1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

75th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

FEBRUARY 24, 2011

+ + + + +

 The meeting convened, at 8:25 

a.m., Eastern Standard Time, in the Marriott 

Hotel and Suites, Two Tenth Street, Augusta, 

GA, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member*

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

BALDRIDGE, SANDRA*

BELL, BETTY

BELL, HENRY

BOLAND, TOM

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE*

BROWN, KAREN

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

CRAWFORD, CHRIS, DCAS*

CRUZ, RUBEN, CDC

ESPOSITO, ROBERT

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FRATELLO, MELISSA, Senator Kirsten

Gillibrand's Office*

FULMER, GLENDA

GEORGE, ROBERT

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS*

HAND, DONNA

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELLE, Senator Tom Udall's

Office*

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

KNOX, WAYNE

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEREW, TIM

LEWIS, MARK, ATL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

LUX, LINDA

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCKENNEY, CHRIS

MILLS, ROY

MOSELEY, CHRIS
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

NETON, JIM, DCAS

PRESLEY, LOUISE

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A*

RASZEWSKI, DENISE*

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

SEABROOKS, RON

REUTMAN, SUSAN, DCAS

SIMS, JOAN

STALEY, CARRIE

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS

THURBER, BILL, SC&A*

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

TOMES, TOM, DCAS*

ULDRICK, SELMA

WADE, LEW, NIOSH Contractor

WIDENER, PEGGY

*Participating via telephone
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Call to order 9 

 James Melius

 Chairman

Grand Junction Operations Office 10

(Grand Junction, CO) SEC Petition

 LaVon Rutherford

 NIOSH

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 30

 Vote 41

Board Work Session 44

 Los Alamos Work Group 44

 Mark Griffon

 Pantex Work Group 46

 Bradley Clawson

 Pinellas Work Group 51

 Phil Schofield

 Piqua Work Group 52

 John Poston

 Santa Susana Group 53

 Mike Gibson

 SEC Issues Work Group 53

 James Melius

 TBD-6000 Work Group 54

 Paul Ziemer

 TBD-6001 Work Group 57

 Henry Anderson

 Weldon Springs Work Group 59

 Mike Gibson

 Worker Outreach Work Group 59

 Mike Gibson

 Scientific Issues Work Group 61
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Board Work Session (CONTINUED) 

General Electric Facility Assignment 62

 Vote 64

 Scheduling of Future Board Meetings 64

Linde Work Group 74

 Genevieve Roessler 

 Vote 89

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 90

 Statement on behalf of Senator 116

 Gillibrand and Senator Schumer

 Melissa Fratello

 On Behalf of the Petitioners 152

 Antoinette Bonsignore

 Linda Lux 172

Bliss & Laughlin Steel 180

(Buffalo, NY)

SEC Petition Work Group Report

 Paul Ziemer

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 192, 201

 Petitioner 196

 Vote 203

Feed Materials Production Center 207

(Fernald, OH

SEC Petition Work Group

 Bradley Clawson

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 216

 Petitioner 224

 Sandy Baldridge
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Board Work Session 282, 336

 Dow Chemical 

 Vote 337

 Vote 338

Norton Company SEC Petition 284

(Residual Period: 1960 - 1972)

 LaVon Rutherford

 NIOSH

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 300

 Petitioner 302

 Denise Raszewski

 Vote 306

 Vote 331

 Vote 335

Board Work Session 341

 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 341

 Mark Griffon

 On Behalf of Senator Udall 343

 Michelle Jacquez-Ortiz

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 349

Savannah River Site 355

 Timothy Taulbee 356

 NIOSH

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 369

 Mark Griffon 378

 Comments, Questions, and Answers 396
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Public Comments 399

 Tim Lerew 401

 Cold War Patriots

 Peggy Widener 407

 Tom Boland 408

 Wayne Knox 414

 Joan Sims 423

 Carrie Staley 425

 Roy Mills 429

 Donna Hand 431

 Antoinette Bonsignore 437
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:01 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning, 

4 everybody. If we can get seated, we will get 

5 started.

6 Welcome. I would like to welcome 

7 one of our missing Members, Mark Griffon, who 

8 has arrived.

9 We are just one short now, but I 

10 think Jim Lockey will be on the line a little 

11 bit later.

12 Ted, do you want to go through --

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. Good morning, 

14 everyone and welcome to day two of the Board 

15 meeting. Welcome in the room and on the line.

16 Let me just note for people in the 

17 room, you look all familiar, but on the line 

18 we have a public comment session today as well 

19 as yesterday. Today it begins at 5:30 and 

20 goes to 7:00 p.m. So, members of the public 

21 are welcome to call in and ask questions and 

22 provide whatever comments.
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The other thing, just to say for 

2 folks on the line, please mute your phones. 

3 Use *6 if you don't have a mute button, *6 

4 again to take your phone off of mute.

5 Then, just to note, Board 

6 attendance, as Dr. Melius noted, we have all 

7 Board Members in attendance except for Dr. 

8 Lockey, and we expect him to call in for the 

9 Linde session that is second on the agenda 

10 today.

11 It's your agenda, Jim.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. The first 

13 item we are considering today is the SEC 

14 petition for the Grand Junction Operations 

15 Office, and LaVon Rutherford.

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Hi. Thank you, 

17 Dr. Melius.

18 Again, I am LaVon Rutherford. I 

19 am going to present NIOSH's evaluation of the 

20 Special Exposure Cohort Petition for Grand 

21 Junction Operations.

22 This petition was received on June 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 30th of 2010. The petition proposed a Class 

2 by laborers, supervisors, painters, grounds 

3 personnel, and fire chief from 1943 to present 

4 who worked at all locations at Grand Junction.

5 The covered period for Grand 

6 Junction is from 1943 is present. It is a DOE 

7 facility and it is still in operation.

8 Now this petition qualified on 

9 September 7th of 2010. The petitioner 

10 provided a basis that was a lack of monitoring 

11 data. This was supported by a dose 

12 reconstruction that actually indicated that 

13 NIOSH had not found any monitoring data.

14 The Class evaluated by NIOSH was 

15 all onsite personnel who worked at Grand 

16 Junction from January 1, 1943 through July 31, 

17 2010.

18 I am going to get into this in 

19 more detail and provide more basis for this 

20 recommendation, but we will propose a Class 

21 for all employees of the Department of Energy, 

22 predecessor agencies, and contractors and 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subcontractors who worked at Grand Junction 

2 from March 23, 1943 through January 31, 1975.

3 A little background: on March 23, 

4 1943, an Army representative arrived at Grand 

5 Junction, establishing the Colorado Area 

6 Engineer Office which later became the Grand 

7 Junction Operations Office.

8 The initial operation involved 

9 construction and operation of a refinery plant 

10 to produce uranium concentrates for the MED.

11 After the war, the site became the 

12 center of uranium ore exploration, 

13 procurement, processing, and sampling 

14 activities.

15 We put together a timeline of the 

16 major project and operations. Hopefully, this 

17 will give you an idea of the things that were 

18 occurring from the early forties all the way 

19 to present. It also, I think, gives you an 

20 idea of a break that we see in 1975, where 

21 most of the activities that were conducted 

22 onsite, the major activities, refinery 
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operations, pilot plant operations, and 

2 assaying uranium, stopped in 1975, and they 

3 went more to a remedial action period. I will 

4 get into a little more detail with that.

5 Refinery operations: they started 

6 in August of 1943, operated until October of 

7 1945. At that time, they were processing 

8 green sludge which was actually vanadium 

9 tailings they had received from Uravan and 

10 Durango mills.

11 They produced about 1,170 tons of 

12 uranium oxide and a similar amount of vanadium 

13 oxide. The uranium was then shipped east for 

14 further processing. From 1946, later in 1945 

15 through 1947, the refinery was dismantled.

16 The AEC Raw Minerals Office was 

17 established at Grand Junction in December of 

18 1947. The focus was uranium exploration and 

19 purchasing. They established ore buying 

20 stations in the western states to stockpile 

21 ore.

22 And starting in 1948, the Grand 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Junction Office received and sampled uranium 

2 concentrates. The Analytical Lab and Sampling 

3 Plant was established as well at Grand 

4 Junction to sample these ore concentrates.

5 A little background on the pilot 

6 plants: there were two pilot plants, a small 

7 pilot plant which operated from May of 1953 

8 through December of 1954. This focus at the 

9 small pilot plant was perfecting the resident 

10 pulp uranium extraction process.

11 The large pilot plant operated 

12 from January of 1955 through May of 1958, and 

13 it was focused on testing methods for uranium 

14 mills.

15 The pilot plant mills ran 24 hours 

16 per day, seven days per week.

17 The pilot plants started out in 

18 1953 with about 17 to 18 employees and ramped 

19 up to 105 employees by 1957. They processed 

20 30,000 tons of ore, uranium ore. The 

21 byproducts of this became the primary source 

22 of contaminated materials onsite. They had 
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 247,000 cubic yards of uranium mill tailings 

2 buried onsite as well as other byproducts. It 

3 contaminated 22 acres of land and 19 

4 buildings.

5 Sampling and analysis actually 

6 began in 1948 and continued through 1974. 

7 They received more than 347 million pounds of 

8 uranium oxide from 1948 through 1971.

9 Most of the sampling of the 

10 uranium oxides was done at Grand Junction in 

11 the 1961 to 1965 time period. A little bit of 

12 sampling was done at Weldon Springs. But, 

13 again, most of the sampling was done at Grand 

14 Junction.

15 Grand Junction had two sampling 

16 plants in separate buildings. They had an 

17 auger method and a falling stream method of 

18 sampling.

19 Uranium concentrates were received 

20 up until 1971. Then the last drums of 

21 material were shipped offsite in January of 

22 1974. After that, the site then continued 
15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other work and was the center for uranium 

2 exploration and some remediation projects.

3 After 1974 is when I indicated 

4 that we felt that activities onsite had 

5 shifted. You will see from a little more 

6 detail of the programs that continued after 

7 1974 why we feel that way.

8 Grand Junction managed the 

9 National Uranium Resource Program, NURE. Work 

10 included analyzing existing data, drilling 

11 445,000, that should be, new boreholes; 

12 samples, 750,000 hydrochemical samples, and 

13 flights, a million flight line miles to map 

14 out distributions of uranium and thorium and 

15 potassium. The drilling and the sampling 

16 activities occurred offsite. This resulted in 

17 a comprehensive database of the nation's 

18 uranium resources.

19 The first remedial action project, 

20 which began in 1972, Grand Junction assisted 

21 the State of Colorado in remediation of 594 

22 homes or businesses. These sites were 
16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contaminated from tailings from private mills.

2 I put this in here, exposures. I 

3 want to point out that exposures that occurred 

4 offsite in these operations are not covered 

5 under the program. However, I will say that 

6 the data that we have on individuals -- and I 

7 will get into that a little more -- we can't 

8 separate them out. So, we can't separate them 

9 out from onsite or offsite exposures. So, we 

10 will use that data.

11 And in addition, I think the 

12 discussion on that, we have had discussions 

13 with the Department of Labor that indicate 

14 that it would be difficult to identify 

15 individuals that solely worked offsite as 

16 well.

17 All right. The next remedial 

18 action project was actually onsite and began 

19 in 1988. The approach was to remediate all 

20 the open spaces at Grand Junction from south 

21 to north. Seventeen buildings were either 

22 demolished or decontaminated; 414,000 tons of 
17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radioactive contaminated material was 

2 excavated and transported to the Cheney 

3 Disposal Cell. They recontoured, 

4 reconstructed, and revegetated affected areas.

5 Dose reconstructions, we had 

6 actually 59 claims submitted to NIOSH. I am 

7 going to provide a little more information 

8 here. I should say claims that are within the 

9 period evaluated are 59 claims. Further 

10 review, there are actually 39 claims that fall 

11 into the SEC Class recommendation that we will 

12 make here in a little bit.

13 We have completed 22 dose 

14 reconstructions. Eighteen of those were over 

15 50 percent, 27 less than 50 percent. Claims 

16 containing internal are eight, and claims 

17 containing external dosimetry are 22.

18 The actual cases that you see were 

19 greater and less than 50 percent totaled 35. 

20 Those are actually all the claims that were 

21 completed. So, they cover the entire time 

22 period.
18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Sources of available information: 

2 we looked at Technical Information Bulletins, 

3 interviewed with, it says seven former 

4 workers; there are actually eight former 

5 workers. We looked at existing claimant 

6 files, the documentation provided by 

7 petitioner, NIOSH research database, and data 

8 captures.

9 The interviews actually covered, 

10 we interviewed an individual who worked all 

11 the way back in the refinery period. So, we 

12 covered most of the timeframe of operations at 

13 Grand Junction.

14 Data captures: the Atomic Energy 

15 Commission, DOE Opennet, internet searches, 

16 CEDR, NARA at Atlanta, various DOE locations, 

17 including Grand Junction.

18 Our external sources of exposure: 

19 obviously, you can see you would expect the 

20 internal/external sources of exposure mainly 

21 from the operations in the refinery plant, the 

22 pilot plant milling works, and the processing 
19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 materials, as well as sampling.

2 Direct radiation from handling and 

3 processing the ore and tailing; submersion in 

4 contaminated air; moving equipment and drums 

5 into warehouses that were part of the pilot 

6 plant; moving ore samples from receiving area 

7 to analytical chemistry, and high grade 

8 uranium mineral specimens accumulated in 

9 plants, labs and offices.

10 I want to make sure everybody 

11 understands these ore samples were not samples 

12 like this. Okay? They were actually drums 

13 that were taken in and they used these auger 

14 methods to auger material out of it. It was 

15 one sampling method.

16 The other sampling method was 

17 actually to take the drum and they would 

18 actually drop it into -- I don't know the term 

19 here -- like a conveyer, and they would slice 

20 out samples of that to sample the drums.

21 So, there's a couple of different 

22 sampling methods. They actually took a large, 
20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean they may take 20 drums and take out 

2 portions of 20 drums, mix them together to 

3 make a homogenous sample, and then do the 

4 sampling as well. So, to give you an idea, 

5 this wasn't a small-scale sampling activity.

6 Our external sources of photons, 

7 photon source would be from uranium and 

8 progeny. The largest source was radium. 

9 Obviously, after the uranium was extracted, 

10 the radium and thorium were mostly maintained 

11 in the mill tailings and became a considerable 

12 source of external exposure.

13 Beta was a uranium progeny, 

14 protactinium.

15 Neutrons, californium-252 and the 

16 zetatrons. The neutron sources were used in 

17 the later years, I believe in the 1990s, 

18 around the 1990 timeframe. They were not used 

19 in the early years.

20 Internal sources of exposure: we 

21 had inhalation and ingestion of contaminated 

22 air resulting from various milling and 
21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sampling operations, including crushing and 

2 grinding of the ore; preparation of ore 

3 samples after drying. Samples were pulverized 

4 on the floor of the prep room and screened. 

5 They also had samples reduced in size by 

6 quartering and riffling, pulverized again, and 

7 passed through another mesh screen. All those 

8 activities would generate potential airborne 

9 or internal exposures.

10 Our source of internal exposure 

11 was uranium. Uranium was extracted. So, the 

12 uranium was a major source of internal 

13 exposure as well as uranium progeny, and the 

14 mill tailings were byproducts, specifically, 

15 the radium, thorium, and radon.

16 This is actually a table that 

17 identifies bioassay data that we had for 

18 years. If you look at the refinery 

19 operations, the colored sections are actually 

20 the years of operation. 1943 through 1946, we 

21 have 11 samples in 1945. The small pilot 

22 plant, we have 10 and 11 in 1953 or 1954 
22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during the years of operations.

2 I want to point out these bioassay 

3 samples are fluorometric samples for uranium 

4 only. No other isotopic analysis was done.

5 The sampling plant, you we have 

6 first samples in 1949. We had sporadic 

7 samples pretty much consistent through 1953 to 

8 1962.

9 We also had annual summaries, 

10 1960, 1964, 1969, 1972, and 1973. They give a 

11 range, but they do not necessarily give the 

12 number of bioassay samples that were taken. 

13 We had no bioassay data after 1973 up until 

14 the D&D period.

15 This is just I wanted to point out 

16 that some of the data we have is just not 

17 legible. So, we put together a little table 

18 to indicate that we have, for example, in 1961 

19 you see that our total samples are actually up 

20 over 50, but the actual number of samples that 

21 are legible are only a little over 30. So, 

22 again, this is mainly because not only just 
23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the quality of the document remaining, but 

2 some of the documents are actually torn off on 

3 the ear or the dates are removed, some of the 

4 information, and it is very hard to get 

5 anything from them. So, I wanted to point 

6 that out as well.

7 Air sampling, if we think of our 

8 hierarchy of what we look for in data, we 

9 start out with our bioassay data and, then, we 

10 would move to our air sampling data. Again, 

11 the color coding is the years of operations. 

12 It is very hard to read the sampling plant 

13 numbers.

14 I believe there's one year in 

15 there, actually, if I look at it on this 

16 screen, I can see it. 1956, there's 61 

17 samples; 1959, 30; 1960, 18, and 1961, 64. 

18 But if you look at these, you see that we have 

19 some air sample data. It gives gross alpha 

20 and we have eight samples including five from 

21 the refinery plant and sporadic samples 

22 throughout the operations. We do have 45 
24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 samples in 1960 for outdoor air.

2 Radon data, because this is where 

3 we focus our feasibility discussion, in 1967, 

4 we have seven results outdoors; 1968, nine 

5 results outdoors. This is radon gas samples. 

6 In 1990, we have 27 samples indoors. Radon, 

7 we have some working levels. In 1985, we have 

8 a really pretty good sample set in 1985 of 300 

9 results, focusing on three buildings, mainly 

10 pilot plant, former pilot plant buildings. 

11 And we have characterization data and building 

12 closeout reports.

13 Additionally, environmental data 

14 we have, we have environmental release reports 

15 from 1990 through 2001, except for 1995 and 

16 1997.

17 Air sampling was discontinued in 

18 1994 after removal of contamination from the 

19 open lands.

20 Our feasibility determination is 

21 there is insufficient monitoring of 

22 source-term data from which to draw 
25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conclusions regarding potential magnitude of 

2 internal dose from March 23rd, 1943 through 

3 January 31st, 1975.

4 As you have seen from the previous 

5 slides, we lack radon data for the period. 

6 Radon was a source of exposure due to the 

7 radium content in the mill tailings that were 

8 left onsite as well as during operations in 

9 the pilot plant and the refinery, as well as 

10 in the sample plant when they were sampling 

11 the ores up through the period.

12 We have lack of air sampling and 

13 personal bioassay for uranium progeny through 

14 1958. All our bioassay samples and air 

15 samples associated were looking for uranium.

16 We have an inconsistent 

17 source-term. Activities varied through the 

18 site operational period up through 1975. We 

19 had refinery operations. We had pilot plant 

20 operations with laboratory activities. We 

21 were bringing in material and sampling 

22 material from various different ore sites, 
26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which makes it very difficult for us to model 

2 or use surrogate data.

3 At this time, we believe there is 

4 sufficient monitoring and source-term data for 

5 the period of February 1st, 1975 through July 

6 31st, 2010. We base this on that, by February 

7 1975, on the site, the last of the 103,776 

8 drums of uranium concentrates were shipped 

9 offsite. The site's primary mission changed 

10 to the NURE program, where they were actually 

11 going out, looking for uranium and thorium and 

12 potassium at other areas. Radium-226 

13 concentrations, because of the lack of 

14 activities onsite, were relatively constant on 

15 the surfaces and in the soil.

16 However, saying that, in recent 

17 reviews of information that we have, we have 

18 brought a couple of questions that we feel 

19 that it would not be appropriate to complete 

20 our evaluation on the post-1975 period. So, 

21 although we feel that we may be correct with 

22 this post-1975, we would like to continue our 
27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evaluation of that period.

2 Right now, in our Evaluation 

3 Report we use sampling activities post-1975, 

4 air sampling data from sampling activities to 

5 bound our exposure. However, questions came 

6 up. What about the resuspension, residual 

7 material in these existing facilities? Have 

8 we done a comparison of air activities to see 

9 if we do have a truly bounding approach?

10 As well as, recently, in December, 

11 we got some D&D information, data, that we 

12 felt that we may need to refine our dose 

13 reconstruction methodology based on that 

14 recently-obtained data. So, based on that, we 

15 will revise our Evaluation Report for the 

16 post-1975 period. We will either revise it or 

17 issue an addendum, and we will issue that 

18 prior to the May 2011 Board meeting. I will 

19 present that at that May meeting.

20 Our current feasibility 

21 determination is, again, we lack the amount of 

22 information to reconstruct the internal dose 
28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the 1943 through 1975 period. External 

2 dose we feel is reconstructable. There is one 

3 correction. I want to say the external dose 

4 from neutrons up through 1975, it should be 

5 "NA" because there was no neutron exposure 

6 during that period through 1975.

7 Currently, we feel it is feasible. 

8 However, we have additional work we are going 

9 to do on the post-1975 period.

10 So, the evidence that we have 

11 reviewed indicates that some workers in the 

12 Class may have accumulated chronic exposures 

13 through intakes of radionuclides and direct 

14 exposure to radioactive materials. 

15 Consequently, we believe that health may have 

16 been endangered.

17 Our proposed Class, again, is all 

18 employees of the Department of Energy, its 

19 predecessor agencies, its contractors and 

20 subcontractors who worked at Grand Junction 

21 from March 23, 1943 through January 31, 1975 

22 with the additional information at the end.
29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, again, I would just mention 

2 dose reconstruction is not feasible from March 

3 23rd, 1943 through January 31st, 1975.

4 Questions?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

6 you, LaVon.

7 I want to say I like the new, 

8 fancy diagrams, multi-colors.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can't take 

10 credit for those, though.

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And adding some 

13 additional information like you did on the 

14 dose reconstructions that have been done is 

15 actually very helpful. So, it gives us some 

16 perspective. I notice some of the more recent 

17 reports you are adding more, and I think it is 

18 helpful to the Board in sort of understanding 

19 what went on at the site and sort of the 

20 magnitude of exposures, and sort of explaining 

21 why you have already done some, even though it 

22 is now not feasible.
30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, questions for LaVon? Brad?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: LaVon, I just 

3 have one. You said that you had uncovered 

4 some D&D data about you are going to go back 

5 to the 1975? Or I didn't understand.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. I 

7 apologize. The D&D data we have is actually 

8 from the later years, 1990 through 1994 

9 period, or 1988 through 1994 period.

10 We just wanted to go back, 

11 reevaluate this data to ensure we had the 

12 proper methodology for that period. It is not 

13 going to affect pre-1975. It is going to 

14 affect the later years. You know, the 1975 

15 through 2010 period would be the later years 

16 of that period.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would also like 

18 to tell you I appreciate -- I know that me and 

19 you had talked a little bit about it, but the 

20 remediation period that I was worried about in 

21 covering that, I would like to tell you I 

22 appreciate your going into a little more 
31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 detail on that. Thank you.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

4 have questions or comments? Paul?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: This operations 

6 office appears to be very different from most 

7 operations offices which are administrative. 

8 It looks like this is more of a worksite for 

9 actual uranium work.

10 Were there any administrative 

11 offices that were at all separate from where 

12 all this work was done?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, the 

14 administrative offices were added later on. 

15 Up until -- and I can't remember the years, 

16 and Tom Tomes, who is actually the lead on 

17 this evaluation, he is on the line. He might 

18 be able to answer in more detail.

19 But I will say that most of the 

20 administrative offices for the activities, the 

21 NURE program and all these other activities 

22 that occurred in later years were added on 
32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 later on. So, the early operations, the 

2 actual operations of the mill and the pilot 

3 plant, and so on, were the main buildings on 

4 the site.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Tom, if you are 

6 on the line, if you want to comment?

7 MR. TOMES: Yes, I am here.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

9 MR. TOMES: The site added various 

10 projects. I think they started as early 1947 

11 and there was various activities there over a 

12 period of time that started in late 1947.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I think 

14 Paul's question was, when did sort of the 

15 office operations start there? Do you know?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Tom, I think what 

17 Dr. Ziemer was questioning was, were there 

18 separate office or admin buildings on the site 

19 in the early years? I am taking the point 

20 those individuals might not have been exposed 

21 to operations that we could have -- if there 

22 was any thought of eliminating a Class based 
33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on that? So, were there any facilities or 

2 buildings that were completely strictly 

3 administrative that were separated out from 

4 the other operations onsite?

5 (No response.)

6 MR. KATZ: It sounded like he was 

7 having trouble with his phone.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, why don't 

9 we wait a second?

10 MR. TOMES: Hello. This is Tom 

11 Tomes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Did you hear the 

13 question that LaVon --

14 MR. TOMES: Yes, I heard part of 

15 it. I lost my connection briefly.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that's what 

17 we thought.

18 LaVon, why don't you repeat it?

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Tom, what 

20 Dr. Ziemer is looking for, is there any 

21 information there were administrative 

22 buildings that were separate from the 
34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operations onsite, maybe in the early years, 

2 that those individuals may have not been 

3 exposed to the activities?

4 MR. TOMES: I believe in 1947 is 

5 when they started using the site for the 

6 center for raw materials program. So, there 

7 were administrative functions as early as 

8 1947. Over the period of time, different 

9 functions were added in the later years. I 

10 don't know how well those can be separated as 

11 far as commingling in other areas of the site.

12 As a general rule, the 

13 administrative areas on the north part of the 

14 plant and the drum areas on the south part of 

15 the plant, but I have not really looked at how 

16 well those can be separated out.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can say, based 

18 on the data that we have, we have no 

19 indication that we could separate individuals 

20 from that.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if I might 

22 comment further, my guess is in a site like 
35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this even the administrative people are out in 

2 the spaces quite a bit. This is, as I said, a 

3 very different-looking situation than many 

4 operations offices where they are sometimes 

5 not even close to the site that they are 

6 administering.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: I agree. When we 

8 first got the petition in, I thought Grand 

9 Junction Operations Office, it is an 

10 operations office; what could they have been 

11 doing.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any? Josie, 

13 yes?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. LaVon, could 

15 you explain a little bit about the x-rays? 

16 The ER says that x-rays, some of them were 

17 onsite; some of them were off, and prior to 

18 1947 it was unclear whether the x-rays were 

19 taken on- or offsite. But your feasibility 

20 says that you can reconstruct during those, 

21 1943 to 1975?

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. Well, 
36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 since we could not determine whether they were 

2 on- or offsite, we will include x-ray dose for 

3 all workers because we will assume they were 

4 conducted onsite. So, we will use our 

5 standard methodologies for doing the x-rays.

6 Again, those would be not 

7 presumptive cancers in the early years up 

8 through 1975, because we would be adding a 

9 Class for that period.

10 MEMBER BEACH: And, then, one 

11 other followup, a different question. On the 

12 homes, the different buildings offsite that 

13 stored, could you give a little bit more 

14 information on who is covered or not covered?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can tell you 

16 that, through brief discussions with the 

17 Department of Labor, there is no indication 

18 that we can separate out individuals that 

19 would be working onsite and individuals who 

20 were working offsite.

21 We have noticed that as well from 

22 the dosimetry data we have. We can't really 
37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tell necessarily whether the activity was 

2 onsite or offsite.

3 Based on that, anyone, any claim 

4 that would be accepted would be assumed to be 

5 onsite and, therefore, included in the Class 

6 up through 1975.

7 Did that answer it?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Mr. Poston is 

9 saying no. I guess I am wondering, if a 

10 worker was onsite and they took the drums, 

11 stacked the drums, those individuals would be 

12 covered. So, if there's offsite workers 

13 associated with that, they would not be 

14 covered?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: If there are 

16 workers that worked offsite only and the 

17 Department of Labor did not accept their claim 

18 because they worked offsite only, and they 

19 could prove it, then they would not be 

20 covered.

21 My point, the point I am getting 

22 at is that, yes, there were activities that 
38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 occurred offsite, and under the program those 

2 activities would not be covered under this 

3 program. But the problem the Department of 

4 Labor has is identifying individuals that 

5 solely worked offsite.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay? Is that 

7 helpful?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, yes. It 

10 is a covered site issue that is tricky.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

13 with questions or comments?

14 (No response.)

15 Okay. If not, what does the Board 

16 wish to do? Do I hear a motion?

17 MEMBER MUNN: It was my 

18 understanding that they were asking for an 

19 opportunity to do a little more work.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: On the latter 

21 part only.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: And, actually, 

2 the opportunity to do a little more work is 

3 solely for the later years. We fully are 

4 complete with our evaluation for the 1943 

5 through 1975 period. We can't reconstruct 

6 dose for that period.

7 That will not change with our 

8 further evaluation. Our further evaluation is 

9 solely looking at the later years. So, we 

10 feel that the Board, I mean it is obviously 

11 your prerogative to move forward with that 

12 recommendation.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I actually am a 

14 little bit out of order here. We may have a 

15 petitioner on the line. I don't believe the 

16 petitioner wanted to provide comments, but I 

17 at least want to make that offer right now. 

18 There is no obligation. You don't need to, 

19 but if you would like to, you may.

20 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: No, thank 

21 you.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 
40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you.

2 Okay, Wanda?

3 MEMBER MUNN: I move that we 

4 accept the NIOSH recommendation that an SEC be 

5 granted for the employees of the Grand 

6 Junction Operations Office for the years 1943 

7 through 1975.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you.

9 MEMBER POSTON: I second it.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. We 

11 have a second from --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: I second it.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, the Chair 

14 rules that, actually, Dr. Poston made the 

15 second. I think we have to follow procedures 

16 here today.

17 Any further discussion? 

18 Questions?

19 (No response.)

20 If not, let Ted do the roll call.

21 Yes, Henry, I'm sorry.

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Do we have any 
41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 timeline for when the rest of the evaluation 

2 will be done?

3 MEMBER BEACH: He said May.

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: May?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: The question was 

6 you said that you had some further evaluation 

7 to do in the later years, and we were looking 

8 at the timeframe. And I believe you said the 

9 May --

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it is, 

11 actually, we plan to have a report complete in 

12 time for the May meeting and will present at 

13 the May meeting.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

21 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?
42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Let me just check in 

7 case. Dr. Lockey, have you joined us yet?

8 (No response.)

9 Okay. He's absent. I will 

10 collect his vote after.

11 Dr. Melius?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

16 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.
43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: All in favor, 11 in 

6 favor, one vote to collect. The motion 

7 passes.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Excellent.

9 We are a little bit ahead of 

10 schedule. In fact, we are quite a bit ahead 

11 of schedule. We really shouldn't start 

12 discussing Linde until 9:30. We have one 

13 Board Member who will be on then as well as 

14 the petitioners.

15 So, why don't we start a little 

16 bit of our Board work session and catch up and 

17 maybe have a little longer break after Linde 

18 if we are on schedule?

19 So, Mark, since you're here and we 

20 skipped you yesterday, are you ready for the 

21 DR Subcommittee report or would you rather --

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I do it 
44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 later?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You can, yes.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I wasn't 

4 expecting the Work Group and Subcommittee

5 updates yet.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. I 

7 will tell you your fellow Subcommittee Chair 

8 yesterday was also surprised, and she went 

9 right ahead.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: She's better than 

12 I.

13 (Laughter.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: How about Los 

15 Alamos? We also skipped that. Would you 

16 rather wait on that one also?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, Los Alamos, 

18 I can probably do an update because there's 

19 not much information.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: The Los Alamos 

22 Work Group was scheduled to meet prior to this 
45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting, and it was cancelled at NIOSH's 

2 request because, basically, they weren't going 

3 to have much chance to finish action items 

4 prior to that Work Group meeting. So, we 

5 cancelled it. We rescheduled it in -- and I'm 

6 going off the top of my head here -- May. It 

7 is before the May Board meeting.

8 MEMBER BEACH: May 2nd.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: May 2nd. Thank 

10 you. May 2nd.

11 So, the status stands from our 

12 last meeting. So, really nothing to report, 

13 but we did reschedule our next meeting and 

14 hope to make progress in the Work Group 

15 meeting before the next Board meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu or anybody 

17 from NIOSH have comments?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: No, that's pretty 

19 much accurate. I mean it is the same 

20 situation as always. You know, competing 

21 interests and competing priorities and, also, 

22 getting information from the site. It is the 
46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 same issues as always.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Pantex?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: We did in January 

4 have a Work Group meeting that we came down 

5 with. Numerous issues that we have is 

6 adequacy of internal data, internal dose 

7 model, the estimates on plutonium, thorium, 

8 tritium.

9 But, basically, a lot of the key 

10 issues that NIOSH responded to us is their 

11 theory to be able to back-extrapolate from the 

12 1990s back into the late forties using 1990 

13 data. This has been tasked to NIOSH. They 

14 are to bring us their basis for this. This is 

15 one of the things that we are waiting on.

16 The tour I believe that we had 

17 down there helped out an awful lot to be able 

18 to understand the operations, and so forth, 

19 and the premise that NIOSH has that it was a 

20 clean site I think went somewhat away, but 

21 they are going to explain to us how they are 

22 going to be able to do the process. This has 
47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been tasked, and Mark Rolfes is working on 

2 that. They are supposed to have this for us 

3 for the next Work Group meeting.

4 We don't have a Work Group meeting 

5 at this time scheduled until we have a due 

6 date for this information.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And on the 

8 schedule that Ted circulated, the due date 

9 appears to be late February.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. Well, now 

11 we do have some other issues. Dealing with a 

12 site like this, we have a lot of 

13 classification issues.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: It is not going 

16 to be a Work Group meeting; it is going to be 

17 more of an informational sharing in Germantown 

18 with SC&A and NIOSH and Members of the Work 

19 Group, if possible, to able to review the 

20 information that is out there in a classified 

21 setting, to be able to discuss this.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.
48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: That should be 

2 coming up. We are looking at possibly in the 

3 next month.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And, 

5 then, what about NIOSH's response? The 

6 schedule I have in front of me says the end of 

7 February. I am just trying to get when you 

8 would actually have a Work Group meeting to 

9 deal with not the classification issues, but 

10 the SEC issues.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: That we are still 

12 waiting for. I have not had a response back 

13 yet of an exact due date. We were looking at 

14 the end of February timeframe, but that is 

15 coming close.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, that is 

17 why I am trying to pin this down and get a 

18 Work Group schedule. Sometimes it is easier 

19 to at least start getting dates while we are 

20 here rather than waiting. So, I don't know if 

21 NIOSH has an estimated delivery date or a 

22 realistic delivery date for this information 
49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we can do that.

2 Stu, if you want to check back and 

3 then we can talk about it later?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I just was going 

5 to say the latest information I have is from 

6 our work planning document, which has that 

7 late February date.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I can check the 

10 validity of the date and talk to Brad about 

11 some potential dates.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Presumably, after 

14 the trip to Washington, which we are working 

15 to set up now.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Just to remind, I think 

18 what we said in the Work Group teleconference 

19 that we had was that we would have this secure 

20 meeting to look at these classified documents, 

21 and that that would be the right time to 

22 figure out a date for the Work Group meeting, 
50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but shooting for before the Board meeting. 

2 But that would make matters clearer as to the 

3 path forward, and then we should have in hand 

4 responses from DCAS as well.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes. I 

6 mean I just don't want to be too pushy on 

7 this, but this uncertainty about when the 

8 meeting is with DOE and then you wait, you 

9 know, if that doesn't occur until April, then 

10 by the time people clear their schedule and do 

11 that, then we are past our next meeting. So, 

12 if we can pin things down -- I understand the 

13 uncertainties, but maybe after Stu checks and 

14 talks to Brad, we can --

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: What Ted said was 

16 true, but at the last Work Group meeting NIOSH 

17 was tasked with bringing back their basis for 

18 why they feel that they can do this. This is 

19 supposed to have been being worked on because 

20 we have not got a basis of why they think they 

21 can back-extrapolate.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.
51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: And they have 

2 been working, they are supposed to have been 

3 working on that and get that. Because this is 

4 the whole basis of what the issue is besides 

5 the data inadequacy, and so forth.

6 But we had not been able to see 

7 each other's material that we had.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Brad 

9 and Stu.

10 Any other Board Members have 

11 questions?

12 (No response.)

13 No? Okay. Pinellas?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Pinellas?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Tentatively, 

17 there are three items that should be ready in 

18 probably the next week, sometimes this month 

19 or part of next month. I mean this month or 

20 next month.

21 And once those come out and SC&A 

22 has had a chance to see them, then we are 
52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to schedule a Work Group meeting for 

2 Pinellas.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I don't 

4 even see the site on the list.

5 Piqua?

6 MEMBER POSTON: At the last 

7 meeting, we realized that we had not tasked 

8 SC&A to look at the results from NIOSH. And 

9 so, they have done that. They have published 

10 a report. I haven't had a chance to digest it 

11 completely.

12 My understanding is that they 

13 basically do not have any issues. They agree 

14 with the way NIOSH is going to handle 

15 carbon-14 and tritium in the Piqua organic 

16 reactor.

17 And so, the next item of business 

18 would be to review that report and schedule a 

19 Work Group meeting probably by telephone 

20 because I think we are ready to take some 

21 action as soon as possible. But, first, I 

22 need to look at the report a little bit 
53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 better. I think the Work Group Members also 

2 need to review that.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good.

4 Mike, Santa Susana?

5 MEMBER GIBSON: Jim, as far as I 

6 know, we are still on schedule. I have NIOSH 

7 completing some actions in April and have a 

8 Work Group meeting during that month, 

9 hopefully.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good.

11 Savannah River we will hear about 

12 later today.

13 SEC Issues Work Group, we need to 

14 do a followup on the 250-day issue. But other 

15 than that, we don't have anything outstanding 

16 for that.

17 TBD-6000? I know it has been 

18 renamed.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. We used to 

20 be 6000-6001, but that has been broken out.

21 There's three things. On 

22 TBD-6000, the document itself, all of the 
54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matrix issues have been resolved and there is 

2 a revision that is resulting from that. NIOSH 

3 is planning to revise the document. I don't 

4 believe a firm date has been established for 

5 that. But, basically, the Work Group is done 

6 with TBD-6000.

7 Then, there are two facilities, 

8 one of which we will hear about a little 

9 later this morning. That is Bliss & Laughlin. 

10 Then, the other one is General Steel 

11 Industries.

12 You will notice on the first page 

13 of the list of various tasks that you have 

14 been referring to, Dr. Melius, we have 

15 something like 10 documents that NIOSH is 

16 working on which are the result of recent 

17 updates in the source-terms. So, NIOSH is 

18 developing exposure models for all of the 

19 various source-terms there and some related 

20 issues. That is the good news.

21 The bad news is we don't have 

22 scheduled dates on those. There are some 
55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concerns because General Steel, of course, has 

2 been before us for several years now, and I am 

3 just going to term it in that way. It has 

4 been a long time. I know the petitioners are 

5 quite anxious for the SEC petition to be acted 

6 upon. So, we do need to have NIOSH establish, 

7 with looking at the various priorities, 

8 schedules for these deliverables.

9 And, of course, once they are 

10 delivered, then SC&A will be reviewing them. 

11 So, there is concern that this will stretch 

12 out, you know, again. I will simply note for 

13 the record that the Work Group is concerned 

14 about the time schedule.

15 But that is the status of General 

16 Steel and, as I say, Bliss & Laughlin we have 

17 pretty much concluded, and we will have a 

18 recommendation here shortly on that at this 

19 meeting.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu, can you 

21 help us a little bit on some scheduling on 

22 General Steel? Is there anything?
56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We are doing what 

2 we can internally to try to speed up this 

3 process a little bit on General Steel by 

4 making some reassignments of people and tasks 

5 from people, so that the key people have more 

6 time to work on this. So, we are trying to 

7 accelerate this as much as we can, yes.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If I understand 

9 the assignment, I believe Dave Allen has been 

10 Linde's --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and Dave 

12 Allen, of course, has more than General Steel 

13 that he is working on.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, I think it is 

16 a combination of personnel and resource 

17 issues, and NIOSH has limitations as well. Of 

18 course, all of the Work Group Chairs know that 

19 their site is the highest priority, and I 

20 haven't been able to convince them all that it 

21 is really General Steel.

22 (Laughter.)
57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, in any event, NIOSH is 

2 working on this issue, and we appreciate that 

3 and hope to have these documents in the near 

4 future.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks.

6 Anybody else have questions or 

7 comments?

8 (No response.)

9 Okay. TBD-6001?

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yay, 6001!

11 (Laughter.)

12 We have a tentative --

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: By far, the most 

14 important Work Group.

15 (Laughter.)

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right, the most 

17 important Work Group with three sites.

18 We are currently holding March 

19 15th as a possible date. We are now querying 

20 to see where we are with NIOSH, and there may 

21 be some conflicts with some of the staff that 

22 would need to be there. So, we may be 
58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 shifting that.

2 But, the best I can tell, we are 

3 moving along. So, March or April, we would 

4 certainly have a meeting.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and at 

6 least looking at the schedule for reports, 

7 that looks to be sort of the same issue we 

8 just talked about with Paul and the other 6000 

9 Work Group.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, we can get 

12 that, though it looks like those sites, at 

13 least in terms of SECs, there's not quite as 

14 much --

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- aging or 

17 whatever we call that.

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right. Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

20 have questions for Henry on that?

21 (No response.)

22 Okay. Thank you.
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Weldon Springs, Mike?

2 MEMBER GIBSON: We had a meeting 

3 January 25th to work off some of the open 

4 items on the issues matrix. That is being 

5 done, and we tentatively have another meeting 

6 scheduled for March 23rd.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good.

8 Questions, anybody?

9 (No response.)

10 Okay. Thanks, Mike.

11 And you're on again, Mike, Worker 

12 Outreach.

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Worker Outreach, 

14 we are still making progress. At the present 

15 time, we have assigned SC&A to go off and do a 

16 small sampling of worker comments from Rocky 

17 Flats and to trace those back through 

18 documents, et cetera, the transcripts, to see 

19 how they were responded to. They are 

20 currently doing that. When that is done, we 

21 should be able to have another Work Group 

22 meeting.
60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Does SC&A 

2 have a timeline on that? I notice John left.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually, I have 

4 been involved in that.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. 

6 Great.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: No, as Mike has 

8 pointed out, that is actively underway.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: We probably are 

11 halfway through. I would say another four or 

12 five weeks before we have something as a 

13 product. That is going to depend on, I think, 

14 the interchange between some of the interviews 

15 as well as the documents, but I would think 

16 four or five weeks.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Great.

18 Anybody have comments or questions 

19 on Worker Outreach?

20 (No response.)

21 Okay. We are running ahead. What 

22 else have we got? If I can find the piece of 
61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 paper? Here we go.

2 Two things. The most 

3 straightforward one is the Scientific Issues 

4 Work Group. As I indicated, this one we had 

5 lots of volunteers for, which is good, but we 

6 have to be careful. We are limited to eight, 

7 where we hit a quorum, and so forth. We are 

8 willing to push the limit on that.

9 I was thinking, since David 

10 volunteered and suggested this, he deserves to 

11 -- I don't know if that's good or bad -- to 

12 Chair it. And I also had Dick Lemen, Gen 

13 Roessler, Jim Lockey, John Poston, Paul 

14 Ziemer, and Bill Field all volunteered. And 

15 so, we are just going to assign everybody. 

16 Wanda was interested, but recognized she was 

17 very busy. So, I think it is seven and we 

18 will leave a space open, if other people are 

19 interested in participating and listening in 

20 or being involved, just as long as we keep 

21 under a quorum.

22 I guess I would only ask some 
62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 flexibility. Getting seven people scheduled 

2 for something can be difficult. So, I think 

3 if everyone can be flexible and understand 

4 that maybe not everybody can be scheduled at 

5 any point in time for a Work Group, we will do 

6 that. I appreciate the go-ahead.

7 The other issue that came up was 

8 whether we needed a Work Group or some 

9 assignment of the General Electric facility to 

10 a Work Group. My personal thinking on that 

11 was that it was a situation where we have had 

12 a lot of activity. We have information that 

13 is on the O: drive that is important. NIOSH 

14 at some point may be doing a revised 

15 Evaluation Report or an addendum, or so forth. 

16 But it has gone on long enough now that I am 

17 just afraid we sort of lose continuity having 

18 somebody responsible for keeping track of it, 

19 basically, and so forth. We decided not to do 

20 it, thinking that it was going to get resolved 

21 by the next meeting, and that was probably a 

22 year and a half ago. I can't recall exactly 
63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when it first came up.

2 So, we could either do a new Work 

3 Group or we could assign it to the SEC Issues 

4 Work Group, I believe would be that.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, is that the 

6 Evandale one?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, the GE 

10 Evandale. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: It would seem 

12 reasonable for it to go to the SEC Work Group.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I mean, 

14 since it sort of revolves around sort of a 

15 Class Definition issue, that is where the SEC 

16 Work Group is doing it. Right now, the SEC 

17 Work Group does not have any sort of active 

18 individual sites. So, it is not competing 

19 with anything at this point.

20 So, I guess we need a motion to 

21 that effect.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I move that the GE 
64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Evandale SEC petition be handed to the SEC 

2 Work Group for further development and 

3 closure.

4 MEMBER BEACH: And I will second 

5 that.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

7 you.

8 And further discussion?

9 (No response.)

10 If not, all in favor say aye.

11 (Chorus of ayes.) 

12 Opposed?

13 Abstain?

14 Okay. We have got that.

15 Ted, do you have anything else? 

16 We probably should take a short break.

17 MR. KATZ: We could do the 

18 scheduling of Board meetings. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we do 

20 that, yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Does everyone have 

22 their calendars open? So, we have meetings 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scheduled through the summer, the summer Board 

2 meeting being in Hanford. Following that in 

3 the fall --

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can you give 

5 those dates, Ted?

6 MR. KATZ: Do you want me to 

7 confirm the dates? Sure. Hanford I believe 

8 is August 23rd through the 25th.

9 And also, some of you may have 

10 already done a Hanford tour, but I am sure all 

11 of you haven't; even maybe some of the older 

12 Board Members, longer-standing Board Members 

13 haven't. So, we are going to try to arrange 

14 for a Board tour. I understand from Brad it 

15 was very good the last time they did this. It 

16 was very helpful. Let me know, Board Members, 

17 if you would like to attend. That would be 

18 the day before, since the 23rd through the 

19 25th is Wednesday through Friday, I believe. 

20 So, it would be the 22nd.

21 MEMBER MUNN: It would be Monday, 

22 the 22nd.
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. I'm sorry. So, 

2 we will work on that with Hanford, getting 

3 that set up. If you will just let me know of 

4 your interest, potential interest, in 

5 attending?

6 So, then, we need a teleconference 

7 following that, and about the right timeframe 

8 is October 11th through 14th or October 17th 

9 through 21st, those weeks. We typically do 

10 these on a Wednesday, but how do your 

11 calendars look? So, October the 13th would be 

12 Wednesday, but, of course, it doesn't have to 

13 be. It's the 11th through 14th, okay.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: The 12th is a 

15 Wednesday.

16 MEMBER MUNN: So, let's do the 

17 11th.

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: That is a 

19 Tuesday.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: All right. There is a 

22 conflict on Monday; that's why, right. So, do 
67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 any of those dates the 11th through 14th work? 

2 MEMBER MUNN: The 11th.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. How about the 

4 17th through 21st?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I can do 

6 starting Thursday.

7 MR. KATZ: So, how is October 20th 

8 for folks? Good, everybody? Okay.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Ted?

10 MR. KATZ: The 11:00 for the 

11 westerners? Absolutely, absolutely, we're 

12 very accommodating here.

13 (Laughter.)

14 Okay. So, October 20th, 11:00 

15 a.m. Eastern.

16 And, then, again, going to the 

17 next --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can move up 

19 to nine o'clock.

20 MR. KATZ: The next face-to-face 

21 Board meeting, the right timeframe is either 

22 the week of December 5th through 9th or the 
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 week of December 12th through 16th.

2 MEMBER PRESLEY: Where is it going 

3 to be?

4 MR. KATZ: Excuse me?

5 MEMBER PRESLEY: Where is it going 

6 to be?

7 MR. KATZ: Well, we haven't 

8 determined that. That is the other thing we 

9 will have to determine. That is around 

10 university finals time, somebody said?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: What week is 

12 university final time?

13 MR. KATZ: The following week, the 

14 second week of the options.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: So, the 5th would 

16 be better.

17 MR. KATZ: Well, let's see. Does 

18 anyone have difficulty with the 5th through 

19 the 9th, that whole week?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I can't --

21 MEMBER LEMEN: When did you 

22 decide?
69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: We haven't decided. 

2 We're discussing this.

3 So, it sounds like the 12th 

4 through the 16th is problematic for people who 

5 have university posts. The 5th through the 

6 9th doesn't work as well because we need our 

7 Chair.

8 Obviously, we can move on. It 

9 just means we are compressing the time between 

10 Board meetings.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: What is wrong with 

12 the first week? What's wrong with the last 

13 week in November?

14 MEMBER MUNN: I won't be in the 

15 country.

16 MR. KATZ: For the week of the 

17 29th, you're not in the country?

18 MEMBER MUNN: No, November is gone 

19 for me.

20 MEMBER BEACH: So, Ted, though, 

21 the 7th, 8th, 9th, that's not good, the end of 

22 the week? No?
70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: It doesn't work for 

2 Jim.

3 MEMBER MUNN: So, there were too 

4 many of us who couldn't make the week of the 

5 5th, the tail-end of that?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Chair can't.

7 MEMBER MUNN: The Chair can't. 

8 Oh, well, hey.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, the end of 

10 the week of the 12th or the start of it?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, let me 

12 check and see if I can move something, if that 

13 week of the 5th looks good otherwise.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, let me just make 

15 certain. Does that week work for everyone but 

16 the Chair?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the end of the 

18 week does.

19 MR. KATZ: So, you were saying the 

20 7th, 8th, 9th?

21 MEMBER MUNN: The 7th, 8th, and 

22 9th would work, yes.
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, we will see 

2 how this works for Jim.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is Pearl Harbor 

4 Remembrance Day a government holiday?

5 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think so.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: No?

7 MR. KATZ: It is not. It is not.

8 So, we are just going to pencil it 

9 in for now, the 7th through the 9th, but we 

10 will wait on Jim.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I should be able 

12 to --

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. So, we're 

14 good for that.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Someplace with a 

16 lot of snow would be interesting. 

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well, one 

18 location we have tried to get to 

19 unsuccessfully, because there wasn't 

20 availability, was Nashville. That is probably 

21 not a problem, then, right, on a normal year? 

22 I know this year has been extraordinary, but 
72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 MEMBER PRESLEY: December is 

3 always cold in east Tennessee.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: What is your 

5 definition of cold?

6 (Laughter.)

7 MEMBER PRESLEY: Well, not like it 

8 is in your area.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, you're probably 

10 used to cold.

11 MEMBER POSTON: Ted, we have never 

12 been to Pinellas.

13 MR. KATZ: Never been to --

14 MEMBER POSTON: We have never been 

15 to Pinellas.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We were --

17 MEMBER POSTON: Did we? It must 

18 have been a long time ago.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, a long time 

20 it was.

21 MR. KATZ: But speak up with other 

22 options for locations because that is 
73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something we would work on at the same time.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are we going to 

3 be ready for doing something at Pinellas?

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, we should 

5 have something by then.

6 MR. KATZ: The question is whether 

7 we will be through with Pinellas by then.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Is anything going to 

9 be going on in California? Will we be 

10 anywhere near doing something with Santa 

11 Susana by then?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We could be 

13 back. I actually think Pinellas would be --

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: It has been a 

15 long time since we have been to Pinellas. I 

16 think that we owe them --

17 MR. KATZ: Is that the first 

18 choice then over Nashville? Tampa? Shall we 

19 have Nashville has a second option?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. We will work on 

22 that after we are certain we are doing it that 
74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 week.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, the next 

4 item on our agenda is the Linda Ceramics SEC.

5 MR. KATZ: And before we get 

6 started with that, I just want to note I have 

7 emailed to everyone a number of documents that 

8 I just emailed this morning. Two documents 

9 from one of the petitioners, Antoinette 

10 Bonsignore, that she sent me this morning I 

11 have sent to all of you at your various email 

12 addresses, and, also, a letter that went from 

13 Stu Hinnefeld, from DCAS, to Antoinette in 

14 response to an issue that she raised, I 

15 believe, at a teleconference as well as at one 

16 of the Work Group meetings. So, you should 

17 all have those.

18 Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, Gen, 

20 do you want to -- I don't know if you were 

21 going to do a presentation or what the plan 

22 was for this meeting.
75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think I should 

2 do a presentation. Could we check first to 

3 see if Dr. Lockey is on the phone?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, good point. 

5 Jim Lockey, are you on the line?

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes, Jim, I am.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good. We 

8 are just starting Linde. I don't know how 

9 long you have been listening, but we are just 

10 getting going.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Board 

12 Members should have two items in the 

13 information for the Board meeting. And 

14 actually, you got both of these items last 

15 week.

16 There is the new NIOSH Evaluation 

17 Report that was issued on January 28th. I 

18 hope you have read that. My view of that is 

19 it is very concise, very well-written, and it 

20 covers all of the information items that you 

21 might need background information on.

22 Also, I put in the packet the 
76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 notes that I am going to go over here shortly. 

2 So, you can look at that.

3 Just as a reminder, we are talking 

4 about the Linde Ceramics SEC-00107. That is 

5 the period from January 1st, 1954 through July 

6 31st, 2006. This is called the residual 

7 period.

8 I will briefly mention a few 

9 things about the operations at Linde. This is 

10 a pretty straightforward site, not a big site 

11 and not terribly complicated.

12 In 1942 to 1949, they did uranium 

13 separation there. Five buildings were 

14 involved. The buildings I have listed further 

15 down, primarily Building 30, the main 

16 operations building, and, then, also, 

17 Buildings 14, 31, 37, and 38.

18 The ore handling stopped in 1946, 

19 and the oxide or green salt handling ended in 

20 July 1949.

21 I have attached to this report, 

22 just so you can have easy access to it, if you 
77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have questions about any of the operations or 

2 the timeline, I have attached pages out of the 

3 ER, pages 15 and 16 and, also, a timeline on 

4 page 17 from the ER. So, you can refer to 

5 that.

6 From the time of shutdown in 1949 

7 and prior to 1954 was the decontamination and 

8 the comprehensive cleanup period.

9 The sources of exposure, again, 

10 pretty straightforward, were only due to 

11 uranium and uranium progeny in soils, 

12 buildings, and also in tunnels.

13 NIOSH has said that they have 

14 access to survey data, including air 

15 monitoring data for both the decontamination 

16 activities before 1954 and several distinct 

17 major investigations during this residual 

18 period. The latter were associated with the 

19 FUSRAP survey activities, and these include 

20 soil characterizations, building surveys, air 

21 sampling results. NIOSH also has source-term 

22 information for onsite uranium and uranium 
78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 progeny during the operational period.

2 As far as the proposed method for 

3 calculating doses, there is much more detail 

4 in the revised ER. External doses, the 

5 workers during this period were not radiation 

6 workers. Therefore, monitoring was not 

7 required, was not believed necessary. And Jim 

8 Neton had more to say about this particular 

9 thing during residual periods yesterday.

10 There was limited external 

11 personnel dosimetry data. However, NIOSH has 

12 a proposal for calculating external doses, and 

13 I will comment that during our Work Group 

14 meetings there was really not much concern 

15 about this proposal.

16 The main concentration during our 

17 Work Group meetings was on calculating the 

18 internal radiation doses. Again, here I will 

19 note there was no personnel bioassay 

20 monitoring results available during this time.

21 We looked at primarily at Building 

22 30, the primary processing building, because 
79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it was the most contaminated according to the 

2 FUSRAP reports.

3 There are two areas of interest 

4 when doing the internal radiation doses for 

5 this facility. No. 1 is the air particulates. 

6 This, for evaluation, was divided really into 

7 three periods.

8 For 1954 to 1969, it is assumed 

9 that the concentration at all times, the 

10 proposal to do dose calculations, the 

11 concentration at all times was equal to that 

12 measured during the earlier decontamination 

13 period when pneumatic hammers were used. This 

14 is thought to be a worst-case scenario. At 

15 that time, they used these hammers to remove 

16 the concrete floor.

17 Another period, then, was the 

18 first six years after 1969. As far as air 

19 particulates goes, it is proposed to use a 

20 1969 value in a straight line decay to the 

21 measured 1976 value. And, of course, there 

22 are much more details on this in the ER.
80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 For the third period, then, from 

2 1976 to 2006, this value would be held 

3 constant. This follow the OTIB-70 approach 

4 here in order to be claimant-favorable.

5 Another area would be the radon 

6 doses. Radon source-term was measured during 

7 production, and it would be used as a constant 

8 upper bound for the 1954 to 1969 renovation 

9 period.

10 Then, the radon level would be 

11 assumed to decline from the bounding 1969 

12 value to a lower 1981, and that is a measured 

13 value and held steady to 2006.

14 The other area that we discussed

15 rather extensively during our Work Group 

16 meetings, and for which we have a revision or 

17 a revised approach in the new ER, is how to 

18 calculate doses in the utility tunnels. And 

19 again, here we have the two sources, the air 

20 particulates and radon. These exposures would 

21 have been from contaminated soils, 

22 contaminated walls, and surrounding soil.
81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I will mention that these tunnels, 

2 built in 1957 and 1961, were not used to 

3 transport or to store radioactive materials. 

4 They were just used for, I assume, people 

5 walking back and forth, and so on.

6 The approach here, doses from air 

7 particulates would be based on bounding 

8 estimates from a 2001 survey. And the 

9 approach, then, that we had not had when I 

10 presented this whole information to you at our 

11 November meeting was on how to calculate radon 

12 in these tunnels. The method now that has 

13 been presented and agreed upon between NIOSH 

14 and SC&A, it is a method that Dr. Field 

15 suggested. It is that the bounding for the 

16 radon levels would be based on the known 

17 distribution of radon concentrations in 

18 basements near the Linde facility, quite a 

19 number of measurements there, and expanded by 

20 using all of the available Linde plant 

21 measurements from a set of boreholes in the 

22 soil. And if you have questions on any of 
82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this, I am sure we have people who can expand 

2 on that.

3 Anyway, then, NIOSH's evaluation 

4 -- and I will read it -- is that, "Based on 

5 its full research of the Class under 

6 evaluation, NIOSH has obtained air monitoring 

7 data, soil sampling data, and radiation 

8 contamination survey data from the cleanup 

9 period occurring prior to 1954, and for the 

10 time period evaluated in this report. Based 

11 on its analysis of these available resources, 

12 NIOSH found no part of the Class under 

13 evaluation for which it cannot estimate 

14 radiation doses with sufficient accuracy."

15 Of course, throughout this whole 

16 procedure, the Work Group and SC&A reviewed 

17 all of this. SC&A's review -- and I will read 

18 that -- "After extensive review and revised 

19 approaches by NIOSH for bounding of radiation 

20 doses, SC&A reported to the Work Group that it 

21 concurs with the NIOSH methodology in all 

22 aspects," all methods for bounding dose.
83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, with regard to the Work 

2 Group, and you heard this when we made our 

3 presentation -- Josie and I made a formal 

4 presentation at our last face-to-face Board 

5 meeting -- Dr. Lockey and I agree with the 

6 NIOSH approach and SC&A's concurrence that 

7 radiation doses can be reconstructed as per 

8 EEOICPA and 42 CFR 83.13. I think we have 

9 carefully reevaluated what our rules are with 

10 regard to 42 CFR 83.13 to try to assure 

11 ourselves that this is accurate.

12 Our Work Group Members, Josie 

13 Beach and Mike Gibson, disagreed. If you 

14 recall, they presented, I think, three or four 

15 slides with their concerns. I have tried to 

16 summarize on here their type of concerns. 

17 And, Josie and Mike, you can add to this if 

18 you would like.

19 They included the "lack of 

20 bioassay film badge monitoring, air sampling, 

21 field monitoring data for" -- and this was 

22 their quote -- "the renovation period and use 
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of surrogate data."

2 That is kind of the end of the 

3 report that you have in front of you. My 

4 thoughts I will add to this. And, then, if it 

5 is appropriate, I will go ahead and make a 

6 motion, so we get things moving here and can 

7 have some discussion.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, first, I 

9 think we need to, first, why don't you add 

10 your comments? I think we also need to hear, 

11 we should hear from the petitioners.

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Oh, okay, sure.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, because 

14 normally we do after a report. If people 

15 have, also, questions about the report, I 

16 guess the questions, I don't think that Gen 

17 should have to bear all the questions.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Because we have 

20 SC&A and NIOSH here also.

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. I guess 

22 my question to you would be, do you want a 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 motion first or do you want discussion first?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we 

3 take discussions, so there's questions, and so 

4 forth?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, we tabled the 

6 motion at the last meeting.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: Did we have a 

8 motion?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda made a motion 

10 for the radon, and it is tabled.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Oh, that's 

12 right. Then, I don't have to make a motion.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. That 

14 would be fine.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, I will just 

16 add one thing about my thoughts. I have 

17 already mentioned this, and maybe Dr. Lockey, 

18 who is on the phone, would want to make some 

19 comments, too, or maybe he wants to wait until 

20 later.

21 But my thought is that this is not 

22 a big or a complicated site. We only had one 
86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 process going on there, nothing mysterious 

2 happening. There were five buildings in the 

3 utility tunnels. They are the only areas of 

4 exposure.

5 So, I think we have a pretty 

6 straightforward approach to doing the 

7 bounding, and bounding is an accepted way of 

8 approaching dose reconstruction.

9 So, that is just my comment.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I think 

11 we are going to follow normal order, and so 

12 forth. I didn't realize we had a motion that 

13 was tabled.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: I didn't, 

15 either.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think before 

17 we go into discussion, we probably should have 

18 done this right at the beginning, is we should 

19 probably get it off the table, would be the 

20 procedure.

21 So, I am looking for a motion to 

22 take this off the table.
87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: I move we remove 

2 this from the table.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

4 Wanda.

5 A second to that?

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: Second.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A second from 

8 Bob.

9 Okay. Any further discussion? If 

10 not -- yes, Josie?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I just want to 

12 remind everybody there's actually two issues. 

13 There's the particulate and the radon, and 

14 the motion only covers the radon at this time.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, as I 

16 recall the motion, it is that it covered the 

17 entire period that was in the SEC. I don't 

18 think the motion was specific to radon, as I 

19 recall. When Wanda made it, it was for the 

20 entire period as in the NIOSH SEC Evaluation 

21 Report.

22 MEMBER BEACH: I am pretty sure 
88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 she said radon.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, then, we 

3 are going to have to get clarification from 

4 the transcript.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I would be glad to 

6 clarify my motion. My motion was to accept 

7 the NIOSH recommendation to proceed with their 

8 ability to complete dose reconstructions for 

9 this site.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: For the dates 

11 under discussion?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, for the dates 

13 given in the NIOSH --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that the motion 

15 that is to be removed from the table?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I recall. Now 

17 Josie recalls something differently. So, I 

18 think we need someone to --

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Go to the 

20 minutes.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- go to the 

22 minutes or we can just proceed. Is that okay, 
89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Josie, if we --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, that's fine.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, why don't 

4 we just proceed? Let's vote on getting the 

5 motion off the table, and then we can discuss, 

6 amend, whatever we need to do. But we 

7 certainly need some discussion here. Okay.

8 So, we have a motion, a second. 

9 Any further discussion?

10 (No response.)

11 If not, we need a vote. 

12 Technically, before we discuss an issue that 

13 is tabled we need to take it off the table. 

14 So, we probably should have done this before 

15 Gen actually did that.

16 So, all in favor of removing it 

17 from the table say aye.

18 (Chorus of ayes.)

19 Opposed?

20 Abstain?

21 Okay. Now we can move ahead. We 

22 have an active motion, and I think some 
90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 further discussion -- first, I think if there 

2 are any questions for Gen, SC&A, or NIOSH, not 

3 necessarily in that order, we can ask them and 

4 try to get clarification. We will take an 

5 opportunity in a second to listen from the

6 petitioners, also, before we move ahead.

7 So, Dick first.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: I just had a 

9 question, a clarification, on, I guess you 

10 would call it, an email or the memo that came 

11 to us about Linde. Have we resolved the issue 

12 of the tunnel construction? And, also, what 

13 is the significance of the tunnel construction 

14 if it were constructed in the 1940s, as 

15 contended by the petitioner, and NIOSH 

16 contends it was constructed in 1957? I just 

17 want to know what the significance is between 

18 the early construction tunnel and the later, 

19 and is that going to change the exposure 

20 calculations at all?

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: That is a good 

22 question, Richard. I am glad you brought it 
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up. And Jim Neton is prepared to answer it.

2 DR. NETON: The residual period 

3 that we are discussing today for this petition 

4 starts -- is it 1955, I believe?

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: 1954.

6 DR. NETON: 1954. And so, the 

7 existence of the tunnels would only be 

8 relevant for the first few years, three years 

9 or so of the tunnel.

10 That being said, though, we have 

11 proposed a method, what we believe is bounding 

12 for the tunnels themselves, no matter when 

13 they were in existence. So, it is a matter of 

14 those first three years, whether the method 

15 that we are proposing would be applied to 

16 those three years or not. So, that I think is 

17 not necessarily to be resolved to move this 

18 petition forward.

19 Where it is of most relevance is 

20 in the petition for the covered period, the 

21 earlier period, where we believe that the 

22 tunnels were not in existence. And therefore, 
92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's no reconstruction to be done inside 

2 the tunnels.

3 But the tunnels that were there 

4 were not contaminated with radium to the 

5 extent that we need to worry about radon 

6 inside those tunnels. So, for today's 

7 discussion, it is really relevant, the 

8 existence of the tunnels is relevant to the 

9 first three years of the residual period that 

10 we are talking about.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I take it we will 

12 hear from the petitioner about that?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I believe 

14 we will.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess my 

17 question is there seems to be sort of some 

18 factual or documentation issues related to 

19 tunnels.

20 DR. NETON: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I guess, 

22 what are we doing to resolve those?
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: We believe we have 

2 resolved that.

3 Is Chris Crawford on the line? 

4 Christ is our subject matter expert on this 

5 site.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, I am, Jim.

8 DR. NETON: Okay. Chris, could 

9 you provide the Board a brief summary of what 

10 we have done to resolve this tunnel issue and 

11 our current opinion on that?

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. Specifically, 

13 about the timeline?

14 DR. NETON: Yes, exactly.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: All right. We 

16 found that the FUSRAP contractor, which was 

17 Shaw Environmental, in 2000 to 2002, did some 

18 investigation. And they sent a document to 

19 the Army Corps of Engineers at that time 

20 stating that they had found that the tunnels 

21 were constructed at various times on the Linde 

22 site, and they pointed out that the existing 
94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1936 tunnel that was running from Building 8 I 

2 believe to Building 10, past Building 14 --

3 that's an east/west tunnel -- that, 

4 subsequently, in 1957, the tunnels were 

5 constructed in the ceramic plant area which 

6 were not connected to the earlier tunnel at 

7 that time. Then, in 1961, further tunnel 

8 construction was done which connected the 

9 ceramic tunnels to the original 1936 tunnel 

10 down near Building 14 and Building 8.

11 Then, we went and got the original 

12 drawings for the tunnels, both the 1936 

13 originals and the 1957-61 drawing. And the 

14 documentary evidence is being blamed on the 

15 drawings, that they were construction drawings 

16 and that the 1936 drawing only showed a tunnel 

17 there at Buildings 8, 14, and 1957 drawing, 

18 for instance, only shows new tunnels from the 

19 ceramic plant. It showed no tunnel at all 

20 going down toward Building 8. It also is 

21 plainly marked "Submitted for Bid" on January 

22 10th, 1957.
95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, there is all sorts of internal 

2 evidence that we have that Linde constructed 

3 on the date, the year at least, that are in 

4 our earlier statement.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Does that help?

6 DR. NETON: In summary, we believe 

7 that the tunnels that are relevant for the 

8 radon exposures were not in existence until 

9 1957.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

11 DR. NETON: That is our opinion, 

12 based on the original drawings --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: What about those 

14 three years before that?

15 DR. NETON: Well, we don't believe 

16 they were there in those three years.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: You don't believe 

18 they were there?

19 DR. NETON: We believe that the 

20 tunnels that have a relevance for 

21 reconstruction of radon exposure were not in 

22 existence until 1957. There was a tunnel 
96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there prior to that, but that tunnel was not 

2 contaminated with radium to the extent that it 

3 would be necessary to reconstruct the radon.

4 The radium came in from the tunnel

5 that was near the plant that processed the 

6 ores. The original tunnel that was there in 

7 1936 ran from the utility plant to the pilot 

8 plant, and they didn't process any significant 

9 quantities of any material of decaying radium 

10 which would lead to the radon exposures.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I guess I would 

12 like to hear from the petitioner if that's 

13 appropriate.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we will, 

15 but we will hear from the petitioner about a 

16 number of issues.

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: Jim, it might be 

18 also appropriate for SC&A to respond. They 

19 had the opportunity to look at all the 

20 materials.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John, do you 

22 have --
97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: And I think we 

2 also have Steve Ostrow on the phone from SC&A.

3 DR. OSTROW: Hi. This is Steve 

4 Ostrow.

5 I looked at the date that NIOSH 

6 --

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: He is breaking 

8 up.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we are 

10 having trouble hearing you, Steve.

11 John, can you maybe summarize it?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. When we were 

13 looking at this issue, we were looking at it 

14 two different ways. One is this timing. As 

15 you just heard, that is the best information 

16 we have, 1957.

17 I would like to point out that 

18 notwithstanding that issue, the fact is we 

19 believe we -- whether the tunnels were there 

20 starting in 1954, which is the start date of 

21 this period that we are interested in, or it 

22 started in 1957, whatever it actually turns 
98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 out to be, the final judgment on what the 

2 right date is, we believe the doses from radon 

3 can be reconstructed.

4 So, we see it more as what I would 

5 usually call a Site Profile issue because we 

6 believe it sounds like the issue is pretty 

7 close to a resolution, the date. But, 

8 notwithstanding that, we believe that, 

9 whatever the date is, we have the information 

10 and the methods to reconstruct the exposures 

11 to radon in the tunnels.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I want to ask a 

13 followup question to, I guess, Jim Neton for 

14 NIOSH. Can someone just explain, this radon 

15 method keeps changing, and it is a little bit 

16 confusing. I just want to make sure everybody 

17 on the Board, including myself, sort of 

18 understands what the current method is and the 

19 basis for it because it is not 

20 straightforward.

21 DR. NETON: The current method is 

22 to evaluate, well, to use the available data 
99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for radon in basements surrounding the Linde 

2 facility. There is a fairly good database 

3 maintained by New York State, the Department 

4 of Health -- I'm not sure.

5 But it contains a lot of 

6 measurements. We took the data from the 

7 relevant county near the Linde facility and 

8 took that distribution and used that as a 

9 starting point. 

10 Now we do know, however, that this 

11 radium in the soil at Linde surrounding the 

12 tunnels is slightly more elevated than the 

13 radon/radium naturally present in Erie County 

14 or the county surrounding Linde.

15 So, what we did was to increase 

16 the amount of radon in the tunnels by the 

17 ratio of the radium near the tunnels compared 

18 to that in the natural soils. So, we 

19 multiplied the radon by that ratio to arrive 

20 at an upper limit.

21 It was based on a probabilistic 

22 model, a Monte Carlo approach, where we 
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 propagated the uncertainties and we ended up 

2 at the 95th percentile of the distribution at 

3 100 picocuries per liter as our estimate of a 

4 bounding value for radon in the tunnels.

5 There's a little more than that, 

6 but that is pretty much the gist.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, that's 

8 helpful.

9 Anybody have questions on that?

10 (No response.)

11 And that is the basis in the 

12 latest NIOSH Evaluation Report?

13 DR. NETON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. At 

15 least what I found confusing, it keeps getting 

16 presented, well, we are going to use 

17 background data in that county, and it sort of 

18 doesn't make sense for this program directly 

19 because, normally, we don't reconstruct, but 

20 here we can't separate. And so, that forms 

21 the basis, combined with the information from 

22 the site.
101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Brad, yes?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: I am trying to 

3 follow this thing. It has taken a lot of 

4 different ones.

5 So, you are taking the information 

6 from surrounding areas? Is it an average or 

7 --

8 DR. NETON: It was a distribution. 

9 The county would report the median radon 

10 value with the geometric standard deviation.

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: In the 

12 basements?

13 DR. NETON: In the basements, in 

14 the basements of houses in the county where 

15 Linde Ceramics resides. And I forget the 

16 number, but it is hundreds of values.

17 We picked the high-end value? 

18 Okay. We picked the high-end value. So, we 

19 picked the high-end value of the radon. Using 

20 that distribution, we picked the high-end 

21 value, right.

22 And, then, we modified that by the 
102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference in the radium in the soil at Linde 

2 versus the radium in the soil that is in Erie 

3 County because natural radium is about a 

4 picocurie per gram or something like that. 

5 And we knew that the radium at Linde, 

6 especially surrounding the tunnels, we had 

7 borehole samples around the tunnels. And so, 

8 we took, essentially, a weighted value of all 

9 of the borehole samples around the tunnels and 

10 applied that to increase the radon in the 

11 tunnels because we know that the source-term 

12 from radium in the soil at Linde is higher 

13 than actually present in the surrounding 

14 communities.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Now when we are 

16 talking about these tunnels, are these a 

17 production tunnel that they had?

18 DR. NETON: No. These are utility 

19 tunnels that were there for servicing the 

20 electrical cables and piping, that sort of 

21 thing, ran through there. There was no 

22 processed material ever run through there, 
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 although they were contaminated due to 

2 intrusion from flooding and that sort of 

3 thing. We know that the contamination levels 

4 were measured pretty well by a FUSRAP survey 

5 later on.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: And what did the 

7 FUSRAP, what did they show?

8 DR. NETON: Well, the FUSRAP 

9 survey showed internal contamination of 

10 tunnels. They essentially did circumferential 

11 measurements every so often through the length 

12 of all the tunnels and came up with a grid map 

13 of the contamination levels. And there was 

14 radium contamination in the tunnels.

15 So, there's two sources of radon 

16 inside the tunnels. One is the radium that is 

17 coating the inside of the tunnels that we can 

18 estimate. I don't think there's any dispute 

19 about that calculation. And, then, there is a 

20 radon that infuses in the tunnel from the 

21 ground that contains radium infiltrating into 

22 the tunnels.
104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, the radium inside the tunnels 

2 we have modeled, and, then, the radium coming 

3 from the ground we have used the approach that 

4 I just described. So, there's two sources in 

5 there.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: And we do have 

7 the FUSRAP data, the samples? They were smear 

8 samples or --

9 DR. NETON: No, they were actually 

10 beta-gamma survey measurements. They went and 

11 took them and converted them to surface 

12 contamination measurements based on a 

13 calibration factor. But it is a pretty good 

14 survey.

15 Interestingly, when the FUSRAP 

16 survey did it, they were doing it for 

17 estimation purposes to see what needed to be 

18 remediated. Their level of radon was 

19 inconsequential that they estimated. So, they 

20 didn't consider the radon infusion from the 

21 soil, essentially. You can calculate the 

22 radon from the tunnels that is contamination, 
105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but the radon infusion they basically ignored.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bill, you worked 

3 on this? Do you have anything to add or say?

4 MEMBER FIELD: No. I had some 

5 concerns, I guess, early on in the process 

6 because there was one radon measurement 

7 performed within the tunnels?

8 DR. NETON: No. A radon?

9 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: No, we had no radon 

11 measurements in the tunnels. You might be 

12 thinking of the --

13 MEMBER FIELD: A different --

14 DR. NETON: There was another 

15 tunnel. One of our original previous 

16 approaches was to use the radon that was 

17 measured in a conveyor tunnel that actually 

18 conveyed work product.

19 MEMBER FIELD: And do you recall 

20 what that was?

21 DR. NETON: That value was --

22 Chris, do you recall the value? I want to say 
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it was somewhere around 30 picocuries per 

2 liter.

3 MEMBER FIELD: That sounds about 

4 right. I guess back at that time I thought it 

5 was a lot to infer from another tunnel over to 

6 this tunnel, but I think this approach that 

7 was developed, I think when SC&A first 

8 developed the approach they came up with about 

9 200 picocuries per liter. And, then, that was 

10 based on a somewhat biased sampling of the 

11 soil. I think with the new sampling of the 

12 soil it comes up to be about 100 picocuries 

13 per liter.

14 So, I think the method, you know, 

15 I think it is a bounding measurement. I don't 

16 know in all of New York, but I would be 

17 doubtful if there's radon measurements much 

18 above 100 in basements, maybe a percent or so.

19 But this is a different scenario. 

20 It is a tunnel. It has increased radium 

21 concentrations. But based on the Monte Carlo 

22 that was done, I think it is a very good 
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bounding estimate.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

3 Bill.

4 Henry?

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Do we know 

6 anything about the ventilation in the tunnels?

7 DR. NETON: My recollection is 

8 most of the tunnels were unventilated, but 

9 there were some sections that had ventilation. 

10 That is not very well known, what the 

11 ventilation patterns were in the tunnels.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Jim?

13 DR. NETON: Yes?

14 MR. CRAWFORD: This is Chris 

15 Crawford.

16 The FUSRAP people had estimated 

17 one air change in 10 hours in the tunnel.

18 DR. NETON: So it is about 1.1 

19 change per hour? Would that be right?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

21 DR. NETON: Right. And that was, 

22 I think, based on the fact that most of it was 
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not ventilated, but I do think there was a 

2 couple of locations that might have had some 

3 sort of positive ventilation.

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: Good. And, 

5 then, did you talk to the radon program in New 

6 York, and do they have an opinion on the use 

7 of your -- I know, for instance, in Wisconsin, 

8 if you did that, they would be up in arms 

9 because we will see differences in one house, 

10 the neighbor's house will be quite different.

11 DR. NETON: Right, but I remind 

12 you we picked the upper value of the radon of 

13 the values that were measured as a starting 

14 point.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: I understand, 

16 but the implication, then, would be that you 

17 are sort of saying that a house of anybody in 

18 New York, this is a good, this is a reasonable 

19 estimate of what their basements would be 

20 like.

21 DR. NETON: No, I am saying that 

22 it would be no higher than, the starting point 
109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the tunnels at Linde would be no higher 

2 than the highest basement in the State in the 

3 surrounding community around Linde, as a 

4 starting point.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any more 

6 questions on radon or tunnels? Brad?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I thought 

8 we had more issues than just the radon. I 

9 thought there was particulate --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we do. I 

11 am trying to do an issue --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, yes, let's 

13 put that one to rest.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, get 

15 questions out. I mean "put to rest" may be 

16 optimistic, but at least we have said it 

17 before. But let's sort of concentrate on one 

18 issue at a time, and I think it is just easier 

19 in terms of discussion.

20 So, I guess my question is, are 

21 there any more comments or questions at this 

22 time on radon in tunnels?
110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (No response.)

2 Okay. Then, there is at least one 

3 other issue. There's an issue --

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I ask one 

5 question?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm sorry. Yes.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I am 

8 understanding the radon part. I want to go 

9 back to the radium on the tunnel walls.

10 So, in 1982, there were field 

11 survey measurements done, is that right?

12 DR. NETON: I am not sure it is 

13 1982, but, yes, somewhere in that timeframe.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Let's say, I 

15 mean I think that is what I read.

16 DR. NETON: Yes, it was later, 

17 yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And from that, 

19 there is going to be inferences made about the 

20 radium contamination on the walls from the 

21 period 1956 forward?

22 DR. NETON: Right.
111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And is that 

2 modeled? Is it assumed to be at the level in 

3 1982?

4 DR. NETON: Assumed to be at the 

5 level.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And what's the 

7 basis for that?

8 DR. NETON: Chris, could you help 

9 me out with that? I have forgotten. We had 

10 gone through this scenario.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: The actual 

12 measurements were made in, I believe, 

13 2000-2001 for the tunnel, for contamination on 

14 the tunnel wall. We took the 95th percentile 

15 and also assumed that they were uniformly 

16 contaminated, which was not true, by the way. 

17 It was highly biased. Only certain areas of 

18 the tunnel were contaminated.

19 But we figured our radon 

20 contamination of the entire tunnels at the 

21 95th percentile level.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: In 2000?
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CRAWFORD: That is correct, in 

2 2000.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean you 

4 just have to help me because I am just trying. 

5 I mean I am going to concede that in 2000 

6 that is a very claimant-friendly assumption. 

7 But help me understand, what are the processes 

8 that lead to the deposition and perhaps 

9 removal of radium along that wall over this 

10 50-odd-year period that leads you to think 

11 that the assumption in 2000 is a conservative 

12 one, back-extrapolating a decade, two decades, 

13 four decades?

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, there are a 

15 number of factors. First, we have to consider 

16 that we believe, and we believe the evidence 

17 shows, that those were constructed in 1957 and 

18 thereafter at the ceramic plant. Furthermore, 

19 the primary mechanism for the diffusion into 

20 the soils and water seepage in all likelihood, 

21 also the borehole samples that were done later 

22 showed relatively little penetration in depth. 
113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Most of the radium contamination was confined 

2 to the upper four feet of soil, often at the 

3 upper two feet.

4 So, we felt that over time the 

5 situation would be that the radium would make 

6 its way deeper into the soil very, very 

7 slowly, and that in 2000 it potentially could 

8 be a worst case as, say, 1957 or anytime 

9 thereafter.

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey.

11 The production at that facility 

12 stopped in --

13 MR. CRAWFORD: Dr. Lockey, I 

14 didn't quite catch that.

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: I was just saying 

16 the production at the facility stopped in 

17 1954, and these tunnels were constructed in 

18 1957 and 1961. So, they really weren't there 

19 during the production phase of the facility.

20 MR. CRAWFORD: The actual 

21 production stopped the middle of 1949. The 

22 last radium-contaminated soil or ores, I 
114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should say, after 1946, just to be a little 

2 bit more clear.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, to go 

4 back, the question is, your conjecture is that 

5 the source of the radium on the inside of the 

6 tunnel is transport of it through the soil 

7 into the tunnel, leaching the coating around 

8 it? So that the radium is physically being 

9 moved.

10 And so, if we were to go there 

11 today, if I am going to continue this line of 

12 argument, your conjecture is that the radium 

13 contamination would be even higher than it was 

14 when it was measured in 2000 and higher than 

15 it was in 1990?

16 So, the model that you are laying 

17 out for us is that it is accumulating and it 

18 is never going down? Or that we should 

19 believe that it is as high or --

20 DR. NETON: I think that is 

21 correct. And I don't know that I would want 

22 to suggest that it would be even higher today. 
115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There was some cleanup done in very recent 

2 years that may have prevented it from becoming 

3 more contaminated.

4 But it is also suggested by the 

5 fact, I believe -- and, Chris, correct me if I 

6 am wrong -- most of the high values that were 

7 measured were not on the floors of the 

8 tunnels, but were on the ceilings of the 

9 tunnels, suggesting a source-term just as a 

10 water infiltration sort of thing, not tracking 

11 of the material through the tunnels.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul, you had 

13 comments?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So, I think 

15 they are postulating no removal process, is 

16 what my understanding was, that it is a 

17 cumulative term.

18 DR. NETON: Yes, that is correct.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, the 

20 2000-whatever-it-was, the 2002 level would be 

21 higher or at least no lower than the previous 

22 years.
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: I would just add one 

2 more thing. It turns out that the radon 

3 contribution from the tunnels is a smaller 

4 component of the contamination inside the 

5 tunnels. The infiltration of radon model 

6 provided a much higher source-term.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was just 

8 trying to wrap my head around what the 

9 mechanisms were being positive for these 

10 various components of the dose.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let me interrupt 

12 a second because I think we are done with this 

13 specific topic, and there are some others to 

14 discuss.

15 But I believe Melissa Fratello.

16 MS. FRATELLO: Hi.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm sorry, we 

18 are a little bit off-schedule here, but you 

19 had wanted to make some comments? Go ahead.

20 MS. FRATELLO: I just have a brief 

21 statement to read on behalf of Senator 

22 Gillibrand and Senator Schumer as well. I 
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will go ahead --

2 MR. KATZ: Melissa, I'm sorry to 

3 interrupt. This is Ted Katz. Your voice is 

4 breaking up. I am wondering if you are on a 

5 speaker phone or something.

6 MS. FRATELLO: I am.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Could you try 

8 picking up the phone? That might be a better 

9 quality. It is hard to transcribe you. 

10 Thanks.

11 MS. FRATELLO: Is that better?

12 MR. KATZ: Much, yes.

13 MS. FRATELLO: Okay. Shall I 

14 start over?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, why don't 

16 you, Melissa?

17 MS. FRATELLO: Okay, no problem.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MS. FRATELLO: Good morning. I 

20 want to briefly address the Advisory Board 

21 regarding an issue that concerns Senator 

22 Gillibrand and Senator Schumer. Today the 
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board will be discussing and voting on the 

2 Linde SEC petition. Senator Gillibrand joins 

3 Senator Schumer in expressing concern about 

4 what appears to be a tendency for NIOSH to 

5 disregard the 180-day deadline for issuing an 

6 SEC Evaluation Report.

7 It is the Senators' understanding 

8 that the Act and the regulations implementing 

9 the Act require NIOSH to submit the Evaluation 

10 Report to the Advisory Board within 180 days 

11 after the submission is received by NIOSH.

12 However, NIOSH appears to be 

13 ignoring this mandate time and again. The 

14 result is a seemingly endless delay in 

15 resolving several SEC petitions.

16 We request that the Advisory Board 

17 take a look at this problem regarding the 

18 180-day rule and examine whether this practice 

19 is not only a violation of the overall 

20 congressional intent of the EEOICPA, but may 

21 also may defeat the very purpose of the SEC 

22 program.
119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Both Senators' offices will be in 

2 contact with Dr. Howard in the near future to 

3 discuss this matter.

4 Senators Gillibrand and Schumer 

5 urge the Board to approve the Linde SEC 

6 petition and hope that NIOSH and the Advisory 

7 Board will seriously consider the consequences 

8 of this policy today when voting on the Linde 

9 SEC petition and for all SEC petitions going 

10 forward.

11 Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

13 you.

14 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Ted?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes?

16 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Ted, this is 

17 Michelle from Senator Udall's office. Will I 

18 be able to speak?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are having 

20 trouble understanding.

21 MR. KATZ: It is Michelle Ortiz.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: So, Michelle, hi. I 

2 had sent you an email asking if you couldn't, 

3 since this is on Linde, if you couldn't take 

4 one of the work sessions that we have as an 

5 opportunity to provide your comments.

6 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Yes. Ted, I'm 

7 sorry. We have been emailing back and forth 

8 all day, and I don't think you have received 

9 any of my email responses --

10 MR. KATZ: Michelle, I'm sorry, 

11 your voice is also breaking up. I don't know 

12 if you are also on a speaker phone, but it is 

13 very hard to make out what you are saying. Do 

14 you want to try just picking up the telephone 

15 if you are on a speaker phone?

16 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Yes. Ted, I 

17 will call back at the specified time.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great. Okay. 

19 Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Linde, so any 

21 further questions on the radon or tunnels or 

22 comments at this point?
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (No response.)

2 Okay. There is at least one other 

3 issue, which is the issue that Mike and Josie 

4 raised, and I have also done some followup on 

5 it. There is a -- I guess we are calling it 

6 the renovation period. There was originally a 

7 decontamination period for the building, which 

8 is not a point of discussion now, but there is 

9 a period of time during which the building, 

10 particularly Building 30, apparently, was 

11 renovated.

12 And my understanding -- and 

13 someone can correct me -- is that this was a 

14 period of time when there's not a lot of 

15 records on it. There's some information and 

16 there's certainly reports from the workers 

17 there at the time, but there is not a lot of 

18 detail on what was done during that time 

19 period and how many people were involved and 

20 how extensively it went on for.

21 The time period was then, my 

22 understanding is the method that is being 
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 proposed to be used for this time period was 

2 to take some sampling data -- I think it is 

3 about a week's worth of sampling data that was 

4 done during the decontamination period -- and 

5 using one of the higher decontamination 

6 activities -- there was personal monitoring 

7 that went on that applies to internal doses --

8 use the highest; I believe it was 

9 jackhammering that was used. And basically, 

10 to apply that to all the workers at the site 

11 for this time period and for that method to be 

12 done assuming people, essentially, did 

13 jackhammering nearly all the time, I believe, 

14 and some other assumptions about their shifts, 

15 and so forth. The new Evaluation Report from 

16 NIOSH has more details of that.

17 I guess the concern that Josie and 

18 Mike raised, and I share that concern, is that 

19 we have a method that certainly for people 

20 actually doing the renovation, at least for 

21 those activities, may be an appropriate 

22 method. However, given sort of the lack of 
123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information about who was doing what, how long 

2 these activities went on for, exactly what 

3 were the activities, and the fact that the 

4 renovation appears to be limited to Building 

5 30, when in fact there are four or five other 

6 buildings that had other activity going on 

7 during this time period, I have concerns that 

8 this method is sort of inappropriate. It may 

9 be appropriate for people actually in the 

10 renovation, but we don't appear to know how 

11 many of these people even did renovation and 

12 how many of them were actually involved in 

13 this level of activity.

14 So, in terms of an individual dose 

15 reconstruction method for that individual 

16 worker, it may make sense. However, applying 

17 it to the whole site for such a long period of 

18 time, I have some serious concerns about it.

19 To me, the lack of information --

20 and we have no sampling data during this 

21 renovation time period. We have very little 

22 information on what was done at the site 
124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during this time period and who was involved, 

2 and how many people were involved, that it 

3 seems to me that is just as appropriate to be 

4 designated a Special Exposure Cohort.

5 I think putting it into our terms, 

6 we may have a bounding dose, but is it a 

7 plausible bounding dose, given how little 

8 information we have and the fact that most of 

9 these people probably weren't engaged in the 

10 activity that we have done the dose 

11 reconstruction for?

12 So, I don't know, Josie or Mike, 

13 if you have anything to add based on your

14 participation?

15 Yes, David?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, there was 

17 a decontamination period, is that right?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, there was a 

19 decontamination period, and, then, the site 

20 was turned back over to Linde. so, it is 

21 during the residual period. And, then, there 

22 is a period of -- what? -- 15 years, I 
125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe, something like that, 16 years, where 

2 the site was operating, but the Linde site 

3 people, the operational people, were doing 

4 other activities there, but they also 

5 conducted what appears to be fairly extensive 

6 renovations of the Building 30.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: After it had 

8 been decontaminated?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: After it had 

10 been decontaminated. So, part of this period, 

11 there is sampling at the end of the 

12 decontamination, during the decontamination, 

13 but then nothing during this renovation period 

14 and for this long period of time.

15 And, then, once the renovation --

16 at least a date has been given for what 

17 appears to be the end of renovation -- then it 

18 reverts back to sort of more of the OTIB-70 

19 approach for doing the dose reconstructions 

20 for these people.

21 And, then, there is a further 

22 decontamination done. So, remember, this is 
126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an early -- I don't know what you call it --

2 an early decontamination. It was felt it was 

3 up to standards at the time, at least was felt 

4 to be appropriate at the time, but not the 

5 level of decontamination that would be done 

6 now. So, there was a further decontamination.

7 The main concern I have is so the 

8 method makes sense for the workers that might 

9 have been involved in doing the renovation, 

10 but applying it to everybody on the site, 

11 frankly, seems like a stretch because we just 

12 have so little information, at least from what 

13 I could gather from the records and the 

14 transcripts and discussion of this, that we 

15 don't know, is it appropriate to apply it to 

16 everybody at the site?

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: Just to clarify, 

18 I think what you are talking about is your 

19 concern that the doses may be overestimated.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, they are 

21 inappropriately -- they are overestimating for 

22 many of the workers.
127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: I just wanted to 

2 get that overestimating concern --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it is 

4 overestimating for many of the workers and 

5 possibly underestimating people doing some of 

6 the renovation because we know so little about 

7 the renovation activity itself.

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: I would like to 

9 have Chris respond --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: -- but I think 

12 we have another question here or comment.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Paul?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would like to 

15 raise kind of a counter-argument, Dr. Melius. 

16 It seems to me a lot of this revolves around 

17 what we consider to be a bounding dose. In 

18 fact, if you look at virtually all sites where 

19 we have used bounding doses, I think you could 

20 argue that the bounding dose applies to 

21 virtually a very small percent of the people 

22 in many cases. The argument is that those 
128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 folks would not have a dose higher than the 

2 most highly-exposed group. Even in cases 

3 where we know that there have been different 

4 activities, those bounding doses would still 

5 apply.

6 So, I think, philosophically, you 

7 could make the argument that they don't have 

8 to be doing the same work. The point at which 

9 I would agree with your argument is, if there 

10 are other renovation activities for which this 

11 is not bounding, it seems to me 

12 philosophically that is the question we have 

13 to ask. Is it truly bounding?

14 Because, clearly, when you do 

15 bounding, you are covering a lot of workers 

16 who do other things. You know, the 

17 secretaries or the maintenance people or the 

18 guards, and so on, are doing different things 

19 than chemical operators, for example. But we 

20 use those kinds of approaches.

21 So, the only concern I would have 

22 would be to convince us that we are truly 
129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bounding. I mean all agree not everybody is 

2 using a jackhammer eight hours a day for the 

3 extended period. But this is true in a lot of 

4 cases where we bound; not everybody is doing 

5 all the things that we use for those bounding 

6 figures.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think the 

8 issue is, and I understand your argument, 

9 Paul, but where do we draw the line with that? 

10 Because, I mean, carried to an extreme, we 

11 could take any site, we could take Savannah 

12 River, and we could come up with what we think 

13 is the highest possible exposure at that site 

14 that would occur, and that would be bounding, 

15 and apply that to everybody that ever worked 

16 at the site.

17 I think it is the question of, is 

18 that a plausible bound? And, then, who are we 

19 trying to characterize? And, then, that is 

20 probably the most vague part of how we 

21 approach these. Are we trying to characterize 

22 the bounding dose for carpenters or renovators 
130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or the bounding dose for security guards or 

2 the bounding dose for Building 30, and so 

3 forth? That is not clear.

4 And it becomes much more difficult 

5 the more meager our information is. And in 

6 this case, we have, as I understand it, very, 

7 very little information on what the 

8 renovations were, what the time period for 

9 those were. They clearly weren't going on for 

10 a full 16 years because they were doing other 

11 work at the plant. But we just don't know how 

12 long they were doing it.

13 So, we have a lot of uncertainty, 

14 and the uncertainty leads to a bounding level 

15 that is quite high in order to be bounding, to 

16 try to take into account what is happening at 

17 the site. But it is a dilemma we have dealt 

18 with before, and it is difficult.

19 So, Gen? Is that you, Jim Lockey?

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: Let's hear from 

21 Jim Lockey.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Jim first, 
131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then Gen, then Bill, then Wanda.

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: I can appreciate 

3 certainly what Jim is saying, trying to do 

4 dose reconstruction on historical cohorts. If 

5 we fall in that track of thinking going 

6 forward, then it is becoming what seems to be 

7 a reasonable upper bound and worst-case 

8 situation. We are really, then, asking 

9 ourselves to produce essentially personal 

10 exposure information on each particular job 

11 task at any one site.

12 It would be very difficult to say 

13 that for a guard, for instance, we are being 

14 unreasonable in setting a high exposure level 

15 for that guard because we don't have exposure 

16 records, but we do have for electricians or 

17 for a concrete worker.

18 I think that really will present 

19 us an impossible situation going forward 

20 because one can always argue there is not 

21 enough data to say that, in fact, this is a 

22 reasonable, plausible upper limit for each job 
132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 task at a jobsite.

2 I think we have to use the best 

3 science available and follow what our 

4 regulations say. Is it plausible and is it 

5 claimant-friendly? And I think in this 

6 situation that the answer is yes to both of 

7 those.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

9 Jim.

10 Gen?

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wanda was 

12 actually before me.

13 MEMBER MUNN: There is an enormous 

14 difference between making statements about 

15 bounding doses for a highly-complex, large 

16 site that employs thousands of people and a 

17 relatively small, straightforward type of 

18 operation that essentially does the same kind 

19 of thing over a long period of time. The 

20 latter is what we have before us here.

21 We have established, not only by 

22 precedent in this Board, but also through 
133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conversation and through all of our exchanges 

2 that have gone on, that bounding is a valid 

3 method for approaching the kinds of situations 

4 that we have here.

5 We do not have a situation where 

6 there is a long, unexplained period of 

7 potential extremely high exposure. We have a 

8 relatively short period of activity that takes 

9 place after decontamination, where the 

10 probability of extremely high doses is 

11 extremely low. The bounding dose that has 

12 been established is not likely to have been 

13 exceeded if it were at all, certainly not for 

14 any period of time.

15 If we are going to take a position 

16 that it is impossible for us to make bounding 

17 calculations as a reasonable argument, then we 

18 ought to be very straightforward about that 

19 and say we are not going to allow that, even 

20 though it has been specifically prescribed, as 

21 I understand it, by the legislation, that that 

22 is okay.
134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would just 

2 make one comment on that. It is just that I 

3 think part of our difficulty with this area is 

4 that our regulations prescribe two different 

5 approaches. One being when we lack 

6 information, one being the SEC; the second 

7 being the bounding dose and individual dose 

8 reconstruction. And, unfortunately, the way 

9 the regulations are, there is not always clear 

10 dividing line between those two. I think it 

11 is difficult.

12 Go ahead, Gen, I think.

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: What you are 

14 discussing seems to me to be an overarching 

15 concern about all sites. I am thinking in 

16 terms of consistency or precedence, you know, 

17 looking to what we have already done and what 

18 we might do in the future.

19 I am having a very difficult time 

20 understanding what you are saying with regard 

21 to the scientific approach to this, the 

22 difference between Linde and anything we have 
135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 done before or anything we might do in the 

2 future. That is what I just can't figure out.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, yes, it is 

4 a question of where is the line. I think that 

5 is the issue. We can call on precedents from 

6 both sides. And we probably haven't always 

7 been consistent about that, partly because we 

8 have evolved our approach over time working 

9 with NIOSH. So, it is difficult. At some 

10 point, we need to try to develop consistency 

11 as best we can.

12 Henry, then Bill.

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I think, I 

14 mean, the bounding issue is also one of 

15 NIOSH's evaluation saying it is sufficiently 

16 accurate. And to me, the issue is, when you 

17 are using jackhammer particulate data to bound 

18 60 years, is that sufficiently accurate? It 

19 is certainly a bounding, an upper bounding, 

20 but is it a realistic sufficient accuracy.

21 And the same would be for the 

22 radon. I mean the method used is a fine 
136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 method, but, again, is it sufficiently 

2 accurate? I would say, compared to the other 

3 sites where we have done bounding, they are 

4 quite different than using the values that we 

5 are using here to bound versus some of the 

6 other surrogate data or coworker-type data.

7 So, to me, the issue is, one, not 

8 is it bounding, but is it sufficiently 

9 accurate? Or is it simply finding the highest 

10 possible value and then using that? That I 

11 think is sort of concerning to me.

12 But the other is, would there be 

13 other activities there that we are missing 

14 using this? You know, there may well be 

15 because we don't have good descriptions. So, 

16 kind of on both sides I see that this case is 

17 different than the other ones that we have 

18 used.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bill?

20 MEMBER FIELD: Jim, I agree with 

21 what you said about the need for consistency 

22 between sites. But one of the factors that go 
137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 into consistency is, when we talk about 

2 plausibility of bounding, are we talking about 

3 is it a plausible bound for the potentially 

4 highest-exposed worker or is it a plausible 

5 bound for the lowest-exposed worker? I guess 

6 that is a fine distinction.

7 In this case, I think it is a 

8 plausible bound for the potentially 

9 highest-exposed worker. Is it plausible for 

10 the lowest-exposed worker? Yes, that is 

11 probably unlikely. So, I guess it is, who are 

12 talking about plausibility for?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, how do we 

14 group and how much information do we need 

15 about a site? I mean I think what is striking 

16 about this site and this situation is how 

17 little information there is. So, it makes it 

18 hard to make distinctions.

19 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Jim 

20 Lockey.

21 I agree with what Bill said. If 

22 we are going down a route to evaluate 
138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plausibility and lower exposures, that is a 

2 whole new area that we are going into. And 

3 one could argue at the individual worker 

4 level, if you don't have personal exposure 

5 data, you can't provide for that 

6 determination.

7 And so, I think we have to stay 

8 with our previous guidelines to establish the 

9 exposure level that is plausible and 

10 reasonable at the high level, and that will 

11 cover the contingencies of other people in a 

12 situation.

13 Otherwise, we are going to be 

14 dealing with individual job tasks, job 

15 positions, lack of personal exposure data. It 

16 becomes a never-ending argument.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I am 

19 sitting here listening and I have been 

20 listening to the straightforward processes and 

21 everything else like that. And I totally beg 

22 to differ. We don't even have the information 
139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here.

2 We could go to every site out 

3 there and throw out a whole bunch of numbers 

4 and say, yes, we got everybody bounded, but 

5 what was this program set up for? The bottom 

6 line is, if we don't have the data they've got 

7 an SEC out there, that is what was put here 

8 for us.

9 We go through this, and when we 

10 don't have the information -- this isn't a 

11 science project. I have said this numerous 

12 times before. If we don't have the data 

13 there, we don't have the data.

14 The thing is, scientifically, yes, 

15 you know what? We have got some of the 

16 smartest people in the world, and we could hit 

17 pretty close. But to what percentage are we 

18 really hitting at? We can say we are hitting 

19 the 95 percentile, but are we really missing 

20 somebody or not? I just feel that we need to 

21 think about why these SECs were put in there.

22 These are radionuclides. These 
140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are cancer-causing. This is what it was set 

2 up for, in my opinion.

3 I sit here and look at a lot of 

4 the work that we do on this. The bottom line 

5 to me is, if we don't have the data there, it 

6 is not to dream up something. It is just my 

7 opinion.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Gen?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: I disagree with 

10 you that we don't have data. It is always 

11 easy to say that we just don't have data; we 

12 just don't know. But I think in this 

13 particular case we do have data. Of course, 

14 this is my view. I think we are applying it 

15 in the way that the rule stated that it should 

16 be applied.

17 The other thing is, as I hear 

18 comments, I am concerned that they are 

19 overarching, that we do have to think about 

20 what we have done in the past. Whatever you 

21 are saying here could very well apply to other 

22 sites we have already acted on. And if we are 
141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to use a new approach, I think we have 

2 to sit and think about what happens on future 

3 sites.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dick?

5 MEMBER LEMEN: I would just like 

6 to agree with Brad and disagree with you, 

7 Genevieve, concerning that we shouldn't base 

8 our decisions on what we have done in the 

9 past. If we were wrong in the past, we should 

10 move forward and correct that.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have got 

13 to respond to that. I don't think what we 

14 have done in the past is wrong. We have 

15 applied the rules as we have understood them. 

16 We are still trying to do that.

17 We do recognize there are 

18 differences at various sites, and often this 

19 issue of bounding does come down to whether it 

20 is both sufficiently accurate and plausible. 

21 I think, basically, those are the questions 

22 being raised.
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We still need to use bounding. We 

2 have a fair amount of data for this site. The 

3 law does not call for us simply to give a 

4 stamp of approval on every SEC. We are called 

5 upon to determine whether or not dose can be 

6 reconstructed with sufficient accuracy and in 

7 a plausible way. And if not, then we do go 

8 the SEC route.

9 So, I think each of us, you know, 

10 these lines I think, as the Chair has 

11 described them, are ones that are not 

12 clear-cut always. This is why we are here. 

13 If these things were easy, they wouldn't need 

14 this Board.

15 So, we have to make these 

16 decisions. We don't necessarily all have to 

17 agree as to where those lines are. And I 

18 don't think we should take that as a bad 

19 thing. It is good to debate these issues. If 

20 we feel individually that the criteria have 

21 been met in a certain way, that is how we are 

22 led to vote.
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I don't want to assert that we 

2 have been perfect in the past, but I would 

3 strongly reject the idea that what we have 

4 done in the past is incorrect, and now we are 

5 going to do in a newly different way. I think 

6 we always have this tie-in; we are always 

7 trying to improve. We do change things as we 

8 discover new approaches and new methodologies 

9 and new insights. That is fine, but what we 

10 have done in the past has been done in good 

11 faith to the best of our abilities and with 

12 the information that we have had in hand.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I have to respond 

14 to that. You misunderstood what I said. I 

15 didn't accuse you of doing something wrong in 

16 the past. I simply said we cannot base our 

17 actions today on what we have done in the 

18 past. That is what I am saying.

19 I am not trying to say something 

20 was wrong in the past, but because we did 

21 something one way in the past doesn't mean we 

22 have to do what we are doing today the same 
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 way we did it in the past.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I agree with 

3 that, Richard. Actually, I think we are both 

4 saying the same thing, and we are willing to 

5 improve our methodologies as we learn new and 

6 better ways of doing things. So, I agree with 

7 what you say there and I appreciate your 

8 comment.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would say one 

10 element of this where to draw the line and how 

11 we approach this, I think it is sort of, how 

12 much of a dose are we dealing with or 

13 potential dose?

14 And with the residual period, we 

15 are going to have lots of situations -- we 

16 have already had them -- where we don't have 

17 very much information on the activities and 

18 the ability, usually very little sampling 

19 data. We are going to be using OTIB-70 a lot 

20 in these situations without knowing much about 

21 what individuals did on the site.

22 I think when Jim Neton was 
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 presenting that, I think one of the issues 

2 that he raised, and it has come up a little 

3 bit with Dow, it will come up with Norton, 

4 where Norton is a site, and I am not saying it 

5 is the exact same situation here because I 

6 think maybe they are different in some ways.

7 But, actually, for part of the 

8 residual period where there was 

9 decontamination going on, NIOSH is proposing 

10 an SEC. And, then, after that decontamination 

11 period, it is going back to more of an OTIB-70 

12 approach, as I recall.

13 And the reason for that is that 

14 the decontamination is a different activity. 

15 Again, it differs. They have very little 

16 information there. So, again, it is not an 

17 exact comparison or analogy, but it is a 

18 situation where there may be higher exposures 

19 during that part of the residual period.

20 And therefore, I think we sort of 

21 logically want to say, well, we need to be a 

22 little bit more careful with dose 
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction during that time period; 

2 whereas, during a residual period there may be 

3 different activities, but it is unlikely to 

4 lead to as high exposures or unusually high 

5 exposures. And so, the OTIB-70 approach is 

6 probably something that is appropriate and 

7 something I am personally comfortable with in 

8 these situations.

9 I think, can we recognize 

10 situations where there's unusual or different 

11 activity during the residual period that might 

12 lead to higher exposures? Then, how do we 

13 handle that?

14 And again, I don't think that 

15 negates any of the arguments that people have 

16 made, but I think it is one way we need to 

17 think about this residual period and how we 

18 approach it.

19 Brad, you had further comments? 

20 And, then, Mark.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just wanted to 

22 know, from 1954 on, how much bioassay do they 
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I believe from 

3 1954 to 1969, which is the renovation period, 

4 I don't believe they have any.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: Chris is on the 

6 line.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Let's let him 

9 answer that.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: This is Chris 

11 Crawford.

12 The building was relieved without 

13 restriction at Linde in 1954. So, there was 

14 no reason for anyone to have urinalyses. And 

15 in fact, we are not aware of any urinalysis or 

16 any personal dosimetry of any kind in the 

17 residual period.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, that would be 

19 no, correct? You have no bioassay?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Here is 

22 part of my thing, and I have got to drop back 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to my knowledge of today. We have numerous 

2 facilities at numerous sites that have shown 

3 up clean; we're great.

4 We are dealing, one, with Hanford 

5 right now that was a great facility and we 

6 tore it up, and we have got hundreds and 

7 hundreds of R. We don't know what went on in 

8 these facilities like this. They cleaned them 

9 up to certain standards. But, also, there's 

10 lots of areas that they never got into and 

11 cleaned.

12 You know, we all have one vote, 

13 and we can vote how we feel. It is just that 

14 is the most important thing there.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Brad.

16 Mark?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am trying 

18 to fill in the gaps on my knowledge on this 

19 site. But, you know, I look at the sufficient 

20 accuracy argument that has been circulating.

21 First of all, I think, you know, 

22 the renovation period is troubling from my 
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 practical experience with these type of sites. 

2 Obviously, in 1954, the site was released 

3 without restrictions. And, then, in 1978, 

4 they do surface surveys showing grid average. 

5 I think these are grid average values. They 

6 might be maximum values with alpha 

7 contamination on the floor ranging up to 

8 3,000-4,000 dpm.

9 I mean that doesn't even talk 

10 about the rafters and the walls. They get 

11 much higher in those areas.

12 So, then, you question what 

13 happened in our renovation period? If they 

14 are pulling down ductwork and things like 

15 that, I think this approach may bound for lots 

16 of workers, but those directly involved in 

17 maintenance or these renovation activities, it 

18 could not bound them. I don't think we are 

19 overbounding in all cases necessarily. I 

20 don't buy that argument.

21 I am still not clear exactly how 

22 you are extrapolating back from 1974. The 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other interesting tidbit, and maybe those that 

2 have researched this much more than I have can 

3 enlighten me, but all this jackhammering 

4 activity is constantly referenced. If they 

5 were actually doing sandblasting and 

6 jackhammering in these areas, I am very 

7 curious how 20 years later they still have 

8 these significant decontamination levels left 

9 on the floors.

10 I mean I have been in several 

11 facilities where we have found very little 

12 contamination on the grid floors. We actually 

13 ended up looking in cracks in between cement 

14 slabs and ended up tearing down half the 

15 facility based on cracks because they filled 

16 in footprints where old process equipment was. 

17 When we lifted those footprints out, we found 

18 lots of contamination.

19 So, then, the question was, where 

20 the maintenance workers that were in those 

21 areas or, you know, doing more intrusive work, 

22 were they potentially exposed to much higher 
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 values than we are anticipating with the model 

2 that NIOSH is proposing?

3 So, you know, I think people 

4 should look at the 1978 data and ask, well, in 

5 1954, they say they basically released without 

6 restrictions, but, obviously, these are not 

7 minor levels that were leftover. They are not 

8 just barely -- and these are just scoping 

9 surveys by ORNL as well. They are just 

10 deciding, do we need to clean this site up or 

11 not? They are not doing this as an exposure 

12 assessment study. This is to determine 

13 whether the area, the entire building, what 

14 areas need to be D&Ded later on?

15 So, these kind of levels, I guess 

16 another question I have is, which values are 

17 extrapolated back from 1978 to 1969, I guess 

18 it is? Are you using like floor average 

19 values? I think Jim said something about 

20 beta-gammas. Maybe I missed that part. 

21 Because there is a very big discrepancy 

22 between the average floor grade values and the 
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 walls and the rafters. So, I don't know 

2 exactly how that was handled.

3 But, to me, there's a lot of 

4 uncertainty extrapolating back from an ORNL 

5 scoping survey to a 1969 data point, which in 

6 itself a little uncertain to me. So, I think 

7 I have trouble with the approach. It doesn't 

8 convince me that it is bounding, especially 

9 for those renovation workers or maintenance 

10 workers in those timeframes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie, and then 

12 --

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Maybe, Jim --

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Actually, go 

15 ahead.

16 DR. NETON: I just have one 

17 question for Mark. You were talking about 

18 extrapolating from 1969 to 1974. That is 

19 outside of the renovation period. That is not 

20 part of the renovation period. It is a 

21 different issue, but it is not what has been 

22 discussed here.
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: I thought I was 

2 saying extrapolating back from 1978 data to 

3 1969.

4 DR. NETON: Right, but that is 

5 outside of the renovation period. That's a 

6 different -- see, there's several --

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is after 

8 renovation was over.

9 DR. NETON: The renovation was 

10 over in 1969.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, but the 

12 data point in 1969 is derived from 1954, 

13 right?

14 DR. NETON: Right. Right.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, that is a 

16 little bit of speculation.

17 DR. NETON: But what I am saying, 

18 though, that is a different --

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's not like you 

20 measured in 1969 after the renovations.

21 DR. NETON: What I am saying is 

22 that is a different time period than what has 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been discussed for the last half-hour or so. 

2 Right now, the discussion has centered around 

3 the renovation period itself. Once the 

4 renovation period is over, then we have the 

5 standard TIB-70 approach where it declines. 

6 And you're right, it goes back -- we don't 

7 have anything to hang our hat on in 1969. So, 

8 we go back to 1954.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. That's 

10 what I was saying.

11 DR. NETON: That is the starting 

12 point. It can't get any higher than that.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm saying I'm 

14 uncertain in all three of those data points.

15 DR. NETON: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie? And, 

17 then, I will hear next after Josie from the 

18 petitioners.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Well, then, the 

20 renovation period, during that time, it is my 

21 understanding the workers' testimony stated 

22 that they removed large pieces of process 
155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 equipment, which is where I believe the 

2 jackhammering came into play.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is it a quick 

4 question?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, just a 

6 comment. It was my understanding that during 

7 the renovation period they had air samples not 

8 only from jackhammering, but from like six 

9 different operations. Was that not correct?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It was the 

11 decontamination period.

12 DR. NETON: That was for the 

13 decontamination period.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

15 DR. NETON: Yes, we picked what we 

16 thought was the highest value for 

17 decontamination, the jackhammering, concrete 

18 had already been sandblasted.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, there was a 

20 survey. But I want to get to the petitioners. 

21 We have got some time issues. And, then, we 

22 will come back and there will be more 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussion, and we need a break. So, I want 

2 to get the petitioners before we get to that 

3 point. It is obviously going to take longer 

4 than allotted.

5 So, can we hear from the 

6 petitioners? Antoinette, first, please.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, can everyone 

8 hear me?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Good 

11 morning, Dr. Melius. First, I want to thank 

12 you on behalf of the Linde workers and their 

13 families for the opportunity to address the 

14 Board this morning.

15 I would also like to thank the 

16 Linde Working Group for their efforts of two 

17 and a half years during the Linde SEC 

18 evaluation.

19 The Linde SEC, one issue was filed 

20 in March of 2008 and qualified for review on 

21 July 18th, 2008. The first ER for this was 

22 released by NIOSH on November 5th, 2008. One 
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 day before, on November 4th, NIOSH also issued 

2 a revised Site Profile.

3 The revised Site Profile was 

4 intended to incorporate and resolve issues 

5 raised by SC&A in their July 2006 review of 

6 the January version of the Site Profile. The 

7 revised November 2008 Site Profile represented 

8 the third version of the Site Profile since 

9 May 2000.

10 Since November 2008, the Linde 

11 workers and their families have not only been 

12 waiting for resolution of this SEC petition, 

13 but an additional SEC petition covering the 

14 operational time period from 1947 through 

15 1953.

16 During my presentation to the 

17 Board in November of last year, I spoke 

18 primarily about timeliness and the lack of 

19 transparency with the SEC evaluation process.

20 Regarding the issue of timeliness, 

21 this SEC evaluation process has had the 

22 unfortunate consequence of delaying the 
158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appropriate and timely review of 

2 previously-denied individual dose 

3 reconstruction claims covering the residual 

4 radiation period.

5 NIOSH has refused to issue a 

6 Program Evaluation Report to reflect necessary 

7 changes that must be incorporated in the next 

8 revision of the Linde Site Profile, which will 

9 be revision No. 5. And consequently, the 

10 Department of Labor refuses to reopen those 

11 previously-denied.

12 In effect, the Linde workers are 

13 being penalized because they filed this SEC 

14 petition. To add insult to injury, DCAS has 

15 now chosen to ignore the specific 

16 prescriptions of both the statute and their 

17 own implementing regulations by issuing a 

18 revised Evaluation Report on January 28th of 

19 this year.

20 The original ER was issued nearly 

21 two and a half years ago. That original ER 

22 was within the general confines of the 180-day 
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 deadline for issuing an ER. NIOSH now has 

2 decided to ignore that deadline and issue a 

3 revision and is asking this Board to recommend 

4 the denial of this SEC petition, not based on 

5 the original ER analysis, but the new ER 

6 analysis.

7 When DCAS issued the revised ER on 

8 January 28th, they, in effect, conceded that 

9 their November 2008 ER failed to provide a 

10 plan to reconstruct dose for these workers 

11 with sufficient accuracy, as prescribed by the 

12 statute and the regulations.

13 The policy DCAS is now using to 

14 justify ignoring the statute and ignoring 

15 their own regulations directly contradicts why 

16 deadlines were specifically delineated for the 

17 SEC program. The 180-day deadline was put in 

18 place to avoid exactly what has happened with 

19 the petition. The deadline exists so that 

20 NIOSH and DCAS specifically cannot drag out an 

21 SEC evaluation for years and years, so they 

22 cannot keep revising ERs ad infinitum until 
160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they think they finally have it right.

2 DCAS is presenting this Board with 

3 an explicit admission that they failed to meet 

4 their statutory and regulatory obligation when 

5 they issued the November 2008 ER. The 

6 Department of Health and Human Services has 

7 the explicit authority to interpret provisions 

8 within EEOICPA when the legislative intent is 

9 unclear.

10 NIOSH has abused this authority by 

11 ignoring the very clear mandate to produce and 

12 evaluate an ER within 180 days of when a 

13 petition is filed. What these workers do not 

14 understand, what is ambiguous or unclear about 

15 an 180-day deadline? How does 180 days give 

16 NIOSH the wiggle room to go to a 

17 two-and-a-half-year extension of that 

18 deadline?

19 Congress never intended to empower 

20 NIOSH to ignore this restriction. NIOSH 

21 issued a response to this issue to me in a 

22 letter dated January 31st of this year. That 
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 letter, which was distributed to the Board 

2 this morning, doesn't even address this issue. 

3 It simply doesn't even address that there is 

4 a statutory deadline for issuing an ER. And, 

5 quite frankly, I was perplexed by the 

6 statements from DCAS simply ignoring the 

7 question that I posed to them about the 

8 180-day deadline.

9 The problem with this policy is 

10 not only that workers are expected to wait 

11 years for claims to be resolved. The problem 

12 is that DCAS has confused the purpose of the 

13 SEC program and the remedy it was intended to

14 provide to workers and their families with the 

15 actual revising of the Site Profile.

16 These two parts of the Part B 

17 program should be distinct. DCAS cannot 

18 choose to ignore the fact that Congress put in 

19 place a specific deadline for the SEC 

20 evaluation process simply because they are 

21 still trying to figure out how best to justify 

22 a recommendation for denying the petition.
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The legislative history is clear 

2 here. Congress intended there to be a 

3 specific deadline here. NIOSH is ignoring 

4 that legislative history.

5 DCAS's health physicists and their 

6 contractor in ORAU evaluate SECs in a 

7 theoretical vacuum, ignoring the fact that 

8 these are real people who are seeking 

9 compensation under this program because they 

10 are sick or because the families that have 

11 been left behind are seeking some semblance of 

12 justice for their family members that have 

13 died.

14 This is not an epidemiological 

15 study. This is a reparative compensation 

16 program. And as such, DCAS cannot simply pick 

17 and choose what parts of the statute they 

18 comply with and what parts they can 

19 systematically ignore.

20 The first flawed Site Profile was 

21 issued by DCAS back in 2005. That Site 

22 Profile has since been revised four times and 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it will need to be revised again, notably 

2 because none of the previous Site Profiles 

3 ever considered worker exposures in the Linde 

4 underground tunnel system.

5 Workers not only worked in those 

6 tunnels for a specific maintenance and repair 

7 duty, but they also used those tunnels to 

8 travel from building to building, particularly 

9 during the cold winter months.

10 I wanted to emphasize that 

11 particular point about the tunnels. The 

12 revised ER makes no mention of that fact, even 

13 though the workers who were interviewed by 

14 SC&A back in May of last year discussed that 

15 very issue of how and why this was used by 

16 workers.

17 But, more importantly, the 

18 November 2008 ER, the original Evaluation 

19 Report, makes no mention of the Linde tunnels. 

20 DCAS has known about this potential worker 

21 exposure since July of 2006, when SC&A raised 

22 the issue in their Site Profile review and 
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recommended that DCAS investigate the issue 

2 further.

3 However, I believe that DCAS 

4 specifically chose to ignore the tunnels as a 

5 potential exposure pathway because DCAS did 

6 not believe that anyone ever worked in or ever 

7 used those tunnels. That fact alone indicates 

8 that DCAS failed to propose a model for 

9 reconstructing dose in a sufficiently-accurate 

10 and claimant-friendly manner when they issued 

11 the original ER. And now they are coming to 

12 this Board conceding that fact while 

13 simultaneously asking you to ignore that fact.

14 Another problem with the revised 

15 ER deals with DCAS's unequivocal contention 

16 that the Linde tunnels under the original 

17 uranium ore processing building aren't 

18 constructed until after the operational time 

19 period had ended. The only truth that DCAS is 

20 relying on for this allegation is based upon 

21 an unsourced document prepared by a contractor 

22 used by the Army Corps of Engineers for the 
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 FUSRAP program. Those documents from Shaw 

2 Environmental were prepared back in 2004, and 

3 they provide absolutely no indication of what 

4 evidence or documentation Shaw Environmental 

5 relied on to conclude when specific tunnels 

6 were constructed.

7 DCAS has no contemporaneous 

8 evidence whatsoever, absolutely none, proving 

9 that these specific tunnels were constructed 

10 during the residual radiation period. They 

11 have no building permits or any evidence from 

12 the 1940s to counter statements from workers 

13 that those tunnels existed prior to the 

14 residual radiation period.

15 With respect to this issue of 

16 tunnel reconstruction dates, I would advise 

17 all the Board Members to read the memo that 

18 Ted distributed this morning carefully because 

19 on page 1 of that memo I noted that there is 

20 an August 1945 memo that discusses how 

21 effluent overflow was redirected from 

22 injection wells at the northwest end of the 
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 site to the southeast end of the site. There 

2 were injection wells near the ceramics 

3 building and there were injection wells near 

4 the area south, near the southeast end of the 

5 site, which was also called Plant 1. And they 

6 redirected the overflow from the ceramics 

7 building injection wells to the injection 

8 wells located near the Plant 1 at the end of 

9 the site. They did that using pipe tunnels.

10 Now these pipe tunnels were 

11 located in the underground utility pump. And, 

12 quite frankly, I don't understand how there is 

13 any other explanation, any other explanation 

14 as to how they redirected that effluent if the 

15 tunnels didn't exist during that time period.

16 So, I would ask the Board Members 

17 to particularly look at that memo with respect 

18 to this issue.

19 The workers need to believe in the 

20 integrity of the SEC evaluation process, and 

21 specifically, the integrity and the 

22 objectivity of the SEC scientific analysis, 
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because the workers have no real way of 

2 challenging that information. I think the 

3 conversation and the discussion that the Board 

4 Members are having today probably could have 

5 been in a foreign language for most of the 

6 people who are listening today who are Linde 

7 workers or surviving family members.

8 When workers are not provided with 

9 an independent, objective analysis, the very 

10 issues that are dispositive in the SEC 

11 evaluation, they lose confidence in the 

12 decisionmaking process.

13 Neither ORAU nor SC&A represent 

14 the workers. When there is no representation 

15 of the workers on the technical side of the 

16 issue, the process becomes completely opaque 

17 to them.

18 This lack of transparency is a 

19 fundamental defect to how the SEC program is 

20 being administered and how the individual dose 

21 reconstruction cases are evaluated.

22 In conclusion, I respectfully 
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 request that the Board consider two specific 

2 issues. First, why does the Board believe 

3 DCAS can ignore the statutory and regulatory 

4 180-day deadline and use that policy as a 

5 justification for recommending that an SEC 

6 should be denied by asking this Board to 

7 evaluate their denial recommendation solely 

8 upon the analysis that is contained within the 

9 revised ER? What empowers DCAS to pick and 

10 choose what parts of the statute they want to 

11 comply with? Why is this admissible when the 

12 policy being used here is being used to the 

13 detriment of these workers?

14 I ask that the Board review the 

15 memo dealing with, the second memo that I sent 

16 this morning, dealing with its itemization of 

17 the analysis of every instance where DCAS has 

18 issued a revised ER and the reasons for doing 

19 so, as well as the resolution of those SECs.

20 You will note that the Linde 

21 revised ER is the first time that DCAS has 

22 issued a revised ER wherein they initially 
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recommended denial, and are still recommending 

2 denial, despite the fact that there are 

3 material changes to the methodology in the 

4 revised ER.

5 I would submit to the Board that 

6 this is this revision is a very unique 

7 situation and that NIOSH is ignoring the very 

8 mandate of the SEC program.

9 The information developed by DCAS 

10 and SC&A after the 180-day deadline passed two 

11 and a half years ago should be used to revise 

12 the obviously inaccurate and incomplete Site 

13 Profile that NIOSH used to evaluate the SEC in 

14 the first place, and has been using to 

15 evaluate individual dose reconstruction 

16 claims.

17 However, the Linde petitioners 

18 respectfully request that the Board ensure 

19 that the significant and material changes that 

20 have been made from the original ER are not 

21 used to justify recommending denial of this 

22 petition. Allowing that would undermine the 
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very purpose of the SEC program.

2 All of the Linde claims that have 

3 been denied since issuing the Site Profile in 

4 2005 have not been evaluated by NIOSH using an 

5 accurate and complete Site Profile. The 

6 singular and inescapable reality of the tunnel 

7 exposure issue has never been addressed, and 

8 any of the four versions of the Site Profile 

9 demonstrates this fact.

10 We ask that now, after five years 

11 of unfairly evaluated dose reconstruction 

12 claims, and after two and a half years of an 

13 SEC evaluation process, and it has openly 

14 ignored the 180-day statutory deadline, that 

15 the Linde workers should be granted immediate 

16 relief by this Board today. These workers and 

17 their families have waited far too long for 

18 some semblance of justice. 

19 Finally, I would ask that the 

20 Board pick up any remaining issues regarding 

21 the OTIB-70 discussion from yesterday and 

22 address some of the questions that were raised 
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that were posed by Dr. Lemen, Dr. Melius, and 

2 Dr. Poston that may affect the Linde SEC 

3 petition analysis. We urge the Board to 

4 recommend the approval of the Linde SEC-107.

5 I want to thank the Board for your 

6 time and consideration today. I would like to 

7 thank Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for 

8 their tireless efforts.

9 And most importantly, I would like 

10 to thank all the Linde workers and their 

11 families who have waited for a very long time. 

12 It has been an honor to work with them.

13 Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

15 Antoinette.

16 Is Linda Lux on the line? I have 

17 some indication that she --

18 MS. LUX: Can you hear me?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can. 

20 Thank you.

21 MS. LUX: Okay. After reading 

22 over the revised Evaluation Report that NIOSH 
172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 presented for the Linde Site, I have some 

2 concerns how these numbers would be 

3 implemented if it is agreed or voted that 

4 NIOSH's proposal should be used for any dose 

5 reconstruction.

6 The Evaluation Report does not 

7 disclose how the 95th percent dose amount 

8 would be applied to the workers for the height 

9 of the construction or renovation period from 

10 1954 to 1969. And I say height because I 

11 believe that reading that report -- it is my 

12 understanding, that renovation did go on 

13 beyond 1969.

14 In the past NIOSH uses job 

15 classification to decide what dose amount each 

16 job category receives. While a very few might 

17 receive 95 percent most workers receive a much 

18 lower dose down to 5 percent. 

19 In the case at the Linde Site 

20 during the construction period, job 

21 classifications are meaningless. There is no 

22 documentation as to what building or where on 
173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the site the workers were.

2 As NIOSH states in the revised 

3 report, Building 30 was used for evaluation 

4 purposes although many other contaminated 

5 buildings were being renovated all over the 

6 site. Many times the buildings were occupied 

7 in a business as usual way, and being used as 

8 offices or other purposes while construction 

9 went on in the same building. So it would be 

10 impossible to use job classification in this 

11 instance.

12 The construction at Linde went on 

13 in all seasons of the year. In the summer 

14 months, because there was no air conditioning, 

15 windows and doors would have been open 

16 exposing not only the buildings being 

17 renovated but the neighboring buildings as 

18 well.

19 I think we can all relate to 

20 excess dust in our own homes when a 

21 construction project is going on nearby and 

22 our windows are left open, so that scenario 
174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would not be unreasonable.

2 In the winter months the 

3 building's windows and doors would have been 

4 closed up, keeping the dust and airborne 

5 radioactivity closed up as well. For NIOSH to 

6 say on page 23 of the report that most of the 

7 airborne contamination would fall after 30 

8 minutes is not taking into account that the 

9 workers are still walking over the dust 

10 stirring it up, the heaters and fans are 

11 blowing dust around, and most likely everyone 

12 is drinking coffee along with the dust that 

13 had fallen in it. No one was thinking 

14 radioactive dust therefore no precautions were 

15 taken.

16 Although this report is focused on 

17 Building 30, over the years many contaminated 

18 buildings on the site were being renovated, 

19 and it is noted on page 22 of the report that 

20 these locations or building numbers were not 

21 documented, so therefore workers cannot be 

22 placed in specific areas.
175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Most of these buildings in later 

2 years after 1969 were still found to be 

3 contaminated and had to be torn down after 

4 repeated attempts at cleaning them up. Torn 

5 down because they still could not be used for 

6 a healthy work environment.

7 So again I ask how can NIOSH 

8 accurately apply a formula to the Linde 

9 workers for this 12 year and beyond 

10 construction period. NIOSH has not been 

11 forthcoming with how they can accomplish this 

12 and for the Board Members to agree that 

13 NIOSH's proposal is claimant favorable, over14 arching, or even fair to the Linde workers 

15 without knowing how the numbers would be 

16 applied, would be irresponsible and a flagrant 

17 disregard to the task that they were hired to 

18 perform. In regard to radon in the utility 

19 tunnels --

20 (Telephonic interference.)

21 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Linda. 

22 Linda, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but someone 
176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 else has their phone open and they are making 

2 a lot of noise.

3 Everyone else on this phone except 

4 for Linda should have their phone muted. 

5 Press *6 if you don't have a mute button.

6 MS. LUX: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, why don't 

8 you try now, Linda? Just continue.

9 MS. LUX: Okay. I will go back to 

10 the radon --

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think that is 

12 about where it got very difficult.

13 MS. LUX: Okay. If the goal of 

14 the Board is to determine the amount of radon 

15 in the tunnels at the Linde Site, it is 

16 inaccurate and factually incorrect to use all 

17 of Erie county as an average even for the 

18 lower bound. The radon present in the tunnels 

19 that may well have come from seepage and 

20 flooding from the wells that were drilled into 

21 the ground and filled with radioactive slurry 

22 is no way common to today's readings of 
177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 residential neighborhoods county wide. This 

2 petition is in regard to the Linde Site only 

3 and therefore all information needs to come 

4 from the Linde Site in the time period of 

5 1954-2006 to be the most accurate for this 

6 petition that it can be.

7 I hope the Board will consider 

8 these important but overlooked issues with 

9 this Linde petition. Thank you for letting me 

10 make my comments.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

12 you, Linda.

13 We are running behind schedule. 

14 We do have the Bliss & Laughlin Steel 

15 scheduled. Actually, it should have started 

16 already.

17 I think we need a break. So, what 

18 I am going to propose we do, about a 

19 15-20-minute break and try to start again a 

20 little after 11:30 with Bliss & Laughlin 

21 because we do have petitioners that want to 

22 listen in for that.
178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, then, we come back, we have a 

2 work period. We do Fernald at 1:30, and, 

3 then, at two o'clock we will start back up 

4 with Linde. And we also have Dow to deal 

5 with, if we can, during that time period. But 

6 we have another Board work session later in 

7 the afternoon we can use to do that.

8 So, we will reconvene about 11:30 

9 to 11:35 and start with Bliss & Laughlin.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Dr. Melius?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: This is 

13 Antoinette.

14 Just repeat what time the Linde 

15 session will begin.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will start 

17 around two o'clock, but we may be a little bit 

18 before, depending on how long the Fernald 

19 discussion goes on. So, I would be back on 

20 the line by 1:45 Eastern time.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will not 
179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 start before that time, but we will start 

2 sometime between there and roughly two 

3 o'clock.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. There was 

5 something that Linda mentioned that I wanted 

6 to address again at that time, if you could 

7 give me a moment --

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: To make one 

10 additional comment.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That would be 

12 fine.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 matter went off the record at 11:19 a.m. and 

17 went back on the record at 11:38 a.m.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we 

19 reconvene?

20 And the first item on the agenda, 

21 and the only item between now and lunch, is 

22 discussion of the Bliss & Laughlin Steel SEC.
180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Are there people on the line 

2 listening in?

3 (No response.)

4 Again, why don't we get started?

5 Dr. Ziemer is going to make a 

6 presentation on Bliss & Laughlin.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. 

8 Melius.

9 I want to report on the Work 

10 Group's findings or recommendations from a 

11 meeting that occurred just this past week. 

12 But, before I start in the slides that I have 

13 prepared, let me also refer you to the 

14 distribution that Ted Katz made last Thursday 

15 where he sent a copy of the slides that Sam 

16 Glover presented to the Board last July, I 

17 believe it was, where we had the formal 

18 presentation of the NIOSH Evaluation Report 

19 for this site. A copy of that with some minor 

20 revisions made in the slides that are based on 

21 the outcome from the Work Group, that should 

22 have been in your mail on this past Thursday 
181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as an attachment, basically, the original 

2 Evaluation Report as well as Sam's original 

3 presentation with some minor revisions that 

4 were indicated on his slides in red.

5 Just to remind you that Bliss & 

6 Laughlin Steel, they were a site where in a 

7 sense there were very minimal activities. 

8 There were five, or possibly six, individual 

9 machining operations done on specific days in 

10 1951 and 1952. That was the extent of the 

11 work there, basically, five or six days of 

12 work during that two-year period.

13 In 1992, it was declared to be a 

14 FUSRAP site and there was cleanup there in 

15 1998 and 1999.

16 The original Evaluation Report was 

17 reviewed by SC&A, and SC&A had seven findings 

18 which came to the TBD-6000 Work Group and we 

19 worked on those at two different meetings, one 

20 last fall and then the recent meeting this 

21 past week. So, I will give you the bottom 

22 line on those.
182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I would like to point out that I 

2 have the Work Group recommendations on each of 

3 the findings. Mark Griffon was not able to be 

4 with us during the meeting last week. So, 

5 Mark did not actually vote on these, and he 

6 certainly can have the opportunity to comment.

7 Also, on the first one of the 

8 seven I believe Josie either abstained or had 

9 some concerns about it.

10 But, overall, there is a consensus 

11 recommendation on the individual findings as 

12 well as the bottom line.

13 So, let me go through the 

14 individual slides here.

15 Basically, what I will do is 

16 identify each of the findings, the SC&A 

17 findings. Also, I do want to insert here, I 

18 believe Sam may be on the slide.

19 Sam Glover, are you on the line as 

20 well?

21 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir, I am.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Good. Sam is here 
183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if there are specific technical questions of 

2 NIOSH, and John Mauro is here. And I think 

3 somebody is on the line, Bill Thurber.

4 Is Bill Thurber --

5 MR. THURBER: I am.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So, Bill was 

7 the person from SC&A who was involved with 

8 this as well. So, those are both represented 

9 as well.

10 The Work Group, in addition to me, 

11 is Josie, Mark, Wanda, and John.

12 Finding No. 1 was that NIOSH 

13 should describe and reference the procedural 

14 standards for performing individual dose 

15 reconstructions.

16 The SC&A review indicated that 

17 there wasn't clarity in the ER exactly as to 

18 how they were performing these. NIOSH 

19 subsequently prepared a detailed summary 

20 document and some spreadsheets that gave 

21 details that were not presented in the ER. 

22 SC&A basically agreed with the DR approach set 
184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forth by NIOSH, and the Work Group agreed that 

2 we should close this issue.

3 I am going to insert here as an 

4 added comment that the description that I am 

5 giving here of what NIOSH did in response here 

6 is very abbreviated. Of course, the Work 

7 Group had fairly extensive discussions on each 

8 of these.

9 So, this is really a high-level 

10 summary, as it were, in the sense that it is 

11 very brief. If you have questions on any of 

12 these as I go along or later, please be sure 

13 to ask those.

14 So, that is the first issue. And 

15 it was not seen by SC&A as a major issue, 

16 simply one of providing the details necessary 

17 to understand how dose reconstructions were 

18 purportedly going to be done.

19 The next finding was that NIOSH 

20 should ensure that the text of the SEC 

21 Petition Evaluation Report is consistent with 

22 the spreadsheet and the text correctly 
185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 describes the analysis. They seemed to find 

2 some discrepancies at that point.

3 And I want to also comment on the 

4 word "insure", which when I sent these slides 

5 out for comment, one comment I got back was 

6 that that's the wrong word. It should be 

7 "ensure" with an "e", and that is quite 

8 correct, but I point out that the SC&A finding 

9 used the word "insure." So, that is the 

10 finding. I have checked the dictionary and 

11 "insure" is an acceptable, but not preferred 

12 use of what should be "ensure". If the court 

13 reporter can get the "e's" and "i's" correct 

14 on that, we will have a good transcript.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will 

16 interpret the finding accordingly.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It is "i" 

18 before "e", apparently.

19 In any event, NIOSH reviewed the 

20 data which were used and they provided, again, 

21 a detailed Excel spreadsheet that matches well 

22 with the text of the Evaluation Report. There 
186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 weren't changes needed in the Evaluation 

2 Report, but, again, more consistent detail on 

3 how the doses were to be reconstructed. SC&A 

4 indicated they understood them, how NIOSH is 

5 doing the calculations, and they agree with 

6 the general approach.

7 Also, it was agreed that this, 

8 actually, is not an SEC issue, but the 

9 differences there were simply clarification in 

10 how doses would be reconstructed. And we 

11 agreed that the issue should be closed.

12 The third finding, NIOSH needs to 

13 be prescriptive as to how calculations are to 

14 be performed for a bounding analysis. And, 

15 basically, after we discussed this, we all 

16 concluded that NIOSH's response to issue one 

17 also satisfied this issue because they were 

18 very descriptive in how they would carry out 

19 the dose calculations.

20 And SC&A agreed that these details 

21 as they were provided in the spreadsheet were 

22 responsive, and the Work Group agreed to close 
187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that issue.

2 Finally, four, SC&A agrees that it 

3 is possible to bound inhalation exposures 

4 during the residual period. This one is a 

5 bounding issue, we will note. SC&A does not 

6 believe that assuming a source-term depletion 

7 of 1 percent per day is an appropriate 

8 bounding approach.

9 This turns out to be largely an 

10 OTIB-70 issue, and NIOSH did agree that, where 

11 site data are available, they should be 

12 evaluated to determine factors such as 

13 depletion factors. And appropriate 

14 adjustments have been made using some actual 

15 data from the site as the starting point for 

16 the calculation for this period, for the 

17 residual period.

18 It turns out that NIOSH will 

19 actually use values that are significantly 

20 higher than the OTIB-70 method because they 

21 actually will use as a starting point the 

22 values from the site.
188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Actually, they have Bliss & 

2 Laughlin data both for air and surface 

3 contamination. So, they can do some relations 

4 between those as well.

5 And SC&A accepted the approach now 

6 proposed. Again, it follows the general 

7 principles of OTIB-70, but uses actual site 

8 data as well. And the Work Group agreed that 

9 the issue should be closed.

10 Now Finding 5 was actually not a 

11 finding. It was a comment in the original 

12 document that SC&A concurred with NIOSH that 

13 external operation exposures can be bounded 

14 based on tables in TBD-6000. And so, it 

15 wasn't really a finding, although it was 

16 called that in the report. It is just a 

17 comment that they agreed with NIOSH in the 

18 report. And so, we closed that issue as well.

19 Then, Finding 6, SC&A said, while 

20 we believe that it is possible to use the 

21 information in TBD-6000 to make a bounding 

22 calculation for external exposure at Bliss & 
189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Laughlin, use of Table 5.1, which is from that 

2 TBD, as the basis may not be bounding since, 

3 it should say, it is based on an assumed air 

4 concentration of 7 dpm per cubic meter, a 

5 value neither supported in the source document 

6 nor by measurements at Bliss & Laughlin.

7 NIOSH indicated that the site data 

8 were used to determine the air concentration 

9 and surface loading values in the revised 

10 spreadsheet. This issue is linked to the 

11 OTIB-70 resuspension factors. And SC&A agreed 

12 with the proposed approach, which uses those 

13 resuspension factors in combination with the 

14 actual source data from the site. And the

15 Work Group agreed to close that issue as well.

16 And, then, finally, Sections 

17 3.4.21 -- and that may be 2.1, I'm not sure; I 

18 may need to correct that -- and Section 7.1.5 

19 of TBD-6000 offer different approaches to 

20 estimating surface contaminations.

21 I am pausing here a minute because 

22 I am looking back at the finding to see if 
190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there should be a decimal point in there, but 

2 I won't spend time on that now. I think it is 

3 3.4.2.1 is what it probably is.

4 In any event, NIOSH should make 

5 clear when it is appropriate to use either 

6 approach and should correct such in 7.1.5 to 

7 indicate that deposition occurs for 16 hours 

8 per day.

9 NIOSH's response was that Bliss & 

10 Laughlin had only a handful of campaigns, and 

11 for the purposes of the calculations 

12 presented, they actually are using a 8.8-hour 

13 workday, and they assume a constant 

14 application of the air concentration level of 

15 5,480 dpm per cubic meter. And there are 

16 documents that detail how that is derived, so 

17 I am not going to go into that here, but that 

18 is the value, and they compare well with data 

19 collected during the operation of the fans as 

20 well -- or, I'm sorry. Comparison of the data 

21 collected during operation of the fans is well 

22 below this value and also bounds all the data 
191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 collected when the fans were not utilized. 

2 And SC&A concurred with that approach. The 

3 Work Group agreed to close that issue.

4 And, then, the bottom line, based 

5 on the review of the Bliss & Laughlin SEC 

6 Evaluation Report by the Board's contractor, 

7 SC&A, and on the resolution of the issues at 

8 the Work Group meeting of October 12th, 2010, 

9 and February 16th, 2011, the TBD-6000 Work 

10 Group proposes that the Advisory Board accept 

11 the NIOSH Evaluation Report and recommend to 

12 the Secretary that an SEC Class for Bliss & 

13 Laughlin be denied.

14 And that ends my report.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

16 you, Dr. Ziemer.

17 Any questions for Dr. Ziemer?

18 (No response.)

19 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Hello.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

21 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: I have a few 

22 things to say here.
192 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are you the 

2 petitioner?

3 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Yes, I am.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Our usual 

5 procedure is that we ask the Board Members to 

6 ask questions about the presentation and, 

7 then, I will call on you. So, if you can just 

8 wait a few minutes, a very few minutes, we 

9 should be asking you. So, thank you.

10 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Josie?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I just wanted 

13 to state for the record that my objection to 

14 one and three was that part of NIOSH's 

15 response, why they were very descriptive in 

16 how they were going to do the reconstruction, 

17 they are going to develop a standalone 

18 appendix. They haven't done that already. 

19 So, I just wanted to make that clear.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and I should 

21 point out that this is not unlike some other 

22 cases where the issue of making a standalone 
193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appendix basically is equivalent of a Site 

2 Profile. It is not an SEC issue. It simply 

3 will delineate in more detail what these dose 

4 reconstruction methods would be.

5 But I don't know if either Sam or 

6 Jim would like to comment further on that.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Just to add that, 

8 my main concern is just the followup --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Because there 

11 really isn't any after we close this.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. There is a 

13 commitment to actually produce a formal 

14 appendix to TBD-6000 for Bliss & Laughlin 

15 which will outline these procedures in detail.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, I mean, one 

17 possibility is that the Work Group, the 

18 TBD-6000 Work Group, could continue to follow 

19 up. So, when that appendix comes out --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It follows it. 

22 That is one thing.
194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we would do 

2 that in any event.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I 

4 think Josie's comments are also appropriate. 

5 We have usually, we have tried, in general, to 

6 say, well, show us; let's see the actual 

7 method, and so forth. So, it somewhat depends 

8 on the level of confidence that that method 

9 will work, I guess.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the Work 

11 Group assumed methods, and SC&A had seen the 

12 methods. So, it is a matter of actually 

13 putting them in a document.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I don't know, 

16 Jim, do you or Sam on the line, do you want to 

17 comment on that, and maybe even the time 

18 table?

19 DR. NETON: I guess I will give 

20 Sam the first crack at it. He is more close 

21 to this than I am.

22 (Laughter.)
195 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Sam?

2 DR. GLOVER: Yes. This is Sam 

3 Glover.

4 The methods that are put forth in 

5 the letter provided to the Board are very 

6 detailed, and essentially all I am really 

7 going to add is just some more of the 

8 descriptive material, which will be pulled 

9 mostly out of the Evaluation Report. And so, 

10 I will combine those.

11 I kept my response to the Working 

12 Group very abbreviated, so that it would be 

13 focused, not lose the calculations.

14 So, anyway, it will not a great 

15 deal of time to prepare an appendix.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks.

17 Any other Board Members have 

18 questions or comments?

19 (No response.)

20 Mark, do you? Okay. Okay. Thank 

21 you.

22 Okay. Now we will take the 
196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 opportunity to hear from the petitioner. I 

2 believe you said you had some comments and 

3 questions. So, go ahead.

4 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Thank you.

5 I have in front of me a 

6 memorandum, the United States Government, we 

7 have gotten it from the library. Oh, my gosh, 

8 it was a couple of years ago, and everything 

9 was sent in.

10 And how it reads on one page in 

11 here -- it is File 52, Bliss & Laughlin Steel 

12 Company, Buffalo, New York, machining and 

13 scraping operations on uranium rods.

14 And I will go to the next 

15 paragraph. "Available records indicate 

16 uranium machining occurred at the site during 

17 September and October 1952, and that 

18 rod-turnings were generated by the Bliss & 

19 Laughlin activity is unknown."

20 So, these records describe the 

21 full extent of the Bliss & Laughlin work, no 

22 records indicating the total quantity of 
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium handled at this site have been 

2 located. There is no mention of possible 

3 earlier Atomic Energy Commission work at the 

4 site in the October 1951 correspondence, which 

5 indicated that several drums of high uranium 

6 oxide had been accumulated.

7 Based on the operations performed 

8 at this site, the potential contaminants would 

9 be processed natural uranium. And I would add 

10 here, too, surveys of the facility conducted 

11 by National Lab Ohio at the time of the 

12 rod-turning operations identified 

13 contamination in the turning machine.

14 The machine used for this work 

15 replaced disposition of the old equipment is 

16 not known. No records indicating the 

17 radiological condition of this site following 

18 the uranium machining have been located.

19 I also have more information.

20 Surveys were conducted by NLO 

21 during rod-turning operations. And, then, it 

22 gives a lot of scientific information through 
198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here.

2 The onsite visit was conducted by 

3 the Department of Energy and, also, the 

4 Institute for Science and Education in 1992. 

5 This survey determined that residual uranium 

6 was present in the floor of the building above 

7 DOE guidelines.

8 I have a little more information. 

9 Just a minute, please --

10 MR. KATZ: I am sorry, if you 

11 could just repeat yourself? Whatever you just 

12 said, this last sentence or two, it was 

13 inaudible.

14 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

16 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: I understand 

17 there is something on the line.

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry to interrupt 

19 you again. Perhaps you are on a speaker 

20 phone, but it is almost impossible to --

21 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Is that 

22 better?
199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That's much better. 

2 Thank you.

3 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: What I keep 

4 seeing over and over again in information I 

5 have in my records, it is that records are not 

6 completed for all time periods. And that is 

7 on page 9.3.1 of the Evaluation Report. 

8 Records are not completed for all time 

9 periods.

10 And what about data? How much 

11 more data do we need to send in?

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

14 Any responses or comments to those 

15 questions or comments?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know if 

17 Sam wants to comment on any of the technical 

18 issues.

19 The time period, of course, has 

20 been spelled out by the agencies. So, we are 

21 locked into that period.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, the 
200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 covered time period --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: The covered 

3 period.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For those 

5 activities. So, while there may be 

6 information/suggestion that there are other 

7 time periods, we are obligated to focus on 

8 just the time period that is listed by DOL and 

9 DOE.

10 Sam, do you have any further 

11 comment?

12 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Well, I am 

13 looking at the SEC Evaluation Report, the 

14 first page, January 1951 to December 1952. 

15 And if I can find it now --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We need to move 

17 along with our process here.

18 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: I can't find 

19 it right now, but it stated that there was 

20 possible operations before that date, too. 

21 But, like you just said, you have the dates.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are fixed by 
201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the dates that have been issued, listed as the 

2 covered period. That information that you 

3 obtained is another covered period, another 

4 operations that aren't within this time 

5 period, though, there are procedures for 

6 getting that information to DOL and DOE to be 

7 evaluated. Sam or somebody from NIOSH can 

8 follow up and explain that to you.

9 Yes, Paul?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I did have one 

11 question myself that I wanted to raise, and 

12 that is procedural. I am not certain, were 

13 the revised materials that NIOSH prepared for 

14 the Work Group last week distributed to the 

15 petitioner as well? Do we know? Or, Sam, do 

16 you know?

17 DR. GLOVER: Dr. Ziemer, I 

18 provided those to Josh Kinman. I believe that 

19 he provided those, obviously, to the 

20 petitioner.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I just 

22 wanted to make sure that they were provided. 
202 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any further 

3 questions or comments from Board Members?

4 (No response.)

5 Okay. If not, does somebody want 

6 to recommend -- the Work Group has a formal 

7 recommendation, I take it?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: The last slide was 

9 the recommendation. It comes from the Work 

10 Group. I think it constitutes a motion.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We will 

12 do that. We need a second.

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: I will second 

14 it.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry? Okay.

16 Any further discussion?

17 (No response.)

18 And the motion would be this 

19 slide, which is to accept the -- well, it is 

20 based on review, that the TBD-6000 Work Group 

21 proposes that the Board accept the NIOSH 

22 Evaluation Report and recommend to the 
203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Secretary that an SEC Class for Bliss & 

2 Laughlin be denied.

3 So, if there is no further 

4 discussion, Ted, do the vote.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only other, I 

6 mean one other point I would make is that I 

7 think this is, and we talked about this a 

8 little bit, that it is a site-specific issue 

9 here as opposed to an endorsement of the 

10 TIB-70 approach in all cases.

11 You know, I think in this case the 

12 data supports it, and it is very limited 

13 operations, very limited period. I think 

14 there are still open items for TIB-70 as 

15 regard to the overall approach. I think Paul 

16 went over that, but go ahead.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Although 

18 the TIB-70 approach is used here, and Sam can 

19 explain this a little more in detail if 

20 necessary, but it is coupled with the starting 

21 source-term there. They had surface 

22 contamination in air-sampled data which gives 
204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a starting point. So, we are not using simply 

2 a surrogate value out of TBD-6000.

3 Also, then, I think here we are 

4 still talking about the 10 to the minus 6, 

5 which everybody has accepted for a 

6 previously-cleaned-up site. Recognizing, 

7 again, that becomes -- actually, it is not an 

8 SEC issue per se. It is a calculational 

9 issue, you know.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just wanted to 

11 make that point, so that we don't think that 

12 we are also buying off on the entire TIB-70 

13 approach in all cases.

14 So, that's all I have.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

16 ready, let's go ahead.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.
205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

2 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Oh, I didn't check. 

12 Dr. Lockey, are you on the line?

13 (No response.)

14 I didn't believe so. I just 

15 wanted to make certain. Okay.

16 Ms. Munn?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

19 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?
206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: It is unanimous with 

9 one Member absent. I will collect the vote 

10 afterwards. All in favor; the motion passes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

12 you.

13 Thank you, Paul. That was a 

14 helpful presentation on this.

15 We are scheduled for lunch, and we 

16 will take lunch. Why don't we try to get back 

17 here at 1:30, certainly no more than five 

18 minutes later, because we have a busy 

19 afternoon ahead of us and a long afternoon?

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

21 matter went off the record for lunch at 12:11 

22 a.m. and went back on the record at 1:38 p.m.)
207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 1:38 p.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we get 

4 started again?

5 I would just remind the people on 

6 the phone to please mute your phones. If you 

7 don't have a mute button, *6 mutes and *6 

8 should also unmute. We appreciate it. It 

9 helps a lot for everybody on the line.

10 We are going to start by an update 

11 from Brad Clawson from the Fernald Work Group.

12 So, Brad?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you.

14 First of all, what I am bringing 

15 forward to you is where we are standing at on 

16 the Fernald Work Group. This has basically 

17 been going on for about four to five years 

18 now, and we are getting to a point to where it 

19 is going to come to the full Board, I am 

20 hoping, at the next meeting.

21 So, I wanted to go over the issues 

22 that we are covering right now up front and 
208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 kind of let you know where we are at. So, 

2 with that, I will start with that.

3 Issue 1 is a coworker model for 

4 uranium internal exposures. The issue 

5 concerns regarding the completeness and

6 adequacy of the uranium bioassay data 

7 available for dose reconstruction and 

8 supporting the Fernald internal dosimetry 

9 coworker model, which is OTIB-78, dated 

10 November 6.

11 The issue is resolved except for 

12 the matter related to applicability to the 

13 coworker model to the Fernald construction 

14 workers. NIOSH is to perform an analysis of 

15 the construction worker coworker model versus 

16 the construction worker bioassay data for 

17 OTIB-78 and deliver a report to us.

18 Issue 2 is validation of the 

19 HIS-20 database. This is Issue 2A. This 

20 completes the validation of the accuracy with 

21 which hard-copy dosimetry data was converted 

22 into electronic data in the HIS-20 database. 
209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH delivered a complete validation study 

2 which resolved all of these issues. So, 

3 there's no action items with this at this 

4 time.

5 But Issue 2, which is the 

6 validation of the HIS-20 database, concerns 

7 regarding the integrity of the hard-copy 

8 bioassay data, as raised by the petitioner. 

9 SC&A has delivered a report describing 

10 possible strategies for determining the degree 

11 to which data integrity issues could adversely 

12 affect the ability to reconstruct internal 

13 dose. The Work Group agreed that any such 

14 investigation would require considerable time 

15 and cost and would likely be inconclusive.

16 One of the biggest issues that we 

17 are getting into right now is Issue No. 3, 

18 which is the recycled uranium. The issue 

19 concerns the default concentrations of Pu-239 

20 and Np-238, and other isotopes associated with 

21 the recycled uranium at Fernald, may not be 

22 bounding for some classes of workers, 
210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 activities, buildings, and time periods.

2 The issue status is numerous White 

3 Papers have been exchanged where NIOSH 

4 provides the technical basis in support of the 

5 default values and SC&A provides the reasons 

6 it believes that the default values may not be 

7 bounding for all workers and time periods.

8 At the last Work Group we had an 

9 action item for NIOSH to provide a White Paper 

10 response to SC&A's second recycled uranium 

11 White Paper that focuses on the key findings 

12 that (a) the NIOSH default uranium contaminant 

13 levels may not be bounding for some classes of 

14 workers and (b) the questionable basis for the 

15 existing default value levels. The response 

16 should not simply reframe NIOSH's previous 

17 position on the issue. Specifically, the 

18 response should focus on:

19 High Pu and neptunium 

20 concentrations in some dust collector samples;

21 High plutonium concentrations in 

22 some air particulate samples collected at the 
211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 site boundaries;

2 The magnesium fluoride, dolomite 

3 problem that we have got into;

4 Lack of data and limited health 

5 physics controls in the early years;

6 Limitations associated with DOE's 

7 report upon which the NIOSH default values are 

8 based;

9 And a one-size-fits-all issue.

10 Issue 4, the use of uranium breath 

11 data for reconstructing doses due to the 

12 inhalation of -- is it radium? -- radium and 

13 thorium-230.

14 SC&A agrees that radium breath 

15 analysis is a scientifically-valid method for 

16 reconstructing the intake of radium-226 and 

17 thorium-230 when the intake ratios of the two 

18 radionuclides are known and the impacted 

19 worker population can be identified. However, 

20 issues remain regarding identifying the 

21 impacted workers and reconstructing the 

22 internal doses to thorium-232 when the 232 
212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 intake is not accompanied by equivalent or 

2 known quantities of radium-226.

3 White Papers have been exchanged, 

4 and the main issue remaining is identifying 

5 and reconstructing internal doses to workers 

6 who might have been exposed to thorium-230 

7 which may not be accompanied by radium-226.

8 I am missing a little bit of this.

9 The action item is, NIOSH is to 

10 provide a response to SC&A's White Paper 

11 entitled, "Review of the NIOSH White Paper on 

12 Fernald Th-230 and Other Associated 

13 Radionuclides - Rev. 7".

14 Issue 5 is review of radon 

15 emissions from the K-65 silos and associated 

16 exposures. The issue: SC&A believes that, 

17 one, the radon release rate from the K-65 

18 silos as estimated by NIOSH has been 

19 substantially underestimated, and, two, the 

20 method used to derive the atmospheric 

21 dispersion factors, given the source-term, is 

22 scientifically-flawed, but results in an 
213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 overestimate of the atmospheric dispersion 

2 factors at the receptor location.

3 The status of this is, numerous 

4 White Papers have been exchanged. Both sides 

5 agree to disagree. As a practical matter, 

6 NIOSH believes that this issue has little 

7 significance with respect to the dose 

8 reconstruction for actual claimants, and both 

9 parties, NIOSH and SC&A, agree that this is 

10 not an SEC issue.

11 Except the action item was, NIOSH 

12 will evaluate which cases might be impacted by 

13 SC&A's findings regarding the applicability of 

14 the atmospheric dispersion model and the 

15 veracity of the source-term. NIOSH to 

16 consider rescinding its technical guidance 

17 regarding the K-65 silos based on what SC&A 

18 believes is a flawed source-term and the 

19 atmospheric dispersion model and its 

20 conclusions regarding the validity of their 

21 model based on the Pinney reports.

22 Item 6 is reconstruction of 
214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal exposures from the inhalation of 

2 thorium-232. The description: use of 

3 breathing zone and general air-sampling data 

4 and associated daily weighted exposures for 

5 the purpose of reconstructing thorium-232 

6 intakes pre-1969. NIOSH has a White Paper, 

7 March 11, 2009.

8 The issue: numerous White Papers 

9 have been exchanged. SC&A has accepted 

10 NIOSH's last White Paper on this issue as 

11 being scientifically-sound and 

12 claimant-favorable. However, there remain a 

13 few technical questions that require 

14 attention.

15 NIOSH to respond to SC&A's revised 

16 daily weighted report entitled, "Focused 

17 Review of Uncertainty and Variability in 

18 Historical Time-Weighted Average Exposure 

19 Data" -- this is Davis and Strom, 2008 -- and 

20 its applicability in dose reconstruction under 

21 EEOICPA.

22 Issue 6, reconstruction of 
215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal exposures from inhalation of 

2 thorium-232, continued.

3 Description of the issue: use of 

4 chest counts to reconstruct thorium-232 

5 exposure post-1968.

6 The status of the issue: to date, 

7 the issue has not been discussed in detail at 

8 Work Group meetings, but there has been an 

9 exchange of White Papers.

10 SC&A believes that there are 

11 significant SEC issues that need to be 

12 resolved with respect to this matter. The 

13 Work Group would like NIOSH to provide a 

14 response to SC&A's concerns.

15 One of the reasons that we are 

16 bringing this before the Board, like I say, I 

17 would like to be able to bring this to the 

18 full Board next meeting, is we basically 

19 haven't moved too much in the last two years. 

20 These are what the outlying issues are, and I 

21 wanted to bring before the Board to be able to 

22 see before our next Work Group meeting if 
216 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there is any concerns that Board Members have 

2 that they would like us to be able to address 

3 before our next Work Group meeting.

4 I was going to task SC&A and also 

5 NIOSH to be able to send out these papers that 

6 I have quoted on here to all the Board 

7 Members, so that they can see what our issues 

8 are.

9 So, that is the conclusion of my 

10 presentation, if there are any questions.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody have any 

12 questions for Brad?

13 (No response.)

14 I thought this was helpful. I 

15 think what would be important when you bring 

16 this to the Board at the next meeting is that 

17 we have some of the background documents and 

18 assemble those, so we know. They are not 

19 always readily available on the website, at 

20 least all of them. So, if you can identify, 

21 check the website, and the Work Group can 

22 identify sort of key documents, especially 
217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 things that -- one is sort of, tell us which 

2 ones are the key ones. Secondly, if they 

3 aren't readily identifiable on the website, 

4 then let us know and we will let Ted know so 

5 we can get them out to the Board. I think it 

6 is helpful. 

7 I think that is the most helpful 

8 thing. So that, when we come to the next 

9 meeting, we are prepared as best we can to at 

10 least discuss the issues and, then, hopefully, 

11 reach a resolution on them or at least a path 

12 forward.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: And that is very 

14 true, and this is why I am trying to bring 

15 them before us now. What I will try to do is 

16 forward these key ones.

17 One of the most important ones 

18 that I would like the Board to really look at 

19 is the recycled uranium and the issues that we 

20 have on this, especially where we have got --

21 and John Stiver did a marvelous job on this. 

22 I will have SC&A help me, and we will put 
218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 together these papers. And NIOSH has still 

2 got several responses, they're going to be --

3 and I will forward those on as the time goes 

4 on.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I mean, 

6 personally, I don't see any additional issues. 

7 I think it is just focusing, I think the 

8 priority would be the SEC issues, because we 

9 are trying to deal with the SEC. So, if it is 

10 simply a Site Profile issue at this point in 

11 time, that is not going to affect the SEC, 

12 then I think it would have lesser priority. 

13 That doesn't mean we shouldn't be apprised of 

14 it, but I think the first decision I think we 

15 were trying to reach is on the SEC.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: And one of the 

17 things that has come up is many of these, if 

18 we can't come to a conclusion, they basically 

19 become an SEC issue. But if we can come to a 

20 resolution on them, they become more of a Site 

21 Profile.

22 One of the things I do want to 
219 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bring forth is that what is interesting about 

2 this site, and every site that we deal with 

3 has its own unique parts to it, Fernald was 

4 run as a heavy metals plants for years. So, 

5 they do have urinalysis for uranium. They 

6 have, I believe, 230,000 or 250,000 bioassays, 

7 but that is it, nothing else to it.

8 And this is part of the issue. 

9 You have such good urinalysis bioassay for 

10 uranium, but you don't have anything for any 

11 of the others. This is what we have been 

12 trying to deal with in the Work Group.

13 Are there any other questions?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

15 have comments or questions? Yes, Wanda?

16 MEMBER MUNN: I have a suggestion. 

17 It sounds as though there is a significant 

18 number of these documents, background 

19 documents, that would be helpful to read. If 

20 they are not already on the O: drive, it would 

21 be very helpful, I think, to accumulate them 

22 into a file and just tell us where to find 
220 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that is 

3 what I was asking for. And I should have been 

4 more clear. If there are O: drive-type 

5 documents, also, reference those, or if we can 

6 put a set in just a folder on the O: drive, 

7 keyboard documents or something, because it is 

8 very hard on the O: drive to identify, to find 

9 documents.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think I have 

11 mentioned that several times.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. It's being 

13 fixed.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: What I will do is 

15 I will have Mark Rolfes put together NIOSH's 

16 responses and SC&A, and we will put them in a 

17 clean folder where they will be easier to 

18 find.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, and what I would 

20 suggest, too, we do is not only put everything 

21 but the kitchen sink in there, it all should 

22 be in there, but let's try to come up with a 
221 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 prioritized list that's most useful for the 

2 Board Members to get up to snuff because there 

3 is probably an overwhelming amount of 

4 information.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: There actually 

6 is, and this is what, as the Work Group, this 

7 is the key points that we came into on this. 

8 This is why I was keying in on them.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, exactly. 

10 If the Board then wants more information on a 

11 subject or one issue becomes more important as 

12 we discuss it, then we can always get more 

13 documents, if needed, or people. But you can 

14 just do the best you can and make it 

15 manageable and so forth. It is difficult, 

16 though. We see that with Linde. We see it 

17 with a lot of these sites. You know, it is a 

18 lot of information.

19 So, anyway, thanks, Brad.

20 Oh, sorry, Paul.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the only 

22 comment is that I think that all of these 
222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 findings dealt with issues that were from the 

2 SEC petition. So, in one sense, these ones 

3 that Brad has enumerated, I think, all have to 

4 be resolved as far as SEC is concerned because 

5 they are from that SEC document.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, and the 

7 one issue that I want to make sure that people 

8 realize is, as any site that we have been at, 

9 the petitioner raised a concern about the 

10 actual validity of the data that was put onto 

11 the HIS-20 database. And we, as a Work Group, 

12 we understood that, and we understood and saw 

13 documentation of her concern and why, but we 

14 didn't have anything that we could really, how 

15 we could really validate the corruption of it, 

16 or so forth.

17 We wanted to make sure that we 

18 addressed it because we felt that her concerns 

19 had merit and that we needed to look into how 

20 we could do that. And SC&A did spend an awful 

21 lot of time trying to develop for us how we 

22 could check the database to see if there was 
223 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 anything fraudulent or destroyed. We just 

2 couldn't come up with anything.

3 So, this was another part to it, 

4 and this is why it was brought up on this. We 

5 did spend an awful lot of time looking into 

6 how we could justify this and look at it, but 

7 we didn't come up with anything at the very 

8 end that we could really sink our teeth into 

9 and say yes or no.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is 

11 something we can discuss also. Okay.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, Brad.

14 We are now going to move on or 

15 move back, however you want to term it, to the 

16 Linde Site and Linde SEC. I believe that --

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: We have the 

20 petitioner on the line.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I know. Oh, for 

22 --
224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BALDRIDGE: Hello. This is 

2 Sandy Baldridge for Fernald.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead, if you 

4 would like to say a few words.

5 MS. BALDRIDGE: Am I being heard?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MS. BALDRIDGE: Okay, I wasn't 

8 sure. I was told that I could make a couple 

9 of comments about how I felt this has been 

10 handled to this point.

11 The notation that Brad made 

12 earlier about it being four or five years, 

13 this petition was submitted in December of 

14 2005, which means the discussion period is 

15 entering its sixth year since it was 

16 presented.

17 I confirmed about the timeliness 

18 issues. The problem, I think, in the delay, 

19 as I perceived it, is, one, NIOSH was trying 

20 to fill in a lot of gaps and correcting the 

21 Site Profile with some of the data concerning 

22 the thorium processes, which maybe diverted 
225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 their attention a little more away from the 

2 SEC issues.

3 And also, in the five years, they 

4 have never presented their material, submitted 

5 their presentation materials with adequate 

6 time for review by the Working Group prior to 

7 the meeting, or to the point that I was even 

8 given access to the discussion materials. 

9 They all needed to be redacted before they 

10 could be made available, and I feel that they 

11 should have provided the Board and myself a 

12 little more courtesy in getting those 

13 materials to them and available to me.

14 Another complaint about NIOSH is 

15 that my name was posted online as petitioner 

16 of this petition, which is a violation of my 

17 right to privacy. Now that error was 

18 corrected, but I don't know how long that 

19 information was available. And it was against 

20 my wishes that that information be made 

21 available to the public.

22 One of the issues that has been 
226 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dealt with, even in the evaluation of 

2 materials and data presented, is the 

3 management at Fernald, their recordkeeping 

4 practices and philosophy almost, in some cases 

5 and for some periods of time, make it 

6 impossible to determine where people were 

7 working. Well, if you don't know where a 

8 person is working, it makes it difficult to 

9 assign them a dose correctly.

10 Let's see. I think those are 

11 probably my primary concerns at this time. 

12 You know, enough is enough.

13 There is information that was 

14 provided to NIOSH over five years ago that has 

15 yet to be applied to individual dose 

16 reconstruction. They have used the SEC 

17 petition as an excuse not to correct the dose 

18 reconstructions that were done that were 

19 deficient in areas, particularly concerning 

20 thorium.

21 I also discovered that there were 

22 gaps that they should have been able to 
227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 accurately fill those gaps. I mean, when they 

2 are dosing people based on their future work 

3 assignment, and they can't realize that there 

4 is only one plant open and one plant 

5 operational, do they not realize that is the 

6 only place they could have been working?

7 Some of the processes which 

8 probably fall under their methodology, I just 

9 feel are very illogical and areas of 

10 contention in this whole process. 

11 I do appreciate all the work that 

12 the Working Group and Advisory Board Members 

13 have put in. They have been diligent. They 

14 have been persistent. SC&A has been as 

15 helpful, not only to them, but to explain and 

16 answer questions that I've had during the 

17 meetings, and I appreciate that.

18 I hope they can proceed in a more 

19 timely manner from this point on.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

22 Now we will move on to the Linde 
228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SEC petition. And first, before we do 

2 anything, Antoinette indicated she had a 

3 couple of more comments.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, thank you, I 

5 just wanted to --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Excuse me one 

7 second. I just want to make sure, also, that, 

8 Jim Lockey, are you on the line?

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes, I am, Jim.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks.

11 Go ahead, Antoinette.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you.

13 Yes, I just wanted to make a brief 

14 statement about something that Linda Lux had 

15 mentioned in her statement regarding the 

16 renovation time period.

17 Renovation work at Linde did 

18 extend into the early '70s, and many of the 

19 workers have stated this in interviews over 

20 the years.

21 NIOSH misrepresents itself when 

22 they insist that they have specific dates of 
229 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when the renovation work started and when it 

2 ended. They don't have that information. 

3 They have very little information about the 

4 kind of renovation work that was conducted at 

5 Linde and when the renovation work started and 

6 when it ended. For NIOSH to insist that it 

7 ended definitively in 1959 is just -- it's 

8 simply an inaccurate statement. I wanted to 

9 raise that, I wanted to emphasize that to the 

10 Board.

11 And also, because workers have 

12 indicated that renovation work continued into 

13 the 1970s, to me, this is just another example 

14 of a pattern that has, unfortunately, occurred 

15 with the way NIOSH has evaluated workers' 

16 statements over the past few years.

17 Workers' statements have been 

18 dismissed, disregarded, and met with extreme 

19 skepticism over the years. And I am convinced 

20 that this is a very serious problem that I 

21 think NIOSH needs to evaluate internally, but 

22 also something that the Board really needs to 
230 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 consider in evaluating some of the unequivocal 

2 definitive statements that NIOSH insists on 

3 making in the revised Evaluation Report.

4 That is all I have. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

6 Antoinette.

7 Okay. Gen, I believe you have 

8 comments?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is in 

10 response to some other comments. The first 

11 one I have is very short, and it was Brad's 

12 comment about there was no bioassay during the 

13 residual period.

14 That is not a surprise because in 

15 most of the sites during the residual period 

16 there's no bioassays. So, that is not really 

17 unusual.

18 Then, I think, in response to 

19 Mark, I think Dr. Lockey is going to address 

20 that, if he is on the line. So, I will put 

21 that off just a minute.

22 With regard to Antoinette and the 
231 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dates, maybe we have Chris or Jim who could 

2 respond to that, the accuracy of the dates.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Which dates are 

4 you talking about?

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think she is 

6 questioning the dates of the renovation.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Renovation, 

8 okay. Because we had talked earlier about the 

9 tunnels. That is just why I was trying to --

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, she was 

11 referring to renovation.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I knew that.

13 DR. NETON: Is Chris Crawford on 

14 the phone?

15 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, Jim.

16 DR. NETON: I think that Chris is 

17 a better person to answer this than I am.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: I believe this is 

19 probably maybe better taken up in the Work 

20 Group. It was not brought up during the last 

21 technical call that we had or teleconference 

22 call we had in the Work Group. But, 
232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nonetheless, I will do my best.

2 Of the workers' testimony I have 

3 seen, as usual for personal witnesses, it is 

4 not completely consistent. We have sworn 

5 testimony, that is, testimony under oath, that 

6 the major period of renovations was between 

7 '62 and '68. We have other testimony, in 

8 fact, from the same witness, much later, 

9 handwritten, saying that, oh, it was '50s, 

10 '60s, and '70s.

11 It is very hard to evaluate this 

12 because there is only a single incident of 

13 renovation that is cited in all the testimony 

14 that I have seen from the witnesses. That is 

15 the 1966 project to move a machine about 30 

16 feet from one place to another in Building 30. 

17 It took about six months and involved some 

18 jackhammering.

19 So, we have done our best by 

20 assigning a period from 1954 to 1961 -- I 

21 mean, sorry, 1969. I think we have been very 

22 claimant-friendly.
233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, of course, almost all sites 

2 are going to have some degree of renovation 

3 during very long residual periods, such as the 

4 one that we have. I think what we are looking 

5 for is, was there an extraordinary amount of 

6 it, and did it involve a lot of extraordinary 

7 disruptive work such as jackhammering?

8 So, we have to weigh the evidence, 

9 in other words, that is presented to us by a 

10 witness' statement. And we have done our best 

11 to do that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim Lockey was 

13 going to respond to Mark's comments. So, Jim?

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: Not so much to 

15 Mark, but to you, Jim, but perhaps more so to 

16 Mark. When I went back and looked at these 

17 documents again in regard to deciding the 

18 higher exposure limit based on the renovation 

19 work, the jackhammering, the reason that I did 

20 it, and I think SC&A agreed to this, is that 

21 this really would represent an upper bound 

22 under most all circumstances, because they 
234 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were assigned that level as if somebody was 

2 doing this over a 24-hour day for 15 years, 

3 which brings up to your point, Jim, though, 

4 that it is very unlikely that anybody was at 

5 that upper bound over a 15-year period of 

6 time, but it certainly is a claimant-friendly 

7 upper bound.

8 Now whether it truly is a 

9 plausible upper bound for all the other 

10 workers at the plant site, is the issue I 

11 think, Jim, that you raised. I am not sure 

12 how to address that going forward.

13 But I am confident that, the way 

14 NIOSH designed this, it is unlikely that 

15 anybody would have a higher exposure based on 

16 that upper bound limit.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks for the 

18 clarification, Jim.

19 Gen has one more comment. You can 

20 have more than one, too, if you want.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, mine is in 
235 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response to Mark's comments. When Mark was 

2 talking about being uncertain about stuff that 

3 might be up in the rafters and that sort of 

4 thing, it brought a visual picture to me. If 

5 you look at the material that you were 

6 provided for this part of the discussion and 

7 look on page 16 in the revised ER, in the 

8 middle of there there's a nice paragraph that 

9 talks about what they did to clean up.

10 It says, and I will read parts of 

11 it, that I think you will see that I don't 

12 think we have to be concerned that there was 

13 any stuff left in the rafters, and so on.

14 It says, "Shortly after the 

15 shutdown of Step 3" -- and that was in 1949 --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you repeat 

17 what page you are on, Gen?

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: I am on page 16 

19 in the ER.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

21 you.

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: And it is right 
236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 below the table there. And I won't read it 

2 all because you can read it.

3 I think it does say how well they 

4 cleaned the place up. 

5 It says, "After removal of the 

6 bulk of the process equipment, the entire 

7 building was vacuum-cleaned and flushed with 

8 water. Afterwards, a systematic radiation 

9 survey was conducted to identify areas of 

10 contamination. Decontamination was 

11 accomplished primarily by removing 

12 contaminated parts of the building", and so 

13 on, "and by abrading surfaces, mostly by 

14 sandblasting", and they used oxygen/acetylene 

15 torches.

16 "After each area was 

17 decontaminated, it was again cleaned and 

18 flushed, and a final radiation survey was 

19 performed."

20 To me, that takes away any 

21 question about how clean the building was.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you are 
237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 speaking to the decontamination that occurred 

2 before the renovation? Is that correct?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. I think 

4 what I took was he was sort of saying, could 

5 there have been some leftover stuff in the 

6 rafters and in the building?

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I can clear up my 

8 comment, too. I wasn't basing it on words. I 

9 was basing it on numbers. If I look at the 

10 survey data in '78, it is clear that there is 

11 still significant levels there. Now the 

12 clean-up criteria, obviously, were different 

13 in the early '50s than in '78, but it was 

14 clear that there was still significant levels 

15 left over. So, that was kind of my point.

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: There are 

17 numbers for that.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Huh?

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: I mean, they did 

20 surveys and there are some --

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, there are 

22 numbers.
238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: There are 

3 numbers.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. I just 

5 wanted to read that part into the record.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, then, you 

8 also had renovation activities like 

9 jackhammering going on on surfaces that were 

10 -- at least the building was decontaminated, 

11 but there were certainly residuals. So that, 

12 then, where material found later on came from 

13 could have come also from the renovation 

14 period, would not necessarily speak to the --

15 what was on decontamination.

16 As I think it has been pointed 

17 out, we know so little about this whole period 

18 in terms of documentation; it is hard to tell 

19 really.

20 But that is helpful, Gen, though, 

21 I think.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Dr. Melius, could 
239 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I just make one comment about what Gen just 

2 raised?

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, just one. 

4 Go ahead.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Again, 

6 this issue about how dusty the buildings were 

7 during the residual radiation period when 

8 there was dust on the rafters, the workers 

9 have provided countless, countless statements, 

10 affidavits, statement after statement after 

11 statement, talking about how, when they would 

12 have lunch in any of these buildings, the same 

13 buildings that they worked in, they ate their 

14 lunch in, dust would be falling into their 

15 food. Dust would be falling from the rafters 

16 into their coffee. Their hard hats would be 

17 covered with huge amounts of dust any time 

18 they walked through these buildings. This has 

19 been documented time and again by the workers 

20 in numerous statements.

21 I know a good deal of the workers 

22 are listening right now to this discussion, 
240 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I can assure you that they are extremely 

2 frustrated when they hear statements 

3 suggesting that these buildings were perfectly 

4 clean or that there wasn't any dust in the 

5 rafters or that they weren't exposed to huge 

6 amounts of dust by inhalation and ingestion on 

7 a daily basis. They were, and they have 

8 testified to this over and over and over 

9 again.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

11 you.

12 Well, I have a question. I think 

13 it is probably for Chris, but, Jim, maybe the 

14 Work Group also.

15 I am just trying to understand the 

16 basis for the 16-year renovation period. So, 

17 that is one either contract or building permit 

18 for a six-month period or something in the 

19 middle of that time period, and then 

20 statements from some of the workers? Is that 

21 what -- Chris, could you clarify that? 

22 Because one of the problems I had, and I read 
241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all the transcripts, and so forth, and the 

2 reports, it was just hard to -- there wasn't a 

3 lot of discussion of sort of the factual 

4 documentation behind that. Now it doesn't 

5 mean there wasn't any, but it just never came 

6 up in the Work Group with a lot of detail.

7 Chris?

8 MR. CRAWFORD: This is Chris 

9 Crawford.

10 Essentially, the entire concept of 

11 the renovation period and the length of it is 

12 based on workers' testimony, which is to say 

13 we don't have documentary evidence during the 

14 residual period. They have not made any 

15 available to us and their successor company of 

16 Linde.

17 So, we did, in fact, take account 

18 of the worker testimony and tried to be quite 

19 worker- and claimant-friendly in defining some 

20 period that we could call the renovation 

21 period. It could have been as short as '62 to 

22 '68. We elected to make it from the beginning 
242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the period right through to '68.

2 That is about what I can tell you 

3 about that.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

5 MR. CRAWFORD: I would urge the 

6 Board to read the Heatherton 1950 document 

7 that we sent out where it specifically 

8 mentions vacuum-cleaning the rafters, for 

9 instance.

10 It can be a little confusing to 

11 talk about dust in the rafters. Where else is 

12 it normally dusty? It is not surprising there 

13 would be dust in the rafters at all times 

14 during the residual period.

15 The point is, the removable 

16 contaminants were, in fact, removed in the 

17 '50s by vacuum-cleaning. What was left to 

18 contaminate the building was mostly fixed 

19 contaminant that would then be covered over by 

20 the dust, the dust from subsequent activity. 

21 It is all non-radioactive.

22 Just a little clarification to Ms. 
243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Bonsignore's comments on that.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

3 Josie has a comment?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Not to belabor 

5 this, but on page 17 of the ER report it says 

6 from 1962 to 1970, major renovation of 

7 Building 30 took place. And they do talk 

8 about the former workers indicating that this 

9 was a period of almost continuous disruption 

10 within the building activities that could have 

11 potentially released and resuspended formerly 

12 inaccessible contamination.

13 So, underneath those huge machines 

14 that they moved, I believe is what they are 

15 talking about.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

17 comments?

18 (No response.)

19 We have a motion on the table. If 

20 there are no further comments or questions or 

21 suggestions --

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: What exactly is 
244 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the motion on the table?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The motion is to 

3 accept the NIOSH Evaluation Report for the 

4 residual period.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, it is not 

6 radon?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, it is not 

8 radon. We double-checked that, and it is to 

9 essentially accept the NIOSH conclusion.

10 If there's no further discussion, 

11 go ahead, anywhere you want.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. KATZ: I am going to start at 

14 one end or the other, with Paul or -- I'll 

15 start with you, then, Andy, since you're 

16 smiling.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.

18 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

19 MEMBER BEACH: No.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Field?
245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

3 MEMBER GIBSON: No.

4 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: No.

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

8 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

12 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

15 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

17 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I think I 

20 might need to abstain.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Abstain.
246 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: I have forgotten 

3 the motion, but I think --

4 MR. KATZ: The motion is to 

5 support --

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think I ought 

7 to vote yes. That was so traumatic.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MR. KATZ: Well, you need to have 

10 the motion clear in your mind.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: So, I have seven yeses 

18 and I have one abstention and I have eight 

19 nos, I believe. Yes.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is it again?

21 MR. KATZ: I have eight nos, one 

22 abstention, and seven yeses, which means the 
247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 motion fails, I believe.

2 Is that correct, Dr. Ziemer, 

3 right, with an abstention?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I believe that is 

5 correct, yes. Yes, the motion fails. I 

6 believe that is correct.

7 MR. KATZ: Let us make sure.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Does someone 

9 have an alternative motion or suggestion for 

10 moving forward?

11 MEMBER BEACH: I would like to 

12 make a motion that we approve the SEC for 

13 Linde.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: I will second that.

15 MR. KATZ: For what period?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is the reverse 

17 motion.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was 

19 hesitating because I am not sure if I can do 

20 it through the renovation period or for the 

21 whole time period.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You can do 
248 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 either one, but we have just voted, we have 

2 just had a vote on the entire period.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So, accept 

4 the SEC for the entire period. Thank you.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: And I will still 

6 second that.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Any discussion?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any discussion?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

11 Hinnefeld.

12 Just for our benefit, it would be 

13 helpful to know -- there have been a couple of 

14 things argued here about what cannot be 

15 reconstructed -- and to know clearly what 

16 doses cannot be reconstructed for the period, 

17 so that we can then determine what to include 

18 in the non-presumptive dose reconstructions. 

19 So, it would be helpful for us as part of this 

20 motion to understand what is the non-feasible 

21 part.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Or the 
249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 justification for it. That has to be part of 

2 the motion.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Right. I 

4 mean at some point.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't have to 

7 be part of the motion.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. But we can 

9 do that now when it is discussed.

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: Hello?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim, did you 

12 have a comment? Sorry. Somebody was in the 

13 background.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

16 MEMBER LOCKEY: Josie, are you 

17 saying that we should go into 2006?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 MEMBER LOCKEY: And before, I 

20 think at the meetings you had said that you 

21 thought an earlier date, and after that date 

22 most likely they could do dose reconstruction. 
250 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I take it you're changing your mind?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: So, what we are 

4 doing is approving this population from 1954 

5 to 2006? That is your proposal?

6 MEMBER BEACH: That is correct.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I have a 

8 comment. I guess I am not in favor of that. 

9 I am in favor of the renovation period. I 

10 think for the residual period after the 

11 renovation period, I think I am comfortable 

12 with what has been proposed, including, I 

13 guess, the main issue that was a problem there 

14 was the radon. I think I am comfortable with 

15 the method that has been approved there. So, 

16 I would have a problem with voting for that 

17 motion. That is just a comment.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: What is the date of 

19 the renovation? What is the date?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It is up through 

21 1969. And so, from 1969 --

22 MEMBER LEMEN: Forward, you are in 
251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concurrence? You are saying we should not 

2 approve an SEC for that period after '69?

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: After '69.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. So, then, can

6 I offer a friendly amendment? Because that 

7 was my hesitation upon making the motion.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MEMBER BEACH: But I do want a 

10 clarification, Jim. You said the problem was 

11 with the radon?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. No, I said 

13 the issue --

14 MEMBER BEACH: No, it was not with 

15 the radon?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The issue that 

17 we had discussed and that was earlier 

18 problematic was the radon.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I actually 

21 thought that that had been appropriately 

22 addressed --
252 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- with the 

3 latest revision or version of that, that 

4 methodology.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Up to '69, not to 

7 '78.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Up to the end of 

9 '69.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Up to the end of

11 '69.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Then I would offer 

13 that as a friendly amendment to my first 

14 motion for the SEC from '54 through the end of 

15 '69.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, that would 

17 be a single motion. Do we have a second to 

18 that?

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Second.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: So, do you mean we 

22 are voting on --
253 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we are not 

2 voting on anything. We are just having 

3 discussions of a motion.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: But when we do 

5 vote, just discussing the order, would we vote 

6 on the first motion or is the first motion 

7 withdrawn from the table?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is not 

9 withdrawn; it was defeated.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no, no. The 

11 second motion, Josie's motion, she then 

12 modified to cover a shorter --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Does that mean, 

14 even though I seconded what she did the first 

15 time --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and do you 

17 accept her friendly amendment then?

18 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That was my --

20 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: So, do you need to 
254 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 vote on that first, though?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we can 

3 either vote on the amendment or we can have 

4 somebody else offer an amendment, which I 

5 think would be the more proper thing.

6 Paul?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think I can do 

8 this without having a vote. I think anyone 

9 can request that a motion be split and that we 

10 vote on the separate parts. I propose that we 

11 vote on the first part. I forget the exact 

12 years.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: '54 through the 

14 end of '69.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And then 

16 vote on the other part.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: That is what I was 

18 asking. Thank you, Paul.

19 MR. KATZ: While we are still in 

20 comment, the comment phase of this, before we 

21 start voting, though, my one concern is about 

22 that second piece, then, about the post-'69 
255 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 period, if you are going to vote on that as 

2 well as the second part? That is what you are 

3 suggesting, right?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Two votes? So, my only 

6 concern about that is I think it needs to be 

7 clear for the record what the basis would be 

8 for that second part, because I am a little 

9 concerned about how much discussion and basis 

10 there is for the second part versus the first 

11 part.

12 So, I mean, someone may just want 

13 to reiterate some things if you feel like it 

14 has been adequately addressed, but I have a 

15 bit of a concern about that.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right now, as the 

17 motion stands, since the seconder didn't 

18 change, it is a motion for everything. So, if 

19 you were in favor of it, the first part, you 

20 would vote yes. But if you did not want the 

21 SEC to cover the second, you would have to 

22 vote no on the second part. And, then, it 
256 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would require an additional action.

2 MR. KATZ: I guess maybe you 

3 didn't understand what I was saying. My 

4 concern was not procedural. My concern was 

5 that the discussion of the Board today really 

6 heavily emphasized the justification related 

7 to the first part, but it didn't really go 

8 very far in justifying the second part.

9 And for the Secretary's sake, 

10 should that vote pass, she needs a very clear 

11 basis there. That is my concern.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, I think 

13 people that are going to -- are in support of 

14 the second part I think need to clarify why 

15 they continue to have concerns about the radon 

16 method or any other issue related to that time 

17 period.

18 MEMBER MUNN: After 1969.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: After 1969, 

20 correct.

21 So, if anybody has concerns -- if 

22 not, it may actually depend on the vote. I 
257 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean, it's sort of a cart-and-horse issue.

2 MR. KATZ: I think discussion 

3 would ordinarily come first.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, I 

5 know. No, I agree with that. I am just 

6 saying it is a cart-and-horse, though, because 

7 I can't tell, predict votes.

8 So, I guess if anybody has 

9 continued concerns about the radon method or 

10 any other issue, I think it is important to 

11 get it on the table now.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Again, point of 

13 order, if we split the vote, we are discussing 

14 only the first part, I think, right now.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You are correct. 

16 Yes, that is a good point. So, let's do the 

17 first one, that'll make it --

18 Is there any further discussion on 

19 the first part?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Be very clear what 

21 the first part is.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, the first 
258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 part is to approve an SEC for the time period 

2 from 1954 through the end of 1969.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. Since 

4 that was the second part of the motion --

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. We are 

6 doing a good job of confusing ourselves, 

7 probably, with that.

8 So, any further discussion?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, I can 

10 speak to what I was struggling with as I was 

11 even struggling with the vote. We started off 

12 with an enumerated list of concerns about dose 

13 reconstruction. These involve, as they are 

14 listed here, lack of bioassay, film badge, air 

15 sampling, field monitoring data for the 

16 renovation period and the use of surrogate 

17 data.

18 I went through those and I felt 

19 like I was able to feel satisfied in checking 

20 off a number of those concerns. Lack of film 

21 badge data, for example, I felt like, well, 

22 there is some bounding that could be done. 
259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The use of surrogate data, I thought that the 

2 discussion about trying to understand how 

3 here, I believe here the surrogate data is the 

4 information on basement radon levels, you 

5 know, I think it is not ideal, but it is 

6 workable for this purpose in bounding.

7 What I was left feeling like I

8 wasn't fully confident about was the bounding 

9 in this renovation period, not that it 

10 couldn't be done, but the question of whether 

11 it was truly bounding or not. I think -- not 

12 even that it was, you know, not this issue of 

13 plausibility or anything, but kind of we have 

14 a limited number of data points and we are 

15 trying to draw some curves back into time. 

16 And I find it very -- that is what I was 

17 struggling with. Do I really feel like those 

18 are truly bounding values or not? To me, it 

19 wasn't clear-cut.

20 I mean, in terms of my discussion, 

21 and as that relates to the set of outstanding 

22 concerns, I felt like almost all of them were 
260 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 off the table except this question there.

2 MEMBER MUNN: So, your concern is 

3 with the second part?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It is with the 

7 first part.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It is the first 

9 part. It is whether the upper bound is really 

10 bounding, and then there is a second issue, 

11 which is the one I think I emphasize more, so 

12 I don't disagree with David. But my issue was 

13 whether it was plausible for applying that to 

14 the entire work site for this entire time 

15 period, given how little documentation, how 

16 little we know.

17 Again, we have talked about this 

18 before. I don't want to belabor it, but it is 

19 how little we know about what went on during 

20 this time period. It just makes it difficult 

21 to reach conclusions on it. I think that is 

22 why, I think if we knew more, we would 
261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 probably reach more of a consensus on this 

2 issue.

3 But we can have different reasons 

4 for supporting or not supporting a motion.

5 And I would just add, if a 

6 significant number of Board Members feel that 

7 additional information, or whatever, would be 

8 helpful, I think that is something that could 

9 be discussed also. I don't want to try to 

10 force a vote.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: We are still on the 

12 first part?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are still on 

14 the first part, '54 to '69.

15 Yes?

16 MEMBER FIELD: Could I just ask, 

17 just for clarification, just to make sure that 

18 I understand this issue, ask if Jim would just 

19 mind just stating why NIOSH believes it is 

20 bounding? Given all the discussion that we 

21 have had --

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes, he 
262 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did before, and I think it is helpful to 

2 repeat it. So, go ahead.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, we looked at the 

4 various activities that occurred during the 

5 D&D period that had some pretty good 

6 air-sampling measurements associated with 

7 them. In fact, there were breathing zone air 

8 samples for a lot of these operations. I 

9 forget the number, but there were five or six 

10 different operations.

11 And we selected the pneumatic 

12 jackhammering measurement as the bounding 

13 value because it was the highest, outside of 

14 the sandblasting activity, which they had 

15 cleaned up already, it was the highest 

16 measured value that occurred. Well, after it 

17 had been cleaned up, they took a jackhammer 

18 and jackhammered previously-clean concrete 

19 that was still contaminated, was the residual, 

20 the residual contamination. That was the 

21 value that was measured.

22 So, that was the highest value 
263 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we thought could plausibly be there 

2 during the renovation period because there 

3 were indications during the renovation period 

4 that jackhammering had occurred. And that 

5 generated 2.3 MAC air, a MAC being 70 dpm per 

6 cubic meter. That puts it somewhere around 

7 180, or something like that, dpm per cubic 

8 meter. It seemed to be a plausible upper 

9 bound for a continuous exposure.

10 The other aspect of this is that 

11 it doesn't necessarily mean that all people 

12 were jackhammering. We know nothing about the 

13 movement of these people through the 

14 buildings. There could have been adjacent 

15 cubicles, or whatever, and people existing in 

16 this cloud at any given period of time.

17 The reason that we kept it at a 

18 constant level and not dropped it down like we 

19 do with normal TIB-70 is because these 

20 jackhammering activities could have occurred 

21 at various locations within the building over 

22 time and still have resuspended the same 
264 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 amount of material. There was no depletion.

2 So, that is the reason that we 

3 believe that it is a bounding estimate.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And for my 

5 purposes, can you, have you or is it easy to 

6 express that, for example, as an estimate of a 

7 lung dose?

8 DR. NETON: That's a good 

9 question. We would always pick the most 

10 insoluble material, which would be slow 

11 solubility clearance. It is not a lot of 

12 activity. A hundred and seventy dpm is 

13 somewhere less than a milligram of activity 

14 per cubic meter. So, it is not this huge 

15 cloud that they are generating.

16 Chris, have we done dose 

17 reconstructions that you could give us a clue 

18 as to what the lung dose is or the dose is 

19 from this activity?

20 I suspect it is not small. It is 

21 going to be in the rems of range, but --

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, I could take a 
265 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look at the example DRs and see if we have 

2 anything on that.

3 DR. NETON: They are just example 

4 DRs. They are not --

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes, I 

6 think the only problem, I think the method has 

7 changed since that. It goes back. Because I 

8 have looked at them, and you have made some 

9 modifications to that method also, I think. I 

10 don't know how significant they were, but 

11 there were some. Maybe you modified them, but 

12 --

13 DR. NETON: Anytime you are 

14 continuously inhaling about 170 dpm per cubic 

15 meter, it is going to get you into some 

16 significant -- the lung dose would be the 

17 highest, of course, if it was insoluble 

18 material. And I just couldn't hazard a guess 

19 right now, but it is not trivial.

20 I would suspect that you could get 

21 over 50 percent PoC at those levels if you 

22 breathed it for an extended period of time.
266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you have 

2 got 16 years.

3 DR. NETON: Yes. Yes. So, I 

4 would suspect that there's compensable levels 

5 in there.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 Okay. Any other clarifications or 

8 --

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I'm sorry. 

10 I just would follow up with Jim on that. I 

11 am looking at that, and I agree with, I think 

12 it was Chris on the phone who said to look 

13 back at this 1950 Heatherton, or whoever, 

14 report.

15 There is a table in there on page 

16 26 of the sampling you were talking about. 

17 And that was a good clarification because you 

18 are telling me that you selected the 

19 jackhammering on previously-decontaminated 

20 floor, I mean, basically.

21 DR. NETON: Right.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Floors that had 
267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been at least grossly decontaminated, right?

2 DR. NETON: Right, and in our 

3 opinion, that is the way the facility was 

4 turned over to Linde, which was decontaminated 

5 through sandblasting and water cleaning, and 

6 stuff.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right. 

8 And it is interesting to note in this that the 

9 sandblasting --

10 DR. NETON: It is much higher.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- was like 160 

12 MAC --

13 DR. NETON: Yes, yes, sure.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- as opposed to 

15 like 10 --

16 DR. NETON: That was before 

17 cleaning.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

19 DR. NETON: And we don't know --

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: The question that 

21 comes up on the renovation issue, which is 

22 also my field experience in this, is that if 
268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they were actually moving, removing production 

2 processes, where we always found the most 

3 contamination was in the footprint of these 

4 processes.

5 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, if you 

6 read --

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't know if 

8 that is true at Linde, but, you know --

9 DR. NETON: If you read, most of 

10 the process equipment was taken out of the 

11 building prior to cleaning.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Prior to

13 renovations?

14 DR. NETON: Prior to cleaning, 

15 during D&D. There was some left, but --

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: I thought I heard 

17 something about removing equipment during 

18 renovations.

19 DR. NETON: No, no.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't know if 

21 it was processing -- 

22 DR. NETON: I think one piece of 
269 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 equipment was moved during D&D or renovation 

2 activities, but if you read that closely, it 

3 says prior to, during D&D they removed most of 

4 the process equipment or much of it. So, that 

5 was done.

6 And, then, also, where they could 

7 not clean to their standard specifications 

8 that they set up prior to the activity, they 

9 actually concreted over the walls up to like 8 

10 feet tall around the various areas. I forget 

11 what the preset criteria was for removable or 

12 fixed contamination remaining, but they 

13 actually put a concrete cover over the walls 

14 to a certain height.

15 And they actually ripped out 

16 certain parts that couldn't be decontaminated. 

17 There was a railing and a balcony that they 

18 ripped out. So, there was some pretty 

19 extensive mechanisms for clean-up that were 

20 done.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 
270 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 additional questions?

2 (No response.)

3 Okay. So, we are voting on part 

4 one of the motion, which is to approve the SEC 

5 for 1954 through the end of 1969, the 

6 renovation period at Linde.

7 And go ahead, Ted.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, I will reverse 

9 the order this time, just for parity or 

10 whatever.

11 And begin with Dr. Ziemer.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I vote no.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: No.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

22 MEMBER POSTON: No.
271 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

2 MEMBER MUNN: No.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: No.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

14 MEMBER FIELD: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Nine yeses. That would 

22 make seven nos. And the motion passes.
272 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now we need to 

2 consider part two of the motion, which is the 

3 time period from the end of the renovation, so 

4 beginning in 1970 through the end of the 

5 residual period.

6 Do we have any further discussion 

7 or comments on that? Yes, Dick?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: I will preface this 

9 by saying I am not completely stubborn --

10 (laughter) -- but I am not clarified in my 

11 mind that the information on the tunnels after 

12 '69 is still not an issue. And I am not sure 

13 and I am not convinced that all of the 

14 potential exposures in that area are being 

15 taken into consideration.

16 I don't think that I was 

17 adequately convinced by NIOSH that they were 

18 taking into consideration people that might 

19 walk through the tunnels or even that the 

20 samples taken in the tunnel are representative 

21 of the problems that might occur in the 

22 tunnels.
273 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, that is my rationale. If I am 

2 wrong, I may change my vote back to agree with 

3 everyone else. But that is why I am still 

4 intending to vote no on this second part.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think you were 

6 doing a justification for voting yes.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Was I?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It is to approve 

9 the SEC.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Because you have 

12 doubts.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm sorry.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I was going to 

15 clarify again before the vote. It is 

16 confusing.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, I would vote 

18 no then. Vote yes, I mean.

19 (Laughter.)

20 We word these things so hard 

21 sometimes for us simple people.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, we did it 
274 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one way. Now we are doing it the other way.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Because simple 

3 people don't understand sometimes.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, that 

5 is fine. It is confusing.

6 Anybody else want to speak to the 

7 second part? And I guess, particularly if you 

8 are going to vote yes, it is helpful to have 

9 justification on the record, in addition to 

10 what Dr. Lemen has provided as a reason for 

11 that.

12 Yes, Paul?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is more of a 

14 question. My understanding is that, if dose 

15 reconstruction is done rather than an SEC, all 

16 the individuals would still get assigned some 

17 tunnel component, is that correct, because we 

18 can't distinguish between those who walked 

19 through the tunnels and those who did not? 

20 So, doesn't everybody get a tunnel 

21 contribution?

22 DR. NETON: That is correct.
275 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LEMEN: I would just say, 

2 even with what Paul, Dr. Ziemer, just said, it 

3 doesn't change my mind because I am not 

4 convinced that the sampling done in the 

5 tunnels is adequate.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

7 comments?

8 (No response.)

9 If not, the vote would be on the 

10 second part of the motion, which is to approve 

11 an SEC, approve the petition, approve a new 

12 Class, for the time period from 1970 to the 

13 end of the residual period. And a vote yes is 

14 for the approval; a vote no is to reject that 

15 approval.

16 And go ahead wherever you want to 

17 start, Ted.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, I will just 

19 flip-flop again to keep things spicy.

20 (Laughter.)

21 Dr. Anderson?

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.
276 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

2 MEMBER BEACH: No.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

6 MEMBER FIELD: Vote no.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: No.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

18 MEMBER MUNN: No.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

20 MEMBER POSTON: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

22 MEMBER PRESLEY: No.
277 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: No.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

9 MR. KATZ: So, the nays have it. 

10 It is 14 to 2. The motion fails.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

12 you.

13 I will prepare letters to that 

14 effect.

15 Yes, Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mr. Chairman, do 

17 we actually now perhaps need a motion that we 

18 would approve the NIOSH recommendation for 

19 that period?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is a good 

21 point. Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because, in a 
278 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sense, we rejected that before.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We rejected it, 

3 yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because it was 

5 linked in with the other.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, right. You 

7 are correct. That is correct.

8 So, we need --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, it is a motion 

10 that we recommend that we accept the NIOSH 

11 approach for dose reconstruction during the 

12 residual period. Well, do I have the correct, 

13 1970 and whatever?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Until the end of 

15 the residual period.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Second.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A second to that 

18 from Mark.

19 Okay. Any further discussion?

20 (No response.)

21 If not, Ted, we're keeping you 

22 busy. Go ahead. No, go ahead.
279 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Dr. Ziemer?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's see now, a 

3 yes vote --

4 (Laughter.)

5 I made the motion. I think I'm 

6 going to vote yes.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. KATZ: The motion is to 

9 support the NIOSH finding --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm voting yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

20 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
280 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

4 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

6 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: No.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

12 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: The yeas have it 14 to 

20 2. The motion passes.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Josie and 

22 then Stu.
281 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I just wanted just 

2 a clarification on SEC-00154. That is the 

3 Linde petition from November 1st, '47 through 

4 '53. Does that affect that in any way?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

6 MEMBER BEACH: No? Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. Stu?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Stu Hinnefeld 

9 again.

10 In line with my earlier comment,

11 the Class for up through 1969 has not been 

12 handled for, as near as I can tell from the 

13 discussion, from the particulate internal 

14 exposure potential during that period. And 

15 so, most of the discussion, the basis seems to 

16 me to have been internal exposure. And so, 

17 the method proposed for external exposures, 

18 then, we would retain for the 

19 non-presumptives, if I am correct.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You are correct. 

21 The focus on the problems during the 

22 renovation period was on internal exposure.
282 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thank you 

2 very much.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I remember that 

4 because we had -- remember, we had the 

5 mistitled report last time that confused me.

6 Okay. We have a few minutes 

7 before our scheduled break. I guess I want to 

8 at least start some discussion on Dow because 

9 we are sort of running out of time to fit 

10 things in, unfortunately, and we have got 

11 another petition to go through as well as 

12 that. We can continue this over into the work 

13 session.

14 But I guess, at this point, are 

15 there people that have any issues in terms of 

16 clarification on Dow? I can't remember if it 

17 was Bill or Dick; somebody had asked for some 

18 more time to look at some information.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That was me.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Have you 

21 had an opportunity to do that? Do you have 

22 any additional questions based on that, David?
283 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I have 

2 had a chance to look at it. I don't think I 

3 have questions right now, no.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. Does 

5 anybody else have any further questions?

6 (No response.)

7 Do people feel, are they ready to 

8 vote today? I'm not going to say the timing 

9 because I think everyone is a little tired. I 

10 hesitate --

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Was there a 

12 motion on the table? Since I wasn't here, was 

13 there a motion offered or not yet? 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I am trying to 

15 remember, actually.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: I don't think there 

17 was a motion.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. No. I 

19 think David had asked for -- I think I asked 

20 the question, did someone need any additional 

21 time before we could take action, and David 

22 asked for further clarification and time to 
284 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 read one of the reports.

2 So, why don't we do it this way? 

3 Why don't we take our break now? We will come 

4 back at 3:15 to do Norton. Then, we have a 

5 Board work session that follows that. Then, 

6 we will try to resolve Dow during that time 

7 period.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

9 matter went off the record at 2:51 p.m. and 

10 resumed at 3:19 p.m.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If 

12 everyone will get seated, we will get started.

13 And the first order of business 

14 now, we have a Norton Company SEC petition for 

15 the residual period. And LaVon will be 

16 presenting.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. 

18 Melius.

19 Chris Crawford was supposed to 

20 present this. However, Chris has been sick, 

21 as you might know. And so, I am going to 

22 present on his behalf. Hopefully, he is 
285 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 listening in case I need any technical help.

2 All right. This petition was 

3 received on May 17th, 2010. The petitioner 

4 proposed a Class of all employees of the 

5 Norton Company who worked in any building or 

6 area at the Norton Company location on New 

7 Bond Street in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 

8 1960 through 1972.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's Worcester.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Worcester, okay.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Us Massachusetts 

13 natives take --

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, this is 

15 a southern Ohio boy here. I'm sorry. You are 

16 just going to have to live with it.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now, if you are 

19 in England, I can tell you a funny story about 

20 being asked for directions in the Worcester 

21 tube station once.

22 (Laughter.)
286 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. The 

2 petition qualified for evaluation on July 1st, 

3 2010. Basis was radiation monitoring records 

4 are insufficient, or the basis provided by the 

5 petitioner was radiation monitoring records 

6 were insufficient to adequately estimate doses 

7 for workers at the site.

8 Since this is a residual period 

9 and we typically discuss that there is usually 

10 very little monitoring data during the 

11 residual period, we qualified the petition, as 

12 well as, we were aware of some D&D activities 

13 that occurred early on in the residual period.

14 The covered period for Norton 

15 Company was January 1, 1945 through December 

16 31st of 1957. The residual period extended 

17 past that.

18 Those of you who were on the Board 

19 for a while may remember that we added a Class 

20 for Norton for that operational period some 

21 time ago. That included all AWE employees at 

22 the Massachusetts site from January 1, 1945 to 
287 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 December 31st, 1957.

2 The Class evaluated by NIOSH was 

3 all AWE employees who worked in any building 

4 or area at the facility owned by Norton 

5 Company during the residual period from 

6 January 1, 1958 through October 31st of 2009.

7 A little background: Norton 

8 Company, as we have just discussed, is located 

9 in -- say it again, Dr. Melius.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Worcester.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Worcester, 

12 Massachusetts.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Isn't there a 

14 Wooster, Ohio?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Worcester. Got 

16 it. Okay. Hey, how come it's not spelled 

17 W-O-O-S-T-E-R?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Because they're 

19 educated.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. The 

22 company performed MED and AEC contract work 
288 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with uranium and thorium metal oxides from 

2 January 1, 1945 through December 31st of 1957. 

3 At that time and past that, Norton also 

4 performed commercial work with thorium during 

5 the residual period in a separate area with 

6 separate equipment.

7 In 1962, AEC equipment, including 

8 kilns, furnaces, furniture, and flooring, was 

9 dismantled, scrubbed, and placed in barrels. 

10 Surface areas of the building were cleaned, 

11 and the residue was placed in barrels.

12 So, our covered period ended in 

13 1957. This activity actually -- and I will 

14 discuss this a little further -- this main 

15 activity occurred in 1962 of dismantling and 

16 D&Ding equipment. Prior to that, there was 

17 some additional work. Again, I will discuss 

18 that.

19 Norton plant and process 

20 descriptions during the residual radiation 

21 period:

22 Operations after 1957 shifted to a 
289 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tear-down and removal of the AWE materials and 

2 clean-up of contamination that was completed 

3 by October 10th of 1962.

4 Twenty tons of material were 

5 transported to a portion of the landfill 

6 located on the Norton Company Site and buried 

7 at a 30-foot depth on October 8th through 10th 

8 of 1962.

9 The source-term of the buried 

10 materials was estimated to be 15 pounds of 

11 thorium-232 and 25 pounds of uranium-238.

12 Now those of you who read the 

13 Evaluation Report know that, again, there were 

14 20 tons of material. It was just that the 

15 estimated actual source content was those low 

16 volumes.

17 Sources of available information: 

18 again, we looked through Site Profiles, 

19 Technical Information Bulletins. We did have 

20 interviews with three former workers. The 

21 petitioner who worked right after the covered 

22 period provided some good information on the 
290 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actual D&D activities that occurred right 

2 after the covered period. In fact, the 

3 discussion from the petitioner actually helped 

4 us look for different information on that D&D 

5 work.

6 We looked at existing claimant 

7 files, documentation provided by the 

8 petitioner, the Site Research Database data 

9 captures, and the State of Massachusetts 

10 Department of Health.

11 Some of the data capture efforts: 

12 let's see. The U.S. Atomic Energy 

13 Commission. We also looked at FUSRAP data 

14 during the residual period; Oak Ridge National 

15 Lab records, DOE OpenNet, the CEDR database, 

16 NARA, and we did data captures at various DOE 

17 locations.

18 Previous dose reconstructions, and 

19 this includes all the dose reconstructions for 

20 Norton or all the claims for Norton. There 

21 were 64 claims. Claims that meet the Class

22 definition or were an evaluated Class were 56. 
291 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 For the recommendation that we are going to 

2 make today, there is roughly 15 claims that 

3 would be included in that with presumptive 

4 cancers.

5 Dose reconstructions were 

6 completed for claims that meet the Class 

7 definition, 18. We have no internal or 

8 external monitoring data for those.

9 Internal monitoring data 

10 pre-October 1962, so this is for the period 

11 1957 -- or 1958 through 1962. We have no 

12 reliable bioassay data. We have limited air 

13 sample data. We have air sample data in 1958 

14 for some operations during that period.

15 We have external monitoring data 

16 pre-October 1962, no film badge data or area 

17 radiation surveys. We do have some smear 

18 samples and contact readings.

19 Air monitoring data, again, there 

20 were 28 air monitoring sample results 

21 reported for 14 samples collected in July 

22 11th, 1957. Fourteen sample results were 
292 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 associated with the thorium processing area. 

2 When they say there were 14 samples taken and 

3 28 results, they also looked at thoron 

4 measurements as well. Thoron levels were 

5 derived from this.

6 We have 42 air monitoring results 

7 reported for 21 samples collected on May 13th 

8 of 1958. Sixteen results were associated with 

9 the thorium processing area and six with the 

10 uranium processing area. Thoron levels were 

11 derived from these surveys as well.

12 Two air monitoring samples were 

13 collected on September 9th, 1958 by Liberty 

14 Mutual. One sample was taken in the thorium 

15 processing area, and the other was taken in 

16 the uranium processing area.

17 Five air monitoring results were 

18 collected in 1962, 1963, and 1964. All five 

19 could be identified as being taken in a 

20 thorium area. Liberty Mutual Insurance 

21 Company collected those, and there's dates for 

22 those samples.
293 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Various other air monitoring 

2 contamination surveys were done between 1958 

3 and 1965 and considered in the feasibility 

4 analysis. I think those are laid out fairly 

5 well in the Evaluation Report, each of the air 

6 monitoring results.

7 Potential radiation exposures 

8 during the Class period: we have internal 

9 sources of exposure were associated with 

10 uranium, thorium and their progeny, may have 

11 been inhaled or ingested by workers at Norton.

12 These residual airborne 

13 radioactive contaminants may have been present 

14 at low levels during the residual period and 

15 at raised levels during the decontamination 

16 and decommissioning operations in 1962 or any 

17 previous clean-up attempts. So, there were 

18 some clean-up attempts that occurred prior to 

19 1962, roughly, from the '58 to '62 period.

20 External sources of exposure: we 

21 had photon and beta exposures from the uranium 

22 and thorium source material, as well as 
294 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 surface contamination that was present during 

2 the residual period.

3 Neutrons were not a significant 

4 source of external exposure at the site.

5 Additional information on internal 

6 monitoring data post-October 1962: the 

7 information I discussed earlier was pre-1962. 

8 This is post-1962.

9 We have no bioassay data for the 

10 Class period. This is what I would call a 

11 more classic residual period after the D&D 

12 operations.

13 We have limited air sample data 

14 that are available during the production and 

15 residual periods.

16 External monitoring data 

17 post-October 1962, again, we have no film 

18 badge data or no radiation surveys.

19 As you have seen a number of 

20 times, the evaluation process is a two-pronged 

21 test. Is it feasible to estimate the level of 

22 radiation dose of individual members of the 
295 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Class with sufficient accuracy? And, then, if 

2 that answer is no, then is there a reasonable 

3 likelihood that such radiation dose may have 

4 endangered the health of members of the Class?

5 We found that the available 

6 monitoring records, process descriptions, and 

7 source-term data are adequate to complete dose 

8 reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for 

9 the evaluated Class employees after, but not 

10 before, October 10th, 1962. So, from the 

11 period 1958 up through October 10th, 1962, we 

12 felt that dose reconstruction was not 

13 feasible.

14 Our reason behind this was mainly 

15 the clean-up and D&D activities that occurred 

16 during that period. We did not have air 

17 monitoring data for those activities, and the 

18 removal of the process equipment we felt could 

19 have generated higher airborne concentrations 

20 than we could bound based on the information 

21 available.

22 This residual period after October 
296 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 10th, 1962: little bioassay data for the 

2 residual period. Intakes for uranium and 

3 thorium were derived from the long-lived alpha 

4 emitters measured in the 1958 survey and 

5 depleted according to TIB-70.

6 So, basically, we took the air 

7 concentrations in 1958, which would have 

8 included, actually, operations and 

9 resuspension from any residual material. We 

10 used that as our starting point. And, then, 

11 we used the depletion rate based on the 

12 source-term from TIB-70 to derive our intakes 

13 through the years.

14 Again, the intake rates for the 

15 post-October 10th, 1962 residual period were 

16 adjusted for source-term depletion for future 

17 years based on TIB-70. The first year rate 

18 applied to 1962 and '63. The third year rate 

19 was applied to '64.

20 And you can see the tables here. 

21 You see the adjustment factors based on 

22 TIB-70, the source-term depletion. On the 
297 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 side we have inhalation rates for 1962 and 

2 1963 and ingestion as well, and those break 

3 down, again, based on that depletion constant.

4 Since only uranium metal and 

5 oxides were handled at Norton Company, radon 

6 was not a significant hazard. We do have 

7 monitoring data for thoron that exists for 

8 1957 and 1958. The latter values were used to 

9 bound thoron exposures because the AEC 

10 source-term only decreased after December 31, 

11 1957. So, basically, what we used was we used 

12 the same source-term depletion constant for 

13 the thoron as well, recognizing that thoron 

14 would have only been generated from that 

15 residual contaminants of thorium.

16 Again, here is our table with 

17 TIB-70 with the inhalation values and the 

18 distribution for given years.

19 There was no external monitoring 

20 data for the residual period. We used 

21 deposition methods that were employed for the 

22 internal contamination based on the 1957 
298 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 survey. A contamination level of 1.83 times 

2 10 to the minus 6 dpm per meter squared was 

3 calculated. Basically, what they used was 

4 they deposited the airborne concentrations on 

5 to develop a surface contamination level.

6 The external doses from 

7 penetrating photons with energies were derived 

8 from that. Exposure rates were adjusted for 

9 source-term depletion using the same 

10 source-term depletion values for future years 

11 for TIB-70.

12 We get the table on that as well. 

13 So, if you look at the first year, roughly, 

14 26 millirem per year and you see it depletes 

15 based on that depletion constant.

16 So, in summary, our feasibility 

17 for the period of January 1, 1958 through 

18 October 10th of 1962, we felt dose 

19 reconstruction is not feasible, internal or 

20 external, just based on the amount of 

21 knowledge that we have from the source-term. 

22 The limited knowledge we have on the 
299 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 source-term, the activities that were 

2 conducted during the D&D and the clean-up 

3 period from '58 to '62, we felt that we could 

4 not estimate dose from that.

5 And for the second period of 

6 October 11th, 1962 through December 31st of 

7 2009, we found dose reconstruction is feasible 

8 using a TIB-70 approach, using existing air 

9 concentrations from the end of operations.

10 So, again, dose reconstruction for 

11 the period from January 1, '58 through October 

12 10th of '62, we found that dose estimates 

13 cannot be adequately reconstructed for that 

14 period.

15 And that's it.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Questions?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

19 LaVon.

20 Any questions for LaVon?

21 (No response.)

22 If not, I have a couple of 
300 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 questions for clarification. On page 14 of 

2 the report, which looks like new information, 

3 we have previously approved an earlier SEC 

4 here. And this looks like new information.

5 You report that, it says, for 

6 1957, about 25 Norton Company employees worked 

7 on the AWE program, and they all worked in one 

8 building.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: That was based on 

10 the personal communications from the 

11 petitioner. Yes, that is relatively -- that's 

12 new information. We did not have the 

13 information of 25 workers, and, again, that is 

14 based on an interview from a worker from that 

15 period who indicated that it was roughly 25 

16 people. And he also indicated it was Building 

17 112 that the operations occurred.

18 When we did add the previous 

19 Class, we did not have the information about 

20 the specific building number or the estimate 

21 of employees involved. I don't think it would 

22 have changed our recommendation because of the 
301 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 material, if you remember back at that time 

2 period, we had actually identified that some 

3 material may have been stored onsite at other 

4 locations when the materials were received for 

5 processing. And plus, we could not establish 

6 any access controls or information during that 

7 time.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And what about 

9 personnel records that would indicate where 

10 people worked in the building for the current 

11 time period?

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: For the current 

13 time period?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have nothing 

16 right now that would indicate that.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Because, 

18 I mean, this is a large facility.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. Right, it 

20 is.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: As in hundreds 

22 of workers. So, I am trying to get that on 
302 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the record.

2 Anybody else have questions about 

3 it?

4 (No response.)

5 I have one more which, if I can 

6 find quickly, I will ask, but if I can't -- I 

7 don't think it was that. I think that was it. 

8 Okay.

9 If there are no further questions, 

10 I will entertain a motion for further -- we 

11 may have a petitioner. Yes.

12 Is there a petitioner on the line 

13 for the Norton Company?

14 MS. RASZEWSKI: Yes, sir.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Would you 

16 like to make comments?

17 MS. RASZEWSKI: Hello.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

19 MS. RASZEWSKI: Would you like me 

20 to speak?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, if you 

22 would like to. You are not required to. It 
303 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is voluntary. But it is up to you. If you 

2 would like to, you are welcome to at this 

3 point.

4 MS. RASZEWSKI: Okay. Thank you 

5 very much.

6 Good afternoon, ladies and 

7 gentlemen.

8 My name is Denise Raszewski. I am 

9 speaking today on behalf of my husband, Joe 

10 Raszewski, who died of pancreatic cancer on 

11 December 27th, 2000.

12 My husband worked at the Norton 

13 Company from 1960 to 1972. I filed my 

14 petition for the EEOICPA on October 13th, 

15 2001. It is now February 2011. Ten years 

16 have passed without a final resolution.

17 My husband's job as a licensed 

18 electrician required that he travel throughout 

19 all the buildings associated with Norton 

20 operations because it required further 

21 maintenance such as changing the fluorescent 

22 light fixtures and doing machine wiring.
304 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It is my full belief that his 

2 cancer was a direct result of exposure to 

3 residual contamination of a hazardous 

4 substance such as thorium dust.

5 My husband served his country in 

6 the U.S. military and also as a Cold War 

7 veteran.

8 I respectfully request that you 

9 consider my husband for addition to the Norton 

10 SEC Class, as well as anyone else who may have 

11 become ill or who may have died from one of 

12 the listed cancers. 

13 These employees served their 

14 country without question and deserve to be 

15 acknowledged.

16 Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, 

17 for your time and generous consideration.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

19 Any other Board Members have 

20 further -- yes, Paul?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: We obviously can't 

22 deal with individual cases, but she did put on 
305 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the record the dates at which your husband 

2 worked there. Could you repeat those?

3 MS. RASZEWSKI: My husband worked 

4 there from 1960 to 1972.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

7 questions, comments?

8 (No response.)

9 If not, I would entertain a 

10 motion.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Since my 

12 recommendation and my motion is going to be to 

13 follow the NIOSH recommendation, how do you 

14 want to do this? Do you want to split it into 

15 two, the SEC period being from '58 through 

16 October 10, '62, and the non-SEC period being 

17 all dates thereafter? Or can I incorporate 

18 this in one motion?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think it is 

20 preferable to have two motions. It avoids 

21 confusion. I am not sure it would be 

22 necessary in this case, but I think it would 
306 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 probably be a better way to go. So, why don't 

2 you do the one first and then we will deal 

3 with that and then go on?

4 MEMBER MUNN: I move that for the 

5 Norton facility in Worcester, Massachusetts, 

6 an SEC be allowed for the period January 1, 

7 1958 through October 10, 1962.

8 MEMBER POSTON: Second.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second from John 

10 Poston.

11 Any further discussion on that?

12 (No response.)

13 Okay, Ted, go ahead.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

21 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?
307 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm actually 

4 going to recuse myself. It is not clear in my 

5 conflict letter, but I am going to recuse 

6 myself from this. I did some work there, not 

7 necessarily dose reconstruction work.

8 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Abstain I think 

10 is --

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Abstain.

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, recuse.

13 MR. KATZ: Recuse from action. 

14 Dr. Lemen?

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey is absent, 

17 but we will collect his vote after.

18 Dr. Melius?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?
308 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: So, the motion passes 

13 with 14 in favor, one recusal, and one vote to 

14 collect. That's motion one.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but we may 

16 have another motion.

17 Mark, you should stay out for the 

18 entire -- yes.

19 Wanda, do you have --

20 MEMBER MUNN: Dr. Melius, I move 

21 --

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Excuse me one 
309 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 second.

2 Go ahead, Wanda.

3 MEMBER MUNN: I move that for the 

4 period October 11, 1962 through December 31, 

5 2009, for the Norton facility located in 

6 Worcester, Massachusetts, the petition for SEC 

7 be denied.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Do I have 

9 a second to that?

10 MEMBER PRESLEY: I will second 

11 that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, from Bob.

13 Any further discussion? Josie and 

14 then John.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I was just 

16 wondering if our contractor, SC&A, had had a 

17 chance to look at this. No?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't believe 

19 they have ever looked at this site.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask 

21 for one more clarification?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.
310 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't know 

2 that a claimant has petitioned for an SEC 

3 running through to 2009. There has been a 

4 petition through '72. So, how do we --

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But NIOSH is 

6 allowed to modify the Class definition for the 

7 petition in terms of what they consider. So, 

8 we are allowed, therefore, to review -- we are 

9 reviewing the NIOSH report. So, we are 

10 allowed to review the entire time period.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: If it helps, Dr. 

12 Richardson, the reason why we would extend 

13 that, if we find that the basis for qualifying 

14 a petition for evaluation -- the petitioner 

15 only petitioned for a certain period, but if 

16 that basis is supported beyond that, we would 

17 evaluate beyond that until that basis is no 

18 longer applicable. So, that is why we 

19 extended it all the way through.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was 

21 wondering about the language, I guess.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You know, it is 
311 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Wanda's motion that may be a little unclear 

2 because I believe it referred to the petition, 

3 not the date in the Evaluation Reports. I 

4 mean, she actually mentioned the dates, but I 

5 think it is a little confusing. So, if we can 

6 get a friendly amendment, yes.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: The ones in the 

8 chart.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MEMBER MUNN: The amendment is 

11 certainly accepted by the mover.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, we would be 

13 voting on the period from October 11th, 1962 

14 through October 31st, 2009, to accept NIOSH's 

15 recommendation in their Evaluation Report that 

16 that time period not be part of the SEC.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The slide said 

18 December 31st, 2009, which is what --

19 MEMBER LEMEN: But the petition 

20 says October 31st, 2009.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is there a 

22 difference between the presentation and the --
312 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Evaluation Report, I think, had a 

2 different date, was the thing. We just need 

3 to clarify which is the correct month.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: The report says 

5 October.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, October 

7 10th.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think the 

9 report says October. Apparently, my slides 

10 were wrong on that.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I think 

12 the issue here is the Class evaluated by NIOSH 

13 I am assuming is January 1, 1958 through 

14 December 31, 2009, and the second period that 

15 we are discussing commences October 11th and 

16 runs through December 31st, 2009.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: It runs through 

19 October 31st, 2009.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, October. 

21 If you read their report -- the slides are 

22 wrong -- if you read their report, and I think 
313 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 LaVon indicated that is correct --

2 MEMBER LEMEN: It is on page --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- it is October 

4 31st, 2009, is the time period they evaluated 

5 to.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: It's on page 33 of 

7 the report.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It is also on 

9 the cover page. I hope they match.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: The table is 

11 October 10th.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Well, 

13 October 10th is for the approved --

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right, and, 

15 then, October 11, '62 --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: To October 31st 

17 --

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, what is 

19 the basis for October 2009?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: The October 31st, 

21 2009 is from the Residual Contamination 

22 Report. It was defined as the end of the 
314 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 residual period at that time.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, NIOSH is 

3 saying that, from October 11th, 1962 through 

4 the end of the residual period, October 31st, 

5 they are able to reconstruct doses.

6 MEMBER MUNN: And my motion is so 

7 corrected, please.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 So, are we ready to -- Mike, I'm 

10 sorry. Mike and John.

11 MEMBER GIBSON: Just for my own 

12 clarification, NIOSH's recommendation 

13 post-1962 is based on no employee internal or 

14 external monitoring data, but simply on 

15 limited air samples and some smear samples to 

16 do the dose reconstructions?

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

18 That is consistent with what we see with a 

19 lot of residual periods. Remember, this is a 

20 residual period that included from the '58 to 

21 '62 period was a clean-up period and a D&D 

22 period. Effectively, after, post-D&D, if we 
315 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would have had a post-D&D clean-up survey, 

2 there may not have been anything there. We 

3 are not sure.

4 But what we provided is an 

5 estimate of air concentrations that would 

6 start at the beginning of that post-1962 

7 period and deplete off based on TIB-70. That 

8 will give some internal exposure to those 

9 workers.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now, John, I 

11 apologize, I skipped over --

12 MEMBER POSTON: That's okay.

13 Mike raised a question that I 

14 wanted to raise also. I am very uncomfortable 

15 with this. I am all for science and 

16 extrapolation, and so forth. But when you 

17 read slides that say no bioassay data and 

18 limited air sample data, no film badge data, 

19 no area surveys, and then you say, "But we can 

20 reconstruct dose", something is wrong here, at 

21 least for me.

22 I just can't vote in favor of 
316 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 denying an SEC on such, what I would believe 

2 is flimsy evidence.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Would you be 

4 suggesting further evaluation or review of the 

5 report?

6 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I think I 

7 would steal Josie's -- she can put her sign 

8 down.

9 (Laughter.)

10 Since SC&A hasn't looked at this, 

11 I also feel very uncomfortable about voting on 

12 this at this time. We have no feedback from 

13 our --

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. No, that's 

15 what I was -- Mike?

16 MEMBER GIBSON: This case seems a 

17 little different to me in that NIOSH is not 

18 saying they haven't found any bioassay data. 

19 It says none exists, period. So, I don't know 

20 that having SC&A looking at this any further 

21 would do any good.

22 Personally, I don't think I could 
317 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 support NIOSH's recommendation.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think, if 

3 I understand this correctly, and maybe LaVon 

4 can clarify, but this is based on an OTIB-70 

5 approach, which is under review. I think 

6 there are issues related to how that is 

7 applied at a site. I certainly think 

8 something might be gained from having a more 

9 detailed review of what they are doing.

10 You may be right, Mike or John, 

11 and that may be where we will end up, but at 

12 least have further information at least for a 

13 method that is in use and may be in use in the 

14 future would be helpful.

15 So, Paul and then LaVon.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is a 

17 question for LaVon.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: My understanding 

20 would be that this is a cleaned-up area. It 

21 is released for general use in the plant. It 

22 is not a radiological area at that point. So, 
318 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there would be no reason to require either 

2 external monitoring or bioassay. Am I correct 

3 in understanding that?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: That would be 

5 correct for this specific area, yes. There 

6 were activities going on on the site off and 

7 on --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's right.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- with thorium 

10 elsewhere, but in this specific area, that is 

11 correct.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And they 

13 have had other areas, residual areas, in other

14 facilities where this is the case. You are 

15 not going to have any monitoring. So, the 

16 issue then is, is there residual activity of 

17 significance? And you are assuming there is 

18 some, based on the endpoint.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, then, the 

21 TIB-70 approach of saying, okay, let's assume 

22 there is some, even after the clean-up. And, 
319 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then, you deplete that over time according to 

2 TIB-70.

3 MEMBER LEMEN: Right. If you 

4 can't accept this approach here, I mean, this 

5 is a global issue. I mean, a site issue. 

6 This is similar to what Dr. Roessler 

7 mentioned. This is a straight TIB-70 approach 

8 for doing something. And recognizing the fact 

9 that residual contamination periods, as Dr. 

10 Roessler mentioned earlier, by definition, are 

11 not going to have much data. So, I just want 

12 to point that out.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Dr. 

14 Poston, you had further -- or you changed your 

15 mind?

16 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I was going 

17 to ask the question because I seem to recall 

18 that, when LaVon stood up last time, he said 

19 they have no confirmation that the site was 

20 cleaned up.

21 You have no data after the site 

22 was cleaned up?
320 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: We do not have a 

2 post-contamination survey, that is what I 

3 meant, yes. We do not have a 

4 post-contamination, and if we had a 

5 post-contamination survey, that would have 

6 been -- one, we could have said, what would 

7 have happened if there was a 

8 post-contamination survey that said everything 

9 was cleaned up? The residual contamination 

10 would indicate that, and there would be no 

11 residual period for that activity, that 

12 covered activity.

13 However, in this case, we don't 

14 have that information. Therefore, we could 

15 not identify when the residual contamination 

16 would have ended.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

18 Henry?

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: I didn't maybe 

20 go through it carefully enough. But, I mean, 

21 how confident are we on what clean-up was done 

22 and what might have remained as far as 
321 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subsequent removal type of activity?

2 I mean, it is kind of like in the 

3 last one, equipment might have been there and 

4 the kind of floors, you know, and, I mean, 

5 1962 is different than 1958.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. In fact, 

7 '58-59 we only had small indications, '58, 

8 '59, '60, '61, of clean-up activities. It was 

9 the '62 period where the major clean-up 

10 occurred. That is when the actual equipment 

11 was removed, all of the material. They even 

12 put together estimates on how much material 

13 that was removed out of the area. They 

14 identified the number of drums that were sent 

15 out of the area, where it was buried. We just 

16 do not have a post-contamination survey to 

17 support saying there was no activity there.

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Any idea why 

19 there wasn't? I mean, typically, there would 

20 have been. Is it possible one was done and it 

21 has now been lost, or what?

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have been 
322 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unable to find that at this time. We 

2 interviewed the actual radiation safety 

3 officer who actually was part of that 

4 activity. He indicated that there was film 

5 badge measurements taken; there was air 

6 sampling taken during the D&D activities, and 

7 there were post-surveys. We have been unable 

8 to find any of that information.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And there is an 

10 ownership issue --

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, there is.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- change of 

13 ownership at Norton, which complicates this 

14 even further.

15 Is the sense of the Board, then, 

16 that you would like to refer this to SC&A for 

17 further review?

18 I would just add that, on the 

19 residual period time, we have not focused on 

20 this in terms of doing reviews before. One 

21 reason I wanted it asked for the presentation 

22 today, because we have several sites where 
323 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this was coming up; they are all different.

2 And so, I don't think we have ever 

3 really sort of accepted these. We just have 

4 not taken an action one way or the other on 

5 most of the residual period cycles as a Board. 

6 It may have come up in some of the Work 

7 Groups, but, again, we have not had lots of 

8 discussions. And so, some review by SC&A, I 

9 think, would be worthwhile for that.

10 Dr. Lemen?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I just question why 

12 we would refer to SC&A if there's no data. I 

13 am not convinced anyone has told me there is 

14 any data. I am with Dr. Poston and I am with 

15 Mark on that. I mean, what can SC&A do? If 

16 there is no data, there is no data.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There is a small 

18 amount of data and there is a method to deal 

19 with small amounts of data.

20 DR. NETON: Well, in the TIB-70 

21 approach, we have air sample data that was 

22 taken during the operational period, and that 
324 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is used to bound what could have been there 

2 during the residual period, because during the 

3 residual period the material had already been 

4 taken away. So, that is our starting point.

5 We believe it can be no higher 

6 than the air samples that were taken during 

7 operations. And that is the starting point 

8 for the depletion that we used in TIB-70, and 

9 that is what we have done for many, many 

10 sites.

11 So, you are almost by definition 

12 never going to have bioassay data for AEC 

13 operations after the AEC contract is over, 

14 because they are gone. So, that is the common 

15 feature in AWEs.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, most 

17 likely, most of the contamination is gone, and 

18 there may be some residual, but it is usually 

19 expected to be small and should be small.

20 So, to have this as an SEC is 

21 really --

22 MEMBER LEMEN: So, basically, you 
325 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are saying, with what Jim just said and what 

2 you just said, if you do a dose 

3 reconstruction, nobody in that period is going 

4 to qualify anyhow?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: You don't know 

6 that.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You don't know 

8 that.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, basically, 

10 you would be pretty sure --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I wouldn't 

12 --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: They may overlap.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I comment, 

16 too? I know the person's work period may 

17 overlap the active period plus this. This 

18 adds to --

19 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I understand 

20 that, but if they overlap, they would still be 

21 back in the SEC, right?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, they might 
326 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have a non-SEC cancer.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: They may have a 

3 non-SEC cancer. They may have less than 250 

4 days in the other -- in any event, it adds 

5 additional dose.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right, and 

7 individuals that are in those first few years 

8 where we say they are going to get the higher 

9 intake values and possible respiratory tract 

10 cancers could be compensated from this.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask, 

12 just for a piece of information, you have said 

13 there is, and I don't know if it true by 

14 definition, but let's say that, typically, in 

15 residual periods there is not individual 

16 monitoring. But you described that there was 

17 some air monitoring data and some samples 

18 taken by Liberty Mutual, maybe, and by another 

19 group?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And what would 

22 that show? I mean if the report doesn't say, 
327 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually, what the results are. It just says 

2 that these samples were --

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, again, 

4 remember, some commercial activities continued 

5 on after that. The Liberty Mutual samples 

6 that were taken in 1965 were actually from a 

7 thorium processing area that was commercial 

8 activity in another area. So, they would 

9 provide no help whatsoever.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: They would not 

11 provide help?

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.

13 And I wanted to remind, the 

14 thought process, too, on the 58 operational 

15 samples that we took, if you think about this, 

16 if you are taking general area air samples, 

17 and the general area air samples are going to 

18 have a contribution from operation, but they 

19 are also going to have a contribution from 

20 resuspension of materials, which is the same 

21 concept for the residual period, is the 

22 resuspension of materials. So, it is a clear 
328 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bounding intake to start with from that time 

2 period.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I 

5 understand what LaVon is saying there, but 

6 have we ever, in implementing OTIB-70, have we 

7 ever had SC&A look at the implementation of it 

8 and how it --

9 MEMBER MUNN: Oh my, yes.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, Dow 

11 Chemical, SC&A looked at a TIB-70 approach.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Well, 

13 with Linde recently, and so forth. And the 

14 Procedures Committee is still somewhat in 

15 process. If I recall their recommendations, 

16 at least some of the areas of concern that we 

17 went over on day one of this meeting yesterday 

18 related to how this was applied, at least 

19 OTIB-70 was being applied, at sites.

20 There was site-specific data, 

21 information that was sort of critical to some 

22 of the assumptions that were being used for 
329 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the methodology for OTIB-70. So, I think sort 

2 of further review of it, I think for the most 

3 part, as I recall, really of OTIB-70, it 

4 really needed to be on a site-by-site basis.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Correct, and we have 

6 only two of the -- I can't remember whether it 

7 was 15 or 17 original findings -- we have only 

8 two of them left open, but they are still 

9 under discussion. They definitely are site 

10 --any information that is applied for TIB-70 

11 will be site-specific information. It is not 

12 an overarching kind of activity.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

14 that. My question was, we have been 

15 discussing about having SC&A look at this. 

16 The only thing that SC&A can do, because there 

17 is no data there, is just look at the 

18 implementation of OTIB-70 to this site, 

19 because it is site-specific and this is what I 

20 was questioning.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe this is what 
330 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- you know, Dr. Lemen is right, there is no 

2 information. I was just wondering if that is 

3 what we needed to do, is possibly just have 

4 them look at this to see the implementation of 

5 this.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Like you said, it 

8 is site-specific.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, I am 

10 smiling because I believe that is what Josie 

11 had suggested. To me, personally, it makes 

12 sense to do that.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, 

14 periodically, we are going to have to see how 

15 this is implemented --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- because, as 

18 Ms. Munn has said, all this is based on 

19 site-specific things. But, for me, 

20 personally, to be able to say, yes, we can 

21 look at that, I guess occasionally I would 

22 like to be able to have the contractor look at 
331 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this to make sure it was implemented right.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 So, if that is the sense of the 

4 Board, then I think we need either a motion to 

5 table Wanda's motion or, alternatively, since 

6 we are not going to get back to this 

7 immediately because it is going to take SC&A 

8 some time, we need to task them, and figure 

9 out does a Work Group need to be involved or 

10 how we want to approach that.

11 But we need a motion to postpone 

12 consideration of Wanda's motion until we have 

13 completed that task. So, either approach is 

14 fine. If someone wants to make a motion to do 

15 that? We do have to deal with Wanda's motion.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I make a motion 

17 that we table the first motion. Do we want to 

18 go onto the next one?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, no, no.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I will second it.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have a 

22 second. It is not debatable.
332 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 All in favor say aye.

2 (Chorus of ayes.)

3 Opposed?

4 Abstain?

5 (No response.)

6 Okay, it passes. Okay.

7 Paul?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a comment 

9 on the follow-up. In this particular case, I 

10 believe the only issue will be determining 

11 whether the right starting point was used in 

12 terms of the values that start. I mean we 

13 have already pretty well agreed, I think, in 

14 the Procedures Group that for a cleaned-up 

15 facility we can use the TIB-70 method. But if 

16 it is site-specific, it is that starting 

17 value.

18 And it seems to me that the 

19 Procedures Group could look at that pretty 

20 quickly within the framework of the OTIB-70 

21 reviews anyway. I am kind of looking to John 

22 Mauro, if he would agree that, in other words, 
333 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we could take a look at that.

2 I don't want to volunteer for the 

3 chore of that Committee, but I am on it 

4 myself. But it seems to me that, since we are 

5 working pretty closely on OTIB-70, it might be 

6 efficient just to say, okay, how does this 

7 apply to that particular site, and is that how 

8 it should be used?

9 DR. MAURO: I agree. But the only 

10 thing is I think it was very important in the 

11 Linde that there was certain activities that 

12 took place during the residual period that 

13 sort of disturbed the residual material in a 

14 way that made it difficult for you folks to be 

15 comfortable with the way in which it was 

16 applied, even though it was flat, you know, 

17 3.2 MAC flat.

18 I would think the other question 

19 -- so, I would say there were two things that 

20 we would probably look at, and probably pretty 

21 quickly, is the starting point, whether or not 

22 the air sampling during operations seems to 
334 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 capture the sense as a good point to start for 

2 the residual period.

3 And, second, was there anything 

4 going on at the site after, during the 

5 residual period, where maybe there was a lot 

6 of disturbance, similar to the problems we had 

7 with Linde?

8 I think those would be the two 

9 tests that we would look at, and that could be 

10 done pretty quickly, I presume.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I would just 

12 add one clarification to what Paul said. 

13 While the Procedures Work Group has looked at 

14 the procedure, the full Board has not. And 

15 so, I think when we come back from this 

16 activity, if it is agreeable to everybody, I 

17 think we also need for a presentation and 

18 further discussion of the Board on OTIB-70, 

19 particularly if we have developed more 

20 concerns, or at least, also, to address some 

21 of the concerns that were raised here. 

22 Because I think at some point we have to be 
335 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 satisfied with the basic procedure, if it is 

2 going to be applied to many sites, and I 

3 believe it will be. So, it will be worth some 

4 time to have some further discussion on that 

5 procedure at that time. That's all.

6 So, I think we would just, why 

7 don't we have a motion to refer the site to 

8 the Procedures Subcommittee for evaluation and 

9 to report back to the Board?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I will second 

11 that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

13 further discussion?

14 (No response.)

15 All in favor say aye.

16 (Chorus of ayes.)

17 Opposed?

18 I think the ayes have it, a large 

19 margin. Okay.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I just have a quick 

21 question.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
336 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LEMEN: Did we vote on the 

2 first part, on what NIOSH recommended? That 

3 passed, right?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That passed. 

5 That passed. So, they have been added to the

6 SEC Class. It is the second residual period 

7 that --

8 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We had the 

10 motion. We tabled that. We have referred it 

11 to the Procedures Work Group. They will come 

12 forward to us. Good.

13 And we now have Dow.

14 Ted may have been a little 

15 confused at the end there, but there is a 

16 motion that was tabled which was to accept the 

17 NIOSH Evaluation Report on Dow, which will be 

18 to turn down the petition for the residual 

19 period. That was tabled. So, Board Members 

20 had further time to review.

21 So, to reconsider that, we would 

22 need to have a motion to take it off the 
337 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 table.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I will make a 

3 motion.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

5 you, David.

6 A second to that?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: I will second it.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: From Dick Lemen.

9 MR. KATZ: We need to get Mark.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Get Mark, yes. 

11 Here he comes. Here he comes.

12 So, Mark, we have a motion and a 

13 second, and we are about to vote on removing 

14 the Dow motion from the table.

15 So, all in favor of removing from 

16 the table?

17 (Chorus of ayes.)

18 Opposed?

19 (No response.)

20 Okay. It carries. So, now we 

21 have before us a motion to accept the NIOSH 

22 Evaluation Report on Dow Chemical for the 
338 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Madison Site for the residual period.

2 Does anybody have any further 

3 questions, concerns?

4 The NIOSH recommendation was to 

5 deny the Class for that time period.

6 And if there is no further --

7 MR. KATZ: Do you want to wait on 

8 Brad?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Where is he --

10 okay. Let's be fair to him. We have to go 

11 collect his vote anyway, so that's it's not --

12 let's wait a couple of minutes.

13 (Off-the-record comments.)

14 So, Brad, we are about, I believe, 

15 to do a vote on the Dow Chemical to accept the 

16 NIOSH recommendation of the Evaluation Report. 

17 It is off the table. We are ready to vote.

18 I checked and nobody had further 

19 issues or discussion. We wanted to give you 

20 the opportunity. If not, we will call the 

21 vote.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.
339 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, go ahead, 

2 Ted.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Dr. Ziemer?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: The actual motion 

5 is whether or not to accept the NIOSH report?

6 MR. KATZ: The motion is to accept 

7 the NIOSH report.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which is to deny 

9 --

10 MR. KATZ: Which is to say that 

11 dose reconstruction --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Couldn't be done 

13 during the residual period. And I vote yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?
340 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey's vote I 

7 will collect.

8 Dr. Lemen?

9 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

10 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

15 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: So, the motion passes 
341 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with 14 in favor, 1 no, and 1 vote to collect.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't believe 

3 that we have any further Work Group issues. I 

4 haven't had time to check my calendar yet. 

5 So, I will have to try to do that by tomorrow 

6 morning.

7 Are you ready? Okay, go ahead.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Dose 

9 Reconstruction Subcommittee update: we have 

10 been continuing along with the reviews on the 

11 dose reconstructions. SC&A at this point is 

12 working on the 14th set of cases. The 

13 Committee is reviewing. We have closed out 

14 the sixth set, the seventh, I believe, we have 

15 also closed out, and the eighth and ninth are 

16 sort of we have gone through them, all the 

17 issues, at least one time. We are still 

18 coming to resolution with the eighth and ninth 

19 set of cases. And that is sort of where we 

20 are at with the case reviews.

21 The first 100-case report remains 

22 sort of -- there are some outstanding actions 
342 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that were established in our November, I 

2 believe November Subcommittee meeting. That 

3 was for NIOSH to give us an overview at the 

4 next -- so, they should be -- we have an 

5 upcoming meeting March 14th on the schedule, 

6 and NIOSH is going to give us an overview of 

7 their QA program, their internal QA program 

8 for reviewing cases. There might be another 

9 action associated with that.

10 But we are sort of waiting on this 

11 quality assurance review. If you recall, in 

12 the first 100 cases, one thing that the full 

13 Board asked the Subcommittee to go back and 

14 look at a little further was some of these 

15 overarching findings and what implications 

16 they had on future dose reconstruction work. 

17 So, we are kind of examining these a little 

18 further.

19 One, in particular, that we are 

20 trying to drill down into is the quality 

21 assurance errors because there were several 

22 that fell into that category within the first 
343 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 100 cases. So, we are trying to get a sense 

2 of, you know, what does that mean overall to 

3 the dose reconstruction approaches. There is 

4 something broken in their QA system.

5 To explore that a little further, 

6 we sort of need to know exactly how they -- we 

7 had a sense of how NIOSH does it, but we 

8 wanted a more detailed presentation on how 

9 they do that internally.

10 And so, that is kind of where we 

11 are at on those items. So, we are continuing 

12 on the regular reviews. I am really hoping 

13 that soon, maybe in the next couple of 

14 meetings, we can close out this first 100 

15 cases report and bring it back to the Board 

16 for some conclusion on that.

17 And I think that is all for the 

18 update on the Subcommittee.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

20 questions for Mark?

21 (No response.)

22 We had another Congressional 
344 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 office that wanted to make comments.

2 Michelle Ortiz, are you on the 

3 line?

4 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Yes, I am.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I 

6 apologize. We got tied up dealing with some 

7 motions there. We remembered, and so you are 

8 welcome to make comments now.

9 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Thank you so 

10 much.

11 Chairman Melius and Members of the 

12 Advisory Board, thank you on behalf of Senator 

13 Udall for allowing time on the agenda to share 

14 a statement.

15 First, I just want to apologize 

16 for the failed attempt to connect this 

17 morning. There were clearly some technical 

18 problems coupled with miscommunication, and I 

19 think it illustrates the challenges that are 

20 associated with participating in these

21 meetings via teleconference. I know the 

22 Senator is especially sympathetic to 
345 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 petitioners who have no choice but to present 

2 their SEC petitions over the telephone.

3 And using that as a segue, I want 

4 to first touch on a logistical issue. It is, 

5 frankly, the question, which is, is it 

6 possible to share with affected petitioners 

7 both the Advisory Board meeting agendas and 

8 NIOSH Evaluation Reports with more advanced 

9 notice?

10 I throw it out there because this 

11 is a common refrain that the Congressional 

12 offices hear from the petitioners. It is 

13 important to get on the record that there may 

14 be an opportunity for improvement in terms of 

15 allowing petitioners more time to review, 

16 digest, and respond to the final Evaluation 

17 Reports issued by NIOSH.

18 In addition, Senator Udall's 

19 office is aware that there is a strong 

20 interest by New Mexico petitioners in 

21 attending the Advisory Board meeting in which 

22 the LANL and Sandia SEC petitions will be 
346 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 considered. The Senator would like to request 

2 that the New Mexico petitioners be notified as 

3 soon as possible when a time, date, and 

4 location have been identified for the Board to 

5 consider the LANL and Sandia SEC petitions.

6 Moreover, it is entirely 

7 appropriate that the responsible agencies 

8 provide the congressional delegation with 

9 advance notice of these meetings as well. So, 

10 we put that out there for agency consideration 

11 and response.

12 I know that no one needs a 

13 reminder, but I am going to share it anyway. 

14 These petitioners don't qualify for the 

15 government rate, and Uncle Sam does not pay 

16 for their travel to these meetings. So, they 

17 deserve to be given more advance notice if 

18 their petition is on the agenda for Board 

19 consideration, so that they can make the 

20 necessary travel arrangements to present their 

21 case to you in person, if they so choose.

22 So, those are a couple of 
347 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 housekeeping items shared in the spirit of 

2 process improvement and in the ultimate hope 

3 of leveling the playing field for the SEC 

4 petitioners.

5 On the policy side, several 

6 individuals have expressed to the Advisory 

7 Board a concern related to workers' statements 

8 and affidavits, and to what extent NIOSH 

9 appears to be incorporating that input into 

10 its report that is shared with the Advisory 

11 Board. This is not a new concern, and one 

12 that Senator Udall believes deserves closer 

13 attention and scrutiny.

14 On a separate issue, this morning 

15 you heard a statement from Senators Schumer 

16 and Gillibrand expressing concern about the 

17 180-day rule. And of course, you heard from 

18 petitioners for Linde and Fernald about how 

19 this problem has directly affected those 

20 petitioners.

21 The LANL post-1975 SEC petition 

22 has also been affected by the delay. So, it 
348 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 suggests a systemic problem.

2 In a nutshell, there does appear 

3 to be a tendency by NIOSH to routinely ignore 

4 the 180-day deadline mandated and required by 

5 law. As you may recall, Senator Udall shared 

6 a statement of concern about the 180-day issue 

7 as well as the issue of timeliness during the 

8 November Advisory Board meeting in 

9 Albuquerque.

10 Since that time, we have learned 

11 that the February 2011 Work Group meeting for 

12 the LANL post-1975 SEC, that that meeting was 

13 cancelled by NIOSH because the agency was not 

14 ready.

15 There is a reason that Congress 

16 issued the 180-day deadline. It was to 

17 prevent this very tendency for the federal 

18 government to string along the petition and to 

19 do that indefinitely.

20 NIOSH issues its Evaluation 

21 Report, but then it keeps redrafting and 

22 customizing the report to address any new 
349 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issues that are raised by the Advisory Board 

2 Work Groups. The process is a moving target, 

3 and the result is an indefinite delay for the 

4 petitioner. That is certainly not what 

5 Congress directed when it passed the law.

6 The Senator would like to ask for 

7 the Advisory Board's assistance us in closely 

8 examining and ideally resolving this lingering 

9 problem.

10 Thank you for your thoughtful 

11 consideration of the issues that have been 

12 raised and for the hard work and countless 

13 hours that each of you devotes to your service 

14 as Members of this important Board.

15 And that concludes my statement on 

16 behalf of the Senator, Tom Udall.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

18 you, Michelle. We appreciate the input to 

19 that.

20 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Thank you, Dr. 

21 Melius.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.
350 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I do have one question for Ted 

2 because I can't remember the exact timing. 

3 When does the Board agenda get finalized and 

4 made public?

5 MR. KATZ: As soon as we settle 

6 what petitions are going to be addressed, we 

7 make it public.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, it is at 

9 least 30 days, isn't it?

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well, let me 

11 think about that. I can't say that for a 

12 fact, that it is always 30 days because 

13 sometimes we have a moving target. I am not 

14 sure that it is always 30 days in advance.

15 So, I think we could probably do 

16 better on that.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: So, I have heard that 

19 concern.

20 I would also note, Michelle, if 

21 you are still there, in terms of the SEC 

22 petitions being provided to petitioners, those 
351 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are provided immediately when they are 

2 completed, actually. They are not provided 

3 sooner to the Board, except that perhaps, I 

4 mean, by a day or two, whatever it might be in 

5 terms of some sort of PA clearances. But, 

6 essentially, they are provided directly to the 

7 petitioners.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. This is 

9 LaVon Rutherford.

10 If we have an email address for 

11 the petitioners, we have even emailed them at 

12 the same time we email the Advisory Board the 

13 Petition Evaluation Report.

14 I also want to add that our goal 

15 is to get the Petition Evaluation Reports out 

16 30 days before the Board meeting. However, I 

17 said, "our goal". Our latest that we will go 

18 is two weeks prior to the Board meeting, and 

19 we have always listened to the petitioners 

20 when they have said that they need more time 

21 to review the Evaluation Report and taken that 

22 into consideration, whether we present the 
352 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report or not.

2 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: This is 

3 Michelle again.

4 Certainly, in comparing Harriet 

5 Ruiz's pre-1975 Los Alamos SEC, the Final 

6 Evaluation Report, comparing that to what we 

7 are hearing now, I think I would agree that 

8 there has been an improvement. We have, 

9 however, heard reports of receipt of these 

10 Final Evaluation Reports, that the petitioners 

11 are getting them with less than 30 days' 

12 notice.

13 So, at the very least, honestly, I 

14 don't know what the goal is. I don't know 

15 what the specified sort of target for you all 

16 is. But anything less than 30 days makes it 

17 extremely difficult for the petitioner.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think 

19 that is recognized.

20 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Thank you for 

21 hearing the concern.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no, it is a 
353 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concern. It also, I think, comes up probably 

2 more often, then, with the full Evaluation 

3 Reports with supplements and issues they are 

4 trying to get resolved in time for a meeting. 

5 I think the communication -- NIOSH 

6 just appointed a new SEC sort of outreach 

7 person, Josh Kinman, who is at the meeting 

8 here with us. And so, I think that will help.

9 There was a period of time when 

10 there was sort of interim people there. I 

11 think that could have caused some delays in 

12 communication. And it will be followed up on.

13 But we appreciate your comments 

14 and efforts.

15 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Thank you very 

16 much.

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: As a question, 

18 we have sort of SECs that are on the horizon, 

19 right? I mean, even before something is 

20 firmly set to one meeting or another, 

21 scheduled, perhaps they are moving through a 

22 process of getting closer to being on the 
354 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 horizon. Would that sort of information be 

2 useful to share?

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It may be. It 

4 is difficult to schedule. The agenda, even 

5 for a meeting, Ted and I exchange a 

6 preliminary agenda, and you would be amazed at 

7 how many changes occur in that. It is why we 

8 have some very crowded agendas and some empty 

9 time periods.

10 And it is even more difficult to 

11 look out a year ahead to schedule a meeting in 

12 a city at the right time.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I didn't mean 

14 to schedule it. I meant, would sharing that 

15 information be useful as people would have a 

16 sense of what is on the horizon for the next 

17 -- I mean, not that it is going to appear at a 

18 specific meeting, but where things are moving 

19 along.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, no, I 

21 mean, LaVon does the update. Then, I think 

22 Josh can certainly do further outreach beyond 
355 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the updates to let people know that this may 

2 be coming, and so forth.

3 So, I think it is something that 

4 needs to be worked on, to be addressed. It is 

5 certainly important, and so forth.

6 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: And thank you. 

7 Just to note, we are obviously interested, 

8 Senator Udall is interested in the LANL 

9 petition, but we understand that the Sandia 

10 report may be coming out soon. So, just any 

11 report and/or date --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: -- you know, 

14 as to when it is going to be considered, as 

15 much advance notice as possible would be 

16 greatly, greatly appreciated. So, thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we will do 

18 our best. Thank you.

19 We are scheduled now to discuss 

20 the Savannah River Site activities. The way 

21 the agenda, at least my agenda -- Phil is 

22 looking at me. You've got me worried. We 
356 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would have an update from NIOSH, an update 

2 from the Work Group. We will take a short 

3 break, and then we will go into a public 

4 comment period that will start around 5:30. 

5 So, we will do that.

6 So, this is sort of Board time, 

7 but it is an update from Tim and then from 

8 Mark, and then some Board discussion. Then, 

9 we will take a short break and do the public 

10 comment period.

11 Tim, go.

12 DR. TAULBEE: Thank you, Dr. 

13 Ziemer and Members of the Board.

14 (Laughter.)

15 The goal of my presentation here 

16 is to give an update on NIOSH's activities at 

17 the Savannah River Site. So, I wanted to 

18 start with a little bit of discussion on dose 

19 reconstructions for a couple of slides.

20 And the main reason for this is 

21 that this is one of the most common questions 

22 that I get whenever I do go onto the site or 
357 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during the Work Group. We have actually had 

2 some petitioners and public members ask some 

3 of these questions about our claims and where 

4 we are at with dose reconstruction. So, just 

5 a few minutes on this.

6 As of February 1st, we have had 

7 3,978 claims submitted to NIOSH for dose 

8 reconstruction. We have completed 3,653, and 

9 we have 229 active claims. So, right now, we 

10 have completed about 95 percent of the dose 

11 reconstructions. So, we are really at a 

12 steady state. Those 229 is new claims coming 

13 in as well as going out to the Department of 

14 Labor. And, then, we have got 96 that were 

15 returned to the Department of Labor without 

16 dose reconstruction for various reasons.

17 So, like I said, we are pretty 

18 much at steady state with regard to dose 

19 reconstructions. We are completing them 

20 within a year of receiving them, actually, 

21 much faster than that at this time. And so, 

22 that is where we are at.
358 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now the second part of the 

2 question that comes to me, especially from 

3 members of the public or people out there on 

4 the site, is compensation information. What 

5 is the percentage of people being compensated 

6 there at the site?

7 And so, in order to present this 

8 information, I really needed to break it into 

9 two components. One was single cancer claims 

10 that are filed, and the second is multi-cancer 

11 claims, when people have more than one primary 

12 cancer.

13 Now this information here is based 

14 on the Department of Labor's final decisions. 

15 And so you will notice that these numbers are 

16 slightly different than what you saw on the 

17 previous slide, and that is because the 

18 Department of Labor has the final say in the 

19 Adjudication Process.

20 So, this is where we have gotten 

21 feedback from the Department of Labor about 

22 these claims. And to date, the Department of 
359 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Labor has sent us back information on 3,214 of 

2 these claims, and the percent compensated was 

3 36.2 percent, which is about the national 

4 average.

5 If you look at just the single 

6 cancer claims, the 2,222 claims, that percent 

7 compensation rate is 30.2 percent. That was a 

8 comment that was made yesterday during the 

9 public comment period, that Savannah River was 

10 below the national average. I don't know what 

11 the actual single cancer rate is for the 

12 national average, but that is probably where 

13 that 30 percent came from. But when you 

14 combine it in total, it is 36.2, which is 

15 right at the national average.

16 What I want to focus on next is 

17 that 2,222 claims and give a little bit of a 

18 breakdown of the compensation rate by cancer 

19 type, because, again, this is one of the 

20 questions that I am asked quite often.

21 And so, I took that 2,222 and 

22 ranked them based upon frequency of cancer 
360 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we have observed at the Savannah River 

2 Site of people filing claims. The most common 

3 is lung cancer, as it is for many sites. And 

4 the percent compensated from Savannah River 

5 for those who filed a single cancer claim of 

6 lung cancer is 62 percent.

7 The second most common claim that 

8 has been filed for which we have information 

9 back from the Department of Labor on is all 

10 male genitalia, which includes prostate 

11 cancer. And in this case, you can see the 

12 compensation rate is drastically different, 

13 down at 6 percent, and this is primarily 

14 through the use of the IREP model.

15 And, then, going on down the list 

16 there, when specifically asked about 

17 leukemias, for this particular slide I 

18 combined all the leukemias together. There is 

19 actually four different types that we break 

20 out separately. But there have been 69 claims 

21 that have been adjudicated, and the 

22 compensation rate is 58 percent. So, again, 
361 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the primary cancers, that is where the 30 

2 percent number came from.

3 On the back table here we do have 

4 a breakout for all of the different cancer 

5 types for the Savannah River Site for members 

6 of the public and Board Members to review. 

7 And in that particular case, what you will see 

8 is the leukemias are all broken out. So, they 

9 are smaller numbers than the 69 here that I 

10 have got listed.

11 One word of caution in using that 

12 particular table is to please be careful when 

13 the total number of claims are less than, say, 

14 50, especially when you are down around four 

15 claims or something. To date, a single change 

16 from one person being compensated to the other 

17 can make a 20 percent change in your percent 

18 compensated. So, don't try and draw too many 

19 conclusions when you are dealing with small 

20 numbers of claims for some of those cancers.

21 So, I just wanted to present that 

22 information briefly here at the beginning 
362 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 before I jumped into our update on the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort and some of the activities.

3 For the new Board Members who 

4 weren't here when I presented in December of 

5 2008, let me give you a couple of slides here 

6 of background on this particular petition. We 

7 received the petition for the Savannah River 

8 Site in November of 2007, and the 

9 petitioner-proposed Class was construction 

10 workers and all other workers in all locations 

11 at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina 

12 from January 1st, 1950 to present.

13 In March of 2008, the petition 

14 qualified for evaluation, but the 

15 qualification was for construction and 

16 building trades workers only, and this was 

17 primarily due to the evidence that was 

18 presented in the petition was a report 

19 compiled and developed by the Center for the 

20 Protection of Worker Rights. Their analysis 

21 was comparing construction trades workers to 

22 all other workers, and their indication that 
363 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they presented to us was that the construction 

2 trade workers were underrepresented in the 

3 HPAREH database that we use for coworker 

4 models. And so, that was the basis for 

5 qualification.

6 We sent out a Federal Register 

7 notice in March of 2008 about this 

8 qualification. There were three petitioners, 

9 and only one of the petitioners was a 

10 construction trades worker. The other two 

11 requested an administrative review in April of 

12 2008.

13 In June of 2008, the NIOSH 

14 administrative review findings were that the 

15 petitioners did not provide sufficient 

16 information to extend the Class definition 

17 beyond SRS employees classified as 

18 construction trades workers.

19 So, the Class that was evaluated 

20 by NIOSH was all construction trades workers 

21 who worked in any area at the Savannah River 

22 Site from the period of January 1, 1950 
364 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through December 31st, 2007.

2 In November of 2008, we issued our 

3 Evaluation Report. And, then, in December of 

4 2008, we presented it here to the Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation and Worker Health. And at 

6 that time, we reserved thorium exposures.

7 And the reason that we reserved 

8 the thorium exposures was due to some 

9 additional research that we needed to do. We 

10 had identified these as a potential issue, and 

11 we just didn't have enough information on it 

12 at that time.

13 So, since my presentation to you 

14 on December of 2008, we interviewed several 

15 former workers regarding thorium exposures. 

16 And, then, in January of 2009, we did a data 

17 capture down here at Savannah River for 

18 neutron exposures in the 200 area. That was 

19 one of the other issues that we had committed 

20 that we would follow up on, was early neutron 

21 exposures.

22 February of 2009 is when we really 
365 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got more into our thorium research. We had 

2 evidence of whole body count information for 

3 thorium at the Savannah River Site. And so, 

4 we were trying to find it. We were not able 

5 to locate those records.

6 So, back in March of 2009, we 

7 conducted a separate records search to 

8 identify radiological survey records. This 

9 involved a database search to identify boxes 

10 of radiation records and determine where they 

11 are from. And, literally, out at the site we 

12 are looking at around 1,000 boxes of radiation 

13 survey records and air sample records.

14 We identified some of these boxes. 

15 In April of 2009, we conducted a data capture 

16 for thorium monitoring information. We 

17 collected air sample data, survey data, and 

18 thorium production records. We completed the 

19 data capture in May 2009.

20 In July of 2009, we had also 

21 identified some neutron monitoring records 

22 through this effort, and we captured that 
366 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information.

2 September of 2009 is when the 

3 Advisory Board conducted a tour of the SRS 

4 facilities, which included the tank farms, the 

5 tritium facilities, the Canyon, the B-line, 

6 and the C reactor.

7 And, then, in December of 2009, we 

8 had an onsite meeting to discuss tritium 

9 exposures with a few worker members.

10 In January of 2010 was the first 

11 SRS Work Group meeting regarding the Special 

12 Exposure Cohort. And, then, in April of 2010, 

13 we issued our Evaluation Report Addendum 

14 regarding thorium exposures. And, then, in 

15 May 2010, we presented our findings from this 

16 Evaluation Report to the Savannah River Site 

17 Work Group.

18 And our determination was that 

19 dose reconstruction for thorium canning 

20 operations was feasible using uranium bioassay 

21 as a surrogate.

22 I want to emphasize here that we 
367 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 focused on canning operations almost 

2 exclusively. We knew about some other 

3 operations based upon our interviews, but at 

4 that time we were focusing on the tons of 

5 thorium that were handled in the 300 area. 

6 And so, that was what we limited and we felt 

7 would be bounding at that time. And I will 

8 elaborate more on that here shortly.

9 In June of 2010, our focus shifted 

10 a little bit to metal hydride exposures or 

11 tritides. And, then, in September of 2010, we 

12 conducted some more onsite interviews with 

13 multiple workers regarding metal hydride 

14 exposures at the Savannah River Site, or 

15 tritides.

16 Then, November 10th we had a 

17 teleconference for the Savannah River Site 

18 Work Group.

19 In December of 2010, we issued a 

20 Tritium Coworker Report. This report compared 

21 coworker models developed using only 

22 construction trades workers to a coworker 
368 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 model developed using all monitored workers.

2 And what we found from this 

3 evaluation was that there was no significant 

4 difference that was observed between those two 

5 models that were developed using the two 

6 different datasets.

7 In January 2011, we received the 

8 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

9 comments, SC&A's comments on the Evaluation 

10 Report regarding thorium. And one of the most 

11 significant findings there within that report 

12 regarded thorium exposures from other areas. 

13 As I mentioned, we focused on the 300 area, 

14 feeling that that was bounding. SC&A 

15 presented some evidence that indicates that we 

16 might not have been actually covering all of 

17 the thorium exposures.

18 Some of the other areas, the 700 

19 area, for example, did a lot of research. 

20 While the quantities that they worked with 

21 with thorium were much smaller, the potential 

22 for exposure could be higher. So, this is 
369 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something that we are currently evaluating.

2 February 2011 was the fourth 

3 Savannah River Site Work Group meeting, and we 

4 are currently working to resolve those 

5 particular SEC comments and issues.

6 Last week we were down here onsite 

7 to do a data search review for the thorium 

8 operations in the other areas, the 700 and 200 

9 areas. And we have identified some records, 

10 and we do plan on capturing those within the 

11 next couple of weeks down here at the site.

12 With that, I will turn it over to 

13 Mark, unless there are other questions here.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do people have 

15 specific questions for Tim? Yes, Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you, Tim, 

17 for that presentation.

18 I noticed in the update sheets 

19 that we got on deliverables, and so on, 

20 probably about a dozen issues that are being 

21 dealt with. It wasn't clear to me whether 

22 these are SEC issues or are they Site Profile 
370 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issues, or both?

2 DR. TAULBEE: They are both, 

3 actually. Most of them probably deal with SEC 

4 issues. I believe there's 24 issues that are 

5 still on the table for the Savannah River 

6 Site. And at this last Work Group meeting, 

7 they were kind of prioritized to elevate the 

8 ones that might have the most impact from that 

9 standpoint. And I think Mark is going to talk 

10 a little bit more about that.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am going 

12 to go into that.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thanks.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

15 else have questions for Tim?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just a quick 

17 question about the coworker models for 

18 tritium.

19 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, sir.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You have 

21 granted an SEC for the construction workers, 

22 is that right?
371 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. TAULBEE: No. No, that is 

2 what we are evaluating.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Oh.

4 DR. TAULBEE: That hasn't been, 

5 no.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

7 DR. TAULBEE: And the purpose of 

8 that evaluation was there was concern about 

9 construction trades workers' exposures being 

10 higher than other tritium workers. And when 

11 you think about some of the construction 

12 trades work, it is more of an upset type of 

13 condition, you are breaking into things.

14 But there's kind of two offsetting 

15 factors. So, while the intensity of the 

16 exposure might be higher, the duration of the 

17 exposure is likely to be shorter than a 

18 regular operations worker.

19 So, we weren't sure. You know, 

20 are construction trades workers over the long 

21 run, is their exposure experience different 

22 that would result in a higher dose than the 
372 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 regular operations work? So, that is why we 

2 did that particular comparison.

3 Please keep in mind that this 

4 comparison was just for tritium, and we are 

5 currently working on an evaluation for 

6 americium, curium, and californium. And, 

7 then, depending upon the direction of the Work 

8 Group, we plan on doing this same comparison 

9 for uranium and plutonium work as well.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And this is a 

11 comparison for a given year of things like the 

12 mean, median, and upper percentiles of the 

13 recorded tritium dose for all SRS operations 

14 workers compared to the mean, median, and 

15 upper percentiles of all construction workers, 

16 is that right?

17 DR. TAULBEE: Correct, sort of. 

18 And let me tell you the two things that we 

19 compared was geometric mean and geometric 

20 standard deviation. So, they are melded 

21 together.

22 And if you look at our Evaluation 
373 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Report, there is a Monte Carlo method of 

2 evaluating both of those two parameters, a 

3 Monte Carlo permutation test that was 

4 conducted comparing them simultaneously. So, 

5 we are actually comparing the median as well 

6 as the distribution and variance.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Which, yes, 

8 for tritium at SRS in most years is 

9 essentially zero. I mean, there are --

10 DR. TAULBEE: I wouldn't say zero.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean it is 

12 an extremely skewed distribution there.

13 What would the operation workers' 

14 tritium doses be? I mean, what would the 

15 basis for those records be between 1950 and 

16 1979, given that they are not computerized 

17 until, except for people who have continued 

18 working into 1979 and they enter into the 

19 HPAREH system?

20 DR. TAULBEE: Actually, what we 

21 did was we took all of the NOCTS claims, using 

22 the OTIB-75 methodology. And so, we coded all 
374 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of that data from 1950 for all of the 

2 claimants that we have in our files. So, we 

3 do have that electronically.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: For a subset 

5 of people who are claimants within the 

6 program?

7 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, now you 

9 have got 3,000 people, some of them terminated 

10 before 1979?

11 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: A partition of 

13 them are construction workers, and another 

14 partition of them are operations workers.

15 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And, then, you 

17 just compare it for a given year?

18 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The median and 

20 --

21 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, I 
375 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be not surprised that it is not 

2 statistically different.

3 DR. TAULBEE: We have quite a bit 

4 of data when you actually look at the total 

5 number of people. And I would encourage you 

6 to look at our report. I believe it is Report 

7 48.

8 I mean, we believe that we have 

9 ended up coding somewhere on the order of 

10 400,000 bioassays, something like that.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, but, I 

12 mean, we know what the number is. You have 

13 got a few thousand workers over a few years, 

14 and you are comparing annual values. So, it 

15 is a product of the number of workers times 

16 the number of years, and you want to do an 

17 annual comparison. So, now you are down to 

18 the number of workers within a year.

19 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It is not 

21 hundreds of thousands. It is hundreds.

22 DR. TAULBEE: No. No, it is 
376 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hundreds on a per-year basis, yes.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it is a 

3 highly-skewed distribution where lots of them 

4 are near zero.

5 DR. TAULBEE: Yes.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank 

7 you. I don't want to go any further than 

8 that.

9 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks.

11 Yes, Bill?

12 MEMBER FIELD: I greatly 

13 appreciated your discussion.

14 DR. TAULBEE: Oh, thank you.

15 MEMBER FIELD: It was helpful to 

16 get some background.

17 I was just curious, back in the 

18 '50s and '60s and '70s, how easy is to 

19 classify people that were construction versus 

20 other trades within that early period?

21 DR. TAULBEE: Well, there are 

22 several different methods that we have 
377 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available to us. The method that we chose was 

2 really self-report within NOCTS because that 

3 was the easiest that we could get.

4 So, when people reported through 

5 the Department of Labor what their occupation 

6 was, or during the CATI interview, that was 

7 the data that we took. And if they ever 

8 mentioned construction trades workers, we 

9 included them as a construction trades 

10 workers.

11 MEMBER FIELD: So, it was all 

12 self-reported information?

13 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

14 MEMBER FIELD: What do you do with 

15 people that change? Do you have people that 

16 are construction for a while and then move 

17 over? And how do you deal with that?

18 DR. TAULBEE: That has occurred, 

19 but we did not go into that level of detail 

20 for this analysis.

21 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. And there is 

22 still a minimum time period for the 
378 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 construction?

2 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry?

3 MEMBER FIELD: Is there a minimum 

4 time period that they have to work in 

5 construction?

6 DR. TAULBEE: No. We just 

7 basically looked at the dataset.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Why don't 

9 we move on to Mark's presentation?

10 While Mark is getting ready, for 

11 people that just came in, we just had an 

12 update from NIOSH on their review on the SEC 

13 petition for Savannah River. Mark is a Board 

14 Member, Griffon, and Chair of the Work Group 

15 for the Board on Savannah River. He is going

16 to present an update on the Board's review of 

17 that.

18 Then, we are going to take a short 

19 break. Then, we will start the public 

20 comment period.

21 If the technology cooperates.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am trying to 
379 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 figure out how to get into slideshow mode. I 

2 guess up at the top, yes. F5? All right. 

3 Thank you.

4 Okay. I will try to brief because 

5 some of this overlaps a little bit with what 

6 Tim had introduced, but just to give a 

7 background of the process from our standpoint 

8 from the Work Group and the Board:

9 November 2007, the petition was 

10 submitted, qualified in March 2009. And as 

11 Tim mentioned, the petition focuses on 

12 construction trades only.

13 In September 2008, SC&A started a 

14 preliminary review, and that was really, we 

15 were sort of in Site Profile review mode, not 

16 the petition necessarily. They did that a 

17 little later on, as NIOSH's Evaluation Report 

18 came out.

19 So, December 2008, NIOSH provided 

20 their Evaluation Report, and they did leave a 

21 gap for this thorium question, 1953 through 

22 1960.
380 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 In January 2009, SC&A started to 

2 review the Evaluation Report itself, our 

3 contractor, SC&A.

4 In April 2010, NIOSH issued this 

5 Addendum that addresses the thorium question 

6 from 1953 through 1965, actually, instead of 

7 1960, as was stated before.

8 Some of the Work Group meetings we 

9 have had, from January 2010, May 2010, 

10 November 2010, we had a teleconference, and 

11 just recently we had a February 3rd meeting in 

12 this year.

13 The status of this issue: so, it 

14 was mentioned that there were 24 issues that 

15 remain. Actually, I think we counted 25. A 

16 few of them have been merged because they were 

17 very similar issues in our Matrix that we keep 

18 track of these things with.

19 And we have 29, and two of those 

20 were actually closed. So, that gives 19 

21 remaining issues that are open that are still 

22 under discussion between NIOSH and SC&A and 
381 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Work Group.

2 Just to give you a sense of where 

3 they fall out, 14 of them are really focused 

4 on internal dose reconstruction issues, two on 

5 neutron issues, and completeness of data are 

6 the main focus of the other three remaining 

7 issues.

8 The petitioners have also provided 

9 some issues of concern. Some of them we 

10 catalogued and are in the process of 

11 incorporating them in the Matrix. A lot of 

12 them fall into other categories that already 

13 existed in the Matrix. So, they may not 

14 result in new items necessarily, but they will 

15 be certainly considered as we go through the 

16 process.

17 So, the main issues, just to go 

18 through what sort of remains on the table:

19 Thorium doses from 1953 through 

20 1971, and SC&A recently reviewed the NIOSH 

21 report on this and has concerns about how 

22 NIOSH is proposing to model, to bound the 
382 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 doses for thorium exposures in the 300-M area 

2 through 1965.

3 As Tim mentioned, SC&A also in the 

4 report identified many, a list of several 

5 different areas where thorium work took place 

6 in Savannah River other than the 300-M area. 

7 And currently, the NIOSH model only focuses on 

8 the 300-M area.

9 Some of that was discussed at our 

10 last Work Group meeting. NIOSH indicated they 

11 had to do more research on this area before 

12 they could respond to a lot of the concerns.

13 SC&A is also in the process of 

14 reviewing the '65 to '71. So, the overall 

15 timeframe is from '53 to '71. It is sort of 

16 broken up for various reasons. It is split 

17 from '53 to '65, '65 to '71. And SC&A is 

18 still reviewing that part of the NIOSH report.

19 One important thing here is that 

20 SC&A feels that this issue, at least this 

21 issue, the thorium issue, applies to both the 

22 construction workers and non-construction 
383 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 workers. So, even though the petition is 

2 focusing on construction worker concerns, we 

3 have agreed on the Work Group that, as it 

4 comes up and as it is important, since a lot 

5 of the modeling is based on non-construction 

6 worker data, if we feel it applies also to 

7 non-construction workers or production 

8 workers, we will make that point. And SC&A 

9 feels that it definitely applies in this 

10 circumstance.

11 This issue was established as a 

12 priority action for NIOSH. At the end of my 

13 short presentation, I will mention where we 

14 are prioritizing now.

15 And I guess I just said that SC&A 

16 is completing the review of the 1965 to 1971 

17 model.

18 Other issues that are still on the 

19 table, and I am probably not covering all of 

20 them, but I want to hit the main ones that we 

21 are still dealing with:

22 NIOSH completed a report on 
384 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plutonium-210 and other fairly exotic 

2 radionuclides. And SC&A is currently 

3 reviewing this. So, again, it is another 

4 approach to reconstruct dose using a coworker 

5 model for this particular radionuclide. SC&A 

6 has not yet reviewed NIOSH's approach.

7 Recycled uranium issues, and we 

8 certainly have addressed those on the Board at 

9 several other sites, that is also in review by 

10 SC&A.

11 And then there are several other 

12 coworker models. So, basically, the reason 

13 for these coworker models is that there isn't 

14 necessarily -- all people weren't necessarily 

15 monitored. There is not enough individual 

16 data to reconstruct doses for all these 

17 nuclides. So, they are looking at it as a 

18 coworker model collectively. Do we have 

19 enough data to be able to bound doses for 

20 workers at the site?

21 And several of probably the most 

22 important ones are listed here underlined in 
385 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 my bottom bullet: neptunium, americium, 

2 curium, californium, cobalt-60. Some of these 

3 overlap.

4 There's a category we have been 

5 calling "exotic", which are other than listed, 

6 I guess. There are several other nuclides 

7 that come up at this site that are pretty rare 

8 nuclides, but they were at this site used in 

9 some capacity. We don't know NIOSH's approach 

10 for some of those yet -- or for any of those 

11 yet.

12 And, then, fission products, 

13 activation products, and tritides. So, the 

14 point here is that we were waiting for a lot 

15 of information as far as coworker models go, a 

16 lot outstanding.

17 Another issue that is on our 

18 Matrix relates to incidents. At several of 

19 our other sites we have dealt with, 

20 oftentimes, we have determined that some of 

21 the chronic coworker models that we 

22 established actually end up bounding a lot of 
386 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the incidents. However, we feel that we have 

2 to at least look at those and make sure that 

3 it is true in the case of Savannah River.

4 The incident database has been an 

5 issue for a while in terms of questions on the 

6 completeness of it. Are we looking at 

7 everything that we think should be in there?

8 And if we find all this incident 

9 data, then we want to compare and make sure 

10 that the coworker models would actually bound, 

11 even in the cases of these incidents where you 

12 have higher potential exposures or intakes.

13 One of the -- I guess this doesn't 

14 really fall into an incident, but there was a 

15 question on a practice that took place called 

16 open pan burning, and there is a question on 

17 how NIOSH intends to assign dose based on this 

18 particular activity.

19 Another broad item is completeness 

20 of bioassay records. We have looked at this 

21 to some extent. I actually believe it has 

22 mainly been focused on uranium, but, you know, 
387 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there were some discrepancies that have been 

2 found and identified. But, at this point, I 

3 am not convinced this is a showstopper. I 

4 think we have found reasonable comparisons 

5 between logbook entries and database data that 

6 NIOSH is using.

7 I don't know that we have actually 

8 closed that item, but I think we are getting 

9 close to closing that item. So, I don't think 

10 completeness is going to be a showstopper or 

11 an SEC issue in this case. I am not 100 

12 percent sure, but I think we are probably 90 

13 percent there.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Would you go 

15 back for a second? What does that mean?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Which one?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Seven percent 

18 of bioassay records in logbooks were not in 

19 the workers' records?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I think, 

21 yes, maybe Arjun can clarify that. I think we 

22 were comparing logbooks versus the actual 
388 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 record of the individual, probably had HPAREH 

2 printouts or something like that.

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: There were two 

4 things we were looking for. NIOSH did some 

5 verification of comparing data in the 

6 logbooks, bioassay data in the logbooks to 

7 what was in the worker's individual records. 

8 So, there are two things to compare. Were the 

9 data in the logbooks when there was a 

10 corresponding entry in the worker's individual 

11 record, was it the same number? And the other 

12 one, was all the data in the logbooks found in 

13 the worker's records, or vice versa?

14 And we found that, in terms of 

15 accuracy of transfer, it was very good. I 

16 mean, there was some discrepancy but very few, 

17 less than 1 percent generally.

18 Six percent of the cases, there 

19 were bioassay data in the logbooks that were 

20 not in the individual worker dose records. 

21 Many of these were less than MDA, but, of 

22 course, that matters in dose reconstruction 
389 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because you use MD over 2 in the dose 

2 reconstruction.

3 And it was biased by a lot of --

4 there are four workers for which none of their 

5 bioassay that were in the logbooks were in the 

6 individual records. That doesn't mean 

7 individual records were empty. And we did a 

8 limited check, you know, four logbooks. So, 

9 two from the early '60s and two from the early 

10 '70s.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: A few people 

12 accounted for a lot of the contribution to 

13 that 6 percent. That is what you are --

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. There was 

15 one person who actually contributed a lot, and 

16 one construction worker. So, it is kind of a 

17 strange --

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, we found 

19 before in the creation of the HPAREH file that 

20 there was one magnetic tape that wasn't 

21 transferred into HPAREH.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.
390 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it could 

2 be identified by a number of workers with 

3 higher in-term dates over a specific period, 

4 and it was a big gap in the electronic file.

5 I had assumed that NIOSH used 

6 logbook data, not HPAREH, in doing dose 

7 reconstructions, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe 

8 that was a faulty assumption.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Tim maybe can 

10 address that.

11 DR. TAULBEE: What we primarily 

12 use for dose reconstruction is the bioassay 

13 cards that we get for a particular individual 

14 from the Radiological Records Group there at 

15 Savannah River.

16 We actually don't use HPAREH that 

17 much. Or, in fact, I don't think we actually 

18 use it at all for our dose reconstructions. 

19 We go back to the original hard-copy cards.

20 One other possibility here, and I 

21 don't know if you checked into this, Arjun, 

22 for this particular discrepancy, would be a 
391 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resample where somebody had a result and they 

2 did a resample. And so, they might have only 

3 reported whatever their final result or final 

4 determination was.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, it doesn't 

6 sound like this was the case then.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I don't think 

8 that was the case. You know, I didn't do the 

9 raw. I only reviewed the report that Bob 

10 compiled. So, I didn't get into the raw data 

11 myself.

12 But I don't think that the 

13 resampling issue was the case, but I will 

14 double-check and get back to you about that.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

16 one thing we did look at was I don't think it 

17 was in any way skewed. I don't think we were 

18 finding that high values were eliminated 

19 intentionally or anything like that. I don't 

20 think your --

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: That is correct. 

22 There are two findings in that regard. In the 
392 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 individuals concerned, it could affect their 

2 dose reconstruction because you are missing 

3 some numbers from the cards. But we found 

4 that, in terms of use of non-construction 

5 worker data for construction worker, that the 

6 omitted data didn't bias the field. So, it 

7 was not a biased omission of the data when you 

8 compare what was left.

9 When you compare the data omitted, 

10 because we know the numbers that were omitted, 

11 so when you put it all together, it doesn't 

12 bias the results in terms of coworker models.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It matters. 

14 If there is a gap, I don't know, if there was 

15 systematically a problem of there being a gap 

16 in a period of years, and they are going to 

17 use a coworker model for an estimate of a dose 

18 in a year, it really could cause a sample 

19 problem.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. No, I 

21 don't disagree with that. Okay.

22 So, other items that we looked at: 
393 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutron dose coworker model is still on the 

2 table.

3 And, then, I think I already 

4 mentioned that the petitioner issues that have 

5 been raised throughout the process are being 

6 catalogued and incorporated into our Matrix. 

7 A lot of them cover questions on external 

8 dose, on data completeness, on assertions that 

9 people were asked to work in areas without 

10 wearing their badge, issues like that. And we 

11 are addressing those. A lot of them are being 

12 incorporated into other parts of the Matrix.

13 And, finally, the construction 

14 worker/non-construction worker issue, I think 

15 it comes up for all these coworker models that 

16 we are looking at. So far, we have got 

17 thorium and, as you can see on the bottom, we 

18 have looked at tritium a little bit. I think 

19 there is certainly at this point a 

20 disagreement with SC&A and NIOSH on the 

21 question of whether these are appropriate for 

22 construction workers.
394 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And part of it is looking at this 

2 job-type question. I think the current models 

3 look at construction workers versus all 

4 workers. First of all, the comparison 

5 includes construction workers. All workers, 

6 construction workers are part of that. So, we 

7 are sorting this out on the Work Group level.

8 Actually, in the case of the 

9 tritium model, SC&A provided a report 

10 simultaneously with NIOSH's report. So, we 

11 have sort of two separate reviews done 

12 different ways, which is difficult to compare. 

13 But we are sort of working through that.

14 But one question that comes up, 

15 for instance, is that, is it important to 

16 parse out different job types? Pipe-fitters 

17 fall into construction workers, but they seem 

18 to have a very different exposure history than 

19 a lot of the other construction trades.

20 So, that is one sort of reason I 

21 put job type up there, that we are at least 

22 looking at that, examining that.
395 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, then, just two slides on the 

2 path forward. As Tim mentioned, we are 

3 talking about priorities now. And the reason 

4 we want to look at these is, if we can look at 

5 certain issues and decide right now that, you 

6 know, for instance, thorium is an SEC issue, 

7 we can't reconstruct dose, and it covers a 

8 certain time period, we may be able to focus 

9 in our efforts on other time periods and not 

10 spend so much time on, for instance, the early 

11 period if we know something is going to fall 

12 into an SEC.

13 We are targeting these high-dose 

14 nuclides. A lot of them fall into the exotic 

15 category, as I mentioned before, but thorium, 

16 neptunium, americium, curium, californium, and 

17 the fission products and activation products.

18 Now my last slide, this is a 

19 personal point. The Work Group hasn't come to 

20 this conclusion, but my feeling, based on our 

21 discussion at the last Work Group meeting, is 

22 that, particularly on the thorium issue, I 
396 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe that we should consider, the Work 

2 Group should consider establishing a motion 

3 for all workers, 

4 construction/non-construction, who could have 

5 been exposed to the thorium '53 to '65.

6 And it is not only based on the 

7 model that NIOSH offered at the last meeting 

8 for the 300 area, but it is also based on a 

9 list of, I believe, 10 other areas where SC&A 

10 had brought up concerns about other thorium 

11 exposures. And it is quite clear to me that 

12 NIOSH has not yet considered these, and we are 

13 going back to the data collection phase on 

14 these things.

15 So, I think, basically, it is time 

16 for NIOSH to come forward with a model on 

17 thorium, and I am considering bringing this up 

18 to the Work Group at our next Work Group 

19 meeting, probably in early May, to let's, 

20 based on the weight of the evidence, make a 

21 decision here on thorium. That is my personal 

22 opinion, not a Work Group opinion at this 
397 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 point, but I just wanted to close with that.

2 And that is my update.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Do Board 

4 Members have any questions for Mark? Brad?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark, did you 

6 know about this February data capture?

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just heard 

8 about it today.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

10 questions?

11 MEMBER BEACH: I have just a quick 

12 one.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Josie.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Can we get a copy 

15 of your presentation, Mark?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is in pretty 

17 rough form. But, yes, I will forward it to 

18 Ted.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Ted, yes, will 

20 email it around. Good.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
398 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: And there's 

2 different fonts on every slide, I believe, 

3 because I was editing it today.

4 (Laughter.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we will look 

6 forward to further discussion at our May 

7 meeting.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: All in the same 

10 font, though, by that time.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay.

13 Okay, we are at a point now, what 

14 we will do is take a short break, about 10 or 

15 15 minutes. So, at least by 5:25, plan on 

16 being back and we will start the public 

17 comment period.

18 For people that wish to make 

19 public comments, there is a sign-in sheet out 

20 at the desk. If you haven't signed in 

21 already, please do so. It is just helpful for 

22 us to manage the time, and so forth, for 
399 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people to do so. If you change your mind 

2 after you have signed in, that is okay also, 

3 but it is up to you if you wish to do so.

4 So, we will see you back here in 

5 about 10 or 15 minutes.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter went off the record at 5:11 p.m. and 

8 resumed at 5:25 p.m.)

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If everyone will 

10 get seated, we will get started now.

11 MR. KATZ: Good evening, everybody 

12 who has come and everybody who might be on the 

13 line.

14 At the head of this public comment 

15 session, let me just explain the ground rules 

16 about the transcripts. Because, as you may 

17 not all know, there is a verbatim transcript 

18 made of all the Board meetings, including the 

19 public comment sessions.

20 So, the comments you might give 

21 tonight will be also transcribed verbatim and 

22 available to the public. Everything you say 
400 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about yourself, however private, will be 

2 available to the public. So, just keep that 

3 in mind.

4 However, whatever you might say 

5 about another party, a third party, that 

6 information may be redacted to protect their 

7 privacy. So, be aware of that as well. It 

8 doesn't keep you from saying things about a 

9 third party, but we will limit the information 

10 about a third party that is included in the 

11 transcript to protect their privacy.

12 And the full policy, if you want 

13 to read it in its fine details, should be 

14 available on the back table, and it is also 

15 available on the NIOSH website under the 

16 Board's section of the NIOSH website that 

17 deals with this program.

18 And I think that covers what I 

19 need to say.

20 The only other thing is just to 

21 remind folks on the phone, please keep your 

22 phones muted until it is time for you to speak 
401 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and, then, you will have to take your phone 

2 off of mute. Take it off with *6, if you 

3 don't have a mute button, when you are 

4 prepared to give your remarks.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and we are 

6 going to try to start with focusing on the 

7 Savannah River Site because that is why we are 

8 holding the meeting here. We will come back 

9 to other people, so I may skip over people a 

10 little bit. We also may have people on the 

11 phone who will be speaking later.

12 So, I would remind you that there 

13 is at the most a ten-minute limit for your 

14 remarks. If you want to submit additional 

15 information afterwards, that is fine. You are 

16 not required to speak for ten minutes, either. 

17 So, whatever you want to say.

18 And the first person I have listed 

19 here I believe is from the Savannah River Site 

20 is a Perkins Farmer, as best I can tell. It 

21 is the second person to sign up, and I may be 

22 mispronouncing because we are having trouble 
402 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reading the name. Okay?

2 Then, the next person down, I 

3 don't know where you are from. Tim Lerew, are 

4 you from the site?

5 And I would add that you are 

6 welcome to speak from there. You are welcome 

7 to speak from there. People are also welcome 

8 to speak from the microphone here. Either one 

9 will be picked up.

10 So, go ahead, Tim.

11 MR. LEREW: Very good. Thank you.

12 My name is Tim Lerew. I am with 

13 an association called Cold War Patriots. We 

14 are a national association of volunteer 

15 members, about 6,000 former nuclear complex 

16 workers and uranium miners, pretty much from 

17 every state in the Union. It has been about 

18 three years since the group was incepted.

19 Speaking of the situation here at 

20 Savannah River Site's Special Exposure Cohort 

21 Petition, I have had the privilege to attend a 

22 few of the other Board meetings around the 
403 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 country. And I believe the Board has probably 

2 reviewed and approved close to 50 SECs in 

3 different locations throughout the United 

4 States.

5 As I heard Mark's and Tim's 

6 presentations, and made a few notes prior to 

7 those presentations, it almost seems that in 

8 the Savannah River Site's case, the premise 

9 that we started with in 2007 with the 

10 construction workers was a little bit of a 

11 flawed premise when it came to trying to come 

12 about with a fair SEC decision.

13 The Working Group, to Mark's 

14 credit, seems to have addressed some of that 

15 to include the non-construction workers, 

16 which, of course, is in the interest of 

17 everyone who is here, all of the workers that 

18 were affected by exposure at Savannah River 

19 Site.

20 I think in this particular case, 

21 this particular SEC petition, we really need 

22 to look to you, the Board Members, for some of 
404 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the leadership that sometimes the individual 

2 petitioners have brought from other locations 

3 around the country.

4 A little bit conspicuous by their 

5 absence with this particular petition are 

6 those individuals with a lot of experience, 

7 depth, and technical expertise that they have 

8 acquired over several years that they can 

9 bring to the petition itself.

10 And in the absence of that, in 

11 order to arrive at a fair conclusion, just as 

12 NIOSH uses dose reconstruction from an 

13 individual job category to try to establish 

14 what my dose or another individual's was, it 

15 almost suggests itself to me that other sites 

16 that you have had the opportunity to work on 

17 comparable materials might suggest the need 

18 for at least a specific SEC finding at 

19 Savannah River Site.

20 And the site that comes to my mind 

21 that the Board recently acted upon would be 

22 the Hanford Reservation, comparable type of 
405 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 work, comparable type of exposures. And, of 

2 course, I understand that the Board, to arrive 

3 at a decision, usually needs actionable 

4 information, gaps in data that are identified 

5 from some of the work from SC&A and NIOSH. A 

6 little bit of that seems to be absent in the 

7 case of the Savannah River Site petition.

8 I don't think it is absent because 

9 it is not there. I think it is absent because 

10 we haven't had the level of detail and passion 

11 and expertise from the petitioner side to 

12 establish those gaps that are likely to exist.

13 I have an opportunity to put 

14 together individual claimants and 

15 beneficiaries with benefits that they might be 

16 entitled to at Savannah River Site as well as 

17 around the country. And common sense tells me 

18 that we are missing opportunities to serve 

19 individuals that did have the exposures back 

20 in the '50s and '60s that are likely to 

21 require an SEC finding.

22 You have heard a little bit of it 
406 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from Mark, kind of an advanced view of the 

2 Working Group's finding that in his view from 

3 1953 to 1965, due to thorium exposure, an SEC 

4 finding is probably something that he would 

5 actually support. That is a little unusual, 

6 in my view, to sometimes have the folks at 

7 SC&A and NIOSH come to some of those 

8 conclusions without being pushed by the 

9 petitioner itself.

10 So, I think there is something 

11 there when it comes to Savannah River Site. I 

12 think these employees and former employees and 

13 their families, especially in the period of 

14 the '50s and '60s and maybe extending into the 

15 '70s, depending on findings of fact, are 

16 entitled to an SEC finding. So that those 

17 poor individuals that do have these cancers 

18 don't have the very, very frustrating 

19 experience of waiting on benefits that will 

20 never come, relief that won't be provided for 

21 their families or their heirs.

22 I would like to thank the Board 
407 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for its thoughtful consideration, and I would 

2 like to challenge the individual members to 

3 look for opportunities in this particular 

4 petition where you can lead to an appropriate 

5 conclusion and finding of fact.

6 Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

8 The next person I have signed up 

9 is a Peggy Widener. Yes?

10 MS. WIDENER: I can actually say 

11 what I want to say from back here.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. Because it 

13 is recorded, I am sorry, it is better to do it 

14 by the microphone. Actually, she can use 

15 either one, whatever your preference is.

16 MS. WIDENER: Well, I am going to 

17 be short and sweet.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine.

19 MS. WIDENER: But I am asking you 

20 Board Members to please approve the SEC 

21 petition for the Savannah River Plant, or 

22 Site. It has changed now to a site.
408 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

3 you, ma'am.

4 Okay. The next person I have 

5 listed is a Selma Uldrick.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Ms. Uldrick spoke 

7 to me earlier and said that she was removing 

8 her name from the list and would not be 

9 speaking.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

11 you.

12 Tom Boland. Welcome, Mr. Boland.

13 MR. BOLAND: Thank you.

14 I am here on behalf -- my father 

15 worked at Savannah River Plant, and I think a 

16 good example. He started in 1950 as a 

17 construction worker. Then, he moved on and 

18 became in operations. And, then, he became a 

19 supervisor. So, he spent many years out 

20 there, not just doing construction, but other 

21 jobs, also being exposed.

22 But when they did the NIOSH 
409 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction, they had him listed as a 

2 supervisor because that is what was on his 

3 record. So, I don't think you should narrow 

4 this so easily and so quickly that you leave 

5 off people because we have some others here 

6 who also worked through construction for that 

7 whole system. So, I am asking you to consider 

8 expanding this to all workers.

9 One thing that interested me was 

10 when the guy got up and said that he had just 

11 found a thousand boxes of records. That shows 

12 that the NIOSH's dose reconstruction should be 

13 reconsidered.

14 (Laughter.) 

15 And, then, somebody else said they 

16 found some more records. There is a flaw that 

17 started way back that needs to be corrected. 

18 And one way to do it is to do the SEC petition 

19 so it covers everybody out there.

20 Then, they narrowed it to the 300 

21 area. Then, the other guy gets up and says, 

22 well, it was in other areas, too.
410 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now they had my father listed as 

2 in the 100 area, but we also have information 

3 in there where he worked in the 200 to 700. 

4 He was all over that place, and some of these 

5 other workers.

6 We have Ms. Sims back here who 

7 asked me to speak for her because she has had 

8 her leg removed because of cancer. She wasn't 

9 a construction worker, but she had to go and 

10 check on what construction they did, to count 

11 the guys' hours. She was right there where 

12 the construction workers were and making sure 

13 that they were doing what they were supposed 

14 to be doing.

15 So, I think that is another reason 

16 that you should expand this. And you have got 

17 50 other sites. How many others of those have 

18 been narrowed just completely to the 

19 construction worker?

20 We are not asking for special 

21 consideration, but we would like to be treated 

22 like everybody else that worked out there.
411 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Then, there was some mention about 

2 there was 6 percent who got left out. Well, 

3 if you are in that 6 percent, that is 100 

4 percent negative to you. So, we are asking 

5 don't just throw these 6 percent or the 1 

6 percent out the door. Let's give everybody a 

7 fair shot at this with the SEC petition.

8 I do have an affidavit that was 

9 from [identifying information redacted]. Of 

10 course, he is very old now and can't be here. 

11 But this is regarding my father who was out 

12 there. He was a supervisor, but they had 

13 major spills. And as a supervisor, he was 

14 required to go in and clean up. He didn't 

15 have the choice. Now [identifying information 

16 redacted] said, "hey," they said, "do you go 

17 in there?" "No, I'm not a supervisor. I'm 

18 not going in." But my father had no choice. 

19 And a lot of these workers had no choices when 

20 there were things that went on there.

21 And there is no information that 

22 we could find about this spill, but I know it 
412 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 occurred. This is another way that the SEC 

2 can overcome a lot of lost records, and 

3 there's a thousand boxes sitting around 

4 somewhere for the last seven or eight years, 

5 because this dose reconstruction stuff started 

6 back in the early 2000s.

7 So, I will present this, and I 

8 wrote my name on it.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

10 MR. BOLAND: And there are several 

11 other older ladies and gentlemen here from the 

12 Savannah River Plant. If you could raise your 

13 hand? And some of them didn't want to get up 

14 here, but they asked me to speak for them, and 

15 that is what we are asking. Just give us a 

16 fair shot at it.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

18 MR. BOLAND: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, and 

20 thank you for speaking on behalf of the others 

21 also.

22 I just would indicate, because 
413 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this is a complicated program, and even though 

2 the SEC petition that is currently under 

3 consideration only qualified for construction 

4 workers, our purview is the entire site. So, 

5 we are going to be looking at that, and there 

6 are various ways that those concerns can be 

7 addressed.

8 So, the misperception shouldn't be 

9 that we only are focusing on construction 

10 workers. We are sort of limited in terms of 

11 the SEC petition at this time, but we are 

12 looking at those other issues and we will 

13 continue to look at those other issues as we 

14 go forward.

15 And we also recognize what you 

16 pointed out, that people had lots of different 

17 jobs and different duties there. It doesn't 

18 always match up with what the name was or the 

19 name was at the time they left the site, and 

20 so forth.

21 So, again, I thank you for your 

22 input.
414 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The next person I have listed is a 

2 Bob Esposito. Is Bob here?

3 (No response.)

4 Okay.

5 MR. BOLAND: He was one that asked 

6 me to speak for him.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, fine. 

8 Thank you. Okay. Then, I have a Wayne Knox.

9 MR. KNOX: Yes. Thank you. I am 

10 back again.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. KNOX: I am one of the 

13 dirty-hands operational health physicists, the 

14 kind of guy that has to make it work no matter 

15 what. Make it work in spite of all of the 

16 problems we have in terms of equipment 

17 resources, personnel resources, money, you 

18 name it, we have to make it work. And we made 

19 it work by minimizing the exposure to workers 

20 as much as possible.

21 I am here to talk about some of 

22 the specific problems that I have as an 
415 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 advocate trying to help people obtain fair 

2 medical treatment and compensation for their 

3 exposures. So, I am just going to talk about 

4 some specifics, but I could say the same thing 

5 for a number of sites throughout the country.

6 As I said, I am an exposed worker. 

7 At one of the previous Board meetings, I 

8 provided videotapes, actual analysis, actual 

9 data that show where 40 people down here at 

10 Savannah River were exposed to unmonitored 

11 plutonium and tritium. I gave this to the 

12 previous Board. It was passed along to NIOSH 

13 and it went into a dead file. Nothing 

14 happened.

15 I would recommend that we look at 

16 that again where you can see what really 

17 happens. The video shows what happens to 

18 people in a working environment.

19 As I go about the country looking 

20 at various sites and reading various Site 

21 Profiles, I see one major problem is that they 

22 all needed to be updated. They need to 
416 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reflect the reality.

2 Most of the reality is going to 

3 come from those workers that are there. And I 

4 have held a number of meetings with workers 

5 and derived a lot of excellent information 

6 from them. So, to paint the picture, I would 

7 strongly encourage the Board to go to the 

8 workers and get the information from them.

9 And I will give you one quick case 

10 of the Kansas City plant. The Kansas City 

11 plant is supposed to be a non-nuclear plant, 

12 but it has 10,000-pound lots, they process 

13 10,000-pound lots of depleted uranium.

14 It had hundreds of 

15 X-ray-generating machines. It had PuBe 

16 sources, plutonium-beryllium sources, that 

17 produced neutron exposures.

18 But in talking to the workers, the 

19 facility was not designed for radiological 

20 work or even chemical work. You look at the 

21 stacks. You have very short stacks. Workers 

22 say the walls come in, but only go up so far. 
417 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And you have a huge facility there that on 

2 one side you will find the non-nuclear work; 

3 on the other side, you will have GSA people 

4 and the clean side. But you have a common 

5 ventilation system. You have short stacks.

6 So, the contaminated air goes out 

7 of the short stacks on the roof, goes right 

8 back into the ventilation system.

9 I have listed a number of problems 

10 associated with this facility, including 

11 having a contamination event that lasted for 

12 15 years and went undetected. It went 

13 undetected because they had no health 

14 physicists assigned to the staff. They didn't 

15 have the instrumentation. They didn't tell 

16 the people what they were working with because 

17 of secrecy, and it was a, quote/unquote, 

18 "non-nuclear site".

19 They had one cesium source there 

20 that was 280 curies. How did they handle all 

21 of that? Not too well.

22 Again, you take a look at the 
418 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 problems. And all of this, again, is derived 

2 from Evaluation Reports. DOE came in and 

3 evaluated them and identified this. So, this 

4 is what Wayne Knox is saying.

5 And I would suggest that a lot of 

6 information concerning the sites can be 

7 derived from the Evaluation Reports. But if 

8 you look at the reports, contamination had 

9 gotten into people's homes. It was in the 

10 ventilation system. They had cases of 

11 reported bioassay, that is, uptakes of 

12 radioactive material within the population, 

13 within the workers. However, they found that 

14 later on they were all false positive events.

15 I have another case here of a 

16 fireman, one of our heroes, who has a whole 

17 list of zeroes on his dosimetry records. He 

18 has six separate cancers. How many people do 

19 you know with six separate cancers?

20 But he waded in contaminated 

21 water, getting people out of cars. He 

22 backburned the contaminated brush on the wall, 
419 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the waste sites. He went into all of the 

2 reactor facilities, into high radiation zones. 

3 He even reported seeing the blue light on the 

4 reactor when they went there to retrieve the 

5 dead animals that had been killed by the 

6 radiation, the blue light, Cherenkov 

7 radiation, very high levels of radiation.

8 But yet he still -- if you look at 

9 what they assigned him, they assigned him a 

10 radiation dose that was less than -- less than 

11 a person standing on the outside of the 

12 facility in a very narrow band of full-time 

13 energy, no neutron. And keep in mind, they 

14 had to fight a forest fire with the airplane 

15 reactor suspended in the air. I don't know if 

16 you know what the airplane reactor was. They

17 fought the fire, but we understand no neutron 

18 exposure, no internal deposition.

19 So, you have a fireman that went 

20 into all of these facilities maintaining these 

21 reactors and all of the radiological 

22 facilities, and, yet, he has zeroes. And each 
420 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time one of the cancers appeared, the dose 

2 reconstruction would be done again and still 

3 found that everything would be reduced where 

4 he would be below the Probability of 

5 Causation.

6 Another quick one here is one of 

7 our clients who was a cloud chaser. This 

8 gentleman was responsible for taking a 

9 handheld radiation instrument and measuring 

10 the clouds from atomic bomb explosions. Most 

11 Japanese only experienced one. This 

12 individual experienced over 800 nuclear bomb 

13 explosions, and he gets all zeroes.

14 He gets all zeroes because, when 

15 he gets a chance to go out and do a mission, 

16 they take his badge and they give him another 

17 badge. When he comes back, they will take the 

18 badge that they gave him and give him his 

19 routine badge back, and they read that. So, 

20 he has all zeroes.

21 But he tells me the problems, that 

22 in all of this dust and fallout, it covered 
421 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them. He has beta burns on his body from the 

2 fallout. He has lung conditions. He has two 

3 separate cancers. But he is only being given 

4 credit for one.

5 We tried, because I'm an HP, I 

6 even taught nuclear weapons effects. So, I 

7 know what they can do. I thought that you 

8 could easily push 800-bomb explosion 

9 experience by this guy through NIOSH, but we 

10 couldn't get it through.

11 So, we said, well, what we are 

12 going to do is wrap around and do silicosis. 

13 Forget about radiation. Part B, you put a 

14 bomb in a pile of sand. You get a lot of 

15 dust. You have got silicosis. So, we tried 

16 silicosis.

17 That didn't work out well, either, 

18 because the doctor diagnosed silicosis. 

19 However, the CE, the claims examiner, didn't 

20 like that because he put simple silicosis, 

21 chronic simple, and the claims examiner went 

22 back to the doctor and questioned him in terms 
422 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of his ability to diagnose silicosis. The 

2 medical doctor got upset with him and said he 

3 would never do any more of these again.

4 Another quick one --

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could you, 

6 please -- you are at 10 minutes. So, we would 

7 like you to wrap up, please.

8 MR. KNOX: Okay. Okay. Another 

9 quick one is a research scientist, a 

10 radiochemist, a chemist here. He has 

11 pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and a host 

12 of other medical conditions.

13 He also worked at Mound. His 

14 medical records clearly establish that he was 

15 given, he was exposed to tritium and it had 

16 his tritium exposure data. And trying to 

17 process this through, NIOSH had generated a 

18 list of all of the workers that were qualified 

19 for the Mound SEC.

20 They would not, DOL would not 

21 allow this worker, even though he had 

22 pancreatic cancer, even though he had a record 
423 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that demonstrated that he had tritium 

2 exposure, they would not allow him to be a 

3 part of the SEC, simply because his name and 

4 Social Security Number was not on the NIOSH 

5 list.

6 But in looking at this thing even 

7 further, the list is incomplete. A gentleman 

8 just talked about incomplete records.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, can we 

10 please wrap up?

11 MR. KNOX: Yes. Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You are well 

13 over.

14 MR. KNOX: Well, the bottom line 

15 is that the Mound SEC qualifications should 

16 not be simply based upon the NIOSH list. It 

17 is incomplete. The records have been lost. 

18 It should simply be based on the official 

19 dosimetry records.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Mr. 

22 Knox.
424 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Is there anybody else here from 

2 Savannah River that would like to make 

3 comments? Yes?

4 MS. SIMS: I wanted to thank you 

5 for --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could you just --

7 MS. SIMS: -- emphasizing how you 

8 came up in the ranks at SRP --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you please 

10 give us your name first?

11 MS. SIMS: Joan Sims.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

13 you, Ms. Sims.

14 MS. SIMS: I got all my records 

15 from different places to send in. And every 

16 time I would get one back, it would emphasize 

17 that for three weeks I worked in the clerical 

18 department and, then, also, in the service 

19 department, which at that time that is the 

20 only way you could get a job at Savannah 

21 River.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
425 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. SIMS: What was I going to 

2 say?

3 Like I said, three weeks, but also 

4 for the last 10 years, I worked as an HP 

5 inspector in just about every area out there 

6 and covered all kinds of jobs.

7 So, a couple of years ago, I had 

8 three cancerous spots and my lymph nodes 

9 removed, and now I have got it on my arms. 

10 And I am due for surgery March the 8th.

11 And all they ever thought to look 

12 at was, well, she just worked in clerical or 

13 she just worked as a janitor. Those were just 

14 short days compared to 10 years. I even 

15 worked in tritium in there, the 200 area.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, we recognize 

17 that people had many different duties at the 

18 site, and it is not always reflected in the 

19 title. And there are occasional problems with 

20 the work records, and so forth, to that.

21 That is helpful. We appreciate 

22 it, and we wish you luck with your surgery.
426 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. SIMS: Thank you.

2 MS. STALEY: Hi. My name is 

3 Carrie Staley. My dad worked at the Savannah 

4 River Site from 1951, I think, until 19 -- he 

5 passed away in 1980. He was 55 years old. He 

6 was a construction worker. He was a 

7 carpenter.

8 And we went through the NIOSH 

9 process, and we went all the way through the 

10 appeal process. The person that met with us 

11 for our appeal hearing came from Jacksonville, 

12 Florida, forgot our daddy's record.

13 He mentioned that it was written 

14 on the top of my dad's record in big letters, 

15 "Why?" Why was it turned down?

16 The first time we had dose 

17 reconstruction it was a higher number, pretty 

18 close to 51 percent. When they did a second 

19 dose reconstruction, the numbers went down. 

20 And that is what he said, wrote on our record, 

21 my dad's record, "Why?" But he failed to 

22 bring those records with him to the hearing.
427 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 My sisters and brothers, it's 12 

2 of us. My dad sent all of us to college, and 

3 my baby brother was 13 years old when my daddy 

4 died at age 55, and he left money for my baby 

5 brother to go to college.

6 He has never gotten, my baby 

7 brother has never gotten his monies from my 

8 daddy's work out at the site. My mother 

9 passed away before a claim was done, and we 

10 have been working with this over -- I think it 

11 came out in like 2001, and never got any 

12 results, any compensation.

13 He had colon cancer, and I know 

14 that at age 55 with the work conditions that 

15 he worked at, there was no way to record 

16 whatever radiation uptake they were taking in 

17 the early years, in the early 1950s and '60s.

18 So, they asked us, when we did our 

19 hearing, to give them information from people 

20 who worked with my father, people that he rode 

21 to work with. They, too, had cancer. And I 

22 was just thinking they are waiting for 
428 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 everybody to die before they could finish 

2 reevaluating our case. The people that wrote 

3 the letters, they were already passed away.

4 And I don't understand, you know, 

5 if they gave them information from the word of 

6 mouth of a person that worked with him, why 

7 can't NIOSH receive that information? And 

8 what kind of data are you using? Because if 

9 they didn't have any records, then where are 

10 you getting your information from?

11 And I would hope that you all 

12 would reconsider that because it has been over 

13 a number of years, and my baby brother had to 

14 go -- I mean, he was 13 years old when my 

15 daddy passed away and never received any 

16 portion of any of the amount of monies that 

17 was supposed to be sent to him at that time. 

18 So, please reconsider.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

20 thank you.

21 And we are not allowed to discuss 

22 individual cases, but there are people from
429 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH here. Right to your left is Stu 

2 Hinnefeld, and maybe if you --

3 MS. STALEY: Where?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right behind 

5 you. And maybe he can talk to you, and at 

6 least get the information and follow up with 

7 you.

8 Yes, sir?

9 MR. MILLS: My name is Roy Mills, 

10 and I live in Aiken, and have been in Aiken 

11 almost all my life.

12 My request is, for the passage of 

13 this, is on behalf of my two children who are 

14 42 and 37 currently. My wife at the time 

15 worked at Savannah River Plant in the late 

16 '60s. She died of malignant melanoma when she 

17 was 31 years old, and I had a 5-year-old and a 

18 2-year-old when she passed away.

19 My thing is that the NIOSH, if a 

20 person, if you are at 45 and I am 50, you 

21 know, if you are a little bit pregnant, you 

22 are all the way pregnant kind of a thing, but 
430 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in any event, I would like to see this passed, 

2 so that the benefit for my children could come 

3 forward.

4 My daughter, who is one of the 

5 survivors, had a little 2-year-old son, my 

6 grandson, who was diagnosed with leukemia when 

7 he was 2 years old. And I am happy to report 

8 that he is, as of this point, 100 percent. He 

9 just turned 9. So, he is doing great.

10 But, in any event, whether that is 

11 any relevance or not, I would like to see this 

12 passed forward and more consideration.

13 In one instance, the plant records 

14 that were, the Savannah River Site records 

15 that were forwarded didn't have that she 

16 worked in a certain area that I have now 

17 established that it was, she did work in that 

18 area. So, there is some, could have been 

19 exposure.

20 I started this at the very start, 

21 when it came out in 2001. Here it is 2011. 

22 But just about the time I get ready to give 
431 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up, something new comes up, so I continue to 

2 fight.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

4 MR. MILLS: Thank you for your 

5 consideration.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think if 

7 you have new information, you might want to 

8 talk to Mr. Hinnefeld or somebody here from 

9 NIOSH just to talk about the procedure for 

10 dealing with that.

11 MR. MILLS: Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And thank you 

13 for your information and do that.

14 Okay. Anybody else from Savannah 

15 River that would like to speak?

16 (No response.)

17 Okay. If not, we have one other 

18 person here who has been patient for us, and 

19 then we will go to the phone. But, first, 

20 Donna Hand.

21 MS. HAND: Donna Hand. I am a 

22 worker advocate and, also, an authorized 
432 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 representative for a survivor claimant at 

2 Savannah River. And that is the one I am 

3 talking to you about tonight, the problem 

4 there.

5 In a closeout interview with the 

6 OCAS-1, whenever you disagree with the 

7 radiation dose because you point out to them 

8 certain things that they did not capture, they 

9 inform us there is nothing they can do about 

10 it; you have to discuss that over when you get 

11 to FAB at Department of Labor.

12 So, then, when we go to the 

13 Department of Labor, and we have the FAB 

14 hearing, we say, "We want to discuss the 

15 application of the method and how come certain 

16 radiation doses were not considered, 

17 specifically incidents?"

18 They, in turn, say, "No, you're 

19 talking about the method, which is binding. 

20 So, therefore, we can't talk to you about it." 

21 And it doesn't go anywhere.

22 The federal regulations in 42 CFR 
433 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 82 and 81 also require in that stipulation 

2 that we can ask a review. A review is done by 

3 an independent party at NIOSH. It is not done

4 by the Department of Labor's health physicist. 

5 A rework is done by them, and they can send 

6 it back over. However, a review is separate.

7 But yet they are using the term 

8 "review" to mean that the Department of Labor 

9 gets to review it. So, therefore, that 

10 entitlement that these claimants are entitled 

11 to is a review of the radiation dose by an 

12 independent party, is being denied.

13 When we get the application and 

14 the independent review and the methods that 

15 are done by the federal regulations and 

16 statute, these methods are in the law and you 

17 are supposed to establish the guidelines. 

18 However, when they do the dose reconstruction 

19 for one year, and then, all of a sudden, it 

20 comes back the next time and the only thing 

21 that was changed was maybe employment or 

22 another cancer, they say, oh, we're going to 
434 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do the 50th percentile now. So, they reduce 

2 everything back to 50 percent, where before 

3 you were at the 95th percentile.

4 And they said, "This is the 

5 current method." No, this is the application 

6 of a method. This is not a method.

7 The guidelines have not been 

8 changed. The regulations have not been 

9 changed, and the statute has not been changed. 

10 However, they, on their own, will go ahead and 

11 do this.

12 For a particular case, this is a 

13 laborer. He worked in the reactor areas, 200 

14 area, and 773A building. He had multiple 

15 myeloma. He worked from '52 to '78.

16 His dose, external dose, went from 

17 57 rems to 12 rems. His ambient dose, onsite 

18 ambient dose, went from 2.5 rems to 1.1. His 

19 medical X-ray went from .890 rems to .240. 

20 These are medical. Why would that have 

21 changed? Why was it cut in half? It didn't 

22 change anything in 2004, but in 2009 it 
435 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 changed.

2 Internal dose, it did go up. So, 

3 we appreciate that, 5.7 up to 16. But, still, 

4 the overall dose was cut in half.

5 In the report, on the first report 

6 that this went to NIOSH with, this gentleman 

7 had in the file where he was hurt in the 

8 manhole where there was bluish fumes. We 

9 presume that that must have been the reactor 

10 area, bluish fumes. But because there were 

11 bluish fumes and there were vapors, they would 

12 not do a dose reconstruction for that 

13 incident.

14 Upon obtaining the copy of the 

15 file that NIOSH had on this worker, he was 

16 also exposed, and in his file, to uranium to 

17 the face and plutonium to the face. Just 

18 received that newest report. They ignored 

19 those incidents as well, even though it is 

20 actually in the file.

21 So, you have a report that has, 

22 you know, you are supposed to include all 
436 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incidents. It is documented. Yet, they still 

2 deny it.

3 If you are going to have -- and 

4 you won't deal with anything unless the 

5 Department of Labor sends it over to NIOSH, 

6 and this is what they are telling me, but then 

7 NIOSH refuses to send over cancers or 

8 employment and employment duties, how can that 

9 NIOSH do a dose reconstruction that is 

10 accurate?

11 And if you are going to do a 

12 Special Exposure Cohort petition and you 

13 define it after your Work Group Committee has 

14 met, your Advisory Committee has met, SC&A has 

15 done an audit, the Department of Labor was 

16 involved as far as implementing that, then 

17 once it is put in the Federal Register, please 

18 do not renegotiate that definition because you 

19 have established by law that that's a Special 

20 Exposure Cohort petition, defined it, and 

21 these workers meet that criteria as it is

22 established in the Federal Register. To 
437 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 redefine it is really doing backdoor 

2 legislation.

3 The other thing is that these 

4 people deserve the Special Exposure Cohort 

5 petition because you do not have the data for 

6 them at this time. 83.14, and the preamble it 

7 says, if you do not have the current data, you 

8 are to issue a Special Exposure Cohort. If 

9 later on you find the data, the Secretary has 

10 the right, then, to withdraw that petition. 

11 But, until then, that is what you are supposed 

12 to be doing, according to the regulations. I 

13 have never seen it implemented.

14 Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

16 Okay. Is there anybody on the 

17 telephone who would like to make public 

18 comments?

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, Dr. Melius, 

20 this is Antoinette Bonsignore.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, go ahead.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: I would just like 
438 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to take a moment to thank the Advisory Board 

2 on behalf of the Linde workers and their 

3 families. They are very happy tonight that 

4 this petition has finally been approved for 

5 the time period that it was today. And I am 

6 glad that the Board, after much considered 

7 deliberation over the past few months, has 

8 finally provided these workers with the 

9 justice they have waited so long for. So, 

10 thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

12 Antoinette.

13 Anybody else on the phone who 

14 would like to make public comments?

15 (No response.)

16 Okay. Hearing nobody, anybody 

17 else in the audience?

18 (No response.)

19 Okay. We appreciate your coming 

20 today. There are people from NIOSH that are 

21 here. If you have specific questions, they 

22 can help you. If not, thanks.
439 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, Board Members, we will see 

2 you all tomorrow morning, 8:15, bright and 

3 early, and we should have an agenda. We plan 

4 to finish up on time by 10:30.

5 (Whereupon, at 6:07 p.m., the 

6 proceedings in the above-entitled matter were 

7 adjourned for the day, to reconvene the 

8 following day, Friday, February 25, 2011, at 

9 8:15 a.m.)

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
440 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1