1 

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 CHAPMAN VALVE

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY

FEBRUARY 9, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 3:00 p.m., John W. Poston, 

Sr., Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member
2 

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

WILLIAM THURBER, SC&A
3 

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

2 (3:06 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Let's begin with, first 

4 of all, this is the Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health. This is the 

6 Chapman Valve Work Group. And we will begin 

7 with roll call, since we're talking a site8 specific. Please speak to conflict of 

9 interest, as well, and we'll begin with Board 

10 Members, with the Chair.

11 CHAIRMAN POSTON: John Poston, no 

12 conflict.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, 

14 Work Group Member, no conflict.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, 

16 Work Group Member, no conflict.

17 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Work 

18 Group Member, no conflict.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, and no Mark 

20 Griffon at this time. Okay. How about NIOSH21 ORAU Team?

22 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim 

23 Neton, NIOSH, no conflict.
4 

1 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes, 

2 NIOSH, no conflict of interest.

3 MR. KATZ: How about SC&A?

4 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

5 conflict.

6 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber, SC&A, 

7 no conflict.

8 MR. KATZ: Federal, whether HHS or 

9 other agencies, federal officials, or 

10 contractors for the feds?

11 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

12 contractor. I haven't been able to reach 

13 Mark.

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Nancy.

15 MS. LIN: This is Jenny with HHS.

16 MR. KATZ: Jenny Lin. And this is 

17 Ted Katz. I'm the Designated Federal Official 

18 for the Advisory Board, no conflict.

19 Thank you everyone. How about 

20 members of the public? Any members of the 

21 public? Okay. 

22 John, it's your agenda.

23 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. I went 
5 

1 through the material that Ted sent out, just 

2 to make sure that I saw everything, and, 

3 basically, we have a short agenda. As I see

4 it, there's four items, and two of them are 

5 ORAU, and I guess NIOSH, Jim.

6 First is the search of boxes done, 

7 which were identified to potentially contain 

8 more information on Chapman Valve. The second 

9 was the results of the manual search of the 

10 Nuclear Navy documents. The third would be, 

11 basically, a discussion of these results in 

12 terms of what -- whether NIOSH can reconstruct 

13 the dose or not. And the fourth would simply 

14 be to vote on the SEC status. If there are 

15 other things, I'd be happy to add them to the 

16 agenda, but I thought that was pretty much 

17 everything we needed to talk about today.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Let me just add 

19 to that John.

20 CHAIRMAN POSTON: I'm sorry?

21 MR. KATZ: Let me just add to 

22 that. Just a note in addition to what John 

23 just said, I distributed to all of you 
6 

1 excerpts of the transcript of the Board 

2 meeting, the last two Board meetings where 

3 Chapman Valve was thoroughly discussed with 

4 the new Board Members. So, that would have 

5 been in February and in May, so you all have 

6 those transcripts, if they're useful to you. 

7 And then just to remind you that this item 

8 remains tabled at the Board level.

9 Okay, John. Thanks.

10 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Ted, I'm a 

11 little confused, because that's what I said. 

12 I was reading the transcripts, and that's what 

13 I said, and then I was corrected by Dr. Melius 

14 who said it's not tabled at the Board level, 

15 so do we have -- it seems to me we need to 

16 understand what we're doing here.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. I mean, in 

18 either event what Dr. Melius had asked, and I 

19 guess -- I think you had all concurred on the 

20 Board, was that at this meeting you would 

21 follow-up on the final actions of DCAS related 

22 to these data searches related to the sample.

23 CHAIRMAN POSTON: I agree.
7 

1 MR. KATZ: And then you would 

2 report back to the Board. And what the Board 

3 has yet to do is to have a definitive vote in 

4 terms of the SEC petition.

5 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. All right. 

6 Well, then I guess I will turn it over to Jim 

7 Neton.

8 DR. NETON: Jim Neton. I defer to 

9 Mark Rolfes on this. I'm out of the office on 

10 a cell phone right now, and I don't have the 

11 material directly in front of me, so maybe if 

12 Mark could summarize what we found with those 

13 boxes.

14 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Sure. Sure.

15 DR. NETON: Mark?

16 MR. ROLFES: Yes, sure. Are you 

17 able to hear me okay?

18 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes.

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Good. Yes, 

20 I'll just give you a quick run through of what 

21 we've done. Back in May of 2010, we visited 

22 NARA to review a box that potentially 

23 contained Chapman Valve information. Within 
8 

1 that box of records, these were all in 

2 classified records, however, within that box 

3 there were six documents which pertain to 

4 Chapman Valve. None of those records shined 

5 any light on the single 2.16 percent enriched 

6 uranium sample that was collected from 

7 Building 23 at the Chapman Valve site.

8 After that, we had also received 

9 two pages pertaining to sending bottles for 

10 collection of urine samples. It was a 

11 communication between New York Operations 

12 Office and the Chapman Valve facility in 1948. 

13 These two documents came from Atlanta NARA. 

14 Once again, there's no new information there 

15 shining any new light on the 2.16 percent 

16 enriched uranium.

17 Throughout the summer, we had 

18 visited NARA also to look for any additional 

19 Chapman Valve records as part of this Oak

20 Ridge series six collection, as well in July 

21 of 2010 we had identified Chapman Valve 

22 correspondence and records at the Hanford 

23 site. We reviewed those, and many of them 
9 

1 were specifications for valves, none of which 

2 would have produced any information relative 

3 to the Chapman Valve facility for processing 

4 enriched uranium.

5 Let's see. And then the most 

6 recent was the December 2010 trip to Oak Ridge 

7 to review documents in the RHTG collection, 

8 that's the Records Holding Task Group. We had 

9 identified several documents which we thought 

10 could contain some Chapman Valve information, 

11 and we went through those documents, found 

12 some documents on enriched uranium. However, 

13 none of it was associated with the Chapman 

14 Valve site.

15 So, we have certainly looked for 

16 information. I was not directly involved; 

17 however, we have previously contacted 

18 Department of Navy for any information 

19 regarding enriched uranium. We had received a 

20 listing of documents, none of which produced 

21 anything of use to us. And then in this most 

22 recent summary that we've done, DCAS has 

23 contacted over this past summer in 2010 an 
10 

1 individual who is the program manager for the 

2 Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program, and had 

3 specifically asked about some nuclear 

4 propulsion questions, and specific to the 

5 U.S.S. Nautilus because of some of the 

6 accounts that Chapman Valve and Crane had been 

7 involved in constructing components for 

8 portions of the U.S.S. Nautilus. 

9 The individual that we had 

10 contacted had indicated that they had no 

11 records of enriched uranium in their 

12 possession that they knew of, and that the 

13 level of enrichment that was reported for the 

14 enriched uranium sample collected from Chapman 

15 Valve was much different than the level of 

16 enrichment which would be encountered in a 

17 typical Navy application.

18 I think that summarizes the data 

19 capture, and follow-up activities that we've 

20 conducted over the past several months. If 

21 you need more about specific information that 

22 we did receive, I'd certainly be happy to take 

23 you through any of that, if you'd like.
11 

1 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Could I ask you 

2 a clarifying question. When you talked about 

3 the first search of -- data search, you said 

4 nothing to -- relative to 2.1 percent 

5 enrichment.

6 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

7 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Did you find 

8 anything about the operations at Dean Street, 

9 because I remember that in our interviews, the 

10 woman who had typed the paperwork for these 

11 had said that there was something, some 

12 manifolds or something that came in to the 

13 Chapman Valve facility, but they never came 

14 inside. They were loaded directly onto 

15 another rail car, or truck, I guess a truck, 

16 and were taken over to the Dean Street 

17 facility.

18 MR. ROLFES: We did review the 

19 documents keeping that portion of the Chapman 

20 Valve facility in mind during the document 

21 review; however, no information regarding the 

22 Dean Street activities were identified in any 

23 of the documents that we reviewed.
12 

1 The records that were collected at 

2 the College Park NARA back in May, I've got a 

3 summary of what we had looked at. My notes 

4 show that the documentation we reviewed in Box 

5 2, File Folder 3 labeled "Chapman Valve" 

6 located at College Park, Maryland NARA 

7 contained no new information relevant to the 

8 issue of the single 2.16 percent enriched 

9 uranium debris sample collected in Building 23 

10 of the Chapman Valve site during the FUSRAP 

11 remediation period. There was no indication 

12 of other contracts or work involving material 

13 other than natural uranium metal which was 

14 machined into slugs for Brookhaven reactor.

15 This folder labeled "Chapman" 

16 contained six individual pages of 

17 correspondence and documentation concerning 

18 the reporting of material balances, and the 18 

19 shipments of slugs to Brookhaven National 

20 Laboratory from Chapman Valve. Although dates 

21 of each of the 18 shipments were not given in 

22 the text, the shipments of natural uranium 

23 slugs ranged from a low of 200 for the first 
13 

1 shipment, to approximately 9,000 in six 

2 different shipments. The total number of 

3 natural uranium slugs shipped from the Chapman 

4 Valve facility to Brookhaven National 

5 Laboratory was around 80,000, and all 

6 shipments had taken place during the year of 

7 1948. 

8 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay.

9 MR. ROLFES: There was some 

10 correspondence that also pertained to Chapman 

11 Valve no longer needing to produce material 

12 accountability reports until the source and 

13 fissionable material had been shipped from the 

14 Chapman Valve facility.

15 Let's see. There was a memo 

16 regarding the shipment of the natural uranium 

17 rods from Hanford to Chapman Valve dated late 

18 December of 1947. I also looked at some

19 documentation from the ElectroMet facility to 

20 determine whether there might have been any 

21 information concerning scrapped uranium, or 

22 contaminated equipment that was used at the 

23 Chapman Valve facility. ElectroMet in our 
14 

1 H.K. Ferguson full report was said to have 

2 received some materials from the Chapman Valve 

3 facility in 1949, after the contract work had 

4 been completed. I did not find anything in 

5 the ElectroMet records pertaining to Chapman 

6 Valve there.

7 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. Brad, I 

8 think I cut you off, but you had a question?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I was just 

10 wondering, I know he just mentioned that 

11 nothing pertaining to this, and I just wanted 

12 to understand what had been pulled from it, 

13 which he's done, so that's fine. Thank you.

14 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Any questions 

16 for Mark? Mark, I think you -- just to be 

17 clear, I think you covered both items in your 

18 short remarks.

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Did you?

21 MR. ROLFES: Well, you'll have to 

22 remind me what those -- 

23 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Well, the two 
15 

1 are data capture from those boxes, and then 

2 the manual search of the Navy documents.

3 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Let's see. 

4 There is some additional information. Since I 

5 wasn't involved firsthand on the contact with 

6 the individual from the Navy, let me take a 

7 look at the summary here, and make sure that I 

8 have reported everything that I can on that 

9 subject.

10 Let's see. We did ask -- I'll 

11 just go ahead and read this. DCAS further 

12 asked the individual who was the EEOICPA point 

13 of contact at the Navy if there might be any 

14 Navy record holding somewhere which describes 

15 the work that was done with thermal diffusion, 

16 because this is one of the other things that 

17 we thought maybe the Naval work involving 

18 thermal diffusion might have been somehow 

19 linked to the Chapman Valve facility. 

20 Let's see. The individual thought 

21 that the thermal diffusion process might have 

22 produced levels of enrichment reported for the 

23 Chapman or Crane sample. The individual 
16 

1 replied that he had not seen any records of 

2 that sort, and said such records would have 

3 gone to the MED or AEC, not to Navy Holding. 

4 And this is one of the things that we've also 

5 kept in mind, to look for any information 

6 regarding potential involvement of Chapman 

7 Valve with like Phil Abelson and the thermal 

8 diffusion plant, S-50, or the Philadelphia 

9 Naval Research Lab, I believe, was also 

10 involved in that. And we found no information 

11 that shows that Chapman Valve was involved in 

12 that project. So, I think I've covered what 

13 you've asked.

14 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. Any 

15 questions for Mark, Working Group Members?

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: John, this is 

17 Gen. I just unmuted, so I don't know if I 

18 missed something, but what I'm hearing is a 

19 lot of negative information. And I'm 

20 wondering if that type of information somebody 

21 maybe needs to interpret this a bit for me, 

22 supports our concern for this particular 

23 sample, or supports the fact that we should 
17 

1 not be concerned about it?

2 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Well, I guess 

3 that's for discussion.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Well, 

5 then I guess I opened it.

6 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes. Well, the 

7 -- I guess the next -- my next step was to 

8 sort of have a discussion as to what do we 

9 think this might mean in terms of going 

10 forward with the either supporting or 

11 rejecting the NIOSH recommendation. Their 

12 recommendation was that they could -- they 

13 felt like they could not reconstruct, but 

14 bound, as I recall, is the word they used, to 

15 bound the doses that these workers got. So, 

16 the question is, how do we use this negative 

17 data to make a decision on how we should 

18 proceed? Any opinions from the Working Group?

19 Brad, I know that you were 

20 concerned about this, so maybe you have an 

21 opinion.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, of course I 

23 always have an opinion, doesn't mean that it's 
18 

1 a right one, or anything else like that. 

2 My whole issue is, and John, we've 

3 discussed this numerous times, is we, 

4 basically, have two samples. One was slightly 

5 enriched, one wasn't. The thing that bothers 

6 me more than anything is that I want to make 

7 sure that we have exhausted our efforts, 

8 because as we have found at numerous sites, we 

9 thought we had a handle on what went on there, 

10 and it only pertained to this. And then after 

11 uncovering certain things, we've opened up 

12 whole new areas that we didn't even know 

13 existed. I'm thinking of areas that we've 

14 even opened up up to Hanford that was a small 

15 thing, and we didn't think that it was all 

16 that much, but now all of sudden it is quite a 

17 big issue.

18 My main thing was that we -- you 

19 know, what are we going to do with the sample? 

20 It bothers me that we've got one enriched. 

21 And, yes, there was only two samples taken, 

22 one shows the natural, and I understand that. 

23 I just want to make sure that we have done 
19 

1 everything we can to exhaust our research to 

2 be able to understand what went on in these 

3 facilities. That's even why we've separated 

4 out the Dean Street facility, is because we 

5 have not been able to understand what went on 

6 there.

7 And that's my whole issue. We're 

8 trying to redo something from back in the 

9 `40s, and the information is not readily 

10 available out there. But we've got people 

11 that have been telling us of things going on, 

12 and I just want to make sure that we've done 

13 due diligence with this.

14 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Understand.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: John, this is 

16 Gen. Again, and I looked at the transcript 

17 from another one of our meetings. I objected 

18 to the use of the words "one sample was 

19 slightly enriched." I think the analysis of 

20 it indicated that it might be slightly 

21 enriched, but I don't think there's conclusive 

22 evidence that it was. And that's why we're 

23 going through all this evaluation, could it be 
20 

1 possible that it was. And, so far, I've seen 

2 just negative information, nothing to indicate 

3 that there would have been something going on 

4 there that would have -- that we could support 

5 the fact that it was enriched.

6 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Well, I'll have 

7 to call on Jim, because my recollection was he 

8 talked with the folks at Oak Ridge, and I 

9 think several of us had the same thoughts, 

10 Gen. But I think Jim came away convinced that 

11 the results were valid. Is that correct, Jim?

12 DR. NETON: Well, we talked to the 

13 -- we hired a person who worked on -- was the 

14 lead on those projects, that they found the 

15 enriched sample, and they could not find any 

16 records. But to the best of their 

17 recollection the sample would have been 

18 processed at that time period either through 

19 alpha spec or mass spectroscopy, spectrometry, 

20 which they felt would have been able to 

21 discern a 2 percent enrichment. But, again, we 

22 found no paperwork, no analytical information.

23 I will add that we did find nine 
21 

1 additional samples that were taken during the 

2 closure of the plant during the FUSRAP 

3 cleanup, and those nine samples that were 

4 taken and were analyzed isotopically for alpha 

5 were all consistent with natural uranium. So, 

6 there's only this one sample out there that 

7 looks anomalous to us. 

8 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes. So, I 

9 guess I'm trying to understand, do we feel 

10 comfortable saying it's an outlier, or do we -

11 - I'm just not sure what to do with -- 

12 DR. NETON: Dr. Poston, this is 

13 Jim Neton. Even if it were a real sample, 

14 which it may well be, we have nothing in the 

15 information from the processing of the slugs 

16 that indicates that the activities that we've 

17 reconstructed had anything but natural 

18 uranium. So that enriched uranium sample, if 

19 it were real, could have been there any time 

20 after that AEC project was over up until the 

21 point at which it was discovered, in what, the 

22 1970s. So, we believe that we have addressed 

23 the petitioner's request that during this time 
22 

1 period when the slugs were being processed, 

2 can we reconstruct doses, and we believe the 

3 answer is yes. Notwithstanding the presence 

4 or existence of this sample, which no one 

5 knows what time period, even if it were real, 

6 was deposited there.

7 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay.

8 MEMBER GIBSON: John, this is 

9 Mike.

10 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Go ahead.

11 MEMBER GIBSON: You know, I guess 

12 my concern is, I don't doubt that DCAS can 

13 reconstruct doses based on the information 

14 they have from that one sample, but I still 

15 have the concern that no one has been able to 

16 give any information as to why that sample is 

17 there. And that still leaves some doubt in my 

18 mind as to what may have went on at the 

19 facility. And, therefore, there could, 

20 potentially, be other actions that took place 

21 where folks might have got an exposure that 

22 won't be addressed in dose reconstructions 

23 that are done.
23 

1 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Would you think 

2 that that would be -- I can see that there 

3 might have been something outside of the 

4 covered period, but we haven't found any 

5 evidence that anything was going on during the 

6 covered period. Is that correct?

7 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark -- 

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, we really 

9 haven't found any evidence. I mean, if you 

10 can't -- if there's no information on why that 

11 sample, or why that material may have been 

12 there, then I don't think there's really any 

13 evidence as to when it may have gone on, 

14 regardless of when it was found.

15 CHAIRMAN POSTON: I guess we're in 

16 a conundrum here where we're trying to prove a 

17 negative.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Poston, this 

19 is LaVon Rutherford. I didn't chime in 

20 earlier, because I missed the roll call, but I 

21 want to point out that right now the only 

22 covered activity we have identified is the 

23 work that we've already discussed, and we can 
24 

1 do dose reconstruction. If a new activity, or 

2 an activity is determined, ultimately, DOL 

3 will have to weigh in on whether it's covered 

4 or not. 

5 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. Thank 

6 you.

7 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

8 One other factor that plays in onto your 

9 judgment is, there was a report, a fairly 

10 detailed report called the Ferguson report.

11 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes, I remember.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, that gave very 

13 detailed descriptions of the activities at the 

14 place during the grinding and milling of the 

15 uranium, the natural uranium that was handled 

16 at that time. And when you look at that 

17 report, of course, you evaluate how you would 

18 go about dealing with dose reconstruction. 

19 There was nothing in there that would indicate 

20 anything other than this natural uranium was 

21 handled at that time, and the manner in which 

22 it was handled. That doesn't say that maybe 

23 the report was written just focused in on that 
25 

1 particular activity, but it was extremely 

2 detailed description of that time period, and 

3 the activities that took place. That's 

4 another piece of the puzzle that might help.

5 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes. And I 

6 remember that, and to be personal about it for 

7 a moment, it gave me a fair amount of 

8 confidence that we knew what went on. But that 

9 is a very detailed report, and we were lucky 

10 to find it.

11 Well, where do we go from here, 

12 folks? We seem to not be able to come down on 

13 one side of the issue, or the other. And we 

14 really can't bring anything to the Board 

15 unless we have some sort of motion, I would 

16 think. I don't know. Ted, is it possible for 

17 us to go to the Board and say that, like we're 

18 a jury, we're deadlocked?

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, you certainly 

20 can report to Board whatever the outcome is, 

21 so I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to just 

22 ask for a clear point of view from each of 

23 your Board Members. But, in the end, and I'm 
26 

1 not sure that it makes an enormous difference 

2 one way or the other, because you'll report 

3 out at this next Board meeting whatever those 

4 results are, and the new -- I mean, the Board 

5 wanted to hear about, in particular, about 

6 these final efforts of DCAS to obtain 

7 additional information, and you have that 

8 information to report to the Board. I think 

9 that's the most important.

10 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay.

11 MS. LIN: Dr. Poston, this is 

12 Jenny with HHS. 

13 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes, ma'am.

14 MS. LIN: I want to clarify our 

15 earlier concern, that there is no motion on 

16 the table for the Advisory Board to consider. 

17 At the Niagra Falls meeting, there was a 

18 motion to accept NIOSH's recommendations, 

19 which is to deny adding an SEC Class, and that 

20 resulted in a tie vote, so the motion failed. 

21 And now there's no motions for the Board to 

22 consider, so at the next meeting, or whichever 

23 Advisory Board meeting, a new motion would 
27 

1 have to be put forward. 

2 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. So, I 

3 could at least report out to the Board that we 

4 had this meeting, and what the situation is. 

5 Is that correct?

6 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

7 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Yes, okay. Why 

8 don't we try to at least understand each 

9 other's positions, and maybe, Gen, would you 

10 like to go first, ladies first on this, and 

11 tell us what you think. And if we can -- 

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: It's always nice 

13 to be first. 

14 (Laughter.)

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, I haven't 

16 changed my mind. The information that was 

17 given to us today really makes me feel 

18 stronger that that sample is not an issue in 

19 this determination. And everything else that 

20 we've discussed with regard to constructing 

21 the dose that I feel that can be done in the 

22 bounding and claimant-friendly way. And I 

23 think there's so many things that I think 
28 

1 perhaps, John, as Chair, you should summarize 

2 when you go back to the Board, the strong 

3 points, this very detailed Ferguson report, 

4 the uranalysis, everything that gives strength 

5 to our supporting the fact that dose 

6 reconstruction can be done.

7 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Brad.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

9 I've already said my piece earlier. You know, 

10 the whole thing is, and I understand. You 

11 know, the question, you know, NIOSH can 

12 reconstruct dose bounding. I just want to make 

13 sure that we've uncovered everything that we 

14 could, because we have -- this is a different 

15 site. This is metal manufacturing -- but I 

16 know that in the earlier years we used a lot 

17 of these contractors to do a lot of different 

18 things, and I just wanted to be able to -- if 

19 discussed by the petitioners and so forth like 

20 that, that we've done due diligence to be able 

21 to exhaust resources, to be able to see what 

22 we needed to be able to see, and prove that 

23 there were no other operations. I feel that 
29 

1 we've gone to a pretty lengthy -- I think 

2 we've gone quite a ways with this, so I just 

3 want to make sure that we've done the best 

4 that we can, and that we can go from there. 

5 That's my most -- my biggest concern.

6 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Well, then I'm 

7 going to ask you a personal question. Does 

8 that mean that you would support NIOSH's 

9 position?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I've always 

11 had a problem with a little bit of this, but I 

12 have a heartache with -- in my interpretation 

13 of what an SEC is and that is when we don't 

14 have the data and so forth. And I think that 

15 we, as NIOSH -- they bounded it, but that's 

16 because there wasn't any information there. 

17 And that's my heartache. I think that they've 

18 done a good job and stuff like that, but that, 

19 to me, is just a personal opinion with me. 

20 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Do you think we 

21 haven't done due diligence? I mean, I don't 

22 know what due diligence is any more past what 

23 we've done.
30 

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, to look at 

2 the information and so forth, yes. I feel 

3 that we've exhausted about everything. Matter 

4 of fact, I even helped with the Hanford boxes 

5 of pulling Chapman Valve's information out of 

6 those, and I don't think there's any more that 

7 we can -- unless we had some kind of paperwork 

8 or something else, I don't think there's much 

9 more than we can really do.

10 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. How about 

11 you, Mike?

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, you know, I 

13 think I voiced my concerns earlier, and I 

14 still stand by those. And I will say, just 

15 like Brad, I don't blame DCAS for their lack 

16 of effort. I think they've done a good 

17 search, but there, again, I mean, part of the 

18 problem for this program is sloppy records, 

19 and sometimes records that were destroyed or 

20 absent. And I'm not suggesting that in this 

21 case, or absence of records. So, has DCAS 

22 tried? Yes. But I don't believe that that 

23 means that something may not have went on 
31 

1 there. And I'm just looking at it from the 

2 side of the whole process through the years at 

3 many sites. There was just sloppy processes, 

4 sloppy records, and in some cases contractors 

5 that didn't document things. So, I just don't 

6 know that it's -- I'm just not completely 

7 satisfied no.

8 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. Well, I 

9 have to -- I'm not trying to be a snob here, 

10 but I've been at this a long time, and I have 

11 to look at it as a scientist. And in almost 

12 everything people do, chemists, physicists, it 

13 makes no difference, bounding techniques are 

14 something that's used widely to understand, or 

15 try to understand particular situations. And 

16 the way that NIOSH is -- I mean, let me remind 

17 you that the external dose is not a question, 

18 because we have the film badges, so it's never 

19 been a question. The two questions have been 

20 can they bound the internal dose, and what 

21 about this one sample? So, I have to look at 

22 it sort of as a scientist and say I believe 

23 that the approach that NIOSH is using sets an 
32 

1 upper bound, a very high upper bound, 

2 actually, for the potential exposures of the 

3 workers, the internal exposure. And the 

4 position that I believe is appropriate to take 

5 is, if the Probability of Causation under 

6 those conditions is less than 50 percent, 

7 there's, essentially, no piece of record, or 

8 anything that we might turn up that's going to 

9 put it above 50 percent. I believe that NIOSH 

10 has done due diligence. I believe we've done 

11 due diligence in terms of trying to wrestle 

12 with this problem. I don't know what else to 

13 say.

14 MEMBER GIBSON: John, this is 

15 Mike. Could I respond to that?

16 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Sure. Of 

17 course.

18 MEMBER GIBSON: And I think that 

19 was the wisdom, when they put this 

20 compensation program together, is the 

21 legislation called for the Board to be made up 

22 of scientists, health physicists, and workers. 

23 So, I'd like to give my perspective as a 
33 

1 worker. 

2 I understand your opinion is based 

3 on your science background, and I believe it's 

4 valid, or a lot of studies, maybe morbidity 

5 studies, and mortality studies, things like 

6 that, but this is a compensation program. And 

7 I look at it as a worker that's been at a 

8 site, and there were incidents that went on 

9 these sites that were not documented. And 

10 that leaves workers out there that may have 

11 been exposed, may have harmful health effects, 

12 and just because there is no bioassay data, 

13 just because perhaps the incident was not 

14 recorded in history, doesn't mean that there's 

15 not people out there that are still suffering 

16 with cancers and things. And I just, for the 

17 type of Board we are, and the type of program, 

18 I just -- I don't think we can just completely 

19 rest on scientific data. 

20 I think that's why the Board was 

21 set up like this, so that people from various 

22 backgrounds can state their -- can have their 

23 beliefs of what went on. And we can't just 
34 

1 always fall back on science, in my opinion.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: John, I'd like 

3 to make a comment.

4 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Go right ahead.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. I 

6 guess this happens a lot during our 

7 discussions, but -- and this is really in 

8 response to Mike. I understand what you're 

9 saying, but the way I feel about this is, the 

10 legislation was set the way it was. The 

11 legislation set it up so that science could be 

12 used, and I think that's what those of us who 

13 are scientists are doing. And I would hope 

14 that everybody on the Board would look at it 

15 in the same way. 

16 And I also think that, it really 

17 disturbs me when you talk in a very general 

18 way about a lot of sites, and there were 

19 sloppy records. And I think that's true in 

20 some cases, but in this particular case, we 

21 need to talk about Chapman Valve, what 

22 happened there, and what records are 

23 available. And, actually, I'm impressed with 
35 

1 the amount of data that was available, that is 

2 available for doing dose reconstruction. I'm 

3 impressed with -- that one report said that 

4 the -- to me, it says there was good 

5 management, there was good records for the 

6 time. So, I think we need to concentrate on 

7 the particular site that we're evaluating 

8 here, and not use generalities about what 

9 might have happened at other sites and apply 

10 them here.

11 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Well, Mike, I 

12 respect your opinion. I wasn't, in any way, 

13 trying to put you down, or so forth. I was 

14 simply trying to state my piece in the record, 

15 or my opinion in the record, as you did. And 

16 I just want you to understand that that wasn't 

17 a personal attack of any sort. It's just 

18 stating my opinion, as I saw the facts of this 

19 case. 

20 MEMBER GIBSON: John, this is 

21 Mike.

22 CHAIRMAN POSTON: What's the --

23 what are the wishes of the Working Group? 
36 

1 Shall we report back to this discussion, and 

2 tell them that we're sort of deadlocked? I 

3 don't see any way to resolve this. I think 

4 Gen, I am speaking for her, Gen, you can 

5 correct me. I think Gen and I believe that 

6 doses can be reconstructed. And, therefore, 

7 the SEC should be denied. I think Brad and 

8 Mike think that because of some factors that 

9 are perhaps unknown, that we should grant an 

10 SEC. So, is that a fair summary of the 

11 situation?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

13 Yes, that would be a fair summary of it.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

15 Yes, I believe doses can be reconstructed, and 

16 following the legislation.

17 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. I 

18 think you've summed it up fairly, John. And I 

19 just want to add for the record, I wasn't 

20 taking it as you were attacking my opinion, or 

21 anything else. I merely wanted to get my 

22 opinion on the record, just as you did. So, I 

23 didn't take any offense at all.
37 

1 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Thank you for 

2 that. Okay. Is there any other business that 

3 we need to discuss? My marching orders are to 

4 try to summarize this discussion. As Gen 

5 indicated, I should summarize the work that 

6 NIOSH has been doing in the data capture 

7 attempts since the last time this was 

8 discussed, and then indicate to the Board 

9 that, basically, we haven't been able to 

10 arrive at a conclusion that we can bring to 

11 them. Is that it?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. John, and I think 

13 we can summarize the different point of views 

14 specifically. I think that will be helpful to 

15 the rest of the Board. 

16 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Okay. I can -- I 

17 think I can do that. Anything else that we 

18 need to discuss before we adjourn? Well 

19 hearing nothing, then I thank everybody for 

20 their participation, and look forward to 

21 seeing you in Augusta pretty soon.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Enjoy the 

23 sunshine. I hope you get home safe, Gen.
38 

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: Thank you, Brad.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: We'll see you 

3 later.

4 CHAIRMAN POSTON: Thank you.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 matter went off the record at 3:48: p.m.)

7 

8 

9