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

+ + + + +

108th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

NOVEMBER 19, 2015

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 8:15 a.m., 

Pacific Time, in the Waterfront Hotel, 10 

Washington Street, Oakland, CA, James M. Melius, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member*

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member*

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member*

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

BARRIE, TERRIE*

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

BURKHART, HARRY*

CARROLL, STEPHANIE*

CRAWFORD, CHRIS "FRANK," DOL

DARNELL, PETE, DCAS

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

KNOX, WAYNE*

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LIN, JENNY, HHS

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Welcome and Introduction ...................... 4 

Blockson Chemical Company SEC ................. 6 

(1960 - 1991, Joliet, IL)

Rocky Flats SEC Petition ..................... 64

(1984 - 1989, Golden, CO)

Update

Kansas City Plant SEC Petition .............. 101

(1949 - 1993, Kansas City, MO)

Adjourn
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 8:29 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Welcome, everybody. 

4 Day 2 of the Meeting Number 108 and let me turn it 

5 over to Ted to do the -- to knock over the glass 

6 and do the roll call.

7 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone. I hope 

8 I do roll call more smoothly than I managed 

9 yesterday. 

10 Folks on the phone, just to let you 

11 know, the materials for today's meeting are on the 

12 NIOSH website under the Board section, meetings, 

13 today's date. So, you can go on there and see all 

14 the materials that we discuss today. Pull up those 

15 presentations and read them.

16 Alternatively, the agenda's there, 

17 too, and on the agenda, there's a link for the 

18 address and code for Live Meeting and if you can 

19 deal with a Live Meeting, then you can join that 

20 way and watch the slides as they're presented here. 

21 So, that's an option, too.

22 Roll call, I'm just going to run --
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

1 there are no conflicts of interest today to 

2 address. So, we don't have that in the way and I'm 

3 just going to run down and I can actually speak for 

4 the people I can see. I'll run down the list.

5 (Roll call.)

6 MR. KATZ: Let me remind everyone to 

7 mute your phone. Everyone on the line, mute your 

8 phone and if you don't have a mute button, press 

9 *6. *6 will take your phone back off mute for this 

10 call and please don't put the call on hold at any 

11 point, but hang up and dial back in if you need to 

12 leave the call for a piece.

13 And with that, Dr. Melius, it's your 

14 meeting.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you,

16 Ted and let's start with -- we have Blockson 

17 Chemical Special Exposure Cohort petition and Jim 

18 Neton will be doing the presentation. 

19 If the petitioners are on the line, just 

20 to let you know, how we usually do this is we'll 

21 have a presentation from NIOSH on their petition 

22 evaluation. That will be followed by questions 
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

1 from Board Members about the evaluation and then 

2 we'll give an opportunity for the petitioners to 

3 speak, provide comments on the evaluation if they 

4 wish to do so. Not required to do so, but if you 

5 wish, you may. So, that'll be the order and then 

6 the Board will conduct further deliberations on 

7 what to do in regards to the Evaluation Report. 

8 So, Jim.

9 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

10 Happy to do a presentation at the beginning of the 

11 day. Usually, I seem to draw the after-lunch 

12 presentations when people are slightly less alert.

13 But, I'm here to present the Blockson 

14 Chemical Company Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

15 Number 225 today.

16 Overview of the petition, it was an 

17 83.13 petition that was received by NIOSH about 

18 nine months ago, February of this year and the 

19 Petitioner Class Definition as you see on the 

20 screen here is all maintenance and operations 

21 personnel who worked in any area of Blockson 

22 Chemical during the period July 1st, 1960 through 
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

1 the end of 1991, December 31st, '91.

2 I should say at the outset that this 

3 time period is totally within the residual 

4 contamination period of Blockson. If you recall, 

5 there was a covered exposure period where they did 

6 AEC work from 1951 through the end of June in 1960.

7 A few months after we got the petition 

8 in May, we qualified the petition and the basis for 

9 the qualification is radiation exposures were 

10 incurred by members of the Class and they were not 

11 monitored either through personnel or area 

12 monitoring. 

13 Of course, this is what you'd pretty 

14 much expect during a residual contamination 

15 period. The AEC operations are over and there's 

16 some contamination left and I'm hard pressed to 

17 think of any AWE that was not involved in 

18 radiological operations as a norm that had a 

19 personal monitoring program. Although, we do have 

20 some area monitoring data that I'll discuss later 

21 that we intend to use to bound the exposures in the 

22 residual contamination period. 
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 1991, by the way, is the year production 

2 stopped, commercial production stopped at 

3 Blockson.

4 So, the Class evaluated by NIOSH was all 

5 employees who worked. We modified it from the 

6 maintenance and operations to all employees, which 

7 is typically what we'd do. Looked at the entire 

8 workforce who worked in any area of the Blockson 

9 site in that same time period, July 1st, 1960 

10 through December 31, '91.

11 Like I said, this is in the residual 

12 contamination period, although Blockson Chemical 

13 made some type of phosphate products starting in 

14 1930 all the way through 1991. So, it's a long

15 period of operation with a little punctuated period 

16 of ten years where they made uranium for the AEC 

17 which I'll talk about later.

18 Just to refresh your memories, during 

19 that early period, we see the petition in SEC 58 

20 I believe. The petition for 1951 through '61, that 

21 covered time period and the Board -- after -- we 

22 received that in 2006 and after much deliberation 
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 if you recall about these various radon models and 

2 such, it was decided by the Board that we couldn't 

3 reconstruct dose in Building 40 which is the main 

4 operations facility at the site and an SEC was added 

5 in 2010. So, it took four years of deliberation 

6 to add that Class.

7 Now, I will note that if you see the 

8 petition was from '51 to '62, there is a disconnect 

9 between what we're looking at today. Because just 

10 before that Class was added, the Department of 

11 Labor reduced the covered period from 1962 to 1950 

12 based on some documentation that NIOSH had 

13 discovered during our evaluation of the petition 

14 itself and since then, there's been some other 

15 documentation identified that corroborates the 

16 1960 completion date. 

17 So, again, remember the early period 

18 was now 1951 to '60 not '62.

19 The data sources that we used -- almost 

20 entirely what I'm going to talk about today is based 

21 on what's in the Technical Basis Document that was 

22 reviewed by SC&A back in the 2007 time frame. We 
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 have a Technical Basis Document TKBS-0002, which 

2 is the Technical Basis Document for the Blockson 

3 Chemical Facility. 

4 It was originally issued in 2006. I 

5 believe we're up to Rev 4 now. That was issued in 

6 2014. So, it's a fairly current document. 

7 We also looked at Technical Information 

8 Bulletins. There are several generic ones out 

9 there that deal with reconstructing dose from radon 

10 exposures and there's a TIB on exposures at 

11 phosphate plants. So, there are a few TIBs that 

12 were involved here.

13 We also relied on information from 

14 petitioners and former workers. The petitioner 

15 provided some information on Residual 

16 Contamination studies and such and we interviewed 

17 -- not for this particular petition but for the 

18 earlier petition, SEC 58 Petition, we did interview 

19 five workers from the site to develop our approach 

20 that's outlined in the TBK -- the Technical Basis 

21 Document for Blockson.

22 And also in the 2007 time frame, we had 
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 two meetings in Joliet. One was a worker outreach 

2 meeting and one was a town hall-type meeting where 

3 we also received some information from workers.

4 Of course, we also relied on the Site 

5 Research Database. There's something like 1400 

6 documents in there related to, as you can imagine, 

7 the history of the plant, chemical processing, 

8 procedures and such and that sort of thing, 

9 contracts. So, we relied on that and then also, 

10 as usual, we looked at previous dose 

11 reconstructions.

12 This slide shows you the status of the 

13 dose reconstruction as of, I think it's August 

14 19th, a few months ago. But, I checked. As of 

15 Friday, that number's still good. We have 143 

16 petitions we've received for Blockson.

17 And the slide says we have 130 cases for 

18 employees who worked during the period under 

19 evaluation. That's '60 to 1991. 

20 That's somewhat misleading because 

21 remember I said there's an earlier SEC. Of those 

22 130, 110 also have employment in the earlier SEC 
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 period. So, in reality, these numbers aren't 

2 perfect, but this evaluation will probably end up 

3 affecting 20 or so workers, not 130. Because many 

4 of -- as I would say, assume that many of the 110 

5 with earlier employment were covered under the 

6 previous SEC. Not perfect because there may be 

7 some employment issues there.

8 We've completed 127 dose 

9 reconstructions. So, we have three active cases 

10 in house.

11 And as I stated earlier, we have no 

12 internal or external monitoring records for 

13 workers during the residual period at all.

14 Just to refresh your memory about the 

15 background at Blockson. They processed Florida 

16 phosphate rock into phosphoric acid and from that 

17 phosphoric acid, they made various forms of 

18 phosphates, di- and tri-phosphate-type materials 

19 and the plant ran through, at least during this 

20 period, about 6,000 tons of phosphate rock per 

21 week. Pretty good workload.

22 Since the phosphate rock was known to 
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 contain about .012 percent uranium by weight and 

2 the AEC was looking for any source to develop their 

3 inventory of uranium supply, they turned to 

4 Blockson Chemical and thought, well, maybe you 

5 could extract the uranium as part of your process. 

6 Which they eventually issued a contract and 

7 developed a process to recover the uranium.

8 In 6,000 tons of uranium, there's about 

9 -- or phosphate rock, there's about 1400 pounds of 

10 uranium, which gives you an idea of the scale. A 

11 lot of material went through that plant to extract 

12 the uranium.

13 Blockson did modify their process and 

14 actually built Building 55, which is a separate 

15 building, standalone building, one story, like 100 

16 by 175 foot brick building or block building where 

17 all the operations relevant to extracting the 

18 uranium occurred. So, the source term actually is 

19 Building 55 when we're talking about uranium.

20 I mentioned they did use a wet process. 

21 This phosphate rock was originally -- was calcine. 

22 They just heated it up to drive off the organic 
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 material and that was done outside of Building 40 

2 and then transferred into Building 40. 

3 The rock was pulverized, digested in 

4 sulfuric acid. The uranium actually went with the 

5 sulfuric acid and so, the sulfuric acid stream was 

6 diverted into Building 55 where they precipitated 

7 out the uranium into drums. Chemical process 

8 steps in the middle there, but that's basically the 

9 gist of it.

10 The waste, of course, this uranium in 

11 the ore was in essentially equilibrium with all of 

12 the uranium decay chain. U-234, thorium-230, 

13 radon, radium. So, there was equilibrium there. 

14 The radium in that ore actually went with the waste, 

15 which was called the phosphogypsum and that was 

16 deposited outside in these large piles. 

17 Eventually, it grew to a 227-acre 90-foot high 

18 pile. Not real close to the facility, but on their 

19 1,000-acre property. So, it was a huge amount of 

20 material there.

21 I did a rough calculation and it seems 

22 to me that only about 8 percent of that pile is 
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 related to AEC activities. Because if you know the 

2 volume of the pile and the density of the material, 

3 you can kind of do a calculation that will give you 

4 an idea and so, maybe 8 to 10 percent of the pile 

5 was related to AEC activities. The rest was due 

6 to the commercial operations that started in 1930 

7 and ended in 1991.

8 So, there's some issues there with how 

9 you treat that residual contamination since you've 

10 got this radium sort of buried in the middle of this 

11 huge 227-acre pile.

12 I mentioned already the phosphoric acid 

13 stream contained uranium. That was done and 

14 processed in Building 55. I've kind of gone over 

15 this slide already. Got a little bit ahead of 

16 myself.

17 Okay. The uranium concentrates were 

18 digested, packaged and the final product was 

19 essentially some form of yellowcake, ammonium 

20 diuranate, something like that. I was about 40 to 

21 50 percent uranium by weight and it was shipped off 

22 to the AEC facilities.
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 As I mentioned, production ended in 

2 1960 and ultimately, Blockson recovered 118 tons 

3 of uranium in that time period. Quite a bit of 

4 uranium was processed through there. But, as I 

5 mentioned, there was 6,000 tons of this rock going 

6 through the plant at the same time per week.

7 So, as I just described the process, you 

8 can imagine the sources of internal and external 

9 -- the sources of residual contamination are going 

10 to be the internal/external doses from the uranium 

11 contamination that was in Building 55. 

12 What you also have is a dose from the 

13 progeny: the radon, the radium. There was 

14 actually -- uranium was there in equilibrium, but 

15 there was also some thorium in this ore and our 

16 calculation, it's in the top line of the TBD, is 

17 about one-thirtieth. The thorium was about 

18 one-thirtieth the activity of the uranium. 

19 Thorium-232. So, we've included that in our 

20 calculations.

21 So, how are we going to bound the 

22 sources of this residual contamination? This is 
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 after 1960. Is we use -- again, this is in the TIB, 

2 the TBD. Building 55 is used to bound the dose from 

3 the residual AEC-related contamination, that is, 

4 the uranium that is in that building. 

5 You remember they're still processing 

6 6,000 tons of this rock through the plant. So the 

7 residual contamination is somewhat diluted almost 

8 immediately with the commercial operations that 

9 are going through the plant.

10 And so, we're going to use Building 55 

11 to bound the uranium doses and the phosphogypsum 

12 stacks are going to be used to bound the radon 

13 exposures from the AEC-related activity. That 8 

14 to 10 percent of the pile that's still generating 

15 radium and is still there today as far as I know.

16 So, what kind of data do we have 

17 available for us to do these bounding-type 

18 calculations? Well, we had bioassay data from the 

19 uranium recovery workers. HASL, the Health and 

20 Safety Lab for the AEC, actually did uranium 

21 measurements on 25 workers. They collected a 

22 total of 122 samples between 1954 and '58. 
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 We also have some air sampling results 

2 that were performed in 1978 and '83. In 1978, 

3 Argonne National Laboratory did an on-site survey 

4 in Building 55 as part of the FUSRAP program and 

5 did some particulate air sampling which didn't 

6 detect any long-lived activity above background, 

7 by the way.

8 And in 1983, Olin Mathieson who by that 

9 time owned Blockson Chemical contracted with 

10 Herman Cember, who most of you probably know of, 

11 to do some radon and particulate measurements as 

12 well. They did -- I think 11 workers had BZ samples 

13 that they took. None of those detected activity 

14 except for one which is a very small amount of 

15 activity on the BZ sample. Breathing Zone 

16 Sampler.

17 Argonne also did extensive 

18 contamination and radiation surveys in that 1978 

19 survey. This is in Building 55 only. I think they 

20 surveyed 95 percent of all the floor area of that 

21 building and 90 percent of the walls and did a 

22 number of contamination surveys. I think they 
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 found contamination above background, removable 

2 contamination in 70 spots in that building.

3 We also had some radon monitoring data. 

4 I mentioned Argonne did particulate surveys. They 

5 also did some radon measurements as well in '78, 

6 but not on the phosphogypsum pile. This was in 

7 Building 55.

8 And the 1983 survey also did this 

9 measurement -- four or five measurements on site 

10 of radon and I'll talk about those in a little bit.

11 The last bullet is cut off here, but 

12 what that says is we also have flux measurements 

13 from the phosphogypsum piles taken in 1993. Flux 

14 measurement is sort of an exhalation rate of the 

15 radon. It's picocuries per square meter per 

16 second. It's taken, and I'll talk about this 

17 later, to demonstrate compliance with EPA 

18 regulations concerning radon flux coming off of 

19 phosphogypsum piles. There were about 300 

20 measurements taken in 1993, in November of 1993.

21 So, to bound the internal dose at this 

22 site, we're going to use the TBD approach which 
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 provides intakes of uranium during operations. We 

2 have bioassay data and we estimated the chronic 

3 exposure of these workers and at the end of 

4 operations, we estimate that the workers were 

5 taking in about 13 picocuries of uranium per day.

6 So, we're going to assume that that's 

7 the start. You know, there's not a sharp line 

8 there. So, at the end of operations, we're going 

9 to assume that's what people are breathing day one 

10 of the residual period. So, that's our starting 

11 point.

12 I also mentioned we have contamination 

13 data from Building 55 in 1978 taken by Argonne and 

14 the highest area of concentration they measure for 

15 alpha was 640 dpm per 100 square centimeters. So, 

16 if you take that 640 dpm per 100 square centimeters 

17 and re-suspend it, the re-suspension factor of 1 

18 times 10 to the -6, you can estimate the air 

19 concentration in 1978 which comes out to an intake 

20 of about .28 picocuries per day.

21 So, you have the TIB-70 approach where 

22 you have a starting concentration, an ending 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 you connect an exponential curve between the two 

2 and so now we can estimate the uranium intake at 

3 any time between 1960 and '78 and beyond because 

4 we're going to assume the slope continued down 

5 through 1991, and it worked out fairly nicely.

6 This TBD was actually developed before 

7 TIB-70 and this approach is pretty much in line with 

8 what was in TIB-70 ultimately. It's become a very 

9 standard approach in residual contamination 

10 periods.

11 As I mentioned, these values, we used 

12 -- compare -- Even though it didn't use TIB-70, they 

13 compare very favorably with what we would get if 

14 we used the TIB-70 approach today. 

15 This may be even a little higher. 

16 Because again, we took the highest contamination 

17 survey value in 1978 and we assumed that the workers 

18 were breathing 13 picocuries in 1960. Which was 

19 the median intake by the way. Not the 95th 

20 percentile of the workers.

21 As usual, we can include ingestion 

22 pathways as well. We use that same bioassay data 
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 and say, well, if they weren't inhaling the 

2 material and they ingested it, how much would they 

3 have to ingest in order to excrete 13 picocuries 

4 per day. That's the starting point and that came 

5 out 41 picocuries per liter or 41 picocuries per 

6 day ingestion and then we used the same exponential 

7 clearance function that we developed for the 

8 inhalation intake, the amount in any given year.

9 I mention though that the uranium is in 

10 equilibrium with U-234 and thorium-230. We 

11 assumed for this, and this is in the TBD, that it 

12 stayed in equilibrium through the entire process 

13 even though it's probably not necessarily true. 

14 So, any intake of uranium would give you a 

15 corresponding intake of uranium-234 or 

16 thorium-230. So, we've assumed that the uranium 

17 that was being drummed essentially was 

18 contaminated with thorium-230.

19 Okay. External dose, Argonne did 

20 measurements in '78, like I said. They surveyed 

21 about 95 percent of the floor area and they went 

22 and surveyed the hot spots, the areas where they 
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 found contamination on the floor. I think they 

2 ended up with 70 hot spots. I think they did 63 

3 spots, only seven of which had measurements above 

4 background. 

5 The building background was about .02 

6 to .03 mR per hour. Which those of you who know 

7 on an environmental level is about two to three 

8 times what you consider ambient background, 10 

9 micro R per hour, or .1 mR per hour.

10 So, general background was around .02 

11 to .03. The hot spots went from .04 to .2 mR per 

12 hour. The seven. But, a number of them were sort 

13 of in inaccessible areas where you wouldn't expect 

14 a worker to be standing most of the time. Like they 

15 were inside of a pipe scale or on top of a digester 

16 tank, that sort of thing.

17 Nonetheless, we used these hot spots to 

18 develop our external dose exposures and we ended 

19 up assigning them as a log-normal distribution with 

20 a median value of .03 mR per hour with a 95th 

21 percentile equal to .2 mR per hour, which is one 

22 of the highest values that was measured on the hot 
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 spots. That equates to a GSD, geometric standard 

2 deviation, of I think around 3.

3 So, the median value is .03 mR per hour, 

4 then your annual photon exposure, your best 

5 estimate is about 60 millirem per year external 

6 dose from the residual contamination period.

7 We looked at the contamination levels 

8 based on alpha -- based on dpm per 100 square 

9 centimeters and the beta dose from the 

10 contamination levels that were there were pretty 

11 trivial. They were like 1 or 2 mR per year. Not 

12 much. So, we were just assuming that 60 mR per year 

13 bounds, incorporates the beta exposure to the skin 

14 as well.

15 And again, the amount we're ascribing 

16 to the beta is favorable in comparison with the dose 

17 estimates based on a general contamination survey. 

18 If you take the FGR11 -- 13 numbers, EPA document, 

19 you can calculate the external exposure rate from 

20 surface contamination and it's pretty small.

21 But, remember that these measurements

22 also include the commercial operations that were 
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 continuing after 1960. So, this is a somewhat 

2 conservative estimate because AEC operations ended 

3 in '60 and we have evidence that Building 55 was 

4 used through 1978 for commercial activities. So, 

5 the contamination here is not necessarily related 

6 to the AEC activities, but we're going to assume 

7 it is because we can't differentiate, you know, 

8 between the two.

9 Okay. Let's move over to radon 

10 exposures. Again, I mention radon was measured in 

11 '78 and '83. The Argonne measurements in Building 

12 55 range from .14 to .61 picocuries per liter. 

13 The 1983 survey measurements, they 

14 didn't -- they gave -- unfortunately, they reported 

15 results in counts per minute which is kind of 

16 interesting. But, they did say that of the four 

17 or five measurements that were made, the highest 

18 value was .042 working levels and that was not the 

19 phosphogypsum pile. So, the phosphogypsum pile by 

20 definition then is less than .042 working levels. 

21 Which if you assume 70 percent equilibrium for

22 outdoor air, it's about six-tenths of a picocurie 
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 per liter on the phosphogypsum pile.

2 Of course, you know, I mention the radon 

3 from the active phosphate work is not applicable, 

4 but we have no way of differentiating AEC radon on 

5 a phosphogypsum pile from the commercial 

6 activities. There's just no way. So, you got 

7 this 10 percent or 8 percent chunk in the middle. 

8 How much of that is AEC? We're assuming it's all 

9 AEC-derived.

10 I talked about these radon flux 

11 measurements, the 300 that were taken in November 

12 during various weather conditions and such during 

13 November of 1993 and the highest flux measurement 

14 was 10.1 picocuries per meter squared per second.

15 It was the highest mean value. They 

16 did multiple measurements at individual sites. 

17 So, that's why it's called the highest mean. It 

18 was 10.1 in '93. The average -- weighted average 

19 value of all the measurements was around 4.

20 Unfortunately, even with all these 

21 great 300 measurements, they did not report a radon 

22 air concentration value and there's no really good 
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 way to convert that directly to a radon air 

2 concentration although we do know that in 1983 it 

3 was less than four tenths of a -- less than about 

4 six tenths of a picocurie per liter.

5 So, we looked at Texas City Chemicals 

6 which had an inactive phosphogypsum pile as well 

7 and they had similar radon flux measurements that 

8 were made because of the EPA requirement and they 

9 also provided radon concentration measurements in 

10 addition to the flux measurements. 

11 So, the Texas City Chemical flux was --

12 the average value was 10 compared to the highest 

13 value which is 10 at Blockson. So, you would think 

14 it would be somewhat conservative to use that value 

15 because their mean value is 10. I'm sorry. Their 

16 mean value was 10. The highest at Blockson was 10.

17 And it seems to compare pretty 

18 favorably with what happened at Blockson. It's 

19 phosphogypsum pile. It used the same Florida 

20 phosphate ore that had the very same concentration 

21 of uranium. They used a wet chemical process. It 

22 was an inactive pile. They're both inactive. 
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 Very similar operations and the value measured at 

2 Texas City Chemicals was .42 picocuries per liter. 

3 The highest value measured.

4 So, we're proposing to use that as the 

5 value to bound exposures at Blockson Chemical in 

6 1993.

7 Now, I mentioned that they were both 

8 inactive fly ash piles. Well, inactive fly ash 

9 piles, according to EPA research, tend to vent less 

10 radon because a crust develops over the top and by 

11 the EPA research, it's about a factor of five 

12 difference in the ventilation rates. 

13 So, if we adjust for the active to 

14 inactive, you end up with 2.1 picocuries per liter 

15 which we're going to use as the upper-bound 

16 estimate for Blockson in 1960. So, you have 2.1 

17 picocuries per liter in 1960 and .4 in 1993. You 

18 connect the dots and you can estimate the radon 

19 concentration any time in between those two dates.

20 Like I said, we do an exponential 

21 depletion rate and presume to connect 1960 and '93 

22 values and it is our opinion these annual exposures 
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 that we're assigning based on this model or method 

2 bound all available radon data for Blockson.

3 And again, we didn't just use the Texas 

4 City data. We also have some corroborating values 

5 at the site which seem to put it in the right 

6 ballpark. There's also some Florida Institute of 

7 Phosphate Research data that indicates that active 

8 phosphogypsum piles are around 1.7 picocuries per 

9 cubic meter. So, it all kind of fits in that 

10 general ballpark.

11 So, in summary, we believe that we can 

12 bound the exposures for internal dose from the 

13 uranium and its progeny during this period. We 

14 have a method to bound the radon exposures. We can 

15 bound the external exposures. 

16 Medical exposures are not covered in 

17 the residual contamination period so we don't have 

18 to reconstruct those. So, it's not applicable 

19 here.

20 And that concludes my presentation. 

21 I'm sure there are some questions because I kind 

22 of breezed through a 50-page document in pretty 
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 short order.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Board Member 

4 questions?

5 MR. BURKHART: Yes. I had a question, 

6 if I could.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Who's this?

8 MR. BURKHART: My name's Harry 

9 Burkhart.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. No. Please 

11 until the Board Member asks their questions. 

12 We'll get to petitioners --

13 MR. BURKHART: Okay. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- later.

15 MR. BURKHART: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do Board Members on 

17 the phone have any questions? Yes. Gen, you had 

18 --

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, SC&A reviewed 

20 the TBD in the previous evaluation of Blockson and 

21 have they reviewed this recent --

22 DR. NETON: No. Well, they haven't 
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 reviewed any -- they reviewed Rev 0, I believe. 

2 Which was -- or Rev 1 possibly back in 2007. 

3 There's a couple of iterations since then, but it 

4 has not changed substantively since that point. 

5 Most of the revisions -- one of the 

6 revisions had to do with adding the SEC Class. 

7 There was another one that was added because there 

8 was a mistake in one of the tables. I don't think 

9 it's substantively changed from the original 

10 version that was issued in 2006.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think we need to 

12 hear from them as to what --

13 DR. NETON: Yes, and I honestly don't 

14 have in my head what the findings were and all the 

15 resolutions, but I know they did review this 

16 document or the TBD a long time ago.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, not its 

18 application to this time period.

19 DR. NETON: No. No, that's correct.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 DR. NETON: Yes, they were focusing 

22 primarily on the covered period.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

2 DR. NETON: You know, the covered 

3 years. Not necessarily residual contamination 

4 period. Although as I mentioned, our starting 

5 point is based on what we did during the covered 

6 period. But, either way, they haven't looked at 

7 it closely from a residual contamination 

8 perspective.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie.

10 MEMBER BEACH: I don't really have so 

11 much of a question as more of some comments.

12 When I read through the document, it was 

13 really clear to me that there are several issues. 

14 One being the complication between the residual 

15 period and then the commercial period. That's a 

16 little complication. Which you mentioned.

17 DR. NETON: Well, I'm sorry. You mean 

18 as far as the covered dates?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, the -- well, no, 

20 not the covered date.

21 DR. NETON: That's --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Just the fact that they 
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 did commercial work that's not covered. Yes.

2 DR. NETON: Okay. I see what you're 

3 saying. Yes.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So, no questions here. 

5 Just comments.

6 And then one question, though. Have 

7 you looked at the surrogate data against the Board 

8 criteria?

9 DR. NETON: Yes. Yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: And it meets?

11 DR. NETON: We believe it meets the 

12 criteria.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

14 DR. NETON: It's summarized briefly in 

15 the Evaluation Report. I forget which section, 

16 but there was some bulletized lists and I kind of 

17 breezed through them about why it's the same 

18 chemical process and the same uranium 

19 concentration. That sort of thing. Inactive 

20 pile. 

21 There's a ten-year discrepancy between 

22 the dates of the measurements. Texas was '83. 
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 Blockson was '93. But, phosphogypsum pile to 

2 phosphogypsum pile. It's not like those 

3 engineering controls were different or something 

4 like that. At least in my opinion.

5 MEMBER BEACH: And then there's the --

6 there's some air sampling data from later years and 

7 then the sample data from earlier years. My 

8 suggestion would be just to have SC&A look at it 

9 in a Work Group, maybe, meeting. That's --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Let's get to 

11 that in a second. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A little early. 

14 Jumping the gun here. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Gen.

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: If that happens, 

18 it'll probably take care of this. There's 

19 probably a little question, but you're talking 

20 about those big old phosphogypsum stacks out there 

21 being a source of exposure and I think you said your 

22 calculations are all based on assuming they're 
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 inactive and --

2 DR. NETON: Well --

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: -- or were inactive 

4 during that period.

5 DR. NETON: Yes, that's correct.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: And I was just 

7 wondering if that's verified that they were 

8 actually?

9 DR. NETON: Well, production stopped 

10 in 1991. The commercial operations stopped in 

11 '91. The measurements were made in '93. So, they 

12 were inactive for at least two years or about two 

13 years.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: But, they weren't 

15 disturbed at all?

16 DR. NETON: I don't know. I can't --

17 I can't -- yes, that would be --

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Assumption of the 

19 crust, they were --

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

21 answer to that.

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: -- selling it or 
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 using it in some way to get rid of it.

2 DR. NETON: Yes.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean it's a big

4 pile.

5 DR. NETON: Remember. One could 

6 almost make the argument that, you know, how far 

7 is the radon that's in the middle of the pile going 

8 to diffuse out of it. It's maybe none, but we're 

9 assuming that it's all related. This entire 

10 227-acre pile is related to AEC activities. Yes, 

11 it's confusing.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Do that. 

13 Well, Henry.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, the other is I 

15 don't remember the location. The weather 

16 conditions in the two. Blockson area versus this 

17 area.

18 DR. NETON: Yes, it's a valid point. 

19 We didn't examine that.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And if you remember, 

21 Texas City was an SEC --

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- and it was 

2 based -- there was lack of --

3 DR. NETON: Radon. Well, the same as 

4 Blockson for radon --

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 DR. NETON: -- in the commercial 

7 operation. But, we can't confuse the radon that 

8 we can't reconstruct in Building 40 which is not 

9 applicable anymore to the radon in the pile.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Right. 

11 Yes. Yes. Yes. But, what I was saying is I don't 

12 think we had ever done -- because Texas City became 

13 an SEC was not --

14 DR. NETON: That's correct.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Didn't explore very 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- explore it in 

18 great detail.

19 DR. NETON: That's correct.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And so forth. So, 

21 there's probably information, but it's been a while 

22 since any of us have looked at that report.
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 MEMBER MUNN: It was all radon.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It was -- yes. Yes.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: And it's clearly 

4 similar. So.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil.

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I have a question. 

7 The pile of the spent phosphate rod, was that 

8 covered or was that just dumped loosely out there. 

9 My thinking is wind has dried out and blow it around 

10 or particularly, up there, they probably got a lot 

11 of moisture that may be leaching some stuff out as 

12 -- was there any concern about those?

13 DR. NETON: I don't know that it was 

14 covered or not. I can't imagine they'd cover 227 

15 acres, but remember, the surface contamination is 

16 not relevant to our residual period because it's 

17 been buried. I mean over time the cover gets --

18 it's covered with commercial activities. So, I'm 

19 not sure that would be a source term in the residual 

20 period.

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Interesting.

22 DR. NETON: Yes, it's --
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 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: How you parse that 

2 as a -- yes, into that.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Board Members on the 

4 phone have any questions?

5 MEMBER FIELD: Jim, I got a question. 

6 This is Bill.

7 DR. NETON: Yes, sure, Bill.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Can you go to slide 19?

9 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, Bill. I didn't 

10 hear the question.

11 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, can you go back to 

12 slide 19?

13 DR. NETON: Oh. Okay. I don't know 

14 what slide 19 is. But --

15 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. When you're 

16 talking about the measurements of the air 

17 concentrations near the stacks. Maybe your 19 is 

18 different than my 19.

19 DR. NETON: What's the title of it?

20 MEMBER FIELD: I don't know. It's 

21 moving while you move. So, every time you move it, 

22 it moves.
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 DR. NETON: Okay. Well, let me -- can 

2 you see --

3 MEMBER FIELD: Let me just ask you a 

4 general question. You were talking about there 

5 were air measurements made near the various 

6 phosphate stacks piles.

7 DR. NETON: Well, Argonne only made 

8 measurements in Building 55. There were only --

9 there was only one measurement at Blockson made 

10 near the phosphogypsum pile and the value was not 

11 reported, but it was less than the highest 

12 concentration that was measured which was .004 

13 working levels. So, we don't --

14 MEMBER FIELD: Right. But, there were 

15 measurements made there at Texas City Chemicals. 

16 Right?

17 DR. NETON: Oh, the ones near Texas 

18 City Chemicals, the maximum value was .42 

19 picocuries per liter. That's what we used. 

20 Right.

21 MEMBER FIELD: Right. And where were 

22 they -- do you know how far away from the piles they 
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 were measured?

2 DR. NETON: I don't recall exactly, but 

3 I thought they might have been on the piles. But, 

4 I'd have to verify that. I don't recall for 

5 certain.

6 MEMBER FIELD: But the maximum .42 

7 sounds -- like that sounds fairly low for me. I'm 

8 surprised by that. But, otherwise, I think it's 

9 -- you know, what you've come up here with is really 

10 for the claimant-favorable.

11 DR. NETON: Okay. Thanks. Yes, we 

12 could certainly take a closer look at that. But 

13 --

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

15 Members on the phone wish to ask questions? Okay. 

16 Go ahead. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I'm 

18 sorry. I was on mute. I have a question.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Go ahead,

20 Paul.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right. This is 

22 for Dr. Neton. Am I echoing or what?
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 DR. NETON: I can hear you fine. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You're fine.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So, the pile 

4 eventually gets pretty deep there with commercial

5 stuff. Do we know the expected distance for which 

6 radon is actually able to escape from these piles?

7 DR. NETON: No, that's a good question 

8 though. I don't know the --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean in reality, 

10 there's a pretty high probability that the radon 

11 from that era never or almost never gets out if it's 

12 got a pretty heavy burden over the top of it --

13 DR. NETON: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- from the commercial 

15 stuff.

16 DR. NETON: Yes, we thought about that, 

17 but then we also figured if we maximize it based 

18 on the measurements that we had --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

20 DR. NETON: -- that we'd also be 

21 claimant-favorable, but you're right.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
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 DR. NETON: There's a good chance if 

2 you do the calculation the diffusion length may be 

3 so short that none of it would escape the piles.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

5 Members with questions? If not, let Ted. You 

6 wanted to --

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. I understand that the 

8 petitioners would like me to read a letter that they 

9 sent in for the record. So, if you're on the line, 

10 unless you don't want me to -- if you don't want 

11 me to do that, let me know and I'll let you go ahead 

12 and just speak. Otherwise, I'll do that. Okay.

13 So, this letter was addressed to staff 

14 here on behalf of sending it to the Board. So, the 

15 message is this. 

16 If time allows, could you please refer 

17 to the following when evaluating Blockson Chemical 

18 and that's the SEC 88 for Texas City, SEC 177 for 

19 Vitro, SEC 133 for Mallinckrodt and SEC 185 for 

20 Ames.

21 All the above include provisions for 

22 residual contamination and possible unknown 
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 conditions that may have existed after the dates 

2 of production. It does not appear that this was 

3 the case in the original Blockson SEC that was 

4 changed from March 1962 to June 1960.

5 The one-page U308 document that was 

6 relied so heavily on, in fact, shows the contract 

7 ending on September 15th, 1960 and production 

8 ending in June of 1960. The SEC was dated as of 

9 June 1960.

10 This is in contrast to the above SECs 

11 that went to the end of their contracts even though 

12 there was known to be no production up to the end 

13 of their contract dates.

14 Although all dose reconstructions and 

15 all studies were based on an original contract date 

16 of 1962 including OCAS TKBS 2 page 4, this one-page, 

17 unsupported chart was considered sufficient enough 

18 to change the date making the previous ten years 

19 of research and data by the DOE and NIOSH incorrect.

20 Although NIOSH mentions in the SEC that 

21 there are multiple references to Olin contract 

22 ending in 1960, we have yet to see any of those 
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 documents being referenced. We have, however, 

2 requested on numerous dates copies of any documents 

3 supporting any earlier ending date including the 

4 written notice required when changing the contract 

5 date or ending production early.

6 At the very least, there would have to 

7 be written notice required to terminate production 

8 in June of 1960 as indicated in the one-page, 

9 unsupported chart, receipts of U308.

10 In March 2014, Ombudsman Malcolm Nelson 

11 reviewed our claim and responded to our concerns 

12 of changing ten years of research by DOE and NIOSH 

13 with a one-page document of unknown origin. 

14 Malcolm said in his letter that he would address 

15 this issue in the 2014 annual report to Congress. 

16 He said in that report to Congress they 

17 will question DEEOIC's reliance on a one-page 

18 document and will stress that, quote, there appears 

19 to be a double standard, i.e., when it comes to 

20 evidence submitted by claimants, DEEOIC is usually 

21 fairly demanding in terms of evidence that it'll 

22 accept. It's hard to imagine DEEOIC crediting 
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 such evidence if it were submitted by a claimant, 

2 close quote.

3 There are other errors in this one-page 

4 document that was given such credence including, 

5 but not limited to the reference to Texas City 

6 production dates that do not correspond to dates 

7 referenced in the Texas City SEC 88.

8 At the very least, considering the 

9 questionable reliability of the one-page 

10 unsupported document, we would request that the 

11 original contract date of March 1962 be used in this 

12 SEC.

13 Dr. John Howard did mention in a letter 

14 January 13th, 2012 to the Honorable Adam Kinzinger, 

15 Member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 

16 response to our concerns that, quote, although the 

17 1958 amendment of the contract had a March 31st, 

18 1962 expiration date, the contract allowed for 

19 either party to terminate the contract without 

20 penalty provided there was a written six-month 

21 notice of termination. The early termination of 

22 the contract on September 15th, 1960 and the 
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 termination of production on June 30th, 1960 could 

2 have been at the discretion of Blockson or the AEC 

3 or both. NIOSH currently has had no information 

4 on which party initiated the early termination, 

5 close quote.

6 We believe this could indicate that 

7 there never was an early termination.

8 In keeping with the original spirit of 

9 EEOICPA, it would seem to be in the, quote, favor 

10 of the claimant, close quote, to at a minimum 

11 provide an SEC with an ending date reflecting the 

12 original contract date of March 31st, 1962. 

13 It may, in fact, be more appropriate to 

14 extend the SEC coverage date to 1991 since all 

15 equipment used in the uranium removal process was 

16 still on-site.

17 According to the 1978 Argonne study, 

18 numerous, quote, hot spots, close quote, still 

19 existed. The 1978 Argonne study further stated 

20 based on their findings that few individuals are 

21 expected to acquire such radiation doses annually.

22 Also, a 1996 study conducted for Olin, 
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 indicated a yellow radioactive powder assumed to 

2 be yellowcake was still on-site.

3 And that concludes the letter.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do the petitioners 

5 wish to make any more further comments at this 

6 point? Okay. 

7 If not, contract end dates, that's not 

8 the purview of the Board nor of DCAS. So, it's 

9 noted for the record under that.

10 I think we're ready to move on. If 

11 there are any suggestions on what we should do with 

12 this, how we should handle this SEC evaluation.

13 Josie, you're --

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Just a question.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A question's fine, 

16 too.

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: There was a 

18 reference in that letter to the one-page 

19 unsupported document. Could Dr. Neton tell us 

20 about what the claimant is referring to?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Petitioner.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Petitioner.
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 DR. NETON: I don't have it in the top 

2 of my head, but it was a shipping document, I 

3 believe. Receipts of uranium and such that listed 

4 numerous facilities. One of which was Blockson 

5 Chemical about how much uranium was produced at 

6 certain times. But, I don't recall the specifics 

7 of it. But, that document was used as evidence to 

8 move the completion date of the contract from 1962 

9 to '60.

10 The contract actually did go through 

11 '62, but I think there was some provision that the 

12 contract could be terminated at any time and it was 

13 terminated earlier in 1960. But, I don't recall 

14 the exact specifics of that document.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: What was --

16 DR. NETON: It's referenced in the 

17 Evaluation Report with an SRDB number. I could 

18 certainly --

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 DR. NETON: -- make it available.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: In your mind, was 

22 there any question about the official nature of the 
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 document? I mean was it a supported document?

2 DR. NETON: I had no reason to question 

3 it. Although, you know, we forwarded that 

4 information to the Department of Labor and as Dr. 

5 Melius indicated, they evaluated the merit of that 

6 document against, you know, the completion date.

7 But, I do think there was other -- as 

8 we heard, there's other supporting documentation 

9 that's surfaced since that time that indicates that 

10 that end date that we were using -- that the 

11 Department of Labor has established is actually the 

12 correct date. But, again, we don't --

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I mean, Dave, we 

15 have no -- and DCAS has no role other than providing 

16 information, but we don't adjudicate, you know --

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- the end dates. 

19 That's in the legislation. Yes. Okay.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I was just --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well --

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- I was just 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 questioning is the document -- was the document 

2 verified as a material document.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, but, that's 

4 not --

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And it was.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's up to DOL to do 

7 that.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: We don't -- right. 

9 DOL did it and that's --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, but I'm not 

11 sure it's appropriate that, you know, to expect Jim 

12 Neton to respond to that. That's sort of my sense. 

13 I think it's, you know -- he provided the factual 

14 basis for what happened, but it's not -- NIOSH is 

15 not a direct party to the --

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- evaluation of 

18 that document and the establishment of that. I 

19 think the role has been, and I think we've done that 

20 for quite some time, is to refer the documentation. 

21 If there's documentation that questions or, you 

22 know, the period under EEOICPA, then we pass that 
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 on --

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- through DCAS.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, it's up to --

6 yes, Brad.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Myself, Jim, you 

8 know, this is pretty complicated and being on 

9 Blockson before, we went through a lot of battles. 

10 But, I'd like our contractor to take a look at what 

11 we've got there. Right. Myself. But --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is that a motion?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: I'll go ahead and second 

16 it.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any further

18 comment? And we also have a Blockson Work Group 

19 chaired by Ms. Munn.

20 MEMBER MUNN: In name only. Jim -- oh.

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, when they 

22 review it, I would say we especially pay attention 
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 to the surrogate data and the comparison of the two 

2 sites. I think that's --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think there 

4 were -- you know, my own view is there was a number 

5 of sort of technical issues --

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- that are hard to 

8 explain in a short period of time.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think Jim did it 

11 and the report is helpful, but I think we need to 

12 evaluate. There's a number of assumptions there. 

13 I'm not sure that any of them were wrong, but I think 

14 they all need to be evaluated and do that. So. 

15 Okay. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: Can you remind us who's 

17 on the Blockson. I know Wanda's the Chair. I was 

18 just curious.

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wanda's chair. 

20 Brad is on it. Jim Melius is on it and I'm on it.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, perfect. 

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think. I just 
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 looked it up. Right.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Fully staffed.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. So, I 

4 think -- can we have a voice vote on that? The 

5 motion. The motion is to refer this to the Work 

6 Group for evaluation and to have SC&A evaluate a 

7 report and when they're done with their evaluation, 

8 we'll -- the Work Group will meet and follow up. 

9 So, that's -- all in favor say aye.

10 (A chorus of ayes)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed? Opposed? 

12 Abstain? Okay. Very good.

13 MR. BURKHART: Anybody there?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're here.

15 MR. BURKHART: Just listen. I'm just 

16 wondering if it's too late for a petitioner to 

17 speak.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I gave you lots 

19 of opportunities.

20 MR. BURKHART: Well, I know, but I'm 

21 not up on these phones like you guys are. I'm sorry 

22 for that.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, okay, speak 

2 quickly then.

3 MR. BURKHART: But, if I -- I can answer 

4 -- I can answer some of those questions about the 

5 documents that you guys -- that one-page document 

6 that you guys are worried about in trying to figure 

7 out what it is.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think as I've just 

9 said, that's really not appropriate to this Board's 

10 function or what NIOSH does.

11 MR. BURKHART: Well, but you're 

12 wondering about the written consent and I can tell 

13 you that that contract calls for written consent 

14 in six-month period either by Blockson or by the 

15 Department of Energy. That has never been done. 

16 There is no written consent. Nobody knows 

17 anything about a written consent.

18 Now, Rachel Leiton from the Department 

19 of Labor that you said is responsible for setting 

20 the time which I understand that, she said that that 

21 one-page document was the written consent and I 

22 don't see any way nor does a lot of other people 
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 see any way that that document would be considered 

2 written consent.

3 If you don't have written consent, then 

4 in order to be claimant-friendly, it should go to 

5 the claimant. 

6 There is no written document. John 

7 Howard admits there is no written document. They 

8 don't have one. 

9 That's the thing that I think the Board 

10 really needs to look at.

11 Also, that I think all the Board Members 

12 since it seems that nobody has seen that document, 

13 if they would take time to look at it. It was 1963 

14 when that document was generated.

15 If the Board Members would look at it, 

16 they could see that, one, it may not even be 

17 typewritten. Which back in 1963, it would have 

18 been typewritten.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sir. Sir. 

20 MR. BURKHART: Go ahead. I'm sorry. 

21 And listen, I'm sorry that I didn't get in on time.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, but you're --
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 MR. BURKHART: But, go ahead. I'm 

2 listening and then I'll get off the air.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You're focusing on 

4 an issue that's not the purview of this Board or 

5 of NIOSH and it's not our place to be reviewing 

6 these documents or responding to that. 

7 If you have comments on the petition 

8 evaluation that was just completed, that's --

9 MR. BURKHART: Am I talking to Mr. 

10 Melius?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Melius. Yes.

12 MR. BURKHART: Yes. Doctor, I have no 

13 problem with what I've heard so far.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

15 MR. BURKHART: With you guys looking at 

16 the new SEC and I'm sure that you guys are going 

17 to do a good diligence for the claimants. So.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you and 

19 you'll be informed of when there's Work Group 

20 meetings and a chance to provide comments at those 

21 meetings. So, thank you very much.

22 MR. BURKHART: Yes. Thank you very 
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 much for letting me interrupt. I'm sorry about 

2 that. Thank you. Bye-bye.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, we have -- any 

4 correspondence? Okay. Good.

5 MR. KATZ: So, I don't think we have 

6 correspondence that we need to address. I shared 

7 some correspondence with all the Board Members. 

8 I'm sorry. I shared some correspondence with all 

9 the Board Members that we received related to 

10 Pinellas. Several letters. 

11 I believe they were -- at least one was 

12 addressed to the Board, but they were also sort of 

13 addressed to NIOSH and I think NIOSH would be 

14 handling those letters like any correspondence 

15 they receive and respond directly back to them and 

16 if you want, we can have them copy the Board when 

17 they respond back. That would be great. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Can we just copy you, 

19 Ted, and you distribute it? We'll just copy you.

20 MR. KATZ: Sure. Yes, that would be 

21 great and I believe there may have been also Rocky 

22 Flats correspondence also addressed to NIOSH as 
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 well.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, there was one 

3 Rocky Flats correspondence which we heard 

4 yesterday. Judy Padilla.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. That's right. 

6 Right. Judy ended up, right, actually presenting 

7 it.

8 Otherwise, I would have read it during 

9 the comment session.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Right. So, I think that 

12 covers it.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Then I think 

14 we'll break until 10:15. We have -- just for 

15 information of Board Members including Board 

16 Members on the phone, we have Rocky Flats at 10:15. 

17 I expect that the petitioners will be on the line. 

18 We want to stick to that timing.

19 We have a Board work session, but I 

20 think we've done most of our Board work. 

21 At 1:30, we have a Kansas City 

22 presentation and discussion. Again, petitioners 
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 will probably be on the line for that. So, we'll 

2 need to stick to that schedule. 

3 We have then a Board work session 

4 scheduled after 3:00 and I don't think we'll be 

5 needing that. 

6 So, I expect that we'll end the meeting 

7 by 3:00 this afternoon, if that helps anybody with 

8 their scheduling or plans and people on the phone 

9 with dealing with the time difference. It should 

10 help. 

11 So, anyway, thank you and we'll be back 

12 here at 10:15.

13 MS. CARROLL: Excuse me. Can you hear 

14 me?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

16 MS. CARROLL: Yesterday, I waited 

17 patiently to make a comment and after Judy Padilla, 

18 I said I wanted to make comments and you all 

19 disconnected me and I didn't get to make my comment. 

20 So, I wanted to let you know this is 

21 Stephanie Carroll. I had very important comments 

22 on the Rocky Flats issues.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, why don't you 

2 wait until the Rocky Flats session at 10:15? Is 

3 that okay?

4 MS. CARROLL: I'm not the petitioner. 

5 I'm just making comments.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I'm not saying 

7 that, but you make comments after there's been 

8 discussion of the Rocky Flats. So, it will be 

9 probably closer to 11:00.

10 MS. CARROLL: So, you are going to 

11 allow me to make comments today?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. That's what I 

13 just said. Yes.

14 MS. CARROLL: Oh, I'm sorry.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes.

16 MS. CARROLL: There is a problem with 

17 the phone. So, thank you so much. I appreciate 

18 that.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

20 MS. CARROLL: So, just let me know when 

21 you're available to hear my comments and I will be 

22 on the phone.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we'll be 

2 reconvening at -- it's 10:15 Pacific time.

3 MS. CARROLL: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So --

5 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

8 went off the record at 9:30 a.m. and resumed at 

9 10:15 a.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: We're about to get started 

11 again with a Rocky Flats presentation. Before we 

12 do, let me just check on the line and see that I 

13 have -- that our Board Members on the line have 

14 rejoined us.

15 (Roll call.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, we'll 

17 start with an update on the Rocky Flats SEC petition 

18 covering the '84 to '89 time period and start with 

19 Dave Kotelchuck who's the Chair of the Work Group. 

20 Dave.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Thank 

22 you.
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 Let me also acknowledge. I didn't put 

2 a slide in, but acknowledge other members of the 

3 Rocky Flats Work Group: Wanda Munn, Phil 

4 Schofield and William Field -- Dr. Field.

5 Just quick -- well, not so quick 

6 petition overview. In August 2011, NIOSH received 

7 an 83.13 petition to cover the period from April 

8 1st, '52 to December 31st, 1989, SEC 192. In 

9 February 2012, the petition qualified for 

10 evaluation and the Board revised it to extend to 

11 December 2005. 

12 In October 17 meeting, the Board 

13 expanded the investigation to cover thorium U-233 

14 and neptunium-237. The Board then essentially 

15 extended the existing SEC which went up to 1966 to 

16 cover the period from -- an SEC from April 1st, '52 

17 to December 31st, '83 and then this extension was 

18 based on the inability to estimate the dose with 

19 sufficient accuracy for thorium, U-233 and 

20 neptunium.

21 At our October 13 Board meeting, we 

22 voted to extend investigations for 192 beyond 1983 
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 to do the following five -- look at the following 

2 five issues: one, evaluate the use and exposure 

3 potential for magnesium-thorium alloy, continue to 

4 evaluate the '84 to '88 period for neptunium 

5 exposure potential, resolve open questions with 

6 SC&A and the Work Group concerning tritium, examine 

7 the implication of data falsification issues and 

8 examine exposures at the Critical Mass Lab.

9 Let's start first with the 

10 magnesium-thorium alloy. First, this issue was 

11 raised back in 2007 for the earlier petition and 

12 that went up to 1983 and apparently, there was 

13 magnesium-thorium alloy shipped to Rocky Flats to 

14 be used in plates to bulletproof military trucks. 

15 In 2013, NIOSH did another review of the 

16 Site Research Database for a Rocky Flats 

17 magnesium-thorium link and more -- they found more 

18 evidence of a Dow magnesium-thorium link, but no 

19 corroborating evidence for Rocky Flats.

20 Other site visits were undertaken to 

21 see if there was perhaps some record there of 

22 magnesium-thorium being sent to Rocky Flats. 
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 However, I mean the issue was there was 

2 a worker Dow Madison who reported that shipping 

3 magnesium-thorium materials to Rocky Flats. 

4 NIOSH interviewed the individual. The person 

5 stood by the report. That is to say verified the 

6 report and at that time, said that he was not aware 

7 that there were other Dow facilities in the Denver 

8 area to which the magnesium-thorium from his 

9 facility might have been sent.

10 The Dow Madison co-petitioner alleges 

11 additional affidavits supporting the Rocky Flats 

12 magnesium-thorium link claim. That is affidavits 

13 from folks at Dow Madison that it was sent.

14 One of the petitioners from Rocky Flats 

15 reported to the Board that there was a worker who 

16 wished to remain anonymous who said that 

17 magnesium-thorium was used at Rocky Flats. The 

18 NIOSH conclusion was, their White Paper, that we 

19 cannot find corroborating documentation of a Rocky 

20 Flats magnesium-thorium link and this has been now 

21 looked at over an eight-year period and I leave it 

22 to people to go to the transcript to see a report 
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 on how many different sources of data were looked 

2 over by NIOSH to try to find such a link and did 

3 not find it.

4 An additional NIOSH observation, if 

5 there was undocumented magnesium-thorium use at 

6 Rocky Flats, all alleged use took place between '56 

7 and '76 which was during the covered SEC period, 

8 or which is in the covered period.

9 SC&A disagreed with NIOSH. The worker 

10 interviewed both by NIOSH and SC&A provided a high 

11 level of clarity and detail, they reported, and he 

12 specifically named five different 

13 magnesium-thorium alloy specifications only two of 

14 which were searched for. Rather than confusion, 

15 SC&A said it is just possible that the worker had 

16 a gripe all along.

17 And SC&A continued, the Dow 

18 co-petitioner reported 400 boxes of Rocky Flats 

19 records sitting at LANL according to the DOE and 

20 would have to be hand searched. He estimated that 

21 the search would take two years.

22 The DOE project manager noted that 2 to 
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 3 percent thorium in the magnesium-thorium alloy 

2 which is what you're basically talking about, it 

3 may not have been considered enough to be a 

4 reportable quantity and that may be the reason that 

5 there was no record.

6 So, SC&A's conclusion was the receipt 

7 and use of magnesium-thorium alloy material at RFP 

8 remains inconclusive.

9 Given this -- I mean given this 

10 disagreement, the Rocky Flats Work Group debated 

11 long and hard and decided not to ask NIOSH or SC&A 

12 to pursue this investigation further and our 

13 reasons were first the failure of the intensive 

14 years' long search for documentation at the plant 

15 and agency levels.

16 The vast majority of cancers during the 

17 years of possible magnesium-thorium use are 

18 compensable under the existing SEC and I note that 

19 only those non-compensable cancers, that is not 

20 covered by the SEC, might be negatively affected 

21 by not continuing the search and the feeling was 

22 that with limited NIOSH resources of staff time and 
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 funding, that we just couldn't keep looking for 

2 what was feeling to be a needle in a haystack. 

3 So, and that was our decision. It was 

4 a difficult one because there was disagreement and 

5 we cannot say it was not used there. I mean I 

6 accept that it was inconclusive, but eventually, 

7 our feeling was we needed to finally conclude this 

8 effort that we've tried -- worked at for many years.

9 Let's look at neptunium-237, the second 

10 issue. The NIOSH search concluded that 

11 neptunium-237 was used at Rocky Flats after 1983, 

12 perhaps until 1988. So, that -- even though the 

13 active production with neptunium ended in 1983, it 

14 was indeed true that the material was used in the 

15 '80s and evidence points to a series of discrete 

16 tasks. 

17 This is the NIOSH report. Evident in 

18 a White Paper, evidence points to a series of 

19 discrete tasks performed from '62 through '83 

20 involving a few grams to a few hundred grams usually 

21 at the request of other DOE facilities.

22 The only processing operation in the 
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 post-1983 period involving neptunium was 

2 plutonium-neptunium separation and residue 

3 recovery from '85 through '87. This was a glovebox 

4 operation involving five operators and one 

5 engineer with a plutonium-neptunium mass ratio of 

6 6.4 and the far greater specific activity of 

7 plutonium-neptunium operations and later waste 

8 clean-up were monitored by plutonium air sampling 

9 contamination surveys and bioassays which were 

10 consistently implemented in the post-'83 period.

11 SC&A studies independently confirm the 

12 results of the NIOSH paper. 

13 Conclusion, with which the Work Group 

14 agreed: only one processing operation in the 

15 post-'83 period involved neptunium and the 

16 co-presence of neptunium with plutonium enables 

17 radiological monitoring to account for any 

18 neptunium exposure in a claimant-favorable manner.

19 Tritium exposure, which was the basis 

20 of accepting petition 192 initially. Prior to the 

21 '70s, the radiological program did very little 

22 monitoring for tritium because they felt they had 
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 limited exposure after the 1973 incident. The 

2 1973 incident with returned triggers were found to 

3 emit 500 to 2,000 curies of tritium. 

4 Changes in the program were implemented 

5 as a result of course and we've talked about this. 

6 These included increased number of tritium 

7 bubblers and wipe samplers, air sampling on opening 

8 incoming used pit containers, urine -- for two 

9 years, there were urine samples for 250 workers 

10 thought most affected by the incident and then 

11 after two years, sampling was done only among 

12 job-specific categories because the results had 

13 shown zero positive samples and 10 percent of urine 

14 samples for plutonium were tested for tritium.

15 Result: greatly reduced levels of 

16 tritium exposure by the 1980s. Since virtually 

17 all RF workers before '83 were covered by the SEC, 

18 the crucial issue for NIOSH, ORAU, SC&A and the Work 

19 Group was whether the post-'83 tritium exposure 

20 control program was adequate and individual 

21 tritium exposures appropriately assessed.

22 After extensive group discussion by all 
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 parties about the placement of the bubblers, their 

2 efficiency, tritium sampling procedures, the 

3 Working Group agreed that the exposure control 

4 program after '83 was adequate to protect workers 

5 exposed to tritium.

6 Just for the record, partial dose 

7 reconstructions for workers before -- if they're 

8 needed for workers before '73 will be assessed as 

9 chronic dose based on measurements after the 1974 

10 incident, which are believed to be 37.5 millirems 

11 per year, believed to be claimant-friendly 

12 overestimates. 

13 For the exposure measurements taken 

14 after '75, they were consistently found to be less 

15 than a millirem a year due to the control measures 

16 that had been enacted. 

17 Get this down here. Oops. No. No. 

18 I got it now. Okay. It's not moving quickly. 

19 Thanks. Okay. 

20 So, the Working Group agreed that 

21 tritium exposure at the Rocky Flats does not add 

22 materially to the radiation exposure burden of 
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 plant workers post-'83 and thus of itself does not 

2 constitute a basis for an SEC category beyond 1983. 

3 Now, let's get to data falsification, 

4 the fourth issue. As you know, an FBI raid was --

5 or many of you, most of you remember an FBI raid 

6 was conducted at Rocky Flats in 1989 concerning 

7 alleged data falsification, improper bioassay 

8 processing and document destruction. Soon after 

9 the 1989 or soon after a 1989 DOE study was 

10 conducted and finally after many long efforts by 

11 many folks in 2015, the FBI finally released its 

12 report.

13 Now, NIOSH and SC&A -- and based on this 

14 report, NIOSH or before actually the report was 

15 released, but with relevance to the report and the 

16 issue, NIOSH and SC&A interviewed a worker at Rocky 

17 Flats who reported being ordered to destroy records 

18 and they interviewed 12 other employees. That --

19 no allegation on those 12 that they were ordered 

20 to destroy records. They were just interviewed 

21 about record destruction.

22 SC&A found no loss in essential records 
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 which would interfere with radiation dose 

2 reconstruction nor evidence of data falsification.

3 Another interviewee made statements 

4 about the inadequacy of fume hood stack samples and 

5 improper handling and/or preparation of 

6 environmental samples. 

7 Quotes from NIOSH, from a radiological 

8 perspective, NIOSH finds no scientific basis for 

9 concluding that the issues raised regarding 

10 environmental samples would compromise the 

11 radiological count results, end quote.

12 So, yet another interviewee raised the 

13 issue of dosimetry technicians writing down dose 

14 rate information in pencil which would allow 

15 management later to direct changes to keep 

16 production going. This impacts field survey 

17 instruments used for comparison only. The primary 

18 source of data of dose reconstruction are personnel 

19 dosimeters and bioassays assessed in labs.

20 And then SC&A reviewed eight documents 

21 mentioned in the NIOSH White Paper. It concluded 

22 "The documents were concerned with other aspects 
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 of RF operations or environmental issues rather 

2 than data falsification, record destruction or 

3 bioassay data that would potentially impact the 

4 ability to perform adequate dose reconstructions."

5 And based on the interviews, analyses 

6 and evaluation of the 1989 FBI raid report, NIOSH 

7 concluded "There exists sufficient quantity of 

8 individual external monitoring data to support 

9 assessment of the Rocky Flats personnel external 

10 doses."

11 And SC&A corroborated this conclusion.

12 In addition to its basic support of the 

13 conclusions of the NIOSH White Paper, SC&A 

14 expressed concern that the data used to generate 

15 radionuclide intakes were impacted by the 

16 environmental sampling and data issues that 

17 surfaced after the 1989 FBI raid and the DOE 

18 investigation.

19 So, the Rocky Flats Work Group having 

20 read the White Paper discussion and presentations 

21 agreed with the NIOSH conclusions, but referred the 

22 environmental occupational linkage issue to the 
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 Subcommittee on Procedures Review and we asked them 

2 to take a look at this.

3 Just in response, the claimant 

4 representatives have written a lengthy response to 

5 the NIOSH White Paper. "NIOSH combines all of the 

6 issues raised by petitioners and their 

7 relationship to Building 123. Each of the issues 

8 raised are separate concerns. Some concerns may 

9 be related to Building 123, but not all of the 

10 issues are. Therefore, each of the issues needs 

11 to be addressed on an individual basis. It is the 

12 petitioners position that the problems associated 

13 with each individual concern is sufficient for 

14 NIOSH to determine they cannot reconstruct those 

15 with sufficient accuracy. It is even more evident 

16 that when combining issues serious questions are 

17 raised with the bioassay documents used to 

18 reconstruct dose."

19 Claimants also presented evidence. 

20 They gave evidence to NIOSH and it was presented 

21 to the committee from the Final Historical Release 

22 Reports for Rocky Flats Plant, June 1992 of 
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 additional destruction of records. So, there is 

2 official information that records were destroyed 

3 in addition to one of the claimants' assertions. 

4 So, both of those are there.

5 Finally, they assert "It is clear the 

6 accuracy of the dosimetry records NIOSH has for 

7 Rocky Flats claimants needs to be questioned. 

8 These records are unreliable. Therefore, NIOSH 

9 must admit that dose reconstruction cannot be 

10 formed with reasonable accuracy and must recommend 

11 expanding the SEC."

12 NIOSH is currently writing a response 

13 to this communication. 

14 And the final issue here -- actually, 

15 semi-final. We'll come to that. 

16 Operations at the Critical Mass Lab 

17 took various assemblies and radioactive materials 

18 to criticality levels. The NIOSH White Paper 

19 notes "Radioactive materials at the Critical Mass 

20 Lab included nuclear fuels and sealed radioactive 

21 sources used in the criticality experiments. 

22 Fission and activation products generated in the 
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 fuels, building materials and fixtures as a result 

2 of the nuclear criticality experiments conducted 

3 there are an additional source of radiological 

4 exposure." Just a little background on the lab.

5 The White Paper concluded that the 

6 external radiation exposure of those workers and 

7 staff is accounted for by the Rocky Flats personnel 

8 dosimetry program which assigned radiation 

9 dosimeters to all the workers. The personnel 

10 dosimetry program included periodic bioassays that 

11 focused primarily on identifying uranium and 

12 plutonium intakes. Also found little radiation 

13 from fission and activation products and the 

14 Working Group accepted the paper.

15 However, at our 7/14 meeting and 

16 conference call, the last surviving of three senior 

17 scientists at the Critical Mass Lab, he worked 

18 there from '64 to '86, joined the discussion and 

19 expressed strong disagreement with the conclusions 

20 of the NIOSH White Paper. He requested a personal 

21 interview at a later time which was agreed to and 

22 conducted in October of this year.
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 During the interview, the scientist 

2 argued that no one can bound the neutron flux in 

3 the labs near criticality experiments. The 

4 radiation levels at the CML were not properly 

5 documented he asserted and the RF did not do body 

6 counts on the lab's 30 to 35 employees, only lung 

7 counts and irregularly urinalyses.

8 He also disputed the ability to put 

9 upper bounds on the neutron flux by other reactor's 

10 energy output.

11 In addition, the scientists reported 

12 that during the '80s typically 100 to 200 non-CML 

13 Rocky Flats' employees enter the lab annually to 

14 observe ongoing experiments. It seemed a rather 

15 informal procedure of people walking in and 

16 observing. 

17 At the conclusion of the discussion, 

18 NIOSH staff agreed to review and modify as 

19 appropriate its White Paper on Critical Mass Lab 

20 and is currently drafting a response and I leave 

21 it to LaVon to talk more about that.

22 As part of this effort, NIOSH will do 
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 a data capture from LANL about CML and again, LaVon 

2 will report.

3 This past spring claimants raised 

4 concern about this 600 curie cobalt-60 source at 

5 Rocky Flats and presented information and employee 

6 testimony alleging lack of proper exposure 

7 protection during the removal of that source from 

8 Rocky Flats. 

9 At our 10/28 meeting, NIOSH staff 

10 person LaVon, Mr. Rutherford, said that proper 

11 standard protective measures were employed during 

12 the cobalt-60 removal. He'll respond at a later 

13 time.

14 So, we've gone through a lot of issues. 

15 Let's look back now at what we were charged with 

16 taking a look at. The five issues.

17 Evaluate use and exposure potential for 

18 magnesium-thorium alloy at Rocky Flats - CLOSED.

19 Continue to evaluate '84 to '88 period 

20 for neptunium exposure potential - CLOSED.

21 Resolve open questions with SC&A and 

22 the Work Group regarding tritium - CLOSED.
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 The examination of the data 

2 falsification issues, it's closed for the Work 

3 Group, but we referred it to the Subcommittee on 

4 Procedures Review to look at that one issue of how 

5 environmental emissions might have impacted on 

6 exposure to the workers in the plant or affected 

7 it.

8 And finally, examination of exposures 

9 at the Critical Mass Lab remains open with the LANL 

10 data capture and again, LaVon will talk about it. 

11 The cobalt-60 will just say is in process.

12 Questions. Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions for --

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Comments.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Comments for Dave. 

16 I'm a little confused on the agenda. LaVon, do you 

17 have a presentation also or --

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. No. I can 

19 provide follow-on to the Critical Mass Laboratory.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: What we're doing 

22 there. 
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Please do.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Basically, 

3 there were 30 to 35 boxes that [identifying 

4 information redacted] had sent to LANL and with 

5 those 30 to 35 boxes, we're hoping to get additional 

6 information that we can resolve his issues.

7 LANL's indicated that they can't get 

8 them to us until January. So, that's pretty much 

9 where we are with that one.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. I wanted to --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I just found out, 

14 and I apologize, that -- [identifying information 

15 redacted] sent me an email last night to go into 

16 public comment and I didn't see it until just now 

17 and so, I'll have to forward that on to the Board.

18 MR. KATZ: Forward it to me and --- does 

19 it relate to Rocky Flats?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it was --

21 apparently, it was supposed to go into public 

22 comment last -- I've just seen it and it looks like 
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 Terrie sent a follow-on email as well. So.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: However, 

3 [identifying information redacted] sent a letter 

4 to the Work Group which we got and talked about. 

5 So, we certainly have a lengthy communication from 

6 him that has been looked at on the data

7 falsification issue. I don't know what the public 

8 comment will be exactly. We're aware of his 

9 concerns certainly.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Board Member 

11 questions and actually, I have a question on the 

12 magnesium-thorium alloy issue. I think you had 

13 one -- one of your slides in there was that the 

14 thorium SEC covered period. So. 

15 But, I guess I'm trying to get a sense 

16 of if it's the 2 or 3 percent alloy, what would it 

17 add in terms of dose to -- yes, what are we talking 

18 about in terms of --

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I mean I can't 

20 say for sure depending on the operation that it --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Right.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- was used in, but, 
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 you know, the information that we had from Dow 

2 Madison and from the other sites, it would be a very 

3 small internal dose and this is our -- this would 

4 be for the non-presumptive cancers which are not, 

5 you know, do not really gain a lot from the internal 

6 dose.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Okay. 

8 That's -- and that would go along with why it was 

9 sort of not reportable and so forth. I was just 

10 trying to fit that together and then understand the 

11 --

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And in addition, 

13 if I may say, since I noted that only two of the 

14 five alloys that were named by the Dow Madison 

15 worker were investigated and LaVon talked to me 

16 about it, I'll repeat what you said, but better if 

17 you would like to say it. Why those two -- okay. 

18 Why the two --

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we want to hear 

20 from the horse's --

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- only two were 

22 looked at. Only two had been used in the military 
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 and atomic weapons -- had military and atomic 

2 weapons uses. Because there's plenty of 

3 information about magnesium-thorium alloy being 

4 sent to other places and those two were examined. 

5 Then the other three were not used militarily and, 

6 therefore, were not examined.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Didn't need to be.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, LaVon and 

10 your messenger. Other questions? Board Members 

11 on the phone have any questions? 

12 If not, I think we want to hear from the 

13 petitioners. They're on the line. Terrie 

14 Barrie, are you?

15 MS. BARRIE: Yes, Dr. Melius, I'm on 

16 the line. Can you hear me?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can.

18 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Good. Thank you. 

19 This is Terrie Barrie and I'm a co-petitioner for 

20 the Rocky Flats SEC petition.

21 [Identifying information redacted], 

22 the petitioner, and I filed this petition to cover 
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 all workers from 1952 through closing up in 2015 

2 and besides the tritium issue. We also raised the 

3 issue of thorium strikes and data falsification in 

4 our petition, original petition and we appreciate 

5 you giving us this opportunity to present our 

6 petition.

7 From the mid to late-1990s, union 

8 officials and scientific experts publicly raised 

9 serious concerns about the health of the nuclear 

10 weapons workers. 

11 David Fuller, President of the PACE 

12 Local 5-550 testified before the Senate 

13 Appropriations Subcommittee about this issue on 

14 October 26, 1996. He stated that, and I quote, 

15 "Over the past 20 years, several studies have shown 

16 an increased risk of cancer and other diseases 

17 among DOE workers. They include workers at 

18 Hanford, Rocky Flats, et cetera."

19 The Department of Energy's own 

20 statistics support that statement. According to 

21 DOE's Occupational Radiation Exposure Report of 

22 2000, Rocky Flats' workers have a collective 
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 totally effective dose equivalent of 373.9 

2 person-REM for 1999. This was the highest reading 

3 for all DOE sites and is more than double what was 

4 reported for Hanford workers for that same year.

5 Another way of looking at this is that 

6 29 percent of DOE's complex-wide TEDE was given 

7 just to Rocky Flats workers and the remaining 71 

8 percent was distributed among the other 34 sites 

9 and please note that this was during the D&D period.

10 On April 12th, 2000, DOE former 

11 Secretary Bill Richardson announced a 

12 comprehensive plan that ultimately led to the 

13 passage of the EEOICPA. 

14 Quoting from the news article authored 

15 by James L. Nash, this legislation "would shift the 

16 burden of proof from the workers to the Government 

17 for radiation diseases at three sites: Paducah, 

18 Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio and the K-25 plant at 

19 Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This means that sick 

20 workers no longer would need to prove their 

21 ailments were work related." 

22 When a reporter asked why the 
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 Government only assumed the burden of proof at 

2 these three locations, David Michaels, the DOE 

3 point man on the proposal, said that "At those three 

4 sites, there is strong evidence the Government lost 

5 or destroyed records needed for workers to make 

6 their case."

7 Six years later then Congressman Mark 

8 Udall testified before the House Subcommittee 

9 concerning the OMB passback memo.

10 For those of you who are not familiar 

11 with those hearings, the OMB passback memo offered 

12 suggestions on how to keep the growth of the EEOICPA 

13 benefits in check. One of those suggestions 

14 concerned SEC petitions.

15 Mr. Udall testified, and I quote, "If 

16 I had known how deficient the records were going 

17 to be, and in fact were, I would have worked to have 

18 included the Rocky Flats Work Team in the Special 

19 Cohort Group initially in the legislation that we 

20 brought forward."

21 The petitioners to Rocky Flats petition 

22 192 have provided ample evidence that records 
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 needed to reconstruct dose were destroyed. We had 

2 a worker who bravely came forward to admit she 

3 actually destroyed medical and dosimetry records. 

4 We had a statement from her supervisor confirming 

5 that she did so under orders. We even submitted 

6 a DOE memo dated April 25th, 1996 directing the 

7 Rocky Flats contractor to stop destroying records.

8 The debate on the Rocky Flats petition 

9 should have ended shortly after this information 

10 was submitted to NIOSH. Sufficient proof has been 

11 submitted that not only was it possible that 

12 records were lost, but that they were intentionally 

13 destroyed. Intentionally destroyed. Instead, 

14 the debate goes on.

15 Revision 4 of NIOSH's White Paper on 

16 data falsification stated that the records 

17 destroyed were probably area survey records. You 

18 may remember how incensed the worker who came 

19 forward was. 

20 During the Work Group meeting on 

21 October 26, NIOSH backed off of that assumption 

22 stating that they had no basis to make such a 
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 statement, but the fact remains that NIOSH did make 

2 the statement. Why? 

3 A similar example exists of 

4 misstatements in their White Paper on the Critical 

5 Mass Lab. NIOSH's model assumed that the 

6 experiments lasted an hour and that the power level 

7 was no more than 10 milliwatts. The senior 

8 scientist strongly disagrees with that assumption 

9 as Dr. Kotelchuck mentioned and I'm grateful that 

10 they're taking another look at this.

11 What is really ironic, if I remember the 

12 discussion from years ago correctly, is that during 

13 the first SEC petition, it was NIOSH's position 

14 that no criticality ever occurred at Rocky Flats. 

15 NIOSH was wrong about that.

16 Granted, the experiments performed at 

17 the Critical Mass Lab were controlled, but they 

18 were still criticalities.

19 Another example is that NIOSH 

20 originally stated that there were no near misses 

21 in the lab. The scientist again vehemently 

22 objected to this characterization because there 
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 was indeed a near miss.

2 NIOSH was wrong in their first 

3 Evaluation Report on petition 192 about neptunium 

4 production. They were wrong in the original ER 

5 about the thorium strikes and U-233.

6 Fortunately, NIOSH reversed their 

7 position and concluded that they could not 

8 reconstruct dose for those elements through 

9 December 31st, 1983.

10 As LaVon has just mentioned, 

11 [identifying information redacted] and a couple of 

12 other Rocky Flats stakeholders have also sent 

13 emails concerning this petition and I strongly urge 

14 that the entire Board read these.

15 These stakeholders still object to the 

16 interpretation of their testimony which has so far 

17 been discussed during the Work Group meetings.

18 In conclusion, the gaseous diffusion 

19 plants were legislated as SEC sites because there 

20 was strong evidence that records were destroyed. 

21 The Rocky Flats petitioners have also 

22 supplied strong evidence and indeed documented 
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 proof that records were destroyed at Rocky Flats. 

2 NIOSH cannot affirmatively prove that the records 

3 destroyed were not dosimetry records as the former 

4 worker who actually destroyed the records asserts. 

5 It is time for the Board to vote to 

6 include Rocky Flats in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

7 A vote to include Rocky Flats in the SEC will be 

8 consistent with the legislative intent and 

9 application of the law. 

10 Thank you very much and I'd be happy to 

11 answer any questions.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

13 Terrie, and the emails that you refer to will be 

14 distributed to the Board Members.

15 MS. BARRIE: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And I believe 

17 there is another person who had wished to make 

18 public comments last night and had trouble with the 

19 phone and wished to make them now. If you're on 

20 the line, if you want to --

21 MS. CARROLL: Hi. Hi. Stephanie 

22 Carroll. 
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 I just wanted to make sure there were 

2 no questions for Terrie before I start.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're taking 

4 comments. Not --

5 MS. CARROLL: Oh. Okay. Alright. I 

6 am an AR for Rocky Flats claimants and I have 

7 contributed research and documentation to the 

8 petitioners to help pass the 1983 SEC.

9 My position as an AR allows me to review 

10 site exposure records, personal records, medical 

11 documentation and worker first-hand accounts via 

12 interviews.

13 I would like to thank the Board for 

14 allowing me to make comments today and especially 

15 would like to thank the petitioners Terrie Barrie 

16 and [identifying information redacted] for their 

17 dedication to the expansion of the SEC and to Rocky 

18 Flats workers.

19 I have great concerns related to the 

20 validity of TLD data used to reconstruct dose at 

21 Rocky Flats. I intend to describe documents that 

22 I believe prove modification, data falsification 
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 of TLD findings reported to the RHRS electronic 

2 system.

3 On October 13th, 2015, I was on a call 

4 between the CML lead scientist and NIOSH related 

5 to the White Paper on the Critical Mass Lab. He 

6 worked from 1964 to 1995 not until 1986 as was 

7 stated earlier. So, I just wanted to clarify that.

8 NIOSH, during the call, stated that 

9 they depended on personal monitoring data, TLDs, 

10 to reconstruct dose. Specifically the fission and 

11 activation products created in the CML.

12 The lead scientist, during the call, 

13 expressed concern related to the limitations of 

14 external monitoring data and the ability of NIOSH 

15 to reconstruct dose related to the CML. He stated 

16 that it was impossible.

17 I have in my possession monitoring 

18 records for the CML lead scientist that are not 

19 comprehensive and also, an employee working in 

20 Building 886. 

21 The employee working in 886 gave me 

22 copies of two TLD data investigation reports from 
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 his personal files, he had them at home, from 1996 

2 and 1997 that were not found in his DOE file. Were 

3 they destroyed? 

4 I reviewed two RHRS generated reports 

5 with handwritten notes before with exposure 

6 documented and after with zero exposure on the 

7 documents. Showing that neutron exposure in both 

8 investigations had ultimately been reported as 

9 zero. This led me to investigate further.

10 I would like to submit the documents 

11 that I believe indicate a falsification of data 

12 used to document exposure to fission and activation 

13 products. 

14 The 1996 external dose reconstruction 

15 analysis indicates in the comments "That a data 

16 investigation was initiated because of an apparent 

17 over response of elements 2 and 5. This 

18 reconstruction replaces a dose previously 

19 electronically uploaded."

20 Also in the comments was the statement 

21 "Element 2 and element 5 were elevated above the 

22 other element readings. They appeared abnormal. 
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 The dose should be redetermined after eliminating 

2 the results from the suspect elements."

3 Note, because element 2 and 5 did not 

4 agree with the other elements, they were eliminated 

5 and ultimately recorded as having a zero reading 

6 related to neutron exposure.

7 In regards to the 1997 investigation 

8 with neutron findings of 338 millirem that later 

9 were modified to a calculation of zero, the reason 

10 given for an investigation was noted as findings 

11 above 200 millirem.

12 In the comments related to the 

13 investigation, "Glow curve of element 8 was 

14 abnormal and therefore, the dose will be 

15 recalculated eliminating the neutron dose from 

16 element 8 and we'll use the element 2 calculation 

17 which would include any neutron dose received."

18 Element 8 had a high gross response of 

19 202.9. While element 2 had a gross response of 

20 62.7. Note, element 2 was used to calculate the 

21 neutron dose which ultimately was reported as zero 

22 in the RHRS report.
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 Reviewing the final verified 

2 documentation RHRS report from these two 

3 investigations, you will find zero exposure to 

4 neutron dose from October 28th, 1994 until October 

5 7th, 1997 for this worker who was exposed to 

6 neutrons in Building 886. This is not an accurate 

7 representation of the exposure found on his TLD and 

8 makes it impossible to use the TLD documentation 

9 to reconstruct dose.

10 I am very concerned about the ability 

11 of NIOSH to depend on the data from the TLDs at Rocky 

12 Flats as late as 1997. It is only through my 

13 experience representing claimants with their 

14 EEOICPA claims that I was able to have access to 

15 this documentation. 

16 All claimants should request a complete 

17 copy of their files via fax to the district offices 

18 handling their claims. A FOIA request is not 

19 required. DOE records should be included in the 

20 case file.

21 Thank you for allowing me to comment and 

22 to present this documentation and I can be reached 
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 at energyhealthone@hotmail.com. Thank you and 

2 please expand the current SEC to 2005.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Board 

4 Members have any further questions or comments at 

5 this point?

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: She is sending in 

7 the documents? She said she will give us the 

8 documents?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And they will 

11 certainly be looked at by the Work Group.

12 MS. CARROLL: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, any further 

14 actions at this point on Rocky Flats? 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Right on 

17 schedule. I'm impressed. Good. So, we will 

18 break.

19 We will take a break now until 1:30 p.m. 

20 We've completed our Board work and we have the 

21 Kansas City SEC petition to discuss at 1:30.

22 Since that's timed in terms of 
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 petitioners, we need to stick to that schedule. 

2 So, we'll see everyone back here at 1:30.

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

4 went off the record at 11:01 a.m. and resumed at 

5 1:32 p.m.)

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, telephone on and 

7 Ted, do you want to do the check.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, let me just check and 

9 see about Board Members on the line. Who we have.

10 (Roll call.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, we'll start this 

12 afternoon. This will be our final session for the 

13 day and we'll be talking about the Kansas City SEC 

14 petition and first we'll hear from Pete Darnell 

15 who's been the NIOSH point person on this. Then 

16 we'll hear from Josie Beach who's the Chair of the 

17 Work Group on the SEC evaluation and then we'll give 

18 a time for the Board Members to ask questions on 

19 those presentations and then we will provide an 

20 opportunity for the petitioners to make comments 

21 if they wish to.

22 So, Pete, go ahead.
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 MR. DARNELL: Good afternoon. My 

2 name's Peter Darnell. I appreciate the Board 

3 taking the time to hear these presentations.

4 What I'd like to mention is a look at 

5 the acronyms that we'll be using through the 

6 presentation. That working with this Work Group 

7 has been both challenging and interesting. I've 

8 enjoyed the process very much.

9 To begin with, the Kansas City Special 

10 Exposure Cohort Petition was received on March 

11 12th, 2013. The initial Class that was requested 

12 was all employees who worked at the Bannister 

13 Federal Complex from 1949 through the time of the 

14 petition. The petition qualified for evaluation 

15 July 1st, 2013.

16 The Class that was evaluated by NIOSH 

17 was all employees who worked in the area of the 

18 Kansas City Plant from January 1st, 1949 through 

19 December 31st, 1993.

20 The Kansas City Plant, by the way, 

21 covers 122 acres, 38 different buildings and over 

22 the period of operations, they averaged around 2700 
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 workers a year. Their peak came during the height 

2 of the Cold War and they had 8,000 workers in 1985.

3 On January 7th, 2014, NIOSH completed 

4 its Petition Evaluation Report and we first 

5 presented those findings to the Advisory Board on 

6 January 28th of 2014.

7 And just a quick review of some of the 

8 radiological work that went on at the Kansas City 

9 Plant over time.

10 The first thing, we actually didn't put 

11 the slide and I apologize for that, was that we look 

12 at cesium gap tubes at the Kansas City Plant. 

13 There was a question as to whether they were 

14 manufactured at the plant or not and during the 

15 course of our investigation through the interview 

16 process and records, we found that they were not 

17 made at the Kansas City Plant and that actually 

18 greatly simplified our review.

19 They had natural uranium operations May 

20 1st, 1950 through February 28th, 1955.

21 The post-operations period was March 

22 '55 through August of '59 and again, January of '78 
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 through May of '84.

2 These radiological operations that 

3 we're talking about at the Kansas City Plant, just 

4 to give you kind of an idea of the scope with the 

5 38 different buildings that they had, they had one 

6 huge building where most of these operations took 

7 place. The operations in relation to the size of 

8 the building were very, very small and tightly 

9 located to specific areas of the plant.

10 In 1984 through September of '86, the 

11 uranium areas were D&D by the Rockwell Company. 

12 From 1959 through '75, the plant did 

13 work with nickel-63 operations. This was mainly 

14 electroplating. 

15 The plant also worked with tritium 

16 water for the building of a detection system from 

17 '59 through '75. 

18 They did machine magnesium-thorium 

19 during a couple of different periods and we'll 

20 discuss more about that when we get to the section 

21 on the feasibility of dose reconstruction.

22 Organically-bound tritium was used at 
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 the plant for hi-lo switch plates work from 1963 

2 through '68.

3 So, that's just a quick overview of the 

4 petition of radiological operations at the plant.

5 The Work Group met quite a bit for this 

6 site. Four different meetings from 2014 through 

7 2015. We had Worker Outreach meetings in 2004, 

8 2005 and again in 2009 and we conducted SEC Workshop 

9 meetings in 2008 and 2009. So, we had plenty of 

10 input from the stakeholders and personnel on the 

11 site.

12 The Work Group completed extensive 

13 database internet searches and site visits. We 

14 had over 2,000 individual references added to the 

15 Site Research Database and the Kansas City Plant 

16 records that we received included personal 

17 monitoring, area monitoring, industrial processes 

18 and radiation source materials. The same thing 

19 that you would normally see in record searches.

20 Work Group actions included seven data 

21 capture visits between 2012 and 2015. We 

22 interviewed 56 people. Although, the 56 
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 interviews do include some people that were 

2 interviewed more than once. Some of them several 

3 times.

4 This also includes seven people that we 

5 interviewed during the development of the 

6 Technical Basis Document and these occurred 

7 between December 2012 and 2015.

8 I'd like to point out that we did a 

9 special interview for the petitioner at the July 

10 2015 Work Group meeting and I believe Josie will 

11 be covering more about that, but we definitely 

12 wanted to give him a chance to have his say in this 

13 process.

14 The original Kansas City ER, or 

15 Evaluation Report, identified 19 issues. A 20th 

16 issue was added after we discovered that there was 

17 work done with tritium.

18 Closed issues, as you can see, there's 

19 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 

20 20 have been closed by the Working Group. 

21 Four issues moved to the Site Profile 

22 to be completed with a revision to the Technical 
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 Basis Document and those are issues 2, 3, 10 and 

2 13. 

3 Issues 1 and 9 which I'm going to be 

4 covering in depth here are pending final action by 

5 the Work Group and deals with the validation and 

6 verification -- sorry, of the database used to 

7 construct the coworker model. 

8 Kansas City first created their 

9 electronic database to facilitate their own 

10 dosimetry needs in 2001. They provided extracted 

11 information to us in 2004 and then later the entire 

12 database in 2012. Which included both the 

13 internal and external dosimetry data.

14 In 2006, NIOSH used it to develop a 

15 coworker model and a Site Profile.

16 The ER also uses the coworker model to 

17 bound some doses. 

18 The internal and external dosimetry 

19 data includes data from 1950 through 2010. The 

20 database has 15,000 lines -- well, actually, a bit 

21 more than 15,000 lines, that include between one 

22 and five individual dosimetry records.
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 The V&V extracts raw data from NOCTS 

2 records and compares it to this database. One 

3 hundred percent of the NOCTS data was used in the 

4 comparison.

5 Five data entry staff between August 

6 24th and September 30th of this year inputted all 

7 that data and each line was individually peer 

8 reviewed by other people. So, data entry clerk one 

9 put the data in. Then data entry clerk three would 

10 review it. So, there were fresh eyes and there was 

11 a review on every single line of the database V&V.

12 Each record that we used is the sum of 

13 the individual monitoring records throughout a 

14 given year. So, if a worker had six TLD badge 

15 readings, it would be the sum of those six badge 

16 readings.

17 NOCTS contains 223 claims with external 

18 dosimetry data, 95 claims with internal dosimetry 

19 data and the V&V compiles 5,878 lines of data.

20 The V&V compares annual sums of 173 

21 NOCTS records with the database annual totals. 

22 One hundred and sixty-two of those agreed. This 
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 is for the internal V&V.

2 We did have some discrepancies. Nine 

3 instances where we had an actual zero value 

4 recorded in NOCTS or the database and the other one 

5 was blank. In other words, NOCTS would say zero 

6 and the dosimetry card would be blank or vice versa.

7 On one occasion, the database listed a 

8 value of 4.55 micrograms per liter and NOCTS listed 

9 4.5. 

10 In one instance, the database listed 

11 9.5 micrograms entered and NOCTS was blank.

12 Ten uranium in urine entries were 

13 unverified. Those U in U entries were unverified 

14 due to legibility.

15 Since the publication of the V&V by 

16 NIOSH, we've actually requested and received the 

17 data from the Kansas City Plant to try to correct 

18 this. It hasn't been put into an updated V&V yet, 

19 but that's on its way.

20 For the external V&V, we compared 1502 

21 NOCTS records with the database annual totals and 

22 1462 or 97 percent agreed. 
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 Again, there were some discrepancies 

2 noted. Twenty-seven zero values recorded in NOCTS 

3 or the database and the other was blank. Fifteen 

4 NOCTS records had a value of M and the database was 

5 blank. M meaning below the minimum and 13 

6 discrepancies with a greater than zero millirem 

7 exposure. In other words, there was some dose 

8 recorded on one either NOCTS or the database and 

9 it was different on the other. Twelve exposures 

10 with differences of less than 70 millirem and all 

11 of them fell less than 70 millirem and one was --

12 one dosimetry record was noted to have a light leak 

13 on the film.

14 NIOSH classified eight additional 

15 entries as unverified due to legibility and again, 

16 as with the other portions of the V&V, we're 

17 requested these data and received them from Kansas 

18 City.

19 In reviewing of the V&V, NIOSH has 

20 determined that the Kansas City Plant accurately 

21 transferred dosimetry information from their raw 

22 exposure records into an electronic format and the 
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 electronic database that we used to develop a 

2 coworker model is sufficiently accurate.

3 NIOSH has determined that the available

4 monitoring records, process descriptions and 

5 source term data are sufficiently accurate to 

6 complete dose reconstruction. The external dose 

7 is bound by the Technical Basis Document coworker 

8 dose model and depleted uranium operations is 

9 bounded using the ORAUT Technical Basis 31.

10 For each radiological operation that 

11 occurred at the Kansas City Plant, NIOSH reviewed 

12 and came up with a feasibility approach for 

13 performing dose reconstruction. For the natural 

14 uranium from 1950 through 1955, we were using 

15 TBD-6000 methodologies. For the post-operations 

16 period, we were using the maximum gross alpha air 

17 sample 49 picocuries per cubic meter to give us our 

18 bounding calculations. In post-operations from 

19 '78 to '84, we're using DU and D&D operations 

20 maximum surface contaminations in the ORAUT 

21 Technical Information Bulletin 70 to model the 

22 doses. For workers with less exposure potential 
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 than the machine operators, we're using the 

2 descriptions in TBD-6000 to provide a method to 

3 apply dose for those workers.

4 For the D&D operations in '84 through 

5 1986, NIOSH using the Rockwell dosimetry data. 

6 This includes covering waste handlers with 

7 TBD-6000 methodologies when they had exposure 

8 potentials less than the people that were 

9 performing D&D operations. We wanted to ensure 

10 that we captured all workers that had any 

11 possibility of exposed retention.

12 At the Kansas City Plant, workers 

13 assigned to the projects were generally provided 

14 dosimetry, but once the radioactive materials 

15 crossed the boundary, they could have been given 

16 to workers that were unmonitored to transfer to the 

17 waste storage areas. We're capturing those 

18 workers using these different methodologies.

19 Nickel-63 operations, we went through 

20 a calculation to determine the amount of nickel-63 

21 released during the electroplating operation that 

22 was done. It worked out to be less than one 
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 millirem per year and this is not going to be 

2 assigned within the dose reconstructions.

3 For tritium operations using tritiated 

4 water, we assumed the 400 milliliter bottle was 

5 spilled over a work year. That's a bounding 

6 assumption when you consider the tight controls in 

7 value that the Department of Energy places on 

8 tritium. Losing a 400 milliliter bottle of that 

9 would be a large deal to the operations personnel. 

10 Using the ICRP dose conversion factor, we're going 

11 to be assigning 6.66 millirem per year to all 

12 workers.

13 The magnesium-thorium operations, the 

14 example dose reconstructions were completed and 

15 include triple separated thorium. The 

16 methodologies were agreed upon in the Working Group 

17 and the issue was closed pending moving -- well, 

18 not pending. Actually, after moving the process 

19 to finalize the last doses from the example DRs 

20 during TBD updates.

21 Let's see. For magnesium operations, 

22 the bounding limit of 3E-11 microcuries per 
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 milliliter is used. We're also using OCAS-TIB-9 

2 for ingestion rates and TBD-6000 methodology for 

3 worker Classes with less exposure than machine 

4 operators.

5 For tritium operations from '63 to '68, 

6 the bounding scenario was assuming that a worker 

7 handling a hi-lo switch plate would have all of that 

8 contamination transferred to skin and absorbed. 

9 Using ICRP dose conversion, it works 

10 out to 1.77 millirem per year and that dose is going 

11 to be applied to all workers.

12 So, in summary, sorry. Got to catch my 

13 breath. The SEC petition was received in 2013. 

14 We know that radiological operations went on at the 

15 plant over a period of time. Looked at the 

16 feasibility of performing dose reconstruction for 

17 each of those operations and have determined that 

18 both internal and external dosimetry or, excuse me, 

19 dose is boundable and we can calculate a dose 

20 reconstruction and that's it.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

22 Pete. Questions at this point for Pete? Board 
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 Members on the call have any questions?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: (Unintelligible)

3 MR. KATZ: Paul, your voice was a bit 

4 garbled. Can you repeat what you asked?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I had my 

6 speakerphone on.

7 I just wanted to ask about medical 

8 exposures. It's not mentioned in the summary here 

9 on the slide.

10 MR. DARNELL: I can't understand him. 

11 Medical? Oh, medical exposures are covered under 

12 the Technical Basis Document. They are bounded 

13 within the TBD.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I assume their 

15 feasible. You just didn't mention them here.

16 MR. DARNELL: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I 

17 didn't think of putting them on the slide.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Let's hear 

19 from Josie Beach.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Good afternoon.

21 I'm going to go ahead and just go 

22 through these first couple of slides. Work Group 
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 Members: Myself, Brad Clawson, Jim Lockey, John 

2 Poston and Loretta, I know I was going to stumble 

3 on her last name, Valerio. Thank you. That's 

4 what happens when nerves get you.

5 Okay. So, this slide you've seen. 

6 We've reported out twice. The last one was March 

7 at the Richland meeting. So, some of these slides, 

8 you're already seen. I've added one technical 

9 call which we did last -- or in November, not too 

10 long ago.

11 So, I've reported out on a couple of 

12 these already. This slide just represents what 

13 was closed and discussed at the last reporting.

14 Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do a 

15 summary of the newly closed issues. I'm going to 

16 try not to repeat what Pete has already talked 

17 about, but if I breeze over something and you have 

18 questions, definitely we can go over those.

19 So, in July, we did have a two-day 

20 meeting. The 16th was reserved for the 

21 petitioners and the 17th, these items were closed

22 out. 
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 Issue 7, radioactive waste, hundreds of 

2 barrels of drums were shipped out of Kansas City 

3 Plant between the '50 -- 1950 and the earlier '70s. 

4 Particularly during the depleted uranium time 

5 period of 1960 to 1972. 

6 One of our big questions was how is the 

7 waste handled and who handled the waste. Through 

8 interviews, we learned that unmonitored personnel 

9 handled all the waste. They collected the uranium 

10 and magnesium chips and cutting from the lathe 

11 machines, placed them in drums for later shipment.

12 The Work Group has accepted NIOSH's 

13 recommendation to apply the depleted uranium 

14 coworker model to all unmonitored workers. Those 

15 include the laborers, radwaste handlers and D&D 

16 workers. So, we've closed that item.

17 Most of these become TBD items which 

18 I'll cover in a later slide.

19 Issue 11 was the neutron-to-photon 

20 ratios issue. I covered this in detail last March. 

21 There was 35 datapoints. If you remember back, 

22 NIOSH was going to use OTIB-24. We agreed that 
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 that wasn't acceptable. So, they went in and 

2 looked at the 35 positive neutron measurements. 

3 The Work Group and SC&A were satisfied with those, 

4 that they were claimant favorable. They used the 

5 three highest values.

6 So, the next issue is the mag-thorium. 

7 This was agreed upon as a TBD issue also. The 

8 reason it stayed open there was a couple of 

9 different scenarios. One, we asked NIOSH to do the 

10 dose reconstruction of -- mag-thorium was one of 

11 those and we wanted to make sure we had those 

12 numbers right. Which Pete went over.

13 Also, there was some operations during 

14 -- there was a time period. There wasn't 

15 operations, but there was a time period between 

16 1963 and 1970 that we were questioning because we 

17 had no information that there was mag-thorium 

18 operations. But, we also had no information that 

19 there wasn't. So, we discussed that and that will 

20 become a TBD issue if something comes up for that 

21 time period.

22 Thorium operations which was issue 15, 
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 this was held open because of an inventory 

2 basically. So, based on DOE's interview review 

3 listing unalloyed thorium, it did not refer to 

4 thorium, but it was a duplication of mag-thorium. 

5 Once that was addressed, we were able to close that. 

6 Other than the mag-thorium at Kansas City, it was 

7 all laboratory scale and involved gram quantities 

8 with negligible exposure potential.

9 All right. The next one is issue 16. 

10 This was the natural uranium, 1950 to 1958. We're 

11 going to be using the TBD-6000 for that. I know 

12 Peter hit on that and we discussed that.

13 Issue 17, D&D activities, that is tied 

14 to issue 7 and that we also accepted NIOSH's 

15 proposal to apply the DU coworker model to all 

16 unmonitored radwaste and D&D workers as I 

17 mentioned.

18 Issue 18, we kept that open looking for 

19 more records of incidents, fires. We kept going 

20 back and looking and we just didn't find anything. 

21 So, that was closed in July also.

22 And then the tritium issue. You've 
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 heard about that. I'll talk about it in a slide. 

2 It was part of our dose reconstruction that we asked 

3 NIOSH to perform.

4 Okay. So, this is a bit unusual. We 

5 have two open items at this time and the last --

6 we held the technical call I talked about in 

7 November on the 12th. NIOSH's report came out soon 

8 after that call. SC&A's memo came out the next day 

9 actually. 

10 So, for the Work Group Members, I was 

11 hoping to have a few minutes to discuss this open 

12 issue, the issues 1 and 9, the verification and 

13 validation of the electronic database.

14 So, we're going to do that in real time. 

15 I've sent out an email to all the Work Group 

16 Members. Two are not here and I haven't heard back 

17 from them. Hopefully, they're on the phone or at 

18 least Mr. Poston's on the phone now.

19 If not, I guess with the verification, 

20 SC&A has agreed that it -- there's very few errors. 

21 There was about a 4 percent error margin which is 

22 acceptable. Some of those may even be cleared up 
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 with better records from Kansas City.

2 So, I'm going to ask the Work Group 

3 Members if they could let me know or let us -- the 

4 Board know and anybody else that wants to weigh in 

5 on these open issues.

6 As the Chair, I agree to accept SC&A's 

7 recommendation that these issues be closed. 

8 That's where I'm at. 

9 Brad, since you're in the room, 

10 anything?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. We've run this 

12 to the ground I think. I'm good with it.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. Loretta, 

14 are you still with us?

15 MEMBER VALERIO: I am, Josie, thank 

16 you. After reviewing the last report after the 

17 conference call on the 12th and seeing what NIOSH 

18 provided and SC&A provided, I think that, you know, 

19 we've come to a close on this. We've looked 

20 everywhere we can for, you know, additional data 

21 and I am in full agreement with the Work Group --

22 you know, with the rest of the Work Group to close 
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 out these issues, these two issues.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thank you, 

3 Loretta. Mr. Poston, are you with us? Yes, I was 

4 hoping since we heard him this morning.

5 Any other Board Members have any 

6 comments or questions for either NIOSH or SC&A on 

7 this issue before we move forward?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would just add that 

9 the memo, the November 12th memo, from Pete and the 

10 ORAU staff on this is included in the materials that 

11 were sent out to the Board Members. So.

12 MEMBER BEACH: That's true. Thank

13 you. I meant to mention that.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it's --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- labeled as KCP 

17 dosimetry. So.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, on that. But, 

20 I don't know.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John, do you have any 
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 -- okay.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So, then I will 

3 say that issue is -- those two issues, 1 and 9, which 

4 we consolidated are effectively closed. Okay.

5 So, moving on to summary of TBD issues, 

6 mine are slightly different than Peter's.

7 We have issue 2, worker location, job 

8 category and coworker model. The remaining issue 

9 revolved around implementation of the coworker 

10 model. Not the feasibility. We agreed that it 

11 could be done. Additional information regarding

12 the adequacy and completeness of the data used for 

13 coworker model and its applicability to various job 

14 categories can be incorporated into the next TBD. 

15 Too many words, LaVon. Right? Okay.

16 So, the other one is 3, chronic versus 

17 acute and the radioactive waste and D&D activities. 

18 That's a little different than what Peter had. We 

19 did agree in the Work Group meeting that those would 

20 become Site Profile issues.

21 Ten, non-penetrating doses and the 

22 mag-thorium which we discussed. We did ask to 
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 reserve operations during '63 to '70 in case any 

2 other information comes to light for that time 

3 period.

4 Oops. I didn't move forward. Okay.

5 So, on to the sample dose 

6 reconstructions. We did ask NIOSH to complete 

7 example dose reconstructions. Peter covered 

8 those very well just a few minutes ago. So, the 

9 mag-thorium, the switch plates with tritium, the 

10 tritium monitors.

11 The Work Group looked at the dose 

12 reconstruction and agreed that it could be done 

13 very claimant-favorably. We did have some issues 

14 on using the .19 triple separation. That has been 

15 completed as Peter just reported.

16 So, we were happy with the sample dose 

17 reconstructions on all three of those items.

18 That leaves me to petitioners' issues. 

19 I wanted to cover this. We worked really hard with 

20 the petitioners to satisfy some of the concerns 

21 that they had. Again, there's a lot written down 

22 here. I'm sure you've had time to look at it.
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 Some of the things that we ran down 

2 included whether special nuclear material was used 

3 and it was reported early on by one of the 

4 petitioners that there was a nuclear reactor that 

5 was tested and operated at KCP. What was the 

6 radiological significance of promethium 

7 contamination incident and other known or alleged 

8 incidents involving tritium depleted uranium, 

9 radiography monitoring, health physics historic 

10 monitoring practice at KCP and their adequacy, the 

11 movement of potentially contaminated workers from 

12 contaminated areas into clean areas and the 

13 contribution of nuclear fleas or hot particles? 

14 These are some of things that the petitioners 

15 brought up.

16 We conducted numerous interviews with 

17 petitioners. We conducted follow-up information 

18 submitted to NIOSH for review. We asked for 

19 specific responses, got those back to the 

20 petitioners and the Work Group Members. 

21 The follow-up with the petitioners, we 

22 followed up on many issues, provided discussion 
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 periods as I talked about earlier in July to go over 

2 technical concerns, specific responses.

3 We also conducted follow-up interviews 

4 late in the game. I would say in October. Looking 

5 for more instances and we had a couple of names that 

6 we hadn't got to earlier. So, we conducted those 

7 interviews regarding specific allegations 

8 concerning radioactive exposure incidents at 

9 Kansas City. There was -- no corroboration was 

10 found at all.

11 We also concluded that all -- the Work 

12 Group concluded that all petitioner issues raised 

13 were either already addressed within the 20 SEC 

14 Matrix items or were not SEC relative or they could 

15 not be substantiated through the extensive 

16 interview or records review to date.

17 And I keep forgetting to move forward. 

18 Sorry about that for those of you on the phone.

19 That brings us to Work Group 

20 recommendations. The first two bullets basically 

21 cover the open issues that I talked about 1 and 9 

22 which we've just resolved and the remaining concern 
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 on the example dose reconstruction which has been 

2 satisfied. 

3 So, with the completion of those 

4 actions, the Work Group does recommend to the full 

5 Board closure with conclusion that the dose 

6 reconstruction feasible as specified by NIOSH's 

7 Evaluation Report. 

8 So, we recommend to accept NIOSH's

9 report. Any --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any questions for 

11 Josie? Yes, Henry.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. I saw that 

13 there's a coworker model. I'm sorry. Did you 

14 review the DU coworker model issues and are those 

15 coworkers at Kansas City or is it the broader frame

16 work?

17 MEMBER BEACH: I'm going to either Joe 

18 or Pete catch that. We're using TBD-6000. We're 

19 using 70 and anything else you want to add to that?

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is Joe 

21 Fitzgerald.

22 Yes, we did look at the coworker model. 
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 We looked at the TBD-6000 applications of the 

2 coworker model in terms of the uranium.

3 So, there was at Kansas City 

4 considerable amount of uranium bioassay data. So, 

5 the data wasn't issue. But, certainly the 

6 treatment of that data in the model was fine.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: And so, our focus is 

9 more, you know, to what extent that should be 

10 extended to other workers that may have been 

11 exposed to uranium and you heard some of that today.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. 

13 Thanks.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Any 

15 other Board Members with questions at this point? 

16 Any Board Members on the telephone with questions?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: None here.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. Thank 

19 you. Are the petitioners on the line and wish to 

20 make comments?

21 MR. KNOX: Can you hear me?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I can. 
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 Please --

2 MR. KNOX: This is Wayne Knox.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

4 MR. KNOX: And I'm going to patently 

5 disagree with many of the statements.

6 MR. KATZ: Wayne, excuse me. Sorry to 

7 interrupt. This is Ted. But, if you could just 

8 either -- the volume is very low on your phone. I 

9 wonder if you can't either speak more closely into 

10 your phone. Perhaps that would help.

11 MR. KNOX: How it that?

12 MR. KATZ: That's better. Thank you, 

13 Wayne.

14 MR. KNOX: I patently disagree with 

15 many of the statements made by the Group. I have 

16 not been allowed to fully express myself concerning 

17 obviously false statements that were made.

18 I sat there with documents in my hand 

19 that indicate that these are average contamination 

20 levels. But, yet, they still -- NIOSH says well, 

21 this is the worst-case situation and I said wait. 

22 Hold it. There's no way the average of anything 
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 can be the worst-case situation.

2 They will say that everything was 

3 controlled within the work area. But, we have 

4 contamination found in the homes of workers.

5 The reports I gave them indicated there 

6 was 2 million counts per minute of promethium 147 

7 or other radioactive material found in the home of 

8 a lady on a brochure. It was found on her toilet 

9 and on her pillow.

10 But, yet, they still -- they say that 

11 it was confined. They say that a particle of 

12 promethium-147 -- that's 13 mics which they found 

13 was the maximum they found, but they said well, that 

14 was the maximum available. It is not true.

15 But, even if you were to do the dose 

16 analysis for the inhalation dose particles, you 

17 would have significant radiation doses to many 

18 organs of the body and it's just the skin dose.

19 They say that only promethium-147 was 

20 leaking, but then you look at the reports and no, 

21 there were many other radioactive materials that 

22 were found leaking. 
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 You must keep in mind that this facility 

2 was classified as a non-nuclear facility. We 

3 don't have radioactive material here. But, that's 

4 not true. Radioactive material was found outside 

5 as I said in the homes, outside of the building.

6 If you look at the DOL Site Exposure 

7 Matrix, it contained a lot of radioactive material 

8 that workers were working with and the DOL, 

9 Department of Labor, Site Exposure Matrix was based 

10 upon a group of people going to the site, looking 

11 in records and digging out all of the toxic 

12 substances that were used, stored or recorded and 

13 they came up with the Site Exposure Matrix which 

14 was probative. That is whatever is in the Site 

15 Exposure Matrix was supposed to have been accepted 

16 as fact. 

17 However, the Working Group meeting 

18 disagreed with that and I presented the Working 

19 Group meeting with a number of labor categories, 

20 a number of places where radioactive material was 

21 used and a number of processes in which it was used 

22 and guess what happened? Magically, all of this 
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 information was deleted from the DOL Site Exposure 

2 Matrix. I consider that destruction of evidence. 

3 Why would they go in and have it 

4 deleted? Why were they using uranium, powdered 

5 uranium in this facility? 

6 If you look at the records, they had 

7 yellowcake. Why would a facility that was making 

8 widgets and non-nuclear have yellowcake.

9 You look at the wet chemistry there. 

10 It looks like they were preparing -- making some 

11 type of fuel there.

12 As far as the reactor development, 

13 everything I looked at points toward the fact that 

14 they were developing and testing small reactors 

15 there and that reactor went to the University of 

16 Kansas Burt Hall. If you follow the line, you had 

17 fuel that was shipped to Bendix from St. Louis and 

18 why would they ship the fuel from St. Louis? We 

19 have discussed this and no one is willing to give 

20 me a license that said that it was developed in 

21 Detroit.

22 Now, I'm told that Detroit -- the 
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 Detroit Honeywell Plant actually developed and 

2 tested a nuclear reactor. No one is willing to put 

3 that in writing though. Tell me, tell this Board 

4 that in the city of Detroit a nuclear reactor was 

5 developed and tested by Honeywell Bendix.

6 I have helped put together a small TRIGA 

7 reactor. It wasn't just putting it together. We 

8 had licenses. We had a lot of procedures. Where 

9 are those procedures then that say that this 

10 reactor was developed in the city of Detroit?

11 Is anyone willing to testify that a 

12 nuclear reactor was developed and tested in the 

13 city of Detroit? No one. They will not provide 

14 me any documentation to support it.

15 But I have provided them documentation 

16 which suggests that it was done right there at the 

17 Kansas City Plant. They had all of the facilities 

18 available to do it and plus, it was being built by 

19 the University of Kansas. It was installed in Burt 

20 Hall in the University of Kansas.

21 Let's see the contract between the 

22 University of Kansas and AEC and Bendix. Those 
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 three were involved in this. Show me the contract. 

2 They won't show me the contract.

3 There are many things that they will not 

4 show me and I would submit that my security 

5 clearances out-trump any of them. I've had the 

6 highest levels of security clearances in DOE, the 

7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of 

8 Defense. I was Top Secret Control Officer. I had 

9 special access authorizations and yet, we can't 

10 show you this information.

11 To say that we used TBD-6000 is not 

12 true. I can show you, if anyone wishes to see, the 

13 data. I can show you that TBD-6000 has not been 

14 used in evaluating the worker exposures.

15 Tell me where I can meet some 

16 non-Working Group Member of the Board. I will pay 

17 all of the expenses and meet you anywhere and I can 

18 show you where this is a bunch of crap.

19 I was not allowed to speak at these 

20 meetings when NIOSH was patently misrepresenting 

21 data and information and the Board Members just 

22 nodded when it was patently wrong. 
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 How can the average be the maximum? 

2 How can we do a radiation survey and find a particle 

3 of promethium that's 13 mics and say well, that's 

4 the maximum available? 

5 No, you're supposed to use the 

6 worst-case situation and you can use student 

7 statistics to come up with a 99 percent competence 

8 level, but don't say it is. Don't say that 

9 everything was confined to this footprint when we 

10 found contamination outside of the Kansas City 

11 Plant in the GSA side.

12 Material from that plant that was 

13 contaminated was found all the way in New Mexico. 

14 It contaminated -- potentially contaminated 

15 material from that plant was shipped to Amersham, 

16 England.

17 And if you take a look at it, and I have 

18 operated health physics programs, if you look at 

19 a 3 million square foot facility, just one, one, 

20 one of those buildings, 3 million square feet, and 

21 you look at the number of radiation detectors, they 

22 had two of this and one of that. 
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 You cannot operate any kind of facility 

2 with two instruments. You have one in repair. 

3 You get one crapped up. What are you going to do? 

4 You cannot do these operations and you have the 

5 uranium there.

6 If you look at -- based upon DOL Site 

7 Exposure Matrix, you had U-233. That was part of 

8 that uranium cycle and it was a part of the old 

9 teapot bomb that was built and tested here. That 

10 was part of the uranium cycle.

11 That stuff would build up high gammas 

12 and that's not even considered even though it was 

13 stated in the Site Exposure Matrix that it was 

14 there.

15 It just bothers me that such a group 

16 focuses on paperwork and not the reality. The 

17 reality of what happened has to be considered and 

18 not what they said on paper. 

19 So, my main objective, number one, is 

20 -- in addition to this, is the Dotty Coxwell event. 

21 No one wants to talk about a cobalt-60 source that 

22 was left open. How long? We don't know. But, we 
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 know the lady, Dotty Coxwell, ended up with 

2 cataracts in both eyes. Her blood vessels broke, 

3 burst. You understand? Blood vessels burst from 

4 radiation exposure and yet, huh, no big deal.

5 And you had people that worked on the 

6 roof. Can you imagine the exposure? It's a 

7 threshold for cataract formation. It's about 200 

8 -- 150 to 200 rem dose to the eye. So, she got more 

9 than that to the eye. What happened to these 

10 people who were on the roof? 

11 What happened to skyshine? Anytime 

12 you have a large radiation source like that and you 

13 get the clouds coming over, you're going to have 

14 it bouncing off of the clouds and going over that 

15 whole facility and you had short walls. Based upon 

16 my discussions with workers, all this radiation 

17 would bounce over the short walls. 

18 You had all of these radiation 

19 generating machines and you had no -- you had no 

20 one trained in health physics. All of them -- all 

21 of them were in industrial hygienists because it 

22 was not defined as a radiological facility.
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 In my opinion, the report is not worth 

2 a hill of beans. It's false. It misrepresents 

3 the exposure and in my opinion, it's done to cover 

4 up the fact that corporate America was using 

5 government facilities and a disposable group of 

6 workers. Primarily, if you look at the records, 

7 primarily, women, minorities and the craftsmen 

8 took it in the shorts. 

9 They were exposed highly to radioactive 

10 materials, toxic chemicals while Bendix worked 

11 under the cover of a hold harmless indemnification. 

12 Bendix was provided a hold harmless 

13 indemnification for building the atomic bomb. 

14 But, they have all of these government 

15 facilities. They were on a special committee. 

16 Bendix was on a special committee to find ways of 

17 increasing the use of radioisotopes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mr. Knox, I think you 

19 need to wrap up shortly please.

20 MR. KNOX: Okay. The bottom line is 

21 no, I have not been given the opportunity to fully 

22 voice myself. When I tried, they played games with 
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 that.

2 The other big issue is the designation 

3 of the Kansas City part of the 3 million square foot 

4 facility that had a common ventilation system. 

5 People moved in and out of these areas all the time. 

6 Workers from GSA actually went into the Kansas City 

7 Plant space and performed work on contaminated 

8 components and brought the tools right back out of 

9 that space. 

10 The whole facility was contaminated and 

11 by law, the facility, a DOE facility, is the 

12 facility and its surrounding grounds. How can 

13 half of a facility not be on the same grounds as 

14 the other half of the facility?

15 But, yet, we're denying coverage to all 

16 of those workers that actually performed work on 

17 the Kansas City side under a contract. That was 

18 a contract between GSA and the Kansas City Plant. 

19 They came in and provided work for them. So, all 

20 of those workers should be covered. 

21 There are many more issues out there. 

22 I would like to sit down with somebody and just show 
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 you the paperwork I have because I have not been 

2 permitted to demonstrate. Regardless of what 

3 Josie says, no, I have not been permitted to say 

4 and show what really happened at that facility. 

5 If anyone wants to call me and I will 

6 meet them anywhere and just show them.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

8 MR. KNOX: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you very much, 

10 Mr. Knox.

11 Is there any other petitioners that 

12 wish to make comments? Okay. Thank you.

13 So, any other questions from Board 

14 Members? 

15 I think we have a motion from the Work 

16 Group basically to accept the NIOSH recommendation 

17 that the evaluation -- that doses can be 

18 reconstructed at the site. Essentially, they 

19 would not be -- this group would not be added to 

20 the Special Exposure Cohort.

21 So, any further comments or questions? 

22 If not, then, Ted, want to go ahead and do the --
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 MR. KATZ: Yes, sir. Dr. Anderson.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: I will collect votes from 

12 Dr. Lemen and Lockey because they're absent. Dr. 

13 Melius.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston, are you on the 

18 line? John Poston? Okay. Absent. I will 

19 collect his vote. Dr. Richardson is also absent.

20 Dr. Roessler.

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield.
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 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: MS. Valerio.

3 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. The motion passes. 

7 I'll collect the additional votes following this 

8 meeting.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And I would 

10 like to just acknowledge somewhat contrary to what 

11 we've heard, I think the Work Group and NIOSH made 

12 substantial efforts to reach out and give 

13 opportunity for people from the facility to provide 

14 information and provide comments on the work as 

15 they went along and I think the Work Group did an 

16 excellent job as well as with NIOSH and SC&A in 

17 evaluating this particular petition and petition 

18 evaluation and addressing issues at the facility. 

19 So, Josie, you and your fellow Work 

20 Group Members, we know it wasn't all the Chair. 

21 So.

22 MEMBER BEACH: No, it wasn't. So, let 
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 me add, too. We're not finished here. We've 

2 already tasked SC&A to work on the TBD Site Profile 

3 issues. So, we'll be moving forward with those.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

5 business for the Board meeting at this point in 

6 time?

7 Okay. Thank you. I think we can be 

8 adjourned.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

10 went off the record at 2:31 p.m.)