1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

75th MEETING

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

FEBRUARY 25, 2011

+ + + + +

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

Eastern Standard Time, in the Marriott Hotel & 

Suites, Two Tenth Street, Augusta, GA, James M. 

Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

PRESENT: (continued)

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
 

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

CRUZ, RUBEN, CDC

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW 

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

HAND, DONNA

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

NETON, JIM, DCAS

REUTMAN, SUSAN, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRESENTATION OF VITRO ......................... 6 

Stu Hinnefeld

VOTE ON WHETHER SEC SHOULD BE GRANTED ........ 25

TO ALL AWE EMPLOYEES WORKING AT VITRO

1/1/58 THROUGH 12/31/59 - Passed

SEC PETITION UPDATE .......................... 28

LaVon Rutherford

PETITION DISCUSSION - CHAIRMAN MELIUS

LINDE PETITION ............................... 52

WAH CHANG .................................... 56

NORTON ....................................... 59

VITRO ........................................ 61

GRAND JUNCTION OPERATIONS OFFICE ............. 65

BLISS & LAUGHLIN ............................. 67

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY ......................... 72

CHAPMAN VALVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY .......... 75
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

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

2 8:36 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If I can 

4 get everybody's attention, we'll get 

5 started. 

6 We have a relatively brief agenda 

7 this morning. We have everybody here but 

8 Phil. He should be down shortly and I'll

9 turn it over to Ted to do the usual. 

10 MR. KATZ: Sure. So, actually, 

11 we're missing Josie who is just helping out 

12 with something. 

13 We're missing a laptop, so we 

14 can't proceed with the presentation, but we 

15 have Vitro.

16 So, just to let people who are 

17 the line know we're having a little 

18 technical difficulty here. We're missing 

19 our computer for our presentation. But 

20 we'll get started on Vitro as soon as we 

21 can. We're just in a holding pattern right 

22 now. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would like to 

2 at least look at one letter while they get 

3 set up here. There's one in your package of 

4 letters. It's a letter to Mr. Yundt and 

5 which is the ANWAG letter that we received. 

6 Also for the sake of our 

7 attorneys, the Wah Chang and the Linde 

8 letters are getting slightly revised. Okay. 

9 As long as you know.

10 So, this is the letter response 

11 to the inquiry about OTIB-0049. If anybody 

12 has any changes, questions whatever, Matt 

13 will just send it. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: This is - if I 

15 might. Dr. Melius, on this letter to Mr. 

16 Yundt, we actually didn't call the NIOSH 

17 Chair's attention to the issue, the 

18 technical issue. It was brought to our 

19 attention by, essentially, a technical 

20 reviewer of TIB-0049. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Said, notified, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 as a member of the ICRP, notified ICRP that 

2 there is this data available that describes 

3 more inside of the Class and so they then 

4 contacted us - 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: - and asked for 

7 our data and we provided them the data that 

8 we had obtained in our effort. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'll clarify 

10 that then. 

11 And why don't we go ahead and get 

12 started then? Are you ready on Vitro? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We're 

15 going to do the Vitro Manufacturing SEC 

16 Petition which information is in your 

17 packet. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Good morning for 

19 anyone on the phone. This is Stu Hinnefeld, 

20 the Director of the Division of 

21 Compensation, Analysis and Support at NIOSH. 

22 And I'm here to present a summary of our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 Evaluation Report on a petition for Vitro 

2 Manufacturing plant in Canonsburg, 

3 Pennsylvania. 

4 The petition under consideration 

5 today is an 83.13 Petition. We received it 

6 in July of 2010 and the petitioner proposed 

7 a class, all employees who worked in any 

8 area of the Vitro Manufacturing facility, 

9 Canonsburg, during the time period from 

10 January 1st, 1958, through April 30th, 1960. 

11 At the time that we received the petition, 

12 this was in what was considered the residual 

13 contamination period for Canonsburg, because 

14 the designated covered period at that time 

15 was from about 1942. It was very early, 

16 1942 through 1957. 

17 We qualified the petition for 

18 evaluation on the basis that the petition 

19 claimed - says exposures were not monitored 

20 during that period and we had not obtained 

21 any records of exposure monitoring during 

22 that period. So it did appear that that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 a suitable basis. 

2 Now, we have previously provided 

3 to the Board an Evaluation Report and the 

4 Board has concurred with our recommendation 

5 adding a Class for Vitro from 1942 through 

6 1957. In that situation, that was a .14, an 

7 83.14 petition that we determined we don't 

8 have enough information. 

9 The complicating fact or one of 

10 the key complications about the Vitro plant 

11 is that they process ores and residues and 

12 other recovery-type materials that would 

13 have not only uranium but the whole string 

14 of uranium progeny in various sort of 

15 disequilibrium and so we didn't - you know, 

16 you can't really place very much with it and 

17 for early years, up until about 1953, there 

18 was some uranium and bioassay and there was 

19 external monitoring up to then. But the 

20 uranium bioassay doesn't allow you to 

21 extrapolate to what other radioactive 

22 materials in the progeny would have been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 there as well. And we didn't have a method 

2 for doing that. 

3 The new petitioner's assertion 

4 was that, hey, things didn't change in 1958. 

5 We were doing the same thing in '58 and '59, 

6 right until the time the plant closed in 

7 1960 as we were doing before. So, just a 

8 little background. We've been through this 

9 on the last petition, so I'll be kind of 

10 brief here. Canonsburg isn't far from 

11 Pittsburgh, because as I recall it was kind 

12 of right off I-70 and I don't recall if 

13 that's called the Pennsylvania Turnpike yet 

14 or not, there.

15 They had performed for the 

16 Manhattan Engineer District and AEC. It was 

17 a uranium recovery plant and a recovery 

18 plant would take all sort of process, sort 

19 of byproducts from various uranium 

20 production operations and recover the 

21 uranium values from it - scraps. And it 

22 also had some contracts to recover uranium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 from mills, including things that were 

2 considered essentially waste by the mills, 

3 you know, things - essentially mill tailings 

4 that the mills had already processed once 

5 but Vitro was good enough at getting uranium 

6 out of it that it was still worth it to 

7 process them again to get some uranium out. 

8 Then they started in the '50s, 

9 they started receiving a series of special 

10 materials licenses because they were also 

11 doing some of this processing for commercial 

12 customers, not just the AEC, although they 

13 were providing uranium to the AEC as well. 

14 The shipment of the 10 tons of 

15 residue, you know, in January, was part of 

16 the process of the AEC deciding if they were 

17 going to keep using Vitro or not. This was 

18 a waste product or a product that they had 

19 actually, according to our information, they 

20 had processed it already a couple of times. 

21 Maybe three times in some places for the 

22 uranium residue, you know. They went back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 through the process and they just felt like 

2 they couldn't recover anything worthwhile 

3 out of the same ore so they had it sitting 

4 around. It was AEC-owned material. The AEC 

5 said we want you guys to store it until we 

6 tell you, but if you need the property it's 

7 on, let us know and we'll try to get rid of 

8 it. 

9 So, along about shortly before 

10 this, Vitro was doing a renovation and some 

11 construction projects and they wanted the 

12 footprint where this material was stored. 

13 And they told the AEC, hey, you know, we 

14 want our footprint back - our property back, 

15 and so the AEC finally found a place to ship 

16 this to. This site in Blairsville is a 

17 waste disposal site which is, I think this 

18 is Blairsville, Pennsylvania probably, which 

19 is a little bit east of Canonsburg. It was 

20 a waste disposal site owned by the 

21 Pennsylvania Railroad Company. So, that's 

22 the Blairsville site where this stuff went 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 and it went as a waste. But during 

2 this time then Canonsburg - or Vitro started 

3 importing some residues from Port Hope in 

4 order to process. And they didn't just 

5 process it for uranium. They had other 

6 heavy metals or, you know, rare earth metals 

7 that they were to cover for other products 

8 for commercial customers. 

9 Now, the plant closed in 1960 and 

10 various documents give different dates, 

11 whether it was April or May or whatever. 

12 But sometime in 1960 the plant closed. When 

13 the plant closed, there were at least two 

14 storage piles of Port Hope residue still on 

15 the property. And the ultimate 

16 decontamination work through the burial of 

17 those still on the property didn't occur 

18 until more in the mid-'60s. 

19 Sources of available information are 

20 sort of the typical ones. Well, we don't 

21 actually have - we have Technical 

22 Information Bulletins and procedures that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 are applicable to some portions. We don't 

2 have a Site Profile for Vitro. 

3 Interviewed seven former 

4 employees specifically for this Petition 

5 Evaluation Board, including, one of those 

6 was the petitioner. We have information 

7 that exists in claimant file that the 

8 petitioner also provided documentation and 

9 then from our various data captures, the 

10 information in our Site Research Database. 

11 Our data capture efforts were 

12 kind of our typical list. The DOE and 

13 predecessors, including their FUSRAP 

14 reports, various Internet searches, NARA in 

15 Atlanta and so forth. 

16 Now, all the people we 

17 interviewed gave information that was 

18 consistent with what the petition had 

19 provided. I mean, they didn't all remember 

20 exactly the same things. They couldn't all 

21 remember exact dates, things like that. But 

22 the information was all consistent. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 there was limited information from any of 

2 them about the clean-up operations because 

3 I'm pretty sure the people we interviewed 

4 were all gone either before the plant closed 

5 or they left when the plant closed. And 

6 that clean-up occurred then in the following 

7 years. I think a subcontractor company was 

8 brought in to do that. And so there was, 

9 you know, as a general rule, the workers 

10 didn't really know their customer, if they 

11 were making this product for the AEC or for 

12 a commercial customer. 

13 This is our dose reconstruction 

14 history for Vitro. You can see we have 

15 about 27, I guess, claims at the time this 

16 was filled out, 14 of which are in this 

17 period - have at least some employment in 

18 this period. Clearly, some of those have 

19 sufficient periods of employment before 1958 

20 that they were pulled for the SEC - the 

21 earlier SEC. For these claims in this 

22 period we don't have any internal or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 external dosimetry. As I said earlier, that 

2 stopped about 1953 or '54, what we were able 

3 to find in those areas. 

4 Now, the contract. There was a 

5 contract that ended with the AEC in 1957 and 

6 that's what I described earlier. That was 

7 that waste material that was sitting there 

8 that AEC asked them to store for a while and 

9 they eventually shipped to Blairsville was 

10 sort of in line with wrapping up that 

11 contract. And so like I said, the plant 

12 shut down operations in 1960. And from our 

13 understanding it closed and they closed, you 

14 know, everybody went away. It was closed 

15 for a while. The property was ultimately 

16 dispositioned to other owners and I think it 

17 ended up with the county or the city for a 

18 while. And if I'm not mistaken, they built 

19 a park on it and a baseball field. 

20 Okay. But while this one 

21 contract did end in 1957, in our research we 

22 did find evidence of additional AEC contract 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 work picking up after 1957. This is the 

2 contract and it provided for Vitro to 

3 process Canadian Port Hope/Eldorado Mine 

4 milling byproducts. This had been through 

5 the Port Hope mill and they were going to 

6 try to recover some things. And AEC asked 

7 them to recover uranium from it as part of 

8 this contract. And that contract then was 

9 terminated in 1959.

10 But under that contract, Vitro 

11 delivered quite a lot of uranium in 1958 and 

12 then still continued into '59 and delivered 

13 some in 1959 as well. 

14 So, we then re-evaluated that and 

15 sent a letter to the Department of Labor 

16 saying, hey, the evidence that we have found 

17 in our research indicates that this AEC 

18 contract went on. We sent this letter 

19 actually to both Labor and Energy, I think, 

20 although I think Labor determines the 

21 duration, if I'm not mistaken. And we said 

22 we think this evidence, especially the fact 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 that the AEC reports they bought, you know, 

2 a few thousand pounds of uranium from Vitro 

3 during that time would indicate that Vitro 

4 was still working for AEC during that 

5 period. And we told them that and we asked 

6 them a question. Also there were these 

7 cobalt residues were still on the site. 

8 They were still on the site when the plant 

9 closed. They were left there when the plant 

10 closed. And so we said those are still on 

11 the site and is that sufficient? The 

12 presence of those residue piles sufficient 

13 to extend the covered period of this site 

14 for as long as they were there, at least as 

15 long as they were exposed to the 

16 environment? 

17 And in their response they said, 

18 well, you're correct. '58 and '59 should 

19 definitely be added and so the designation 

20 of the site, the covered period had been 

21 changed to add '58 and '59. It ends on 

22 December 31, '59. The DOL's determination 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 was the presence of those residue piles was 

2 not sufficient, based on the language of the 

3 law, to extend the coverage of the covered 

4 period during their stay there. 

5 I want to go a little farther on 

6 this than the slides do because with that 

7 decision now we, NIOSH, have to decide 

8 whether this material, this residue class 

9 which stayed on the property, are they in 

10 fact related to ADC work? Because during 

11 the AWE covered period, we're obliged to 

12 reconstruct all radiation doses at the site. 

13 During the residual period, we're 

14 obliged to reconstruct doses from materials 

15 that are residual to the ADC operations. 

16 So, we're still puzzled on this one. We 

17 don't know what to say about post-1959 and 

18 we are not making a recommendation about 

19 whether we think dose reconstruction is 

20 feasible post-1959. That will come later. 

21 I think we can do it by May. 

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just as a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 clarification, post-'59 is - are you 

2 referring to the four months in 1960? 

3 Because I think the petition at least went 

4 up through April. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The petition went 

6 through April 1960 because that's how long 

7 he worked there. 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: And so that was 

10 what he considered our evaluated petition. 

11 Now, if there a situation that 

12 exists in April of 1960 and if people did go 

13 back on this property in 1960 because some 

14 people went there to essentially bury these 

15 wastes. So, there were people on there 

16 between '60 and '64, '65, something like 

17 that.

18 So, we kind of have to do this in 

19 pieces. We're going to have to do - chances 

20 are we'll do up through 1960. We'll have to 

21 make some sort of judgment about post22 closure through the remediation which is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 really not a residual radioactivity kind of 

2 situation that we normally encounter. And 

3 that runs through years '64, '65 and past 

4 that there's a residual radioactivity period 

5 up through the DOE remediation which 

6 occurred in the '80s and I think ends in 

7 '85. So, there was a DOE uranium mill 

8 tailings remedial action program remediation 

9 for this site in the '80s that ended in 

10 1985. 

11 So, here are the sources of 

12 exposure. Uranium and uranium progeny, of 

13 course, progeny provided us quite a lot of 

14 difficulty because they were rarely 

15 monitored specifically. Externals are 

16 photon and beta. We don't see a mechanism 

17 for neutron exposure there. 

18 We have no bioassay data for the 

19 evaluation period. No air sampling data for 

20 the evaluation period, this two-year period, 

21 '58 and '59 and the first part of '60. And 

22 we don't have any external monitoring data 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 for this period. 

2 So, we divided the petition 

3 period into the two pieces for the reasons I 

4 described. We know through '59 is the 

5 covered period. We know we have to 

6 reconstruct all the doses during that 

7 period. We can't do it. We are 

8 recommending adding the Class through '59. 

9 For 1960, you know, it's not like 

10 we get better doing at dose reconstruction. 

11 But the question becomes, is the exposure 

12 even covered period? Is it covered 

13 exposure, because we have to determine is it 

14 residual to the AEC operations. So, that's 

15 the question that starts in 1960 and

16 theoretically that would extend to anyone 

17 who happened to be on that site through 

18 somewhere around '65. Because theoretically 

19 I don't see it working out any other way 

20 unless we find another cache of data. 

21 So, we concluded that the 

22 monitoring records, what we know about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 process and source-term data are not 

2 adequate to do those reconstructions for '58 

3 and '59 and we are continuing to conduct the 

4 period from January 1st, 1960 to April 30th 

5 of 1960, which is what was petitioned, in 

6 which we're flat-out obligated to give an 

7 answer to the petitioner. I think we are 

8 sort of obligated to ourselves to answer the 

9 question in general what happens after April 

10 of 1960. 

11 So, our recommendation then is to 

12 add this class, all Atomic Weapons Employer 

13 employees who worked at Vitro Manufacturing 

14 in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, from January 

15 1st, 1958, through December 31st of 1959, 

16 for 250 days, so on and so forth. And it 

17 was, in fact, still Vitro Manufacturing 

18 through '58 and '59 so we're okay with this 

19 language. Later on, we'll have to throw in 

20 that "or successor companies or successor 

21 occupants," whatever the right word is, 

22 because Vitro closed in April and at some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 point they turned the property over to 

2 somebody else. Whether they sold it or 

3 turned it over to the local government, I 

4 don't know for sure today. 

5 Our table about our 

6 recommendation for '58 and '59, we do not 

7 believe dose reconstruction is feasible. 

8 Since we do not believe it's feasible, we do 

9 believe there's a chance for health 

10 endangerment because of an accumulated 

11 exposure of 250 days. We didn't identify 

12 any incidents that would cause us to 

13 recommend that the Class be effected for 

14 presence. The potential of harm would be 

15 signified by the presence and for the final 

16 four months we are still evaluating. 

17 Are there questions? 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions for 

19 Stu? Yes, Paul, then Bob. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Stu, in the 

21 report itself, Table 4.1, there's a line 

22 concerning nine dose reconstructions that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 were completed before this period for which 

2 we say we cannot complete dose 

3 reconstructions. 

4 Now, those were earlier ones done 

5 I think even before the petition. But were 

6 those done on the basis of earlier exposures 

7 or - can you talk a little bit about those 

8 nine?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I've looked at a 

10 couple. I haven't looked at all nine 

11 because I haven't, you know, I haven't spent 

12 the time to look at all nine. But it 

13 appears that we- at the time we received 

14 them, we considered these the residual 

15 contamination period. And so we did like a 

16 TIB-70 back of dose reconstruction. That 

17 appears to be what we did at least in some 

18 of them. 

19 Now, very early on before we had 

20 researched this very much we may have done a 

21 TIB-04, which is an AWE overestimating for 

22 uranium or for, you know, AWE overestimates, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 but we may have done, you know, some of 

2 those as well. But I think they would fall 

3 into one of those two categories. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if this 

5 becomes a class then those would 

6 automatically - 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if we have a 

8 SEC cancel, right. They would go through 

9 the Class.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a related 

11 question. You had mentioned in your slides 

12 but I think you do say that you can 

13 reconstruct medical dose if necessary.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we don't 

15 have any information with medical exposures 

16 that occurred off site and so we are - 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: You would 

18 automatically do that.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We would assume 

20 they're on site. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bob. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 MEMBER PRESLEY: Did they 

2 remediate that area at some point in time or 

3 is it still there?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it was 

5 remediated in the '80s. Ultimately 

6 remediated by the Uranium Mill Tailings 

7 Remedial Action Program. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

9 questions? 

10 MEMBER PRESLEY: In the '80s. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the covered 

12 period goes to the '80s and I mean, once we 

13 start deciding, you know, what's covered in 

14 the residual period, you know, we'd have to 

15 have some sort of decision up through the 

16 '80s. And, of course, the actual 

17 remediation work, the exposure situation, 

18 would be somewhat different than - and, of 

19 course, that always also gets into vicinity 

20 properties because there's always neighbors 

21 who were contaminated as well, so the 

22 remediation includes vicinity properties, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 not just the covered facility. So, it 

2 becomes somewhat complicated. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

4 with questions? If not, I'd listen to a 

5 recommendation. Wanda? 

6 MEMBER MUNN: I move that the 

7 Board accept the NIOSH recommendation that 

8 an SEC be granted to all AWE employees 

9 working at Vitro Manufacturing in Canonsburg 

10 from January 1, 1958 through December 31, 

11 1959, with the understanding that subsequent 

12 periods will be reserved for further 

13 deliberation. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second from 

16 Brad. Any further discussion? 

17 Okay. Ted, go ahead. 

18 MR. KATZ: Paul. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? Oh, 

21 wait. Mr. Schofield, I have to collect his 

22 vote. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 Dr. Roessler?

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. 

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

8 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

9 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: I will collect Dr. 

14 Lockey's vote. 

15 Dr. Lemen?

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Now, hear this. 

17 Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

21 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

4 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. 

8 MR. KATZ: It's unanimous, the 

9 motion passes with 14 in favor and 2 Members 

10 absent. 

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Jim, do 

12 we have the timeframe for the rest of it or 

13 - May? Before the May meeting? Is that 

14 right? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I said I hope we 

16 can make a determination by May because 

17 it's, you know, the fundamental question we 

18 have to answer is, is the residual - 

19 exposure residual to AEC operations? 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Our next 

21 presentation is LaVon Rutherford, SEC 

22 petition update. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. 

2 Melius. 

3 I want to give the status of 

4 upcoming SEC petitions. We provide this to 

5 the Board at each Board Meeting. It gives 

6 the Board ideas. Gives the Board an idea 

7 of when - 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I realize 

9 there's a shortage of ideas among us. 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: This gives the 

11 Board some idea of when Petition Evaluations 

12 will be presented and allows them to kind of 

13 gauge the amount of work they're going to 

14 have to take up at upcoming Board Meetings 

15 and Work Group Meetings. 

16 A summary on our SEC petitions as 

17 of February 7th. We've received 183 

18 petitions. We have three petitions that are 

19 in the qualification phase and 110 petitions 

20 have qualified for evaluation. Three 

21 evaluations are in progress and 107 

22 evaluations are complete. And we see 18 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 with the Advisory Board. That included the 

2 ones that were presented, so that number 

3 will drop considerably. 

4 And then we had 70 petitions that 

5 did not qualify. 

6 A little status on petitions that 

7 are currently in evaluation. We have a 

8 Hanford petition. This is associated with 

9 potential bioassay data, issues with 

10 bioassay data at Hanford and we anticipate 

11 that that evaluation will be complete in 

12 April and we will present that evaluation at 

13 the May meeting.

14 Sandia National Lab, again, all 

15 employees from 1957 through 1962. We're 

16 winding down on that evaluation. We 

17 anticipate completing that in April and 

18 presenting that one at the May meeting as 

19 well. 

20 Clinton Engineering Works. This 

21 is from 1943 to 1947 in the Oak Ridge area. 

22 We anticipate completing that evaluation in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 March and presenting that one at the May 

2 meeting. 

3 Those are the only three 

4 evaluations that are actually in progress 

5 right now and we have a number of - well, we 

6 have three, well, four petitions actually 

7 that are under consideration for 

8 qualification. Two are associated with the 

9 same facility, W.R. Grace in Tennessee. And 

10 then there's W.R. Grace in Maryland that is 

11 in the qualification process as well. And 

12 Mathieson Chemical Company in Texas. 

13 You may remember the recent 

14 review of SEC class definitions that we'd 

15 identified three sites that we anticipate 

16 going back in and modifying the Class 

17 Definitions to add those Classes. Those 

18 will be coming in under 83.14. We are 

19 currently scheduling those right now. I 

20 should have better dates for each of those 

21 at the next meeting. Those are for Ames in 

22 Iowa, General Atomics and Y-12. And that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 short but that's it. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'll start off 

3 with a question. I noticed that at least 

4 with the expected completion dates for all 

5 three of the Petitions Evaluation Process 

6 they're all over the 180 day limit. 

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could you 

9 explain for us why? 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. At 

11 Hanford we had some difficulty. The 

12 documentation that was - the question came 

13 up on whether the bioassay data could 

14 potentially have been falsified, because 

15 there was questions with the company for the 

16 - they were convicted of falsifying data for 

17 environmental data. So, when we went back 

18 to try to get this information, to uncover 

19 this information, we had difficulty getting 

20 it through their general counsel. 

21 We are expected to go look at 

22 that information actually early next month 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 and once we've looked at that and reviewed 

2 that we'll be able to complete our 

3 Evaluation Report. So, the difficulty has 

4 been getting that information released to 

5 us.

6 Sandia National Lab, we've had a 

7 number of difficulties here. The site had 

8 not catalogued all of their dosimetry data 

9 through the years. They gave us a 

10 completion date of December that they would 

11 have that done. That did not happen. It's 

12 not complete yet. However, we do believe we

13 have enough information to complete the 1957 

14 through '62 period in time for the May 

15 meeting. So, that was the hold-up there. 

16 Clinton Engineering Works, we 

17 actually had questions that we had sent to 

18 the Department of Labor concerning the 

19 facility designation. It's hard to 

20 understand but the Clinton Engineering Works 

21 is pretty much the whole town of Oak Ridge. 

22 And so, yes, and so when you look at that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 you're evaluating a petition that we have 

2 one area, the Elza Gate that we know there 

3 was radioactive material. We're trying to 

4 understand the implications of having a city 

5 designation that includes pretty much the 

6 whole town of Oak Ridge at the time. So, we 

7 went and we sent a letter to the Department 

8 of Labor to actually ask them to clarify 

9 their facility designation. They responded. 

10 It did not change anything. It's still 

11 pretty much the whole area of Oak Ridge.

12 So, we just recently sent them a 

13 draft Class Definition for review and we 

14 anticipate getting something back from them 

15 within the next week or so and then we will 

16 move forward with our evaluation - 

17 completing our evaluation. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, we've moved 

19 from entire sites to entire towns? 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We'll wait 

22 until we see it. Thanks. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 Anybody else have questions for 

2 LaVon? Paul. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is 

4 just a general comment. At least it kinds 

5 of highlights the issue of when the clock 

6 starts on the 180 days. There's a lot of 

7 criticism, of course, of NIOSH on that 

8 timetable for 180. And I often wonder if 

9 NIOSH, when it actually defined itself when 

10 that started, was perhaps too optimistic. 

11 But it seems like there should be some kind 

12 of a trigger point related to when NIOSH has 

13 available the - at least the basic 

14 information to actually start the process. 

15 The Elza Gate situation is a case 

16 in point where the definition of what's to 

17 be reviewed isn't even in place 180 days 

18 later. Just a comment. I don't expect an 

19 answer today but it's one of those 

20 bothersome things that in a sense is outside 

21 of NIOSH's purview to control the clock. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 elaborate on that. I mean, the other 

2 situation which is goes along, kind of 

3 supports what you're saying, Dr. Ziemer. 

4 It's also disturbing in cases where we have 

5 an SEC evaluation and parts of it are 

6 reserved because the data isn't available. 

7 Well, you know, then there's really - okay, 

8 they met the 180-day deadline but, yes, 

9 it's, I won't say impossible to review, but 

10 it makes it difficult or it leaves large 

11 areas with uncertainty. And I don't know if 

12 there's an easy answer for this and so forth 

13 or whether there's any point to having the 

14 Board, you know, sort of look at what 

15 information they have at a given point in 

16 time and say, well, let's at least get 

17 started on the evaluation. 

18 But I'm not saying in any of 

19 these cases, but there's also merit in when 

20 things are reserved or incomplete, maybe the 

21 Board should start looking at it because 

22 there are sections that we could be working 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 on. 

2 Paul. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe those who 

4 are doing ten-year review issues could 

5 comment in their reports. Just an idea that 

6 popped into my head. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

8 David. 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had two 

10 questions. One about a petition that's 

11 currently in process and then the question 

12 about review, the kind of 83.14s that you 

13 were considering. 

14 Just for my own clarification, 

15 the Hanford is personnel who are internally 

16 monitored and it says urine or fecal. My 

17 recollection was that there was a lot of in 

18 vivo monitoring going on at Hanford. Is 

19 that included in that definition and just 

20 not - 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, if you 

22 look at these Class Definitions are actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 the Class Definitions proposed by the 

2 petitioner so you would include it. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And then 

4 about the assessments. During the public 

5 comments yesterday and, again, it's just for 

6 my clarification. I imagine that there's 

7 been a lot of discussion a long time ago 

8 about some of these issues. 

9 But, somebody had raised the 

10 question about the definition of the Mound 

11 cohort and dealing with somebody who had 

12 come forward in saying that in order to be - 

13 the Class Definition for Mound had to do 

14 with a list that NIOSH held. 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I wasn't at 

16 the public session but I'm sure it was 

17 concerning the tritium logbooks. You know, 

18 we had the Class Definition that includes - 

19 requires tritium bioassay. We are looking 

20 at that right now. We're reviewing that 

21 right now and I believe that was already - 

22 and I'll let Stu add to that if he'd like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 to. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David, we 

3 actually discussed that during the Mound 

4 Work Group report and the Mound Work Group, 

5 Josie talked to Stu and there's a follow-up 

6 meeting planned to deal with it. It's a 

7 complicated situation. I talked to Stu 

8 about it also recently. So, it's being 

9 followed up.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: We just have to 

11 see how to resolve it. Okay. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

13 questions? 

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bomber. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, thanks. 

16 Okay. 

17 Are the lawyers ready now? Okay. 

18 Do we have other Board business? 

19 Why don't we take a 15-minute 

20 break? Emily, does that give you time? 

21 Okay. We've take a 15-minute break and then 

22 we'll come back. We have the Board letters 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 to review and then we should be finished. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: We have one item 

3 and that is approval of the two pages that 

4 were handed out. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you for 

6 reminding me. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Does 

9 anybody have any comments or questions for 

10 Wanda on the two pagers? 

11 MEMBER MUNN: We handed them out 

12 to you the first day we were here. And it 

13 has been called to my attention that one of 

14 them - we struggled so with trying to find 

15 the correct simple word to replace what is 

16 an ordinary word to us, but is either not 

17 meaningful or might be misunderstood by 

18 others who are not familiar with the 

19 language we use all the time. 

20 IG-2, the Internal Dose 

21 Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, 

22 page 2, Finding 5. We had said the document 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 does not provide adequate guidance regarding 

2 a selection of limits necessary to 

3 extrapolate uncertainty. 

4 Well, as Dr. Ziemer pointed out, 

5 limits doesn't really and truly do what - 

6 the original word was parameters. And we 

7 came to the conclusion that parameters was 

8 one of those words that was potential for 

9 misunderstanding. So, the suggestion that's 

10 been made is that we use the word "factors" 

11 rather than "limits." Perhaps that's a 

12 little more prescriptive and may be a little 

13 more meaningful to the people who don't have 

14 any idea what uncertainties really and truly 

15 are required for a calculation. 

16 Unless the body feels otherwise, 

17 I would request that we consider changing 

18 that single words from "limits" to "factors" 

19 on that particular one. Other than that I 

20 received no comments from anyone. 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had a 

22 couple of little comments I was struggling 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 with. 

2 On the first paragraph, the first 

3 page.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Of the same - 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Of the same 

6 document, yes. Entry through injection is 

7 kind of left off the list and intentional or 

8 unintentional injection of radionuclides. 

9 That seemed like that might be one of the 

10 pathways that would be considered as opposed 

11 to contact with the skin - penetration of 

12 the skin. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: It would have to be 

14 accidental in our context here. 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, there, 

16 I don't know. If the Advisory Committee on 

17 Human Radiation and Experimentation has 

18 documentation of experiments that went on at 

19 Oak Ridge where they were tracing the 

20 biokinetics and self-injected and also 

21 injected others to study excretion. So, 

22 there are examples of - but in general 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 simply having injection as a route of entry 

2 would seem - 

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: Not at the 

4 plants. That was done at Oak Ridge 

5 Associated Universities. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Does that fall 

7 under our program? 

8 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, that's the 

9 same thing I kind of discussed with you 

10 offline. The four pathways, there's 

11 actually five. You kind of have it in the 

12 context but injection was definitely one 

13 that was left out.

14 MEMBER MUNN: The question I have 

15 is, was that program covered by - 

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, we can 

17 think of injection other ways. I mean, 

18 somebody can have a sharp - 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: You don't have 

20 to say intentional or unintentional, you 

21 just say injection.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Can we rectify that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 by simply adding injection?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That was the 

3 suggestion. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Injection - 

5 injection and skin - 

6 MEMBER BEACH: Well, you would 

7 have to change that there's four pathways 

8 instead of three because you only have three 

9 listed. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

11 suggestions? 

12 If not, could we have a motion to 

13 approve? 

14 MEMBER MUNN: This is a 

15 recommendation - 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You are 

17 correct. MEMBER MUNN: - the motion. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We're 

19 ready. 

20 All in favor, say aye.

21 (Chorus of ayes.)

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 I think if anybody discovers any 

2 other minor issues I'm sure Wanda would be 

3 willing to discuss it with them. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Happy to discuss it 

5 with the Subcommittee. We will move forward 

6 with our interactions with the IT folks to 

7 get this particular set of reviews up and on 

8 our website as soon as we can do so. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Paul?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: With Wanda's 

11 permission, I'd like to raise the issue of 

12 how we handle these going forward. There's 

13 going to be a lot of them. We have another 

14 12 on our plate right now and we have a 

15 pretty good feel now for how they should be 

16 written. I'm wondering if the Board wants 

17 to see all these two-pagers in the future or 

18 they would want the Procedures Subcommittee 

19 to be responsible for preparing and editing 

20 and issuing them in the future just as an 

21 efficiency measure. 

22 I guess my recommendation would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 be that we authorize the Subcommittee to do 

2 that if the Board were comfortable with it. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: With the 

4 understanding, of course, that these are 

5 considered to be Board documents. 

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Is that a motion?

7 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's a 

8 suggestion. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, at this - I 

10 am certainly willing to make it a motion. I 

11 sort of wanted to throw the idea out and, 

12 you know, see if anybody salutes as it goes 

13 up the flagpole. Anyway - 

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Why don't we make 

15 it a motion? 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Well, let 

17 me make this in the form of a motion when we 

18 can discuss it. I move that the Board 

19 authorize the Procedures Review Subcommittee 

20 to prepare, edit and issue the two page 

21 summary reports in the future on behalf of 

22 the Board.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 MEMBER LEMEN: I will second 

2 that.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think Dr. 

4 Lemen wants another opportunity to vote no 

5 on something. 

6 MEMBER LEMEN: No, actually I 

7 learned how to spell yes. I seconded that 

8 motion so - 

9 MEMBER MUNN: In order to have a 

10 better feel for exactly the magnitude of 

11 what you're talking about here, I'd 

12 appreciate it if, John, would you give us a 

13 quick overview of what's coming down the 

14 pike so that the folks will know exactly? 

15 It isn't just this 12 that we have in front 

16 of us. And two coming along after that. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, we are moving 

18 out groups of about 10 or so. They're 

19 altogether about 55. We have cleared 

20 basically about 55 procedures and we've 

21 already written, as you've seen, drafts for, 

22 I guess, these 12 and the previous 4 so it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 16 and so they'll be moving through in 

2 groups of on the order of 12. We figured 

3 those are a good bite-size. If you're 

4 comfortable with that, we're comfortable 

5 with that and we'll be moving them to the 

6 Subcommittee for your deliberation. Every 

7 month or so another group will be coming 

8 through. 

9 They're supposed to be - I don't 

10 know how long. Are they coming out about 

11 two pages, a little longer than that?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

13 MS. MAURO: They've been about 

14 two. So, they're not large documents. It's 

15 just a matter of polishing them the way they 

16 are. So, yes, a group of 10, I'd say every 

17 month or so.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Which means it will 

19 not be unusual for the Subcommittee to have 

20 20 at a lot because we have not been meeting 

21 on a monthly basis, more like every six 

22 weeks. And that being the case, it will not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 be uncommon for us to have two groups to 

2 deal with.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any further 

4 discussion? Josie. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, while I am 

6 not opposed to the motion I would like to 

7 know how you intend to let the Board know 

8 that you've finished a set of 10 or 20. 

9 Would you send them out to us or - 

10 MEMBER MUNN: We could either 

11 send them out to you or, of course, it will 

12 be included in my Subcommittee report at 

13 each of our meetings. But we could provide 

14 copies for that.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I would like to 

16 have the opportunity to have the copies and 

17 review them at some point.

18 MEMBER MUNN: This is a good time 

19 for us to identify what we want the process 

20 to be and if that's a part of the process, 

21 that would be fine with us. 

22 MR. KATZ: Right, we had actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 discussed that in the Subcommittee, sending 

2 the copies to the full Board so that the 

3 Full Board Members - anybody on the Board 

4 could comment back to the Subcommittee 

5 issues with any of the two page summaries 

6 before the Subcommittee clears them. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Then I would 

8 think that would be a more efficient 

9 procedure and would obviate the need to wait 

10 until a Board Meeting and so forth. And I 

11 think if they were circulated to Board 

12 Members with a reasonably, you know, good 

13 deadline, more than 24 hours and less than 

14 three months, in that range, it would be a 

15 workable approach. 

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Our Subcommittee 

17 will hold you to the 180 days. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I said 90 days.

19 MEMBER MUNN: From the time we 

20 send them out to you. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul? 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 within the context of the vote, you can 

2 always specify that the understanding of the 

3 motion includes doing that. It doesn't have 

4 to be part of the motion but I certainly 

5 think that's a great idea. As Ted 

6 indicated, that was discussed in the 

7 Subcommittee that Board Members would have 

8 the opportunity to do that.

9 And the other thing I would point 

10 is the Subcommittee would not be making any 

11 new policy on behalf of the Board. All 

12 we're trying to do is put things in layman's 

13 language. Now, it's possible that that 

14 would have the effect of changing what you 

15 think the Board said, but usually it's just 

16 getting understandable words and you always 

17 have these cases such as the one just 

18 described, or the two just described, the 

19 injection and the terminology, where we can 

20 improve those. And, in fact, even after 

21 they are on the website, they could always 

22 be modified. Because they are not actions, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 they are simply lay language of what we've 

2 done. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

4 further discussion? If not, all in favor, 

5 say aye.

6 (Chorus of ayes.)

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed? 

8 Abstained?

9 (No response.)

10 Okay. Any other Board issues 

11 that I forgot, other than letters and I seem 

12 to have done something wrong, those lawyers 

13 left the room. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER, No, I think you 

15 did something right.

16 (Laughter.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: They may be 

18 actually working on the letters. No, they're 

19 going for the federal marshals.

20 (Laughter.) 

21 If they're not ready, we'll take 

22 a short break. Why don't we take a short 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 break? Ten minutes and we'll start. We 

2 should be able to finish up, I'm hoping by 

3 10:00. 

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 9:29 a.m. and 

6 resumed at 9:43 a.m.)

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If everyone can 

8 get seated, this will take a little while to 

9 do because we have some changes to these. 

10 And I would also make one announcement, not 

11 to embarrass somebody, but - I actually 

12 just learned that Emily will be changing 

13 tasks and jobs within the Counsel's office 

14 so she'll be still working with NIOSH but 

15 less involved in this program. So, I think 

16 on behalf of the Board we'd like to thank 

17 you for the time working with us. We 

18 enjoyed it. 

19 And if we'd had a warning we 

20 would have had a cake and candles and all 

21 sorts of things, but we do appreciate 

22 everything. I know I've given you a hard 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 time at times. 

2 So, let's get started so we can 

3 move on here. And I'm going to read all 

4 sort of the boilerplate at the end into the 

5 record.

6 I'm going to start with the Linde 

7 Petition. So, the Advisory Board on 

8 Radiation and Worker Health has evaluated 

9 SEC Petition 00107 concerning workers at the 

10 Linde Ceramics plant in Tonawanda, New York, 

11 under the statutory requirements established 

12 by EEOICPA incorporated in 42 CFR 83.13. 

13 The Board respectfully recommends 

14 a Special Exposure Cohort status be afforded 

15 to all employees of the Department of 

16 Energy, its predecessor agencies and its 

17 contractors and subcontractors who worked at 

18 the Linde Ceramics plant from January 1, 

19 1954 through December 31st, 1969, for a 

20 number of work days aggregating at least 250 

21 workdays occurring solely under this 

22 employment or in combination with workdays 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 within the parameters established for one or 

2 more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

3 This recommendation is based on 

4 the following factors: People working at the 

5 Linde Ceramics plant during the time period 

6 in question, worked on the renovation of 

7 buildings that previously housed uranium 

8 processing activities related to nuclear 

9 weapons production.

10 The Board's review of available 

11 monitoring data as well as available process 

12 and source-term information for various 

13 activities at the Linde Ceramics plant 

14 during the time period in question concluded 

15 that NIOSH lacked adequate data necessary to 

16 complete accurate individual dose 

17 reconstructions for internal doses during 

18 the time period in question. Board 

19 determined that health may have been 

20 endangered for these Linde Ceramics plant 

21 workers during the time period in question. 

22 The National Institute for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, has 

2 recommended that dose reconstruction is 

3 feasible for workers of the Linde Ceramics 

4 plant for the subsequent residual 

5 contamination period from January 1st, 1970 

6 through July 31st, 2006. NIOSH determined 

7 that it has access to adequate exposure 

8 monitoring and other information necessary 

9 to do individual dose reconstructions with 

10 sufficient accuracy for members of the 

11 group. And, therefore, a class covering 

12 that group should not be added to the SEC. 

13 The Board concurs with this 

14 determination. 

15 And then it's the boilerplate 

16 about this meeting and so forth. 

17 Yes, Gen.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: You fixed all 

19 my grammatical things but one thing. In the 

20 next paragraph, would it be better to put in 

21 there the date of the Class, just to make it 

22 absolutely clear, since two categories are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 mentioned?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's a good 

3 point. Yes, that's out first double. It's 

4 an unusual letter. We have a yes/no in it; 

5 we don't usually have yes/nos, we add a 

6 class or we don't add a class. So I can 

7 clarify that in that letter. That's a good 

8 point, Gen. 

9 Any other changes? Yes, just 

10 grammatical changes. Just get them to me 

11 and we'll - okay. 

12 [The letter Linde Ceramics SEC 

13 107 follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00107 concerning workers at the Linde Ceramics Plant in 

Tonawanda, New York, under the statutory requirements established by the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 

83.13. The Board respectfully recommends that SEC status be accorded to all employees of the 

Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors 

who worked at the Linde Ceramics Plant from January 1, 1954 through December 31, 1969 for a 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more 

other classes of employees included in the SEC.

This recommendation is based on the following factors: 

• People working at the Linde Ceramics Plant during the time period in question worked 

the renovation of buildings that previously housed uranium processing activities related 

to nuclear weapons production. 

• The Board reviewed available monitoring data, as well as process and source term 

information for various production activities at the Linde Ceramics Plant during the time 

period in question, and concluded that National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) lacked adequate data necessary to complete individual dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for internal doses during the time period in 

question. 

• The Board determined that health may have been endangered for these Linde Ceramics 

Plant workers during the time period in question. 

NIOSH has recommended that dose reconstructions are feasible for workers at the Linde 

Ceramics Plant for the subsequent residual contamination period from January 1, 1970 through 

July 31, 2006. NIOSH found that it has access to adequate exposure monitoring and other 

information necessary to do individual dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

members of this group, and therefore a class covering this group should not be added to the SEC. 

Based on these considerations and the discussion at the February 23-25, 2011 Board meeting 

held in Augusta, Georgia, the Board recommends that the class covering all employees of DOE, 

its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Linde 

Ceramics Plant from January 1, 1954 through December 31, 1969 be added to the SEC. 

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board meeting(s) where this SEC class was discussed. 

The documentation includes transcripts of the deliberations, copies of the petition, the NIOSH 

review thereof, and related materials. If any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And actually 

3 that also applies to the Wah Chang letter 

4 which is also a yes/no. Yes for the 

5 operational, no for the residual, so to 

6 speak. 

7 Going to read the letter in. 

8 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

9 and Worker Health has evaluated SEC Petition 

10 00174 concerning workers at the Wah Chang 

11 Facility in Albany, Oregon, under the 

12 statutory requirements established by 

13 EEOICPA incorporated in 42 CFR Section 

14 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends 

15 Special Exposure Cohort SEC status be 

16 accorded to all AWE employees working in any 

17 building at the Wah Chang Facility in 

18 Albany, Oregon, for the operational period 

19 from January 1st, 1971 through December 

20 31st, 1972, for a number of work days 

21 aggregating at least 250 work days occurring 

22 either solely under this employment or in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 combination with work days within the 

2 parameters established for one or more other 

3 classes of employees included in the Special 

4 Exposure Cohort. 

5 This recommendation is based on 

6 people working at Wah Chang during the time 

7 period in question, worked on the processing 

8 of uranium for the production of nuclear 

9 weapons. The NIOSH review of available 

10 monitoring data as well as process and 

11 source-term information for various 

12 production activities at Wah Chang found 

13 that NIOSH lacked adequate information 

14 necessary to complete accurate individual 

15 dose reconstruction for internal and 

16 external doses from exposures to thorium, 

17 thorium byproducts during the time period in 

18 question.

19 Board concurs with this 

20 determination.

21 Number three. NIOSH determined 

22 that health may have been endangered for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 these Wah Chang Facility workers during the 

2 time period in question. The Board also 

3 concurs with this determination. 

4 The National Institute for 

5 Occupational Safety and Health has 

6 recommended that dose reconstruction is 

7 feasible for workers of the Wah Chang 

8 facility in Albany, Oregon, for the 

9 subsequent residual contamination period 

10 from January 1st, 1973 through October 31st, 

11 2009. 

12 NIOSH has determined it has 

13 access to adequate exposure monitoring, 

14 other information necessary to do individual 

15 dose reconstructions with sufficient 

16 accuracy for members of the group. And, 

17 therefore, a class covering this group 

18 should not be added to the SEC. 

19 The Board concurs with this 

20 determination. 

21 And then I think in the next 

22 paragraph we need to make that same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 clarification that Gen mentioned. 

2 Any comments or questions on 

3 that?

4 Paul.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: One quick. I 

6 noticed when you read it in the second 

7 bullet you read out - you left out the 

8 "nuclear" before "production." Was that, 

9 are we intending to do that - 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are 

11 intending to do that. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Just 

13 wanted to double check that. 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

15 [The letter Wah Chang SEC 174 

16 follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00174 concerning workers at the Wah Chang facility in Albany, 

Oregon, under the statutory requirements established by the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The 

Board respectfully recommends that SEC status be accorded to all Atomic Weapons Employer 

(AWE) employees who worked in any building at the Wah Chang facility in Albany Oregon, for 

the operational period from January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1972, for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees included in the SEC. 

This recommendation is based on the following factors: 

• People working at Wah Chang during the time period in question worked on the 

processing of uranium for the production of nuclear weapons. 

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review of available 

monitoring data, as well as process and source term information for various production 

activities at Wah Chang, found that it lacked adequate information necessary to complete 

individual dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for internal and external doses 

from exposures to thorium and thorium by-products during the time period in question. 

The Board concurs with this determination.

• NIOSH determined that health may have been endangered for these Wah Chang facility 

workers during the time period in question. The Board also concurs with this 

determination. 

NIOSH has recommended that dose reconstructions are feasible for workers at the Wah Chang 

facility in Albany, Oregon, for the subsequent residual contamination period from January 1, 

1973 through October 31, 2009. NIOSH found that it has access to adequate exposure 

monitoring and other information necessary to do individual dose reconstructions with sufficient 

accuracy for members of this group, and therefore a class covering this group should not be 

added to the SEC. 

Based on these considerations and the discussion at the February 23-25, 2011 Board meeting 

held in Augusta, Georgia, the Board recommends that the class covering all AWE employees 

who worked at Wah Chang from January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1972 be added to the 

SEC.

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board meeting(s) where this SEC class was discussed. 

The documentation includes transcripts of the deliberations, copies of the petition, the NIOSH 

review thereof, and related materials. If any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Norton. This 

3 next one, the Advisory Board of Radiation 

4 and Worker Health. The Board's evaluation 

5 of Special Evaluation Code 00173 concerning 

6 workers at the Norton Company in Worcester, 

7 Massachusetts under the statutory 

8 requirements established by the Energy 

9 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

10 Program incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13. 

11 The Board respectfully recommends 

12 SEC status be accorded to all Atomic Weapons 

13 Employer employees who worked at the Norton 

14 Company or a subsequent owner in Worcester, 

15 Massachusetts from January 1st, 1958 through 

16 October 10th, 1962, for a number of work 

17 days aggregating at least 250 work days 

18 occurring either solely under this 

19 employment or in combination with work days 

20 within the parameters established for one or 

21 more other classes of employees included in 

22 the SEC. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 This recommendation is based on 

2 the following factors: The Norton Company 

3 performed research and manufactured several 

4 products under contract with the Atomic 

5 Energy Commission. NIOSH evaluation found 

6 that there were insufficient data to 

7 estimate internal and external exposures 

8 with sufficient accuracy for the 

9 decontamination/ decommissioning activities 

10 that took place during the time period in 

11 question. 

12 The Board concurs with this 

13 determination. NIOSH determined that health 

14 may have been endangered for the workers 

15 exposed to radiation during the time period 

16 in question. The Board also concurs with 

17 this determination. 

18 And that's the boilerplate. 

19 Anybody, questions or comments? 

20 [The letter Norton Company SEC 

21 173 follows:] 

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00173 concerning workers at the Norton Company in 

Worcester, Massachusetts, under the statutory requirements established by the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and 

incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends that SEC status be 

accorded to all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at the Norton Company (or a 

subsequent owner) in Worcester Massachusetts, from January 1, 1958 through October 10, 1962, 

for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more 

other classes of employees included in the SEC.

This recommendation is based on the following factors: 

• The Norton Company performed research and manufactured several products under 

contract with the Atomic Energy Commission.

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluation found that 

there were insufficient data to complete individual dose reconstructions with sufficient 

accuracy for internal and external exposures during the decontamination and 

decommissioning activities that took place during the time period in question. The Board 

concurs with this determination. 

• NIOSH determined that health may have been endangered for the workers exposed to 

radiation during the time period in question. The Board also concurs with this 

determination.

Based on these considerations and the discussion at the February 23-25, 2011 Board meeting 

held in Augusta, Georgia, the Board recommends that this class be added to the SEC.

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board meeting(s) where this SEC class was discussed. 

The documentation includes transcripts of the deliberations, copies of the petition, the NIOSH 

review thereof, and related materials. If any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Vitro or 

3 Vitro, I'm not sure. I guess LaVon's not 

4 here to correct the pronunciations. Vitro? 

5 Medically it's Vitro. It would be like in 

6 vitro. 

7 Okay. The Advisory Board on 

8 Radiation and Worker Health, the Board has 

9 evaluated Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

10 00177 concerning workers at the Vitro 

11 Manufacturing Facility, Canonsburg, 

12 Pennsylvania, under the statutory 

13 requirements established by the Energy 

14 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

15 Program Act of 2000 and incorporated it into 

16 42 CFR 83.13.

17 The Board respectfully recommends 

18 SEC status be accorded to all Atomic Weapons 

19 Employer employees who worked at Vitro 

20 Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, 

21 from January 1st, 1958 through December 

22 31st, 1959, for a number of work days 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 aggregating at least 250 work days occurring 

2 either solely under this employment or in 

3 combination with work days within the 

4 parameters established for one or more other 

5 classes of employees included in the SEC. 

6 The recommendation is based on 

7 the following factors: The Vitro 

8 Manufacturing facility was involved in early 

9 uranium processing work for a manufacturer 

10 of atomic weapons. The NIOSH evaluation 

11 found that there were insufficient data to 

12 estimate with sufficient accuracy the 

13 potential occupational exposures to uranium 

14 products and uranium progeny during the time 

15 period in question. 

16 The Board concurs with this determination. 

17 NIOSH determined that health may 

18 have been endangered for the workers exposed 

19 to radiation during the time period in 

20 question. The Board also concurs with this 

21 determination. Any questions/comments? 

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 question. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Who is the 

4 person who keeps the boilerplate for these 

5 things? 

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, it's a 

7 combination of me and the lawyers. 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Because - 

9 just as a suggestion. There's the 

10 introduction of acronyms which are then 

11 never used, there's the introductions of 

12 acronyms which are sporadically used and 

13 then there's the use of acronyms which are 

14 never defined, all within the boilerplate. 

15 So, EEOICPA and AWE are introduced and never 

16 used. SEC is - 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, those are 

18 usually cleaned up during the final editing 

19 process. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: NIOSH is used 

21 but never defined. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 usually cleaned up during the final editing 

2 process. Because some get added and not 

3 used and so on, so I wouldn't worry about 

4 that part. Of course, if you'd like to take 

5 on a secretarial role. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm just 

7 wondering if there is somebody who keeps the 

8 boilerplate if we could just clean the 

9 boilerplate. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I keep 

11 boilerplate but the boilerplate tends to 

12 evolve over time. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It boils 

14 over.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And the 

16 situations of how we approach these, you end 

17 up with different sort of matching. When 

18 the Board makes recommendations different 

19 that NIOSH and so ends up so it's just 

20 easier to - 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I know. I 

22 understand. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, of course, 

2 if you'd - the offer is on the table. Dr. 

3 Ziemer conned me about nine years ago and I 

4 never figured how to get out of it. I had 

5 Jim Lockey do it for one meeting but he was 

6 smart enough to get out of there quick. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: He ducked out of 

8 there fairly quick.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Wanda. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: I was reading 

11 somewhere else at the time that you were 

12 reading aloud. I'm assuming that 1959 did 

13 get inserted?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It did, yes. 

15 Thanks to the attorneys. 

16 Okay. Moving on. 

17 [The letter Vitro Manufacturing 

18 SEC 177 follows:]

19

20

21

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00177 concerning workers at the Vitro Manufacturing facility in 

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, under the statutory requirements established by the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and 

incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends that SEC status be 

accorded to all Atomic Weapons Employers employees who worked at Vitro Manufacturing in 

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, from January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1959, for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or 

in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees included in the SEC. 

This recommendation is based on the following factors: 

• The Vitro Manufacturing facility was involved in early uranium processing work for the 

manufacture of atomic weapons.

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluation found that 

there were insufficient data to complete individual dose reconstructions with sufficient 

accuracy for potential occupational exposures to uranium products and uranium progeny 

during the time period in question. The Board concurs with this determination.

• NIOSH determined that health may have been endangered for the workers exposed to 

radiation during the time period in question. The Board also concurs with this 

determination.

Based on these considerations and the discussion at the February 23-25, 2011 Board meeting 

held in Augusta, Georgia, the Board recommends that this class be added to the SEC. 

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board meeting(s) where this SEC class was discussed. 

The documentation includes transcripts of the deliberations, copies of the petition, the NIOSH 

review thereof, and related materials. If any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Grand Junction 

3 Operations Office. The Advisory Board on 

4 Radiation and Worker Health, the Board has 

5 evaluated SEC Petition 00175 concerning 

6 workers at the Grand Junction Operations 

7 Office under the statutory requirements 

8 established by EEOICPA and incorporated into 

9 42 CFR Section 83.13. 

10 The Board respectfully recommends 

11 that Special Exposure Cohort status be 

12 accorded to all employees of the Department 

13 of Energy, its predecessor agencies and its 

14 contractors and subcontractors who worked at 

15 the Grand Junction Operations Office from 

16 March 23rd, 1943 through January 31st, 1975, 

17 for a number of work days aggregating at 

18 least 250 work days occurring either solely 

19 under this employment or in combination with 

20 work days within the parameters established 

21 for one or more other classes of employees 

22 in the SEC.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 This recommendation is based on 

2 the following factors: People working at 

3 the Grand Junction Operations Office during 

4 the time period in question worked on 

5 uranium processing activities related to 

6 nuclear weapons production. 

7 Two, the NIOSH review of 

8 available monitoring data as well as 

9 available process and source-term 

10 information for various production 

11 activities, the Grand Junction Operations 

12 Office found that NIOSH lacked adequate 

13 information necessary to complete accurate 

14 individual dose reconstructions for internal 

15 doses from exposures to radon during the 

16 time period in question and for 

17 reconstruction of external doses prior to 

18 1960. The Board concurs with this 

19 determination.

20 NIOSH determined that health may 

21 have been endangered for these Grand 

22 Junction Operations Office facility workers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 during the time period in question. The 

2 Board also concurs with this determination. 

3 Then, boilerplate. 

4 Any comments/questions? Okay. 

5 We're on the down side.

6 [The letter Grand Junctions 

7 Operations Office SEC 173 follows:]

 8 

 9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00175 concerning workers at the Grand Junction Operations 

Office in Grand Junction, Colorado, under the statutory requirements established by the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and 

incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends that SEC status be 

accorded to all employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its 

contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Grand Junction Operations Office in Grand 

Junction, Colorado, from March 23, 1943 through January 31, 1975 for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

This recommendation is based on the following factors: 

• People working at the Grand Junction Operations office during the time period in 

question worked on uranium processing activities related to nuclear weapons production. 

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review of available 

monitoring data as well as available process and source term information for various 

production activities at the Grand Junction Operations Office found that NIOSH lacked 

adequate information necessary to complete individual dose reconstructions with 

sufficient accuracy for internal doses from exposures to radon during the time period in 

question and for reconstruction of external doses prior to 1960. The Board concurs with 

this determination. 

• NIOSH determines that health may have been endangered for these Grand Junction 

Operations Office facility workers during the time period in question. The Board also 

concurs with this determination. 

Based on these considerations and the discussion at the February 23-25, 2011 Board meeting 

held in Augusta, Georgia, the Board recommends that this class be added to the SEC. 

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board meeting(s) where this SEC class was discussed. 

The documentation includes transcripts of the deliberations, copies of the petition, the NIOSH 

review thereof, and related materials. If any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have the 

3 three, I think we have three left here. So, 

4 I will start with Bliss & Laughlin and, I 

5 guess, the rejection letters and we have 

6 some new boilerplate here. 

7 Okay. The Advisory Board on 

8 Radiation and Worker Health, the Board has 

9 evaluated Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

10 00131 concerning employees who worked at the 

11 Bliss & Laughlin Steel Company in Buffalo, 

12 New York, under the statutory requirements 

13 established by the Energy Employees 

14 Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

15 Act of 2000, incorporated in 42 CFR Section 

16 83.13.

17 The National Institute for 

18 Occupational Safety and Health has 

19 recommended that workers of the Bliss - 

20 excuse me, I'm trying to understand - okay, 

21 let me start that sentence again. The 

22 National Institute for Occupational Safety 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 and Health has recommended that dose 

2 reconstructions are feasible for workers at 

3 the Bliss & Laughlin Steel Company located 

4 at 110 Hopkins Street, Buffalo, New York, 

5 for the period from January 1st, 1951 

6 through December 31st, 1952, and during the 

7 residual period from January 1st, 1953 

8 through December 31st, 1998. That was a 

9 typo. 

10 NIOSH has determined it has 

11 access to adequate monitoring and other 

12 information necessary to do individual dose 

13 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

14 members of this group. And, therefore, a 

15 class concerning this group will not be 

16 added to the SEC. Enclosed is supporting 

17 documentary evidence, blah, blah, blah. 

18 Any questions on that? 

19 MEMBER MUNN: There were several 

20 changes made. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The boilerplate 

22 has changed. I used the boilerplate from an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 old rejection - 

2 MEMBER MUNN: All right. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: - letter and 

4 it's been updated. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: May I request that 

6 you read that second sentence one more time?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Because I, when you 

9 started - 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no. I 

11 hesitated also. I apologize. 

12 The National Institute for 

13 Occupational Safety and Health has 

14 recommended that dose reconstructions are 

15 feasible for workers at the Bliss & Laughlin 

16 Steel Company located at 110 Hopkins Street, 

17 Buffalo, New York, for the period from 

18 January 1st, 1951 and through December 31st, 

19 1952, and during the residual period from 

20 January 1st, 1953 through December 31st, 

21 1998.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I thought it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 not recommended. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The dose 

3 reconstruction is feasible.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Therefore - 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Therefore, it's 

6 not recommended. They just reversed - the 

7 old was not recommended. Now we're sort of 

8 reversing that. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Very good. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

11 Paul?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am wondering 

13 about one possibility like the one that has 

14 passed counsel. Whether some of the dose 

15 reconstructions can be - we're saying that 

16 dose reconstructions are feasible. I'm 

17 wondering if it wouldn't be wise to use the 

18 language that NIOSH can complete dose 

19 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy? 

20 Which is the wording of - 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We use that 

22 later; we have that in the next sentence. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 I'm looking at Dow and it says that we have 

2 the information necessary to do individual 

3 dose reconstructions with sufficient 

4 accuracy.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: But we don't have 

6 that in Bliss & Laughlin or do we? 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We do. In the 

8 next sentence, the second sentence. The 

9 sentence I read back. NIOSH has determined 

10 that it has adequate - 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Yes, 

12 yes, yes. Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you.

15 Yes, that would just be 

16 repetitive.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Withdraw 

19 that. 

20 [The letter Bliss and Laughlin 

21 Steel SEC 131 follows:]

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00131 concerning employees who worked at the Bliss and 

Laughlin Steel Company in Buffalo, New York, under the statutory requirements established by 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) 

and incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) has recommended that individual dose reconstructions are feasible for workers 

at the Bliss and Laughlin Steel Company located at 110 Hopkins Street, Buffalo, New York 

during the period from January 1, 1951 through December 31, 1952, and during the residual 

period from January 1, 1953 through December 31, 1998. NIOSH found that it has access to 

adequate exposure monitoring and other information necessary to do individual dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for members of this group, and therefore a class 

covering this group should not be added to the SEC. The Board concurs with this determination.

Enclosed is supporting documentation from the February 23-25 Board meeting held in Augusta, 

Georgia, and earlier meetings where this potential class for the SEC was discussed. If any of 

these items are unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Dow. 

3 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

4 Health has evaluated Special Exposure Cohort 

5 Petition 00079 concerning employees who 

6 worked at the Dow Chemical Company site in 

7 Madison, Illinois, under the statutory 

8 requirements established by the Energy 

9 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

10 Program Act of 2000, incorporating into 42 

11 CFR Section 83.13.

12 NIOSH, the National Institute for 

13 Occupational Safety and Health, has 

14 recommended that workers at the Dow Chemical 

15 Company in Madison, Illinois, from January 

16 1st, 1961 through January 31st, 2007 - now 

17 it's got me confused here. Oh, okay, I see. 

18 Has recommended that these workers at the 

19 Dow Chemical Company in Madison, Illinois, 

20 from January 1st, 1961 through November 

21 30th, 2007, not be added to the SEC - I 

22 think there's something - something is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 missing in my -Let's start it all over. 

2 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

3 and Worker Health, the Board has evaluated 

4 Special Exposure Cohort Petition 00079 

5 concerning employees who worked at the Dow 

6 Chemical Company site in Madison, Illinois, 

7 under the statutory requirements established 

8 by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

9 Compensation Program Act of 2000 and 

10 incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13.

11 The National Institute for 

12 Occupational Safety and Health has 

13 recommended that dose reconstructions are 

14 feasible for workers at the Dow Chemical 

15 Company in Madison, Illinois, from January 

16 1st, 1961 through November 30th, 2007.

17 NIOSH has determined that it has 

18 access to adequate exposure monitoring and 

19 other information necessary to do individual 

20 dose reconstructions with sufficient 

21 accuracy for members of this group and, 

22 therefore, a class covering the group should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 not be added to the SEC. The Board concurs 

2 with this determination. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: You started the 

4 first part of the correction there. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And that was 

6 the correction. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but when you 

8 started the first part of it. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: The second 

11 sentence.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: You said that NIOSH 

14 has recommended - we left the recommended in 

15 there and they didn't really recommend that 

16 it was feasible. They - 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That NIOSH has 

18 found that - 

19 MEMBER MUNN: They found that it's 

20 feasible.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Then the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 recommendation that was further down makes 

2 sense. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I was 

4 making editorial corrections on the fly. 

5 Okay. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: And so this is 

7 essentially the boilerplate that's going to 

8 be used - 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is the 

10 boilerplate that will be used going forward, 

11 at least until the next meeting, then we'll 

12 start over again.

13 [The letter Dow Chemical SEC 79 

14 follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00079 concerning employees who worked at the Dow Chemical 

Company site in Madison, Illinois, under the statutory requirements established by the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and 

incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) has recommended that individual dose reconstructions are feasible for workers at the 

Dow Chemical Company in Madison, Illinois, from January 1, 1961 through November 30, 

2007. NIOSH found that it has access to adequate exposure monitoring and other information 

necessary to do individual dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for members of this 

group, and therefore a class covering this group should not be added to the SEC. The Board 

concurs with this determination. 

Enclosed is supporting documentation from the February 23-25 Board meeting held in Augusta, 

Georgia, and earlier meetings where this potential class for the SEC was discussed. If any of 

these items are unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have one 

3 final one to do. We're going back in time 

4 here. This is, believe it or not, SEC 

5 Petition 0043. This is Chapman. 

6 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

7 and Worker Health, the Board has evaluated 

8 Special Exposure Cohort Petition 0043 

9 concerning employees who worked at the 

10 Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company in 

11 Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, under the 

12 statutory requirements established by the 

13 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

14 Compensation Act incorporated into 42 CFR 

15 Section 83.13.

16 The National Institute for 

17 Occupational Safety and Health has 

18 recommended that workers of the Chapman 

19 Valve Manufacturing Company in Building 23 

20 in Dean Street facility, Indian Orchard from 

21 January 1st, 1958 - it's missing boilerplate 

22 here too. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 MEMBER MUNN: The same as - 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it's the 

3 same as for the Dow site. 

4 So, it would be National 

5 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

6 has found that dose reconstructions are 

7 feasible for workers at the Chapman Valve 

8 Manufacturing Company, i.e., Building 23, 

9 Dean Street facility in Indian Orchard, 

10 Massachusetts, January 1st, 1948 through 

11 December 31st, 1949, from January 1st, 1991 

12 through December 31st, 1993. NIOSH has 

13 determined that it has access to adequate 

14 exposure monitoring and other information 

15 necessary to do individual dose 

16 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

17 members of this group. The Board concurs 

18 with this determination. And then 

19 boilerplate.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Did I not hear the 

21 phrase "not be added to the SEC"?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 MEMBER MUNN: That needs to be 

2 going in there.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you're 

4 correct. It just needs to be added at the 

5 end of that sentence. 

6 Okay. Any other changes, 

7 comments?

8 We will have new boilerplate by 

9 next time so - to confuse us all. The 

10 Boilerplate Working Group. And we'll have 

11 the Sub-Working Group on acronyms and then 

12 we'll have the Sub-Working Group on puns. 

13 Puns and dangling participles. Okay. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 [The letter Chapman Valve SEC 43 

16 follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has evaluated Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00043 concerning employees who worked at the Chapman 

Valve Manufacturing Company in Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, under the statutory 

requirements established by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that individual dose reconstructions 

are feasible for workers at the Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company (i.e., Building 23 and 

the Dean Street facility) in Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, from January 1, 1948 through 

December 31, 1949, and from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1993. NIOSH found that it 

has access to adequate exposure monitoring and other information necessary to do individual 

dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for members of this group, and therefore a class 

covering this group should not be added to the SEC. The Board concurs with this determination. 

Enclosed is supporting documentations from the February 23-25 Board meeting held in Augusta, 

Georgia, and earlier meetings where this potential class for the SEC was discussed. If any of 

these items are unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 [The transcript resumes:]

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Ted, anything 

3 further we need to address?

4 MR. KATZ: No, thank you all.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: One thing. Did 

6 you figure out December yet? 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I have not. 

8 MR. KATZ: No, we'll sort that 

9 out by email. 

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I hope I can 

11 understand it. I'll try. 

12 MR. KATZ: We'll do our best. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No further 

14 business? Do I hear a motion to - 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll so make. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just one further 

19 comment. There was one issue that we did 

20 not put on the agenda for the Working Group. 

21 I just wanted to remind people and do that 

22 because Dr. Lockey couldn't be here. But we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 have sort of an outstanding issue about 

2 talking about modifying these letters. Not 

3 the boilerplate but the issue related to 

4 voting and so forth. And I sort of felt it 

5 was appropriate to skip over it because Dr. 

6 Lockey is the one that originally raised it 

7 and he couldn't be here at this meeting. 

8 So, that will be on the agenda for the next 

9 meeting.

10 So, I didn't want anybody to 

11 think we were forgetting about it or not 

12 addressing it. 

13 So, with that if there is no 

14 further discussion, all in favor of 

15 adjournment?

16 (Chorus of ayes.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed?

18 (No response.)

19 (Whereupon, the above matter was 

20 adjourned at 10:12 a.m.) 

21

22