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

 + + + + +

 79th MEETING

 + + + + +

 TUESDAY,

 AUGUST 23, 2011

 + + + + +

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

Pacific Daylight Time, in the Courtyard

Marriott, 480 Columbia Point, Richland,

Washington, James M. Melius, Chairman,

presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

PRESENT (Continued):

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

ANDERSON, WARREN

ARMIJO, ROBERTO

AYERS, LYNN, SC&A

BARRIE, TERRIE*

CAMERON, BUCK, ATL

CARY, ANNETTE

CHEW, MEL, ORAU Team*

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FROWISS, ALBERT*

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

GOSSEEN, SHERRY

HATHAWAY, BOYD, DOE

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

HOWE, THERESE

KINMAN, JOSHUA, DCAS

KORENKO, MIKE

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

KRAUSE, JULIE C.

LEITON, RACHEL, DOL

LEMONS, BEVERLY

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LEWIS, MARK, ATL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU Team

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS

RAVENCRAFT, QUIN D.

RINGEN, KNUT

ROBERTSON, R.L.

ROLFES, MARK, DCAS

ROWE, GORDON*

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

SKVAREK, DONALD P.

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS

VLIEGER, FAYE

WADE, LEW, NIOSH Contractor

WORTHINGTON, PATRICIA, DOE
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Welcome - Dr. James Melius, Chair . . . . ..5

NIOSH Program Update - Mr. Stuart . . . . ..7

 Hinnefeld, NIOSH

NIOSH 10-Year Review - Dr. Lewis Wade,. . .14

 NIOSH

DOL Program Update - Ms. Rachel Leiton, . .47

 DOL

DOE Program Update - Dr. Patricia . . . . .73

 Worthington, DOE, Mr. Greg Lewis,

 DOE

W.R. Grace (Curtis Bay, MD) SEC . . . . ..101

 petition - Dr. James Neton, NIOSH;

 Petitioner

Y-12 SEC Petition (1948-1957) - . . . . . 138

 Mr. LaVon, Rutherford, NIOSH;

 Petitioner

Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor SEC . . ..160

 Petition (1963-1966) - Dr. John

 Poston, WG Chair; Petitioner

 

Board Work Session. . . . . . . . . . . ..173

Hangar 481 SEC Petition (Kirtland Air . ..249

 Force Base) - Dr. Sam Glover,

 NIOSH; Petitioner 

Public Comment. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..283
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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 (8:42 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning. 

4 Let's get started. Do you want to do the 

5 usual attendance?

6 MR. KATZ: Sure. So welcome, 

7 everyone. This is the Advisory Board on 

8 Radiation and Worker Health. Welcome in the 

9 room and everyone on the line.

10 We have had a lot of technical 

11 difficulties, and we still do. I appreciate 

12 that. For folks on the line, if you can't 

13 hear us well, we understand that. We're going 

14 to try to get that fixed. At least we can 

15 hear you when you have opportunities to speak 

16 at this point. But we will be working on 

17 that.

18 Let me just start with covering 

19 attendance here. The Board, we have most 

20 Members here in the room, and we have two 

21 Members we expect to be absent, Mr. Gibson and 

22 Dr. Lockey. I believe I heard Bob on the 
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 line. So that's Robert Presley. So full 

2 attendance with two Board Members missing.

3 Then let me just also note for 

4 people in the room and on the line there are 

5 comment sessions today. There's one public 

6 comment session at 6:00 p.m. this evening or 

7 5:00 p.m. this evening -- sorry -- 5:00 to 

8 6:00 this evening and a second comment, public 

9 comment session beginning at 5:00 p.m. 

10 tomorrow evening, Wednesday. And I think that 

11 covers it.

12 Let me ask people on the line 

13 please to mute your phones except when you are 

14 addressing the group. If you don't have a 

15 mute button, press *6 to mute your phone, *6 

16 to come off of mute. And please, no one on 

17 the line put your phone on hold. Just hang up 

18 and dial back in if you need to leave the call 

19 at some point. Thank you.

20 Let me, then, check, then, for --

21 Mike Gibson, are you on the line with us now?

22 (No response.)
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 MR. KATZ: Okay. We don't hear 

2 him presently.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Why don't 

4 we move on with the agenda? And we will start 

5 with NIOSH update. Stu?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I am going to 

7 speak from up here if that's okay because I 

8 can work the slides that way. And then I 

9 think I'll be the slide operator for most of 

10 the speakers, then, today.

11 I am here to provide just our 

12 normal update. As you recall, for the last 

13 few meetings now, I have not been running 

14 through the entire statistics package. They 

15 have been -- those statistics have been 

16 provided to you, and I'll try to answer any 

17 questions anyone has about those.

18 I want to just give a little bit 

19 of information on program update, program 

20 news. The first is something that you may 

21 have encountered or may encounter over the 

22 next couple of months as you deal with our 
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 office.

2 Our Deputy Director, Dave Sundin, 

3 has accepted a detail position. That's a 

4 temporary assignment with another Cincinnati 

5 NIOSH organization that runs through October. 

6 And so if any of you normally deal with Dave 

7 Sundin on issues, he won't be working on our 

8 program through the end of October.

9 In his place, I've asked Chris 

10 Ellison, who is our communications team 

11 leader, to serve a detail as the Deputy 

12 Director. So a lot of you may be dealing with 

13 Chris in your contacts with us. And then she 

14 also acts in my stead when I am out of the 

15 office.

16 So just as a brief thing, Dave's 

17 -- his detail assignment was for four months. 

18 And I believe that takes him through, like I 

19 said, the end of October. Our expectation --

20 and last time I talked to him, Dave hasn't 

21 told me any different -- is that he will 

22 return to his Deputy Director position at the 
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 end of that.

2 Detail assignments. There is 

3 always the possibility that it will turn into 

4 a permanent assignment, but I don't think that 

5 will happen in this case. I think if Dave is 

6 smart, he would probably rather come back to 

7 our organization than be in the detail he is 

8 going to be working in.

9 I wanted to put a little word up 

10 here about budget news just because federal 

11 budget is in the news so much during various 

12 sites. And if you keep up with any trade 

13 information, you may know that NIOSH, the 

14 institute, is not facing a very good year next 

15 year budget-wise.

16 Up to now -- and so the problem 

17 with budget news, government budget news, is 

18 it is never final. You know, there is always 

19 new budget news. Up to now, our program will 

20 be in pretty good stead next fiscal year, 

21 fiscal 2012, compared to -- essentially the 

22 same as what we have been for the last couple 
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 of years.

2 So the news, while it's bad in 

3 general about the federal government, up to 

4 now has not affected our program yet. And 

5 that can change at any time because we all 

6 know there is not a fiscal '12 budget passed 

7 yet for the government, and it starts October 

8 1st.

9 A little bit of news about chronic 

10 lymphocytic leukemia, this rule change we have 

11 been talking about. The Board, of course, 

12 commented, through the Science Work Group, 

13 commented on our proposed rule, which has the 

14 effect of just eliminating zero as the 

15 Probability of Causation for CLL.

16 We received a total of seven 

17 comments. All were in favor of the addition 

18 of CLL. And so the final rule package is 

19 working its way through the administration. 

20 The final rule package has an effective date 

21 of 30 days after publication. So if it goes 

22 through, the package that we saw if it goes 
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 through that way, that's what we would expect 

2 30 days from the publication of the final rule 

3 in the Federal Register.

4 Okay. I wanted to say a little 

5 bit of something about our website redesign 

6 because if you go to our public website, you 

7 will see that it looks different. This is not 

8 rolled out yet. And as these changes roll 

9 out, you'll see a different look to it.

10 These design changes are made 

11 because of institutional guidance on how your 

12 website should be built. And what it just 

13 means is right now the -- and I don't even 

14 know how web pages are built, but what I was 

15 told was the web -- the landing page for the 

16 Board is extraordinarily long.

17 If you went to that page and tried 

18 to print it out, you would just print and 

19 print and print. And so that apparently is a 

20 no-no on web design. So what they call the 

21 landing page for the Advisory Board will have 

22 much less actual information on that page, but 
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 the links will all look the same.

2 Right now when you click a link on 

3 the Advisory Board page, I think what it does 

4 is takes you down that page to a different 

5 location. It will now take you to a different 

6 page where all of the information is going to 

7 be there and we are going to strive to make 

8 the looks be the same. It looks like they may 

9 be moved around. Again, that's in compliance 

10 with institutional design features.

11 So I just wanted to show that very 

12 quickly so that when you see it, you will at 

13 least remember that I told you about it, but 

14 if there is anything you can't find, please 

15 let us know. And if there is anything that we 

16 think of that is going to be different and 

17 that, you know, may be in terms of difference 

18 in navigation, we will put out some navigation 

19 aids if necessary. I think it should be 

20 largely the same.

21 The only other item I wanted to 

22 mention, which I did not get on my slides 
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 because I forgot about it until the slides 

2 were printed, was we have recently prepared an 

3 update to the Residual Contamination Report. 

4 And it's working its way through the 

5 administration to be sent to Congress.

6 We do that periodically as our 

7 research uncovers information that changes; 

8 for instance, covered periods or residual 

9 periods. And it can happen any sorts of ways. 

10 We might find evidence that extends covered, 

11 the covered period of a site, in which case 

12 the residual period sort of starts later than 

13 what the residual report says, but the website 

14 listings that list the site never get -- they 

15 don't update the residual period until we 

16 update the Residual Contamination Report.

17 So sometimes there are some sites 

18 I think where our research indicated that the 

19 covered period, the covered work stopped 

20 earlier than originally believed, but the 

21 residual period doesn't start until the last 

22 -- you know, a couple of years later. So you 
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 have this sort of gap in coverage that is 

2 temporary until you get this thing.

3 So we submit these reports 

4 periodically in order to fix things like that 

5 that we have -- that address changes in the 

6 actual period of contamination or the period 

7 of the operating period.

8 So I believe that's the extent of 

9 the news. And we go on into the statistics. 

10 So does anyone have any questions about the 

11 statistics that were provided in the package?

12 (No response.)

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Then I 

14 guess, Lew, I believe you're up next. 

15 DR. WADE: Thank you, Stu. I was 

16 just going to take a couple of moments and 

17 bring you up to speed on where we stand with 

18 the program review and where we are going.

19 As you know, over the last couple 

20 of years, we have been involved in a review of 

21 NIOSH's performance relative to this program. 

22 That was undertaken by the NIOSH Director, 
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 Dr. John Howard, with an eye towards improving 

2 NIOSH's performance within the program.

3 The first phase was the 

4 preparation of five largely data-driven 

5 reports that looked at aspects of NIOSH's 

6 performance. They dealt with things such as 

7 dose reconstruction, Special Exposure Cohort, 

8 timeliness, quality of service, and quality of 

9 science. Those reports have been shared with 

10 you. They exist on the website.

11 The comment period for those 

12 reports just closed at the end of July. And 

13 they will be finalized before your next 

14 meeting and will be a permanent record of that 

15 review.

16 But that was just the first phase. 

17 Those reports ended with scores of 

18 recommendations as to improvements in the 

19 program. Dr. Howard sat with his leadership 

20 three or four months ago and went through 

21 those recommendations and developed a high 

22 priority list of recommendations and action 
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 items to be followed to implement those 

2 recommendations.

3 I shared that detail with you for 

4 your July conference call. And we talked 

5 through those recommendations and those action 

6 items.

7 What will happen from this point 

8 forward is that Stu and his staff under the 

9 direction of Dr. Howard will begin to 

10 implement those action items and will make it 

11 a regular part of Stu's briefing to update you 

12 on the status of those, the progress on those 

13 action items.

14 Again, Board comment is always 

15 welcome. Individual Board Members is always 

16 welcome. And we will certainly be respectful 

17 and responsive to the things that you say.

18 What I will do is very briefly 

19 remind you of what was shared with you in 

20 July. And then Stu is going to give you an 

21 update on the status of things.

22 So we started with recommendations 
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 concerning dose reconstruction. And I could 

2 highlight for you several on that page. The 

3 first, "Will provide documentation on the 

4 current in-place QA/QC plan and look at the 

5 results over the years of such a plan." It 

6 really goes to the action item number 3, which

7 says, "When the Board and its contractor 

8 conduct reviews of NIOSH's work, they find 

9 issues."

10 The question is why isn't NIOSH 

11 finding those issues when it does its internal 

12 review, not that we would diminish the value 

13 of the Board's review, but it would seem to me 

14 that those issues should be unearthed by NIOSH 

15 in their own internal review. And we will 

16 expect Stu to answer a question or two on 

17 that.

18 Next slide, Stu. Some other 

19 issues. If you look at the second there, yes. 

20 We'll look at the cost-benefit analysis of 

21 the elimination of the use of overestimating 

22 DRs.
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 Remember, we looked at the fact 

2 that there might not be that much improvement 

3 in timeliness done here. And there is a great 

4 deal of confusion in situations where people 

5 who were denied report a second cancer and 

6 come back with a dose reconstruction that's 

7 less.

8 This is an impossible situation to 

9 explain. So we ask that an action be 

10 undertaken to explore the cost-benefit of 

11 efficiency measures and whether we should 

12 continue to use them.

13 Stu, the next one. With regard to 

14 quality of service, what you might expect 

15 there, you can just look them over, but 

16 understandability, access of information, 

17 burden, you know, placed on those using the 

18 program really need to be looked at.

19 And one more, Stu. Next slide. 

20 With regard to timelines, a number of issues 

21 are being explored. The first action, we 

22 think that priority needs to be given to work 
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 on returns, as opposed to initial dose 

2 reconstructions.

3 Under number 2, again, what will 

4 it cost to set even more aggressive timelines 

5 on the completion of dose reconstructions? 

6 We're now looking at a target of nine months. 

7 And we think below nine months should be our 

8 target. But it comes as a cost, and there is 

9 a tradeoff there. So Stu will be looking at 

10 those issues.

11 The next slide, Stu. That last 

12 action item, 2, we'll look at preparing a 

13 White Paper for realizing these more 

14 aggressive time limits on dose 

15 reconstructions.

16 With regard to SEC petitions, 

17 probably the most controversial part of that

18 phase 1 report, the first action looks at 

19 adding to the Evaluation Report a section that 

20 clearly identifies decision points and gets 

21 into the issue of where these are policy 

22 calls, as opposed to science calls, and spells 
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 that out very clearly. And I think that is an 

2 important one to consider.

3 Number two, the first bullet, 

4 action item 1, opens the can of worms with 

5 sufficient accuracy. And DCAS will begin to 

6 develop a series of paragraphs that define 

7 sufficient accuracy.

8 The third one deals with this 

9 issue of a health physics bias and tries to 

10 develop actions that will allow us to explore 

11 and eliminate the health physics bias. And, 

12 finally, Stu, with regard to quality of 

13 science, a greater use of peer review is 

14 called out in number 1.

15 Next slide. In number 3, again, 

16 choose several sites where NIOSH will try and 

17 run to ground the validation of its exposure 

18 assessment methodology. There was a trial 

19 exercise done in the quality of science 

20 report. And this calls for more detail there.

21 And, finally, Stu, the last slide. 

22 We were asked to look at the EPA methodology 
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 and see what we could learn from that. So 

2 it's a reminder of what the priority actions 

3 were and the action items resulting from that. 

4 And now Stu is going to give you some updates 

5 on progress to realize those actions. And 

6 then Stu and I will both be available to take 

7 your questions at the end.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I am 

10 speaking from notes here. So this is going to 

11 be even more raw than my normal presentation. 

12 I wanted to provide just a little bit about 

13 what we have embarked on, what we are planning 

14 to do, and then some things that we haven't 

15 really decided yet, you know, what we're going 

16 to do about and go through these just with a 

17 little bit of time. I think we have a little 

18 more time on the agenda for us.

19 With respect to the dose 

20 reconstruction QA/QC issue, part of that is 

21 describing what is being done and why hasn't 

22 that been effective at preventing findings 
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 from the Board's review of dose 

2 reconstruction.

3 In order to try to answer that 

4 last part, why it hasn't been effective, we 

5 are facing a dilemma because many of the 

6 reviewed dose reconstructions were performed 

7 years ago, you know, because we have gone 

8 through in terms of the discussion with the 

9 Board maybe the first eight sets of reviews. 

10 And those, the actual performance of those 

11 dose reconstructions occurred well before they 

12 were reviewed.

13 So in order to do this as we are 

14 compiling -- and we pretty much have compiled 

15 the first part, you know, the listing, kind of 

16 comprehensive listing of what we and our 

17 contractor, ORAU, do in terms of quality of 

18 dose reconstruction.

19 We are pulling out the most 

20 recently completed dose reconstructions that 

21 have been reviewed by the Board. And I 

22 believe it's the 12th set was the last set 
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 that we have actually got the full report, the 

2 SC&A full report of the review.

3 And we picked the five last 

4 completed dose reconstructions because the 

5 date that we had originally completed the dose 

6 reconstruction, that's the date we are trying 

7 to move as close to as possible. The closest 

8 we can get is about two years ago and maybe 

9 two and a half years ago maybe by now.

10 So we're going to look at the 

11 findings from those five cases and do this 

12 analysis on the most recent ones we can do 

13 because we think we'll get better explanation, 

14 you know, a better thought of why isn't our 

15 system catching these findings if we're 

16 looking at things the way we do it as recently 

17 as possible.

18 The best thing would be the way we 

19 do them now, but we don't have reviews in real 

20 time and so do them the most recent possible. 

21 And that will give us the best information on 

22 that action number 3 on there.
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 Action number 2 just talks about 

2 working with the Subcommittee on Dose 

3 Reconstruction, which is heavily involved in 

4 QA/QC of dose reconstruction. We had a fairly 

5 long discussion about that at the last 

6 Subcommittee meeting, which occurred between 

7 the last in-person meeting and this one of the 

8 Board.

9 And, at that, the key message, at 

10 least that I took away from the Board Members 

11 at that meeting was it would be really nice to 

12 have some sort of objective measure real time 

13 of what we think the quality is now. So we 

14 start making interventions. We'll know if 

15 we're improving anything or not. And the idea 

16 was some sort of blind testing system. In 

17 other words, two people do a dose 

18 reconstruction and compare how it comes out.

19 We really struggled with making 

20 this blind. And we haven't found a way to 

21 make it blind to both people. What we are 

22 planning to do is arrive at a system where 
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 dose reconstructions are assigned to our 

2 contractor to perform. It will just be like 

3 any other case to them. It will be selected 

4 on our side to be performed by someone on our 

5 side as well. So we will not be blind to our 

6 person. And ours will only be the check one.

7 The official dose reconstruction, 

8 the one we expect the program would use would 

9 be the one coming from the contractor. They 

10 won't know which ones are selected or when we 

11 start even. And so then we'll do that, two 

12 dose reconstructions. We'll have the two to 

13 compare, the one that was done as if it were 

14 just a regular dose reconstruction and our 

15 person, who theoretically is probably going to 

16 apply more care to it.

17 Now in order to compare outcomes 

18 of dose reconstructions, we don't feel 

19 competent that just reporting the dose number 

20 is going to actually give you a full analysis 

21 of what happened because quite likely there 

22 will be some differences in the dose number.
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 So what we intend to do is compare 

2 in detail how the two dose reconstructions 

3 were done, both the one that came from the 

4 contractor and the duplicate that we did and 

5 compare in detail how they were done.

6 We started to write a checklist 

7 for comparing all the things about a dose 

8 reconstruction, you know, or to sort out how 

9 it worked. And it occurred to us that SC&A 

10 has written about the best one you can write. 

11 In their -- the checklist they use to write 

12 dose reconstruction reviews.

13 So our checklist is going to be 

14 pretty much like theirs in terms of comparing 

15 the blind to the actual contractor-prepared DR 

16 in order to identify differences. And once 

17 you identify differences, then your thought 

18 process is "Okay. Who did it right?" if there 

19 is a right way. If there is not a right way 

20 and they both did what would be considered 

21 acceptable methods, well, then you have a 

22 problem in the clarity of your instructions, 
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 in which case that is going to lead to a lot 

2 of your quality findings because your 

3 instructions aren't clear.

4 So there are some things you can 

5 get out of a process like that. That is like 

6 step one. So that's early on in trying to fix 

7 and trying to make some significant 

8 improvements in the QA process for dose 

9 reconstruction.

10 Okay. Everybody looks puzzled and 

11 disturbed. So either I am boring them or we 

12 didn't get that one right.

13 With respect to the efficiency 

14 measures, I have said and I believe that there 

15 would be a lot of value if we didn't do 

16 efficiency measure overestimate dose 

17 reconstructions because when we get those back 

18 on a return, it's just -- I have not figured 

19 out yet how to explain to people clearly 

20 enough what is going on on that. And it 

21 really hurts our credibility when a person 

22 gets another cancer and their PoC number goes 
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 down.

2 So I would really like to do that. 

3 We are getting some preliminary estimates of 

4 what it would take based on the last several 

5 years of experience. And it's fairly 

6 disheartening to me because it would cost a 

7 lot to provide that much additional time for 

8 dose reconstruction.

9 The time estimates worked out 

10 somewhere around 16 hours, plus or minus maybe 

11 4 or 5, for efficiency method and about 40 

12 hours, plus or minus 8, for a best estimate. 

13 And so since we do probably more than half of 

14 our cases, our efficiency methods of some 

15 sort, you're talking about a large increment 

16 in the amount of time, dose-reconstructor 

17 time, that has to be done for dose 

18 reconstruction and the concomitant cost that 

19 then gets subtracted from SEC review and the 

20 other things that we are trying to accomplish 

21 in the program. So we're balancing an 

22 available resource supply among the various 
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 objectives we are trying to complete.

2 We haven't given up. We think 

3 there are some things we can do. We are 

4 looking at maybe when the first time a case 

5 comes back, is returned, always do a best 

6 estimate in that case.

7 There are certain kinds of cases 

8 where maybe you should just always do a best 

9 estimate, for instance, on a skin cancer, 

10 because, far and away, the cancers that come 

11 back with additional cancers are skin cancers. 

12 And so that's where you are liable to get 

13 more diagnoses after you have done dose 

14 reconstruction. So we are looking at some 

15 half measures to see if there is something we 

16 can manage.

17 Okay. With quality of service, 

18 this one is going to be difficult because it 

19 is going to be really hard to know when we 

20 have improved. We do intend, though, to take 

21 a real shot at a couple of items.

22 The issue of dealing better with 
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 claimant-provided information is a really 

2 sticky one. And that is going to take a lot 

3 of effort and probably some significant 

4 process change with our contractor. So that's 

5 going to be difficult. We haven't really 

6 thought that one through very much.

7 With respect to our communication 

8 to other people, the things we write, we are 

9 doing some rewrites. We have started 

10 rewriting some of our standard communications. 

11 And these are usually the cover letters that 

12 go with certain decision points. The ones we 

13 have done so far are in the SEC process.

14 I just made a few notes because if 

15 there are -- hold this one. Okay. So now I 

16 am holding a phone, holding a microphone, 

17 working the slides, and reading from my notes. 

18 So this will get really rough at this point. 

19 If you guys knew how hard it is for me just 

20 to get through life, you know, how badly 

21 coordinated I am, this is asking a lot.

22 There are these software routines 
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 that you can run on a file that you have 

2 written, document you have written. And Word 

3 has one. I think Adobe might have one that 

4 tells you a readability measure of that 

5 document. And it's based largely on word 

6 length and sentence length. And so we ran 

7 some of our standard documents through that 

8 before revision.

9 Oh, okay. Now I have an 

10 assistant. I have one less thing to do.

11 For instance, the letter that we 

12 send someone who is going to be in an 83.14 

13 SEC situation, where we say, "We're not able 

14 to reconstruct your dose," the inability to 

15 reconstruct letter, before we rewrote it, the 

16 reading level on that from the software was 

17 16.8, meaning you have to have a Master's 

18 degree to understand what we are talking

19 about. When we rewrote it, it's at 12.5. So 

20 we kind of got it back down to high school 

21 level, which is what we're supposed to be 

22 shooting for.
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 So we have rewritten that letter; 

2 the acknowledgement of the, I think it is the 

3 acknowledgment of the case; the call consult 

4 summary. So this is when a person submits an 

5 SEC petition, we have a consult call with them 

6 to see if in case there are deficiencies with 

7 the petition remedy. Then we send them a 

8 letter that is the outcome of that consult 

9 call. That one has been rewritten. That was 

10 at a 13.7. That's now 12.1.

11 A letter telling someone a 

12 petition is administratively closed was 

13 written at college level. Now it's at about 

14 junior in high school level.

15 So we have gone through a series 

16 of these. We have gone through a series of 

17 these and managed to move them all down at 

18 least to the 12 and a fraction. So none of 

19 these 6 documents that we have rewritten that 

20 pertain to the SEC process are higher than 12 

21 point something at least at this point.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If nothing else 
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 serves to distract you, Stu, we will start 

2 throwing tomatoes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Why not? And we 

4 have several communications in the dose 

5 reconstruction process are on the slate to 

6 rewrite as well, but they have not been 

7 revised yet. 

8 One thing I wanted to speak 

9 briefly about -- and I don't want to go too 

10 much longer because we are running out of 

11 time. And that is the availability of 

12 information to the public. And the specific 

13 way I took this was information that's 

14 discussed at Work Group meetings because that 

15 is the comment I have heard specifically about 

16 how difficult it is for a member of the public 

17 who calls into a Work Group meeting to follow 

18 a discussion of a White Paper, for instance, 

19 that has been shared and that is being talked 

20 about at a Work Group meeting when they don't 

21 even have the paper, you know, it is not 

22 available.
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 Now frequently these are exchanged 

2 right before the meeting, which means that we 

3 are going to have a hard time making those 

4 public. But if you have White Papers that are 

5 exchanged some period of time ahead and can 

6 have a Privacy Act review done, then there's 

7 no reason why those can't be available.

8 And so we're trying to build a 

9 process, place on the website, our public 

10 website, where people could go to identify the 

11 technical documents that are going to be 

12 discussed on today's Work Group meeting, 

13 probably be on the Work Group meeting page. 

14 You have the agenda. And then you would have 

15 the documents to be discussed, probably either 

16 at the same place or linkable.

17 With timeliness, I'll just mention 

18 it had to do -- the timeliness objectives had 

19 to do with valuing reworks more highly than 

20 new claims. You want to try to get them out 

21 quicker. And we have adopted criteria like 

22 that for our contractor.
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 For their -- criteria, there is a 

2 shorter deadline on reworks than there is on 

3 new ones provided that we have all of the 

4 information on the rework. We don't need to 

5 make another exposure history request or 

6 something.

7 I think I will slip past SECs. 

8 The actions on this are pretty 

9 self-explanatory, although not easy to do.

10 We have selected an existing 

11 Evaluation Report to use to go through that 

12 existing Evaluation Report to try to write 

13 "Where are the decision points?" and then for 

14 the purpose of deciding what is a science 

15 decision and what is a policy decision. I 

16 don't know if we can do that or not. I don't 

17 know that we're smart enough to do that, but 

18 we're going to give it a try.

19 I just wanted to say a word about 

20 the health physics bias question. The

21 wording, the words "health physics bias" kind 

22 of put me on edge a little bit. Now I always 
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 remember, though, that I kind of agree with 

2 this.

3 And I'm thinking not here of a 

4 bias for or against because "bias" normally 

5 has a negative term. I'm thinking here of our 

6 filters that we bring to a question.

7 A health physicist through your 

8 whole career, you are handed a set of 

9 information and you -- solve the problem. And 

10 you solve the problem. You have an answer. 

11 You know, you write down what are the 

12 assumptions, what are the things, but you get 

13 an answer.

14 Well, when you are in an SEC 

15 situation and your question is, "What is the 

16 dose?" and you get a set of information, your 

17 tendency is, "Well, here is the answer. You 

18 know, I'll write you an answer."

19 And the judgment about is this 

20 really a sufficient amount of information to 

21 make that answer, you know, until we start 

22 doing this, we don't even think about that 
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 very much. Sometimes you would, but normally 

2 you would come up with an answer.

3 So at this point in this program 

4 we're asked to make that additional question 

5 of not only can you get an answer, but is it a 

6 good answer? Do you have enough information 

7 to really make a good answer. And the "good," 

8 you know, "sufficiently accurate," is sort of 

9 an ill-defined term.

10 So that is the way I read when 

11 somebody says there is a health physics bias 

12 to our work. That is the way I read that. I 

13 don't think of it as a negative. I think of 

14 it as a reality, an occupational reality that 

15 we bring because of our experience.

16 The quality of science issues, we 

17 are embarking on those. We have selected at 

18 least one site to try a validation study on. 

19 And we are starting to design that validation 

20 study of our -- I think that's a coworker 

21 approach, yes, a validation of the coworker 

22 approach at Savannah River. So we have at 
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 least selected that. And there are other 

2 things along here.

3 Action plans are always rather 

4 fluid because you start something and it 

5 doesn't work and you may have to try something 

6 else or you can't get to where you thought you 

7 were. So we have action plans.

8 We kind of keep those in-house 

9 since they are so dynamic and we don't want to 

10 set expectations too firmly because we're not 

11 exactly sure we've got it all figured out yet 

12 in terms of how we are going to solve all of 

13 these things.

14 So I'll try and answer any 

15 questions anybody has about anything I said or 

16 anything I didn't say.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Stu. 

18 And thank you for dealing with the technical 

19 issues also. Appreciate that.

20 Any Board Members have questions 

21 for -- yes? Phil, then Paul.

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Stu, I have got 
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 a question. I would like to see a breakdown 

2 of the different ICD-9 codes versus level of 

3 exposures for claimants. Do you have that 

4 data broken down?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Exposure for? In 

6 other words, target organ?

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Like the 

8 different cancer types versus the exposure 

9 people received.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The Probability 

11 of Causation you mean?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, for each 

13 different cancer.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That is on our 

15 website. If you're looking at --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think the 

17 Board --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Is it Probability 

19 of Causation or is it actually outcome? It's 

20 compensable versus non-compensable outcome. 

21 On our website, there is a report -- it's 

22 probably a couple of years old by now, it was 
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 current as of that time -- that gave percent 

2 of claims compensable by ICD -- or by -- it 

3 was either by target organ or ICD-9 code. 

4 And, actually, I guess it's actually by IREP 

5 model, which ties to ICD-9 code. They're on 

6 there. The ICD-9 code is covered by each IREP 

7 model or on there.

8 So that's there. We have not done 

9 a similar compilation for dose per organ I 

10 don't think. So I'm trying to visualize if we 

11 could do that or not. I'm not exactly sure 

12 that would be as straightforward.

13 You see, those numbers aren't 

14 necessarily databased. The dose numbers 

15 aren't necessarily databased and conveniently 

16 obtainable the way the PoC numbers are.

17 Okay. Paul?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Stu, I certainly 

19 agree that evaluating the cost of doing best 

20 estimate versus overestimate is very much 

21 worth looking at. At the same time I've often 

22 felt that we still have a communications 
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 problem, particularly if one made the decision 

2 in our cases where you're going to do the 

3 overestimate. And it seems to me that in 

4 parallel with that effort, we still need to 

5 look at how we communicate that.

6 Something has got to happen at the 

7 front end when you do an overestimate so that 

8 people know that if something occurs where 

9 we're looking at a second cancer or some other 

10 factor, that it's highly likely that the real 

11 value is going to be lower.

12 I don't know how we communicate 

13 that well, but it may be something similar to 

14 what you talked about with the words and the 

15 length of the sentences and the level of 

16 understanding. We obviously aren't 

17 communicating it very well now.

18 And it may be that if you found 

19 that there is not a real good 

20 cost-effectiveness in eliminating overestimate 

21 completely, we still need to look at that 

22 communication thing.
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 It is very troubling to people. I 

2 mean, it is counterintuitive that if I get a 

3 second cancer, my probability has gone down. 

4 It's just something. We just need to look at 

5 that communication issue.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have gone 

7 through a couple of evolutions of language in 

8 the front of the dose reconstruction report 

9 about that. I say that now. I think I was 

10 thinking about readability scores a minute 

11 ago.

12 The dose reconstruction report 

13 itself is a little intimidating to read. And 

14 what we call the first part of the dose 

15 reconstruction actually is about page 3 after 

16 you get through the first 2 pages, which is 

17 boilerplate, the same in every one.

18 So the dose reconstruction report 

19 is one of the documents we have got on the 

20 list to rewrite. It's probably the most 

21 complicated rewrite. And so we have done some 

22 things on that.
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 But I think you are right. Some 

2 improvement in that communication of an 

3 overestimate might be better. And our thought 

4 about revising the dose reconstruction report 

5 is to break it in a package of pieces.

6 It could very well that if we can 

7 find the right piece, whether it be the cover 

8 letter or something that would be specific for 

9 an overestimate, we might be able to get that 

10 message in front of people a little better.

11 The message is in the dose 

12 reconstruction report, but I'm afraid that the 

13 dose reconstruction report is a difficult 

14 place to communicate that because it's not an 

15 easy thing to get through in general.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, David?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I am trying to 

18 think through the process a little bit and one 

19 of the points of kind of difficulty. I agree 

20 with you. If you can't do the best estimate, 

21 then using an overestimate creates a problem 

22 of communication.
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 And I'm wondering if one of the 

2 issues of communication, one of the 

3 difficulties of communication arises because 

4 what is communicated is a probability, a 

5 quantitative estimate of a Probability of 

6 Causation when, in fact, you have done no more 

7 than ballpark it. And then somebody gets back

8 something which is a different quantitative 

9 result, where you have actually tried to 

10 calculate something.

11 I mean, what is the requirement 

12 for communicating to people something when you 

13 have actually just ball parked it? I mean, 

14 would it not be enough to say, "we haven't 

15 gone through a full dose reconstruction, but 

16 our judgment is that it is not going to exceed 

17 the threshold for compensation" or are you 

18 required to report a numerical value, 

19 regardless of what you have done?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I will have to 

21 communicate with my DOL counterparts for that, 

22 Department of Labor counterparts. Our dose 
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 reconstruction always says, you know, "It's 

2 not going to meet the threshold" or "It 

3 appears that it will meet the threshold."

4 That's all we say. The Department

5 of Labor, who does the Probability of 

6 Causation calculation, reports the value to 

7 the claimant. So that communication you are 

8 describing would have to be a change to their 

9 process. And I don't know, really, what their 

10 requirements are.

11 I suspect we will have to have 

12 that conversation outside the room. I doubt 

13 that that is something -- if you ask me that 

14 question and I were them, I wouldn't 

15 necessarily know what I would be able to say. 

16 So we will have to have that conversation 

17 with them outside the room.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, I 

19 don't know in the sense of openness what is 

20 the best thing. I think it is good to share 

21 as much information as you can with people, 

22 but the problem is you are communicating 
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 different types of information of different 

2 quality. And I think that is also part of the 

3 issue.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Paul, 

6 we'll give you the last word.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I am always 

8 willing to give the Department of Labor my 

9 usual kick. And that is don't report 

10 overestimates to two decimal places. And that 

11 is where I will stop.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We are working on 

13 that on our end, too, Paul. We are working on 

14 that on our end.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Don't report them 

16 to one decimal place.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We are working on 

18 it. I can talk to you about that when we get 

19 a chance. I'll tell you what we're thinking 

20 of.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Aside from a 

22 decimal point, I would just add I think it is 
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 very hard to report -- not report a number to 

2 people when you have set this threshold of 50 

3 percent. And they are going to want to know 

4 --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. How close 

6 was I? Right.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. We have 

8 all gotten grades in school for too long and 

9 test scores and so forth. You want the 

10 number, not the --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're running a 

13 little bit behind. I don't think there are 

14 any more outstanding questions. So thank you, 

15 Stu and Lew. And we will move on.

16 Next we will have a program update 

17 from the Department of Labor. And Rachel 

18 Leiton is here.

19 MS. LEITON: Good morning. I'm 

20 glad to be here today to talk a little bit 

21 about what is going on with us at DOL.

22 I'm not going to run through all 
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 the normal slides we run through. I'm just 

2 going to briefly talk about the fact that it 

3 was enacted in 2000 with Part B and Part D. 

4 Part D was administered by the Department of 

5 Energy as a state workers compensation 

6 assistance program.

7 The amendments in October of 2004 

8 created Part E and transferred all of the 

9 cases that were with DOE to Department of 

10 Labor as a federal entitlement program. Part 

11 E does not involve NIOSH. So I won't really 

12 be talking much about Part E.

13 Overall in the last ten years, we 

14 just celebrated our ten-year anniversary of 

15 the program. We have had 146,000 cases filed 

16 with over $7.3 billion in total compensation. 

17 And that's a lot more than they had 

18 originally expected in this program. So I 

19 think that's quite an accomplishment.

20 We do work with three other 

21 agencies, the Department of Energy that helps 

22 with employment verification; of course, HHS, 
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 NIOSH; and the Department of Justice, which 

2 assists us with information on the Radiation 

3 Exposure Compensation Act, which is something 

4 that we cover those individuals.

5 We have district offices in 

6 Washington -- well, our final adjudication is 

7 in Washington, D.C. along with the national 

8 office. We have district office locations in 

9 Jacksonville, Cleveland, Denver, and Seattle.

10 This is just a brief breakdown of 

11 our Part B cases. Thirty-six percent go to 

12 NIOSH. We have 36 percent that are other 

13 cases, such as beryllium disease likely. RECA 

14 is ten percent. And SEC cases that have never 

15 been sent to NIOSH are nine percent. Those 

16 would be new incoming. And then SEC cases 

17 referred to NIOSH would be nine percent. 

18 That's those that would have gone, come back 

19 before dose reconstruction likely.

20 Thus far, there have been 2,976 

21 cases withdrawn from NIOSH for an SEC Class 

22 review. We have issued 2,617 final decisions. 
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 Of those, 2,530 have been final approvals; 19 

2 recommended decisions thus far with no final 

3 decision at the moment. We have 72 cases 

4 pending for SEC review. And we have closed 

5 260 cases after review upon determination that 

6 they would not fit in the Class.

7 I'm just going to talk a little 

8 bit about our SEC Class implementation, what 

9 DOL does, how we coordinate with DOE, DOL, 

10 NIOSH. And I think somebody had requested 

11 that we just walk through this again. We may 

12 have mentioned it in the past.

13 Initially NIOSH sends the 

14 Department of Labor a letter sharing their

15 draft language about the possible SEC Class. 

16 That usually occurs a couple of weeks, few 

17 weeks before NIOSH presents the SEC Class to 

18 the Board.

19 When we get that letter, we look 

20 at it. We try to determine whether we think 

21 we can administer it with the Definition 

22 that's in the proposed Class. We will then 
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 send a letter to NIOSH with our comments.

2 We think that this process has 

3 helped improve some of the consistency and the 

4 fairness of claims adjudication. There are so 

5 many complications that can occur with some of 

6 these definitions, whether we think we can 

7 administer what DOE can give us.

8 So I think this process has really 

9 helped that. It also helps to speed the 

10 process of determining which cases might be 

11 part of the Class.

12 We do not comment on whether a 

13 Class should be created because that is not 

14 really our role. We just help with any 

15 information that might be helpful to NIOSH in 

16 coming up with a Definition in terms of 

17 whether we can administer the Class.

18 After we have come up with a --

19 NIOSH has developed a Definition, we will 

20 produce a draft circular. That circular is 

21 produced after the recommendation has been 

22 made to the Board on the new SEC Class 
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 Definition. We share that draft with NIOSH to 

2 determine whether they think we have kind of 

3 captured the right information in terms of the 

4 SEC Class Definition.

5 And we used to do bulletins, which 

6 was a very lengthy -- bulletin is slightly 

7 different from a circular in that a bulletin 

8 is procedural step-by-step guidance for the 

9 claims examiners. A circular is more 

10 informational. Since we have been doing so 

11 many of these now, these Classes, and our 

12 claims examiners are pretty familiar with the 

13 actual process that's laid out in terms of 

14 adjudication, now we just have a circular 

15 which basically says, "Here's the Definition. 

16 Here are the dates." And they fill in what 

17 they need to. And I think that's kind of 

18 speeding along the process in terms of getting 

19 these circulars and this information to the 

20 claims examiners.

21 The circulars are based on the 

22 reasons for the new SEC Class and the SEC 
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 Class Definition. They are taken directly 

2 from the NIOSH SEC Petition Evaluation Report. 

3 Many of our procedures are used when 

4 evaluating the claims. They're the same, as I 

5 indicated. Our bulletins have laid that out. 

6 So our process is pretty streamlined at this 

7 point.

8 As we have discussed on many 

9 occasions, SEC Classes may not cover all 

10 workers. And, as you know, it can be limited 

11 by monitoring status, saying what is monitored 

12 or should have been monitored, limited by work 

13 location; division; or buildings; for example, 

14 AMES and LANL; any tech area that might be 

15 specified in a Definition.

16 Sometimes it's limited by job 

17 titles. Again, AMES Lab sheet metal workers, 

18 Iowa Ordnance Plant radiographers. And other 

19 times it's limited by certain processes or 

20 operations, like the Iowa Ordnance Plant 

21 Process Area 1.

22 DOL relies on DOE records, as I 
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 indicated, to place people in certain 

2 buildings, certain areas. And that's why when 

3 we get a proposed Class Definition from NIOSH, 

4 we will go immediately to DOE in certain 

5 circumstances or we will rely on our own 

6 personal experience with obtaining records.

7 But we'll go to DOE and say, "Do 

8 you have records? Can you help us place these 

9 individuals in the Class that is being 

10 proposed as a Definition?" Oftentimes they 

11 can't. And so that is what we will tell NIOSH 

12 when we have that information.

13 DOL includes in the circular a 

14 list of the records that can be used. So if 

15 we do know that there is a list or there is 

16 something that NIOSH can give us that will 

17 help administer the Class, that's included in 

18 our Definition in our circular to our claims 

19 examiners when they are trying to adjudicate 

20 these claims.

21 Once HHS's letter to Congress 

22 regarding the SEC petition is sent, our 
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 circular is then placed on our website. And 

2 after it goes through our concurrence process, 

3 which is usually pretty quick on these, it 

4 goes through our upper management and then to 

5 OWCP, which is our second layer. And then our 

6 Office of the Solicitor usually -- often will 

7 review these as well.

8 Our goal is to have the circular 

9 finalized by the time the SEC becomes 

10 effective. And we have been able to do that 

11 in just about every occasion.

12 We also have another goal that is 

13 designed to make sure that we get recommended 

14 decisions out within the first 90 days after 

15 an SEC is established.

16 Again, we have been successful at 

17 doing that. Oftentimes it's about 60 days. 

18 So that has been a goal of ours. And I have 

19 been happy that we have been able to do it as 

20 quickly as we have.

21 With regard to NIOSH referral 

22 status, 35,000 cases have been referred to 
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 NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Thirty-two 

2 thousand, nine hundred and seven have been 

3 returned by NIOSH that are currently at DOL, 

4 28,000 with a dose reconstruction, about 4,000 

5 without a dose reconstruction; 2,470 cases 

6 that are currently at NIOSH. One thousand, 

7 eight hundred and twenty-three are initial 

8 referrals to NIOSH, and 647 are reworks or 

9 returns to NIOSH. And I am going to talk in a 

10 bit about what the breakdown of those returns 

11 to NIOSH are, why we returned them to NIOSH. 

12 That was another request I think we received. 

13 So we will talk a little bit about that.

14 Twenty-eight thousand, eight 

15 hundred and ten cases were returned by NIOSH 

16 that are currently at DOL with a dose 

17 reconstruction. And of our final decisions, 

18 23,941 cases have one.

19 Again, our approval rate is just 

20 about the same as it has been on 

21 dose-reconstructed cases. It's 35 percent 

22 approval rate and 65 percent denial rate.
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 Of the cases that we do accept, we 

2 have accepted 7,837 dose reconstruction cases. 

3 Again, this is just Part B; SEC cases about 

4 double that, 14,000. And then we've got these 

5 cases that are accepted based on an SEC status 

6 and a PoC. Sometimes we will have a specified 

7 cancer and non-specified cancer. So it will 

8 go through both processes. And we've got 

9 about 638 payees on that.

10 And then all accepted SEC and 

11 dose-reconstructed cases are 22,000 cases, 

12 which represents 35,145 payees.

13 We have been working with NIOSH 

14 and with Department of Energy on a joint 

15 outreach task group. That was developed last 

16 year. And basically we meet on a regular 

17 basis. And the individual, the groups that 

18 are involved are our division, the Office of 

19 the Ombudsman for EEOICPA and for NIOSH, 

20 NIOSH; the DOE Former Workers Medical 

21 Screening Program; and, of course, DOE.

22 We have monthly conference calls 
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 trying to determine where we should go, what 

2 we should be doing, what types of outreach, 

3 joint materials we can be sending out just to 

4 represent the entire group.

5 In fiscal year 2011, we have had 

6 town hall meetings in Kansas City plant, Oak 

7 Ridge, Savannah River site, Fermi National 

8 Accelerator Lab, and Argonne National Lab 

9 East. And we have also been working on a town 

10 hall meeting video.

11 As I indicated, we have done some 

12 pamphlets jointly, but this video is something 

13 we were thinking we could put on the websites 

14 of NIOSH, DOE, DOL, our resource centers. And 

15 it's kind of like our regular town hall 

16 meeting format, but it's something they can 

17 just download and they can present it to 

18 claimants as needed.

19 So that's something we have been 

20 working on. And hopefully we'll have it 

21 completed maybe by the end of the fiscal year, 

22 something along there, end of calendar year 
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 maybe.

2 SEC outreach specifically, we have 

3 conducted six town hall meetings and eight 

4 traveling resource centers during fiscal years 

5 '10 and '11. The traveling resource centers 

6 are not as big as town hall meetings, and they 

7 are usually for the smaller SEC Classes.

8 If they're really small SEC 

9 Classes and we find that we don't have a lot 

10 of claimants that might be affected, we'll do 

11 press releases and that sort of outreach.

12 We have also at DOL been trying to 

13 reach out to some areas where we are not sure 

14 that people are aware of the program. So we 

15 did a little analysis of facilities where 

16 there have been less than 50 claims filed. We 

17 identified several of them. Most of them are 

18 AWE facilities. And we have just been 

19 concentrating our efforts of notifying those 

20 individuals of the program through press 

21 releases, reaching out to unions, and using 

22 our Resource Center staff.
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 Ruttenber. We have finally come 

2 to some conclusions on the Ruttenber database. 

3 The database was created from the 

4 epidemiological studies conducted by the 

5 Ruttenber team at the Colorado Department of 

6 Public Health and the Environment. And we 

7 have been analyzing this for several years now 

8 in terms of whether we could use this database 

9 for the Rocky Flats plant SEC Class.

10 The Ruttenber study relied on the 

11 dosimetry records provided by the Rocky Flats 

12 radiation protection department to calculate 

13 unmonitored neutron dose. And we decided we 

14 will be able to use the database as a resource 

15 for our claims examiner adjudicating Rocky 

16 Flats plant claims, placing them in the Class 

17 in terms of if they're in one of the buildings 

18 that are listed in the Class and they are in 

19 the Ruttenber database, then we're going to go 

20 ahead and use that as a resource for placing 

21 them in the Class.

22 In addition, we will look at the 
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 database to determine if there is evidence of 

2 100 millirem or more of exposure, using that 

3 to place them in the Class.

4 Now a preliminary review of this 

5 is that there aren't a lot of cases that are 

6 on the Ruttenber that are not on the NDRP, 

7 which is what we already use. But it will be 

8 used in incoming cases. We will be looking at 

9 cases that we have had in our database that 

10 may have been denied for an employment reason 

11 to see if they're in that database.

12 The DOL implementation of the Ames 

13 Laboratory SEC Class during the July 11th, 

14 2011 Board telephone meeting, NIOSH proposed 

15 an SEC Class for all workers for the period 

16 from January 1st, 1942 through December 31st, 

17 1970, based on the inability to bound internal 

18 thorium and other radionuclide exposures.

19 I know you guys are going to be 

20 talking about this on Thursday. 

21 Unfortunately, Jeff Kotsch and I have to 

22 return on Thursday. So I'm just going to 
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 briefly go over what our thoughts are on this 

2 process and what we might be able to 

3 administer in terms of what the Definition is 

4 going to mean for us.

5 This Class subsumed three already 

6 existing SEC Classes. The Board deferred a 

7 decision, hoping to get additional details 

8 from us on who might be covered in terms of 

9 whether all university employees would be 

10 covered, whether that includes non-technical 

11 personnel, housekeeping, et cetera.

12 I wanted to just go over briefly 

13 again what the statutory definition of a DOE 

14 contractor employee is. And that's any of the 

15 following: an individual who is or was in 

16 residence at a DOE facility as a researcher 

17 for one or more periods, aggregating at least 

18 24 months. That means that if you were a 

19 researcher, you were working very specifically 

20 on a very specific project at the facility and 

21 you had to have been there for 24 months as 

22 part of a project. So that wouldn't cover 
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 just any old professor who walks into the 

2 site.

3 Then the other part of the 

4 definition, it could be an individual who is 

5 or was employed at a DOE facility by an entity 

6 that contracted with the DOE to provide 

7 management and operating, management and 

8 integration, or environmental remediation at 

9 the facility or a contractor or subcontractor 

10 that provided services, including construction 

11 and maintenance at the facility.

12 What that means is that they had 

13 to have done work for DOE and they had to have 

14 been under contract specifically for DOE to do 

15 these specific things. And if they weren't, 

16 then they're not going to be covered. So this 

17 would preclude just any old worker that was at 

18 the university, like a professor, like a 

19 housekeeper, unless they could establish that 

20 they were under a very specific contract, that 

21 they worked at those very specific Ames 

22 locations that were part of Ames. They're not 
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 going to be just generally covered under our 

2 program. So those are the things we look for 

3 and we will look for when administering any 

4 sort of Class at Ames.

5 Before I go on, do you have 

6 questions about this?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: By the way, I 

8 was hoping that slide came out of some email 

9 correspondence that we all had, including DOE 

10 also and Stu and Rachel, late last week. So 

11 I'm going to try to get some clarification on 

12 this without -- I think it's hard for DOL to 

13 say about a specific employee without sort of 

14 knowing the contracts and the circumstances. 

15 But I thought this was sort of helpful in sort 

16 of pinning down.

17 And I think we also reached out to 

18 DOE very late last week. I don't know if they 

19 had time to respond yet. But also if we knew 

20 what the contracts were, that would be helpful 

21 also. But I thought this by itself sort of 

22 helped to at least help us understand who 
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 might be covered under this.

2 Paul, is that helpful to you or --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I think that 

4 is helpful. I suppose the question would be 

5 under the contract, for example, if the 

6 contract calls on the university to provide 

7 maintenance or housekeeping, is that the kind 

8 of contract you are looking for without naming 

9 --

10 MS. LEITON: Well, I mean, it's --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- the general 

12 contract?

13 MS. LEITON: It would have to be a 

14 management operating -- again, it really 

15 depends on what they're doing, management and 

16 integration or environmental remediation, but 

17 it's not necessarily somebody that just comes 

18 in and does cleaning there at the facility. 

19 Okay?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Thank you.

21 MS. LEITON: Thanks.

22 I wanted to talk just a minute 
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 about our GPRA goals. In the past many years, 

2 we have focused on initial processing, time 

3 that it takes DOL to process a claim to the 

4 recommended decision, and then the time to 

5 process from the recommended decision to final 

6 decision.

7 Our goals up to this point have 

8 excluded NIOSH time. One of the initiatives 

9 of the administration that we have been 

10 looking at doing in fiscal year '12 is 

11 creating a GPRA goal that would include NIOSH 

12 time.

13 Now this would require close 

14 coordination with NIOSH. And it's kind of in 

15 the preliminary stages, but I wanted to put it 

16 out there as a possibility.

17 What it does is kind of breaks out 

18 cases that go to NIOSH versus the cases that 

19 don't go to NIOSH and the cases that go to a 

20 hearing and don't go to a hearing. So we'll 

21 be talking further with NIOSH about that 

22 possibility.
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 This is just a summary of the 

2 reasons for returning cases to NIOSH for a 

3 rework. That the main reasons are that there 

4 may be a change in the cancer or the ICD-9 

5 code, a decrease in reported cancers. Usually 

6 those are cancers that were over 50 percent. 

7 We have to return them because there was 

8 misreported.

9 An increase in reported cancer; a 

10 change in the cancer diagnosis date; change in 

11 smoking history or race/ethnicity 

12 questionnaires; employment site issues, like 

13 they were at different sites and we had to 

14 update that; additional verified employment; 

15 decrease in verified employment; new survivors 

16 identified; other administrative issues, like 

17 we had the wrong Social Security number or 

18 wrong date of birth; and technical issues.

19 Sometimes we'll have a final 

20 decision that will make a change, a remand, or 

21 we'll have a reopening decision, we have 

22 reopened a case and we have to send it back to 
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 NIOSH for something that came up at a hearing, 

2 for example.

3 And this is just a breakout. The 

4 biggest reason is the increase in reported 

5 cancers. That's 45 percent. And then the 

6 addition of verified employment is 25 percent. 

7 And then new survivors identified I think is 

8 about 13 percent.

9 Is that correct? Am I looking at 

10 that wrong? That's okay, he said. I think 

11 the 45 percent is the highest, though, right?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, that's the 

13 "Other."

14 MS. LEITON: That's the "Other." 

15 Okay. I'm sorry. It's not the highest --

16 these colors are confusing me. Forty-five 

17 percent is the other reasons. And then I 

18 think 25 percent must be the new survivors 

19 identified. So that's not the highest. The 

20 table will give you more specifics. These 

21 colors are messing with me.

22 We've had 33,000 final decisions 
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 to approve, 23,000 final decisions to deny. 

2 As you can see here, the survivor not eligible 

3 is the smallest amount. And the PoC less than 

4 50 percent is the largest amount.

5 This is just the trend of the 

6 cases that we receive on a monthly basis. As 

7 you can see, it's pretty much steady. It goes 

8 up and down, fluctuates a little bit, but this 

9 year we've been pretty steady on the amount 

10 we've received per month.

11 Any other stats that we have, we 

12 have some stats out on the slides and that we 

13 have sent forward that go over certain of the 

14 highest SEC Classes. Some of the stats that 

15 have been submitted before I just didn't want 

16 to go over them in this presentation, but they 

17 are available if anyone is interested.

18 Questions?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

20 Questions?

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. One on the 

22 Rocky Flats. Has that been developed out in 
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 the bulletin or --

2 MS. LEITON: No. We're working on 

3 that now. We've made the determination. 

4 We've got a draft bulletin out. We hope to 

5 get it through our legal and through our 

6 process, but it is a decision that has been 

7 made. And that bulletin I hope to have out in 

8 the next month or so.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: But still, I 

10 mean, I'm just seeing this now, but it still 

11 remains a concern about how you identify 

12 people in that database based on that 100 

13 millirem because part of our reason for 

14 establishing the Class was that we couldn't 

15 rely on the neutron data. So then you're 

16 going to use that as a determiner.

17 I don't quite follow that logic. 

18 I mean, the idea is that they received or 

19 could have received the 100 millirem. That is 

20 kind of a current day criteria for including 

21 someone in the monitoring program.

22 But there are values in the 
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 database. I'm not sure. I mean, by 

2 establishing this Class, we sort of said that 

3 we're concerned that they're not reliable. So 

4 I don't understand.

5 MS. LEITON: Well, I understand 

6 that there has been some indication that it's 

7 not reliable, but we've never gotten concrete 

8 evidence that it's not reliable enough for us 

9 to use in administering this Class.

10 There are values in there that say 

11 over 100 millirem. And that's why we went 

12 forward with this. You know, we have not had 

13 anybody say that very specifically this cannot 

14 be used, should not be used scientifically. 

15 That's not been something that we've -- we've 

16 asked this question, and we have not gotten 

17 that answer. So that's why we went forward 

18 with this.

19 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I 

20 might just offer I think the NDRP data was a 

21 subject of the neutron doses not being 

22 reliable, but I don't think anybody was saying 
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 that the Ruttenber data was -- nothing was 

2 unreliable. It might be overly conservative, 

3 high, because of the way that the doses were 

4 imputed. But I don't think there was any 

5 discussion about the Ruttenber database being 

6 unreliable as far as the addition of the 

7 Class. It was all based on the NDRP data.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: You are correct, 

9 Jim. And we don't have to do this here, but 

10 I'm not clear whether there's a lot of 

11 similarities between those two databases.

12 I thought the big difference with 

13 Ruttenber was the addition of some employees 

14 that were not in the NDRP, that they made 

15 decisions based on work, job title, things 

16 like that, not necessarily the numerical 

17 value. I thought they were consistent with 

18 NDRP, but we can talk more on --

19 MS. LEITON: And they may be in 

20 terms of that. As I said, we will be using it 

21 for the buildings. And so far we really 

22 haven't seen that much discrepancy between 
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 those that are in the NDRP and those in 

2 Ruttenber.

3 Other questions?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

5 questions?

6 (No response.)

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you very 

8 much.

9 MS. LEITON: Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will now hear 

11 from the Department of Energy.

12 DR. WORTHINGTON: Good morning.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Welcome.

14 DR. WORTHINGTON: I'm very pleased 

15 to be here before the Board today. I have 

16 Greg Lewis with me and Isaf with me as well as 

17 part of the DOE team.

18 It's been a few meetings since I 

19 was here. I wanted to bring you some words 

20 from Mr. Podonsky and from myself by actually 

21 being here before the Board. We want to 

22 remind people of our commitment and our 
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 interest in this program. It's certainly one 

2 that is a high priority to us.

3 I want to follow on what NIOSH 

4 said about sort of budget. These are very 

5 interesting times across the U.S. on a lot of 

6 programs. And this is one of our high 

7 priority programs. We are always looking at 

8 ways of how we could be more innovative and 

9 more efficient and also looking for ways to 

10 protect funding for this program so that we 

11 can provide very important information.

12 If I could stick on that slide 

13 just for a moment? One of the reasons that I 

14 wanted to appear before the Board and just 

15 remind ourselves and remind people here and as 

16 well as some of the workers that have come out 

17 today, that we are focused on why we are doing 

18 this work.

19 We understand that it is on behalf 

20 of the claimants. And so we want to do the 

21 very best job that we possibly can to make 

22 information available for worker and facility 
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 records and to coordinate with DOL and NIOSH 

2 and the Advisory Board.

3 DOE's responsibility, you heard 

4 from the works of NIOSH and DOL. And we want 

5 to just remind people and remind ourselves of 

6 our responsibility. Certainly to the 

7 claimants that we have sort of three kinds of 

8 things that we're trying to do.

9 We want to respond to the other 

10 organizations to make sure that they can carry 

11 out their responsibilities by providing 

12 employment verification exposure records. 

13 That's critical. You have heard about that 

14 from the others as well.

15 We do work very hard with DOL and 

16 NIOSH and the Board on providing information 

17 on large-scale research and site 

18 characterization projects. Some of these 

19 things are huge. And we realize the 

20 importance of DOE being active and supportive 

21 because the work was done at DOE. We have the 

22 records. We have information. And we want to 
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 make sure that we provide it and move forward.

2 And, again, we want to coordinate 

3 with DOL and NIOSH on issues related to 

4 covered facilities designation. It's always 

5 important to revisit those things when it's 

6 appropriate.

7 A little bit about sort of our 

8 site contacts and the importance of the site 

9 contacts. Again, we believe that the role of 

10 DOE is huge and it's important.

11 And we have to carry out those 

12 things. But we do it in partnership with 

13 others. And I want to talk about our DOE 

14 EEOICPA site POCs. Greg works with them on a 

15 regular basis. And they help us to carry out 

16 these critical activities.

17 For example, I had a lot of 

18 feedback from this site about the tours that 

19 were conducted. That is important to make 

20 sure that you are out there and you're seeing 

21 that information.

22 We hear that at all of the sites 
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 that we go to it's really important for us to 

2 continue to work with the sites to deliver the 

3 things that are needed. Again, it's nothing 

4 like eyes on, being on the ground and looking 

5 at what is going on.

6 For some of you that have been 

7 involved for a long time, for example, with 

8 these sites, we are kind of seeing sort of the 

9 changes that have occurred and the changes in 

10 the landscape and the activities, but it 

11 doesn't in any way diminish the work that the 

12 workers did on the things that we're looking 

13 for now. So on-site source, be open to 

14 information to workers certainly is a critical 

15 thing that we're doing.

16 I'm actually going to turn over 

17 pretty soon to Greg, who will give you 

18 specific information on staff and the things 

19 that they are doing to implement this program. 

20 You will see numbers here about the kinds of 

21 things that we do.

22 Greg will come up now. He's 
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 Director of the office, having responsibility 

2 for EEOICPA and the Former Workers Program. 

3 DOL mentioned that program before. But, 

4 again, we are very worker advocate-focused. 

5 And so Greg will give you some stats on that.

6 And then the three of us will be 

7 available to answer any questions that you may 

8 have about the program.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

10 MR. LEWIS: Thanks, Pat.

11 I just want to reiterate with what 

12 Pat said as far as putting claimants first and 

13 doing what we can to get the right records and 

14 information over to DOL and NIOSH, the site 

15 POCs are really the backbone of that. You 

16 know, we at headquarters do what we can, but 

17 without effective leadership out of these 

18 sites, so it's not possible.

19 So POC out at Hanford, Gail Splett 

20 is one of our best. And she does a great job 

21 out at Hanford with, you know, all of the 

22 needs in NIOSH and DOL.
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 In fact, recently we have just 

2 completed an indexing project she started 

3 about two months ago. We identified a 

4 collection of records that wasn't indexed to 

5 the level that allowed us to quickly search 

6 and find the right information for DOL and 

7 NIOSH.

8 So she gathered a team of people 

9 on site that were already working for various 

10 contractors. And they had experience on site 

11 and with the records, and actually brought 

12 them in under a separate subcontractor and was 

13 working weekends.

14 You know, they needed some extra 

15 money, those workers. They were willing to do 

16 it and brought them in on weekends for two 

17 months and got this thing finished and indexed 

18 and out and are now using it to provide 

19 information.

20 So it's things like that that we 

21 wouldn't be able to do. We wouldn't know that 

22 the people on site are -- how we could marshal 
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 those workers to get this done without the 

2 leadership of these POCs.

3 So we have again three main 

4 responsibilities under the program. We 

5 provide individual records. We provide 

6 large-scale research efforts, or help 

7 large-scale research efforts, like the SECs. 

8 And we do site research for the covered 

9 facilities list.

10 So the first is the individual 

11 records. We do about 7,000 employment 

12 verifications a year; 4,000 NIOSH requests per 

13 year; and about 7,000 document acquisition 

14 requests, or DARs, per year, which are 

15 requests for kind of additional exposure 

16 information over and above the RAD and the 

17 employment verification.

18 And those add up to about 18,000, 

19 which is what we are expecting to do this 

20 fiscal year, which ends in about another 

21 month.

22 Next slide. To gather this 
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 information, it is not as straightforward as 

2 going to one file cabinet and pulling the 

3 information for, you know, Bob Smith. We have 

4 to go to a number. For active sites, in 

5 particular, we have to go to a number of 

6 different locations.

7 We may have to go to multiple DOE 

8 sites for one individual if they worked at 

9 multiple sites or if they were visitors, they 

10 worked at one site but were sent for weeks or 

11 months at a time to another site for a special 

12 project.

13 You know, often for one 

14 individual, we will provide hundreds of pages 

15 or even thousands of pages of a box or two of 

16 records on one individual for those that had a 

17 particularly long career.

18 Next slide. I think I covered the 

19 first bullet there, but the second bullet, you 

20 know, our sites often check 10, 20, 30 

21 different locations for records, including 

22 hard copy, paper files, different databases, 
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 microfilm, microfiche.

2 We may have to go on site to 

3 various active divisions or records locations. 

4 We may also have to go off site to federal 

5 records centers or other off-site storage 

6 locations. So it can be a fairly complex 

7 process. And that's again why we rely on our 

8 site POCs.

9 So the second main responsibility 

10 that we have under the program is the 

11 large-scale records research projects, like 

12 the SEC projects, Site Profile reviews or even 

13 the Department of Labor Site Exposure Matrix 

14 Project.

15 These projects can be very 

16 involved. They can take years, cost a 

17 significant amount of money to support. So we 

18 do our best to make sure that we have our 

19 resources in the right place to be able to 

20 accommodate these projects and requests in a 

21 timely manner and to meet the needs of NIOSH 

22 and DOL.
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 For these projects, we often, 

2 depending on the site, have to review large 

3 amounts of information for classification 

4 concerns. So millions of pages have been 

5 reviewed at various sites. It can be a 

6 time-consuming process. And we do our best to 

7 do that in a manner that doesn't have a 

8 negative impact on the projects, on the DOL 

9 and NIOSH. And we are often supporting four 

10 or five projects at once at different sites.

11 Next slide. These are five of the 

12 bigger projects that are going on right now, 

13 although some seem to be coming to a close and 

14 some are more in the early stages, but we are 

15 supporting all of these at this point.

16 And then we also at headquarters 

17 handle document reviews for final reports. So 

18 if there is a final report or a White Paper, 

19 something like that that is going out from DOL 

20 or NIOSH, DOE headquarters will do a 

21 classification review if necessary just to 

22 make sure that everything is okay before it 
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 gets out into the public domain.

2 We devised a security plan. I 

3 believe NIOSH and SC&A and I think the Board 

4 also had their own security plans that are in 

5 close concert with ours.

6 Next slide. So since the last 

7 Advisory Board meeting in May of 2011 -- the 

8 slide says 50 documents, but I actually 

9 believe after we put this together it's really 

10 60 documents have been submitted for review.

11 And, according to our records at 

12 headquarters, the average turnaround time is 

13 eight working days, although in certain cases 

14 we have been able to do them quicker when they 

15 are expedited.

16 Next slide. And then we also 

17 support the SEC projects with participating in 

18 Working Group conference calls, arranging for 

19 subject matter experts to meet with and talk 

20 with SC&A, NIOSH, Board Members who are 

21 visiting on site. We support secure meetings 

22 and conference calls if classification is a 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concern. We provide site tours, as we did 

2 yesterday out at the Hanford site.

3 Next slide. And then the third 

4 main responsibility that we have under the Act 

5 is to research and maintain a covered 

6 facilities list. There are over 300 

7 facilities covered under EEOICPA. Oftentimes, 

8 there are questions that come from based on 

9 NIOSH, things that NIOSH has uncovered in 

10 their research or DOL or questions that come 

11 from the public about whether or not that list 

12 is accurate in terms of where the facility is 

13 located, the years that the facility may be 

14 covered, the specific activities or 

15 substances. So when questions like that 

16 arise, we have a team of researchers.

17 Next slide. The DOE Office of 

18 Legacy Management, they support us with this 

19 research. They have records research experts 

20 who are familiar with DOE records management. 

21 They're familiar with the various sites and 

22 where records might lie.
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 And they also understand the DOE 

2 history and how the various sites are tied 

3 together where products from one site were 

4 going to another. So if there are questions 

5 about a site, you might go to that site where 

6 they were sending things to obtain 

7 information. So they know the ins and outs of 

8 the DOE records and provide us with that 

9 service.

10 Next slide. So I'm going to talk 

11 to you about a couple of initiatives we have. 

12 Again, we are always looking for collections 

13 of records that we feel are valuable to NIOSH 

14 or DOL and ultimately to the claimants and 

15 their claims.

16 When we find collections that we 

17 believe are valuable and are not being used, 

18 we do everything we can to get them integrated 

19 into our system, whether that be indexing the 

20 record or scanning it, putting it in a format 

21 that is more conducive to record searches, 

22 things like that. One example of that is 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 Hanford effort that I talked about earlier.

2 We're also working very hard to 

3 finalize our secure web-based file transfer 

4 system. So what that will do is allow us to 

5 send documents and information in real time 

6 securely over the internet to DOL and NIOSH so 

7 when we send a document, instead of sending it 

8 via FedEx on a CD or a thumb drive or hard 

9 copy document, we will send it electronically 

10 through a secure system that protects PII, 

11 protects people's information, but will also 

12 reduce the time it takes for us to get 

13 information to the other agencies.

14 And then another effort we're 

15 working on right now is review of the 

16 Department of Labor's Site Exposure Matrix 

17 database. Initially up until 2008, the matrix 

18 had been put together by DOL but was behind 

19 their firewall, and only a small portion was 

20 available to the public.

21 In 2008, Department of Labor asked 

22 us to review what was on their database so 
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 they could release it to the public in its 

2 entirety. It took us about a year. We worked 

3 closely with DOL and all of our DOE sites. 

4 And we were able to finally release that 

5 database I believe in December of -- is it 

6 2010? Exactly.

7 So once the initial database was 

8 released, since the time we had started to 

9 review the initial database, DOL had been 

10 gathering additional information. The public 

11 was submitting additional information. DOL 

12 had made some revisions. So they asked us to 

13 review the revised version.

14 And we started on that in January 

15 of 2010 and finished that updated review in 

16 May 2010. So obviously it took about a year 

17 for the initial review and then four months 

18 for the second review because we're just 

19 reviewing the additional information, not the 

20 entire database again.

21 And then at this point, DOL has 

22 made another request for an update review. 
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 And we're going to start that on October 1st, 

2 2011. And we hope it will take somewhere 

3 around the same four-month timetable that the 

4 initial review took, although until we get in 

5 there, we don't know exactly how long it is 

6 going to take.

7 And then, Rachel -- I will be 

8 quick on this because Rachel spoke about this 

9 a little bit as well. You know, we also 

10 actively participate in the Joint Outreach 

11 Task Group with NIOSH, DOL, our DOE Former 

12 Worker Programs. You know, we have had 19 

13 town hall meetings near nine DOE sites. And 

14 Rachel had a slide about the most recent 

15 meetings there.

16 Next slide. And then I just want 

17 to talk to you a bit about DOE Former Worker 

18 Medical Screening Program. It's a program 

19 that we feel complements the EEOICPA, though 

20 it's not directly. They are two very separate 

21 programs, but our Former Worker Program 

22 provides a free medical screening to all 
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 former workers at all DOE sites, and based on 

2 the results of those screenings, if there is 

3 something wrong, we refer you both to your 

4 primary care physician to get that addressed, 

5 but we also suggest that, depending on your 

6 issue, you may want to go apply for the 

7 EEOICPA program. So we kind of see it as a 

8 precursor to EEOICPA in certain cases for 

9 certain individuals.

10 We feel our program is unique 

11 because we have occupational physicians. So 

12 they're familiar with the things that you 

13 might run into in your work. They're familiar 

14 with unique exposures, like beryllium and 

15 silica and things like that that your average 

16 citizen might not come in contact with but 

17 workers may.

18 And they also understand the 

19 unique exposures at the DOE sites. So for 

20 Hanford, there are two separate programs: one 

21 for production workers and the other for 

22 construction workers.
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 The PIs, principal investigators, 

2 for the production workers are Donna Creagle, 

3 John McInerney and Lee Newman. And the 

4 contact number is there. So if there is 

5 anyone who is interested in the program, you 

6 can call that number.

7 And there is also a program for 

8 construction workers. And the principal 

9 investigator is Knut Ringen, who is actually 

10 here today somewhere, sitting in the back.

11 And their local outreach number is 

12 on the slide. And then they are also out in 

13 the lobby with information. So if you are 

14 interested in the program, I would suggest you 

15 go out and talk to them, take advantage of 

16 that free program.

17 So, questions?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Greg, you did a 

20 marvelous job. And I'd like to thank you for 

21 a lot of the things. You've dealt with 

22 Pantex. You've done a great job on that.
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 We're making numerous strides, but 

2 on your document review, I appreciate that you 

3 put the average turnaround time of eight days. 

4 A lot of these elements, it's taking a lot 

5 longer. And I realize with some of these 

6 other sites, it is very difficult to be able 

7 to do that.

8 We have also put in place using 

9 Germantown as the central place to be able to 

10 put the documents, I think that is a marvelous 

11 idea.

12 I commend DOE on doing that. And 

13 I understand there have been some problems 

14 here lately. It will make it a little bit 

15 more difficult, but we're working through in 

16 that.

17 Yesterday, we went out on the tour 

18 to the B reactor and so forth. And, you know, 

19 it was amazing. I always love to go to these 

20 sites because you go out there and the people 

21 take such pride in these sites.

22 You know, honestly, I'm going to 
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 tell you the truth. DOE may hold the record 

2 for these sites and so forth like that, but 

3 these sites are really the people's sites. 

4 And it was pleasing to me to see how much 

5 pride they took on the site, how proud of what 

6 they've accomplished. And they should be 

7 commended for that.

8 One thing that did bother me is 

9 when we were at PFP, the question was quite 

10 bluntly put to them, in 15 years from now, how 

11 are we going to be able to connect this person 

12 who is doing these D&D activities, to PFP. 

13 PFP is a bad place. And that's a difficult 

14 one. And we're back to the same thing of the 

15 can't place.

16 I hope that DOE will kind of look 

17 at in the records and so forth -- you know, 

18 they said medical programs and so forth like 

19 that. But it never put -- especially the D&D 

20 workers who are coming in for a few years 

21 working on this, possibly leaving-- we need to 

22 make sure that it's documented where they are 
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 at.

2 Many times, when a production 

3 worker says, well, I work here, I work here, I 

4 work here, and so forth, but the D&D workers 

5 can be much harder. And I hope you guys can 

6 think in the back of your mind because that 

7 bothers me because that's the situation we're 

8 in right now is we can't place people where 

9 they work.

10 DR. WORTHINGTON: With regard to 

11 placement of workers, I mean, 851 requires 

12 individuals that are on the site for a certain 

13 period of time, that they are in a 

14 surveillance program. They are monitored 

15 depending upon what their hazards are.

16 And so we'll look at PFP to see if 

17 there's something going on with the 

18 contractor, with the subcontractor, or 

19 something like that if there is a belief or a 

20 perception that that information is not being 

21 captured. So that's a good comment. We will 

22 look into that.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would just like 

2 -- you know, in DOE, we use the term lessons 

3 learned. This right here is a lesson learned. 

4 And one of the things that we have found from 

5 this lesson learned is that we can't place 

6 people. It's a very broad spectrum.

7 So my request to you is that we 

8 look at this, and especially D&D workers 

9 because they are somewhat transient, and they 

10 use them all over the place. And some of them 

11 are going into some of the worst areas that we 

12 have out there. So I would appreciate it if 

13 you would look at that.

14 I know that Isaf was out there 

15 with us and be able to place these people 

16 where they were at.

17 DR. WORTHINGTON: That is a very 

18 valuable comment because we have so much D&D 

19 work going on across the DOE complex. And so 

20 if there are gaps or places that we're not apt 

21 to capture the information about those 

22 individuals, we need to work on that.
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 So thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Gen?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: I want to pick 

4 up on the same point about the site tours. I 

5 think it's so important to continue to provide 

6 these, as you did yesterday and other times, 

7 provide it as an opportunity for the Board and 

8 SC&A. And, as Brad clearly identified, I 

9 think for Board Members, it is important to 

10 see, actually see, the site.

11 You can read about them. You can 

12 look at photos. But until you are out there 

13 and, like we did yesterday, see the 

14 extensiveness of the site, the Hanford site, 

15 see the building, see the relationship of the 

16 buildings to each other, it's really hard to 

17 think in terms of what workers did.

18 I think that the only comment I 

19 would have, Brad has identified the importance 

20 of knowing what is going on today. A lot of 

21 these site tours concentrate on what is going 

22 on today.
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 I think yesterday, because we had 

2 the NIOSH team leader along and we had some 

3 former workers along on the tour, we were able 

4 to -- for those of us who want to also get 

5 this historic information, we were able to 

6 extract a lot of that. And I think in the 

7 time that we had, we have really gained a lot. 

8 You did a good job.

9 MR. LEWIS: Thank you very much.

10 You know, we also understand the 

11 value of those tours and fully plan to keep 

12 supporting, both for the Board as well as for 

13 the SC&A and NIOSH teams that are out doing 

14 the SEC research. We want to make sure that 

15 they get access to the site, are able to 

16 understand what the site does and meet with 

17 some of the folks that work there.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just want to 

20 also -- being able to place people is one of 

21 the complaints that I have heard from people. 

22 And it really isn't coming towards DOE. It 
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 goes more towards DOL as, well, they can't 

2 place me where I used to work.

3 This is one of the reasons why, 

4 Pat, I feel this is such an important one that 

5 we need to really look at and make sure 

6 because it's not just for DOE. It's also for 

7 DOL to be able to make sure that we're placing 

8 people where they would because one of the 

9 things that the petitioners have always said 

10 was, well, I told them where I was working at, 

11 but they tell me that that doesn't show where 

12 I was at. So this is why, another reason why 

13 it is so important.

14 MR. LEWIS: Actually, Brad, to 

15 address that, one of the things that we are 

16 trying to do -- and I don't know that it will 

17 specifically address the PFP issue. It's hard 

18 to know exactly that situation.

19 But in terms of legacy records and 

20 making sure we have them to help us be able to

21 place people in locations, particularly 

22 subcontractors, is we are working on an access 
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 and ownership to records clause that we're 

2 hoping that -- we believe it should be final 

3 soon.

4 We've been actually working on it 

5 for a couple of years, but we're trying to get 

6 the contract things implemented DOE-wide. 

7 It's a bit of a long process, but we're hoping 

8 that's coming to a close soon.

9 And once that gets through, we're 

10 hoping that clause will be included in 

11 subcontracts. And in doing so, we'll make 

12 sure that they leave records when they leave, 

13 both their HR records and things that they 

14 would normally have considered company 

15 records.

16 You know, as it is now, they will 

17 leave radiation monitoring records and medical 

18 records and things like that that are directly 

19 related to the site employment when they leave 

20 the site, when the contract is over. But 

21 we're hoping this will allow them to leave 

22 their HR records, which may have job 
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 description or things like that that have more 

2 information about what they were doing, the 

3 individual was doing, and where they might 

4 have been.

5 So we believe, once that gets 

6 through, it may not solve all of the problems 

7 with subcontractors -- in fact, it is going to 

8 be difficult to solve all of those problems --

9 but we think it will be a big step in the 

10 right direction towards ensuring that the 

11 right records will be available.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: And, Greg, I 

13 appreciate that. I just want to go on record 

14 and --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad, we need to 

16 move on.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Does anybody 

19 else have questions for Department of Energy?

20 (No response.)

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks.

22 Our next one is Jim Neton for W.R. 
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 Grace.

2 MR. KATZ: For the record, Dr. 

3 Lemen is recusing himself from this session.

4 DR. NETON: Good morning. I am 

5 going to present the Evaluation Report for the 

6 Special Exposure Cohort petition that we 

7 received for W.R. Grace and Company.

8 A little bit in the way of 

9 background before I get into the petition, 

10 W.R. Grace is a facility that is located in 

11 Curtis Bay, Maryland. But if you look on the 

12 DOE's covered facilities website, there are at 

13 least three other W.R. Graces listed, one of 

14 which is in Erwin, Tennessee, part of Nuclear 

15 Fuel Services, one of which was a phosphate 

16 enterprise that they tried to make phosphate 

17 for about a month down in Florida. There's a 

18 third facility listed as Rare Earths 

19 Incorporated, which is actually somewhat 

20 related to this facility. And we'll talk 

21 about that a little bit later. But I am 

22 talking about the Curtis Bay, Maryland 
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 operation, which was originally a 260-acre 

2 site.

3 It's still in existence today. 

4 The size of the facility now is down to 109 

5 acres. Like a lot of these older sites, it's 

6 changed hands and names a few times. So it 

7 gets a little confusing.

8 It was originally owned by Davison 

9 Chemical Company, which was a manufacturer of 

10 agricultural and industrial chemicals, really 

11 didn't involve any radiological operations at 

12 all. But it was purchased in 1954 by W.R. 

13 Grace, who brought in the radiological 

14 component to the site.

15 Rare Earths Incorporated, which I 

16 just mentioned, was a sister facility to this 

17 Curtis Bay, Maryland operation, was located in 

18 Wayne, New Jersey. It was a wholly owned 

19 subsidiary of W.R. Grace. And, actually, Rare 

20 Earths is the company that entered into the 

21 AEC contract in 1955 to process some monazite 

22 sands.
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 The contract was to extract 

2 thorium from monazite sands at originally the 

3 Wayne, New Jersey facility, which was then 

4 known as Rare Earths Incorporated, and 

5 follow-on extractions were going to be 

6 conducted at the Curtis Bay, Maryland facility 

7 at a yet-to-be-constructed building.

8 The Curtis Bay, Maryland facility 

9 building where they were going to extract the 

10 sands was not actually constructed. 

11 Constructed wasn't completed until May of 

12 1956. That will become important a little bit 

13 later. So two facilities involved here: 

14 Wayne, New Jersey and Curtis Bay. I'm talking 

15 about the Curtis Bay.

16 I will add that the Rare Earths 

17 facility is a covered facility on the DOE 

18 website, but we have no current claimants for 

19 that facility at this time.

20 Just a little diagram. You can 

21 see that it's a fairly large site, as I 

22 mentioned. It was originally a couple of 
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 hundred acres, but all of the operations that 

2 occurred at this facility occurred inside that 

3 little yellow box. The red box is building 

4 23. It's a pretty large plant. The monazite 

5 processing area was about 100 by 200 feet, 

6 confined to the southwest corner of that 

7 building.

8 You can see on the right-hand side 

9 there are some retention lagoons out there 

10 that handled some of the waste products. In 

11 addition, the monazite ore that was processed 

12 was the raffinates essentially were buried on 

13 site, covering an area eventually of about 

14 four acres.

15 So what did they do at this site? 

16 They processed AEC-owned monazite ore, which 

17 is sand essentially, that was mined in various 

18 countries, I think Brazil and India primarily.

19 Monazite ore contains a fairly 

20 high component of thorium. On average, I 

21 think this ore was about six percent thorium 

22 oxide by weight. It could range anywhere from 
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 two to eight, but I think six is a pretty good 

2 number.

3 The contract indicated that they 

4 were going to extract about -- the chemical 

5 processing could extract about 95 percent of 

6 the thorium that was in the ore. It's a 

7 pretty good chemical recovery. And, in fact, 

8 they were going to originally work with, I 

9 think it was 8,000, yes, 8,000 tons of 

10 monazite ore were to be processed per the 

11 contract.

12 What happened, though, was they --

13 just never really worked properly, a lot of 

14 problems with the chemical extraction process, 

15 and eventually only ended up processing a 

16 total of 1,000 tons of the monazite sands. 

17 And, in fact, the processing only occurred 

18 from the beginning of the building 

19 construction -- after the building was 

20 constructed in May '56 through the late Spring 

21 of 1957. And, in fact, the AEC contract was 

22 terminated in January of 1958.
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 So if there are about 1,000 tons 

2 of monazite processed, we don't know this for 

3 sure, but it would seem there was a 95 percent 

4 extraction. You can sort of estimate there 

5 would have been about 50 tons of thorium 

6 produced during this campaign.

7 As I mentioned, all the work was 

8 done in a portion of building 23. It's a 

9 fairly similar process to what we've seen in a 

10 lot of these other refinery-type operations. 

11 The monazite sands were ground in a ball mill 

12 so that it fits through a 200 mesh screen, 

13 dumped into a vat of sulfuric acid to put the 

14 thorium in solution and precipitate out the 

15 rare earths and the leads and the calciums and 

16 radiums.

17 And once that thorium got into the 

18 solution, it could be precipitated. It could 

19 filter off the raffinate materials and then 

20 precipitate the thorium as thorium fluoride 

21 and then eventually react it with caustic soda 

22 that would convert it to thorium hydrate. So 
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 the end product was a thorium hydrate material 

2 that was drummed at that facility and shipped 

3 to the Curtis Bay government storage depot.

4 Again, we don't know exactly how 

5 much, but if you infer about 95 percent 

6 recovery, there are probably about 50 tons of 

7 drummed materials produced.

8 Okay. The petition was received 

9 by NIOSH December 21st, 2010. It was an 83.13 

10 petition. That is a petition by a person 

11 representing a claimant.

12 The Petition qualified on February 

13 17th, 2011. And the Evaluation Report that 

14 I'm presenting you today was issued on July 

15 14th.

16 The original petitioner-proposed 

17 Class Definition was pretty wordy. It was 

18 trying to cover chemical operators, ball mill 

19 operators and pot operators who worked with a

20 variety of equipment and types of materials in 

21 a number of different plants at that facility.

22 After some research into this, we 
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 quickly discovered that it would not be 

2 possible for us to position any of these 

3 workers in any of those buildings or working

4 with any of those machines. The records, 

5 frankly, just don't exist.

6 So the Class that we evaluated was 

7 all of the weapons employers who worked at the 

8 W.R. Grace facility in Curtis Bay, Maryland 

9 for -- and we broke it in two periods: the 

10 operational period, which starts January 1st, 

11 '55, through December 31st, '58. And then we 

12 also looked at the residual radiation period 

13 that extended from January 1, '59 through 

14 October 31st, 2009.

15 Now, the '55 to '58 dates, the 

16 DOE-covered facilities just said that they ran 

17 from '55 to '58. And, as always, we just sort 

18 of take the largest view of this. So we say 

19 it started January 1st, '55 and through the 

20 end of 1958.

21 As I mentioned, there are going to 

22 be some tweaks on this towards the end because 
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 we discovered that operations didn't really 

2 start January '55. They started when the 

3 facility was actually completed in May of 

4 1956. So keep that in mind.

5 And the petition, the basis was, 

6 as many of these are, that the workers just 

7 weren't monitored. And that, in fact, is 

8 true. The petitioner presented an affidavit, 

9 indicated that all workers at the facility did 

10 not have any dose-monitoring equipment or get 

11 monitoring data. And we, in fact, have no 

12 monitoring data at all during the operational 

13 period for this facility.

14 We have the usual variety of 

15 sources that we have available to us to 

16 evaluate these facilities: ORAU Technical 

17 Information Bulletins, the case files that are 

18 in the NIOSH database. In this particular 

19 instance, we only have one claimant, so one 

20 case file to review.

21 There are 132 documents that we 

22 have captured over the course of our data 
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 capture efforts related to W.R. Grace. We do 

2 have the documentation provided by the 

3 petitioner along with the affidavit.

4 And we have interviewed a couple 

5 of people. One was a petitioner 

6 representative and one is a former worker. 

7 And then there are the various electronic 

8 databases available to us operated by the 

9 Department of Energy and the Nuclear 

10 Regulatory Commission.

11 As I mentioned, we have one claim 

12 in our NOCTS database. And that one claim 

13 does meet the Class Definition that we have 

14 evaluated, and that one dose reconstruction 

15 had been completed for the claimant in our 

16 files.

17 So the potential for internal 

18 exposure, you could imagine when you are 

19 working with dry sand and running it through a 

20 ball mill and also shipping and drumming 

21 product at the end, the two ends of the 

22 operations are going to be pretty dusty.
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 We have no information as to how 

2 that was accomplished and what kind of 

3 protection was used. And, as I mentioned, we 

4 have no monitoring data. So there could have 

5 been some fairly significant inhalation and 

6 ingestion of dust from the operations as well 

7 as some continuing exposure from the 

8 inhalation and ingestion of material that was 

9 deposited on the floor and the walls and such 

10 during operations; i.e., the resuspended 

11 materials. And there's also an ingestion 

12 pathway.

13 Not insignificantly also, thorium 

14 happens to have a radioactive progeny called 

15 thoron, it's a radon-220 gas that comes along 

16 with it. And so you have a fairly significant 

17 potential for exposure to thoron gas in this 

18 facility.

19 I would also mention, though, 

20 that, even though it's about -- I say about 

21 six percent thorium, it is about an order of 

22 magnitude lower uranium in there as well. So 
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 uranium and its progeny are also there in 

2 somewhat reduced quantities but still present 

3 as a hazard. And radon-222 gas would also be 

4 there.

5 Potential for external exposures 

6 clearly comes from the thorium and uranium 

7 decay products, more notably the thorium decay 

8 series, which has a fair number of 

9 radionuclides that emit high-energy photons. 

10 Notably, thallium-208 is one of them. So you 

11 can get some pretty good external exposures 

12 from thorium material.

13 As I mentioned, we have no 

14 monitoring, internal monitoring data for air 

15 sample data for the operational period. 

16 During the residual period, we do have some 

17 access to some air sample data that was 

18 collected.

19 I mentioned that there was a 

20 sister facility that was doing the same 

21 operation at Rare Earths in Wayne, New Jersey. 

22 We have 11 air samples that were taken at the 
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 end of those operations that we feel are 

2 representative of the concentrations of 

3 materials that could be in the air at the 

4 Curtis Bay facility.

5 In addition to that, we have some 

6 very, very thorough FUSRAP site 

7 characterization data taken in 1986 and in 

8 2001, where they actually went and 

9 characterized the building, all five levels, 

10 including surface contamination levels, air 

11 sample data, radon, thoron measurements, some 

12 core samples, pretty good characterization 

13 data taken during that -- particularly 

14 2000-2001 characterization. I think they used 

15 some sort of an automated surface 

16 contamination monitoring instrument. They 

17 collected like 1.9 million pieces of data. 

18 It's pretty amazing.

19 So we feel like we have a pretty 

20 good handle on what type of exposures could 

21 have been there in the residual period.

22 As far as external dosimetry data 
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 go, just like the internal, we have no 

2 external or area monitoring data available, 

3 not even at the Wayne, New Jersey facility.

4 During the residual period, 

5 though, we do have dose rate data that was 

6 taken during the 1986 site characterization. 

7 And I want to say, I think the average value 

8 -- they measured all five floors. The highest 

9 floor was the fifth floor, and I think the 

10 average value on that floor is about 120 micro 

11 R per hour in 1986, which is roughly about 10 

12 times natural background in that area, so not 

13 really high but definitely, definitely 

14 elevated in 1986.

15 So our approach, we believe, as I 

16 mentioned, that we can do the residual --

17 reconstruct doses during the residual 

18 contamination period. For the internal, as I 

19 mentioned, we will use the air concentration 

20 values at the beginning of the period that 

21 were taken at the Wayne, New Jersey facility. 

22 And then we can take the site 
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 characterization data that was taken during 

2 the FUSRAP series.

3 So we have a starting point and an 

4 ending point for the air concentration values 

5 and we can connect the two dots and, using a 

6 TIB-70 approach, come up with an exponential 

7 decay, which ends up decaying, I think it was 

8 about a three percent per year depletion of 

9 the source material.

10 The external dose rate 

11 measurements is all we have in 1986, but we 

12 believe we can go backwards with the external 

13 using the depletion factor knowing how much 

14 would have been there in the earlier years and 

15 impute what the external exposures would have 

16 been.

17 So as far as the evaluation, we 

18 made a determination that it was not feasible 

19 to estimate the level of radiation doses with 

20 sufficient accuracy during the process period, 

21 the processing of the thorium ores.

22 And we also, since we couldn't do 
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 it with sufficient accuracy, then we have 

2 concluded there is a reasonable likelihood 

3 that health may have been endangered.

4 So for feasibility of dose 

5 reconstruction, we believe that the process 

6 and source-term information are insufficient 

7 to estimate doses during the process period, 

8 but we have determined that we can do dose 

9 reconstructions during the residual 

10 contamination period.

11 And this slide just briefly 

12 summarizes specifically what we can and cannot 

13 do. So we cannot reconstruct during the 

14 processing period all radionuclides, all 

15 photon doses. And neutron doses were not 

16 applicable here.

17 And occupational medical doses, we 

18 have made a determination based on interviews 

19 that medical X-rays were not required as a 

20 condition of employment at this facility. So 

21 they will not be reconstructed.

22 Now, note that the dates here are 
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 May 1st, '56 through January 31st, '58. Those 

2 are different than the dates -- of the DOE 

3 dates, that said that the covered period ran 

4 from '55 to '58.

5 What we have done is we have 

6 truncated it based on our knowledge that the 

7 building did not have construction completed 

8 until May 1st of 1956. So we say we can't 

9 reconstruct from the completion of 

10 construction until January 31st, '58, which is 

11 the date that the contract was terminated with 

12 DOE. So that's about 11 months shorter than 

13 if we went to the end of '58. So it's a 

14 little bit shorter than what the DOE-covered 

15 period is listed on the covered facility 

16 website.

17 And the feasibility findings for 

18 February '58 through 2009 is that we can do 

19 all reconstructions during that time.

20 The health endangerment has 

21 another aspect to evaluate and that is, was 

22 there an incident sufficient in itself that 
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 would cause us to be able to say presence 

2 could cause them, could allow for a person to 

3 be in the Class, or was it more likely there 

4 were chronic exposures?

5 We have come down on that side of 

6 the equation that we believe most of the 

7 people -- there is evidence that workers 

8 accumulated this exposure on a chronic basis. 

9 We haven't identified any acute incidents 

10 that would rise to a level of allowing for 

11 presence. So the workers will have to have 

12 worked there for 250 days with the other 

13 parameters that apply.

14 So here is the proposed Class: 

15 all Atomic Weapons Employers who worked in any 

16 building or area at the facility owned by W.R. 

17 Grace in Curtis Bay, Maryland for the 

18 operational period that we're defining as May 

19 1st, '56 through January 31st, '58 for 250 

20 work-days. And that is our recommendation.

21 Some of these got a little 

22 redundant, I guess. I could probably do with 
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 fewer of these slides.

2 That's it.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Jim.

4 Questions for Jim? Yes? Start 

5 with Josie, then --

6 MEMBER BEACH: I just have a 

7 question on the access control after the '58 

8 period. Reading through the ER, I noticed 

9 that a fence went up around -- I believe it 

10 was building 23 -- in '75. And then a fence 

11 was later, in '95 put in, which is what I 

12 think is the disposal area. And then it was 

13 guarded. But I'm curious at what went on and 

14 what the access was like in those facilities 

15 prior to those fences and guards.

16 DR. NETON: The fences, to my 

17 understanding, only went up around what they 

18 called a radioactive waste area, that is the 

19 buried materials. And those materials were 

20 buried at a depth of around nine feet.

21 So all of the raffinate-type 

22 material was buried, but they put the fence 
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 around the -- I think it was a four-acre area 

2 and ended up being a seven-acre fenced-in 

3 area.

4 The facilities themselves were 

5 closed as far as I know. That wasn't being 

6 used: building 23.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Totally putting you 

8 on the spot, but there are two dates, then: 

9 '76 and then '95. So I guess I'm curious what 

10 date the fence went up and then --

11 DR. NETON: I think the fence went 

12 up in '76. And then the access controls, 

13 where they had -- is it patrols, guarded 

14 patrols, I think, maybe in '95?

15 MEMBER BEACH: It says both.

16 DR. NETON: Both?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. That's why I 

18 was a little confused at which one was which. 

19 And then --

20 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, actually, 

21 either one. I think we're saying that even if 

22 people were in those areas, we could 
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 reconstruct their dose. In reality, what 

2 happens is -- I didn't cover this maybe as 

3 well as I should have.

4 We had two scenarios. One is, can 

5 we reconstruct the dose from the residual 

6 period in the facilities themselves if someone 

7 was walking around in there doing something or 

8 could we reconstruct the dose from them 

9 walking around these spoil piles -- not piles, 

10 buried materials?

11 It turns out that since we don't 

12 know where anybody was, the limiting dose is 

13 going to be an assignment of dose of someone 

14 going into the contaminated buildings. They 

15 were much more heavily contaminated. There 

16 was more radon, thoron, all -- the potential 

17 for exposure is much greater for a worker who 

18 would have been in the building 23, as opposed 

19 to just walking around the buried material.

20 So I don't think it really matters 

21 too much how the access controls were, at 

22 least from our perspective, from a dose 
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 reconstruction perspective.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, just for 

4 clarity on the external dose reconstruction on 

5 the working period, did you say that there is 

6 no source- term information or insufficient? 

7 And sort of flesh that out a little bit.

8 DR. NETON: We knew how much --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: There's not enough 

10 to sort of put some boundaries on how much 

11 could have been handled per day and so on.

12 DR. NETON: Correct, yes. We know 

13 clearly approximately how much monazite sands 

14 were processed through the facility, but if 

15 you don't know exactly the production and the 

16 handling and the location of the workers in 

17 relation to the drum barrels and how long and 

18 that sort of thing, it's pretty difficult to 

19 put an upper limit on a barrel of thorium.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. NETON: You had fairly high 

22 dose rates.
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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. But 

2 there have been other cases where you have 

3 been able to do something like that.

4 DR. NETON: Yes. I think we may 

5 have -- I suspect that we knew a lot more 

6 about the process than we know here. I mean, 

7 we really don't know much about the process 

8 other than they barreled the material.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Gen, I think 

11 you're next and then Bill.

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: I assume we're 

13 going to concentrate on the operational 

14 period, but I have a question. During the 

15 residual period -- and I think we need much 

16 more information on that before we really get 

17 into it, but, was there cleanup and movement 

18 of materials and that sort of thing?

19 DR. NETON: I don't think so. I 

20 think --

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: They just shut 

22 the door and that was it?
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 DR. NETON: I believe so. It was 

2 closed off. It was pretty contaminated. I 

3 think in the 1980s survey, I mean, a couple of 

4 hundred thousand dpm per -- now I don't know 

5 if it was square meters or 100 square 

6 centimeters, but it seemed to me that it was 

7 fairly contaminated.

8 I don't know that we have any 

9 evidence of it being decontaminated and 

10 decommissioned at all. I think, clearly, all 

11 the product was shipped but other material was 

12 just left there.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bill?

14 MEMBER FIELD: Jim, I am just 

15 curious. In the residual period, you said 

16 there were measurements in '86 on the fifth 

17 floor.

18 DR. NETON: Yes.

19 MEMBER FIELD: And you've got an 

20 increasing gamma for background radiation 

21 about 10- to 12-fold. Do you have any idea 

22 what the source causing that is?
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 DR. NETON: No, but I did read 

2 somewhere that there was some ductwork up 

3 there maybe that could have been the source of 

4 it, and so maybe the process material, they 

5 did have ventilation of some sort and the 

6 ducts had accumulated the thorium. I really 

7 don't know. It would be speculation on my 

8 part.

9 MEMBER FIELD: But you don't know 

10 what radionuclide dose --

11 DR. NETON: Oh, it would be 

12 thorium. The only material that was ever 

13 processed in building 23, to our knowledge, 

14 was thorium from monazite ores or sands, which 

15 has about 6 percent thorium by weight.

16 MEMBER FIELD: So you just assume 

17 that's the residual?

18 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, actually, 

19 they did isotopic measurements in the '80s. I 

20 don't remember if it was the '86 or 2001 

21 survey, but they did isotopic analysis and did 

22 measure thorium-232 and uranium-228. So they 
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 did establish that it was thorium.

2 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. Thanks.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry?

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: I just wanted to 

5 be sure there were no measurements between, 

6 what, '58 and '86, 28 years? So you're 

7 starting with careful evaluation in '86 and 

8 then estimating exposures going backwards?

9 DR. NETON: No. What we have is 

10 there were no measurements at the Curtis Bay 

11 facility that we can find between '55 and '58, 

12 but there was a sister facility owned by W.R. 

13 Grace that was also doing the same process. 

14 They processed monazite ores, as well.

15 And we have air sample data taken 

16 after the operations were -- I wouldn't say 

17 the plant was quiescent, but they weren't 

18 operating or actively processing the thorium 

19 at the time.

20 So we believe that those air 

21 sample measurements could be used as the 

22 starting point for the contamination levels 
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 that would have been there at the end of 

2 operations in '58.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: And so how does 

4 that, then, correlate with what was the actual 

5 measurements made in '86? Are those --

6 DR. NETON: Oh, there are 

7 measurements in --

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: When you 

9 extrapolate from what was in another facility 

10 in '58 and start there, and then you have 

11 measurements at this facility --

12 DR. NETON: Well, the measurements 

13 at --

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: -- in '86. I 

15 mean, do those --

16 DR. NETON: We're only 

17 extrapolating air sample measurement, air 

18 sample concentrations. The air sample 

19 concentrations in 1958 time frame are much 

20 higher than the air samples that were measured 

21 in 1986.

22 And we have drawn a straight line. 
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 Well, and it's an exponential decay curve 

2 between those two points. And we are saying 

3 that the air samples went down on average 

4 about three percent per year over the entire 

5 time period. And that's about as good as we 

6 can get with residual periods. I mean, we 

7 don't have people in there monitoring every 

8 year for residual radioactivity.

9 And so, given that the plant was 

10 fairly quiescent, no production was going on 

11 in there, it seems to us to be a fairly good 

12 representation of how material went away.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just one quick 

15 question. There was one other data point in 

16 between there which was this aerial survey 

17 from 1979 which triggered the 1986 evaluation. 

18 What was that?

19 DR. NETON: You know, I don't 

20 really know. I suspect it was a fly-by with 

21 sodium iodide detectors where they picked up 

22 extra photon activity coming off the site. If 
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 you remember, the inside of the plant was 

2 reading on average in the fifth floor about 

3 160 micro R per -- so that's ten times 

4 background. I am sure they had large-volume 

5 detectors on -- I don't know if it was a 

6 fixed-wing aircraft or a helicopter but 

7 obviously enough activity there for them to 

8 detect that there was contamination left on 

9 the site.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So all you 

11 know is that there was some value detected? 

12 You don't know the magnitude of the value or 

13 what it was that triggered the '86?

14 DR. NETON: No, I don't. I mean, 

15 I really doubt that if we even knew what their 

16 measures were, that it could correlate to 

17 anything useful to determine on-site doses. I 

18 mean, it would be a fly-by indicating that 

19 there was excess radioactivity there. And 

20 maybe with any luck, that it was thorium, 

21 given that it's 2.6 MeV photon that comes off 

22 of thallium-208, but that's about as a good as 
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 you can get.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: All right.

3 DR. NETON: I think it was 

4 probably flying over a lot of sites looking 

5 for residual contamination, rather --

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

7 DR. NETON: -- than, you know, 

8 going to each one individually, triaging the 

9 various sites.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

11 DR. NETON: More than likely, it 

12 was storage piles that probably were detected. 

13 I don't know that but four acres of raffinate 

14 from processing of -- what did they say --

15 1,000 tons of monazite sand. It probably 

16 still had some fairly high residual 

17 radioactivity.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

19 questions? Phil?

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I wondered how 

21 much data you have --

22 DR. NETON: How much what, Phil?
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 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: How much data 

2 do you have like on urine samples and things 

3 from the residual period?

4 DR. NETON: None. None.

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Absolutely 

6 none, but you're saying you can calculate 

7 their internal dose without any data?

8 DR. NETON: If there were someone 

9 walking about and we believe we can bound the 

10 amount of airborne thorium and uranium that 

11 were there, yes.

12 Based on the amount of --

13 remember, all that's left there is surface 

14 contamination of uranium and thorium. So 

15 based on resuspension factors and people 

16 walking around and knowing how much of that 

17 material actually gets kicked up when people 

18 walked around and how much the ventilation 

19 system may pick up, we believe we can put an 

20 upper bound on that value, yes.

21 It is something that we have done 

22 at many, many of these AWE facilities. I 
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 mean, the contract is over. There is no 

2 reason for them to be monitoring the workers 

3 at that point.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Quick question. 

6 Just a brief question on OTIB-60. Did you use 

7 that during the early time frame or the 

8 residual time period?

9 DR. NETON: You mean OTIB-70?

10 MEMBER BEACH: No. OTIB-60 is 

11 listed.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Six thousand?

13 MEMBER BEACH: Or 6,000. I'm 

14 sorry. Thank you.

15 DR. NETON: TBD-6000?

16 MEMBER BEACH: TBD-6000, yes. 

17 It's listed under the Site Profiles.

18 DR. NETON: Yes. I am not sure 

19 that we used TBD-6000 in our dose 

20 reconstruction approach.

21 MEMBER BEACH: That's why I have 

22 the question, because it's listed, but it --
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 DR. NETON: Well, I think it's 

2 listed maybe as a reference available to us 

3 for processing, but this is a thorium 

4 facility. And TBD-6000 wouldn't really apply 

5 since it's not thorium. TBD-6000 is 

6 specifically for uranium machining operations.

7 MEMBER BEACH: That's why I had 

8 the question, because it is listed.

9 DR. NETON: Yes. It may just be 

10 in there generically, but I honestly can't 

11 think of where it was used in this dose 

12 reconstruction.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thanks.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If I could, I 

15 had just one more comment on the residual 

16 period. Jim and I have been emailing back and 

17 forth on a different site, so the same issue.

18 There are no claimants during this 

19 period.

20 DR. NETON: Well, actually, the 

21 claimant has -- I don't want to get too 

22 specific with claimants.
134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

2 DR. NETON: But it does extend, 

3 the employment for --

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There's still 

5 one. I think if a claimant shows up later, 

6 that there is unusual activity or they find 

7 out more, I mean, you just don't know much 

8 about the site. Then maybe you reconsider. 

9 Maybe you can't do dose reconstruction given 

10 these methods and the limited amount of data, 

11 but I think it's very hard to do it in the 

12 abstract.

13 I mean, I think, at least 

14 personally to me, it sounds like a reasonable 

15 method to use, given what facts we have now. 

16 If the facts change based on getting more 

17 information from claimants or other 

18 information about the site, then I think maybe 

19 you reconsider it at that point in time. But 

20 if we have sort of an abstract discussion of 

21 it, I think it's very hard to say, you know, 

22 we can think of a scenario where it might be 
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 somewhat different.

2 We can think of scenarios where 

3 that's acceptable. And without a lot of 

4 information, without a lot of claimants or 

5 other sources of information, I just think 

6 it's difficult to assess.

7 Any other questions or comments 

8 from anybody?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I hear a 

11 recommendation, a motion? Wanda, I knew I 

12 could count on you.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I recommend that we 

14 accept NIOSH's recommendation for the proposed 

15 Class of workers whose work history can meet 

16 the qualifications at W.R. Grace and Company 

17 in Curtis Bay, Maryland from May 1, 1956 

18 through January 31, 1958 as a Special Exposure 

19 Cohort.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I second it.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's a second 

22 from Brad. Any other, further discussion?
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 (No response.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Ted, do 

3 the roll call.

4 MR. KATZ: Thank you. So I am not 

5 going to attempt to do roll call for Bob 

6 Presley, who was on the line, and Mike Gibson, 

7 who might have been on the line since we don't 

8 have a connection right now. And we will 

9 collect their votes after this meeting or 

10 later in the meeting, possibly. We may have a 

11 better system.

12 So, Dr. Anderson.

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

19 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffin.

21 MEMBER GRIFFIN: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Doctor -- hold on -- Dr. 
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 Melius.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Miss -- Dr. Richardson.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield.

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: So it's unanimous. The 

16 motion passes. And I will collect the absent 

17 votes later.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Ted, 

19 I wasn't sure if you weren't sure about the 

20 doctor or about the name, but I want to ask 

21 for clarification.

22 We are scheduled to take a break 
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 now. We're running ahead of schedule, but we 

2 have had a long morning. Why don't we break 

3 and return at 11:30. And we will take up 

4 Y-12.

5 They are working on trying to fix 

6 the audio system, not sure it will be ready by 

7 the time we come back, but there are steps 

8 being taken.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 matter went off the record at 10:50 a.m. and 

11 resumed at 11:34 a.m.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: LaVon, now that 

13 we're all rested and ready with lots of 

14 questions, get ready.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm LaVon 

16 Rutherford. I'm going to talk about the 

17 Special Exposure Cohort petition for the Y-12 

18 facility.

19 We have identified a claim that we 

20 were unable to reconstruct the dose. It was 

21 an existing Y-12 claim. On April 13th of this 

22 year, we notified the claimant of that and 
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 provided a copy of our Special Exposure Cohort 

2 Petition Form A.

3 We notified them that we were 

4 unable to reconstruct their dose. That 

5 claimant provided us a petition on April 22nd. 

6 And we completed our evaluation on July 19th, 

7 a pre-DAR evaluation on July 19th, of this 

8 year.

9 Again, this is an 83.14. And 

10 we're proposing a Class of all employees of 

11 the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

12 agency and DOE contractors or subcontractors 

13 who worked at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, 

14 Tennessee during the period from January 1, 

15 1948 through December 31, 1957 and the 

16 standard language that follows.

17 A little background on the Y-12 

18 operations during this time period. This 1948 

19 to 1957 period is considered the second era of 

20 operations at Y-12. The first era, up to 

21 1947, focused on uranium enrichment 

22 operations. Those operations were shifted to 
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 K-25.

2 Uranium operations during the 

3 second era included recycling, salvage, 

4 machining and component assembly. Other work 

5 included lithium isotope separation, thorium 

6 studies. There were a number of activities, 

7 co-precipitation. Thorium was used as a 

8 co-precipitation medium for uranium recovery. 

9 There was also thorium used in the isotopic 

10 separation program.

11 There was research and development 

12 work that involved thorium, some of it, 

13 actually, the work picked up in 1958 after 

14 this period and was major production 

15 activities at Y-12.

16 ORNL research and development. 

17 ORNL used a number of the facilities at Y-12. 

18 After the major production activities stopped 

19 in 1947, some facilities became available at 

20 Y-12. ORNL picked up those facilities to do 

21 some research.

22 There is waste disposal. And, 
141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 again, the ORNL work I just talked about at 

2 Y-12, a little more information, production of 

3 stable and radioactive isotopes for medical 

4 research using the Y-12 calutrons. So the 

5 production work for uranium enrichment had 

6 stopped with the Y-12 calutrons, but there was 

7 some continuing work with them after the 1947 

8 period, into this second era.

9 There was plutonium isotopic 

10 separation, operation of an 86-inch cyclotron 

11 for isotope production and nuclear physics 

12 work. There was a critical experiments 

13 facility and a Van de Graaff accelerator. 

14 There was also weapons assembly and 

15 disassembly.

16 I want to talk a little bit about 

17 the past petitions that we have had and 

18 actually what drove us to get to this SEC-186, 

19 this 83.14 that we're recommending today.

20 SEC-18 was one of the original 

21 petitions that first went through the 

22 evaluation process, and we recommended a 
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Class. It was a time period when we did not 

2 send our Class Definitions to DOL. Ultimately 

3 it became a lessons learned from this that we 

4 did.

5 The first Class we recommended, 

6 SEC-18 was focused on uranium enrichment 

7 workers and other radiological activities. 

8 When DOL went to implement this Class 

9 Definition, they had some difficulties. 

10 Ultimately we were getting claims that we felt 

11 should have been included in the Class that 

12 were not.

13 So SEC-98, an 83.14, was we 

14 implemented SEC-98, all workers for 1943 to 

15 1947 period to correct that Class Definition.

16 SEC-28 is another one that was 

17 early on. It was an 83.13. It was very 

18 specific to buildings and certain operations.

19 SEC-186, which is the one we're 

20 discussing today, is actually, we're working 

21 through this evaluation and making this 

22 presentation of a Class to actually correct 
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Class Definition for SEC-28.

2 Okay. The Board will remember we 

3 did a Class Definition review in November of 

4 last year. We issued our report. We actually 

5 went back, and we looked at the Class 

6 Definitions from the beginning from when the 

7 rule was promulgated, our first Class 

8 Definitions with Mallinckrodt all the way up 

9 through to our recent Class Definitions.

10 We were looking at how the Class 

11 Definitions were defined early on and what 

12 parameters were used, the criteria that was 

13 used. We looked at the evaluation. And then 

14 we went through to today how we're defining 

15 our Classes based on the feasibility, the time 

16 period and so on.

17 We looked at consistency, 

18 applicability. We also looked at whether any 

19 of the Classes that were previously defined 

20 should be redefined. And our criteria for 

21 making that determination was, do we have 

22 claims that we think that from these early 
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Class Definitions that were left out that 

2 should have been included? And so if we came 

3 across that situation, that would drive us to 

4 do an 83.14 to correct that Class Definition.

5 The report findings, most of the 

6 issues and discrepancies identified in the 

7 report were associated with the evolution of 

8 the process. If you look at when the rule was 

9 promulgated in May of 2004 to today, just with 

10 any process, there is a learning process 

11 defining the Classes, doing the evaluation, 

12 and so on. Our early Classes were closely 

13 related to a petitioner-proposed Class.

14 If you looked at the Mallinckrodt, 

15 just the terminology was very consistent with 

16 the proposed Class by the petitioner.

17 Our early Classes were also 

18 established based on perceived limitations and 

19 sometimes without review by DOL. Perfect case 

20 is SEC-28. We limited it to facilities or, 

21 actually, buildings within Y-12.

22 And this Class Definition was not 
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 originally reviewed by the Department of 

2 Labor. It was, again, after SEC-18 and 

3 SEC-28, really SEC-18, that with our 

4 interactions with the Department of Labor that 

5 we recognized that we need to start sending 

6 these Class Definitions to them to review them 

7 to ensure that they can implement them.

8 So again, over time the need to 

9 expand and/or adjust the proposed SEC Class to 

10 address DOL Class implementation issues was 

11 recognized to ensure claimants were not 

12 inadvertently excluded.

13 SEC-28 Class Definition. The Work 

14 Group and our staff worked very hard on this, 

15 but it's a complicated Class Definition. It 

16 has a number of things that we don't include 

17 now; for example, employees who were monitored 

18 or should have been monitored -- we stopped 

19 using that terminology -- thorium exposures 

20 while working in buildings, so on. So it is 

21 very specific, thorium exposures. And it's 

22 also building-specific as listed there.
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it's also if you go down in 

2 the Class Definition, it gets into, or 

3 radionuclide exposures associated with 

4 cyclotron operations. So again now it's 

5 operations-specific in a building.

6 And I've got to give a little 

7 kudos to the Department of Labor. I read 

8 their circular again on this just recently. 

9 And you can see the if-thens in this circular, 

10 them trying to put people into this Class 

11 Definition.

12 So the current Class as 

13 recommended, that SEC-186, the Class we're 

14 recommending today is to remove the 

15 restrictions on the Class Definition of 

16 SEC-28. SEC-28 Class Definition again is 

17 specific to work locations and operations. As 

18 we look, available employment records do not 

19 generally indicate work location.

20 If you look at the employment 

21 records, even the dosimetry records, which we 

22 are using in another Class Definition, the 
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dosimetry records associated with Y-12 are 

2 department-specific; they're not 

3 area-specific, as well as the other employment 

4 records. So you can't put them in certain 

5 places. Also, worker movements across the 

6 site are undocumented.

7 The feasibility determination for 

8 this is it mirrors SEC-28. NIOSH lacks 

9 sufficient monitoring, process or source 

10 information for various Y-12 operations to 

11 estimate internal radiation doses to Y-12 

12 employees for the period of January 1, 1948 

13 through December 31, 1957.

14 SEC-28 infeasibility was driven by 

15 the inability to bound internal exposures from 

16 thorium operations and cyclotron operations.

17 As with most of our Classes, we 

18 recommend NIOSH will use any internal and 

19 external personal monitoring data for partial 

20 dose reconstructions as appropriate.

21 Again, our feasibility summary. 

22 We cannot reconstruct internal dose. We can 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 external.

2 Health endangerment. Evidence 

3 reviewed in this evaluation indicates some 

4 workers in the Class may have accumulated 

5 chronic radiation exposures through intakes of 

6 radionuclides and direct exposures to 

7 radioactive materials. Consequently, we feel 

8 health was endangered.

9 And then our recommendation again. 

10 And that's it.

11 Questions?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody have any 

13 questions for LaVon? David?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think it is 

15 a really well prepared report. Thank you, and 

16 the presentation was really clear as well.

17 I really don't have any issues 

18 with the suggestion for expansion of the 

19 Class. My one question is, it seems to me 

20 likely that we may come back to this again 

21 with expansion of the Class Definition moving 

22 forward from 1957 up until like 1961, for 
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 example, when the monitoring data actually 

2 look substantially complete than prior to 

3 that.

4 So I guess what's the logic in 

5 ending in '57?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, and, 

7 actually, Mark Griffon, who was Work Group 

8 Chair, may have some comments on this, too. 

9 But what we looked at in 1957, the reason why 

10 we stopped there was we actually pick up, some 

11 personal monitoring data kicks up in 1958, 

12 thorium monitoring, actually air monitoring 

13 data as well, a lot of air monitoring data.

14 The actual main thorium operations 

15 that drove production actually at Y-12 did not 

16 kick in heavily until 1960. There was 

17 pilot-scale work that began in '58, but that's 

18 also right when we get the increase in air 

19 monitoring data. So right now we stop the 

20 operations there.

21 Now, the other question is 

22 cyclotron operations. That's the other part 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of this Class Definition. We are still 

2 evaluating cyclotron operations.

3 And we are back and forth on 

4 whether 1957 is a good date for cyclotron 

5 operations. I will say that we will have a 

6 final determination on that very soon. We 

7 have been working with our contractor closely 

8 on that.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark, any 

10 comments?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. It has been 

12 a while since we --

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: This was the 

15 second one, I think, overall that we made a 

16 decision on, but --

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Actually --

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I generally 

19 remember the discussion, but I don't remember 

20 the cutoffs and why we came up with '57.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I actually 

22 went back and looked at that. And, actually, 
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if you read the report, it describes why. And 

2 a portion of the actual, the original report, 

3 go back and look at SEC-28 Evaluation Report. 

4 It describes why the '57 period was chosen 

5 for thorium. And it's because of the actual 

6 -- we pick up monitoring data in '58. And 

7 then the pilot work begins. And then you see 

8 a large increase of air sampling as well at 

9 that time period.

10 But the cyclotron operations are 

11 still open, and we are still looking at that 

12 right now. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I believe Dr. 

14 Lemen has a --

15 MEMBER LEMEN: This is a generic 

16 comment. I don't have any real strong 

17 comments about your presentation. I thought 

18 it was very good.

19 But I brought this up before, and 

20 since the last meeting I've been trying to 

21 figure out why we still have this restriction 

22 of 250 work-days. Now, I know that that is in 
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the regs, but I cannot find any scientific 

2 justification why we cut things off below 250 

3 days because with radiation exposure, people 

4 can get cancers with less than 250 days.

5 I know the Board may have talked 

6 about this before I came on the Board, but I 

7 really do think it needs to be revisited again 

8 because I think it is a totally unscientific 

9 determination and ridiculous.

10 DR. NETON: Well, yes. It is in 

11 the regulations, and this was debated quite a 

12 bit when the regulations were being put 

13 together. The fact of the matter is that 

14 there was no other valid scientific way that 

15 it could be determined to bound it to be 

16 something less than 250 days. It's also 

17 consistent with what the original 

18 congressionally mandated SEC Class is used to 

19 establish their time frame. So there is a 

20 couple of things that dovetailed there that 

21 seemed to make it a reasonable approach.

22 And 250 days was sort of just to 
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 give it the sense that there was some 

2 potential for exposure over a period of time 

3 to endanger health. If you start trying to 

4 wheedle it down to less than 250 days, then 

5 you get into automatically trying to have to 

6 do some sort of a health endangerment based on 

7 a Probability of Causation-type calculation, 

8 which you have already admitted you can't do. 

9 So you sort of get in the circular argument 

10 that just won't work.

11 So, good or bad, that's where it 

12 ended up. And that's what the regulation 

13 calls for right now.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: It is still my 

15 contention that you are eliminating a large 

16 group of workers that are still at risk of 

17 developing cancer related to their work in 

18 this area.

19 I don't know where you saw the 

20 congressional mandate for 250 days. I didn't 

21 see that.

22 DR. NETON: Well, the original SEC 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Please show it to 

3 me.

4 DR. NETON: The original SEC 

5 Classes that were added at the gaseous 

6 diffusion plants required 250 days' exposure.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: But who came up 

8 with that?

9 DR. NETON: It was in the 

10 congressional --

11 MS. LIN: It was in the EEOICPA 

12 statute. We will be happy to show it to you 

13 after the break.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: I still think it is 

15 a ridiculous cutoff, and I will keep saying 

16 that.

17 DR. NETON: I would say we would 

18 be happy to entertain any arguments that would 

19 allow us to do something different and 

20 consider it, but up to this point, we have not 

21 heard any compelling way that's any better 

22 than what we're doing right now.
155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. I was just 

3 wondering, do you have any estimate of how 

4 many claims this change will impact?

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can give you 

6 internally it's only active claims that we 

7 have. There are eight claims. However, there 

8 are 300 claims for the period that are with 

9 the Department of Labor. I cannot say all 300 

10 of those claims will get, you know, the SEC, 

11 but a large portion of those will.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank 

13 you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

15 questions or comments on Y-12?

16 (No response.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If not, 

18 do I hear a recommendation? Gee, I wonder. 

19 Wanda? Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I recommend that we 

21 accept the NIOSH recommendation for 83.14 SEC 

22 Class for the contractors and subcontractors 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 who worked at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, 

2 Tennessee from January 1, 1948 through 

3 December 31, 1957.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second from Brad 

6 again. Any further discussion?

7 (No response.)

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Ted?

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield.

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, that is all in 

12 favor who could vote. The motion passes. 

13 There are a number of people absent. I will 

14 collect their votes afterwards, three Members. 

15 And I should note also for the record that 

16 Dr. Poston recused himself from this session.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: My understanding 

18 is they're going to try to fix the telephone 

19 connection over lunchtime. So, even though 

20 we're running a little bit early, I suggest 

21 that we break early for lunch and come back at 

22 the scheduled time, two o'clock. Hopefully 
158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that will give them enough time to make the 

2 fix, and then we'll be back live for people 

3 calling in, including Board Members.

4 So let's adjourn now. Return here 

5 at two o'clock, as scheduled.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter went off the record at 11:54 a.m. and 

8 resumed at 2:04 p.m.)

9 
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (2:04 p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If everyone will 

4 get seated, we will get started. So now we 

5 are going to reconvene and we're going to talk 

6 about Piqua. Ted, do you want to make a --

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. I would like to 

8 just check on the phone lines and see which 

9 Board Members we have on the phone line. Bob?

10 (No response.)

11 MR. KATZ: I need to know if the 

12 line in from the people on the telephone -- I 

13 expect we can't hear them yet there. Okay.

14 So, folks on the phone line, I'm 

15 asking for Board Members who may be attending 

16 at this point. So either Bob Presley or Mike 

17 Gibson?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. I don't hear 

20 them at this point. Hello? Was that Bob or 

21 Mike?

22 (No response.)
160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then let me just 

2 ask somebody on the phone line to speak up and 

3 so we know we are being heard.

4 DR. CHEW: Ted, this is Mel.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. So someone is 

6 hearing us. Can you repeat what you were 

7 saying?

8 DR. CHEW: Ted, this is Mel, loud 

9 and clear.

10 MR. KATZ: That is great. You're 

11 clear, too.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Piqua, 

13 John?

14 MEMBER POSTON: Thank you, Mr. 

15 Chairman. I wanted to present the Working 

16 Group report on the Piqua organic moderator 

17 reactor. Just a quick look at the Committee. 

18 It was a small Working Group: Dr. Field, Mr. 

19 Schofield and myself. And John Mauro was our 

20 SC&A contact. And Charles Nelson and James 

21 Neton were the NIOSH folks.

22 A little background. The Piqua 
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reactor was a demonstration project in Piqua, 

2 Ohio. The reactor was designed to operate at 

3 a maximum power of 45 megawatts. It was 

4 organically cooled and moderated. It began 

5 operation in 1963, and the operation was 

6 terminated in 1966. And there was a 

7 decommissioning period between '66 and '69.

8 The Evaluation Report was issued 

9 in September of 2009. There was no Site 

10 Profile written for this particular site. And 

11 NIOSH made their presentation to the Board in 

12 October of 2009.

13 Basically, we voted to approve the 

14 recommendations of NIOSH for the 

15 post-operational period, but the operational 

16 period was still under question and so the 

17 Working Group was formed.

18 Just to reiterate what I just 

19 said, NIOSH's position was it was feasible to 

20 reconstruct doses during the reactor 

21 operational period, which was 1963-66 and was 

22 not feasible to reconstruct doses during the 
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 decommissioning period. We then looked at the 

2 operational period in great detail.

3 The first meeting was on my 

4 birthday in 2010. I was lucky to be 21 years 

5 old at the time.

6 (Laughter.)

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And old enough 

8 to chair a Work Group.

9 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. So, as I 

10 said, there's no Site Profile available. And 

11 only the Evaluation Report was available. 

12 And, as I recall, at that particular time SC&A 

13 had only been instructed to read the 

14 Evaluation Report.

15 The goal of this meeting, which 

16 was a face-to-face meeting, was to consider 

17 the issues that were in people's minds about 

18 this particular site and get some action in 

19 terms of discussing those and so forth.

20 So in our discussion, we generated 

21 a lot of issues. And those resulted in the 

22 generation of White Papers which were prepared 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 by NIOSH and reviewed by SC&A.

2 Here are some of the issues. The 

3 volatility of the organic coolant/moderator 

4 was in question. We were concerned about the 

5 tritium to carbon-14 ratio. We were concerned 

6 about the exposure of workers during 

7 maintenance.

8 The potential for carryover of 

9 nitrogen-16 from the reactor into the turbine 

10 generator was also discussed; the availability 

11 of bioassay data; the records on activity, air 

12 activity levels in the facility; and 

13 consideration of neutron dose to the workers. 

14 So those were basically the issues that we 

15 were going to explore as the Working Group. 

16 The two major reports that were 

17 issued were these: NIOSH White Paper on 

18 tritium and carbon-14 and then a second paper 

19 in March of 2011 on neutron exposures at the 

20 Piqua reactor.

21 Some of the other issues were 

22 dismissed relatively easily. For example, the 
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nitrogen-16 carryover to the turbine. The 

2 reactor was on one side of the river. The 

3 turbine was on the other side of the river. 

4 And the steam is transported under the river 

5 to the turbine. Nitrogen-16 has a short 

6 half-life. So it decays pretty quickly and 

7 was not really a concern to exposing the 

8 workers around the reactor because the turbine 

9 was not anywhere near the reactor.

10 We had a second meeting in April 

11 of `11. We had an opportunity to discuss 

12 these White Papers with the NIOSH folks as 

13 well as the responses to those White Papers 

14 prepared by SC&A.

15 We concluded that many of the 

16 issues raised during the initial meeting had 

17 no real impact on NIOSH's approach to dose 

18 reconstruction. And the Working Group agreed 

19 that all of the concerns, after our 

20 discussion, all of the concerns, that had been 

21 raised in the first meeting had been addressed 

22 sufficiently.
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So the Working Group voted 

2 unanimously to accept the NIOSH position that 

3 dose reconstruction was feasible during the 

4 operational period. And so it was our 

5 recommendation that the SEC Petition for the 

6 operational period should be denied.

7 I think that concludes my 

8 presentation. I would be happy to address any 

9 comments or if Bill or Phil have anything they 

10 would like to say.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No? Okay. 

12 Anybody, Board Members, with questions?

13 (No response.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Quiet group 

15 today. Does NIOSH have anything to add? 

16 First, David. I guess, David, you had a 

17 question.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you talk 

19 a little bit more about potential for tritium 

20 exposure and the availability of tritium 

21 bioassay data?

22 MEMBER POSTON: I can talk about 
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the first one. Remember, this is an 

2 organically cooled reactor. And when the 

3 temperature in the reactor gets below 300 

4 degrees, basically everything turns to a 

5 solid. And so it was concluded that both the 

6 tritium and the carbon-14 were bound up in the 

7 moderator and were not available, as they 

8 might have been if they were tritium gas or 

9 CO2.

10 The other situation was that the 

11 reactor was refueled during operation. So it 

12 was not the traditional taking off the head of 

13 the reactor and replacing the fuel.

14 So, even that operation, refueling 

15 the reactor, was not considered to be a 

16 situation in which people were being exposed 

17 to those materials.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I just briefly 

19 note that there were issues related to 

20 crumpled fuel elements, weren't there, like 

21 buckling or cracking of --

22 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So would that 

2 be a situation in which there would be 

3 intakes?

4 MEMBER POSTON: Well, again 

5 because of the refuel while the reactor was 

6 online, it's my understanding -- and I could 

7 be corrected, but my understanding is that the 

8 fuel elements really don't come out of the 

9 reactor. They're simply moved to another 

10 location. So they're not available.

11 Again, not the traditional kind of 

12 thing, where in a pressurized water reactor, 

13 boiling water reactor, you move the fuel to a 

14 fuel pool, which is separate from the reactor.

15 But I don't know if Charlie or Jim 

16 wants to comment on that. I'm a little bit 

17 weak on that.

18 DR. NETON: I don't believe they 

19 actually refueled the reactor. I think the 

20 problem surfaced early enough where they shut 

21 the reactor down because of this buckling 

22 problem. And then when they started to take 
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it apart during the decommissioning period, 

2 that's when we said we couldn't reconstruct 

3 doses, because they were actually in there 

4 with the core exposed.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Maybe I just 

6 need kind of help in thinking about the 

7 configuration. I mean, they found the 

8 problem. The fuel rods had buckled when they 

9 began to take it apart.

10 DR. NETON: Right.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But if you 

12 were working around the reactor and you had 

13 broken fuel rods, the reactor --

14 DR. NETON: Okay. There's a 

15 little more to the scenario. I think what we 

16 said was that we could bound the ambient 

17 airborne exposure in the facility, based on 

18 the air-monitoring program that was in place.

19 There were CAM alarms that were 

20 set to go off at one maximum permissible 

21 concentration in air, one MPC. And we had 

22 statements from workers that said they never 
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 alarmed, you know, they were set to go off.

2 So then we picked the most 

3 limiting radionuclide dosimetrically at one 

4 MPC that would bound those exposures. But 

5 there was some concern on SC&A's part that 

6 tritium and carbon-14 could be in gaseous 

7 form, and they may not be in the same ratios 

8 in the air as they would have existed in the 

9 coolant.

10 But then once we demonstrated that 

11 as soon as there was any kind of a coolant 

12 leak, it would have just solidified, it would 

13 not release it, it was accepted that the ratio 

14 of tritium in the reactor circulating coolant 

15 was a good value. We're using the ratio of 

16 tritium and carbon-14 in the coolant to the 

17 overall isotopic mix to bound the exposures in

18 air.

19 MEMBER POSTON: You can think of 

20 these as basically freezing up. When they get 

21 below 300 degrees, they just freeze. They 

22 become a solid. And this is common to many of 
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the molten salts and other kinds of reactors.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

3 questions? Any further comment from NIOSH?

4 (No response.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So I think this 

6 is the Work Group recommendation. Correct, 

7 John?

8 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So it is a 

10 motion. And do we have a second?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Second.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is an 

14 earlier petition. So it's right before, so to 

15 speak. And that was reviewed.

16 Do you have the timeline up there?

17 DR. NETON: We presented the 

18 petition at the October 2009 meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Meeting, yes. 

20 And the petitioner does not want to address 

21 this, if that was your question.

22 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I missed the ER 

2 on the petition. Okay. So we have a second. 

3 Okay. Any further discussion or questions?

4 (No response.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, Ted, go 

6 ahead.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. And with roll, 

8 I'll also name the Members that are missing 

9 because they may have joined the phone call 

10 since. So, Dr. Anderson?

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

17 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Mike Gibson, are you on 

19 the line? Okay, I'll continue on. Mr. Griffon?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

22 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.
172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

2 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

6 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Bob Presley, are you on 

8 the line? Okay, I'll continue on. Dr. 

9 Richardson?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: And Mr. Ziemer?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: So it's unanimous. The 

18 motion passes. I will collect votes from the 

19 absentee Members subsequently.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I would just 

21 like to thank essentially the Work Group and 

22 NIOSH, SC&A. I thought it was a very good, 
173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 focused review on this issue, a little 

2 different than our other issues and done very 

3 well.

4 Okay. Our next agenda item in 

5 terms of SECs is not until 4:15. And that is 

6 scheduled. We believe we have a petitioner 

7 who may want to comment on that.

8 So we have a Board work session 

9 now. And I know, Ted, you need to do some 

10 things.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Jim.

12 So at the teleconference on July 

13 11th, we had an SEC petition for us for GE 

14 Evendale and voted to approve that petition 

15 and NIOSH's recommendation to add that Class.

16 There were four Board Members 

17 absent. And so it is the tradition of this 

18 Board to record the votes of the absentee 

19 Members. And it was Dr. Lemen, Mr. Gibson, 

20 Mr. Griffon, and Dr. Poston were absent. And 

21 they all voted in favor to add that Class by 

22 July 20th. So it was unanimous, the entire 
174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we 

4 start on our Subcommittee and Work Group 

5 reports? Mark, do you have any preference on 

6 dealing with the case selection and so forth 

7 or would you rather wait and hold that off 

8 until tomorrow or do we -- okay. Okay. So 

9 I'm trying to see what we can get accomplished 

10 here now and do that.

11 I would note that on the annotated 

12 agenda, Ted does have some suggested dates for 

13 future meetings. I would just ask people to 

14 check their calendars. We'll do that 

15 tomorrow. But just tonight or whenever or 

16 tomorrow, check out those dates so we're ready 

17 when we do talk about that tomorrow and do 

18 that.

19 Okay. Wanda, the Procedures Work 

20 Group, since Mark deferred?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, I 

22 believe.
175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The Procedures Work Group had a 

2 hiatus of a couple of months prior to its last 

3 meeting. We met in mid-July, on the 14th, 

4 with a fairly full agenda, as usual.

5 Our revisions to our electronic 

6 database had been for the most part completed. 

7 We used it extensively and worked fairly 

8 well. There are one or two points that we 

9 need to revise and expand a little bit, but, 

10 all in all, it is looking better and is 

11 operating fairly smoothly.

12 I think most of us were pleased 

13 with it. We have one more session where we 

14 expect some of the additions that we had asked 

15 for to be incorporated. And then I think we 

16 will be in good shape.

17 We spent a significant amount of 

18 time discussing the outstanding issues with 

19 Norton Company, which you will hear about 

20 tomorrow at that prescribed time. And we had 

21 a considerable number of carryover items from 

22 our preceding meeting, which were addressed, 
176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one or two action items closed, but many of 

2 them still in process and will be carried over 

3 to our upcoming meeting next month, which is 

4 scheduled for September -- I have to look it 

5 up to see myself -- the 19th. Monday, the 

6 19th of September will be our next meeting.

7 We have a great deal of work to do 

8 yet on our two-pagers. A part of that is the 

9 fault of the Chair of the Committee, who had 

10 not completed her responsibilities in getting 

11 all of those current two-page summaries out to 

12 the Committee for the Subcommittee's approval 

13 before we bring it to you. That will, with 

14 any luck at all, occur in the immediately 

15 foreseeable future.

16 Other than that, I believe we have 

17 covered it reasonably well.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Very good. Any 

19 Board Members have questions for Wanda or any 

20 of the other Work Group Members have comments?

21 (No response.)

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Next on 
177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 my list is Brookhaven.

2 MEMBER BEACH: I don't have 

3 anything new to report for Brookhaven, other 

4 than what I reported last July. The Work 

5 Group is still awaiting NIOSH's work to be 

6 completed, and we will report as soon as we 

7 have that.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you have an 

9 expected date for that?

10 MEMBER BEACH: At this time I 

11 don't, no. I checked with Grady last week, 

12 and they're still struggling with dates. So I 

13 don't.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu or Jim, 

15 could you enlighten us?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can say 

17 that we feel the pressure of this. I was 

18 hoping to find a date on our schedule, but 

19 it's not there. It seems likely that we will 

20 come forward with an 83.14 action of some sort 

21 to extend the Class that has already been 

22 proposed, just because of the state of the 
178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records we're encountering there.

2 So it's likely that that is what 

3 is going to happen. And I think the issue is 

4 kind of deciding on an end period for them. 

5 That is what is causing the delay in the work.

6 So I don't have anything to offer 

7 now. We can try to be in communication before 

8 the teleconference with the Work Group and 

9 whoever you like to make sure we see what we 

10 can come up with in terms of deliveries.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Well, a mandate 

12 will be important to the Work Group, depending 

13 on where it ends up. So we may have more work 

14 to do, and we may not.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes. So 

16 if you had an update before the 

17 teleconference, then, if needed, for another 

18 Work Group meeting?

19 Fernald we're going to hear from 

20 tomorrow with Brad. Hanford we will also hear 

21 from tomorrow. With that, Idaho? Phil?

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We met on June 
179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 21st, got quite a bit accomplished there. 

2 Both NIOSH and SC&A have issues on some of the 

3 matrix items to work on. Then once those are 

4 done, we will schedule another meeting.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I forget 

6 the official name of this, but I have it on my 

7 list as the "K-25 et al. Work Group." I 

8 didn't bring my official list.

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Gaseous 

10 Diffusion Plants?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We have 

13 actually gone through all three of them now. 

14 So there are outstanding issues on all three 

15 of them. And hopefully we can get them all 

16 combined and at the next meeting get through 

17 those issues. So, a lot has been 

18 accomplished.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Work Group, do 

20 you have another meeting scheduled or --

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Not yet.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not yet? Okay.
180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Lawrence Berkeley? Bill? Excuse 

2 me. Bill's conflicted. I've got that. Paul?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Nothing to report 

4 on Lawrence Berkeley.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Linde? Gen?

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: The Linde Work 

7 Group met August 15th. This was the 14th 

8 meeting of the Work Group, the first one to 

9 discuss SEC Petition 00154, which calls for 

10 adding all employees who worked in any area at 

11 Linde Ceramics from November 1st, 1947 through 

12 December 31st, 1953.

13 The Work Group, NIOSH, and SC&A 

14 discussed NIOSH's revised TBD, which was 

15 posted on July 15th, 2011.

16 SEC had questions about a table 

17 and an attachment in the new TBD. They hadn't 

18 really had a chance to look at it much before 

19 the meeting. Their questions dealt with 

20 raffinates, specifically the method used to 

21 determine the uranium progeny ratios. NIOSH 

22 presented the ER for this SEC period, and SC&A 
181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 presented its review.

2 Three issues dealt with 

3 worker-identified concerns and three with 

4 SC&A-identified concerns. Although SC&A 

5 agreed that NIOSH's approach to bounding all 

6 dose scenarios is valid, questions still exist 

7 with one Work Group Member and the Linde 

8 petitioner as to whether any contaminated 

9 tunnels were present during this SEC period.

10 It was agreed that this is not an 

11 SEC issue but, rather, a TBD or dose 

12 reconstruction issue. Nevertheless -- and you 

13 know that we have discussed tunnels at Linde a 

14 lot before -- we decided that this question 

15 deserved further evaluation.

16 Also, because one Work Group 

17 Member was not present for the deliberation, 

18 it was decided that the Work Group would hold 

19 another meeting by teleconference in late 

20 October and plan to report its recommendations 

21 on this SEC to the Board at the December 

22 meeting in Tampa.
182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 To take care of all of the 

2 remaining questions, SC&A was tasked with the 

3 following, and they are going to report to the 

4 Work Group by the teleconference:

5 Number one, SC&A is going to 

6 review the new TBD to see if there's anything 

7 new in it that would relate to an SEC-00154 

8 issue. They had not had a chance to do that. 

9 So they'll do that.

10 Number two, study some supporting 

11 data for a table in an attachment in the TBD 

12 where they had questions to determine if the 

13 uranium progeny data ratios developed by NIOSH 

14 are scientifically based and applied in a 

15 sound manner.

16 And then, number three, look at 

17 all the drawings, documents, and 

18 correspondence with regard to the utility 

19 tunnels to determine when, which tunnels were 

20 built, how the tunnel exposures were assigned 

21 in different time periods, and when and where 

22 the soil might have been contaminated with 
183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radium-226.

2 So we will then talk about those 

3 issues and meet in late October. And we 

4 haven't scheduled the meeting yet.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

6 you.

7 Any other Work Group Members have 

8 questions or Work Group Members have comments 

9 on that?

10 (No response.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Very thorough 

12 report. Thanks.

13 You're up. Los Alamos? I was 

14 going to draft LaVon, but I guess you took him 

15 off the hook.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Los Alamos. I 

17 don't have any update from the last meeting's 

18 update.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Mound, 

20 Josie?

21 MEMBER BEACH: For Mound, our last 

22 Work Group meeting was a teleconference on May 
184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 13th. And our last face-to-face meeting was 

2 in January, the 5th and 6th. At the 

3 teleconference, we went over the radon issue.

4 We have four items left to 

5 complete for this Work Group. And we are 

6 waiting still for the radon paper, and I don't 

7 have an end date for that. Maybe Stu can give 

8 us an update on that.

9 The last one that NIOSH has got is 

10 the tritium swipe data. Once that is in our 

11 hands, we have sent out some dates for early 

12 to mid-November. And I think we're getting 

13 close to having a date for our next Work Group 

14 meeting. And I'm hoping to report out at the 

15 December meeting in Tampa for Mound, on 

16 probably all of the issues except the very 

17 last one, "data adequacy and completeness." 

18 That may take us a little more time than 

19 December.

20 And, oh, the tritium data is due 

21 September 5th. So we're hoping to have that, 

22 right? I know that's been pushed back a 
185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 couple of times. So hopefully that end date 

2 is going to be a good date for us.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We think 

4 that is a pretty good date on the tritium. 

5 You know, it's wrapping up internally.

6 Did you ask about a radon? That

7 is an internal as well. I mean, there is a 

8 product now that's going on internal review. 

9 So we're getting close to both of them, 

10 kicking both of them out.

11 MEMBER BEACH: So November 7th.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think we 

13 should be on schedule for doing that.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And there are 

15 also some Class Definition issues?

16 MEMBER BEACH: That is the radon.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Radon issue. 

18 Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted 

19 to make sure it was the same, same issue. 

20 Okay. Anyone have questions for Josie or Work 

21 Group Members have comments?

22 (No response.)
186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Pantex 

2 we'll hear from on Friday -- or, excuse me, 

3 Thursday. I hope we're still not hearing from 

4 it on Friday.

5 Pinellas? Phil?

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Everything 

7 except the medical TBD has been updated and 

8 signed off. We're still waiting for a 

9 signature on that. And we will schedule a 

10 Work Group meeting on it. The SEC that has 

11 been filed for it was denied at this point, 

12 SEC Petition.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So will that be 

14 completed and ready for -- we'll be in Tampa 

15 in December.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

18 Anybody have questions for Phil or comments? 

19 NIOSH have any comments?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. I have a 

21 question.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?
187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Because I don't know. 

2 Phil, maybe you could remind me or Joe. So we 

3 have updated TBDs, is that what you're saying?

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, all except 

5 for the medical.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Once it's 

8 signed off, we'll send those out to everybody 

9 with updates.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, then, the 

11 other t we need to cross is to have SC&A look 

12 at the updates in preparation for that. That 

13 would be nice to get that done so that we can 

14 have a really productive Work Group meeting 

15 there.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay. 

17 Rocky Flats? Mark?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: No update, no 

19 meetings have occurred between the last 

20 meeting. We are tentatively planning a Work 

21 Group meeting, probably toward the end of 

22 September, to pick up the Site Profile issues 
188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that remain.

2 And also hopefully, given DOL's 

3 presence here today, we can at least update. 

4 I know the petitioner is very interested in 

5 this implementation of a Class that's 

6 established. So we'll have those two topics 

7 on the next agenda.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. Any 

9 questions for Mark?

10 (No response.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Santa 

12 Susana. Mike's not here.

13 Savannah River we will hear about 

14 tomorrow, an update. SEC Issues, there's 

15 nothing since the last meeting.

16 TBD-6000, Paul?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The main focus of 

18 TBD-6000 right now is on General Steel 

19 Industries. We received earlier this month 

20 from NIOSH a White Paper dealing with the 

21 radiography sources and the portable X-ray 

22 radiography sources and the cobalt. And that 
189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is radium, X-ray and cobalt radiography 

2 sources.

3 The contractor, SC&A, has been 

4 already tasked to review that White Paper. 

5 And SC&A has a target date for delivering 

6 their review to us on September 12th, I 

7 believe is the date I have, Joe. I think that 

8 is still on target.

9 And then we are scheduled to meet 

10 on September 22nd to review the issues 

11 relating to that White Paper, both as they 

12 pertain to the SEC Petition as well as to the 

13 main document itself on sort of the equivalent 

14 of a Site Profile for GSI.

15 Also on the docket is a second 

16 White Paper, which will focus mainly on the 

17 exposures from the betatrons at that facility. 

18 And that White Paper is scheduled for 

19 completion by NIOSH at the end of December. 

20 And then we'll have to have a review of that

21 as well by our contractor.

22 So the bottom line is, right now 
190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the General Steel Industries' petition is 

2 stretched out, as it were, until into 

3 certainly the early part of next year.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: February meeting 

5 or after.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if we get 

7 that paper, which is scheduled for December 

8 30th. And the Chair does not plan to spend 

9 New Year's Day reading it. So I believe that 

10 if the Board's contractor is able to jump on 

11 that early in January, by mid-January, 

12 hopefully, we'll have a response. And then 

13 we'll be into early February for a meeting, I 

14 would guess.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I would 

16 hope the Board's contractor would start to 

17 work immediately on January 1st.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we don't 

19 want them to work on January 1st. Their rates 

20 are high enough without the overtime.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't remember 

22 seeing that in the contract. What's this 
191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about overtime?

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. KATZ: Paul, I thought I heard 

4 you say September 22nd, but the meeting is 

5 September 20th.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I will try to show 

7 up earlier, then.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me confirm 

10 that as I boot up my calendar here very 

11 quickly. September 20th is the correct date.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any comments 

13 from Work Group Members or questions from 

14 Board Members on that?

15 (No response.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks.

17 TBD-6001?

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Tomorrow we will 

19 be sharing our recommendations on the Hooker 

20 SEC. We have one other SEC that is 

21 progressing along, and that is Electromet. We 

22 had sent the letter to DOE asking for 
192 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information they might have on the volume of 

2 uranium process there as well.

3 Questions were raised about 

4 thorium. After considerable waiting, we did 

5 get a letter back from them the end of July 

6 indicating they really couldn't give us an 

7 estimate of the amount of uranium ore that 

8 was processed there. There is evidence it was 

9 processed there. So it remains a site.

10 And there is no indication that 

11 thorium was used there, but an exposure to 

12 thorium from the ore, since the ore came from 

13 the Belgian Congo, is an option.

14 So NIOSH on the basis of this is 

15 now re-looking at their approach to dose 

16 reconstruction and maybe giving us a new set 

17 of recommendations for how to handle the SEC.

18 We're hoping to get that back by 

19 the end of October, first part of November, I 

20 think, in time for us to meet before the next 

21 Board meeting to try to bring that one to a 

22 close.
193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We have, I think, three other, 

2 four, was it? Three other TBDs and Site 

3 Profiles that we're working on, United 

4 Nuclear. We've spent a fair amount of time 

5 identifying the matrix and issues.

6 We're also working on DuPont 

7 Deepwater as well as Baker-Perkins. Those are 

8 chugging along, but we haven't spent as much 

9 time on them on them because we wanted to 

10 close out the SEC.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Thank you. 

12 Are we still on, NIOSH still on, target for 

13 October, November? Jim Neton's nodding his 

14 head.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: We just met last 

16 week. We spent the time getting ready for 

17 this meeting.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

19 have questions or comments on that?

20 (No response.)

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Weldon Spring, 

22 we have a -- Mike is not here.
194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. Mike is the 

2 Chair. He's not here. But we have a meeting 

3 set for September 13th, Work Group meeting.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: I could add that we 

6 have received the SC&A reports for Weldon 

7 Spring, and there'll be a discussion there for 

8 the meeting on the 13th.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And according to 

10 the NIOSH update, NIOSH has two reports due 

11 for completion in early next month on Weldon 

12 Spring. Yes. Okay.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We went through 

14 our project plan for the second one of these.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: You remember we 

17 sent out one and we sent a revision.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: For the second one 

20 of these, we went through our project plan and 

21 tried to get it as up to date as we could 

22 based on our current project plan. Those 
195 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dates were subject to interference and things 

2 like that, but we tried to hit those dates.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

4 This time Jim didn't nod. He turned his head 

5 towards you, Stu. Thanks.

6 So Worker Outreach? Josie, did I 

7 understand you --

8 MEMBER BEACH: I prepared a 

9 report.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

11 you.

12 MEMBER BEACH: In February of 

13 2011, SC&A was directed to pause work on the 

14 Rocky Flats outreach pilot study. That's part 

15 of our objective 3, where we started. Until 

16 SC&A could meet with the Work Group and 

17 receive further direction, the work continued 

18 on other tasks assigned to SC&A by the Work 

19 Group, and those included the issues 

20 resolution related to PR-12, updating the 

21 issues matrix, and identification of sites 

22 where worker outreach meetings had not been 
196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 held.

2 A Work Group meeting was held on 

3 June 29th, 2011, and we discussed the Rocky 

4 Flats outreach pilot study and the issues 

5 resolution status of PR-12.

6 During this Work Group meeting, 

7 the Work Group provided additional direction 

8 for Rocky Flats, the outreach pilot study. 

9 That's what SC&A was lacking to get them 

10 started again.

11 And then we tasked SC&A with 

12 preparing a sampling plan. The sampling plan 

13 was prepared and distributed to the Work Group 

14 in preparation for a teleconference that we 

15 held on July 28th, 2011.

16 SC&A at that time was given 

17 further direction by the Work Group on the 

18 sampling approach and asked to revise the 

19 sampling plan. SC&A is currently working on 

20 the revision of that sampling plan, which is 

21 expected to be submitted to the Work Group by 

22 September 2nd. Once that revised sampling 
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plan has been agreed upon, the Work Group will 

2 reactivate the work on Rocky Flats.

3 At this time there is no 

4 teleconference scheduled. So we'll have to 

5 get with Mike and see if once we have that 

6 sampling plan, that it should just be a phone 

7 call -- or I guess we decided to do that by 

8 email, so maybe it's just an email.

9 That's all I have.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any further 

11 additions to that, comments?

12 (No response.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Mark, I 

14 think we're ready for you.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: The DR 

16 Subcommittee. I'll just briefly say we had a 

17 meeting in mid-July, and we focused on our 

18 normal operations, which is to go through all 

19 the cases that are in review. In addition to 

20 that, we had a discussion on the NIOSH 

21 ten-year review report.

22 And, actually, I had an action 
198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 items to produce a memo for the Subcommittee 

2 to bring to this Board, which I was to 

3 circulate to the Members prior to this 

4 meeting, none of which happened. I haven't 

5 finished the memo, and I haven't circulated 

6 it.

7 But, just to add onto what Stu 

8 said earlier -- and I will get that to the 

9 full Board -- the idea was that we were to 

10 review the sections in the ten-year review 

11 plan, focusing on the dose reconstruction and 

12 quality assurance initiatives, since a lot of 

13 that has come up in our Subcommittee.

14 And one thing Stu correctly 

15 reports is that we did talk about the need to 

16 establish a baseline for the QA/QC analysis. 

17 And I think we had a couple of different 

18 options came out of the discussion.

19 So I know Stu mentioned one option 

20 that they seemed to be pursuing, which is this 

21 blind analysis. I think there was another one 

22 that talked about doing cases a number of 
199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 times, ten times with ten different people, to 

2 look at variability as a way to sort of assess 

3 the quality assurance problems.

4 So we have a number of things 

5 there. I think next up for the Subcommittee is 

6 to draft a memo and bring it back to this full 

7 Board, just for a discussion on the full 

8 Board.

9 I'm not sure it's a report that 

10 would go anywhere, other than back to the full 

11 Board for discussion. And I think in most 

12 cases, it will be consistent with NIOSH's 

13 action plan or supportive of NIOSH's action 

14 plan. I think that's our next -- we do want 

15 to deliver that product to the Board.

16 Let's see. The other item, other 

17 than going through our normal caseload, was to 

18 look at the next round of cases for selection 

19 for SC&A. And in the handouts, we have a 

20 spreadsheet. I don't know if everyone has 

21 looked at it yet. There are 50 cases on 

22 there.
200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And these cases, just as a 

2 reminder, we went through a sort of triage 

3 process on the Subcommittee. I think NIOSH 

4 gave us actually quite a large list this time. 

5 I believe Stu may have the number, but I 

6 think it was a couple of hundred or 300, a 

7 couple of hundred cases.

8 And out of those, we did the 

9 normal process. We picked 50 cases. And then 

10 we asked NIOSH to go and get additional 

11 information on those cases, such as the last 

12 columns in the spreadsheet, if you recall, are 

13 whether they were done by best estimate, by 

14 overestimate, whether they included neutrons, 

15 et cetera.

16 So this is the product to bring 

17 back to the Board. And now as a full Board, 

18 we would like to select out of those. It can 

19 be all 50 if we want to take some out. And 

20 this will be our final group that we task SC&A 

21 with reviewing. 

22 So if we want to start going down 
201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them in order? Jim, I don't know how you want 

2 to proceed here.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't you 

4 just go in order?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Go through the 

6 list?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Paul, do 

8 you have -- sure, go ahead.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, I have two 

10 questions. The first one, could you just --

11 it's more of a request. Could you remind us 

12 as to where we stand on blind reviews by our 

13 contractor?

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. That is 

15 another item, actually, that we did discuss at 

16 the last meeting. I believe we only tasked 

17 them with doing two blind reviews.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: And they did both 

20 of those reviews. And we discussed them. It 

21 was at the last meeting, I believe. And at 

22 this point -- and internally SC&A looked at 
202 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them. They had two different individuals look 

2 at the cases.

3 One of them, one person, used the 

4 NIOSH procedures to go through and reconstruct 

5 the dose. The other person, whom you might 

6 guess, did more of a basically a hand, first 

7 principles, you know, went through and did a 

8 hand calculation.

9 And we sort of discussed the 

10 differences. There was quite a bit of 

11 variation in the final numbers that they 

12 produced, doing it that way by hand versus by 

13 the NIOSH protocol.

14 What we haven't done is we haven't 

15 compared it to NIOSH's. NIOSH now has that, 

16 and they have taken that to compare. Is that 

17 right? I'm trying to recall. Yes. Stu, is 

18 that correct?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That is my 

20 recollection.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We, in the last 
203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting, compared. And there were like the 

2 components of the doses --

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that were 

5 broken out. We kind of compared. SC&A 

6 actually did a really nice comparison.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And our action was 

9 to kind of go back and figure it out. You 

10 know, sitting there in the room we weren't 

11 really equipped to spend the time to explain 

12 why SC&A came up with this number and we came 

13 up with this other number.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: But that's the 

16 kind of --

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's the next 

18 step we're going to take, yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- path we're 

20 going to follow on that.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Good. I 

22 appreciate hearing that. And perhaps by our 
204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 next meeting, you will be able to sort of 

2 report to the Board --

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Hopefully.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- not only what 

5 the results are, but any recommendations you 

6 have relating to that.

7 My second question is to ask 

8 whether or not -- I forget how many cases now 

9 we have completed and closed out. We're over 

10 200 now, aren't we?

11 I'm really asking, are we in a 

12 position to give the Secretary a sort of a 

13 200-case summary, sort of analogous to our 

14 100-case? I don't know that there has been 

15 any commitment to that, but I'm just raising 

16 that.

17 It seems to me at some point we're 

18 due to again report to the Secretary because, 

19 in essence, what we are doing is to assess 

20 whether or not dose reconstructions are 

21 scientifically valid, in a sense.

22 And after, say, we had a report 
205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 after the first 100 audits or cases, it seems 

2 to me we may be close to being due for another 

3 assessment. And do we conclude anything 

4 different or the same or what?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. And I 

6 don't know the count, but we're on the -- I 

7 don't know if we have reached two. Did we 

8 reach 200 yet? I mean, we're on the ninth 

9 set, and we're still closing out some findings 

10 in the eighth and ninth set. I don't know if 

11 -- sometimes they have more than 20 per set, I 

12 think.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I don't 

14 have a count right now. I can have it later 

15 on in the meeting.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Those 

19 reports generally are summaries after the 

20 conclusion of the resolutions.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: And, as Mark said, 
206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're working on the ninth set. The 10th, 

2 11th, and 12th sets have all been delivered 

3 and some of which I think some initial 

4 response has been made but not all. So by the 

5 time we get through ninth, we might be at 200, 

6 but I don't have any --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or close.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, or close. 

9 We are close.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But we haven't 

11 resolved all ninth yet.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, the other 

13 thing I think we have discussed is that the 

14 Subcommittee is falling quite far behind SC&A. 

15 And I think -- I note that one of the actions 

16 for NIOSH was to look at sort of resource 

17 management issues because I think one of the 

18 dilemmas we have, it's not always the 

19 Subcommittee is slowing things up. A lot of 

20 times we don't have NIOSH responses to even 

21 discuss. So we have been putting off 

22 meetings.
207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I know it's often because they 

2 have other commitments where the SEC -- you 

3 know, other work commitments. But at some 

4 point we would like to catch up on this 

5 backlog for a couple of key reasons, I think.

6 One, the most important, is that 

7 we're looking at cases that NIOSH has already 

8 changed a lot of their internal procedures. 

9 So our comments are sort of commenting on the 

10 past. And we would like to be at least sort 

11 of where they are, especially relative to 

12 QA/QC.

13 They have made a lot of changes in 

14 how they handle that. And we're still looking 

15 at some of the older cases. So we want to 

16 keep things relevant.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I understand 

18 that. And, in fact, you know, the ten-year 

19 review raised the issue of why NIOSH didn't 

20 find some of the issues that were raised by 

21 our contractor. But I think we have to be 

22 careful not to lose sight of why we're doing 
208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this to start with and not focus on those 

2 individual findings that somebody did this 

3 with the wrong worksheet or something and say, 

4 "Are we accomplishing what the Secretary has 

5 asked us to accomplish?"

6 And that is, to do dose 

7 reconstruction in a scientifically defendable 

8 way and make sure we are answering the big 

9 question beyond the little details. So I just 

10 sort of want to keep us focused on that, if I 

11 can take the liberty to do that.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: We will at least 

13 discuss that at the next Subcommittee and see 

14 where we're at with the cases. And I think 

15 it's a good point. So we should discuss it 

16 more at the Subcommittee to see if it makes 

17 sense to do a report.

18 I mean, I think you are probably 

19 right that that might be a good benchmark. I 

20 want to look at maybe some of the details of 

21 --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you and I 
209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussed what the big question is ultimately.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that is the 

4 hard question to answer.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's easy to 

7 tabulate little errors that have been made 

8 along the way. It's harder to answer the big 

9 question. But I think we have to struggle 

10 with it.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would just add 

12 that I think the -- maybe after this set of 

13 cases. Case selection, maybe we want to --

14 you know, before we do another set, to sort of 

15 step back a little bit, see where we are. 

16 It'll be a while before we even get this set 

17 resolved, so to speak --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- a period of 

20 time. And is there some different -- we 

21 really sort of stayed with the same focus 

22 since we started, initially started, and I 
210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think there have been adjustments also along 

2 the way in terms of case selection, some, I 

3 think, in terms of the way the reviews are 

4 done.

5 Maybe it is also time to sort of 

6 think about that, particularly where NIOSH is 

7 going through the ten-year review, they're 

8 making some adjustments. And I think over all 

9 of this, that we also have this sort of issue 

10 of resource management with lots of competing 

11 priorities to deal with. And I think this is 

12 one of our key functions.

13 So I don't think it should be a 

14 low priority or a lower priority, but I think 

15 we need to think of some way that we could 

16 make this a better process, also based on that 

17 experience.

18 And I think it's hard. As Mark 

19 said, I would hate to try to do a 200 report 

20 and leave out what probably may be the more 

21 difficult cases to resolve in the eighth and 

22 ninth set, simply because they just take more 
211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 effort and so forth. So I don't think there's 

2 any easy answer here, but it's something to 

3 think about and something, actually, maybe for 

4 the Subcommittee, who is closer to this, to 

5 think about and report back at the next 

6 meeting.

7 Any other Board Members have more 

8 general -- I'm sorry, Wanda. Go ahead.

9 MEMBER MUNN: When we think about 

10 weighing priorities appropriately, it would be 

11 wise, I think, to pay special attention to 

12 Mark's comment about incorporating current 

13 practices, more current practices, in any 

14 report that we send to the Secretary. It is 

15 difficult to see how much value could be 

16 placed on actions that were taking place four 

17 years ago, as opposed to how we are doing 

18 things more recently. And that piece of 

19 information is key to identifying what changes 

20 have transpired.

21 If we have no real emphasis on 

22 current or more current actions, then we're 
212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 simply reporting: "Meanwhile, six years ago, 

2 this is what happened."

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes, we 

4 agree.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think that is a 

6 valid point, although I think a lot of cases 

7 were dispositioned under those previous 

8 methods, so I don't think we should just 

9 dismiss that. I mean, you know.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, no. I wasn't 

11 suggesting that we ignore previous activities. 

12 I am just saying that --

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: -- without 

15 incorporating more current activities, then 

16 there really is no depth of evaluation between 

17 our original report and the one upcoming.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Case selection.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Case selection.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We might want to 

21 take a couple of minutes and look through. I 

22 think the question is more, it's about what 
213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Subcommittee has selected and people have 

2 objections or I guess more by elimination than 

3 by -- it may be more efficient than looking at 

4 it by selecting, you know, reselecting among 

5 these.

6 If there are some that shouldn't 

7 be in there or one has questions about it, why 

8 don't we all take five minutes or so, look 

9 through and see if that process will work?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: And, again, I 

11 should say that this Subcommittee preselected, 

12 meaning that we didn't have the last three 

13 columns of information. So sometimes 

14 something may look like it was a best estimate 

15 and we thought it was an interesting case for 

16 that reason. But then when we get this 

17 detail, it turns out it was a site-wide model 

18 or whatever, so it might not be as 

19 interesting.

20 So all of the information is there 

21 now. So we should look it over.

22 MR. KATZ: And also, Board 
214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Members, just keep in mind as well your sites 

2 for which you are conflicted. Of course, you 

3 won't want to speak to those cases.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think the idea 

5 was, they can probably - we're a little behind 

6 on tasking them with cases, so they can take 

7 as many as we can get out of this 50.

8 The one thing I can add in our 

9 preselection, we did try to emphasize a little 

10 more on the 1980s and 1990s, because, in 

11 looking at our summary statistics that the 

12 SC&A group put together, we realized that we 

13 were lacking quite a bit in that.

14 You know, we intended to focus on 

15 a lot of the cases, but a lot of years were 

16 from the '50s and the '60s. We didn't have as 

17 many cases from the '80s and '90s. So that's 

18 why some of these are on there.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't see many 

20 '80s and '90s on there.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Not that many, 

22 but more than in the past, I think.
215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I only see one or 

2 two.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: A few '70s.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. There's 

5 three at least, four.

6 MEMBER MUNN: So many of these 

7 people had such a long --

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: -- period of 

10 employment. Remember that decade is just when 

11 they started.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just a quick 

13 question. For number 44, is that PoC of one? 

14 Is that correct?

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is correct. 

16 Actually, it's 1.01.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes? Go ahead.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: The reason we 

20 selected that was the facility, really, I 

21 think. It's probably one size fits all.

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just say it was 
216 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 full internal and external.

2 MR. KATZ: I was going to say for 

3 everyone, when you talk about these cases or 

4 have questions about them, whatever, we have 

5 to be careful because you have enough pieces 

6 of information that you actually have more 

7 than the Privacy Act would cover to be spoken.

8 So the way to do it, I think, is 

9 to just refer your fellow Board Members to the 

10 page number and then the number on the left, 

11 the first number, the identifier number, so 

12 that you can direct your fellow Board Members 

13 to the right case. And then just be 

14 circumspect about how much you say about the 

15 details on the other columns. Thanks.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, I gather 

17 from the previous question that the 

18 Subcommittee has already looked over all of 

19 the facilities here and matched them against 

20 sort of our original targets on numbers. So 

21 these fit in correctly with, you know, what 

22 sites haven't we looked at enough or which
217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ones have we looked at too much. So the --

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, for 

3 instance, even though you see Savannah River, 

4 a number of Savannah River cases again --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a big site.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's a big site, 

7 a lot of claims.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So you 

9 have addressed all of those?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And the same 

12 question on types of cancers. We're making 

13 sure we cover those.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. And we 

15 did. You know, like I said, we did. I know

16 there aren't that many, but I think I counted 

17 four that are in the '80s or '90s. And there 

18 just aren't as many that are available to pick 

19 from. But we did try to focus on that.

20 And then, some of these very 

21 unique facilities, in most cases we only want

22 to do probably one claim, especially where 
218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's usually a site-wide model or a 

2 one-size-fits- all approach. We figured, even 

3 if the PoC is very low, at least we're 

4 reviewing the site.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can I just add 

6 back to the earlier comment about some of 

7 these may have become SECs or could become? I 

8 don't think we necessarily have enough 

9 information, probably because some of these 

10 SECs we're going to be discussing in the next 

11 two days.

12 And so, I mean, I think can we 

13 sort of agree to leave it to the Work Group 

14 Chair to work to identify and if there are 

15 some that don't make sense to review to handle 

16 accordingly.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: We have done that 

18 in the past.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I 

20 think that is, rather than us try to guess 

21 who, which ones should or if there's --

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Do we refill it, 
219 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then, or no?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Usually not, 

3 because there are enough cases.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There are enough 

5 cases, yes. I don't --

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I will work 

8 with Stu. We have done this in the past where 

9 if we identify one that falls into an SEC, he 

10 will let me know. And then we can decide 

11 whether to include it or not. In some cases, 

12 it may be useful to include it because you can 

13 still do the partial dose reconstruction.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is what I 

15 was going to say. I reviewed one that was 

16 like that.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And it was 

19 actually, I thought, a helpful review --

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- or I should 

22 say maybe appropriate review.
220 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. And I think 

2 it --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't know if 

4 NIOSH found it helpful.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think in some 

6 cases for Rocky Flats even, I think we had put 

7 a few and you -- I think it's in this set that 

8 we did select one that would have been a 

9 partial, you know, didn't fit into the SEC 

10 years but it would have been a partial dose 

11 reconstruction.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

13 have questions on --

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've got a 

15 question for you. On the Hanford site, is 

16 Pacific Northwest Labs covered under the 

17 Hanford site?

18 I thought I heard something that 

19 it was trying to be separated out. I was just 

20 wondering if they were one and the same.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu, we have 

22 been discussing that issue.
221 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I can tell you our 

2 perspective on that right now is that it 

3 appears to us that PNNL or Battelle is one of 

4 several contractors who work on Hanford. They 

5 also work off Hanford.

6 So it would seem to us that -- and 

7 someone who was a PNNL employee who was 

8 working on Hanford, it would seem to us that 

9 that is a Hanford claim. And if they worked 

10 at the PNNL facilities which are not on 

11 Hanford, which we understand is a fairly 

12 recent acquisition in the history of the 

13 program, that that would then be a PNNL thing. 

14 I mean, that to us makes sense.

15 I don't think things have been 

16 done that way up to now. And so chances are, 

17 for someone who has been categorized as a PNNL 

18 employee up to now, whether they worked on the 

19 Hanford site or whatever, chances are they may 

20 have been referred as PNNL. And so they would 

21 appear in our database as a PNNL employee.

22 So I think, to get back to this 
222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 list of employees, someone on here who is 

2 identified as a PNNL employee could very well 

3 have worked on the Hanford facility.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Being on the 

5 Hanford Work Group, I've seen us going back 

6 and forth. I know that some of these were 

7 covered under the earlier SEC, so I was just 

8 wondering how that worked.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

10 comments or questions?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or any that you 

12 recommend dropping --

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- off this list? 

15 Do you want to go down them one at a time, 

16 Jim, or you don't?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't think 

18 that is --

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

20 have a question maybe for Stu here. It's case 

21 number 367. And the question I have is, it 

22 says for -- do you have that? It's line 40 in 
223 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the spreadsheet.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: And the question 

4 I have is it says, "X-ray only" and then 

5 "partial estimate." In the "Internal" column, 

6 it says, "Partial estimate for site TBD SEC, 

7 not reconstructed."

8 So I think it means that all you 

9 did on this case was X-rays, no internal dose 

10 because of the SEC. The SEC said we couldn't 

11 do internal, right?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. If I am not 

13 mistaken, I am not exactly sure what the 

14 entirety of the partial approach is for the 

15 Los Alamos.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Neither am 

17 I.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not entirely 

19 sure. It sounds as if this person may not 

20 have -- we may not have gotten an exposure 

21 record from this person.

22 Now, either, you know, they were 
224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not monitored or we didn't get an exposure 

2 record. They would be in the Class 

3 Definition. And I didn't look at the cancer 

4 to see if it would be an SEC cancer or not.

5 So then, if we had it to do for 

6 dose reconstruction post-SEC, which we 

7 apparently did, so it's either a non-SEC 

8 cancer or we got it for medical benefits for a 

9 non-SEC cancer.

10 That is what -- we didn't get an 

11 exposure record, so we assigned medical 

12 X-rays. And the SEC precludes several kinds 

13 of internal doses. And I don't believe we 

14 felt like we had enough for a coworker 

15 information. In other words, if the person 

16 didn't have their own data, then we had 

17 nothing to reconstruct.

18 I think that's probably what that 

19 means.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think, you 

21 know, some of these, that's one that stuck out 

22 at me as to whether we should still do it. It 
225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is unique in that it is a very short time 

2 period on the site and a very early decade. 

3 So I think that's part of the reason we 

4 selected with a fairly high PoC for stomach 

5 cancer, you know, for that.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had a 

7 question just about clarification. Column G 

8 is consistently -- most of that's full 

9 internal and external. And, yet, when you 

10 look at columns L and M, like this case and 

11 many other cases, there's actually partial in 

12 there.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is there any 

15 useful information in that column or --

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is why we 

17 started doing those later columns, because 

18 they're -- I forget when, but fairly early on, 

19 we found out that, you know --

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Column G is 

21 just boilerplate?

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it's kind of 
226 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 boilerplate. And it's sort of up to the dose 

2 reconstructor. They check it off is my 

3 understanding. And then, to really 

4 understand, you have to pull the whole record 

5 and look at how they did it, right, Stu? It's 

6 not --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Column G, 

8 the one that says "full internal and external" 

9 -- 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that is 

12 actually picked by our reviewer, our HP 

13 reviewer of the dose reconstruction.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And I think 

16 probably over time there has been varying or 

17 maybe not very direct guidance on what makes 

18 you select this.

19 As a general rule, if it's 

20 everything we can reconstruct, even if it's a 

21 partial and we have included everything that 

22 the partial allows us to do, we would likely 
227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 check that "full internal and external."

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Full. Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And the other 

4 options are things like overestimate, 

5 primarily internal overestimate, primarily 

6 external underestimate, primarily internal.

7 So it's a handful of items on a 

8 pick list. And so the dose reconstructor has 

9 to make some sort of judgment about what 

10 category to put it in. It's a rough cut, at 

11 best, in terms of categorizing these.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

13 comments or questions?

14 (No response.)

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: May I propose --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Paul?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not a proposal for 

18 removal, just a practical question. Is it the 

19 plan that we would have two-person teams again 

20 reviewing these?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we would have 
228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 like eight teams. I'm just thinking in terms 

2 of if we were to approve this whole list, 

3 we're talking about six cases per team, which 

4 seems reasonable to me.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: You know, we have 

7 more Board Members than we used to have when 

8 we did --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- 20 or 30 cases.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we used to do 

13 like three or four cases per team, but I think 

14 we could do six and cover these if SC&A is 

15 prepared to go ahead and no reason not to 

16 accept the whole list as far as I can see.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No. And I 

18 just assigned -- I can't remember which set it 

19 was, but it was in the last couple of weeks. 

20 And I think it averaged about two or three per 

21 team. So that was a smaller list.

22 And I've generally been keeping 
229 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the same teams that we did when the new Board 

2 Members joined us.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think this 

5 comes as a motion from the Subcommittee to the 

6 - 

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Second, whatever 

8 it is. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Whatever it is. 

10 Yes, second. So I think we can now do this 

11 on a voice vote. So all in favor say, "Aye."

12 (Chorus of ayes.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed?

14 (No response.)

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Great. 

16 We're going to do another piece of business, 

17 keep up with our letters. So Ted is going to 

18 pass out, it's just two letters. We'll keep 

19 them small.

20 Some of the letters will have the 

21 new letterhead. Some will just be plain old 

22 letter. And then there is the boilerplate 
230 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about records and so forth. We can do that. 

2 Okay.

3 I was going to do the W.R. Grace 

4 first. And I think, Dick, you need to leave 

5 the room.

6 MR. KATZ: I think it is all 

7 right. As long as you don't comment on the 

8 letter, I think we're okay. The motion has 

9 already passed.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

11 MR. KATZ: Is that fine, Michael? 

12 Okay. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks. 

14 We would rather have you in the room.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I am not sure 

16 that's true.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. "The 

19 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

20 the Board, has evaluated a Special Exposure 

21 Cohort, SEC, Petition 00182 concerning workers 

22 at W.R. Grace and Company in Curtis Bay, 
231 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Maryland, under the statutory requirements 

2 established by the Energy Employees 

3 Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

4 of 2000, EEOICPA, and incorporated into 42 CFR 

5 83.13.

6 "The Board respectfully recommends 

7 that SEC status be accorded to quote, 'all 

8 Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any 

9 building or area at the facility owned by the 

10 W.R. Grace and Company in Curtis Bay, Maryland 

11 for the operational period from May 1, 1956 

12 through January 31st, 1958, for a number of 

13 work-days aggregating at least 250 work-days, 

14 occurring either solely under this employment 

15 or in combination with work-days within the 

16 parameters established for one or more other 

17 Classes of employees included in the SEC,' 

18 close quotes.

19 "This recommendation is based on 

20 the following factors: individuals working at 

21 the W.R. Grace and Company facility in Curtis 

22 Bay, Maryland during the time period in 
232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question, worked on the processing of monazite 

2 ore to produce thorium for use in nuclear 

3 weapons production and related operations.

4 "Two, the National Institute for 

5 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review 

6 of available monitoring data as well as 

7 available process and source-term information 

8 for various production activities at the W.R. 

9 Grace and Company facility in Curtis Bay, 

10 Maryland found that NIOSH lacked adequate 

11 information necessary to complete individual 

12 dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy 

13 for both external and internal doses during 

14 the operational time period in question. The 

15 Board concurs with this determination.

16 "Three, NIOSH determined that 

17 health may have been endangered for these W.R. 

18 Grace and Company employees during the time 

19 period in question. Board also concurs with 

20 this determination.

21 "Based on these considerations and 

22 discussions at the August 23rd through 25th, 
233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2011 Board meeting held in Richland, 

2 Washington, the Board recommends that this 

3 Class be added to the SEC."

4 I saw Paul.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am not asking 

6 for an amendment, but normally we also add --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- a paragraph 

9 about appending some additional materials to 

10 the document. And I assume that will be added 

11 and that the motion, as originally given, 

12 includes the instruction to the Chair to 

13 promulgate this or to send this to the 

14 Secretary within 30 days.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. For 

16 some reason, these got cut off.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

18 Hinnefeld. I just want to make sure we're 

19 clear on the action, because our Evaluation 

20 Report recommended adding a Class up through 

21 January of '58 and further determined that we 

22 believe dose reconstruction is feasible for 
234 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the period after that.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, from the 

4 discussion this morning, it sounded to me as 

5 if the Board concurred with the operational 

6 period but didn't necessarily go ahead and 

7 concur with the residual.

8 Dr. Melius, you made the comment 

9 that this won't affect anybody at this time. 

10 We may get claimants later on who fall into 

11 the residual period and allow us to obtain 

12 additional information that would help us make 

13 that decision.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So my only thought 

16 is if, in fact, I interpreted this morning's 

17 discussion correctly, it might be worth saying 

18 in the letter or on the record that the Board 

19 withholds judgment for the period following 

20 January 1958, or however you want to do it. I 

21 just want to make sure there is no confusion 

22 because we were discussing what exactly does 
235 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it mean, and we weren't entirely sure.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, that is a 

3 good point, Stu. I think traditionally, I 

4 guess, to the extent we have traditions here, 

5 we have normally not tried to comment in the 

6 affirmative in this case where it's sort of a 

7 split --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- partly 

10 because you don't always fill -- your SEC 

11 reports aren't always complete on that, 

12 because, like once you get internal, you don't 

13 worry about external or something like that. 

14 So it's a little awkward or also if we have 

15 questions on these issues, then there's often 

16 sort of not time to address those. We don't 

17 want to delay things.

18 So we have not and, at least 

19 personally in this case, I don't feel it is 

20 necessary to reserve sort of need for further 

21 action. I think if there's a case that came 

22 forward, you would bring it to our attention.
236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If not, we are assuming you can, 

2 at least I would assume you can do dose 

3 reconstruction on that residual period.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: You would assume - 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. That was 

6 my personal interpretation, I think --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- and the other 

9 Board Members. And I think that with the 

10 assumption that if you find further 

11 information and either based on a new case 

12 coming in. Again, with only one claim, it's 

13 sort of --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. It doesn't 

15 affect anything today.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes, yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't affect 

18 anything today.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. I don't 

20 know if other Board Members --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I am trying 

22 to understand what you just said, Jim. I 
237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think you're saying that you concurred with --

2 the recommendation was that they can do dose 

3 reconstruction in the residual period. I know 

4 in the past, we have often made the comment, I 

5 believe, that we reserved, something to the 

6 effect that we were not making a judgment on 

7 the following period.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm wondering if 

10 the silence has any particular meaning one way 

11 or the other.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Normally, we 

13 have been silent. I think when we have a 

14 specific -- I believe if you go through the 

15 letters, you will find that, and that if we 

16 have a particular concern about an issue and 

17 want to reserve further action on it, then we 

18 say so.

19 It somewhat depends on the 

20 circumstance of the -- in the 83.14, I think 

21 there are some issues --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.
238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- doing it with 

2 those.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess if NIOSH 

4 had recommended an SEC on both and we weren't 

5 sure of the second part --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- then we 

8 wouldn't comment.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, reserve.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: So what you are 

11 saying here is we haven't disagreed with what 

12 they said in the second part. But I'm asking 

13 whether the silence implies agreement. I 

14 don't know if it does. As a practical matter, 

15 without us saying anything, they will proceed 

16 to do dose reconstructions for the other 

17 period, since it's not a part of an SEC.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I mean, 

19 the motion was to approve the --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Early.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- the early 

22 period. I certainly didn't hear any issue 
239 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 raised that people wanted to do further review 

2 on the residual period. And, in fact, I think 

3 that would be difficult without more 

4 information. I mean, it's -- we can do it 

5 either way. I doesn't --

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess I was 

7 swayed to not go down the path of further 

8 review, only because of the lack of claimants 

9 in that --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- and the fact 

12 that there is nobody really in that time 

13 period. I am not convinced that they can use 

14 that method, the TIB-70 approach. I mean, I 

15 think part of that depends on what date is 

16 there, and I haven't really examined that, 

17 that operational data versus the remediation 

18 data. I'm a little reluctant to go that far, 

19 but I will say that it would certainly not be 

20 a priority to go chasing after this one when 

21 there are no claimants in that time frame.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Exactly. And I 
240 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would just add to that, I mean, there is also 

2 the individual dose reconstruction review that 

3 would catch that. I think it is sort of an 

4 individual circumstance.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm good. Thank 

6 you.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Jim?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

9 MEMBER BEACH: I just want to say 

10 I agree with what Mark said. I thought we 

11 would put a Work Group together, but based on 

12 the fact that there are no claimants, there 

13 was really no point at this time.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: We have enough 

16 to do.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's it. We 

18 have a lot to do. And it's not --

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- to that end. 

21 Okay. Any other comments on that letter? If 

22 you have typos or minor things, let me know 
241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I will -- 

2 (No response.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We'll go on to 

4 the next letter. So the Y-12. "The Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

6 parentheses, (the Board), close parentheses, 

7 has evaluated a Special Exposure Cohort, SEC, 

8 Petition 00186 concerning workers at the Y-12 

9 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, under the 

10 statutory requirements established by the 

11 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

12 Compensation Program Act of 2000, EEOICPA, and 

13 incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13.

14 "The Board respectfully recommends 

15 that SEC status be accorded to, quote, `all 

16 workers potentially exposed to radioactive 

17 materials while working at the Y-12 plant 

18 during the period from January 1st, 1948 

19 through December 31st, 1957 for a number of 

20 work-days aggregating at least 250 work-days, 

21 occurring either solely under this employment 

22 or in combination with work-days within the 
242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 parameters established for one or more other 

2 Classes of employees included in the SEC.'

3 "This recommendation is based on 

4 the following factors: Individuals working at 

5 the Y-12 facility during the time period in 

6 question worked on the production of materials 

7 for nuclear weapons.

8 "Two, the National Institute for 

9 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review 

10 of available monitoring data as well as 

11 available process and source-term information 

12 for various production activities at the Y-12 

13 facility found that NIOSH lacked adequate 

14 information necessary to complete individual 

15 dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy 

16 for internal radiological exposures due to 

17 thorium and other radionuclides during the 

18 time period in question. The Board concurs 

19 with this determination.

20 "Three, NIOSH determined that 

21 health may have been endangered for these Y-12 

22 plant employees during the time period in 
243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question. Board also concurs with this 

2 determination.

3 "Based on these considerations and 

4 discussions at the August 23rd through 25th, 

5 2011 Board meeting held in Richland, 

6 Washington, the Board recommends that this 

7 Class be added to the SEC."

8 This also would include the 

9 boilerplate on the 30 days and also on the 

10 materials from this and other meetings.

11 Any comments? Yes?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Isn't this an 83.14?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but I 

14 believe that the -- Jenny, you can correct --

15 that we are only referring now to the 

16 regulations as 83.13. In fact, I believe that 

17 they corrected me because I actually put 83.13 

18 and 83.14 in my draft that I prepared earlier.

19 MS. LIN: Right. If you look in 

20 -- sorry.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

22 MS. LIN: I love track changes. 
244 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I use that profusely.

2 Anyway, if you look at 83.14 

3 section, it says, "We incorporate 83.13's 

4 procedure and process." And that's why we 

5 cite only 83.13 in the letter.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. So 

7 they're saying legally 83.13 is enough, covers 

8 it all. So we're all set. But, Wanda, I 

9 raised the same issue as you did, as usual.

10 MR. KATZ: 83.14 refers back to 

11 83.13. That's why.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I ask a 

14 question? This is probably for Department of 

15 Labor or somebody. And maybe -- somebody who 

16 is familiar with the workings at Y-12 would 

17 make better sense of this, but has there been 

18 any problem administering this Class, Class of 

19 Y-12 workers so far? I'm asking because my 

20 recollection is the idea of somebody, the idea 

21 of a Y-12 worker at a multi-facility plant is 

22 sometimes a little ambiguous.
245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think that there were X-10 

2 people who would work over in Y-12. And the 

3 way we have described this, people, workers 

4 potentially exposed to material while working 

5 at Y-12 during this period, I can imagine 

6 there being X-10 workers who do that. How do 

7 you administer that?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: LaVon is just 

9 waiting.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I can 

11 actually answer that question. The Y-12 

12 circular actually identifies that when 

13 reviewing claims, they should look at ORNL 

14 claims as well. And if ORNL claims indicate 

15 that the workers worked at Y-12 during the 

16 existing Class period, they should be included 

17 in the SEC.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. So they 

19 would --

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: So it is in the

21 circular. I actually -- you brought that up. 

22 And I looked into that last week because just 
246 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reviewing this information, I thought that 

2 question might actually come up.

3 Now Department of Labor is not --

4 well, there is Jeff right there, but it is in 

5 the circular. And I am not speaking for the 

6 Department of Labor, but it is in that 

7 circular that way.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So an X-10 

9 worker doesn't have a problem getting covered 

10 under this?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I am assuming 

13 the Department of Labor was -- I can't see 

14 behind the podium -- agrees and doesn't really 

15 need to speak to that. So thank you.

16 And thank you for being prepared, 

17 LaVon.

18 Any other comments?

19 (No response.)

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are scheduled 

21 to take a break. We will give ourselves a 

22 longer break. At 4:15, I believe we have a 
247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 petitioner on the line to talk about Hangar 

2 481. So we need to start right at 4:15.

3 The public comment period is 

4 scheduled for 5:00 o'clock. I believe we can 

5 start it earlier if we need for people. So if 

6 we finish up with 481, I thought we would go 

7 directly into public comment period for people 

8 that are already here. And then we would 

9 obviously continue past 5:00 o'clock for other 

10 people that come in or that call in.

11 But for Board Members, be prepared 

12 when you come back, I guess.

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

14 matter went off the record at 3:37 p.m. and 

15 resumed at 4:18 p.m.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Welcome back. 

17 Do you want to check the phones?

18 MR. KATZ: Let me just check on 

19 the lines to see whether we have our Board 

20 Members on the lines? Bob Presley or Mike 

21 Gibson?

22 (No response.)
248 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Apparently not.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you want to 

3 check?

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. Right. And 

5 also, then, we have now a presentation on 

6 Hangar 481. And we have a petitioner, a 

7 petitioner representative we expect to be on 

8 the line for this presentation. Can I check 

9 and see if he's on the line?

10 MR. ARMIJO: This is Bob Armijo. 

11 I'm the attorney for the petitioner. And I am 

12 on the line. We had pointed out we had just 

13 received our paperwork on Friday and asked 

14 that since we had just gotten notice of this 

15 so quickly that action not be taken. And I'm 

16 understanding that that is the case.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. Mr. Armijo, we 

18 were going to make an announcement to that 

19 effect. We will have Board discussion and so 

20 on, but there will be no Board action taken on 

21 this petition at this meeting to respect your 

22 right to have time to review the report.
249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ARMIJO: Yes. That is my 

2 understanding as well. Mr. Glover briefed me 

3 about that earlier today. So I will be 

4 listening then, but I understand there will be 

5 discussion but no action today so that we can 

6 supplement if necessary.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

8 And, Sam, do you want to --

9 DR. GLOVER: Sam Glover. I'm 

10 going to discuss briefly the Petition 

11 Evaluation Report update for Hangar 481.

12 So just very briefly to go back to 

13 where the site is, it's located at Kirtland 

14 Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It 

15 is operated by Ross Aviation, the operational 

16 period under contractual agreement with the 

17 Department of Energy. There were some 

18 questions last time about under which site it 

19 was. It is a DOE facility.

20 They provided air transportation 

21 of personnel and equipment as -- using 

22 government-owned aircraft at government-owned 
250 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facilities associated with DOE operations at 

2 the Sandia National Laboratories at 

3 Albuquerque, New Mexico. They transported 

4 equipment, including packages including 

5 radioactive materials associated with atomic 

6 weapons programs.

7 Just briefly the petition 

8 overview. In February 27th of 2009, we 

9 received an 83.13. September 8th, the 

10 petition qualified for evaluation. And 

11 December 18, an Evaluation Report was issued.

12 The original Evaluation Report was 

13 presented at the Advisory Board of February 

14 2010. A delay was requested by the petitioner 

15 until Freedom of Information material could be 

16 provided.

17 In July 2010, the FOIA was 

18 completed. That was a DOE and NIOSH FOIA. 

19 September 23rd, a revised Evaluation Report 

20 was issued. These updated only photos that 

21 were provided. There was a change in where 

22 the hangar was located. And we actually had a 
251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 previous photograph.

2 November 2010, the Evaluation 

3 Report was re-presented at the Advisory Board. 

4 There were questions at that point in time. 

5 And so NIOSH was asked to follow up.

6 January 2011, NIOSH and the 

7 petitioners were able to tour the Hangar 481 

8 facilities, and we provided a list of 

9 follow-up questions to the Office of Secure 

10 Transport of DOE, so the OST department. They 

11 were able to respond in June of 2011. And in 

12 August of 2011, an addendum was reissued by 

13 ourselves.

14 So summary. I would like to 

15 summarize the petitioner's concerns. They 

16 propose that -- or the raw data was lacking or 

17 unavailable. Secondary summary data was used 

18 for the evaluation. They also said that 

19 contracts had existed back to 1970. And they 

20 felt that the covered period should be 

21 extended.

22 They also felt that newly 
252 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available documents had not been properly 

2 evaluated. They also asserted that 

3 radioactive shipments were delivered to the 

4 Hangar 481 building and stored at the hot 

5 pads. Pads were used to load explosives. By 

6 hot pad, that is a facility off the main 

7 hangar, where they were doing the loading and 

8 unloading operations. They refer to these as 

9 hot pads.

10 Reliance on an interview with one 

11 former worker as the basis for determination 

12 that all radioactive shipments were handled at 

13 the hot pads was criticized.

14 They also said that radioactive 

15 shipments were made using the AL-R8 

16 containers, which they said in 1991 were found 

17 to be inadequate to shield the contents.

18 The Evaluation Report's ambient 

19 external methods were not bounding. They also 

20 felt that -- one individual stated that 

21 barrels were stacked at the hangar which may 

22 have been nuclear waste and where there was no 
253 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 indication.

2 They said sweeps -- I believe they 

3 probably meant swipes -- were done at the 

4 hangar building or in adjacent areas.

5 They also said that one pilot left 

6 his dosimeter in his locker and had an 

7 abnormally high dose reading when the badge 

8 was processed.

9 So the follow-up actions. At the 

10 time when we prepared the Evaluation Report, 

11 DOE did not have the records for the Ross 

12 Aviation personnel. We had gone to the REIRS 

13 reports to get -- we actually had individual 

14 -- something I did misspeak last time, we had 

15 the individual doses. From the REIRS, you 

16 report the individual, but we didn't have the 

17 individual things that came from Landauer, the 

18 actual readings. We had summary data annually 

19 that was provided to the reporting agency for 

20 those people. And then we also had the 

21 overall listing of their dosimetry.

22 So at the time we were able to 
254 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 work with -- since then, we were able to work 

2 with Landauer, who is the holder of Eberline. 

3 Eberline was the actual -- they conducted the 

4 dosimetry for the site during this time frame. 

5 And we were able to obtain the actual 

6 individual results, rather than the summary 

7 data from REIRS.

8 So we compared the data to the 

9 REIRS database. And we have a complete match 

10 except for one year. And 1994 -- I'll show 

11 you the chart -- was abnormally high. You 

12 guys actually asked about it, why. And we 

13 didn't know why.

14 The reason why is that when the 

15 folks at REIRS entered the data, rather than 

16 including the annual data, they input the

17 person's lifetime cumulative dose. And so it 

18 made it look like that year was abnormally 

19 high when it's actually a typographical error.

20 We actually looked at the data 

21 that was entered and were able to confirm that 

22 the wrong data from the sheet was entered into 
255 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the REIRS database. We confirmed that and 

2 worked with the program manager for the 

3 Occupational Exposure and Worker Health, the 

4 Center for the Epidemiological Research, as we 

5 reviewed that data.

6 So our follow-up, of course in 

7 January of 2011, the OST hosted us and gave us 

8 a very detailed, thorough tour of the entire 

9 compound of Hangar 481.

10 In March of 2011, we actually 

11 received the data from Landauer, who now owns 

12 the Eberline dosimetry data. We have provided 

13 of this to the Department of Energy so that 

14 they now have a copy of the original Eberline 

15 data, which they did not possess.

16 June 2011, we have the responses 

17 by the Office of Secure Transport. This seems 

18 to be a replicate.

19 So we did update the number of 

20 claims. At the time of the November 2011 

21 Board meeting, we had one claim. Now there 

22 are three claims at NIOSH. Two of those 
256 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claims have external dosimetry. None have 

2 internal. One dose reconstruction has been 

3 completed as of July 26, 2011.

4 So in addition to being able to 

5 see the facility, the kind of activities, the 

6 relationship to the hangar and the hot pads, 

7 they also allowed us to -- what they preferred 

8 is to respond to all questions in writing. 

9 They didn't want to really respond to a lot of 

10 questions on the fly. The Office of Secure 

11 Transport requested that all things be able to 

12 be responded officially.

13 And so we, in addition to the 

14 petitioner, assembled a complete questionnaire 

15 and provided that the topic addressed included 

16 facility information, radiological activities, 

17 external dosimetry program, and the internal 

18 dosimetry program.

19 And the following slides summarize 

20 the results. We did not include the entire 

21 report, but it is available in the SRDB to the 

22 Board.
257 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I don't have a laser pointer. I 

2 guess they don't trust us with those right 

3 here. But you can see I try to highlight in 

4 red the different things we have.

5 You can see the aviation facility 

6 and the two hot pads, which are located I 

7 think on the order of several kilometers away 

8 from the facility where actual -- so they 

9 would do maintenance at the Hangar 481 

10 facility, the circle at the top. And they 

11 would be able to clean the plane. That's 

12 where the pilots would be. That's where you 

13 have passengers loading. And at the other 

14 facilities, that's where they would actually 

15 load the cargo. That's where the radioactive 

16 materials would be loaded. That's where 

17 explosives would be loaded. So those were 

18 done away from the facility.

19 These are the Office of Secure 

20 Transport's photographs that they provided as 

21 part of the update. They provided a building 

22 layout. They showed where badges were stored 
258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when people weren't using them. They showed 

2 the pilot lockers, the crew's lockers. They 

3 also indicated where they did do some 

4 nondestructive testing of the planes. They 

5 came in and X-rayed them off hours.

6 And so you will see in one of the 

7 responses where a person who left their badge 

8 in a locker, they received an elevated dose. 

9 Inside the hangar compound is where the 

10 nondestructive testing occurred. So it's in 

11 the vicinity of the planes and could have been 

12 subjected to a higher field.

13 We have some pictures. They 

14 allowed us to photograph the facility. We 

15 were given free access to wander around. Here 

16 is the interior, kind of give you an idea of 

17 this is one of the planes in the facility. 

18 You can see here is a series of the pilot's 

19 lockers. So this is all in this main 

20 compound.

21 So these are the OST responses 

22 sort of by category. And this is not all of 
259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them, kind of a flavor. So facility 

2 information. The contracted activities began 

3 around 1970 and remained essentially unchanged 

4 throughout the time frame. Department of 

5 Labor determines the covered period to be 

6 March 1st, 1989 through February 29th, 1996.

7 Ross Aviation operations were 

8 actually relocated from a different facility 

9 to Hangar 481 in April of 1984. So there was 

10 a true facility change. And I showed you in 

11 the previous picture the separate hot pads are 

12 shown to be separate from Hangar 481.

13 Drawings provided show the hangar 

14 facility, hot pads, personnel lockers, 

15 locations where the non-destructive testing 

16 was performed. Beginning in 1985, the 

17 facility was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

18 week, with about 200 employees. Per the OST 

19 response, administrative personnel were 

20 limited to only day shift with no overtime.

21 After 1987, operations were 2 

22 shifts per day, about 5 days per week, with 
260 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 staffing levels reducing to about 80 employees 

2 by 1996.

3 In radiological activities, they 

4 reaffirmed the reports, the interviews that we 

5 had conducted that no radiological activities 

6 were performed in the Hangar 481 other than 

7 the nondestructive testing.

8 Radiological packages were handled 

9 and loaded only at hot pads 2 and 5. 

10 Unmonitored personnel were not allowed to come 

11 in contact with the packages. And the 

12 packages contained predominately tritium.

13 Nondestructive of the planes was 

14 conducted once per year for a very short 

15 duration, as previously discussed. We did not 

16 reiterate all of these components from our 

17 previous report. You will see that even 

18 sections are not sequentially numbered. They 

19 relate back to the original. So this is an 

20 addendum by section. So if you were 

21 interested in looking at section 4.2, it would 

22 update that.
261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So OST describes strict access 

2 controls and also that they were done only at 

3 night. And that was reiterated in interviews.

4 OST stated that Ross Aviation 

5 dosimetry programs were developed and managed 

6 by Eberline and Sandia. No area dosimetry was 

7 performed at Hangar 481. They had never 

8 performed neutron dosimetry. They also stated 

9 that no X-rays for medical purposes were 

10 conducted at the hangar. So, as you know, 

11 medical X-rays have to be conducted at the 

12 facility for us to include them.

13 For internal dosimetry, they say 

14 that no bioassay program was ever implemented 

15 at Hangar 481. No Ross facilities were 

16 monitored for contamination. They did monitor 

17 the planes annually. And so we have records 

18 of the annual planes but not the Hangar 481 

19 facility.

20 They said there was no need to 

21 perform surveys due to lack of use/storage of 

22 radioactive materials at the facility. 
262 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Surveys were performed off site at the hot 

2 pads where radioactive materials were handled.

3 OST -- no radiological accidents 

4 occurred at Hangar 481. And they further 

5 indicated because we were very specific and 

6 asked the question regarding the thoriated, 

7 whether any thoriated materials or welding 

8 that were not used or present ever at Ross 

9 facilities.

10 Some general questions. The 

11 highest exposed were monitored for external 

12 dose. These included cabin security 

13 specialists and pilots who actually handled 

14 the radiological materials.

15 No radioactive containers were 

16 ever delivered to the flight line, which is 

17 the adjacent area right outside of Hangar 481, 

18 and that the containers had to be -- were 

19 required to be under control of Air Force and 

20 Sandia personnel until they were loaded at the 

21 hot pads. Any other delivery would have been 

22 a security violation.
263 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 No radiation monitoring was 

2 performed inside Hangar 481 or the adjacent 

3 flight line. And the circumstances and 

4 locations related to the pilots' lockers and 

5 radiographic activities provide the only 

6 available explanation for the available 

7 dosimeter reading, the elevated reading.

8 So one of the documents that the 

9 Transport Safety Division provided on August 

10 7th, 1997, they had a technical basis for 

11 radioactive material intake potential 

12 regarding activities by Ross Aviation.

13 They said based on the special 

14 agents' tasks, which included no contact with 

15 the package contents, the TSD's operational 

16 history with confirmatory surveys showing that 

17 no package breach or leakage occurred; the use 

18 of DOT-compliant shipping packages and 

19 programs, they concluded that there is no 

20 credible pathway. This is a reiteration of --

21 I just wanted to reiterate this path, that 

22 there is no credible path for an intake of 
264 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radioactive materials during normal 

2 operations.

3 So this is the tables that I 

4 discussed. This is the table 7.1 that you see 

5 in our original report. You see the year 

6 1994. It showed a maximum individual deep 

7 dose of 172 millirem. And after we have 

8 looked at the data and corrected that for, 

9 instead of their cumulative lifetime dose, it 

10 looks much more in keeping with all of the 

11 other years, 49 millirem being the highest 

12 maximum, the highest dose. This is millirem. 

13 And the total person millirem for the entire 

14 facility is 224 millirem. For that year, 66 

15 persons were monitored.

16 So summary of external dose 

17 feasibility. External dose records exist for 

18 many Ross Aviation personnel and have the --

19 and the REIRS-reported data have been verified 

20 using Eberline data from 1990 to 1994. We did 

21 not receive the 1995 data from Eberline.

22 Data from the 1994 REIRS report 
265 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was found to be incorrectly entered into the 

2 database. And this has been corrected in the 

3 addendum. And Department of Energy has been 

4 notified.

5 The individual results of these 

6 records or the use of the highest dose 

7 received by monitored personnel can be used to 

8 bound the unmonitored worker external dose.

9 Data from 1996 were not included 

10 in REIRS. There is a two-month period that 

11 wasn't part of REIRS. And we're going to use 

12 the highest annual dose from the previous year 

13 for this two-month period. They said that the 

14 activity had ceased. And so they didn't 

15 continue monitoring.

16 NIOSH will use the highest dose 

17 received in the entire year previous to bound 

18 any external doses for all employees. The 

19 circumstances and locations related to the 

20 pilots' lockers and radiographic activities 

21 done only during off hours provide the only 

22 available explanation for the elevated 
266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 personnel dosimeter readings, as described by 

2 the petitioner

3 There was a discussion in a 

4 previous meeting about neutron dose. Based on 

5 the package contents, really, we see no 

6 credible pathway for neutron exposures.

7 We also see that because of the 

8 people who -- they were confirmed it was on 

9 the list of personnel who were monitored, the 

10 radiographic folks. Potential doses for 

11 off-hour radiographic testing was included in 

12 the reported personal monitoring data. And 

13 that's being used for unmonitored workers as 

14 well.

15 So ambient environmental external 

16 doses are included because we're going to use 

17 the existing personnel external monitoring 

18 data in sort of a coworker approach. So we 

19 are using the monitored dose to apply that to 

20 all the unmonitored workers as well because

21 X-ray examinations are not going to be 

22 included because medical X-rays were not 
267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 performed on-site.

2 Regarding internal dose, no 

3 radioactivity was stored or handled at Hangar 

4 481. Radioactive materials handled by workers 

5 at the Hangar 481 were in sealed DOT-compliant 

6 containers and were monitored in accordance 

7 with DOT regulations to verify radiation and 

8 contamination levels on package exteriors. 

9 Results of available radiological surveys 

10 performed on the packages and in the transport 

11 airport support this premise.

12 Based on the available information 

13 on the radiological program and potential for 

14 internal exposures, NIOSH concludes that 

15 internal radiological exposures to Ross 

16 Aviation employees resulting from services 

17 rendered for the DOE at Hangar 481 are 

18 unlikely to have occurred.

19 Sandia National Laboratory, being 

20 an adjacent facility, was used to provide a 

21 bounding estimate of the dose from ambient 

22 environmental internal dose during the covered 
268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 period.

2 And we summarize our feasibility 

3 summary. We say that we can do internal dose 

4 as well as beta-gamma dosimetry. We don't 

5 feel that neutron dosimetry is applicable, nor 

6 is occupational medical X-rays.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Sam.

8 Board Members have questions? 

9 Brad?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: My question is 

11 coming back to -- we're just looking at Hangar 

12 481, correct, or are we looking at the 

13 airplanes and the transit part of it?

14 DR. GLOVER: Hangar 481 is the 

15 covered facility.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: And that is it?

17 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: So in this, it 

19 looks like -- I guess my question is, how are 

20 the planes being handled? Because I can look 

21 at the petitioner. They're using 481 because 

22 it encompassed the planes that they flew with.
269 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now is that an issue that they 

2 need to resolve in refiling for it or how 

3 would they do that?

4 DR. GLOVER: I can not speak yet 

5 for the planes because, you know, we were down 

6 at facilities talking about it. This is sort 

7 of a courier issue. However, I will say that 

8 the pilots, their dosimeter that they wore as 

9 they flew and handled packages is included in 

10 our data set.

11 And so that dose that they --

12 we're not trying to distinguish that from what 

13 happened at Hangar 481. So we're including 

14 that dose to treat all -- we're using that 

15 highest dose from any year to do the dosimetry 

16 for these people.

17 So the dose that has most likely 

18 occurred as they are flying or handling stuff 

19 at these hot pads, we're including that.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, part of my 

21 thing I was getting into in your one slide 

22 here, number 5, it says, "Radioactive 
270 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 shipments were made using an AL-R8 container." 

2 You and I both know what type of container 

3 that was. That was a Pantex container, it was 

4 a container. And it was found not to shield 

5 from alpha or beta.

6 We also interviewed at Pantex. 

7 They ended up having to grab RadCon from 

8 Pantex to fly with them because of issues. 

9 And in the interview with one of them, went on 

10 quite a flight and everything else like that 

11 talking about it because they had no -- they 

12 weren't checking for anything leaking.

13 I'm looking at this. And in your 

14 own slides, it says in '91 it was found that 

15 it was inadequate for alpha or beta. On 481, 

16 I understand what you are saying. The covered 

17 facility is 481. But I'm trying to figure how 

18 they can -- because the pilots and everything 

19 else, their whole issue was flying around.

20 And those planes were DOE planes, 

21 owned by DOE, run by Ross Aviation. And I 

22 think that's a lot of confusion. Me and you 
271 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have talked about it. Like you say, all we 

2 can do is go by the covered facility. But I 

3 have a hard time with this one. I really do.

4 DR. GLOVER: What I would just 

5 like to point out very briefly is that those 

6 are the allegations provided by the claimant 

7 about the -- that wasn't part of our report. 

8 I was just providing the concerns that had 

9 been expressed by the petitioner and so that 

10 -- the packaging for that.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: And you are 

12 absolutely right. I am just thinking back 

13 when they came in because when they brought 

14 that up, we Googled it. And, lo and behold, 

15 that's what came up.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a 

18 clarification point on your feasibility 

19 summary. I think in your report, you are 

20 saying that there was no internal dose to be 

21 considered. But you are saying that dose 

22 reconstruction for internal is feasible. Why 
272 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wouldn't it be not applicable as for the 

2 beta-gamma or as for the neutron?

3 Are you really saying that you can 

4 reconstruct internal dose or do you even have 

5 to consider it? I thought that you said you 

6 didn't need to consider it, but your chart 

7 says you can reconstruct.

8 DR. GLOVER: I apologize for not 

9 being more clear with it. We're using the 

10 dose from the Sandia Site Profile for the 

11 environmental internal dosimetry, the airborne 

12 that would have been monitored at the edge of 

13 Sandia because they are located almost 

14 adjacent to Hangar 481. So we're using their 

15 internal dose, the ambient internal.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, got you. Got 

17 you.

18 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, David?

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had a couple 

22 questions. One was, have the REIRS data been 
273 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 used in the past for any other, in any other 

2 evaluations?

3 DR. GLOVER: In this case, we have 

4 actually found all the years except for one, 

5 which is the 1995 data. I don't know. I 

6 would have to ask my colleagues if there have 

7 been any use - - that we have had to rely on 

8 REIRS. I can't answer that.

9 DR. NETON: We have proposed it at 

10 certain sites. I know, for example, at Mound, 

11 we're proposing to use it for internal dose 

12 reconstructions.

13 But I can't honestly recall right 

14 now a site where we have actually -- well, I 

15 don't know, I guess. I mean, we have 

16 definitely proposed it. There probably are 

17 some sites out there, but I can't think of 

18 them off the top of my head.

19 But I don't think -- we're not 

20 using the REIRS data, though. That's the 

21 point. We have the actual data now.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That is the 
274 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 point about this one. I guess my point, my 

2 concern was I had previously naively gone into 

3 this thinking the REIRS would provide what I 

4 expected to be a clean transfer of data and a 

5 dose of record.

6 DR. NETON: Right.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And on a very 

8 small evaluation of, let's say n is 60 or 70 

9 workers, we have looked at the REIRS data. 

10 And you have identified something which 

11 appears to be a key puncher in the REIRS 

12 database, which raises for me a question about 

13 data entry protocols in the REIRS system. If 

14 I pulled out less than 100 records and I find 

15 an error with them, it's a real concern.

16 DR. NETON: This particular 

17 instance was an overestimate, but it is there, 

18 nonetheless. I understand your point.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: A data entry 

20 problem. It suggests that REIRS isn't doing 

21 double entry, for example. I don't know how 

22 else this could have happened.
275 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: I don't know.

2 DR. GLOVER: My colleagues 

3 reviewed the data set, ORAU. Apparently the 

4 Eberline form is a fairly complicated form. 

5 It's easy to have -- they looked at the wrong 

6 field when they entered the data. And they 

7 did that for all of the people. 

8 We are now using the Eberline. We 

9 found there's a 100 percent match. We did a 

10 100 percent V&V from '89 through '94. We do 

11 not have the '95 data.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the ORAU 

13 CER group that you have been corresponding 

14 with about the entry of information of the 

15 REIRS, is it the same? Is this the same group 

16 which is contracted to do data entry for OCAS 

17 for worker claims?

18 DR. GLOVER: No, that would not be 

19 the same people.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So although 

21 it's CER, it's not under the organizational 

22 structure under Cragle, et al.?
276 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: No, it wasn't. I 

2 don't think CER is entering the REIRS data. 

3 Are they, Sam? I thought that was --

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That was what 

5 was described in here as --

6 DR. NETON: Yes. I don't know 

7 that it was the Center for Epidemiologic 

8 Research is doing the REIRS entry, although I 

9 could be wrong. I didn't --

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, it's --

11 DR. NETON: I thought it was 

12 another contractor in my opinion that was 

13 doing that, but --

14 DR. GLOVER: The person we 

15 contacted was a program manager for the 

16 Occupational Exposure and Worker Health, the 

17 Center for the Epidemiological Research.

18 DR. NETON: So it would be in CER, 

19 but it would not be the same people that are 

20 working on our program. We don't have anyone 

21 in our program directly working for the Center 

22 for Epidemiologic Research.
277 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Possibly it's 

2 the same people, but it's under a different 

3 group of contracts? I mean --

4 DR. NETON: I don't know.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The data entry 

6 people who are entering data for our program 

7 were hired on this project. They may not even 

8 be ORAU people. They may be Dade Moeller or 

9 MJW people. But they work on our project.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

11 questions?

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I had a 

13 couple of --

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- other 

16 questions. One was if you could talk me 

17 through table 7.1. I was trying to 

18 understand. And this is just to help me 

19 understand what the correction -- table 7.2 

20 has got the correct information.

21 I think it all makes sense in the 

22 big picture that they were entering in 
278 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 aggregate sums. But I was trying to 

2 understand how the total person millirem, 

3 which I took to be this gray bar at 1,501.

4 You're saying it is the sum of the 

5 recorded doses over the lifetime history for 

6 the 66 people. So that would be the sum of 

7 the doses up to 1994 for the 66 workers. And 

8 then what was entered was their total 

9 exposure, rather than the annual exposure for 

10 1994 for those 66 people. Is that right?

11 DR. GLOVER: That is correct.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so those 

13 66 people, some of them, they're a subset of 

14 the earlier years. They were also accruing 

15 doses, maybe in '93 and '92 and '91.

16 DR. GLOVER: They may not go all 

17 the way back. So there may not be -- they may 

18 be a subset. That's correct.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So I was 

20 trying to figure out how if you summed up the 

21 total person rems for that subset plus a 

22 larger group plus the 224, you get a value 
279 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 much less than 1,501. It seemed like it 

2 should be a much smaller value.

3 The 1,501 somehow -- somehow the 

4 numbers don't work out, but you would take the 

5 prior history of the subset of people plus the 

6 additional people. And then add in the 224, I 

7 thought I should get someplace around 1,501. 

8 And I end up with like 1,200.

9 DR. GLOVER: They also may go past 

10 1989. Remember, this activity began for the 

11 facility in 1970. And so the covered period, 

12 you know, at this facility, actually starts in 

13 '84. And so there's dosimetry that precedes 

14 this. And so those personnel are still the 

15 same. They're just under a different flavor 

16 of contract with the Department of Energy.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

18 DR. GLOVER: So I cannot ascertain 

19 whether there's a -- whether I can do a true 

20 sum. I understand what you are saying. You 

21 think that there's be eight or nine hundred 

22 millirems should be the cumulative. But that 
280 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 may not quite work out here.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. So 

3 there's radiological exposures that were 

4 recorded by Landauer for these people prior to 

5 1989?

6 DR. GLOVER: I didn't -- I didn't 

7 try to do a cum. sum on it, but there is 

8 additional potential for -- you know, it does 

9 not have to add up.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thanks.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Brad?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sam, on the TLDs 

13 and stuff, did they -- would they show neutron 

14 or were they just so they had --

15 DR. GLOVER: There was no neutron 

16 monitoring conducted for Ross Aviation 

17 personnel.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

20 questions? Yes, Bill?

21 MEMBER FIELD: Can you go to slide 

22 --
281 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. GLOVER: They are not 

2 numbered. Is that near the end?

3 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, three from the 

4 end, where it says, "Summary of Internal."

5 DR. GLOVER: Here?

6 MEMBER FIELD: No. Maybe the next 

7 one. Yes.

8 DR. GLOVER: Okay.

9 MEMBER FIELD: That one, that one 

10 there. I'm just trying to get clarification. 

11 For the first one, it says, "No radioactivity 

12 was stored or handled." Does that mean 

13 radioactive materials from the drums?

14 DR. GLOVER: Nothing was brought 

15 into the facility. That's correct, sir.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. And I'm just 

17 wondering. It says, "Radioactive materials 

18 handled by workers at the hangar." First, it 

19 says there was nothing handled. Then it says 

20 that was handled. I'm just trying to get the 

21 difference there.

22 DR. GLOVER: The packages were 
282 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 handled at the hot pads. And so where the 

2 Ross -- it actually would be more appropriate 

3 to have said, "Handled by workers of Ross 

4 Aviation." It is my misnomer. I've included 

5 that.

6 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. Thanks.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

8 questions?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So we will give 

11 time for the petitioner and petitioner 

12 representative to review the recent report, 

13 ask them to keep in contact with NIOSH, 

14 probably Sam Glover as the contact. And then 

15 we will sort of monitor that and then decide 

16 what is the appropriate timing for bringing 

17 this back to the Board.

18 It would either be our conference 

19 call -- I forget the schedule -- or our 

20 December meeting. So either October 20th or 

21 December 7th through 9th would be our meeting.

22 Sam, if you could keep us 
283 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 informed? Good.

2 MR. ARMIJO: Can I interrupt? 

3 This is Bob Armijo. I wanted to thank you. 

4 And is my contact, then, to be Mr. Glover?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct, I think 

6 that's the -- because if you have questions, I 

7 think he would be the best one to relay those 

8 and keep in contact with you.

9 MR. ARMIJO: Fair enough. Thank 

10 you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

12 Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're a little 

14 early on the public comment period. Is there 

15 anybody in the audience who signed up for 

16 public comment? Dr. Knut. Okay. When Ted 

17 comes back, I think you were the first on the 

18 list.

19 PARTICIPANT: May I ask a 

20 question?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not now. We do 

22 it in order. And I think we'll get to the 
284 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 phone in a second, a little while, but we have 

2 some other people signed up here first.

3 And do you want to do your intro? 

4 Knut is here.

5 MR. KATZ: Sure. So for public 

6 commenters, just to notify you, the Board 

7 meetings are all fully transcribed. That 

8 includes the public comment session. So 

9 whatever comments you make will be transcribed 

10 verbatim.

11 And all of the Board's transcripts 

12 are put on the NIOSH website, available for 

13 the entire public. So all of that will be 

14 captured there. If you give any private 

15 information about yourself, that will be made 

16 public on that transcript. So just be advised 

17 of that.

18 Also, however, if you give private 

19 information about another party, that private 

20 information or some amount of it will be 

21 redacted from the transcript sufficient so 

22 that that person's identity isn't revealed to 
285 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the public. So that's the main advice.

2 This policy, Redaction Policy, as 

3 it's called, is both on the table in the room 

4 if you want to see the details. It's also on 

5 the NIOSH website under the Board meeting 

6 section. So you can see it in detail there if 

7 you're out there on the phone.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I would add 

9 that the public comments are limited to no 

10 more than ten minutes. And at that point, if 

11 anybody is going longer, we will stop the 

12 comments, ask you to stop, politely.

13 The first person that is signed 

14 up, I believe he is here, is Knut Ringen from 

15 Center to Protect Workers' Rights. Dr. 

16 Ringen?

17 DR. RINGEN: Thank you very much 

18 for letting me come before you again. This is 

19 the fifth time I have been here.

20 My name is Knut Ringen. I am the 

21 Senior Science Adviser for CPWR, the Center 

22 for Construction Research and Training, Mr. 
286 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Chairman. And I am also representing the 

2 Building and Construction Trades Department of 

3 the AFL-CIO today.

4 I am the PI on the Building Trades 

5 National Medical Program, which is part of the 

6 DOE Former Worker Program that Greg Lewis 

7 described earlier. And since I will be 

8 discussing SRS in a minute, I should note that 

9 we have examined over 4,000 workers at SRS and 

10 conducted detailed work history interviews 

11 with them.

12 So I thank you for your 

13 hospitality and patience with me. I know it's 

14 been trying at times.

15 Today I am going to address two 

16 issues. First is the ten-year review that you 

17 heard Lew Wade talk about earlier today and 

18 that Dr. Hinnefeld responded to and told you a 

19 little bit about what they plan to do with it. 

20 And the second is the Savannah River SEC 

21 evaluation that you are going to consider 

22 tomorrow.
287 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 First, the ten-year review. I 

2 have three specific points. The issues 

3 identified in the review and the recommended 

4 actions of the review have been presented 

5 numerous times before this review was done in 

6 comments on the rules that NIOSH established 

7 and also in many, many public comments before 

8 this Board over the years.

9 It really should not have taken 

10 NIOSH ten years to do this review. It should 

11 have been fully aware that this review was 

12 needed at least five years ago and should have 

13 conducted it then. And this Board should have 

14 been more forceful in requiring NIOSH to do 

15 so. So in that sense, I think the Board has 

16 been complicit in this failure to evaluate 

17 that quickly.

18 Secondly, the most important 

19 finding, at least in my opinion, in this 

20 evaluation is found in the SEC section of it. 

21 And it deals with the issue of what is meant 

22 by sufficient accuracy.
288 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We and many others have been 

2 asking for this definition for years, 

3 including comments on the original dose 

4 reconstruction rule and on the SEC rule, which 

5 is a derivative of the original dose 

6 reconstruction rule.

7 NIOSH has consistently refused to 

8 respond to and, in fact, has stonewalled our 

9 request for a definition of this provision. 

10 So I am very glad to find that NIOSH now 

11 agrees that this needs to be done. And the 

12 fact that Dr. Hinnefeld today suggested at 

13 least that NIOSH is not sure how it is going 

14 to be able to define it certainly indicates 

15 strongly the need for such a definition.

16 The fact that NIOSH has operated 

17 for ten years without this definition has cast 

18 serious doubt, both upon its dose 

19 reconstruction determinations and its SEC 

20 evaluations.

21 So I ask you as the Board to 

22 establish a Working Group to evaluate the 
289 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 implementation of the actions that NIOSH is 

2 taking in response to this ten-year review and 

3 become more active in your evaluation of the 

4 performance of NIOSH's operations. 

5 Specifically, within that, I hope that you 

6 will work hard on reviewing how NIOSH defines 

7 sufficient accuracy.

8 This is a duty of this Board as 

9 defined under paragraph 7384q of the Act that 

10 deals with your responsibilities.

11 Third, I was very pleased to hear 

12 Dr. Hinnefeld say that he has decided to 

13 conduct a validation study of the dose 

14 reconstruction determinations and how valid 

15 they are.

16 Over the years, we have proposed a 

17 plan for such a study. And in specific 

18 comments, we laid it out in the comments that 

19 we submitted in response to the ten-year 

20 review. So at least NIOSH has our proposal 

21 for how such a study should be done.

22 NIOSH proposes to begin this I 
290 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 heard today at Savannah River. And that may 

2 or may not make sense. Savannah River is in 

3 some ways a best case example. There is 

4 probably not a facility that we have better 

5 dose records than at Savannah River. So in 

6 that sense, starting the review there will 

7 certainly be easier, but it's not necessarily 

8 the worst-case example where you would want to 

9 do such a review. So that needs to be taken 

10 into account.

11 So I ask the Board to participate 

12 actively in this and to establish a Working 

13 Group and to select its best statisticians and

14 epidemiologists to work on reviewing how this 

15 validation study is to be done since it will 

16 be a statistical study. At least I think it 

17 is going to be a statistical study. It should 

18 be a statistical study.

19 Let me turn briefly to the SRS SEC 

20 evaluation. Tomorrow you are going to 

21 consider addendum 2 to this SEC evaluation. 

22 And it's critical for you to keep in mind that 
291 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 addendum 2 has to be reviewed in the context 

2 of addendum 1 and in the context of the 

3 original application. So don't lose sight of 

4 that there are two other pieces to this than 

5 the addendum 2 that has been submitted to you.

6 I want to remind you that under 

7 paragraph 7384q of the Act, it is the duty of 

8 this Board to recommend SEC additions to the 

9 President. The duty is yours, not NIOSH's. 

10 So however that is done is up to you.

11 I only got access to addendum 2 

12 this morning. So I am a little bit at a 

13 disadvantage. And the petitioners only 

14 received it last night. So they are at an 

15 equally bad disadvantage.

16 I had a chance to review today 

17 during the group and also to look at what 

18 happened at the -- I believe it was the August 

19 12 meeting of the Working Group, but the 

20 Working Group also only received this document 

21 the night before their meeting. And it's 

22 clear from what transpired at the meeting that 
292 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Members were very poorly informed and 

2 unable to have a very meaningful discussion of 

3 the evaluation documents because they had not 

4 had a chance to prepare for it.

5 It is now almost four years since 

6 the application for the SEC was submitted. 

7 NIOSH has undertaken what I would characterize 

8 an absolutely torturous process to get to 

9 where we are today. And that is not 

10 necessarily in such a good place.

11 I want to focus on the Class 

12 Definition specifically to demonstrate to you 

13 how unduly complex the result that NIOSH has 

14 come up with is. The exposure for which NIOSH 

15 cannot produce dose reconstruction involves 

16 thorium but not all aspects of thorium 

17 operations.

18 The Class Definition consists of a 

19 combination of a worker having a specific 

20 badge that is related to some operation within 

21 the SRS site and also, and also, having worked 

22 in a specific building where there was a 
293 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium operation, for which NIOSH says it 

2 cannot do a dose reconstruction. As I said, 

3 that doesn't involve all of them.

4 The time frame is from 1-1-53 to 

5 9-30-72. The problems you should consider are 

6 these. NIOSH assumes that all eligible Class 

7 members wore a radiation badge. I would say 

8 in response to Stu's comments earlier today 

9 about the biases of health physics that one of

10 them is very strongly that it assumes that all 

11 workers had to wear a badge if they were in 

12 the regulated area.

13 But as NIOSH knows very well from 

14 a number of focus groups and interviews with 

15 workers and so on, Savannah River, there were 

16 times when workers did not have badges or did 

17 not wear them. NIOSH is fully aware of that. 

18 We have helped to organize some of the focus 

19 groups with both NIOSH and SC&A. So they have 

20 ample evidence that badging was not complete 

21 at Savannah River. This has to be corrected.

22 Not all thorium operations are 
294 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 included, as I said, which I find strange. 

2 For instance, the 300M area is excluded. That 

3 is where they did thorium manufacturing and 

4 reprocessing, and the reprocessing operation, 

5 which I think was the first attempt at 

6 reprocessing within the AEC complex. I could 

7 be wrong about that, but I believe it's the 

8 first, had tremendous potential for exposures 

9 within it.

10 So I don't know why that is 

11 specifically excluded. And it does not make 

12 clear in the text why it is excluded. The 

13 exclusions you can find in table 7.4 and 7.5 

14 and inclusions also.

15 The time period is not adequately 

16 justified, particularly on the back end. 

17 NIOSH proposes 9-30, even though in table 5.5, 

18 it suggests that, at least in area 773A, 

19 thorium could have been present through 12-31; 

20 in other words, at least 3 additional months.

21 But, more importantly, the report 

22 makes no allowance for possible contamination 
295 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of these areas, which were subsequently 

2 cleaned up after operations ceased. And 

3 whether there could have been -- contamination 

4 is not clear, even though the thorium used in 

5 these areas were totally unencapsulated.

6 Lastly, the requirement that 

7 workers prove they were in a particular 

8 building is unenforceable. Because there were 

9 no access requirements or access logs in those 

10 buildings, you don't know who walked into one 

11 and out of one at any given time. And for a 

12 worker to prove that he was in that building, 

13 the documentation is lacking.

14 And DOL has made clear that this 

15 is the case and that it will not be able to 

16 administer that part of the Class Definition. 

17 This is particularly critical for transient 

18 workers, such as construction workers, who 

19 have gone in and out of these buildings all 

20 the time. And to ask them to accumulate 250 

21 days of such work in these particular 

22 buildings is just about impossible.
296 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So in this respect, NIOSH has 

2 created a torturous and very difficult Class 

3 Definition that cannot be administered. So it 

4 seems to me that there is no way that this 

5 Board can deal with this petition or this 

6 evaluation without vastly expanding the 

7 Definition of the Class.

8 Finally, I would like to comment 

9 briefly on health endangerment. This 

10 evaluation also, like all of the others, SEC 

11 evaluations, stipulates a period of 250 days 

12 because that is what the SEC rule requires.

13 As I said, for transient workers, 

14 this makes no sense in the situation and, 

15 therefore, should not have been included in 

16 the way that it has been.

17 Dr. Lemen today appropriately 

18 called into question the 250-day rule. Your 

19 counsel said the Act requires this, but in 

20 this respect, she and NIOSH are wrong.

21 The SEC is defined in paragraph 

22 7384l and subsection 14(c) of that paragraph. 
297 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it has three additional subsections. 

2 Subsection A deals with the gaseous diffusion 

3 plants, where there is a 250-day limit. 

4 Section B deals with Amchitka, where there is 

5 no limit. And section C deals with your 

6 responsibility to recommend to the President 

7 new members of the Class. And it has no time 

8 limit. It's up to you to decide that time 

9 limit.

10 We have long said that the 250-day 

11 provision is arbitrary. Three is no basis for 

12 it in any science, in any biology that I know 

13 of or even in any of the radiation data that 

14 we have, including the Japanese bomb survivors 

15 data.

16 So I don't know where the 250 days 

17 came from other than in one case Congress 

18 defined it that way. And I don't know why 

19 NIOSH latched onto it, but it's not a 

20 requirement.

21 Thank you very much.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Dr. 
298 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Ringen.

2 The next person I have listed for 

3 public comment is Faye Vlieger, I believe. 

4 And I apologize again. I have trouble with 

5 your name. I never get it right.

6 MS. VLIEGER: Okay. Thank you 

7 very much for letting me address you. I 

8 appreciate the work that you have put in.

9 I listened in on the Hanford 

10 Working Group meeting last week. And some of 

11 my comments will address that.

12 Other than that, let me tell you 

13 that I am here on behalf of ANWAG and also 

14 Cold War Patriots. I also advocate for a 

15 number of claimants. And I am going to be 

16 talking about some of what I am seeing and 

17 things not addressed by NIOSH and not 

18 addressed by the Board.

19 In the Working Group meeting last 

20 week, very blithely NIOSH said, "Oh, we can 

21 calculate that" when it came up that there was 

22 no data for a number of the different 
299 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radionuclide processes at the Hanford site. 

2 They also said they couldn't make any 

3 statements at that time about what they were 

4 going to do about the recommendations from the 

5 White Paper that was presented.

6 I was a little aghast at them 

7 saying very blithely "Oh, we can make those 

8 numbers. We can do those numbers up" when, on 

9 the other hand, they've said they wouldn't 

10 make any statements for the Working Group at 

11 the time. It calls into question whether or 

12 not there is a limit on how many fallacies and 

13 fictions they can create when creating 

14 surrogate and coworker data.

15 What is the limit? Fifty percent 

16 of the time there is no paperwork and then 

17 it's okay to create the data or is it 75 

18 percent and then it's an SEC?

19 There doesn't seem to be any rhyme 

20 or reason to it. And I hate to use the word 

21 "capricious," but it seems capricious when 

22 these processes happened independently and 
300 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concurrently with other processes at the site.

2 And, as the previous speaker 

3 noted, people walked in and out. People were 

4 trenching. You know, people were making 

5 additions to the tank farms, making additions 

6 to the 300 area.

7 So to blithely say that you can 

8 create coworker or surrogate data that would 

9 cover those people when the report by SC&A 

10 strictly said, "There is no data. There is no 

11 thorium data. There is no thorium pellet 

12 data. There is no -- neptunium data. There 

13 were a number of the plutonium nitrides that 

14 were not represented in any data that was 

15 collected. There was an entire year's audit 

16 that wasn't there," so I'm concerned about the 

17 tipping point.

18 Where is the tipping point for 

19 saying, "Okay, NIOSH, do the best you can. 

20 Give us a whiz-bang number?" And I hate to 

21 call it a "wag" or even a "swag." And you all 

22 know what that means.
301 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But that's sure what it sounds 

2 like to us as the advocates and also to the 

3 claimants when they see these numbers 

4 diminish. Every time it goes back for dose 

5 reconstruction, their dose number gets lower 

6 and lower and lower. It is because of some 

7 fiction that has been created at NIOSH to 

8 account for some surrogate or coworker data.

9 The other thing I want to talk to 

10 you about is the conflict of interest that 

11 seems to be popping up with the people that do 

12 dose reconstruction work and dose 

13 reconstruction consulting for NIOSH.

14 In particular, Dade Moeller uses 

15 people on a part-time basis that in their 

16 full-time job, they collect the data and make 

17 decisions about what data will be included in 

18 the information provided to DOL. And on the 

19 other side of that person's same full-time 

20 job, they sit at the Board of Industrial 

21 Insurance Appeals on the other side of the 

22 table from the worker who is trying to get 
302 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 their radiation-caused cancer accepted and 

2 saying, "Well, there is no way in the world 

3 you could have possibly had enough of a dose."

4 I have a problem with those people 

5 doing Hanford dose reconstructions. So that's 

6 the first conflict of interest issue I have 

7 with you.

8 The other is there is a job 

9 announcement from Dade Moeller for a full-time 

10 position that specifically says they're 

11 looking for someone with Hanford background to 

12 do dose reconstruction consultation for NIOSH 

13 as one of the contractors for NIOSH. I have a 

14 problem with that. It reeks of conflict of 

15 interest.

16 I know you back up and say, "Well, 

17 they never had any effect on the policies that 

18 are being implemented." I was a lowly planner 

19 at the site. They came to ask me my opinion 

20 about policy and stuff all the time. I wasn't 

21 a supervisor, very hard to get away from that 

22 not involved in policy decisions.
303 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the fact that it wasn't 

2 documented that they were a supervisor or 

3 involved in policy letters doesn't mean that 

4 they weren't.

5 The ORAU conflict of interest 

6 statements on their site, the number of 

7 subcontractors that they use, there again I 

8 believe that needs a little whitewashing. On 

9 ORAU's site, on their conflict of interest 

10 policy statement, it says that they will 

11 include the name of the reviewer and the 

12 reviewer's expertise and a little biography of 

13 the reviewer at the bottom of their dose 

14 reconstructions. And I haven't seen that 

15 happen.

16 I know that some of the ORAU dose 

17 reconstructions I have seen were done by ORAU, 

18 but I don't know if NIOSH pulls that off. But 

19 on the bottom of Oak Ridge's conflict of 

20 interest policy statement concerning dose 

21 reconstructions, it says that they do that. 

22 And I haven't seen any bibliography or 
304 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 signature by an ORAU contractor on any of the 

2 ones I have done.

3 The other thing I want to talk to 

4 you about is the CDC cancer clusters and why 

5 that information isn't being used to 

6 substantiate the fact that, as the previous 

7 speaker said, the 250-day rule is really not 

8 applicable here at the site.

9 I represent the widows of two 

10 claimants who died from pancreatic cancer. 

11 It's a horrible death. It wasn't bad enough 

12 that though one man was dying from pancreatic 

13 cancer, but his son, who had worked with him 

14 in the 300 area trenches when they did the 

15 steam refit in the area, died a few years ago 

16 of testicular cancer. And they didn't even 

17 apply for his claim because he worked right 

18 alongside his dad. His dad's was turned down.

19 Like I said, I have two pancreatic 

20 cancer cases. And they were both laborers, 

21 mostly unmonitored, in the 300 area. And, as 

22 you know now, building 324 and 325 can't be 
305 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 demolished as quickly as they wanted because 

2 of the contamination found under the 

3 buildings.

4 In March of this year, there was 

5 an interview set done with workers. And it 

6 uncovered a lot of things that went on in 324. 

7 We know that there was a problem under 324. 

8 There's evidently a DOE paper that was 

9 written. And they knew that one of the drains 

10 was leaking. And, instead of digging it up 

11 and taking care of the problem because it was 

12 under the high bay, they grouted it off, 

13 concreted the drain off, and didn't use that 

14 retrieval tank anymore.

15 However, that amount that was in 

16 the ground was there and started leeching 

17 around the building. So they found that now. 

18 And that's what the March interviews were 

19 for.

20 I would encourage you to take a 

21 look at how much people who weren't process 

22 people were actually exposed because there was 
306 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a lot of construction and trenching, 

2 rebuilding, renewing, redoing piping in the 

3 300 area that people were exposed to for quite 

4 a number of years.

5 The quantity of cancers that I see 

6 as a lowly authorized rep -- and I don't have 

7 that many claimants that I see that are 

8 outside the SEC -- seems kind of high to me. 

9 I would expect to see the number of chemical 

10 exposures I see under the part E side because 

11 of the ongoing nature of the work that are 

12 outside the SEC, but I see a lot of cancers 

13 that are not covered because they are not part 

14 of the SEC. If they were part of the SEC, 

15 they would be covered. That kind of concerns 

16 me.

17 And I would think that if we 

18 compared the CDC cancer cluster information 

19 just for the area here and you saw that there 

20 is a high rate of cancer, we have such a high 

21 rate of cancer. We have our own thriving 

22 cancer center here in the Tri-Cities, 
307 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 absolutely thriving.

2 One of the other issues with this 

3 250-day and not processor work data that is 

4 being bandied about, security officers, even 

5 though their job required them to patrol next 

6 to the areas and were near releases and 

7 spills, first responders to spills are not 

8 covered.

9 I have a widow of a claimant who 

10 died from lung cancer. In his own witness 

11 statement, he told NIOSH "I was the first 

12 responder when one of the casks fell off a 

13 truck. I cordoned off the area."

14 NIOSH used his witness statement 

15 against him because he said that he didn't get 

16 touched by anything. He was the first 

17 responder on site, cordoned off the area, 

18 didn't always stand upwind from the spill, and 

19 he didn't have any kind of dosimetry or 

20 radiation detection equipment with him. But 

21 NIOSH used that against him to say, "Couldn't 

22 possibly have been exposed."
308 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So as an advocate and a member of 

2 a number of the nationwide advocacy groups, it 

3 touches me whenever I talk to the claimants. 

4 It bothers me that they worked really hard, 

5 they showed up to work.

6 And maybe you people think, "Well, 

7 if they were stupid enough to show up at a 

8 site that they didn't now what the hazards 

9 were." I can tell you as a planner, I wasn't 

10 told what all the hazards were. And I 

11 planned. I did work packages. I blithely did 

12 what the company told me to do.

13 And whether you know it or not, 

14 the workers that are out there are still 

15 afraid to come talk to you about anything. 

16 When the March interviews were here, the widow 

17 of one of my pancreatic cancer cases refused 

18 to go talk to them because she was afraid for 

19 job attribution, retribution back at the site. 

20 She was afraid that she would have 

21 repercussions from talking to anybody about 

22 what went on.
309 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So you need to know that Hanford 

2 is still a company town, this area. It's 

3 still hard for people to come and talk about. 

4 It's ongoing. And they still find 

5 interesting things when they remediate digs 

6 and cribs in different lagoons.

7 So I would encourage you to listen 

8 to everybody. A lot of times their jobs are 

9 in peril when they are up here talking to you.

10 Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

12 I believe we have a Therese Howe. 

13 Okay. Fine. We'll keep you on the list for 

14 tomorrow. Thank you.

15 I believe Terrie Barrie may be on 

16 the line and wish to comment tonight.

17 MS. BARRIE: Yes. Well, thank you 

18 for allowing me to call in my comments 

19 tonight. My name is Terrie Barrie. And I am 

20 with the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy 

21 Groups.

22 I have a few issues also that I 
310 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would like to bring to the Board's attention. 

2 First, I want to make everyone aware that an 

3 SEC petition has been filed for the Rocky 

4 Flats plant. I realize that NIOSH will need 

5 to qualify it, but if anyone would care for a 

6 copy of it, I would be happy to give it to 

7 them.

8 There are a couple of typos that 

9 someone brought to my attention. So I will 

10 need to send a revised version of it. There 

11 are only two typos.

12 The Rocky Flats claimants have 

13 been promised for a year or more that the Work 

14 Group would look into these issues. And 

15 hopefully filing this petition will jumpstart 

16 that discussion.

17 One issue in the petition is the 

18 Ruttenber database. I understand, although I 

19 did not hear and I thank Faye for relaying the 

20 information to me, that DOL has finally 

21 resolved how they will use this database to 

22 qualify claimants for the SEC petition. And I 
311 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 am looking forward to a speedy release of 

2 DOL's final bulletin.

3 Earlier this week in doing some 

4 research for another advocate, I stumbled upon 

5 NIOSH's radiation dose reconstruction page. 

6 There's a section on that page titled simply 

7 "EG&G."

8 This section identifies the scope 

9 of the work that EG&G is doing for NIOSH. And 

10 some of these activities include the -- I'm 

11 quoting here -- "the application of new and 

12 existing ICRP biokinetic models; the 

13 characterization of the distribution and 

14 uncertainty associated with the internal and 

15 external radiation dose estimates; ongoing 

16 evaluation of radiobiological factors related 

17 to the interpretation of radiation dose; 

18 assist in the evaluation of radiological 

19 characteristics of sites covered under 

20 EEOICPA; and, lastly, review the 

21 appropriateness of radiation risk models used 

22 in EEOICPA in light of emerging scientific 
312 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 studies."

2 EG&G operated Rocky Flats for a 

3 few years. And they were also involved in 

4 other sites, like the Nevada Test Site and, I 

5 believe, Mound.

6 Now, mind you, I have never heard 

7 anything negative about EG&G, but is it proper 

8 for a DOE contractor to be involved who was 

9 responsible for the records, to be involved 

10 with the dose reconstruction process?

11 I also have concerns about Work 

12 Group meetings in general. And both Faye and 

13 I guess Dr. Ringen mentioned this also. 

14 Recently I was contacted by the Hooker 

15 Chemical petitioner for assistance. And I 

16 thought the best way to provide that 

17 assistance was to review the last meeting's 

18 transcript, which was May 16th, I think.

19 It was not posted to the website, 

20 and I made an inquiry. I did not receive the 

21 transcript until a half-hour before the 

22 Working Group meeting. I'm a fast reader, but 
313 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there was no way I could digest some 80-some 

2 pages in that time and offer the petitioner 

3 any suggestions.

4 The petitioner also informed me 

5 that she did not receive a copy of the White 

6 Paper until two days after the Work Group 

7 meeting. This lack of access to information 

8 by the petitioner prevented her from 

9 contributing to the discussion.

10 One could compare this to due 

11 process in a court of law. A defendant must 

12 be provided with all of the evidence. SEC 

13 petitioners should be provided with all of the 

14 non-classified research and White Papers. And 

15 in this day and age, it should be preferably 

16 provided in a searchable electronic format for 

17 those petitioners with internet access and not 

18 overnighted by FedEx. That is very costly to 

19 do that.

20 Petitioners also need to access 

21 the O: drive. Stu Hinnefeld and I briefly 

22 discussed this issue a month or so ago. It is 
314 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 obvious that the amount of information that 

2 NIOSH needs to sift through can be 

3 overwhelming.

4 I understand the security issues. 

5 However, if the petitioners had a person with 

6 the proper clearance to research the O: drive 

7 and then provide the petitioners with the 

8 redacted documents, that will go a long way in 

9 ensuring that all of the information was 

10 reviewed before an SEC vote by the Board.

11 My final comment concerns 

12 surrogate data. I don't understand how NIOSH 

13 or the Board determines when to use surrogate 

14 data. The reason I ask this again is because 

15 Hooker Chemical is having surrogate data used 

16 for their dose reconstruction. But it was not 

17 considered for the W.R. Grace site today. I 

18 don't understand, and it is not clear to me 

19 when NIOSH considers the use of surrogate data 

20 is proper and when it is not. If someone can 

21 point me to the document that lays this out, I 

22 would really appreciate it.
315 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I also don't understand how data 

2 from Mallinckrodt can be used for Hooker 

3 Chemical. If NIOSH and the Board decided that 

4 the data was not sufficient to reconstruct 

5 dose for Mallinckrodt claimants, why is it 

6 sufficient for the Hooker Chemical claimants?

7 Now, I also realize that you don't 

8 have the time to answer me tonight, but I 

9 really would appreciate a response from NIOSH 

10 or the Board or who is ever responsible for 

11 these questions.

12 And again I thank you for allowing 

13 me to call in these public comments.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

15 Terrie.

16 I think I can address one of your 

17 questions, just to say that we did discuss 

18 this morning this issue with White Papers and 

19 timeliness for petitioners and others involved 

20 in Work Groups and agree that everyone will 

21 try to do a better job of getting that 

22 information to you and to other petitioners 
316 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and other interested parties in time before 

2 the Work Group meetings. It's not always 

3 possible, but as much as possible to do that. 

4 So we are aware of that.

5 And I also believe some of the 

6 backlog on some of the transcripts becoming 

7 available, that's being addressed also and has 

8 gotten much better recently. And they're 

9 catching up with that backlog.

10 But thank you.

11 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Well, thank 

12 you. There was trouble with the phone line 

13 today.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I know. 

15 You wouldn't have been able to. That's why I 

16 wanted to mention it to you.

17 MS. BARRIE: Well, I appreciate 

18 that.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

20 you.

21 First, is there anybody else in 

22 the room who would like to make public 
317 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comments?

2 MR. ROWE: My name is Gordon Rowe. 

3 I'm the petitioner for the Savannah River 

4 site petition. I would like to make a 

5 comment, if I can.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What site again? 

7 What was your name again so we make sure we 

8 have it down.

9 MR. ROWE: Gordon Rowe.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Mr. Rowe, 

11 I know who you are now. Thank you. Go ahead.

12 MR. ROWE: First of all, I would 

13 like to request that the information on these 

14 meetings and the addendums and so forth be 

15 sent out in a more timely manner.

16 I didn't get this information. I 

17 got a FedEx yesterday evening about 5:15. And 

18 there's really not ample time to study it and 

19 go over it before the discussion at the 

20 meeting.

21 And the next question, next 

22 comment I would like to make, since I am the 
318 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 petitioner on this SEC-103, I wonder what 

2 authority or who gives NIOSH the authority to 

3 add this thorium to the petition without 

4 consulting me or contacting me first.

5 In my opinion, that's going to 

6 slow the petition down, the results of it, or 

7 finalizing. And I think that thorium should 

8 be a separate issue from the original 

9 petition. And at least if they are going to 

10 add something or change, I think they at least 

11 ought to contact the petitioners and check 

12 with us about it before they change the 

13 petition that I sent in.

14 Do you understand what I'm asking?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I 

16 understand. Do you have any further comments?

17 MR. ROWE: No.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

19 MR. ROWE: I would like, if I can, 

20 if somebody could give me an answer to that 

21 question.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure. I will 
319 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 try in general and may ask NIOSH to also. But 

2 in reviewing the original petition, NIOSH set 

3 a scope for their review, which included the 

4 thorium, I believe, those areas. So that has 

5 been one of the areas under review.

6 And it's also NIOSH under their 

7 regulations have the right to modify your 

8 original Class that you have offered when you 

9 entered your petition.

10 MR. ROWE: They have the right to 

11 do that without contacting me first?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, yes. I 

13 think this has been part of it all along. And 

14 they also have the right to then offer up a 

15 new Class Definition. This covers maybe just 

16 part of the scope of the review for your 

17 petition.

18 MR. ROWE: All right. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

20 else in the audience or on the line that would 

21 like to --

22 MR. FROWISS: Yes.
320 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Please 

2 identify yourself.

3 MR. FROWISS: Yes. My name is 

4 Albert Frowiss in Rancho Santa Fe. I am an 

5 advocate for claimants all over the country, 

6 on SECs principally. And I just have four 

7 basic short questions.

8 One, I know that your Board 

9 endorsed the CLL rule. And I am wondering if 

10 somebody could update me on where it stands 

11 now that the comments are closed, et cetera, 

12 in terms of what the status is. That's one 

13 question.

14 Another is earlier today you 

15 discussed the Brookhaven issues and indicated 

16 that an 83.14 action to extend will probably 

17 be coming forth soon. Can anybody tell me 

18 what the approximate years of extension might 

19 be? I assume into the '80s if not the early 

20 '90s based on the transcript that I read 

21 earlier in the year. There are lots of people 

22 stacked up that are in that pickle that I 
321 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 represent. That's the second question.

2 The third and fourth questions are 

3 kind of related. And that is in relation to 

4 the Albuquerque Operations Office and Division 

5 Z, which I believe was perhaps the 

6 nomenclature for the original New Mexico 

7 Operations Office when it was either at Los 

8 Alamos or Santa Fe and then moved down to 

9 Albuquerque.

10 And I was wondering whether 

11 Division Z or Albuquerque Operations Office at 

12 any of those locations will be covered in 

13 either of the SECs, the Sandia SEC, or Los 

14 Alamos SECs. I assume perhaps Sandia.

15 But that is basically the 

16 questions that I have.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

18 I don't know if, Stu or Jim, you 

19 want to address at least maybe the first two 

20 you sort of mentioned this morning I think I 

21 --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. This is Stu 
322 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Hinnefeld, the Director of DCAS.

2 I reported this morning the CLL 

3 rule is with Health and Human Services to 

4 determine whether to proceed with the 

5 publication of a final rule. And if, in fact, 

6 the Department decides to proceed to a final 

7 rule, it will appear in the Federal Register. 

8 And there is an effective period. The 

9 effective date will be some period after that. 

10 So that is the status of where the CLL rule 

11 is.

12 Do you want to add something, Ted?

13 MR. KATZ: I can just add that the 

14 schedule that is being shot for by HHS is to 

15 publish that by the end of the year. So that 

16 is the aim.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. With 

18 respect to the Brookhaven Class, potential 

19 Class, I don't want to give anybody the clear 

20 indication that that will happen. It might 

21 happen. The end date is not determined yet, 

22 and I am afraid I can't provide any more 
323 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specific information than what the questioner 

2 already has on that.

3 And then with respect to Division 

4 Z, I actually can speak to that. Division Z 

5 is the predecessor to Sandia. We ran into 

6 this issue I think that the questioner is 

7 talking about because these cases were 

8 referred to us as Los Alamos National 

9 Laboratory Division Z starting from about 1945 

10 to 1949 or thereabouts.

11 And the effective date of Sandia 

12 then starts in 1949. So there is kind of this 

13 question, "Well, are they Los Alamos but 

14 they're not at Los Alamos, they're in 

15 Albuquerque, or are they Sandia?"

16 And we have been corresponding 

17 with the other agencies. And what we believe 

18 will happen shortly is that the covered period 

19 for Sandia will be moved forward to include 

20 the beginning of Division Z. And they will be 

21 considered part of Sandia employees and then 

22 would fall into the existing Sandia treatment.
324 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks 

2 for the clarification.

3 Does anybody else on the line or 

4 in the audience wish to make public comment?

5 (No response.)

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We thank 

7 everybody, then. And we will reconvene at 

8 8:15 tomorrow morning.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 matter went off the record at 5:36 p.m.) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22