was four years ago. And 

these patriots, as the Mallinckrodt workers are 

referred to quite often, and their families are 

still searching, probing and waiting -- 

waiting. Damaging documentation regarding 

conditions and exposures at Mallinckrodt plants 

have been uncovered, but it seems impossible to 

create a fair, individual dose reconstruction. 

 Scientifically developed computer programs, 

comparable analysis, no site profile for Weldon 

Springs, sketchy individual records just are 

not acceptable, and we need to keep in mind 

this was 40, 50, 60 years ago. It's almost 

impossible to think it could be done fairly. 

In closing, since our government determined the 

need to offer this compensation program, I'm 

asking NIOSH to please recommend SEC status to 

Mallinckrodt workers, as has been done for four 

other sites, so that the intent of the program 

can be realized and the families compensated 

for their suffering and loss. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Joan. Next I have 

JoAnn Curtis -- is it Curtis, JoAnn Curtis? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps I should skip ahead for 

the moment. Or -- okay. Okay. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Good afternoon. I'm speaking on 

behalf of my sister, (unintelligible) Curtis. 

Her father was Daniel Cratchley*. He was a 

Mallinckrodt worker for quite a few years. He 

worked at the downtown location and the Weldon 

Spring location respectively. Growing up my 

dad would usually work the day shift, but 

sometimes he occasionally worked the night. 

remember stories that Dad would tell of his 

work life at Mallinckrodt. They pretty much 

did a multitude of jobs, doing maintenance, 

cutting grass, cleaning and rebricking the 

furnaces where they made the nuclear weapons. 

During this time my dad worked at both 

locations doing whatever was his job for the 

day, all the while not thinking that any type 

of harm was befalling him from his work he did. 

Needless to say, my dad ended up having surgery 

for a tumorous mass in his esophagus that was 

cancerous. That was the first time he was 

hospitalized and for his first major surgery. 

At that time he no longer worked for 

Mallinckrodt, but that does not diminish the 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

fact that the cancer he had was from the 

uranium that he had -- had exposed. And I 

would like to say here that I have records from 

the hospital that said he told the doctor that 

he had exposure to uranium for 14 years. 

As time progressed he had a few other minor 

things go wrong with him. Then he started 

having breathing problems and was on oxygen for 

the last 15 to 20 years of his life. And then 

the colon cancer hit him that took his life 

after a brief struggle, because by that time he 

no longer had any fight. 

My question to you as part of our government is 

this: How can you justify not paying for the 

damages bestowed on the workers of Mallinckrodt 

who unknowingly were working unprotected in 

environments that today no one would be allowed 

to go near in regular street clothes, let alone 

be exposed to in everyday workplace. If you 

can afford to dole out monies to the families 

of the 9/11 catastrophe, then why is it so hard 

to do the same for the workers that helped win 

the nuclear war, that made our country what it 

is today. I thank you for your time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Next -- I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

believe it's Dorothy Heist -- Heitz -- Heitz, 

Dorothy Heitz, H-e-i-t-z? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) She must -- 

she'll be here (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: This evening? Okay. I have --

there are several other names here. I wanted 

to find out if perhaps they would prefer to 

wait till evening --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Dr. Ziemer -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) -- my 

(unintelligible) would like (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Sure. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Good afternoon, and thank you 

for affording us the opportunity to be present 

here today and --

 DR. ZIEMER: Could you repeat -- repeat your 

name for our recorder? 

MS. LYNCH: Cynthia Lynch, L-y-n-c-h -- to be 

present here today and the privilege to address 

you. We would also like to thank Denise Brock 

for her endless work, devotion and 

unconditional support to each of us. On behalf 

of our family, we hope that each of you will 

consider our mom's best interests when 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

reviewing the information provided to you. 

My name is Cindy Lynch, daughter of the late 

Irvin James Lynch, Sr. and Helen Lynch. I'm 

making this statement on behalf of my mom, 

who's seated in the audience. 

(Reading) My name is Helen Lynch and I'm 80 

years old. My husband worked at Mallinckrodt. 

During his employment he was severely burned by 

chemicals. We have all the paperwork, so I 

won't go into all the details. I will tell 

you, however, that this occupational illness 

not only scarred his body, but was the 

beginning of the cancer that killed him. 

My deceased husband would have been 82 this 

year, and we would have been married 60 years. 

Unfortunately, my husband died 12 years ago 

after a two-and-a-half-year battle with colon 

cancer, which eventually took over his entire 

body. He died at the early age of 69. 

We were only able to enjoy a couple of years of 

retirement together before he came ill. My 

husband missed the opportunity to meet all his 

grandchildren because they were born after he 

died. My husband was not here most recently to 

help me bury our 46-year-old daughter who also 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

died of ovarian cancer. 

 As already stated, I'm 80 years old and now 

also have infirmaries (sic). I, too, suffer 

from cancer and struggle to breathe from my one 

lung. I am blessed to have three daughters who 

help me both physically and financially, but 

they, too, have full-time jobs and families to 

take care of. I live a very modest life and 

struggle to pay for my medications and the 

basic quality of life necessities. 

My plea to you today is to please help me and 

all the others who are requesting compensation. 

I am too old and am losing steam. It takes too 

much out of me to continue jumping through 

hoops and playing mental gymnastics. 

 She wrote that because she works crossword 

puzzles. 

(Reading) There has been more financial 

assistance spent on fighting this cause than 

what has been paid out to assist us, who are 

deserving of the benefits. Some of us who are 

left and are requesting compensation are not 

spring chickens anymore. Many of us are very, 

very ill. We have all suffered tremendously 

throughout these years. Please facilitate the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

process to expedite the compensation to us 

without any further red tape. We need this 

assistance to be able to have what little life 

we have left to be of quality. 

My dad always taught us two words when we were 

growing up, and that was "please" and "thank 

you", so we please ask you and we thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Now let me check with 

others to see whether they will be available 

this evening. We do want to hear from folks 

who are not going to be able to be here, if 

that's the case. 

 Janet Maserma*? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is this evening -- will you be 

here this evening? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Can I do now or 

(unintelligible)? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We can do it now. I would -- I 

would prefer, if there are some who cannot be 

here this evening, to allow them -- since we're 

running out of time here. If you are going to 

be here this evening, we -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) I'm not sure. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

 DR. ZIEMER: You're not sure? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well -- yeah, that's a 

problem, I'm sure. Yeah, well, please proceed 

then. 

UNIDENTIFIED: Once again I'd like to thank 

Denise for -- and everybody that works with her 

for all the wonderful things that she is doing 

for the fighters. 

My dad, Walter Reager*, was a Mallinckrodt 

employee from September 15th, 1941 to July 

28th, 1978. He retired at the age of 63 due to 

poor health. He would have retired earlier, 

but could not afford to leave until Social 

Security started. He gave 37 years of his life 

to Mallinckrodt. 

He was one of the first groups of workers to go 

into Building 51, the nuclear program, in 1942 

where he was exposed to the uranium. His lead 

operator's name was McGraw, and his safety 

foreman's name was Frank Veetz*. The only 

protection these workers had and were given 

were little small nose coverings. 

He came home from work one day in 1942 and told 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

my mom not to ask him what he was doing at 

work. All the workers were asked to sign a 

secrecy pledge. This then was supposed to be -

- the list of signatures was supposed to be 

kept somewhere in the records. They've not 

been found. I think it was used as a medical 

study for some doctor who was hired by the 

government to see what was happening to these 

workers. Dad's name was found in a doctor's 

records under a code number and a file number, 

but there was no other information in this 

file. We were told that we could not get this 

file, get any of this information because these 

belonged to this doctor and he -- he's the one 

that did the study and he wasn't going to give 

them up. 

 The workers were sometimes given urine tests. 

Dad's tested hot on one occasion, but the 1942 

records -- health records do not show what 

happened. My mom remembers my dad being taken 

to the hospital -- to (unintelligible) 

Hospital. She couldn't remember when. She's 

85 and we've been rehashing all of this since 

1997. We got our first notice to go to a 

meeting. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

There was not any information in the records, 

but there was information on 1979 paper that 

told -- telling us that Dad was in 

(unintelligible) Hospital from October 10th 

through the 13th of 1942. There was not any 

information as to why. What happened to those 

papers? 

When Mom went to visit my dad in the hospital 

she was told she would probably be a young 

widow. She was 22 years old with two small 

children. You do not forget something like 

this. 

I remember watching my dad as a child trying to 

cross the room or climb a flight of steps, he 

had such difficulty with his breathing. After 

he retired he went to many doctors trying to 

get help for his breathing. All these doctors 

have been retired or passed away. You cannot 

find records anywhere. Even health insurance 

companies that he went to are not around or 

have merged. 

We did not get some -- we did get some papers 

from a lung specialist, a Dr. Tom Schneider in 

Jefferson City. He was treating my dad in 

1993. Dad was suffering from chronic 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

obstructive pulmonary disease. His lung 

capacity was at 37 percent. We called this 

doctor again not too long ago to see if he 

could be of more help, and he wrote us back and 

said that all of Dad's papers have been gotten 

rid of. He has -- didn't have them anymore. 

I often wonder, when doctors get rid of papers, 

what happens to people like me that need to do 

a hereditary study down the line as to -- gee, 

I feel sick; something's wrong. How do I find 

this? I always thought people kept this stuff 

on microfiche 'cause you can keep a whole lot 

on a little tiny piece of -- whatever that is 

that they make that out of. 

But anyway, he was -- he wrote back and said he 

was sorry that he couldn't be any more help, 

but Dad's papers were gone. 

Dad was treated in 1993 and was given different 

types of breathing aids, like oxygen, 

Albuterin*. 

Dad lived to be 81 -- or I should say he 

existed to be 81. Mom always wanted to get 

hold of Mallinckrodt to try to get some 

compensation for his medical bills and such, 

but Dad wouldn't hear of that. That was his 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

job. He was dedicated. 

Then in 1997, after Dad died in 1996, Mom got a 

letter to go to a Mallinckrodt meeting, to a 

special meeting for the workers from the 

nuclear program who were exposed to uranium. 

Since then we have been going to meetings, 

hoping something will come for people who do 

not have medical papers proving that they were 

in the middle of all this poison and who 

suffered for so long. 

I had a beautiful sister who died at the age of 

50 from lung cancer. Did my dad bring that 

home to her? They say that uranium dust is 

very, very powdery and can travel a long way. 

 Another thing that I'm concerned about, and I 

hate to -- I always hate to be negative, but 

I've always heard that a lot of money has been 

spent to hire people to do the dose 

reconstructions and the meetings and the 

hirings of the different people. A lot of 

people could have been compensated up front if 

this money would have been put in that 

direction, and there probably would have been 

money saved. There've been a lot of people 

that have suffered with breathing problems and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

many, many illnesses. 

My dad gave 37 years to Mallinckrodt. 

Mallinckrodt gave about 35 years of bad health 

to my dad. Doesn't sound like a fair trade to 

me. 

My mom's spent a lot of years doing things a 

man does, like shoveling snow, cutting grass, 

et cetera. She spent a lot of years caring for 

my dad. He was a good employee. 

Yes, Dad lived to be 81. He lived long, and he 

suffered long. He died in 1996, in December, 

of COPD. And I think this was Dad's problems 

for many, many years, along with others that he 

had. He got to where he could not even go to a 

doctor anymore. And I thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for sharing that. Now 

let me ask some of the others -- and again, if 

you will be here tonight, we would like to have 

you speak then in order to give those who are 

not able to a chance to speak now. 

 Judy Steinkamp*? Judy not here -- oh, are you 

able to speak this evening or -- thank you. Go 

ahead. 

 MS. STEINKAMP: My name is Judy Steinkamp and 

I'm speaking on behalf of my mom, Dorothy 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

Henneys*, who has filed a claim as a surviving 

wife of Lee Henneys. My dad worked at multiple 

Mallinckrodt facilities, both Weldon Springs 

and Destrehan, for 23 years, being medically 

disabled at the age of 56. 

A couple of years prior to that time he began 

experiencing symptoms of extreme fatigue, 

weakness, shortness of breath and weight loss, 

requiring multiple hospitalizations for periods 

as long as 59 days. After each hospital stay 

he would recuperate for a number of weeks at 

home before returning to work. Within a couple 

of weeks back at work, the cycle would begin 

again. The last time he returned to work he 

was unable to make it through a day without 

lying down to rest. At this point his 

physician said he was no longer able to 

continue working. He was determined by Social 

Security to be medically disabled. 

This illness had a devastating effect on the 

quality of his life and that of his family. 

When he asked his doctor "How sick am I?", he 

was told if I didn't -- if he didn't have a 

will, he should find a lawyer on the way home 

in order to draw one up. From this point on he 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

had oxygen in the house at all times. 

Something in that environment was contributing 

to his illness. Each morning they had to clear 

his desk of the residue from the plant before 

he could begin working. He saw a number of his 

close friends, as well as his secretary, die of 

cancer. But unfortunately, cancer is not the 

only disease these workers have contracted. 

Many have suffered from chronic beryllium 

disease, a disease that 30 years ago was 

difficult to diagnose, especially if the 

workers were unaware of their exposure to the 

substance. 

 The government has made it extremely difficult 

for these aging workers and their survivors to 

claim compensation for their diseases. My dad 

first filed a claim a number of years ago. 

Following my father's death, my mother had to 

start all over filing as his survivor. The 

paperwork is lengthy and complex. In trying to 

obtain the necessary medical documentation we, 

as many others, have encountered numerous 

roadblocks. Hospital records have been 

destroyed. Even Mallinckrodt records have been 

supposedly destroyed or are unavailable. My 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

dad's physician, who was also a physician at 

the Mallinckrodt plant, died some years ago of 

cancer. How can they be expected to construct 

a case meeting the criteria that you have set? 

Have they not suffered enough? 

Thank you for your time and understanding. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And next, Virgil Rempe 

-- Rempe? 

MR. REMPE: (Off microphone) That's me. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Virgil. 

MR. REMPE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MR. REMPE: (Off microphone) I'll only be a 

couple of minutes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MR. REMPE: (Off microphone) This is not my 

(unintelligible) -- (At microphone) what I'm 

going to read to you. My name is Virgil Rempe, 

R-e-m-p-e, live here in St. Louis, Missouri. 

And this is the paperwork that has been trying 

to get my dad's compensation. My younger 

sister is here, Lorraine Gilardi*, and my other 

sister lives down in Fredericktown, and we have 

been these years trying to get this going. And 

just recently we got a denial because we did 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

not have any medical records. I've spent hours 

and hours and hours with -- writing letters to 

Mayor Slay* and visiting the Department of 

Health in St. Louis, and could not find any 

records. Went to City Hospital, which is long 

gone. They do not have any records because the 

place is empty. Went to the other hospitals 

where Dad was -- he was in four hospitals. He 

died -- he got sick in 1964 and he died in 

1969. 

He started working at Mallinckrodt before 1942 

and he worked there until 1964. Dad was a 160-

pound strongman. They used to call him Atlas 

in the plant because he could roll them 55-

gallon drums around like peanuts. And he was -

- when he got sick it took five years for him 

to debiliate (sic) into 80 pounds. I carried 

him to the hospital, and he died several days 

later. And I attribute that to his work at 

Mallinckrodt, even though we can't prove it. 

But I expect and I would like all you Board 

people to -- and I want to say thank you for 

letting me be here, and I want to thank all my 

fellow petitioners for being here because we 

have to get this job done. And I don't know 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

what else I can say except that somebody's got 

to do something. 

The denial that we have, after all this 

paperwork, is just terrible. Here's his death 

certificate. It says cause of death: 

infarction of the right lower lobe of the lung, 

multiple pulmonary emsoblems (sic) and that was 

the cause of his death. But it says source 

unknown. They do not -- and this was back in 

the '60's. They didn't know what people were 

being killed for in radiation. We think our 

dad is the same as a soldier or sailor or 

marine in World War II that was exposed to the 

enemy shooting at them with bullets and killing 

them, the same as our dad was killed by 

radiation shooting at him. 

And he used to come home from work. His wallet 

would be white. His wallet would be white, and 

that was apparently some kind of dust from 

where he was working. And like I say, it took 

five years for him to die and he's been dead 

since '69 and we really miss him. So I ask you 

to please try to get this job on the road. 

Thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Virgil. Jane 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

Fagas -- Fagas? 

MS. FAGAS: Good afternoon, and thank you for 

letting me come up here. I would like to ask a 

question. How many people in this audience 

know what radiation does -- would you raise 

your hand? How many of you know what radiation 

can do? How many don't know what radiation can 

do, raise your hand? Okay. 

I just had -- I just had to ask that question. 

My husband worked at the Destrehan plant and 

also Weldon Springs. He began working there in 

1949 -- in 1949, and he worked at the Destrehan 

plant until 1958. From there he moved to 

Weldon Springs. His jobs were porter, clean-up 

man, painter, oiler -- this was down -- 

downtown. After he started work, two weeks 

after he started, he had tightness in his chest 

and he complained about it to his supervisors 

and they said there wasn't anything wrong. 

Well, he said I never had it before. 

My husband and I were married in 1974 and so I 

didn't know anything about his condition at 

Mallinckrodt until I went through the records. 

This has been very enlightening. 

After he had his chest pains, he began 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

experiencing all these throat conditions, sinus 

conditions and some other maladies, and he was 

repeatably (sic) told that he was okay. 

 Now it's interesting because this went on for 

like five years when he was reported -- has had 

headaches, his throat hurt. There must have 

been maybe 50, 100 X-rays done and they kept 

saying there wasn't anything wrong. 

I understand there's conditions that don't show 

up for 20, 30 years. Well, his conditions 

showed up in 1983, and he was having trouble 

with his back and went to a neurologist and 

bone doctors, and they found out that he had 

degenerated disk and he had joint disease, and 

these are -- if you know anything about 

radioactivities, these are one of the 

conditions that will eventually hit your bones. 

He was confined to a wheelchair because of his 

bone degeneration from 1992 until 1997. 

Throughout our married life he was repeatedly 

suffering from respiratory problems and upper 

lung problems. And I have all his medical 

records. I don't know how I was lucky enough 

to get ahold of them, but they did mail them to 

me. I'm very thankful for Denise Brock. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

I don't know what to say to all of you except 

that I wonder if this condition with the 

radioactivity today is still going on. Are the 

people working at Mallinckrodt or Tyco still 

under the same threat of radioactivity or are 

they monitoring that today? Are they being 

examined? Are -- the office help, are they 

being monitored, or just the people in the 

plant? 

This is a good question. I would suggest that 

you might ask these questions. The --

Mallinckrodt has a responsibility to keep 

people advised. They have a responsibility as 

citizens of St. Louis, and you have a 

responsibility to ask those questions. You 

worked there, your families worked there, ask 

the questions, get the answers. And thank you 

very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank -- and thank you. Let 

me see here, Janet -- I'm have a hard -- 

trouble reading the last name. It may start 

with a W. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) Janet Woods? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Could be Woods. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

MS. WOODS: (Off microphone) That's me. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Janet. Do you wish to speak 

this afternoon or -- if you're going to be here 

tonight, I --

MS. WOODS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

also the weather. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

MS. WOODS: My name's Janet Woods. I'm here 

for my father, Darold Hench. This is a photo 

of him which has haunted me my whole life. 

Briefly, all I can say is -- I don't have what 

I was going to say; it's in my bag. Hang on. 

(Pause) 

 DR. ZIEMER: She's coming back. 

MS. WOODS: Okay, like I said, this -- this 

photo has haunted me my whole life. My father 

died in 1998 after a long illness of several 

years, which was very difficult to watch and 

help my mother through. My father died of 

renal failure, which is not a recognized 

condition. 

As a child I just -- I -- with this -- growing 

up with this photo, I had to make my own dose 

reconstruction. With this photo I, at a young 

age, chose not to have children. It frightened 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

me, the thought of it. Like I said, my father 

died of kidney failure. The kidneys act as a 

filter for toxins, and from the cover of this 

magazine in 1962, the workers are still not 

being protected. You must understand that this 

photo has haunted me my whole life, like I said 

before, to the extent that I was afraid to 

start a family in fear that my children would 

be -- would be compromised. 

You can see that I was conceived and born while 

my father worked at Weldon Springs, and as of 

now I have found out that I probably could have 

never had children and I have survived cancer 

twice. And I believe my health issues are 

related to my father's exposure and he -- his 

claim has been denied, denied, denied. And 

like I said, as a child, I can see -- as a 

young woman I did my own dose reconstruction. 

I -- I see that my father was exposed and it's 

just tragic that -- that this is just -- I just 

can't understand this -- earlier today you're 

up here talking about do you breathe through 

your nose or your mouth. It's trivial. That's 

just -- it's just wrong. As a -- like I said, 

as a young woman I could see my father was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

exposed. I mean the photo here haunted me, 

continues to haunt me. It is not right. Thank 

you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Janet. Bill -- is it 

Frischman -- Frisman? F-r-i-s-c-h-m-a-n. 

Bill? Perhaps we'll catch Bill later. 

Don Strassner? Yes. Strassner, yes. 

 MR. STRAUSNER*: Thank you. My name is Don 

Strausner. My father's name was Everett 

Strausner. He worked at the Destrehan plant in 

south -- on -- by South Broadway. He started 

there sometime after February of 1939. He died 

July the 7th, 1978. We looked for medical 

records, hospital records, doctor's records, 

records from Mallinckrodt. At first they told 

us -- Mallinckrodt told us he wasn't even 

employed there. I went looking for his 

records. I was denied hospital records. They 

were no longer available, they told me. 

Well, I got a sister similar to Denise Brock. 

She won't give up. She got all the records. 

Well, to go back a little bit, we filed a 

petition with Kentucky. It was denied because 

of no medical records. All these records now 

are in the Department of Energy and were 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

supposed to be waiting 30 days for an answer. 

I expect it to be denied. My sisters don't. 

I don't know how many of these people received 

a certificate from the War Department. I have 

one here I can read. It says (Reading) United 

States of America, War Department, Armed 

Service Forces Corps of Engineers, Manhattan 

District. This is to certify that Everett 

Strausner and Mallinckrodt Chemical Works has 

participated in work essential to the 

production of the atomic bomb, thereby 

contributing to the successful conclusion of 

World War II. This certificate is awarded in 

appreciation of effective service. August the 

6th, 1945 from Washington, D.C., Secretary of 

War. 

Now I'm most sure there's a lot of people other 

than my dad that received this. And it's a 

shame that these people's claims are being 

denied. 

I've been to a few of these meetings and I've 

heard things I couldn't believe. Ten years ago 

I lost a kidney to cancer. My mother died of 

cancer. My dad died of -- well, at first they 

said his death record was congestive heart 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

failure. He died in my car on the way to the 

hospital to get his breathing back to normal so 

he could have a hernia operation. For 15 years 

it's this chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease, which is lung problems. 

Now I'm most sure that most of these workers 

that went and got hired at Mallinckrodt had to 

take a physical. And I'm most sure any one of 

them that got hired was in good health. 

There's a lot on your shoulders right now to 

decide for these people here. You can't bring 

their loved ones back, but you sure can help 

the ones that are left. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. There's a 

certain irony, isn't there, that those awards 

were given to these very folks that are of 

concern. 

 Let's see, Mary Ginari*. We heard from Mary 

yesterday, but is Mary here? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) She had to go 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have heard from Mary yesterday 

and perhaps we'll have the opportunity tonight. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

 DR. ZIEMER: I have Anthony Windish on the 

list. We heard from Anthony yesterday, too. 

And Anthony, can you postpone till tonight, 

also? 

 MR. WINDISH: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sir? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) and I have something that I 

believe is pertinent to the Board. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, please proceed. 

 MR. WINDISH: My name is Tony Windish. I could 

not serve in the military during World War II, 

so instead I worked on the Manhattan Project at 

Mallinckrodt in St. Louis helping to create the 

atomic bomb that annihilated Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki. Now I see my fellow workers, 

coworkers, dying with multiple cancers and 

their survivors struggling to get compensation. 

We've heard from quite a number of them this 

evening. I feel betrayed by a government that 

did not adequately protect us from radiation 

exposure. And to find out at this late date 

not only did they destroy workplace documents, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

but treated it as -- us as guinea pigs. That's 

what really angers me. 

I will now read one paragraph from the review 

of the NOSHIA (sic) site profile for 

Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, St. Louis 

downtown site. I know it's a big report, but I 

hope the Board does read Attachment 3, which is 

just a few pages, and I will read one paragraph 

from that chapter, that attachment, that will 

give the Board and everyone assembled here an 

overview of the worksite conditions. This 

paragraph is easily found because it's 

italicized. Bear with me a minute, I have the 

pages folded over -- here we are. This is on 

page 88 of 102 pages, italicized. 

(Reading) There was also a fear that physical 

problems could be caused by sabotage, such as 

the sabotage and damage to an iron-cast gear 

for the ore mill grinder. Along with these 

fears of physical danger, there was constant 

fear of the FBI, who had a clandestine presence 

and was suspicious of anyone who asked too many 

questions about the secret Manhattan Project. 

Under these secretive conditions nobody dared 

question or refused to do a job based on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

unknown radiation exposure criteria. 

Again, Board, please consider this Attachment 3 

in making your decision. And I pray that the 

Board give favorable consideration to the 

Senator Bond petition as was summarized by our 

great leader, Denise Brock, and the dear 

doctor. Thank you, Board, for your attention. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I'm going to call for 

a brief break of 15 minutes here. I've now 

been given a supplementary list of names of 

individuals who wish to speak. After the break 

I will see whether some of these individuals 

would be willing to delay till the open session 

this evening. If they're not able to, we will 

try to accommodate them. But in fairness to 

everyone here, we do need to have a chance to 

break. 

I think some of the Congressional staff wanted 

to make some remarks, too. Do you wish to do 

that before the break? We can certainly 

accommodate that. 

 MR. HORGAN: Certainly everybody -- I'm Tom 

Horgan with Senator Bond's office -- should 

have a chance to speak. I think it's 

important, though, that -- you know, there's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

public comment period tonight and today. We've 

just sat through about two hours of public 

comment period. I do think it's important that 

the Board has a chance to have a discussion on 

the NIOSH presentation, the recommendations and 

the petition offered by Ms. Brock, and I guess 

I was -- on behalf of the Mallinckrodt 

claimants. And since -- I presume y'all have 

NIOSH's presentation with you. Is there any 

way to make copies to get the -- so that when 

you do discuss this, you have a copy of the 

petition so you can, you know, refer side-byside? It might make it easier for you to go 

over the points without having to try to 

remember every point made in the -- in the 

petition. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have all the materials. 

 MR. HORGAN: Do you -- do you have -- do you 

have copies of Denise's petition up there? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have copies of the petition, 

yes, we do. Yes. 

 MR. HORGAN: Okay, just making sure, that's 

all. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Then let us take a 15-

minute recess and then we'll continue. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:35 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: We’ll begin deliberations shortly 

on the issue of the SEC petition. However, we 

do want to accommodate some members of the 

public in certain cases who have driven long 

distances to address the assembly and we have 

some concerns about possibly a storm moving in. 

So I'm going to -- going to try to accommodate 

several more members of the public who wish to 

speak. 

First of all, Clarissa Eaton, and Clarissa, if 

you'll approach the mike. I know you've driven 

quite a ways to be here today and the Board 

would like to hear from you at this time. 

MS. EATON: Good afternoon, and welcome back to 

Missouri. I was here the last time you guys 

come to St. Louis, and I just want to welcome 

you back. 

I'm here once again in a plea for justice to 

the people who sacrificed their lives to give 

us the freedom we have today. I'm fortunate 

enough not to have lost a family member, as I 

said last year, but I do feel there needs to be 

more voices for the people that cannot speak, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

who have died or can no longer have the air to 

speak. 

As I said last year, you have the power to 

override this cumbersome inactivity that has 

prevented these poor souls who trusted our 

government and readily assembled not only to 

provide our militia with the materials needed, 

but also to support their families, as any 

hardworking man would aspire to. Why now has 

the government went AWOL on them is my 

question. 

If I offend anyone for what I'm also about to 

say, I apologize. I'm also here on behalf of 

someone else. You may call me a religious 

radical or whatever word you choose, it's your 

First Amendment right. But whether you know it 

or not, your hands are stained with these 

workers' blood and will always be until there 

is justice for them for what has happened to 

them and their families. Man was not created 

to be destroyed by another. When you hide your 

eyes or remain laxed (sic) about this murderous 

activity that has taken place, you will be 

liable in God's eyes. I hope and pray that my 

comment will remain on your mind and the faces 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

of these claimants will settle deep in your 

heart. Remember this: There is no softer 

pillow than a clean conscience. Please do all 

you can as fast as you can. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Clarissa, for those 

pointed remarks. 

Let me check now with a few others to -- again, 

I would like those who are able to address us 

during the public session tonight to agree to 

do so. If you're not able to, we'll try to 

accommodate you. Mary Johnson? 

 MS. JOHNSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

tonight. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Tonight? Thank you, Mary. Mark -

-

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (Off microphone) Bruning? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: (Off microphone) Tonight. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Tonight? Thank you. Shirley 

Hardin? 

 MS. HARDIN: Tonight. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Nancy Adams? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) She already 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

spoke. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Paula Graham -- is it 

Graham, or -- it may -- I may not have that 

correct. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, she's from Iowa, so 

we'll -- yes, we'll catch you tomorrow. Thank 

you, Paula. 

 Now I'm having trouble reading writing. I 

should have been a pharmacist so I could 

decipher these. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Yes? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that would be fine. You have 

copies for the Board members of your statement 

and that's fine. Please go ahead and 

distribute them. 

MS. BROCK: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

Board discussion? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we're going to do that next, 

so go ahead and distribute those, and then -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

let's see, who else do I have here. Yes, sir? 

 MR. BRUNING: Yeah, you called my name, Mark 

Bruning. I said okay, so I thought somebody 

said I'd be here tonight. I won't be. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Go ahead, Mark, please. 

 MR. BRUNING: Anyway, I had 18 years with 

Mallinckrodt. I was employed in 1945 at the 

St. Louis plant and in -- let's see, '56 I was 

transferred to the uranium division, and in '57 

we moved -- February of '57 we moved out to 

Weldon Springs. And anyway, in the meantime, 

it was in 1960 my wife was -- got pregnant and 

after about three months she couldn't feel 

life. Anyway, we wound up losing the baby. 

She carried it the full time dead and the 

doctors wouldn't do anything about it. They 

said they were going to let nature take its 

course. 

So anyway, it happened about a year or two 

years before that, my brother -- which is older 

than I am and he just passed away two years ago 

-- his wife lost a baby and my brother worked 

at the Destrehan plant and also at Weldon 

Springs. 

And anyway, then I guess I was kind of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

fortunate. They let me go in '62. I guess 

maybe that's why I'm still living, that cancer 

hasn't killed me yet. But I did have a tumor 

removed off the colon and that was in December 

of 2001. And I was laid up for -- let's see, 

January, February, March -- better than -- 

right close to four months. I had an open sore 

on the back and the doctor claimed that it had 

to be healed from the inside out. My wife had 

to bandage it and take care of it twice a day. 

And I joined this program in 2002 -- no, 2001, 

and when it -- she had the meeting out at St. 

Charles at the Festivals of the Little Hills, 

so anyway, my brother, he had -- he filed a 

claim as soon as this came out in 2000 -- it 

was either latter part of 2000 or 2001. So 

anyway, after I went to the meeting that Denise 

had, well, I got in touch with my brother and I 

was talking to him and I was telling him about 

this. He said hell, you ain't going to get 

nothing, and he explained to me how long he'd 

already been in it. He said I never got an 

answer from them. So I said well -- so I 

talked to him six months later, he said oh, he 

said by the way, you ain't going to get 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

nothing, either. I said why is that? Well, he 

said, you worked in the office. I said what 

has that got to do with it? Well, he said, the 

book states that those that -- people worked in 

the office ain't going to -- they're not 

entitled to anything. So I just asked my 

brother, I says hey, I said with all these 

chemicals floating around in the air, they come 

along and say hey, we ain't going to pick on 

him 'cause he worked in the office but you guys 

out in the plant, we're going to get all you 

guys. But we had to walk out -- I -- not only 

me, but a couple of my coworkers, we had to go 

out in the plant in the receiving department 

where our paper products was stored and we had 

to walk through the guard office, down the road 

just a little bit. We didn't get no badge. We 

didn't get nothing. We walked through that 

building to the back of the building. We 

carried our paper products back up to the 

accounting department. That's where I worked. 

And so okay, that was -- yeah, '62 when they -- 

when they let me go. But anyway, like I said, 

my wife carried that baby. It was dead. And I 

had that tumor removed in December of 2001 and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

I had my prostrate (sic) worked on in February 

of 2002 and I'm still suffering from the 

prostrate, so I'm just -- I'm like all the 

other employees -- ex-employees. I'm just kind 

of waiting and wondering what -- what's going 

on, you know. How come, you know. 

And my sister -- after my brother passed away, 

my sister-in-law refiled her claim, and she got 

a call one day from one of the offices, I can't 

remember which one it was. If she was here she 

could tell you. This person asked her how come 

you had three last names. My sister-in-law 

said well, what do you mean? Well, she said, 

you got three different names on here. Well, 

she said, my maiden name was my -- what my mom 

and dad. She said I was married once; he died. 

Then she said, and I married Tom. I said --

she said, does that explain the three names? 

Oh, this person said, I didn't give that a 

thought. 

So anyway, I'm just hoping that things would 

get settled and get this over with. And I know 

that we got it coming. There's no reason that 

we shouldn't be getting it. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I'd like to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

ask if there's any others here who did wish to 

speak who are unable to participate in the open 

session either this evening or tomorrow. 

Please approach the mike. 

MS. ROYCE: Good afternoon. My name is Ann 

Royce and my father was Robert McNutt*. All of 

his coworkers called him Mac and he worked in 

the Destrehan plant for -- and he worked at 

Mallinckrodt for 38 years. During World War II 

he became a much-decorated war hero, wounded 

twice and honorably discharged after the end of 

the war. 

Soon after, he began working at Mallinckrodt, 

along with his brother Richard. Being the 

patriot that he was, he was proud that, as a 

civilian, he could still work for our country 

to make it the superpower it is today. He 

worked in the hot room in the furnaces. 

I still have distinct memories of Dad coming 

home from work in a cab -- a cab because he had 

spent the day at the hospital. A quick look at 

his face brought tears to my mother's eyes when 

she discovered that his eyelashes and eyebrows 

had been burned off and bandages covered his 

neck and cheeks. And then his words -- well, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

that was a close one today; or I'm okay, it was 

just another spill. 

 This happened many times, not just once, and 

enough that it became a normal occurrence in 

our household. 

I also remember his heartrenching sadness when 

my uncle died at the age of 36 of leukemia, 

leaving behind five boys; the oldest was 14. 

He had worked at the Destrehan plant and then 

moved into Weldon Springs. 

But my clearest memories concern the last few 

years of his life. Bladder cancer is a 

particularly painful way to die. When it was 

finally diagnosed it was terminal, and the 

doctor said the tumor had penetrated the three 

walls of his bladder, spread out and grown like 

a tree throughout his body, and it soon went 

into bone cancer. We nursed him for a year 

until he died in 1993. 

During his various treatments the doctor who 

was administering his radiation asked him if 

he'd ever been overexposed to radiation. It 

was as if a light went off in Dad's head, and 

he told her of his radiation history at 

Mallinckrodt. She was appalled that they had 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

not been given protective clothing or gear to 

wear. She said well, we just discovered the 

source of your cancer. That of course was -- 

was long before any of the compensation rulings 

came about. 

I helped my mom apply for this compensation on 

the first allowable day in 2001. She felt that 

it was like an apology from the government for 

the hand they dealt my father and his 

coworkers. She passed away on August 16th of 

2004 without receiving her apology. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We had a request from Department 

of Labor from Shelby Hallmark to address the 

assembly, too, and Shelby, we'll give you the 

floor now. 

MR. HALLMARK: Good evening. Shelby Hallmark, 

Department of Labor. I just want to start by 

saying it's been fascinating and sometimes 

difficult to hear the stories of all the folks 

who have had such a hardship here at 

Mallinckrodt and -- and also their travails in 

dealing with the government in trying to 

negotiate our programs and that of NIOSH and 

the Department of Energy. I think it might be 

helpful, before I make any other comments, to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

say that I think that the Board, the Department 

of Energy, the Department of Labor and the 

NIOSH folks are all working as hard as they can 

to try to make this program work. It's not an 

easy task, as -- if you've been listening all 

day to the work the Board is trying to do. 

That said, I'd like to say, first of all, that 

the Department of Labor does not take a posture 

with regard to the petitions at Mallinckrodt 

one way or the other. And the reason why I 

deferred my comment earlier was that I wanted 

to speak more to the general issues that the 

Board might want to grapple with as it 

considers petitions, this one and all the 

others that will come behind, so those will be 

the burden of my comments here. 

First, we believe that the Board needs to 

clearly describe its rationale and the 

parameters of any recommendations that it makes 

with regard to petitions. I think Dr. Wade 

mentioned this earlier in the early discussion 

about this, and I think that a full record with 

respect to any recommendation is very important 

as a road map for future petitions so that they 

can be handled consistently and fairly. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

Second, to do this we think that the Board 

probably needs to articulate criteria that it 

will use to address specific issues that are 

engaged in in these petitions, and in this 

particular case that we've been discussing 

today, particularly the issue of data 

credibility and how that should be weighed and 

under what circumstances it should be deemed to 

make dose reconstruction not feasible. 

I -- we can't really articulate ourselves from 

the Department of Labor's perspective what 

those criteria might be. We have some 

suggestions or some thoughts, or maybe just 

some questions, so I'll throw some of those 

out. 

First might be should the Board or NIOSH find -

- need to find that the alleged data 

credibility problems are such that they block 

or invalidate alternative methods for 

estimating around data gaps. Or alternatively, 

are there types of data credibility issues 

which are so pervasive or so intense that, in 

and of themselves, they require that a -- that 

a petition be approved. And if so, what would 

be the threshold. In other words, if you have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

egregious issues like that, what kinds of 

thresholds would you look for to make that sort 

of determination. 

In that light I would -- the one point I would 

make is that obviously Congress, in 

establishing the dose reconstruction process in 

the first place, had in mind that there were 

data gaps and that there was a process for 

trying to work in that difficult world. So a 

standard of perfection seems to be not possible 

within the framework of the statute. The 

question is what are the standards that you 

will apply -- a difficult task, obviously. 

 Another question might be whether there's a -- 

when there's a distinction to be drawn between 

documented data tampering or erroneous data, as 

opposed to possible or potential data problems. 

Another question is if NIOSH has alternative 

estimation techniques that it believes can 

overcome specific data credibility issues, is 

the complexity or comprehensibility, if you 

will, of those techniques a valid criterion for 

judging whether a petition ought to be granted 

or not. And similarly, is the likelihood that 

there will be substantial distrust of those 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

techniques a criterion that ought to be 

considered. 

In sum, the -- the question rises to us, are 

there degrees of data credibility. And if so, 

how can they be objectively defined or 

categorized. 

And in evaluating those criteria and in 

weighing them, we believe that the Board needs 

to look at the whole universe of how the claims 

in question will be affected. And specifically 

if the Board does find that -- even though 

there are data that exist that could be used 

for estimation, that because of credibility 

they should not be, then all the claims, in our 

view, which are non-SEC cancer claims would be 

extinguished. And in weighing the puts and 

takes in how to address a petition, we think 

that the Board ought to take into consideration 

that negative impact on what has been running 

about 40 percent of the cancer claims that we 

are receiving in the program. 

So those are -- those are our comments and 

thoughts about the difficult task that the 

Board has before it, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to provide those. Thank you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Shelby, you've raised 

some very difficult questions actually that the 

Board indeed will have to grapple with. We 

thank you for those comments. 

BOARD DISCUSSION 

Now I want to first of all open the floor for 

the Board to raise questions from the -- of the 

NIOSH staff, either Larry or his staff, on the 

materials that were presented initially. 

Basically we have -- let me get my documents 

out here and correct reference numbers. We 

have petition evaluation report SEC00012-1 that 

we must react to, and SEC00012-2, so have those 

items before you. 

You have also now copies of the presentation by 

Denise, as well as the original petitions. So 

let me ask first, Board members, do you have 

specific questions now to ask for Larry or the 

NIOSH staff? 

Okay, we have a number of questions here. I 

don't know who was first. Roy DeHart? 

 DR. DEHART: I would like to address the issue 

on 00012 dealing with the uranium exposure at 

Mallinckrodt '42 -- 1942 through '57, but 

specifically focusing on the '49 through '57 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

period. 

 DR. ZIEMER: This would be 00012-2 then. 

Right? 

 DR. DEHART: I don't show it as dash-2 on this 

-- it's draft two, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Draft two, and --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) It's dash-2. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- dash-2, as well. 

 DR. DEHART: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. DEHART: The question is, in the datasets 

that we have, on page 17 -- and there was -- we 

were left with a question as to whether or not 

we felt that this dataset was sufficient to 

move forward with the -- the third category 

that we had up on the wall, '49 through '57. 

My question really is, is there any confidence 

within NIOSH that this data is accurate; and if 

so, is it sufficient to move forward with 

trying to do dose reconstruction? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, Dr. DeHart and members of 

the Board, if you recall my presentation, I 

spoke to the many things we had to do in 

evaluating a petition, and one of those things 

is to examine the data itself for -- for its 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

reliability and how robust it is, how much 

comparison can we make in validating the data 

across datasets. I would say that yes, we 

believe that the data beyond 1949 -- that data 

from '49 to '57 -- is robust enough and gives 

us confidence that we can sufficiently and 

accurately reconstruct doses. 

 However, we're raising the question for the 

Board to deliberate on, is the integrity of the 

monitoring program and those questions raised 

with it, were -- how do we weigh that evidence 

against the scientific ability to do dose 

reconstruction. 

I don't know if LaVon Rutherford or Dan 

Stempfley would have any further comments about 

the specific data itself. They've had their 

eyes on it. They can speak to the -- there's 

large numbers of data that we have. This is 

just a simple summary of the data that we can -

- we can report to you in this report, so I 

don't know if -- is there any further comments 

from --

 DR. ZIEMER: While they're coming up, if I 

might follow up on that for a moment, we have -

- we're aware of some allegations about the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

desire, as it were, of an individual within the 

organization to not have the information known 

publicly, as it were, about the conditions at 

Mallinckrodt. I'm talking specifically about 

the -- the allegations about statements made -- 

I forget the individual -- 

 DR. DEHART: Dust exposure I think was the 

issue, they were not accurate. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm -- this has -- this has 

to do with whether they would be considered by 

the Mancuso folks and so on. I'm really asking 

is there any evidence that actual data 

themselves were tampered with versus the fact 

that the individual simply did not want the 

information to get out in -- in the public 

arena. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon Rutherford, I 

can answer that. We do have a letter from 

actually Mont Mason in 1975 where he actually 

verifies that we -- that that data was 

recovered, the data that was supposedly 

missing. There's a '75 letter that says that 

data was recovered and Oak Ridge does have 

that. And if you look at the professional 

judgment letter, it actually talks to that and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

says that -- that we have covered those gaps, 

so we do feel we have sufficient data. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and I -- as I read the 

professional judgment letter, I thought -- 

sometimes folks couch their -- these things a 

little bit cautiously. I thought that's what 

was being said, that there wasn't -- or to put 

it another way, if there had been some 

manipulation of the data, one would have 

expected it to look a lot better than it 

actually did, perhaps. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly, and I think that's a 

very good point. I think that -- the point is, 

there was definitely overexposures, but we have 

the data that's -- that we can do dose 

reconstructions from those. We do have process 

data. We have urinalysis data. We have 13,000 

urinalysis just on this page alone. We have --

in comparison to that data, we can compare the 

area dust data along with the urinalysis data. 

We can also compare the process, actually the 

concentrations. So I feel like we've got all 

those areas covered '49 to '57. 

 DR. WADE: Was this 1975 letter, is it included 

in the package or it's not in the package? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually it was found later 

on. I do have that with me, and I would -- I 

will provide that to the Board. It actually -- 

what you'll look at the letter -- if you look 

at the -- part of the basis provided by the 

petitioner, it was a letter in 1972 that -- 

that Mont Mason had identified the potential -- 

the worry of data being lost, actually data 

being lost, and there was a transfer of 

communications between Mancuso to the records 

center and back, and the concern of losing that 

data and that was a very important concern 

because that considered -- that had dust data 

from pre-'49 -- from the '49 dust study that 

was done. 

Now recognize -- that -- that letter was -- was 

communicating concerns for data pre-'49. Okay? 

That data has been -- or we feel we have that 

data, Oak Ridge has that data. There's been no 

question as to any of the data after '49, even 

if you did -- even if you had a concern with 

that statement, there has been no question with 

the data after '49. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Roy, did -- has that answered your 

question? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

 DR. DEHART: Yes, it does. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'd also like to -- there is -

- you know, there was a good point that was 

brought up, the issue of the triple zeroes that 

were -- you know, that -- they're individuals 

that were supposedly indicated having zeroes 

and those individuals, you know, were not 

monitored. That -- I want -- I want people to 

recognize, that does not prevent us from doing 

dose reconstructions. Apparently that was a 

past practice at a number of facilities and -- 

but that doesn't prevent you from doing dose 

reconstructions. We at NIOSH can take that 

into consideration that the individuals -- we 

won't -- basically wouldn't accept those zeroes 

and we would use a different -- a different 

value, so that doesn't prevent us from doing 

dose reconstructions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think Leon was next. 

MR. OWENS: So you're saying then that it is 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy 

the doses for the Mallinckrodt workers from 

1949 to 1957? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm saying as a health 

physicist I feel that it is feasible to do dose 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

reconstruction from 1949 -- 

MR. OWENS: Okay, so on the summary sheet that 

Mr. Elliott provided to the Board, under the 

feasibility block it was blank, and I take into 

account Mr. Elliott's comments, but since you 

worked on this, you're saying that that should 

possibly be a "yes" in that feasibility block? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm -- I'm -- there's a number 

of individuals that are involved in this 

process, and -- and you know, as a health 

physicist my responsibility was to evaluate the 

information and determine whether I felt we 

could do dose reconstructions -- technically 

based on the data. And technically based on 

the data, as a health physicist, yes, I do. 

Now I'll let Larry speak to the other issues of 

that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We left that block open because 

we want to hear the Board's deliberation and 

discussion on how to weigh the -- how to come 

to weighing the evidence of -- of accusations 

and allegations about reliability of data 

against what we say are, to us, clearly 

scientific and technical ability to reconstruct 

doses. So that's why we left that blank, but I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

think our report and our summary findings 

indicate that we feel we can do dose 

reconstructions for the years '49 to '57 with 

sufficient accuracy. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Leon, does that -- you want 

to follow up on that? 

MR. OWENS: I will in a little bit. I'm --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mike, are you next, and 

then Mark. 

 MR. GIBSON: My question's for NIOSH, also. 

After a history of not monitoring employees and 

putting employees in harm's way, what gives you 

-- what level of comfort do you have that 

overnight they would just all of a sudden start 

a monitoring program and accurately monitor the 

workers, and that this data is in fact correct? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I think LaVon Rutherford 

could speak to this, as well, and he may want 

to add to my comments here. But my folks in 

this -- and the ORAU contractor who performed 

the evaluation, as prescribed by our rule, have 

looked very closely at the documentation. As 

you can tell, we were -- even last week we were 

struggling to find documentation that would 

either support the Mont Mason communication 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

about losing data or re-- or rebut it, and they 

found this letter that rebuts it. 

In that review of -- of -- in that extensive 

review of all of the information and the 

documentation, it becomes apparent to us that 

there was a critical consideration and due 

process given in the monitoring program that 

was run by HASL across the weapons complex at 

that time trying to address concerns and issues 

of potential exposure, high exposures, and 

provide -- once they had the monitoring 

information, provide recommendations on how to 

change work practices, how to -- how to provide 

better protection and how to improve the 

process control parameters. That's why you see 

in Destrehan they -- they went to ventilation, 

they did other things like -- in the monitoring 

program besides just badging people. 

I don't know if LaVon has anything further to 

add, but we feel very confident that in the 

years -- from the documentation that we have 

that there was a sound monitoring program. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mike, do you have a follow-up? 

DR. NETON: This is not LaVon, this is Jim 

Neton, but I'd just like to add a little 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

follow-on to what Larry said. 

It really wasn't overnight. What you have here 

is an evolving program. As Larry said, in 1948 

there was established -- a health physics 

program was put into place. But you have 

essentially what was a three-legged stool 

emerging. You have process knowledge, the 

amount of material that was put through the 

system, in combination with workplace 

monitoring data, the air sampling program was 

emerging. And now you have urinalysis data to 

evaluate, as well. So you have a three-pronged 

approach here, and any one of those are -- you 

can balance each of those against each other to 

get a good picture as to what the exposures may 

have been, and in fact the maximum exposures. 

So those data, taken in concert -- and starting 

in '49 I think is the time period when you 

start to have, as you'll see in your little 

summary chart, all three sets of data being 

present and increasing over time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mark? 

 MR. GIBSON: Mike --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Mike in follow-up, yes. 

 MR. GIBSON: I guess my point is -- about the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

quality of the data is, you know, there were 

dozens of DOE sites and hundreds of AWE sites 

around the nation, and that's exactly why we're 

setting here today because even that the 

records that were taken weren't often accurate, 

even though there -- some were and there were 

overexposures, but there were also inaccurate 

records and that's -- that's the reason that 

the government made the admission in the year 

2000 and this law was put into effect. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I just wanted to follow up 

on the -- the question with the data validity 

that -- I'm looking at 12-1, petition 12-1, 

page 5, second bullet under section three. In 

the middle of the paragraph this says Mont 

Mason asserts the dose values of zero were 

recorded in the official monitoring records 

when samples were not taken. This assertion is 

credible to NIOSH. 

Now is this consistent with that later '75 memo 

that -- that you're referencing now? Or are we 

talking about two different sets of -- of data? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just clarify. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon Rutherford. We 

do feel that's a credible statement by Mont 

Mason, and we don't disagree that -- that that 

occurred. That could have occurred, and we 

would definitely take that into consideration. 

What I was discussing was actually -- if you 

look at the Mont Mason letter in the basis -- 

of the petition basis, the -- the -- he 

identified records that he felt were some of 

the most critical -- actually Dr. Mancuso did, 

as well -- some of the most critical records 

for recreating or -- recreating dose to 

workers, these early uranium workers, and that 

is referring to the 1949 dust study and the 

work that went into that dust study. 

Now after that, in 1975 there was an interview 

with Mont Mason and he discusses those records 

being actually retrieved -- retrieved and sent 

to the University of Pittsburgh and -- and then 

subsequently those went to Oak Ridge. And we 

actually have that data from the Oak Ridge 

people, and in that you will see the -- what 

he's talking -- what he discussed or what -- 

what shows in that dust studies, time motion 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

studies and a number of other things that were 

done for that '49 dust study report. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I just wanted to cla-- I thought 

that was the case. I just wanted to clarify 

that. 

I also wanted a follow-up question. During any 

of this time period do you have any monitoring 

records related to some of the impurities in 

the ore -- the actinium, thorium, protactinium 

-- during any of the time period in discussion 

here? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We do not have a lot of -- of 

-- I mean as -- as presented by Ms. Brock and 

presented earlier, the -- you know, it was the 

-- it was -- they only analyzed U data 

basically they were looking at alpha activity. 

We do not have actually spread out, you know, 

each isotope that was analyzed. However, we do 

know the proce-- we do know the process. We do 

know the actual content in the ore, and we can 

make favorable dis-- and I say favorable, 

claimant favorable distributions and -- in 

doing the dose reconstructions for the workers 

-- based on those samples, based on the air 

activity and based on, as Jim mentioned, the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

process data. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so you're -- the only data 

you have -- just to be clear, the only data you 

have on those -- on the isotopic content is of 

the ore itself. You wouldn't have radiological 

survey data, smear data, air sampling data, no 

worker urinalysis data. Right? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We actually have a -- another 

report that was -- that actually did a 

comparison of U and radium content -- ratio 

based on the ore, and we have -- you know, but 

we do not have specific urinalysis data or 

bioassay data of any sort for other isotopes 

other than the uranium -- except for -- yeah, 

other than the uranium. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and this -- I think -- I 

think we discussed this in Cincinnati, but is 

this later data the -- the sort of percentages 

by radionuclides, is that in this Revision 1 

that we haven't seen yet? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it is. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And is it -- do you ha-- 

is it based on the ore or -- or do you have 

information also on where different isotopes 

might concentrate out in -- and how the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

percentages might vary? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'll be honest with you, I 

haven't seen the latest because there was 

changes being made to that up till just a week 

ago, so I can't comment on that until -- you 

know, with any accuracy. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think this is an important one 

in terms of -- of sufficient accuracy. I mean 

I think we're talking about some very high dose 

consequence isotopes, so if we don't have a 

good handle -- and maybe you do, but if you 

don't have a good handle on -- on how 

concentrations vary or your range of -- of 

concentrations of -- of especially things like 

actinium and protactinium, I wonder if you -- 

we can -- you know, sufficient -- with 

sufficient accuracy, bound these -- these 

exposures or these doses and -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, as I said before, we can 

take -- you know, we can take each isotope that 

is identified and we can take claimant 

favorable -- if we had to, we could take 

claimant favorable distributions, known 

distributions that would have to -- I mean if 

we had -- if we had to, we could assume it was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

all one isotope, if that was going -- you know, 

to do a maximum dose as required under the 

rule. So I mean I think that -- you understand 

what I'm saying? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think this gets back to 

our general problems with the SEC. 

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

(unintelligible) these are standard -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) relation, yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- these are standard chemical 

processes, so it's not -- it's not a stretch of 

the imagination to be able to reconstruct what 

the alpha concentration would be for the 

highest isotope in the raffinate, given the 

chemical partitioning in that waste stream, and 

then to use an assumption that all subsequent 

nuclides were in 100 percent equilibrium with 

the parent in that waste stream. I think in 

that way you would come up with a maximized 

upper estimate of the dose, which is what's 

required for feasibility of a dose 

reconstruction. You can't -- you can certainly 

establish what the upper limit would be for the 

concentration in the raffinate, knowing the 

chemical process. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

152 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim -- oh. 

 DR. MELIUS: Actually you may not want to sit 

down, Jim. Save you a walk. But I guess I'm -

- I'm still trying to understand this -- the 

table on page 17 in the draft two issue and 

just some sense of one -- my first question has 

to do with the stability of the process over 

time. It seems that the -- I'm sort of 

interested in why you chose the cutoff of '49 

in terms of the petition. I'm not sure who can 

answer this, but was it from that point on you 

felt that the process was stable -- 'cause you 

really didn't start to have a full monitoring 

program till -- it was being implemented over 

that time and -- and -- 

DR. NETON: Could you help us out here? I'm 

having trouble on -- on page 17 I have -- table 

 DR. MELIUS: It's called summary of available 

monitor data for Mallinckrodt. It's --

DR. NETON: Which version? 

 DR. MELIUS: It's --

UNIDENTIFIED: Two. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- two. 

DR. NETON: Two? Okay, I have --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry, yeah. 

DR. NETON: Well, yeah, okay. Now I see where 

you're at. Thank you. Right, what happens 

here is there -- there are no urinalysis data 

prior -- or any -- any urinalysis data really 

prior to 1948, and the '48 data we believe were 

-- you know, there are a smaller number of 

samples and there was some question about the 

process of monitoring those data in that year. 

I think in that time period when Mont Mason 

came on board, they did some analyses and 

determined that -- I'm trying to recall here 

now, but I think the analytical laboratory that 

did those analyses had some problems with their 

standards and what-not. And so subsequent to 

that time period, though, now you have some 

urinalysis data being collected on a pretty 

continuous basis, side by side with some 

substantial increase in uranium dust data. 

There were 12,6 -- 1,268 samples collected in 

1949, which represents -- looks to be about an 

eight-fold increase over '49, so now you have 

urine, a tremendous increase in dust samples, 

and then you also have external monitoring 

going on in that time period. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

 DR. MELIUS: And so the nature of the 

individual dose reconstructions sort of 

hypothetically -- would the key be the 

urinalysis data, or are you going to be basing 

on individual exposure records, are you going 

to be using coworker data going to be the key 

piece of information or is it going to be -- 

DR. NETON: All three, actually. It depends on 

the specific case, but we would prefer to use 

the individual monitoring data where it exists, 

of course, followed by coworker data and then 

followed by area monitoring data. But 

ultimately one could conceivably -- and this is 

provided for in our regulation -- reconstruct 

doses based on process information alone. We 

don't believe in this time period that one 

needs to go to that extent, but certainly the 

process knowledge, the amount of material that 

was put through the process in that time frame, 

gives us another level of comfort that -- that 

the other three sets of -- or the other two 

sets of data we have are reasonable. 

 DR. MELIUS: I guess I'm also just trying to 

get at this -- back to this credibility issue 

is -- I think it also depends on the -- the -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

sort of the density of the data that you have 

to work with. If a significant amount of the 

data you're basing it on is -- may not be 

credible, then that would raise a larger -- 

this is sort of the issue Shelby raised -- 

raised earlier, what is the criteria for 

determining the effect of credibility on the 

program and -- and so forth. 

DR. NETON: Correct. 

 DR. MELIUS: The other -- I guess it's more of 

a statement than a question, but at least I'm 

having trouble and I think the other Board 

members are, since the revised site profile or 

the draft of it that we just saw recently and -

- and the -- our review that was done by SCA of 

the earlier draft of the site profile really 

doesn't break out these same time periods 

necessarily so it's a little hard to get a 

handle on what -- when an issue was raised, but 

certainly SCA raised a number of significant 

issues regarding this overall time period and 

the quality of the data, and I think we need to 

come to grips with that in making this -- our 

evaluation, also. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda Munn? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

 MS. MUNN: There are so many issues in the 

details that it's very difficult to get a 

mindset that's large enough to encompass the 

larger questions. There are three that seem to 

be obvious in this particular instance. Shelby 

brought most of them to our attention, because 

certainly the issue of the reliability of data 

is a massive one. 

It shouldn't come as any surprise that data 

gets better as protection programs get older. 

Being able to extrapolate data to a population 

that was unmonitored at all is almost 

impossible to do. So from the information that 

we have now, it would seem that the first 

earlier years at this particular site, 

especially until Mont Mason came on site, 

literally have no value in trying to establish 

any dose reconstruction. 

If that's the case, then that is not 

particularly a difficult decision for a body 

like this to make, I would think. If my 

understanding of that in incorrect, I would 

like for someone to clarify it for me. It's 

easy to see that once a qualified individual 

who had personnel concerns came on site and was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

working with both a government and an employer 

-- who clearly would have no reason to harm 

their own employees who are doing valuable work 

for them -- that these programs would become 

better as time went on, and the data would 

become increasingly better as protective 

programs were put into effect. 

It seems clear that we'll have to draw some 

sort of line. Whether that's the line that 

NIOSH has established now is difficult to 

ascertain, but it's -- it -- especially in 

light of something else that continues to 

develop, and that's available information. 

We were unaware, for example, that we had new 

boxes of data which haven't even yet been 

identified in terms of time and what actually 

is contained in those boxes. It seems unlikely 

that anything in those boxes would affect those 

first two or three year programs where -- 

again, if -- if my understanding is correct, 

there essentially was no documentation as far -

- or -- or monitoring of real exposure, so 

what's in those boxes probably won't affect the 

first couple of years. 

But they could very easily be extremely 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

informative in the later years that we're 

looking at in the exposures from '49 through 

'57. Given that we don't know what's in that 

and given that we have a new site profile that 

we don't -- have had -- we haven't had an 

opportunity to look through, it seems very 

difficult for us to assume that we can -- right 

now, today -- make the judgment on the later 

years. 

One of the things that we probably need to face 

is that as long as this program goes on, as 

long as people continue to look for 

documentation, we likely will be turning up new 

documentation. Anyone who has worked in one of 

these government programs and who has tried to 

follow the record-keeping process knows how 

many times something like what was just 

described to us occurs, where the records which 

were carefully guarded went from Mason to 

Mancuso to the University of Pittsburgh and 

eventually to ORAU. And for some -- probably 

to that storage place in New Jersey where the 

ark is currently in a box. 

There's -- it's difficult, from this 

perspective, to be able to say exactly when 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

enough information is enough. My personal 

feeling is I, as an individual Board member, 

have enough information relative to the first 

cohort. I think NIOSH has told us they can't 

get there from here. As far as the '49 through 

'57 cohort is concerned, my comfort level, 

personally, would be a great deal higher if I 

had an opportunity to review the revised site 

profile and to have at least sketchy 

information about the contents of the recentlyreceived data from ORAU. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And thank you. Other comments? 

 DR. MELIUS: I have a --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- separate set of -- other 

question. I think this one is for Larry. 

Denise Brock brought up the issue of the -- I 

guess it's under the health endangerment 

criteria, the 250-day recommendation. Had 

NIOSH given consideration to something less 

than 250 days? I believe in your presentation 

you referred to sort of the other extreme, the 

criticality -- criticality -- excuse me, late 

in the day --

 MR. ELLIOTT: An acute incident. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

 DR. MELIUS: -- criticality issue and 

incidents, but it seems to me there is -- there 

is -- can be a case made, at least 

hypothetically, for something in between where 

there are undocumented high exposures that 

could have occurred and there's at least some 

evidence of that during these early years, so 

could you address that issue? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. The answer is we did not 

consider a shorter time frame than 250 days. 

We are living under the governance of the rule, 

and that is either a -- we must see and show 

documentation for an incident or set of 

incidents like criticality events which would 

lead to acute exposure, or are required to use 

a chronic exposure scenario, which would yield 

250 days. To go to a shorter time frame than 

250 days will require a rulemaking change, and 

we are involved in rulemaking on this rule with 

-- because of the recent Defense Authorization 

amendment language, and so that may be 

something we want to consider in a -- in a 

rulemaking effort. 

Let me also -- not to play point/counterpoint 

with Denise -- and you did an excellent job, by 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

the way, Denise; very articulate presentation -

- but I think on -- you made -- for 

clarification, the -- you made a statement that 

I think was inaccurate, and that was on page 19 

of our report you'll find that you can 

aggregate days between the two classes. 

There's no -- no exception to just one class 

versus another class. All classes, whether 

they're the two that we have here where we say 

we can't do dose reconstruction and we've 

established health endangerment, you can add 

days across those two. I think -- maybe I 

misunderstood or mis-- mis-heard you, but I 

just want to make that point of clarification. 

We would see the 1942 to '48 essentially in the 

end probably as one class. We just broke it 

out that way because we had -- there's 

distinguishing characteristics, as I remarked 

in my presentation, that set those classes 

aside. '42 to '46 we see no concerted effort 

to really monitor anyone or collect samples of 

any sort, to any great extent. '47/'48 we 

start seeing a self-initiated program by 

Mallinckrodt, poorly administered. And then 

'49 we see the advent and the -- I guess I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

would say thoughtful and deliberate process of 

putting a monitoring program in place that was 

satisfactory. 

MS. BROCK: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Question, Denise? 

MS. BROCK: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

state that in --

 DR. ZIEMER: Denise, you may need to use the 

mike so we can capture this in the recording. 

MS. BROCK: I think what I meant by that was if 

we have a worker in 1948 that perhaps worked 50 

days and he would fall into the Special 

Exposure Cohort time period, but he just only 

worked 50 days. And then that employment 

rolled over into 1949 and it is not an SEC, how 

could you even estimate that dose if that type 

of cancer is considered unreconstructable? And 

maybe I'm not understanding that correctly, 

but... 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No, if that's your point, it's -- 

it's a point well made and a question that -- 

that this Board and we will have to grapple 

with. We've discussed this numerous times in 

the Board room and at NIOSH on how to best 

address this kind of a situation where a person 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

has one foot in a class but not enough days, 

and it's something that we're going to have to 

look at together. We don't have an answer 

today. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Leon has a comment, then Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have another question. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I think that at this 

juncture the Board needs to seriously consider 

movement in regard to the SEC petition. I 

think, though, as we meet the remainder of this 

year and next year and travel to the different 

sites, there are -- there's a lot of attention 

and a lot of focus on how the Board deals with 

this SEC petition, particularly from a 

legislative standpoint and also for the 

workers. 

I think that it's imperative that we recognize 

frustration, but I also feel that it's 

imperative that we do not allow the external 

forces to in any way influence our decisionmaking process, and I think that could very 

easily happen. 

Based on what Wanda has said, I think that from 

1942 through 1948 there doesn't seem to be any 

thought that the ability to perform an adequate 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

dose reconstruction could have happened -- 

could happen for any of the Mallinckrodt 

workers. And it's also no doubt that their 

health was endangered. I would like to see the 

Board include that time period and make that 

recommendation as one class. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I'm not sure whether 

you're making a formal motion at this point, 

but the -- at the moment, the way this came to 

us, we have two different pieces -- and we 

could certainly act on them in pieces and then 

recommend that they be joined, would be a 

possibility. Or we can simply -- we can -- we 

can join them in one fell swoop. 

We have -- we have the two issues. One is can 

you reconstruct the dose, and the -- from 

NIOSH. I'm talking about NIOSH's 

recommendation, and the answer to that in -- in 

-- for those two periods that you named, was 

no. And the other part of it, was there health 

endangerment, and the recommendation from NIOSH 

was yes for both pieces. 

And our -- our charge includes not only whether 

or not we agree with those recommendations, but 

also if we believe there is enough information 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

for us to make the decision. In other words, 

one of the steps calls for us to identify if we 

think there's other information that we need to 

make that determination, we also need to 

identify what that is. 

Before we continue then, was there a comment 

from Dr. Melius, and then -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Actually it addresses 

Leon's suggestion and also what Wanda said. 

guess I would just say before we start offering 

motions, I think we also need to formulate some 

words that justify whatever recommendation 

we're making. So I think we sort of need to 

take that into account in terms of how we're 

managing the time and what we have to do to get 

-- move these motions forward. 

Secondly, I guess the question I have -- and I 

think it's been partially answered, but I'd 

like to get a more complete answer from NIOSH -

- is that if we hypothetically, as Wanda has 

commented on, ask for additional information, 

completion of the site profile or the updated 

site profile on Mallinckrodt to -- to know what 

the time frame for -- for that would be as -- 

and also the time frame for evaluating these -- 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

this new information that's come in, both the 

box-- new boxes of information that have been 

found, as well as some of the further 

information that references the credibility of 

-- of the -- some of the data. So I believe we 

had -- we're told that it would be fairly rapid 

-- fairly quick that the site profile update 

would be ready for us, but could we get that -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm going to let Judson Kenoyer 

speak to that question because he's the man 

with the answer. He runs the site profile team 

for us for -- at ORAU, and we're putting him on 

the spot here. And I would -- while he's 

deliberating with Jim, I'll just say to you 

that we're very much interested in seeing as 

expedient a process as we can get here and -- 

and the -- and an answer for this particular 

petition. So we're going to -- we're going to 

do everything we can to get you what you're 

asking for. Judson? 

 MR. KENOYER: Sure. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: There's some pressure for you. 

 MR. KENOYER: Just a little bit. This is 

Judson Kenoyer. I will try my best to get you 

Rev. 1 within one month, and that includes all 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

the changes that -- that the authors have gone 

over with SC&A. And there will be some other 

changes later, but you'll see the changes that 

they've agreed upon with -- within one month, 

if it's within my power. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm going to put him on the spot 

here again. Will that factor into the data 

that we've recently found in the six boxes? 

think that's your next question. 

 MR. KENOYER: It probably will not. That data 

has just been captured. The data that I 

understand that we're talking about was data 

that had been in the ORAU vault, some of -- in 

-- in Oak Ridge, and it took close to a year to 

retrieve that information. And it wasn't that 

it was classified or anything like that, but it 

was mixed in with classified material. We had 

to send teams of people in there and -- and 

pick that data out, and then have each page 

checked over by an ADC, and we just -- we just 

retrieved it. We just retrieved it, so -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: How soon do you think you can -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Thank you, Larry. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- have -- have some type of 

summary, not only for the Board, but for NIOSH? 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

 MR. KENOYER: I can -- because I have other 

people looking at that data, I can also try to 

have some sort of summary within a month. 

Okay? This is two different processes, one to 

get the revised site profile through our 

document system. The other one was to have a 

couple of HPs go through that data that we've 

retrieved. 

 DR. MELIUS: Could I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, continue. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- also be -- indulge and put SC&A 

on the spot, if someone -- is John or anybody 

here? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) John's here. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. It's just a question that 

should -- should we want it, so how long would 

it take -- presume, let's say a new site 

profile's -- an updated site profile, revised 

site profile's ready in 30 days, how long would 

it take SC&A to review that, given the known 

changes that you're expecting to take place and 

-- in that and... 

DR. MAURO: I like the one-month idea. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Additional comments or questions, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

or formal actions? Wanda Munn. 

 MS. MUNN: I have one last question, and that 

has to do with our segregating the two 

classifications in 00012-2 as broken out by 

year in NIOSH's presentation. Do we have any 

problem with this Board's doing that? Can we 

again segregate those two sets once we have 

additional information? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me answer that, partially in 

terms of process. I believe our recommendation 

goes to the Secretary as a separate 

recommendation from NIOSH, so it would not 

necessarily have to be the same, or they -- 

they might alter theirs based on what this 

Board does. But for example, I believe that it 

would be our prerogative to -- for example, to 

say that those first two groups that we talked 

about we believe should be acted upon now as a 

SEC. We may say that we wish to have 

additional information before we make a final 

determination on the other, one way or the 

other, in terms of evaluating further the 

quality of that data and whether we believe it 

can be used appropriately for dose 

reconstruction. Those are some options, but I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

believe we're free to -- to recommend as we 

please, and Larry, you want to add -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No, you're absolutely correct. 

It is the Board's prerogative to approach the 

Secretary with whatever findings you have on 

any piece or all of this, part and parcel. You 

could go forward, as I said earlier, and say 

that '42 to '48 is a class, and I think we 

would agree with you on that. We just broke 

them out because we felt we needed to identify 

them with their distinguishing characteristics. 

But it's certainly within your prerogative. 

 MS. MUNN: Then is it within our purview for me 

to move at this time for us to accept the 

Mallinckrodt employees from 1942 through 1948 

as being a class that is amenable to being an 

SEC; that employees from '49 on be withheld 

from decision until the site profile and 

currently-known records have been reviewed? 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's certainly in order. I 

would ask, though, that that be handled as two 

separate motions, the first dealing with the 

early time period and then we can discuss that. 

Is that a motion that you are making? 

 MS. MUNN: I would be willing to make that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

motion if it's appropriate now. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's appropriate --

 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and seconded that -- that the 

Board then would recommend to the Secretary 

that the period -- or that the Mallinckrodt 

workers for that period -- and it also 

identifies it by facility, so we understand 

which group we're talking about -- that those 

be included in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

 MS. MUNN: I so move. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that your motion? 

 MS. MUNN: Yes, that is the motion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It was seconded. Now it's on the 

floor for discussion. And if the motion is 

approved, our recommendation to the Secretary 

would have to include the justification for 

that, along the lines that -- perhaps that you 

suggested, Dr. Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: So I just want to understand 

procedurally that then we would -- could vote 

on this motion and then separately vote on a 

justifi-- of justification? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we could -- we could 

identify what we wanted to include in the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

justification in terms of what -- we could do 

that separately or if you -- if you prefer to 

include it in one motion, we can certainly do 

that. 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, I --

 DR. ZIEMER: And then I'm suggesting that we 

handle the other period separately. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I understand and I agree 

with that, but I'm just -- I just want to make 

sure that we don't get caught in this bind 

where we've made a recommendation, a mo-- you 

know, for a Special Exposure Cohort 

recommendation to the Secretary where we 

haven't -- where we then leave without having 

produced a justification that we've all -- can 

agree on and so forth, that -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: No, as a matter of fact, there 

has to be transmitted to the Secretary from the 

Chair the recommendation, and based on past 

procedures, that formal recommendation to the 

Secretary must be approved by this group, so it 

will have to include whatever we believe are 

the justifications. 

 DR. MELIUS: Perhaps a -- take the word out of 

my mouth, Wanda. Perhaps we could have a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

workgroup that would work on a -- or some 

volunteers to work on such a justification and 

then --

 DR. ZIEMER: It would certainly be in order to 

have a workgroup even this evening -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to come to us tomorrow with the 

appropriate conceptual -- well, the words -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- that would constitute the 

justification for going forward. And if this 

motion passes, the Chair will certainly be 

quite willing to appoint such a workgroup, or 

to seek volunteers for such a workgroup. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can you restate the motion, 

just... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Would you like the recorder to 

restate it? I can give you -- the essence of 

the motion is to approve a Special -- for 

Special Cohort status those Mallinckrodt 

workers identified in the NIOSH documents for 

the periods from 19--

 MS. MUNN: '42. 

 DR. ZIEMER: --42 through '48 -- and 

parenthetically I'll mention that that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

basically is the two -- first two groups on the 

NIOSH recommendation. Is that --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's fine. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- is that okay? You understand 

the nature of the motion. 

 Are there further comments or discussion, pro 

or con? Wanda, you have an additional comment? 

 MS. MUNN: Just the comment that the 

justification for this position is relatively 

brief, should not take a great deal of either 

words or time to commit to paper. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I would assume that, in essence, 

the Board is agreeing with the analysis done by 

NIOSH and can so state. 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, I just think it would be 

important that we do more than just say we 

agree with NIOSH. I think we need to affirm 

some of the findings of NIOSH and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- so state those findings -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- that we agree with -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of course. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- and so it's more than just, you 

know, see NIOSH. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Thank you. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: This is probably just mostly 

information for myself. I might have -- might 

have missed this, but one thing I wanted to ask 

was this is only for uranium division workers, 

correct? That's how the class is defined. 

Does that -- and just for my own information, 

does that exclude a lot of Mallinckrodt 

claimants, or was everybody within the uranium 

division? I'm not sure how... There were 

workers that worked in these buildings of 

concern that were not -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Currently --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- in the uranium division, I 

guess is my --

 DR. ZIEMER: Currently it reads as all DOE 

workers, contractors or subcontractors or AWE 

employees who worked in the uranium division at 

Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street facility during 

the period of 1942 through -- and now would be 

'48. Is that --

 MR. ELLIOTT: The answer to the question, it 

covers them all. We worked with the Department 

of Labor on this particular aspect to make sure 

that we were defining it according to the way 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

they would qualify claims, and it includes -- 

in my understanding, it includes all. 

 MR. GRIFFON: For instance, guar-- I know 

guards were brought up in a separate study. 

That's all covered? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: To my belief. If they worked for 

the uranium division as a guard, they're 

included. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Richard, you have a comment or 

question? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Just a little bit of a concern, 

I guess. On Denise statements on page 3 there 

are equity questions as well for a worker first 

employed in the middle of 1948, for example, 

worked 180 days, then keeps working for another 

five years; would this person be excluded from 

this? 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is the question I think that 

Larry and Denise were addressing a moment ago 

and I -- I think the answer is that we don't 

have a good answer for that at the moment, but 

it is an issue that would need to be addressed, 

particularly if we have cases that in fact do 

enter that category, is how do you handle them. 

I suppose the first step is to get the category 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

established that there is a Special Exposure 

Cohort. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Do we know --

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't -- I mean our rule doesn't 

really address that, I think is the issue. And 

Larry, it may be that as the rule is revised -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's true, the rule doesn't 

address it. The statute doesn't address it. 

The way we address it with the Cohort -- the 

classes that are in the Cohort now, if they 

don't have 250 days at Paducah or Piketon or K25, then we get their case for dose 

reconstruction. The issue here becomes if we 

say we can't do dose reconstruction for those 

early years at Mallinckrodt, what do we do 

about those folks that don't have enough time. 

That's the question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Do we know of any such cases? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't have that information 

with me right now. I can probably get it for 

you by tomorrow, but I don't have it in my 

hands right now. 

 MS. MUNN: Given the small number of employees 

involved, you're surely not going to have very 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

many such cases. That would be a rarity, I 

would think. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we can't rule out the 

possibility, and it may be that as we go 

forward we'll have to think about whether there 

should be some revision to the rule that might 

address that. But at the moment, it's 

basically unresolved. 

Shelby, do you --

MR. HALLMARK: I have a comment to make about 

this, and this goes back to my earlier comments 

about specific criteria and how the Board 

frames justifies a petition approval 

recommendation. If the approval recommendation 

that I hear coalescing now for '42 through '48 

is based on -- after you've gone through the 

process of refining your justification -- is 

based on the absence of data as specified in 

particular respects, if then data becomes 

available for an individual who is a non-SEC 

cancer sufferer, or perhaps for one of these 

individuals who is in a part of -- part of -- 

part foot in the Cohort, you -- and data is 

available for that individual, then in our -- 

at least in our preliminary view, you haven't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

expunged that person's eligibility. You could 

do a dose reconstruction. If the cri-- if the 

criterion you are citing for not being able to 

do dose reconstructions is lack of faith in the 

data that exists, then you have lack of faith 

in the data that exists and you can't address 

it -- you can't use it for -- for any of these 

other circumstances. So it does become very 

important what the criterion you cite would be, 

from our claims adjudication perspective. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me ask if the 

Board is -- oh, Mark, you have a comment? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- just to -- back to the 

time frames. I was wondering -- and I think I 

know the answer, but are these time frames 

strictly based on the analysis of the data, or 

do they in any way coincide with production 

mission or -- or building changes or anything 

like that? I don't think they -- they do, but 

I -- I think it's strictly on a data basis, but 

I just wanted a cla-- clarification on that. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, the dates are strictly 

based on the data. The data that became 

available in the late '40's, '48 and start of 

'49 time period. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

 MR. GRIFFON: And do -- do these time frames 

overlap any critical mission or -- or -- or -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually what happened in '48, 

there were actually three different -- three to 

four different dust studies that took place in 

'48, and there were changes that made -- that 

took place in '48, administrative control 

changes and -- and as well as bringing in an 

engineering design firm to -- to come up with 

additional engineering control changes to 

support that were done in '49, so that's why 

there was a cutoff at that point. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm wondering if -- one of the 

buildings I think was knocked down early on and 

the operations were moved to another building. 

Is it -- understanding I've read this in the 

last weekend, mainly, so is that -- that's not 

true? 

UNIDENTIFIED: In the '50's. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I -- I just -- my fear I 

guess is -- is -- is sort of one of equity, 

that if -- if our time frame overlaps to a 

point where all the workers in building four 

except for the last year end up being in the 

SEC and -- and someone says well, oh, I was -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

I worked in that same building; why -- why 

aren't I in the -- you know, so I just wanted 

to see if that in any way overlapped production 

sort of milestones or missions, but I guess it 

doesn't, so... 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, yeah, but -- can I just also 

say that I think that in considering '49 

through '57 we could make a -- at a later point 

make a recommendation that would treat '49 

differently than '5-- you know, there's -- we'd 

have to --

 DR. ZIEMER: There's other options. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- we'd have to look at that 

issue. That's the issue I was trying to get a 

better understanding of and it's just hard to 

do it in this -- with the information available 

to us so far. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Again, let me ask if you're ready 

to vote on the motion? It appears we're ready 

to vote. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is Henry still on the line? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

 (No response) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any abstentions on the 

motion? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries and the -- the next 

steps then will be to ask a workgroup to -- to 

develop this justification overnight. Who 

would like to be on the workgroup? We'll start 

with that. 

Wanda, who else? Robert. Any others? 

DR. ROESSLER: What about Leon, he had some 

nice -- he had some very good words. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Leon, are you willing to help out? 

MR. OWENS: I've just been volunteered. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any others? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. If the three of you will 

take a crack at that, we'll appreciate that and 

we'll hear from you tomorrow. 

 DR. WADE: If I just might make one 

clarification -- in the discussion, the 

recommendation you make will be received by the 

NIOSH director, who will then frame it for the 

Secretary. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, understood. It eventually 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

finds its way to the Secretary, but it would 

actually go to the Director, that's correct. 

We will have opportunity to discuss further 

tomorrow -- 'cause we still have the rest of 

the recommendation to deal with -- that is of 

the NIOSH analysis. However, we're at the -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: We could go more if you need to. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think we're going to need 

some time I think on this next step. We also 

need to have a break before the public comment 

period this evening, so I'm going to suggest 

that we recess till our evening session this 

evening. We will have at the work session 

tomorrow the opportunity to deal with the next 

part. 

Jim? Uh-huh. 

 DR. MELIUS: I believe NIOSH had a document 

that addressed the credibility issue that had 

been -- had been raised. I thought -- does 

somebody have that with them here? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you talking about the document 

from the expert witness or -- it was a -- not 

an expert witness --

 MR. GRIFFON: '75 Mont Mason --

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, is that --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that document? Yes, if that's 

available. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, you guys will get the 

document. It was just handed over and they 

were checking to make -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Could you get it to us tonight for 

the --

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- meeting so we -- I'd like to 

see it tomorrow before we -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- do that. 

MS. BROCK: (Off microphone) Could I address 

that, too? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. BROCK: I would love to take a look at 

that. I filed a FOIA request for all of that 

quite some time ago and I find it interesting 

like all of a sudden it pops up, so I would 

just love -- can I have a copy of that, too? 

 DR. ZIEMER: You can have -- I'm sure you -- 

MS. BROCK: Great. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- can. Right? Is there any 

reason why -- if it's made available to us, I 

think the public's going to get it anyway. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

Thank you. 

 MS. MUNN: But may I make a comment about that? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. MUNN: This is exactly the kind of thing I 

was talking about when I said the longer we 

pursue these issues, the more information is 

going to turn up because it's not all filed in 

one place, or even two places or three places. 

As long as we have people continuing to look 

for it, we'll continue to find miscellaneous 

pieces that are filed in with other things that 

come to light, and that can't be anything but 

helpful. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. We'll see you 

all at 7:00, hopefully. 

MS. BROCK: I am so sorry, I just wanted to say 

one more thing if I could. 

I -- I understand Wanda's statement, but again, 

I'm just a lay person and I have to always say, 

you know, justice delayed is justice denied. I 

thank you for giving me '42 to '48. I know the 

workers are extremely grateful, but I can say 

this thing is a living document, as you all 

call it. It can go on forever. These workers 

and claimants cannot. They are dying. So that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

-- that's my final statement tonight on that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And we haven't finished our 

deliberations on this yet, either. Tomorrow 

we're back. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 5:25 p.m. 

to 7:00 p.m.) 

(February 9, 2005) 

 DR. ZIEMER: The Chair would like to take 

advantage of the fact that Henry Anderson is 

able to be with us for a while this morning, 

and with the Board's permission, we'll proceed 

to begin some of our work session in order to 

allow Henry the chance to participate. 

We have -- we had a working group appointed 

last night to do some wording -- proposed 

wording relating to the action that the Board 

took on Petition 00012-1 and Petition 00012-2 

with respect to the time periods from 1942 

through '48 for the Mallinckrodt workers. We 

have now this morning a draft that the 

workgroup prepared last evening. This draft --

Henry, I believe what we'll do is we'll read 

the draft. I think they are trying to FAX it 

to you, but I'm going to go ahead and read it. 

DR. ANDERSON: (Via telephone) Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

 DR. ZIEMER: And this draft deals with two 

things. It deals with basically the actions -- 

it summarizes the actions taken by the Board, 

the rationale for that -- or those actions, and 

also in a sense proposes an additional action 

relating to the 1949 to '57 time period. So 

let me read the draft, and this draft 

represents a motion for adoption by the Board 

since it comes from our workgroup. 

And it reads as follows: Regarding Special 

Exposure Cohort Designation, Petition SEC-00012 

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division. 

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, parenthesis, The Board, parenthesis, 

has evaluated SEC Petitions 00012-1 and 00012-2 

under the statutory requirements established by 

EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 

83.13(c)(1) and 42 CFR Section 83.13(c)(3). 

The Board respectfully recommends a Special 

Exposure Cohort designation be accorded all 

Department of Energy (DOE) contractors, or 

subcontractors or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) 

employees who worked in the Uranium Division at 

the Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street facility 

during the period from 1942 through 1948. The 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

recommendation is based on four specific 

factors. 

 Bullet point one: All employees identified in 

these petitions worked in one of the earliest 

industrial environments where multiple forms of 

uranium were handled and processed at a time 

prior to establishment of universal safety 

controls and standards. 

 Bullet point two: There is no record -- Board 

members, I've been informed that the word 

"reliable" is to be excluded here; there is no 

record, it's not a matter of its reliability. 

I believe that's correct. The wording would be 

"There is no record of radiation monitoring or 

protection programs in this facility from 1942 

to 1945." 

Bullet point three: A limited monitoring 

program initiated by the contractor in 1945 

provides some record, but with inadequate 

detail to allow development of accurate 

exposure data for all affected employees prior 

to 1948. 

Bullet point four: Following extensive effort 

seeking, retrieving and reviewing all available 

information, NIOSH has concluded it is likely 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

that radiation doses at the Mallinckrodt 

Chemical Works Destrehan Street Uranium 

Facility could have endangered the health of 

members of this class. The Board concurs. 

The Board reserves judgment with respect to 

Mallinckrodt workers employed during the 1949 

to '57 time period until review of newlylocated raw data is complete. This material 

may provide additional pertinent information on 

monitoring programs and worker exposure for 

that potential cohort. 

That completes the proposed statement. This 

represents a motion before the Board, does not 

require a second. It is now open for 

discussion. 

DR. ANDERSON: Paul, who was on the 

subcommittee who drafted it? 

 DR. ZIEMER: This was drafted by Wanda Munn, 

Leon Owens and Bob Presley. 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay, thanks. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The Chair notes that the last 

paragraph of the document was not fully 

discussed yesterday and really it's the first 

part that, in essence, was approved, in a sense 

conceptually. And certainly the Chair is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

willing to break this into two motions if the 

assembly so desires. Otherwise I'll simply 

regard it as a single motion. Is there -- it 

only requires one person to divide the motion. 

Does anyone wish to divide the motion? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes, I do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There's desire to divide the 

motion and it is so ordered. We will then act 

on the first part, which is everything but the 

last paragraph. 

We will now discuss then the first motion, 

which is everything through the four bullet 

points. 

MS. BROCK: Excuse me, Dr. Ziemer. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

MS. BROCK: It's Denise Brock. 

 DR. ZIEMER: A question for --

MS. BROCK: Yeah, I do have a question. I 

wanted to know if I could ask a couple of 

questions through this. I'm just a little 

confused. I was curious if -- if that 

recommendation -- does that -- does that 

recommendation preclude the reconstruction of 

external dose? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Which recommendation are you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

referring to? 

MS. BROCK: The '42 to '48. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The --

MS. BROCK: The reconstructability of external 

dose. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The '42 through '48 period under 

this recommendation becomes -- the 

recommendation is that it become part of the 

Special Exposure Cohort, if that's what you're 

asking. 

MS. BROCK: I'm asking about like -- I think 

what I'm asking is the remaining people, like 

people that have skin cancer for external dose. 

Can that still be reconstructed or does that -- 

it can, Dr. Wade? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, but -- for this particular 

period? 

MS. BROCK: Yes. If someone has skin cancer 

and doesn't fall within that Cohort, obviously 

that's not one of the 22 cancers -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, yes, oh --

MS. BROCK: -- they can still be dose 

reconstructed. Correct? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. BROCK: Okay. Thank you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that's the case and -- 

Jim, can you address that? 

DR. NETON: That's correct. The basis for the 

-- the petition moving forward is that it was 

not feasible to reconstruct internal doses 

solely. It did not address the feasibility of 

external doses. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Further discussion on the --

 MR. GRIFFON: I think we -- we -- we had a 

little -- when -- when we first looked at this 

draft this morning we had a similar discussion, 

and I think the way the motion is worded it's 

broad enough that it just discusses that the 

dose cannot be reconstructed, so we didn't -- 

we didn't get into whether external or 

internal, but rather that dose just could not 

be reconstructed. I don't know if we have to 

break that out for -- to -- to be more 

specific. It does reference -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: It references --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It references the NIOSH -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to ask the opinion of 

our Federal Official. Do we need to be more -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

have more specificity here -- 

 DR. WADE: I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- or is referencing the document 

adequate? 

 DR. WADE: Well, I think more specificity is 

always in order, but also this record will be 

part of what is passed forward, so if you make 

it clear in this record, I think that would 

suffice, although I would never argue against 

more specificity. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But the understanding is that this 

parallels what was in those two documents. 

 Further discussion? Then let us vote on this 

first section. 

All in favor, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: And all opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Henry, did we get your vote? 

DR. ANDERSON: Aye, I'm sorry. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Then the -- the motion is adopted 

and it is so ordered. 

Now the second motion before us is the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

paragraph that -- as it's stated here, 

(Reading) The Board reserves judgment with 

respect to Mallinckrodt workers employed during 

the 1942 (sic) to 1957 time period until review 

of newly-located raw data is complete. This 

material may provide additional pertinent 

information on monitoring programs and worker 

exposure for that potential cohort. 

And this now is open for discussion. 

MS. BROCK: I'm sorry, Denise Brock again. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Denise, a question? 

MS. BROCK: Yeah, I -- yesterday I had cited in 

my statement something from the Omnibus bill, 

and it's certain legal authorities, and maybe 

you haven't seen it, I actually have it. I'd 

like to make some copies and maybe NIOSH has 

actually overlooked it. It actually is germane 

and I'd like to go make several copies for you 

all, if that's okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's -- that's fine -- 

MS. BROCK: And have you look at it during 

deliberation? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: We can get those copies made for 

you, Denise. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

MS. BROCK: That would be even better. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any comments? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have a --

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: First a question. Last night some 

NIOSH staff was referring to a document that I 

believe referenced some issues related to the -

- I guess we call it the credibility of the 

monitoring program, and we were told we would 

be receiving copies, and -- still waiting, and 

I'm trying to get a status report. I think 

it's very pertinent to the discussions that 

we're about to have and -- like to know where 

it is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have any information on -- 

on that document? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Larry's coming. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The document is being reviewed 

for Privacy Act information, and we also need 

to provide a clear understanding of the context 

that it comes from, as well as the provenance 

of the document. So we're working through that 

to provide it to you. 

Basically what LaVon Rutherford raised last 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

night was that this particular document speaks 

to the pre-1949 data -- dust box is mentioned 

prominently throughout this document -- where a 

listing of Mallinckrodt employees and their 

associated dust exposures were collected for an 

epidemiologic or a health study by Mancuso. 

And the document supports that the data that 

was mentioned in a previous Mont Mason letter 

that was indicated might have been lost or was 

not -- they weren't sure where it was at, if it 

was still in a vault in the Federal Records 

Center or where. This document shows that it 

was in fact not lost and we have all of that 

data. 

So we're working to try to provide that for 

you. We hope we can get it to you today. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: I'd like to expand on that. I've 

read the document, as well, and I think it is 

pertinent to the Board's deliberations as to 

the '49 to '57 period. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim, you have another 

comment? Oh, Denise -- excuse me. Denise? 

MS. BROCK: I apologize. Maybe I just misheard what Larry said. Did you say pre-1949? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

This is '49 to -- we're not asking for those 

years. If I'm correct, we're asking for '49 to 

'57, and if the document's not available, I -- 

I don't know the legal ramifications here, but 

I'm just going to ask -- I would hope that that 

could be disregarded. I haven't seen it. You 

all haven't seen it. And my petition is up 

now. And if it's pre-1949, we've already 

addressed that from '42 to '48. I've gotten 

the cohort there. So '49 to '57 is the one 

that's in question now. Correct? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, you're correct. The 

question before the Board is for the cohort -- 

the class of 1949 to 1957. This document 

speaks to information and data that was 

collected for individuals from 1946 to 1949, I 

believe, the start of an effort to build a 

monitoring program at Mallinckrodt. I think --

I think -- Lew, help me out here, but I think 

it really goes -- it speaks about the 

distinguishing characteristic between '48 and 

'49. And yes, it does go to the question of 

'49 to '57 and we do need to get it before you, 

but I just can't -- I can't produce it right at 

the moment. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

 DR. WADE: Right, that's my point. I think it 

-- it raises questions about the overall 

program that I think are germane to this 

Board's consideration. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Denise, did you have another 

question or --

MS. BROCK: Yeah, I'm just -- I'm really sorry. 

Things went a little unusual yesterday because 

I made my testimony and I -- I thought it was 

wonderful that all those people had -- had 

talked to this, and I guess I just wanted a few 

moments to -- to just rebut that. I just -- I 

am very perplexed -- again, I'm not a doctor 

and I'm not a scientist, but I have dying 

workers and this is something that I can't even 

see that I filed a FOIA request for forever 

ago, and as Judson said earlier and Wanda had 

said, it can go on and on and on. This 

document hasn't even been seen, and it 

addresses something that's already a cohort. 

So I don't see how it's relevant to '49 to '57. 

And if there's the least doubt, shadow of doubt 

that any of this is tainted, it goes to the 

transparency that I'm wanting to see with this 

program. These workers don't have forever. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

When would we even see that document? And 

again, I don't -- I don't even know if that's 

germane. It's -- it's pre-'49. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments, Board 

members? Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: One would assume that it is germane 

because that data has been called into question 

by quoting the author of this same document as 

making statements which might be derogatory to 

the overall program. Since that statement has 

been made publicly by claimant testimony, it's 

only logical that we should look forward to 

receiving this new information which, in the 

proper context and properly handled so that it 

protects the privacy of the workers, comes to 

us in as timely a manner as it can. The 

process of protecting privacy of workers is of 

great importance to this Board. One would 

almost infer from some of the statements that 

we hear that some of the workers don't care 

about their privacy, but this Board must, under 

terms of law, do that. We've been assured that 

we're going to get the information as soon as 

the terms of the law have been met. That 

should be satisfactory for us. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

 DR. ZIEMER: Leon? 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I have just a question 

that may be for Dr. Wade in terms of the 

Privacy Act relative to a person or an 

individual who is deceased, and whether or not 

the Privacy Act protections would apply in the 

event that that person is deceased. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Larry Elliott will address that 

question. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The Privacy Act does not apply to 

individuals who are deceased. However, we do 

not know if this partic-- if people who are 

mentioned in this document are or are not 

deceased, so the default then is to redact. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. Other comments 

or questions by the Board members? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, can I make 

a -- a suggestion? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, sir. 

UNIDENTIFIED: If there's Privacy Act concerns, 

that's fine. Why don't -- taking care of those 

-- I have -- I have a little background in 

that. Taking care of those shouldn't take too 

long. You know, we're talking about names 

here. Why don't -- could -- could it -- in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

order to expedite it, Larry, could we -- could 

we take care of the Privacy Act concerns in it 

and then forego this proper context thing while 

you continue to work on it and let -- in the 

meantime let the Board view it and then you 

could come back -- so that they could get a 

handle on what's in the document, then you 

could come back and present the context. It's 

just a suggestion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for the suggestion. 

Normally the Board is not able to operate that 

way, so we will continue our deliberations. 

Rich? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Just out of -- just out of 

curiosity, when was this document received by 

NIOSH? 

 MS. MUNN: We've been through that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think that was addressed 

yesterday. I don't recall the date. 

 DR. WADE: We'll address it again, though, but 

Jim Neton needs to do that. 

Jim, there's a question of just when the 

document came into NIOSH's hands. 

DR. NETON: We're working on that now. We were 

on the telephone with Oak Ridge earlier this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

morning. I am awaiting right now any minute a 

FAX from them detailing when that document was 

sent to us. We believe it came over in the 

last several months as part of our evaluation 

of the report, but I can't pinpoint the date 

exactly. I'll have that information more -- 

more precisely within the next half-hour. 

MR. ESPINOSA: I guess I can -- I'm a little 

bit disappointed, because this is real 

pertinent to the documents that we're looking 

at today in this SEC, and if it was received 

that long time a-- that amount ago, you know, 

months ago, that -- it should have been here 

and ready for the Board to review. 

DR. NETON: I think what you have is the 

professional judgment summary that relied on 

that document to make an assessment that we had 

adequate information. But you're correct that 

it was not referenced exactly and included as 

part of that report, and in retrospect probably 

should have been. But we're certainly working 

to get this to you as soon as we can. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Denise, your document 

now is being distributed to the Board members. 

I believe you wanted to call attention to a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

particular caveat or requirement in this -- 

MS. BROCK: I do --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the second page? 

MS. BROCK: I do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Please proceed to --

MS. BROCK: Prior to doing that, though, I -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- tell the Board where it -- 

where to look. 

MS. BROCK: I'm sorry. Prior to doing that I 

would like to state, too, that -- again, I'm 

not sure of this processes, but if that was 

given a few months ago, I as a petitioner would 

have liked to have seen that. I mean I had 72 

hours to prepare my case. My petition went in 

-- NIOSH had six and a half months to tear it 

apart. I had 72 hours to actually come up with 

a rebuttal for this. Again, I'm not a doctor, 

I'm not a scientist. I just put myself out 

there to try to help workers. So when I filed 

a FOIA request for this thing years ago and 

have not seen it, and all of a sudden it pops 

up a few months ago and now this is the first 

I'm hearing about it, I just have to say this 

is disgraceful. Can I borrow your copy, 

because --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

 (Whereupon, the speaker moved out of range of 

the microphone and some conversation continued 

in which the parties were not identified and 

the conversation itself was unintelligible.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Denise will read the item I think 

that you wanted to call to the Board's 

attention here. 

MS. BROCK: Yes, and I -- I think I mentioned 

it yesterday, but I actually did not get to 

cite it, and as you will see, it is the Senate 

Report 108-345, and it's on the second page 

where it states -- and I will read the whole 

thing at the bottom -- Radiation Exposure. The 

Committee strongly encourages NIOSH to expedite 

decisions on petitions filed under the 

procedure for designating classes of employee 

as -- of employees as members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort, 42 CFR Part 83. It was 

Congress's intent in passing the Energy 

Employees Compensation Act of 2000 to provide 

for timely, uniform and adequate compensation 

for employees made ill from exposure to 

radiation, beryllium and silica while employed 

at Department of Energy nuclear facilities or 

while employed at beryllium vendors and atomic 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

weapons employer facilities. The Committee 

encourages the Department to recognize that in 

situations where records documenting internal 

or external radiation doses received by workers 

at the specific facility are of poor quality or 

do not exist, that workers should promptly be 

placed into a special exposure cohort. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for that. 

Denise has raised an issue which in a sense has 

two parts, and the Board may wish to deliberate 

further on this. The one part is the quality 

of the information, and the other has to do 

with the timeliness of the decision that the 

Board makes. And the tension of course here is 

how much time does one allow to determine 

issues of quality -- this is kind of the -- the 

issue that arose in a number of ways yesterday, 

when are we done with gathering information, at 

what point can a decision be made. The Board 

must weigh this carefully. Do you wish to, for 

example, as indicated in the suggested motion, 

to get the additional information, some of 

which perhaps would relate to the revised 

profile and our contractor's review of that, 

together with other information such as the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

document under discussion. Or do you wish to 

say that the time delay to do that is 

unacceptable. In a sense I think that is the -

- the nature of what you must balance. Okay? 

Leon. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I think that Congress 

established a model that the Board should 

strongly follow when it designated certain 

gaseous diffusion plants and workers at 

Amchitka Island as a special cohort. There was 

a reason for that. And I think that reason is 

similar to what we're faced with when we look 

at the Mallinckrodt facility. I think that it 

would behoove the Board members to review the 

Congressional intent, just as Denise has read, 

relative to the Special Exposure Cohort 

designation. And as we sit here today, we will 

probably set precedent for the other petitions 

that we receive, and so I think that to ensure 

uniformity, we would again be wise to follow 

that Congressional intent as we review these 

petitions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Gen Roessler? 

DR. ROESSLER: I think I'll just amplify on 

what Leon has said, but what struck -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

 DR. ZIEMER: Speak loudly into the mike so 

Henry can hear you. 

DR. ROESSLER: Okay, maybe closer here. What 

struck me as Denise or you were reading this 

paragraph is the "uniform," and I think that's 

one of our challenges now with this first 

petition that we discuss, is we have to look 

toward the future and we have to make sure that 

we set the criteria for evaluating these that 

may not be quite as clear, and make sure that 

we're going to do it in a uniform manner. This 

is equity that we have to look at for all 

future petitions, and so I'm just kind of 

amplifying what I think Leon was trying to say. 

That's an important part of the whole 

evaluation. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Jim Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think there are three 

issues to deal with in deciding on this -- at 

least in my mind, the '49 to '57 time period. 

One has to do with the techniques that NIOSH 

will be relying on to try to reconstruct doses 

during that time period, one of -- part of that 

which is going to be the use of coworker data. 

And we've been put in a difficult spot there 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208 

because the -- that really wasn't -- it's only 

dealt with in a partially-revised draft site 

profile that some of us got to see, if we 

happened to be in the office and could print 

out 500 pages or whatever it was on Friday 

before we came out here. Not everyone has. 

But -- an issue -- and certainly I have a lot 

of questions about and concerns about whether 

that's adequate to reconstruct dose with 

sufficient accuracy. 

A second issue which I think does -- is 

parallel to the situations in Paducah and the 

other sites that were originally included in 

the Special Exposure Cohorts would be concerns 

about exposures that were not monitored, where 

there's very little information -- in this 

case, the so-called raffinates and that -- 

again, we're -- we don't have complete 

information on that, which makes it difficult 

but I, and I think others, may have serious 

questions about whether NIOSH can adequately 

assess and evaluate those doses in terms of 

individual dose -- dose reconstruction. 

 And then third, we have the credibility of the 

-- of the data itself. And us -- been put in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209 

an -- sort of an awkward position of -- of 

having some verbal testimony about some 

document that -- that we've yet to see, though 

maybe -- maybe this is it. I guess we just got 

to see it, so -- but I think those are the 

three issues to consider and I think we need to 

do the best we can now to assess those before 

we go off and say well, let's procrastinate and 

-- two or three months or however long it may 

take to -- to address these issues. And so I 

would much rather have us address the issues, 

to the extent that we can. And again, it may 

be that one or more of them may sort of meet 

the threshold for saying that these people 

should be part of a special exposure cohort. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Further comments? 

 DR. WADE: I need to give you a clarification 

on the document that's in front of you, but I 

don't have it. Liz will. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that the Board now is 

receiving the document that was in question 

that apparently this -- or is somebody going to 

tell us? I'm gathering that this is not yet 

available to the public. 

 DR. WADE: Liz can put it in perspective for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210 

us. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: We wanted to go ahead and 

give this to the Board. Since you are special 

government employees, you can have access to 

Privacy Act information, but it won't be made 

available until -- to the public until it's 

completed with the redaction, and then we'll 

put copies in the back for everyone. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You'll -- is that going to occur 

today, when you say copies are going to be put 

in -- in the back? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Is it -- I'm sorry, is it 

going to what? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is it going to occur today? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That will occur today. I --

because in fairness, certainly the petitioners 

need to also have a copy of this at -- at some 

point. Certainly in a sense, in fairness, 

before -- before we can really consider it, as 

well. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can we take a short break to read 

this? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We certainly can take a short 

break to -- to read this. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211 

 The Chair would like to mention a couple of 

other items, and again, I do this simply to 

help you frame -- I always presume I can help 

people; I guess that's the teacher in me -- to 

help us frame some of our ideas here. 

And let me -- let me express it in the 

following way. I'm doing a little bit of 

perhaps preaching to the choir, but there is a 

sense I believe in which this -- this whole 

program comes to us -- this whole program, the 

compensation program comes late. It's perhaps 

decades late, to start with. That -- that's 

the issue. Everything was behind the eight 

ball the day this was signed into law. The 

workers were already -- those entitled to 

compensation were already overdue, in many 

cases, by decades. And we find ourselves -- we 

being the agencies responsible and this Board -

- behind at the very start. We are playing 

catch-up. 

Unfortunately, the timeliness factor then 

becomes all the more urgent. With -- with that 

sort of before us, then we recognize as we're 

trying to evaluate -- and Congress did things a 

certain way. And one thing they did is set up 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212 

both the dose reconstruction part, which 

inherently does not happen overnight. And they 

also set up this petitioning process, which has 

a number of steps and some responsibilities, 

responsibility to us to do some evaluations. 

And again, that sort of doesn't happen 

overnight. We have some information we gained. 

We are under pressure to make that decision 

rapidly, and yet in all fairness, we haven't 

seen all the data. We can't make the judgment. 

The issue of promptness that Congress talks 

about I would put right back on them. You guys 

weren't prompt enough to get the program going, 

and you're putting that urgency -- which now 

comes down in some cases to weeks or months to 

make a decision, or days or hours -- on us. 

It's difficult in that framework to try to be 

fair to all sides and meet the responsibility 

that we have as a Board, as well. 

 I'm struggling with that. I know many of you 

are. We want to be fair. We want to follow 

the intent of Congress, which to some extent 

also ties our hands. We are limited in what we 

can do and can't do. And so I'm -- I just lay 

this out, not to -- not in the framework of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

saying we should go one way or the other. I 

just hope that everyone appreciates the issue 

of the pressing of time and the fact that the 

whole program was late in coming, and we're -- 

these folks that we heard from -- those who 

deserve to be compensated, that -- that isn't 

just now. That was in -- we heard cases. That 

was last year and a decade ago and two decades 

ago and so on. 

So let us -- let us recess -- does Henry have -

-

 MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Dr. --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- access to this? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Henry? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think Henry's going to 

have access to this document, is he? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Henry, they didn't FAX you 

the document, did they? 

DR. ANDERSON: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is a rather lengthy document. 

I think we do want the Board to have a chance 

to read it, and then we'll have to make a 

decision as to how we deal with it. We need to 

make sure the petitioners get a copy of it and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214 

-- and Denise, you have a comment before we sit 

down? 

 MR. MILLER: Yeah. Dr. Ziemer, I just wanted 

to raise two questions on this legislation -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is --

 MR. MILLER: Richard Miller. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Richard Miller. 

 MR. MILLER: From the Government Accountability 

Project. Two questions on the -- on the report 

language. This was incorporated in the Omnibus 

Approps. Bill for FY 2005. The first question 

has to do with the last sentence in this text, 

which speaks to the question about records of 

poor quality or do not exist. And the first 

question is, how did NIOSH address this report 

language in the context of its petition 

evaluation review that was submitted to the 

Board, specifically with respect to the 

question that's before you now, which are 

whether or not it is feasible, for example, to 

reconstruct the actinium or the protactinium or 

the raffinate chain -- decay chain products 

which we've heard pack some punch, and -- so 

that's question number one, how did NIOSH, as a 

staff or an organization, address this? And 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

then, you know, somebody can take it up after 

the recess, but -- and then second question has 

to do with -- on the same point, for the Board 

just to think about when Congress guides the 

decision-making and they're talking about poor 

record -- poor quality or do not exist records, 

what they're adding is sort of a body of 

clarification that surrounds the implementation 

of the rule and the statute that's before you. 

And so this sets a context, and that's where, 

again, coming back to the absence of any 

records, for example, as Leon Owens mentioned 

earlier about Paducah, I had the privilege of 

working for a union at the time when the 

special cohorts were developed for Paducah and 

worked on that legislation. And what we 

learned about Congressional intent, without 

speaking for Congress here, was there was 

plutonium and neptunium uptakes that were not 

monitored in the case of Paducah for 40 years, 

and they made a conscious decision in that 

particular case not to monitor for those 

isotopes, and so consequently Congress said 

wait a minute, you haven't monitored, you 

didn't start monitoring until 1992. From 1992 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

forward you're not in the special cohort. But 

when you weren't monitored for those isotopes, 

we're going to -- we're going to put you in the 

special cohort, particularly where there -- and 

so -- and so that was the first point. 

 And the second is, here you have the analogous 

circumstance with the actinium 227 and the 

protactinium issue, which is you've got the 

same exact fact pattern. They didn't monitor. 

There's not a single iota of monitoring data 

available, as Jim Neton --

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Richard, we're aware of 

that. We're also aware that Congress chose not 

to put Mallinckrodt in the Special Exposure 

Cohort and has asked us to use this process, so 

with that in mind, we're going to -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk 

Congressional intent. That's something I do 

know a little bit about. Some of this stuff's 

over my head, but I do know that. While you 

are right, Congress -- first of all, I want to 

address a couple of -- Congress was well aware 

that dose reconstruction would not happen 

overnight. But at the same time, they didn't 

have a mutual understanding that it would take 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

forever. And all I can say is if you ask any 

member who voted for this Act if they -- if 

they said in four years a large majority of 

your people would not only not be compensated, 

wouldn't have their dose reconstructions done, 

they would tell you that was not the intent. 

Number two, Con-- the Mallinckrodt was not put 

into the cohort because all this information -- 

this damning information, this evidence broke 

after enactment. I mean we -- we're -- we're -

- you know, we've gotten a lot of this stuff in 

the last six months. Had that been available, 

I think you would have seen it in the cohort. 

And if -- if Congress has tied your hands, sir, 

I know some acts are harder to implement than 

others, but I -- please come and talk to me 

about where we've made things difficult for you 

and I can -- specifically I can talk to you 

about that and maybe I can take that back to my 

colleagues on Capitol Hill. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for those comments. The 

-- perhaps the analogy of tying our hands is 

not a good one. The idea is that we have a 

certain framework that we are obligated to work 

within, and you're quite right. The 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218 

information has come recently. It was not 

known at the time this was enacted. In fact, 

that is the very point that is being made, that 

we now have to deal with this. And honestly, I 

think the agencies involved, this Board, are -- 

we're moving as fast as we can with a -- not 

just Mallinckrodt data, but this is -- this 

same thing is multiplied over and over and over 

again throughout the complex. This is one 

piece of a total big picture that, you know, 

we're grappling with. So -- and the intent of 

Congress obviously was good, and we're all 

learning the difficulties. I'm simply saying 

here that we have to balance our obligation to 

assess the data against this issue of the press 

of time, and that's not easy to do and that's 

the struggle we'll have. 

Let us recess for ten, 15 minutes so we have a 

chance to read the document. 

I do want to point out that if in fact we reach 

a voting point on this and we have to vote and 

if -- we -- we will certainly keep the record 

open for Henry, if he wishes to reserve his 

vote until -- and Tony, as well, until they 

have a chance to see the document and the full 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

record. So let us recess and have a chance to 

read this. Thank you. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:20 a.m. 

to 10:50 a.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: It appears that we're ready to 

resume deliberations. The Chair would like to 

ask for some clarifications now. The Board 

members have received the document. Could I 

learn whether or not the document has been made 

available at this moment yet to petitioners? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) do have it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Apparently the 

document has been made available to the 

petitioners. Is it available to the public? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) It's being 

copied (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's being copied right now, so -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Copies are being made for the 

general public and will be on the back table 

shortly. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And could we confirm for the 

record and for the Board members -- this 

document appears to be largely a narration by 

Mr. Mason relative to a visit he made to ERDA, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

220 

is that correct, or -- can -- can someone fill 

us in as --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me give you a little bit of 

background about this document. I believe 

there's -- supposedly -- there should be a 

cover letter from ORAU that is being produced -

- photocopied and being attached. I hope 

everybody gets a copy of that. It speaks to 

the fact that this document was identified in 

November of 2004 as part of a collection of 

documents that were located in the Oak Ridge 

vault and was used in the professional judgment 

of evaluation for the petition. We learned 

about it -- or I learned about it last -- late 

last week, and the first time I read it 

actually was last evening. 

 But essentially this is a trip report, if you 

will, of the research team for Dr. Mancuso who 

were encharged or given a mandate by the Atomic 

Energy Commission at the time and the ERDA, 

which is the Energy Research Development 

Administration, I believe is the acronym, to 

look at the health and well-being of the work 

force that was involved in the Manhattan 

Engineering District and subsequent weapons 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221 

development program. 

It is a -- as I say, a trip report. It speaks 

specifically to the experience of Mr. Mason and 

part of his research team, the crew. Several 

names are mentioned still in this document. We 

have redacted a name that we felt was an 

employee of Mallinckrodt, but the rest of the 

names that you see in the document represent 

people who were on the Mancuso research team. 

 The document provides some information about 

how this team were going about assembling 

information for this health study of workers at 

Mallinckrodt covering the years of -- well, you 

can see it here, I think -- you know, they're 

specifically focusing on the early years and 

dust data, radon data, et cetera. 

We raised this -- LaVon Rutherford raised this 

last evening as a document that speaks to the 

earlier Mont Mason letter of 1972 where in that 

letter there was mention made of dust data 

records that were not available at the time, 

and question was raised by Denise through her 

petition as to the credibility of this and 

whether or not the records were in fact lost 

and not available to us. So that points to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

222 

credibility. 

This -- this report from August of 1975 on page 

6, this goes to what LaVon Rutherford was 

mentioning last night. At the top of page 6 

you'll find a paragraph that -- that reads: 

Happily, the file -- the file apparently 

intact, was among the records we recovered from 

the Federal Records Center at St. Louis in 

1972, and he's cross-ref-- since cross-checked 

the card samples against sample printouts of 

the CTC master file and know that there are no 

(sic) disagreements. 

So we were using this to -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Know that there are no -- or are 

disagreements? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: There are disagreements -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are disagreements. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but this goes to -- they're 

building a -- what's called a master data file 

for a health study. So our folks pursued this 

to make sure that we did in fact have the data 

that was mentioned in this document. It is 

accessible to us. It has been included into 

our datasets. We know it exists and -- 

I know that Denise had FOIA'd this from the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223 

Department of Energy. I don't believe a FOIA 

came to us, but it was -- your FOIA went to 

DOE. I don't know that DOE actually ever had 

this document because it was part of Mancuso's 

holdings. And part of the people that were on 

the Mancuso team were aligned with Oak Ridge 

folks and -- you see names like Hap West, who 

unfortunately we lost just a year ago, who was 

a health physicist at Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities and the Oak Ridge National Lab and 

Y-12. He's weighing in and providing advice 

here. So that's what this is all about. 

We simply thought that -- I think LaVon, out of 

good intentions, was wanting to make note that 

the records that were mentioned in the '72 

letter that might have been lost in fact are 

not lost. They are in our hands, in our 

holdings. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: Oh, I'm not -- I -- sorry, for -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, just had your card up out of 

habit there, maybe. But I wonder if Board 

members do have questions on this document in 

terms of its pertinence to the issue before us. 

 The previous citation of this was in the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

context that there were some records mentioned 

in here and that you had confirmed that you had 

found those records. Is that correct? This 

seems to deal mainly with efforts to organize 

the database for this study and early use of 

their computer system versus their hand-printed 

system. It --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- doesn't seem to deal with the 

data, per se. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That is correct. And let me 

point out one -- one more time. In Ms. Brock's 

petition there's a letter from Mont Mason, 

1972, that raises concerns about the 

availability or seemingly lost information on 

dust records. This document that we're 

providing you today from August of 1975, on 

page 6, indicates to us that those records were 

not lost and in fact, through our efforts at 

reviewing all of the records we have, the dust 

box records that are mentioned in this document 

are in fact in our holdings. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And you are correct, this is -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: This doesn't necessarily speak to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

the quality of the records, but their 

existence. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: In my opinion, I found this to be 

fascinating reading because in my background at 

NIOSH, doing this kind of work in my early 

days, putting together an epidemiologic study, 

I can point to trip reports that we would write 

that speak to the difficulties of crossmatching data, making sure that you have a 

study population that was truly an 

epidemiologic cohort to be studied, and they're 

-- that's what's being described here. Their 

difficulties in matching up the data, moving 

from a hand-developed master list to a 

computer-programmed, keypunched list of exposed 

individuals and creating -- what I think is 

just an extraordinary amount of effort and -- 

and benefit to this program -- a dust history 

for those individuals. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda Munn, and then 

Jim Melius. 

 MS. MUNN: One very reassuring aspect of what 

we now have, even though I -- being a slow 

learner and slow reader -- have not yet really 

absorbed what's in here, what I have seen 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

226 

confirms our selection of time differential for 

the two separate Special Exposure Cohorts very 

clearly, and would support the adequacy of the 

position that we have that more records exist 

after the beginning of 1949 than prior. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: I actually find -- although this 

document does address the specific issue of the 

dust records, I find it sort of raises more 

questions about the availability of data and -- 

as well as the quality of the data. There are 

several references in there to things not 

matching up and so forth that -- it's a little 

difficult to tell whether it's problems with 

the original records or with the data entry 

process that the researchers were using. But I 

guess I -- little -- little disturbed that it 

was presented to us as sort of a, you know, 

this is -- this proves that everything is fine. 

I find it -- on the contrary, that it raises as 

much issues as it settles about the 

availability and quality of data, and certainly 

going beyond the 1949 time period, though, it -

- they weren't trying to predict our evalu-- 

what we -- what -- time period we were going to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

be evaluating, so it's -- the dates aren't 

always clear, either. But I -- I guess -- it 

certainly points to the fact that -- in the 

future and without placing blame, that if we're 

going to be referencing documents, we need to 

have them available and have them -- give some 

ability to review them, preferably ahead of 

time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? We have before us 

actually the motion which is the -- get my 

document here -- the motion is essentially the 

last paragraph of the document that you had 

originally which we had split into two parts, 

as you recall. So I would ask again, are there 

Board members which -- who wish to speak for or 

against the motion, or to share with us your 

views on -- on the issue as it's presented 

here? 

 Jim Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Again, it's -- some ways 

difficult to argue against saying well, we 

could use more time, but -- but I still think 

there are a number of compelling reasons to 

seriously consider a Special Exposure Cohort 

for the period after 1959 (sic). Again, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

there's a number of questions raised in this -- 

now another document, and I don't -- how far we 

can go in evaluating credibility and 

availability of information is -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think for the record, you're 

actually talking about '49 to '57. 

 DR. MELIUS: Excuse me, did I -- what did I -- 

apologize. And secondly, there's still this 

outstanding issue of the raffinates and the 

actinium exposures and so forth from that that 

I don't think we've -- at least for me is not -

- is far from being satisfied with the approach 

that NIOSH has proposed for that, though, 

again, albeit we are still seeing that in graph 

form or is a promise to be delivered at a later 

point in time. So I would speak against the 

motion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Others? Roy. 

 DR. DEHART: Yesterday a question was asked of 

NIOSH if there was confidence in the data, and 

that was answered affirmative. A second 

question was asked, based on that, can dose 

reconstruction be conducted and the answer to 

that was in the affirmative. So I've heard 

from NIOSH that they feel they do have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I 

229 

sufficient data and that they can proceed. 

have not seen anything compelling that would 

argue that point. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let's see, I have Leon and 

then Wanda. Leon? 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, as a member of the 

working group, I know there was some thought on 

my part relative to this time period. And I'll 

go back to my earlier comments in regard to the 

Special Exposure Cohort designation for the 

three gaseous diffusion plants. I think that 

the intent of that designation was based on the 

inability to accurately obtain data that would 

be needed for dose reconstruction. I also 

think that it goes to the inability of records, 

the credibility of the records, the 

availability of the records and the notion that 

the Department of Energy put workers in harm's 

way. And so with that being the case, I speak 

against the motion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda Munn. 

 MS. MUNN: The document that we have in our 

hands is not the only piece of raw data which 

is still outstanding. We have no idea yet what 

is contained in the other boxes, and whether 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230 

those boxes will in fact be able to provide the 

data that would enable NIOSH to make some of 

the calculations that are currently impossible. 

Therefore, I speak in favor of including this 

statement. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, speaking for the motion. 

Gen Roessler? 

DR. ROESSLER: I speak in favor of it, 

primarily because I think we have a huge 

responsibility here with looking at this -- 

this first one. I'm going to repeat myself. 

We are required to set some criteria now for 

what we're going to be doing not only on this 

one but in the future. I think we have a 

responsibility of being equitable in our 

decisions. We need to make sure that our 

decisions are uniform. And so I think we 

really have to go toward the -- a little more 

time to properly evaluate it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mark Griffon. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I agree with Jim's 

sentiments that it's hard not to want more time 

on this. However, I -- I do see, at least from 

my standpoint, some compelling information that 

to me would suggest inclusion of this time 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

231 

period, and it focuses on the raffinate issue, 

the potential exposures to actinium, 

protactinium, thorium and -- and I'm still 

wrestling with this in my mind, the fact that a 

maximum dose -- I think the response I received 

yesterday at one point from NIOSH that -- was 

that well, if we have absolutely no information 

we can just assume it was all actinium and 

assign a worst case maximum plaus-- maximum 

dose. But in fact I don't think that that kind 

of answer -- I think NIOSH is trying to use to 

resolve an SEC petition, but those numbers 

wouldn't end up being used in an individual 

dose reconstruction in -- in some of those 

claimants that would fall in that period. Am I 

correct in that --

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's ask Dr. Neton to clarify 

that. 

DR. NETON: That's not correct, Mark. I mean 

the way the regulation reads is can we put an 

upper limit on the dose, period. And if we -- 

I believe there are -- and I have not evaluated 

this, but I believe we have air dust data 

throughout the facility, and if we know that 

there are air dust data in raffinate areas and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232 

we assume it's actinium in 100 percent 

equilibrium with its daughters or progeny, we 

could use that to put an upper limit on the 

dose. And in fact if that's all we know and 

that's all we'll ever know, that's what we 

would use to reconstruct doses for workers in 

those areas. So we can in fact, doing that, 

put an upper limit on the dose per the 

requirements of 42 CFR 83. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have a further -- further 

comment. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Dr. Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just to address Dr. DeHart's 

comments. Although NIOSH has said that they 

have confidence in their ability to do dose 

reconstructions, as Jim has reiterated, we've 

seen very little evidence of that or adequate 

evidence that presented to us. It's based on 

relatively short statements that are included 

in the evaluation petition. Contrary to what 

was said by NIOSH, I did not find that 

information to be convincing in itself. That 

then refers back to a draft revision of a site 

profile. Remind that our contractor had 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

233 

already reviewed the original site profile 

before it was revised. Raised serious question 

about a number of issues in there that is going 

to form the basis for NIOSH's statement that 

they can reconstruct dose with sufficient 

accuracy. So I don't have the confidence at 

this point in time that NIOSH can do so. And I 

also find the -- this question of how long do 

we prolong this process. Yeah, we may be 

setting precedents, but is the precedent going 

to be that this is going to weigh out for 

another year, two years, three years before we 

come to closure, are more documents going to be 

found, more boxes and then we need to 

continually to revise and revisit this issue, 

and I think we need to come to closure on it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: If the decision we have to make is 

to make a choice between timely evaluation and 

junking known science, or assuming that known 

science cannot be found, then that is an 

impossible choice. We must be responsible in 

our reliability on scientific record and 

scientific capability that is available to us. 

We have no evidence that any of the site 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

234 

profiles or any of the dose reconstructions 

that have been done have been done using bad 

science or no science. So if what we're saying 

is we must make a timely decision at all costs, 

I must object to that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? Jim, 

did you have another comment? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, could I -- I want to respond 

to that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: The statement was not to the 

effect of making timely decisions at all costs, 

but on the other hand, Congress did not ask us 

to exhaust all possible scientific inquiry 

before reaching a decision on either an SEC 

petition or an individual dose reconstruction. 

As to do what was feasible to do, which 

certainly implies doing something within a 

reasonable time period. There's also other 

language, some of which we heard from the 

appropriations bill about doing this in a -- a 

timely fashion. So I think we are being asked 

to balance between exhaustive scientific 

pursuit of -- of, you know, the perfect dose 

reconstruction and the ability to get these 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235 

people compensation in a timely fashion. And 

that may mean we can't do as complete and 

exhaustive scientific inquiry as -- as one 

might like. It doesn't mean we throw out 

science, it just means that we have to keep 

that in balance and recognize trying to go back 

50 or 60 years to find all these records and do 

something that these records were not 

necessarily collected or intended to do is of -

- is a difficult task and there's some 

limitations to how well we can do that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. That -- that balance 

is the issue, of course, that we've been 

talking about for quite a bit this morning. 

With your permission -- ordinarily the Chair 

does not enter into the debate, but since under 

our rules the Chair also votes on all issues, 

with your permission I would like to speak to 

the motion. 

I'm speaking in favor of the motion, and let me 

tell you why. Number one, if the motion does 

pass, that does not preclude us from, at an 

appropriate point, from proceeding to identify 

nonetheless this group as a Special Exposure 

Cohort. What the motion does is allow us to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

236 

examine what we believe will be some 

forthcoming pieces of information, hopefully 

that we will have by the time of our next 

meeting, if we can believe what we've heard in 

the past couple of days. That is the -- both 

the revised site profile, as well as some 

additional review by our own contractor, so 

that the -- the time delay in evaluating the 

science hopefully would be minimal. It's not 

zero, but it -- we're not talking years, I 

don't believe, or half-years, but slightly more 

time. 

I understand the concerns, but at the same time 

I believe we have an obligation to make that 

evaluation of the data. We are charged to do 

that, as well as to be timely. I believe we 

can do both if we are able to reach that point 

by our next meeting. I understand there's no 

guarantee, and if we don't reach that point, 

this Board would be free to take whatever 

action it did. 

 Defeating the motion only closes that issue as 

far as -- we would still need another motion to 

do something about that group, so I also remind 

you of that. All the motion asks for is that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

237 

we get some pertinent information so we can 

make the evaluation. 

Now in fairness, let's have someone speak 

against the motion. Okay, Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, actually I'm going to go on 

a different direction. And I guess it is -- 

this is speaking against it. I would point out 

that the motion also does not at all reflect 

what you just stated, Dr. Ziemer. It does not 

put a time frame on when -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I understand. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- we would consider it, and I 

think it would be very important that, should 

we be in support -- people being in support of 

this motion, that it carry a time frame with 

it, a very specific time frame. I think that 

the next meeting may be an appropriate one, if 

I remember some of the answers to some of the 

questions I asked yesterday, but that we -- we 

do indicate that we do plan to come to closure 

and we plan to come to closure as best we can, 

for example, at the next meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I certainly agree with that, and I 

would feel awkward in asking you to make the 

amendment to the motion, but I completely agree 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

238 

with what you say there. But there might be 

others who support the motion who might be 

interested in making such an amendment -- such 

as Roy DeHart. 

 DR. DEHART: I think that's very reasonable and 

I would hope that we would have any of the 

other data that's necessary, since there is 

concern about the veracity with which NIOSH has 

been able to assure us that they can do a dose 

reconstruction. Perhaps with the other data 

and a clarification from our contractor on the 

site profiles there will be more of a comfort 

level, and I would move that the topic of this 

particular -- I'm sorry, it is an amendment, 

that we amend the current motion to read that a 

final determination would be made during our 

next meeting. 

 MR. PRESLEY: I'll second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Now we have before 

us then the motion to amend. We're not 

speaking to the main motion, but the motion to 

amend, to add the words that this determination 

-- how would you read -- a final determination 

on this issue will be made at our next Board 

meeting. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239 

Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: I would suggest a friendly amendment 

that is -- that would make the statement read 

"It is the intent of this Board to make a final 

determination at its next meeting", because 

intent and absolutes are just a little 

different. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do you regard that as a friendly 

amendment --

 DR. DEHART: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the seconder? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. The motion then, it is the 

intent of this Board to make a final -- 

 MS. MUNN: Determination. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- determination at the next 

Advisory Board meeting. 

 MS. MUNN: On this potential cohort at the next 

Advisory Board -- at the next full Advisory 

Board meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Discussion? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: You ready to vote on this 

amendment? It's --

MS. BROCK: Dr. Ziemer -- I'm sorry. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240 

 DR. ZIEMER: Question -- yes. 

MS. BROCK: Yes, I just --

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you speaking to this motion? 

MS. BROCK: I'm sorry? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

MS. BROCK: I just had a question. I wanted to 

make sure that through this vote that '42 to 

'48, it would be my expectation that that 

cohort is not going to be held up -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: This does not affect the prior 

action. 

MS. BROCK: Okay, and I also wanted to speak to 

this motion, as well. I don't know if that's 

possible, but I would like to know if SC&A can 

also take a look at all of this. They are the 

auditors and --

 DR. ZIEMER: SC&A, we've already agreed, is 

going to look at this material as well. That's 

-- that's part of the picture. 

MS. BROCK: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's already been agreed 

to. 

Let me also tell you that in voting -- if you 

vote for this motion, it does not necessarily 

mean that you favor the main motion. You 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

241 

understand that, just so you don't feel guilty 

if you support this and -- don't want any guilt 

trips here. Vote your conscience. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, no? 

 (Negative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to declare that the ayes 

have it. Do you want -- maybe we'll take -- do 

you -- let's -- let's get a hand vote favoring 

the motion. One, two, three, four, five, six, 

and opposing the motion, one, two, three -- Jim 

are you voting? -- for, okay. Three against. 

Now we have -- the motion carries. We have the 

main motion, as revised, and before we -- you 

may not be ready to vote, but if you are, we 

will hold the vote open, I believe, if it -- 

particularly if it's a close vote we will 

certainly hold it open for Henry and if we're 

able to reach Tony, as well, and provide them 

with the related materials. 

Are there -- is there discussion now on the 

motion as revised? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote on the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

motion as revised? Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Please clarify what is a yes vote 

and what is a no vote on this motion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: A yes vote means that you favor 

the statement that says the Board reserves 

judgment with respect to Mallinckrodt workers 

and so on. It's the last paragraph of your 

written statement, and the additional 

statement, “It is the intent of the Board to 

make a final determination on this cohort at 

the next Advisory Board meeting.” So voting 

yes means that that is the position of the 

Board on this issue. 

 Are you ready to vote then? 

All in favor of this motion please raise your 

hand and we'll get a count here -- one, two, 

three, four, five, six. All opposed, one, two, 

three, four and so at the moment it is six and 

four, and we will try to obtain Henry's vote 

and Tony's, as well. So we will hold the vote 

open until that time. 

You understand that there's a possibility of a 

tie vote. A tie vote means that the motion 

fails. Let me also advise you -- there's a 

down side to that. If the motion fails, and we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

won't know right away if it fails, but if it 

fails it means that no action has been taken 

either way, which is in a sense sort of an 

unfortunate default. I simply call that to the 

Board's attention. Okay? I say an unfortunate 

default because it inherently then pushes the 

decision into the next meeting. I say that for 

the benefit of those who voted against because 

it in essence is contrary to what the negatives 

had desired. You understand that. Okay. 

Now I would ask the Board members if you have 

any additional issues that you want to put on 

the table with respect to the Mallinckrodt 

petition, or comments. 

 DR. WADE: Jim has his card --

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry, I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now -- Wanda, you have a 

comment? 

 MS. MUNN: If this motion does in fact fail, 

may we assume that all members of the Board 

will be notified of that and that the remainder 

of the letter will go out, simply in the 

absence of the last --

 DR. ZIEMER: The remainder of the letter would 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

go out regardless, number one. 

 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Number two, if the Board so 

instructs the Chair, and if you would desire to 

take some specific action prior to the next 

meeting, then we would make every effort to 

have a special meeting to deal with the issue. 

And you can so instruct the Chair to -- to 

inaugurate or initiate such action. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would say yes, we should, as a 

contingency. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't know that was an option. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of course. We -- this Board can 

call a meeting, and I think the Chair has the 

prerogative of calling a meeting. And I think 

in fairness --

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I should say part -- 

part of my reason for voting for the motion was 

that -- I was thinking just like you, Paul, 

that if it was a split vote, we end up not 

moving the ball anywhere -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, that --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- until the next meeting -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's my point and -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and that was one of my fears. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- in fairness to those -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: And I thought with the concession 

of the fact that we will -- our intent, the 

intent of the Board is to have a final decision 

by the next meeting, I thought that was moving 

the ball. 

 DR. ZIEMER: However, if -- I think in 

fairness, for those who voted against the 

motion, that if it is their desire that we do 

something prior to the next meeting, then we 

should do that. Is that -- is that a motion 

that we attempt to have a special meeting? 

This could even -- this -- this would have to 

be a special meeting at some location on -- 

it's -- it's still going to require a notice. 

It would be an open meeting. It requires the 

regular advance notice and so on. I know it 

puts the staff on the spot because we have to -

-

 MS. MUNN: And once the notice is made we can't 

just --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- go through steps, but we need 

to make an effort to protect the rights of 

everyone here. 

 MS. MUNN: And once that notice is made -- a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

Congressional Record notice is a notice of a 

public meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. MUNN: It's a done deal then. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, right. That's correct. Roy? 

 DR. DEHART: Do you anticipate we would have 

the data at that meeting that we're expecting? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Not unless -- well, we -- we 

already know that there's going to be at least 

a month. Both NIOSH and our contractor have 

indicated they need a month to evaluate these 

things, so if you were to tell us we're going 

to meet in a month, we're going to meet with 

the same information we have before us today. 

That's all I'm saying. Yes, Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's all I was going to remind 

the Board of, our promise from yesterday to get 

the revised site profile on the table within a 

month, and then I think Dr. Mauro promised you 

as well a month for his team to review that and 

provide comment, so -- and then your next 

meeting you've already scheduled for two months 

away, essentially. So just -- I was going to 

offer that for your deliberation. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The Chair is simply pointing out 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

to the -- to the assembly that if the motion 

fails due to a tie, it has in effect 

accomplished the -- the objective of the "for" 

votes, those for the motion, by delaying the 

decision. That's all I'm pointing out. So in 

fairness to the "no" votes, I'm suggesting if 

in fact you would wish to have a follow-up 

action, then we -- we would try to do that. 

But... 

On the other -- at the same time, a -- a failed 

motion is a failed motion, so that also -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I think in some ways 

it's moot because we -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- be meeting again and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- the issue is still outstanding, 

so --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's right. Okay. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think we have the -- an added 

concern, even -- even with the last line that 

we added, the intent of the Board is to make 

final decision. We heard yesterday that these 

new six boxes of data will not be in any 

revised -- Rev. 1 of a site profile, so I don't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

know that we're going to hear anything about -- 

you know, so that there's still going to be -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: We still have to --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- an out-- an outstanding -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we may still have --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- question --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to make a decision --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And it's the same issue, is all -- 

is every piece of information in, or are we at 

a point where we can make the decision based on 

the information available. And again --

 DR. WADE: Can I speak to when we would have 

the report of the six boxes? Jim? Is Jim --

or Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yesterday we also committed to 

have that within the same time frame as the 

site profile. We think that's essential to -- 

for a clear understanding of what information 

we have available to be incorporated into the 

site profile. So Judson has promised yesterday 

evening to have that six boxes reviewed and 

addressed in the site profile itself. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No? I'm sorry, I mis-spoke? 

Well, help me out, Jim. Correct me. 

DR. NETON: I think what we agreed to was to 

have the Rev. 1 of the site profile out, but 

not to include the contents of the boxes, but 

we would have some summary information 

available that would divulge the content that 

the Board could evaluate. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, you had another comment, 

and that --

 MS. MUNN: That --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- that answered --

 MS. MUNN: That was my recollection, and it 

could just as likely be that there is nothing 

of value --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. MUNN: -- that could add to this, but as a 

matter of fact, I suspect that that's more 

likely than that there will be great -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Richard has a comment, 

also. 

MR. ESPINOSA: I do believe that this needs to 

be moved forward as soon as possible. And you 

know, just as a reminder, there is a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

250 

subcommittee set for March. Maybe we can get 

the whole Board during that time period. 

 DR. ZIEMER: If necessary that might be a 

suitable time to do it. Thank you for that 

reminder. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have --

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: Right. I would also remind -- I 

guess NIOSH in this case, that the -- there are 

petitioners, too, and the petitioners have I 

think some rights in terms of commenting, and I 

think also should be kept informed about what 

is -- information's found, what's happening 

with revisions to the site profile, should 

there be other documents available that might 

address the issue of the credibility of the 

monitoring -- available monitoring information. 

There should be some attempts to make that 

available to the petitioners in a timely 

fashion, given again -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, let's make sure that the 

petitioners get those documents and, Denise, 

that your group has an opportunity to review 

them and comment, as well. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Absolutely. We believe that -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

it's unfortunate this one document came to our 

attention as late as it did and we didn't get 

it in front of the petitioner or the Board in a 

timely manner, but it is our full intent to 

work with the petitioners and make sure that 

they're knowledgeable and up to speed on the 

documentation that we have at our disposal. So 

we will do everything we can to make sure that 

happens. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. And Judson? 

 MR. KENOYER: This is Judson. I just want to 

make one comment based on the importance of 

this review. I wanted to let you know that I 

have people that have started on a summary of 

that data that's in the boxes. They started 

this morning. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

DR. MAURO: Dr. Ziemer --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, John Mauro from our 

contractor. 

DR. MAURO: With regard to the boxes, the six 

boxes, it sounds like there's really two lines 

of inquiry that would be moving forward on 

behalf of NIOSH. One is the Revision 1 and the 

other is the review of the six boxes. Of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

252 

course at some point the two will come 

together, the implications of the six boxes and 

their relevance to Revision 1 and many of the 

decisions that need to be made. Would there be 

any advantage for SC&A to also receive the set 

of boxes and, in parallel, be looking at those 

boxes at the same time that NIOSH is looking at 

those boxes? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Does -- and I think that we don't 

know the answer to that. Judson, do you -- 

 MR. KENOYER: As I said, I have people 

reviewing those boxes. After -- after they do 

their initial summary, all the information will 

be uploaded to our terminal server. We'll make 

it available to SC&A as quickly as possible. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And perhaps once we know what's in 

that box -- those boxes, the Board may have to 

-- and by the time of our meeting, ask our 

contractor to review that. I don't know that 

we can ask you to do that at this point since 

we don't know what's in it. 

Lew, that would be a scope issue, too, as far 

as the contract is concerned. 

 DR. WADE: Although if necessary we will modify 

the scope to allow that to happen. It might 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

not be necessary if it goes to the issue of a 

site profile review. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Denise, did you have another 

question on that? Yes. 

MS. BROCK: Maybe a comment. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. BROCK: First of all, I would like to state 

just for the record that I think it is 

extremely unfortunate that I was put at such a 

disadvantage of not getting this until now. 

I'm not a -- I keep stating I do not have the 

technical skills that some of you have, and by 

me just getting this now left me very 

unprepared to protect my workers. And I've had 

just a few minutes to scan over this and the 

little bit I've seen of it, I don't know what 

you all were looking at. I think some of you 

obviously saw what I did. It lends to the fact 

that this -- this has been manipulated. These 

-- it shows that it's not credible. And as far 

as my FOIA request, isn't ORAU a DOE -- is that 

through a DOE -- they're DOE contracted. 

Correct? No? Is that wrong? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: ORAU does have a contract in its 

past with DOE, but it would depend on how you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

specified your FOIA request as to how they 

directed it. And I can't speak to that, so I 

don't know, you know, how to answer your 

question other than that. You have the 

document as soon as we could make it available. 

And again, I would comment that this document 

in its context is a trip report for a -- a 

research team to evaluate information for a 

health study. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: That -- that said, we do apologize 

to the petitioners. 

MS. BROCK: Thank you. And just one more 

thing. This probably means nothing, it's just 

my take on it. On page 13, number two, 

exposure to radon in the work space air. 

(Reading) There are fragmentary measurements of 

air radon beginning about 1946 and continuing 

through about 1955. I view them as having 

little if any use as a measure of the magnitude 

of an individual exposure. These data can be 

used to show that certain jobs or job 

categories did entail possible exposure to 

radon within a max-mini range. Any 

interpretation beyond that would be erroneous, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

255 

in my opinion. 

I mean this is from a (unintelligible) and 

maybe I'm misunderstanding what I've read, but 

there's just a -- a lot of this is questionable 

to me because I don't have those technical 

skills. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We all need to digest 

this further, I believe. 

 (Whereupon, the Board review and discussion of 

the Mallinckrodt SEC petition portion of the 

meeting was concluded.) 
256 

C E R T I F I C A T E 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 days of February 8
 

and 9, 2005; 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
 

22nd day of February, 2005.
 

10 Ado

REE I

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER' 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102