This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR

 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

 + + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

 WORK GROUP ON SEC ISSUES

 

 + + + + +

 FRIDAY,

 JULY 8, 2011

 + + + + +

 The Work Group convened via

teleconference at 10:00 a.m., James M. Melius,

Chairman, presiding.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER

PAUL L. ZIEMER
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

CHRIS ELLISON, DCAS

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JOSH KINMAN, DCAS Contractor

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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

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

Welcome and roll-call . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

General Electric SEC Update - Lavon

Rutherford. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Work Group Discussion and Action. . . . . . . 14

Ames SEC 00185 - Lavon Rutherford . . . . . . 28

Work Group Discussion and Action. . . . . . . 34

Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:00 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz. I

4 am the Designated Federal Official of the

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

6 Health. This is the SEC Issues Work Group.

7 We are going to begin with roll

8 call. And, please, we're speaking about two

9 sites today: GE Evendale and Ames in Iowa. 

10 So please speak to conflict of interest as

11 well. So, beginning with Board Members,

12 with the Chair?

13 (Roll call.)

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. That does it

15 for roll call. Let me just remind everyone,

16 when you are not speaking to the group,

17 please mute your phone. Use *6 if you don't

18 have a mute button and *6 to take it off of

19 mute.

20 And, Dr. Melius, it is your

21 agenda.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Why

2 don't we start with GE? I think everybody,

3 at least on the Work Group, should have

4 received an update from NIOSH on follow-up

5 to our last discussion of GE. But I think

6 last Friday, NIOSH, LaVon sent out an update

7 that included the information that we had

8 requested that they look into. So I will

9 turn it over to NIOSH if you want to at

10 least briefly summarize that information.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. This is

12 LaVon Rutherford. I was actually going to

13 try and get through a little bit of

14 information before I hit that. And the last

15 thing I will do is go over those specific

16 issues.

17 Just to remind everybody of some

18 of the activities that occurred at GE during

19 the '61 to '70 period, they were checking

20 fuel elements materials for high-temperature

21 reactor fuels, checking radiation effects on
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 refractory materials, examining radiation

2 effects on beryllium oxide, examining

3 fission product transport processes in

4 reactor fuels. They were testing the

5 effects of clad uranium oxide fuels in

6 meltdown environments. They were developing

7 processes for densification of thoria. They

8 were also clarifying thorium oxide.

9 Monitoring data. I want to talk

10 a little bit about the internal monitoring

11 data, since that is the focus of our

12 infeasibility.

13 First, the monitoring data from

14 1961 through 1964, we have no internal

15 monitoring data. We have urine samples from

16 1964 through 1967. We have 400 urine

17 samples, a little over 400 urine samples,

18 for uranium that are from 1965 through 1967. 

19 And we have no internal monitoring results

20 from 1968 and '69.

21 The bioassay samples were taken
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 when workers were exposed. To us, this

2 implies that it's more an incident-driven

3 program.

4 As for air-monitoring data, we

5 have some air sample data from the first

6 part of 1961. We believe this is really

7 part of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion

8 program. We were led to this conclusion

9 because the data goes back to 1956, when the

10 ANP program was at its peak of existence.

11 We have no air sample data for

12 the second half of 1961 through 1970. We

13 did ask the health and safety manager if air

14 sampling was performed. She said there was

15 air sampling performed, but we have no data

16 for that period.

17 The health and safety manager

18 indicated that they regularly performed

19 radiological monitoring in non-radiological

20 areas. I think this is very important

21 because if we had some boundary air sample
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 data, if we had environmental air data,

2 things like that, that may help support

3 limiting the Class. And I'll get into that

4 a little later.

5 Surface contamination: so we have

6 a pretty detailed surface contamination

7 survey that occurred in 1969. It is just

8 alpha and beta and is not isotopic-specific.

9 Access control: this is another

10 issue that surrounds the Class Definition. 

11 The majority of the radiological work

12 occurred in buildings C and D. It should be

13 noted that there was a storage pad that had

14 radioactive material, drums and such, stored

15 on it as well as a storage facility.

16 Air Force Plant 36 was not

17 physically separated from the rest of the

18 plant. The health and safety manager

19 indicated that non-rad workers were not

20 permitted into radiological areas. However,

21 this was controlled by posting. Hot cells
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 were locked, but all the other areas were

2 controlled through posting.

3 Worker interviews indicated that

4 there were no access control requirements

5 for entering the building, but, again,

6 workers also indicated that some areas,

7 specifically the hot cells, were locked.

8 Non-radiological workers worked

9 in the same areas as the radiological

10 workers. Part of building C was designated

11 for operations, and the other part was

12 administrative. And there was no access,

13 nothing locked within the facility that

14 prevented you from accessing rad areas. 

15 There were only postings to limit that.

16 Last year, we actually sent a

17 draft Class Definition to Department of

18 Labor to check into their ability to

19 implement a Class that specifically focused

20 on Air Force Plant 36.

21 And in the letter dated November
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 12th, 2010, DOL indicated that they were

2 unaware of any records in their possession

3 or the possession of DOE that would allow

4 them to determine whether a worker in the GE

5 Evendale facility worked specifically at Air

6 Force Plant 36 versus other parts of the

7 plant. So I wanted to kind of go back

8 through some of those things because those

9 were discussed earlier.

10 At the last Work Group meeting,

11 there were specific action items that came

12 out of that. The Work Group wanted us to go

13 back and interview personnel to determine

14 the actual origin of the POPSEE list and how

15 that was related to the actual covered

16 activities. All of this was centered around

17 to see if we could use the POPSEE list

18 itself to define the Class.

19 The other thing is, does the

20 POPSEE list contain everyone who was

21 potentially exposed during the period?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 And then the third item was to

2 actually go back and define some of these

3 abbreviations that were included in the

4 policy documents.

5 We actually interviewed one

6 person. That person was the former health

7 and safety manager during that period. We

8 found out that the POPSEE is not an acronym;

9 it is actually a compilation of letters

10 comprising the various program names during

11 the GE nuclear propulsion and AEC eras. So

12 it's like the ANP, NNPO, all those. I take

13 what happened was they took letters from

14 those and then formed the POPSEE list.

15 The POPSEE organization was a

16 social organization that consisted of

17 workers over various years from the various

18 programs, but the POPSEE included only those

19 workers who wished to participate in the

20 organization.

21 The POPSEE roster could include
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 employees that never worked in buildings C

2 and D. This is mainly because, although C

3 and D were the main operational areas, there

4 were other workers or other people involved

5 in the ANP program or in the program that

6 did not work in C and D.

7 The POPSEE roster would not

8 necessarily include all employees that did

9 work, since it's a voluntary thing to

10 basically be in this organization. It

11 didn't include everyone.

12 Another thing we did with the

13 POPSEE list was we took the POPSEE list and

14 we compared it to our NOCTS database.

15 What we did was we took the GE

16 claims that we currently have, and we listed

17 those names down into an Excel spreadsheet. 

18 And we took a list of the names on the

19 POPSEE list. We actually put together an

20 Excel spreadsheet with that list as well. 

21 We also took down -- on the NOCTS
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 list, we identified who had internal and

2 external monitoring from our NOCTS database,

3 from our claims. And then, again, we did

4 the comparison against the NOCTS list and

5 the POPSEE list.

6 We found that only six of our

7 claims actually were on the POPSEE list as

8 well. And I think this is important because

9 clearly the POPSEE list cannot be used to

10 define the Class because we have workers

11 that -- we have claimants who are not on the

12 list that have external monitoring data, who

13 were clearly exposed and part of the

14 program, that are not on the POPSEE list. 

15 So I think that pretty much shoots that

16 down.

17 The other thing is we were asked

18 to come up with, to define all of the

19 acronyms that -- and I think we've done

20 that. And that's in that summary that I

21 provided you guys.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 So I think that answers most of

2 the questions. The other thing I wanted to

3 point out was, you know, I talked about the

4 area monitoring and the lack of air sampling

5 data.

6 I think someone had brought up

7 the idea of: can we just use those

8 individuals who were monitored? And clearly

9 we can't do that because of the lack of air

10 sample data to support that people that were

11 inside C and D that were not monitored were

12 not exposed. We had no data in support of

13 that that those individuals would not have

14 been exposed.

15 Okay. That's pretty much it.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody,

17 any of the Work Group Members have

18 questions?

19 (No response.)

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, I'll

21 start. My question is, I am trying to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 understand the list of monitored employees. 

2 And, to that end, of the people who

3 submitted claims, do you have any sense of

4 how many of those expected to be monitored?

5 I guess I'm looking at those with

6 submitted claims, those with monitoring

7 versus those without, and were the people

8 without monitoring people that you wouldn't

9 expect to be in jobs that would be

10 monitored?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Or other people

13 that would sort of pass through the

14 facility? So anybody from the facility

15 could submit a claim?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And in some

18 ways you have, I don't want to say 

19 encouraged that, but the fact that you

20 haven't narrowed it down prior to this time,

21 people would -- I'm trying to get a sense of
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 the job histories and backgrounds of the

2 people that did submit claims, particularly

3 those -- sort of comparing those with or

4 without monitoring, but whether they were --

5 how did they differ?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: I haven't been

7 through all of the claims, but I can say

8 that we do have some claims specifically,

9 some maintenance workers who could have

10 worked in C and D, that do not have

11 monitoring data. And then we do have some

12 that do have monitoring data.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: So I mean, that

15 right there kind of gives you an indication

16 that it's not easy to separate them out,

17 especially maintenance workers.

18 Also, I think I went through a

19 couple of firefighters that one had data and

20 one didn't, but, again, I didn't go through

21 all the list.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I

2 don't think this sort of sample is large

3 enough to be able to draw a very firm

4 conclusion, but I was just curious when I

5 looked through the -- trying to make sense

6 of the spreadsheet that you put on the O:

7 drive and how those populations differed and

8 so forth. I mean, I would have expected

9 POPSEE to include a number of people who

10 wouldn't have monitoring data and wouldn't

11 be necessarily filing claims because they

12 might have worked at other -- you know,

13 during sort of the Air Force years and not

14 --

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- during the

17 years that they would be eligible for this

18 program. So it didn't surprise me that the

19 POPSEE would be a longer list, so to speak,

20 but I'm just trying to understand sort of

21 the overlap between the claims in the people
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 that were monitored or were not monitored.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I mean,

3 the biggest thing to me is that the health

4 and safety manager indicated to us that if

5 the claimants had personal monitoring data

6 during that era, then they more than likely

7 worked in C and D.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: And clearly we

10 have a number of claimants that have

11 external monitoring data. And only six of

12 those claimants actually show up on the

13 list, the POPSEE list.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes. I

15 think the point we're trying to get at, to

16 follow up to what I think Paul was asking at

17 our last discussion on this site was: people

18 that were not monitored, did they have

19 significant exposure because someone who

20 might have passed through the site or

21 through the building during that time
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 period, I mean, you can argue that that --

2 you know, would they really fit the 250-day

3 --

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, you know,

5 the other end of that, though -- and yes, I

6 understand where you're coming from. 

7 Recognize that from '61 to '64, we have no

8 internal monitoring data and we know that

9 there was work occurring that had the

10 potential for internal exposure.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: We also had from

13 '67 to '70, they were calcine and thorium

14 oxide -- or calcine and thorium, and we have

15 no internal monitoring data for that period

16 as well.

17 So you have a group of workers

18 who were working with thorium during that

19 period who by our indications were not

20 monitored because we have no monitoring

21 data. So that makes it -- you can't, I
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 don't think there's any way to limit it to

2 only individuals who are monitored because

3 that would leave out those workers for those

4 periods where we have no internal monitoring

5 data.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer here. 

9 You may recall also when we raised this

10 issue with Rachel at the meeting last time,

11 she basically said that they could not

12 conduct a program where we asked the people

13 to sort of assert that they worked in that

14 area.

15 I think she basically said that

16 if you put the caveat on that you will ask

17 the people to certify that they worked in

18 those areas, whether they were monitored or

19 not, I think that Rachel, in essence, said

20 that they will lie.

21 So I think Labor is saying that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 the only way they can really do this is to

2 include everybody, much to my dismay, but

3 that is what they were telling us.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I

5 think that was my second question for LaVon,

6 was at the time that Department of Labor

7 sort of reviewed the available information,

8 basically when you asked them about the

9 Class Definition, I think was the time

10 period. I believe since that time or during

11 the time period, you have received more

12 extensive information from General Electric. 

13 And I just want to establish whether or not

14 that additional information -- would it also

15 include, you know, personnel records or

16 other information that might be used to

17 establish a more narrow Class Definition?

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, no. 

19 We did get a lot of good information, and we

20 did get the significant amount of external

21 exposure records.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: The problem we

3 have with the records is that for probably

4 90 percent of them -- and there actually is

5 a percentage, I think, in the Evaluation

6 Report, but roughly 90 percent of those

7 claims do not identify locations at all.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: So we couldn't

10 really summarize, you know, work locations

11 from that. And there were no work locations

12 or job classification descriptions and such

13 like that within the documentation that we

14 had that would help Department of Labor

15 identify individuals.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay? Anybody

17 else on the Work Group have questions?

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. I

19 have, I guess, a couple of comments. Am I

20 off the mute?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you are. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 We can hear you.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Good. 

3 LaVon, that was a very good report, written

4 report and oral. I think that it is pretty

5 easy to understand everything. I only have

6 one comment, and it's on the second page of

7 your summary, where you talk about

8 feasibility of estimating external

9 exposures.

10 It seems like the way it is

11 written there, I think I understand what you

12 are saying, but it is confusing. You first

13 say there is insufficient data for

14 estimating external exposures, but then you

15 go on to say that you have not evaluated the

16 external film data.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Well,

18 actually, you know, I looked at that. Gen,

19 I looked at this stuff this morning. And I

20 wish that I wouldn't have put that statement

21 in there because we actually have since then
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 looked at that data more thoroughly.

2 What we were saying here is

3 individuals, we will use their external

4 monitoring data and give them their external

5 exposure for the non-presumptive claims that

6 come through, but we cannot develop a

7 coworker data from the data that we have.

8 The difficulty we have in that is

9 if you take -- it's kind of like a National

10 Lab in that, as I mentioned earlier, there

11 were a number of different activities that

12 were occurring at the facility that had the

13 potential for external exposures.

14 In some of them, I mean, very

15 broad-spectrum exposure potential, they were

16 doing, actually, some high-neutron dose

17 irradiation of materials for material X,

18 also gamma dose, and from that to working

19 with uranium at a lower external exposure.

20 So you had the spectrum of

21 external exposure potential from these
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 different projects. And we have no -- like

2 I had mentioned earlier, work locations for

3 only roughly ten percent of the external

4 monitoring data identify work locations.

5 So with this diverse exposure

6 environment and a lack of worker location,

7 it makes it very difficult for us to come up

8 with a good coworker model that we could

9 use.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. I

11 thought that is what you were trying to say

12 there, but the writing made it a bit --

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I agree. I

14 agree. I read it this morning, and I

15 totally agree with you.

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Thanks.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I agree

18 with you both. I was confused by that also.

19 Any other comments or questions

20 from Board Members or, I should say, Work

21 Group Members? Board Members?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 (No response.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do we have a

3 recommendation to make to the Board on our

4 call on Monday?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, this is

6 Ziemer. You know, I think we have tried as

7 hard as we can to reasonably limit this. 

8 And all of our efforts have been essentially

9 in vain.

10 Much as it pains me, I will make

11 the motion that we support the

12 recommendation of NIOSH and recommend this

13 Class Definition to the Board.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: I second.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody

17 in the Work Group not support that, I guess?

18 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I do, too,

20 also. So I guess it's unanimous. Good. 

21 Okay. Well, we'll move on, then, for that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 And then on Board meeting, the call on

2 Monday, I think, LaVon, if you do sort of a

3 similar presentation, you probably may have

4 to do a little background on -- a little bit

5 more on POPSEE and how we sort of got here

6 because I don't think that has all been

7 discussed with all of the Board Members, but

8 I think something similar to what you said,

9 outlined here today, I think would be

10 helpful for people.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. I will do

12 that.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. The next

14 item we have is the Ames report, which is

15 this new 83.14 report. And the reason we

16 are talking about it today is partly, I

17 guess, my fault, I guess you would call it.

18 My concern is -- I think LaVon

19 can go sort of through the process here. 

20 This is one where the Class Definition

21 needed to be fixed, so to speak, in order to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 catch up with -- well, one, I think some of

2 the information, additional information,

3 that was available but also just to make the

4 Class, the implementation of the Class to be

5 feasible for both NIOSH and the Department

6 of Labor.

7 My concern in reviewing the

8 report was, which really doesn't state any

9 findings that we hadn't already made in

10 general in terms of that this should be an

11 SEC, that dose reconstruction wasn't

12 feasible. But I didn't think there was

13 necessarily sufficient information there, at

14 least detail on why the Class Definition

15 needed to be changed.

16 And so I think LaVon has done

17 some follow-up. I have communicated that to

18 him and Stu. There is sort of this awkward

19 position that we are in where, really, I

20 think, in essence, the only thing we are

21 really changing here is the Class
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 Definition.

2 You know, we have got a new

3 number and we're sort of consolidating

4 these, so we can only do this once, rather

5 than two or three times. But this is

6 something that if we're going to do that, I

7 think the Board has to have a sort of

8 factual basis to support our recommendation

9 to the Secretary in this case.

10 We have already recommended to

11 the Secretary about the dose reconstruction

12 was infeasible. What we are now

13 recommending, I think, is that dose

14 reconstruction is infeasible and this is the

15 way the Class needs to be defined to capture

16 that group.

17 So, LaVon, if you want to --

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I can go

19 through it. I sent a little kind of a

20 justification, a little more justification. 

21 And I understand where Dr. Melius is coming
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 from with the -- we do have a one-paragraph

2 section that briefly describes it, but just

3 the discussion in this little justification

4 provides -- makes it a little easier to

5 understand.

6 SEC 185 -- and that's the one

7 we're discussing right now -- is, as Dr.

8 Melius mentioned, being used to consolidate 

9 some Class Definitions, SEC 38, 75. And

10 it's also to basically resolve an open-ended

11 issue we had on SEC 156.

12 SEC 38 was one of our first

13 Classes that we added. It was for the Ames

14 facility and it was a very facility-specific

15 definition listing each of the buildings at

16 that time that were associated with Ames

17 Laboratory.

18 Again, early on in the process,

19 in the SEC process, we were kind of learning

20 -- as we came up with issues and with

21 problems with Class Definitions, we were
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 learning how to better define them. And

2 this was one of the early ones. We used all

3 of the building names. And we used 1942 to

4 1954 for that SEC 38.

5 We went back and we did our Class

6 Definition review. And we looked at how DOL

7 was implementing this Class. And for SEC

8 38, it is really not a problem in how they

9 are implementing it, even though it does

10 list specific buildings. And it does have

11 the monitored or should have been monitored,

12 which we have since gotten rid of.

13 Based on our review, DOL

14 implements the Classes of all workers who

15 worked in the area. So basically, they

16 implement that Class as if it were written

17 as all employees today.

18 SEC 75 is much more difficult. 

19 That one is the one where we actually got a

20 petition in. It specifically identified a

21 group of workers, sheet metal workers,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 physical plant maintenance workers. And we

2 tried to use that petitioner Class. And we

3 felt like, okay, we feel pretty good that,

4 for the most part, those types of workers

5 would be the workers that would be

6 potentially exposed.

7 However, we did not look into the

8 details of access control as well during

9 that, when we did that evaluation, as well

10 as we also -- we at that time -- I'm not

11 sure that we upfront got DOL's letter on

12 whether they could implement that. I'd have

13 to actually go back and look at that if we

14 did or not.

15 Either way, when we reviewed the

16 actual Class Definitions and reviewed all of

17 the claims, we actually found a couple of

18 the claims that we felt should have been

19 included in that Class that were with us at

20 NIOSH for dose reconstruction that DOL had

21 denied them. And we went back, and we
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 recognized the issues with that Class

2 Definition.

3 Another issue, SEC 75 covered

4 from 1955 to 1970. So right now if you look

5 at 38, SEC 38, Class Definition goes from

6 '42 to '54 and then immediately picks up

7 with SEC 75 Class Definition from '55 to '70

8 for the period covered from 1942 all the way

9 up to 1970 with those two Class Definitions.

10 The third issue we had was

11 associated with SEC 156. SEC 156 is a Class

12 we recommended last year, and the Board

13 concurred. During that -- and it covers

14 from 1955 to 1960. And it's more along the

15 lines of Class Definition, how we would

16 define Class Definition today, understanding

17 the access control requirements,

18 understanding DOL's ability to implement.

19 When we went to DOL with a letter

20 with the Class Definition at 4 SEC 156, DOL

21 indicated in that letter that they currently
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 had no information that would allow them to

2 put people in specific buildings and work

3 areas in order to limit the Class any

4 further and that -- so they were okay with

5 the all-employee Class Definition. Again,

6 that covers 1955 to 1960.

7 But when we made that

8 presentation, we also indicated that we were

9 going to use the 1960 date to move this

10 Class forward to take care of the petitioner

11 and some workers, but we still had some

12 additional evaluation to go in and to better

13 define an end date for that. The hot canyon

14 work we knew, which was driving the SEC, we

15 knew continued past '60, but we didn't have

16 a good feel for a good end date.

17 After our review of that and we

18 have recognized that the hot canyon work

19 proceeded up into the mid '60s, possibly up

20 to '66-'67. And then it became pretty much

21 a -- it was shut down. And the only thing
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 they really used it was as an exhibit for

2 public tours.

3 So this modification of the Class

4 Definition actually addresses three -- or a

5 few different issues, actually. It

6 addresses the problems with SEC 75 Class

7 Definition. It removes the

8 facility-specific Class Definition

9 associated with SEC 38, even though that has

10 not been a real problem. And it also helps

11 close out SEC 166 end date of a Class

12 Definition up through 1970.

13 I think that's about it. Any

14 questions?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any of the Work

16 Group Members have questions?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

18 I have one question. There is a change,

19 then. That's the work, the end of the

20 period is changing. The other parts are

21 just already approved, and you're just
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 getting into wording so DOL can work it

2 correctly. Is that correct?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Not totally. 

4 The actual end date has not changed. The

5 end date of SEC 75 is December 31st of 1970.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So --

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: We already had a

8 Class up to 1970 at this time, but that

9 Class Definition was limited to specific

10 workers.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But it

12 would change the end date. In a sense, it

13 would change the end date of what was the

14 other petition because --

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. The

17 reason I ask that, I was trying to determine

18 whether this actually goes to the Secretary

19 or do you say that it has already been

20 approved and we're just clarifying the

21 definition?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 But in a sense, it does change. 

2 The first one, it changes the end dates on

3 the eligible people for what would have been

4 in that first group.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. And I

6 think that my recollection is that when sort

7 of NIOSH went through this exercise to

8 review the past SEC Class Definitions and do

9 this update, I think the decision was made

10 not to simply sort of clarify the Class

11 Definitions but that it would require -- I 

12 shouldn't say "require," but it would be

13 better if it was done through an 83.14 and

14 where we would then do a new letter to the

15 Secretary that provides this kind of

16 clarification and consolidation in this case

17 with the Ames petition.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

19 That makes sense, yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. My

21 concern was going back to that for the Class
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 Definition clarification part of it, that

2 there was -- it wasn't clear. There was one

3 paragraph in there and only one reference in

4 that paragraph, which was a letter from DOL

5 that basically said they were having trouble

6 implementing that.

7 And so the original Class

8 Definitions -- and if we are to make sort of

9 a factual -- you know, we needed some sort

10 of a basis for our recommendation. 

11 Otherwise, I think what you were saying, Dr.

12 Ziemer, would have been appropriate. We

13 would just -- just the Class Definition gets

14 clarified, which, you know, might not

15 necessarily need Board involvement.

16 If you look at what happens with

17 the initial SEC here, I mean, even though we

18 put some parameters on it, in essence, when

19 it got implemented, it was everybody that

20 worked there.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And so forth. 

2 And I think this is a little bit more

3 complicated than that overall, but it --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, although

5 that had a different ending date on it at

6 the time.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. But I

8 think that we just need to make sure that we

9 get on the record the justification for why

10 these changes are being made. The format

11 for an SEC Evaluation Report doesn't always

12 provide the proper -- it's not part of the

13 basic outline. So it tends to get sort of

14 short shrift in terms of how these get

15 written up.

16 And so when we go to -- I think

17 in some cases, what we have gone through

18 with GE, it is a little bit more complicated

19 that we have to sort of wrestle with how to

20 make a decision and what information we need

21 to make the decision on recommending the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 Class Definition.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Plus, the

3 other part of the justification, of course,

4 is one of consistency from site to site.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Exactly, yes. 

6 Any other Work Group Members have questions?

7 (No response.)

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't know if

9 we need to take an action on this. I don't

10 know if people really have had time to

11 review this report and so forth. I thought

12 it would just be helpful if we had -- some

13 other questions came up just based on what

14 LaVon had mentioned.

15 I think I am satisfied. I think

16 it's at least a better basis for going

17 forward for the Board call on Monday.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And

19 conceptually we're not approving a new

20 group.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: It really has to

2 do with defining the Class more sharply so

3 that it can be implemented.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct, yes. 

5 Gen or Josie, do you have any comments?

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: I don't have

7 any comments. I think what Paul just said

8 is a very good statement to present to the

9 Board.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I

12 was just looking at the feasibility of dose

13 reconstruction. I think it's the third to

14 the last page. That page is really helpful

15 in clarifying how the three Classes fit

16 together and anyway clarified it in my mind. 

17 Good report, LaVon.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any

20 other matters we need to discuss?

21 (No response.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, I think

2 we can adjourn unless there's -- Ted, are we

3 complete?

4 MR. KATZ: We're complete. Thank

5 you, Jim. And thank you, everybody.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Thanks,

7 everyone.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

9 matter was concluded at 10:39

10 a.m.)

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16