NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST. NW, STE. 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 http://www.nealrgross.com

US Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons Employers 

(URAWE) Work Group 

Thursday, February 17, 2022

The Work Group convened via Video Teleconference 

at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, Henry Anderson, Chair, 

presiding. 
2 

Members Present: 

Henry Anderson, Chair

R. William Field, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Dave Allen, DCAS

Bob Barton, SC&A

Finn Black, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Angelica Gheen, DCAS

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Chuck Nelson, DCAS

Michael Rafky, HHS

LaVon Rutherford, DCAS 

Tim Taulbee, DCAS
3 

Contents

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Uranium Refining 

Atomic Weapons Employers (URAWE) Work Group 

Thursday, February 17, 2022 1

Welcome and Roll Call 4

NIOSH Presentation: Overview of SEC-00253 

Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) Petition Evaluation 

Report 5

SC&A Presentation: Review of SEC-00253 RPP 

Petition Evaluation Report 11

Work Group Discussion 15

Petitioner Comments 20

Work Group Discussion & Path Forward 23

Adjourn 26
4

Proceedings

(11:00 a.m.)

Welcome and Roll Call

Dr. Roberts: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

This is a meeting of the URAWE Work Group, and I'm 

Rashaun Roberts. I'm the DFO for the Board.

There is an agenda for today. It's on the NIOSH website 

under February 2022.

Since Board members who have conflicts with regard to 

these sites that the Work Group covers can't sit on the 

Work Group, there are really no conflicts of interest for 

Work Group members today.

So, as I go through the roll call, I won't be asking about 

conflicts for the Work Group members, but other staff do 

need to state any relevant conflicts, as I move through 

the roll call.

So, with that, let me start with the call, and we need to 

start with Anderson.

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Welcome. Thank you. So, welcome 

again to everybody.

Just to go over a couple of additional items before I give 

the floor over to Dr. Anderson, who is the Chair of the 

Work Group.

To keep things running smoothly, everyone please make 

sure you are on mute, unless you're speaking. So, if 

you're on Zoom, the mute button is near the lower 

lefthand corner of your screen. If you're attending via 

telephone, press *6 to mute, if you don't have a mute 

button, and then, *6 again to take yourself off.

And as I said before, the agenda, presentations, et 

cetera, relevant for today's meeting are on the DCAS or 

NIOSH website, and all materials were sent to Board 

members and to staff prior to the meeting.
5

So, with that, I'll turn the meeting over to Andy.

NIOSH Presentation: Overview of SEC-00253 

Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) Petition Evaluation 

Report

Chair Anderson: Okay. I want to welcome everybody. 

And we'll start with the NIOSH overview, and I believe 

Angelica is the one that's taken over the lead on this 

and has put together a nice, concise set of presentation 

slides.

So, take it away, Angelica.

Ms. Gheen: Thank you so much. I'm very happy to be 

here. I just started with DCAS in February of 2020. So, 

I'm taking over this role from Tom Tomes, who left for

the summer. So, please don't hesitate to contact me if 

you have any questions or would like me to look into 

anything. I'm happy to do that.

Chair Anderson: And welcome.

Ms. Gheen: Let me see if I can figure out --

Chair Anderson: And welcome

Ms. Gheen: Oh, thank you so much. Let's see if I can 

figure out how to share my screen.

Okay. Can everybody see the presentation?

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Ms. Gheen: Perfect. Okay. So, I'm just going to go 

ahead and do a real quick overview. SC&A is going to do 

the heavy lifting today. We're going to go through the 

background and get us all up-to-speed. It's been a while 

since we all met. So, let's try to remember where we 

are. And it's, like I said, my first meeting. So, I'll try to 

meet you guys where you are.

So, this is for SEC-00253, the Reduction Pilot Plant; also 

known as the Huntington Pilot Plant. It's in Huntington, 

West Virginia; operated by INCO, the International 

Nickel Company. It manufactures nickel powder for use 

in gaseous diffusion plants.
6

It was a DOE facility from 1951 to November 26, 1978. 

It entered into its remediation period from November 

27th, 1978 through May 18th, 1979, and what we're 

calling standby period from May 1st, 1963 to November 

26th, 1978.

The remediation contractor that worked at the Reduction 

Pilot Plant was Cleveland Wrecking Company. And here, 

we've got a nice, little image, so we can try to visualize 

what it looked like at the time.

So, during the INCO operations, the Reduction Pilot 

Plant encompassed 3.47 acres of a fenced area next to 

the Pilot Plant in Huntington, West Virginia. The facility 

was built and operated in 1951. Security clearances 

were required by all staff members. The operations 

included the use of LEU-contaminated nickel scrap, 

supplied by DOE, and it was placed on standby in 1963. 

Set to be demolished in 1978 to 1979.

The petition for SEC-00253 was received on June 25th, 

2019, and the requested class included all of the INCO 

security personnel that worked at any of the locations 

within the RPP during this period from June 7th, 1976 

through November 26th, 1978.

The requested class is within the standby period. So, the 

operations ended and the facility was placed on standby, 

as previously stated, from May 1st, 1963 to November 

26th, 1978. The standby period was not previously 

covered under the (audio interference) when the petition 

was received.

So, on July 31st, 2019, we asked DOL to review the 

petitioners' claim that the standby period should be 

covered. And during that period, INCO was under 

contract for maintenance and security. November 15th 

of the same year, DOL notified us that the standby 

period was going to be added to the DOE's facilitycovered time period.

So, at that point, the petition qualified for review, 

December 13th, 2019, on the basis that we have no 

radiation exposure records for that requested class.

So, when we went into the Evaluation Report, the 

evaluated class encompasses all International Nickel 

Company security personnel who worked at any of the 
7

locations from June 7th, 1976 through November 26th, 

1978.

We approved the ER on April 24th, 2020. And our 

feasibility determination was that the dose 

reconstruction can be successfully completed with 

sufficient accuracy for all members of the evaluated 

class.

So, a little of background period about this specific time 

period that was going to be covered by the SEC. So, this 

was the time period when the facility was completely 

idle. Nickel production had ended at this point. It ended 

in 1962. And the plant was being maintained in a 

standby condition by INCO.

The security guards were required to check the 

production building and the compressor building once 

per shift. So, that's three times a day. And all 

maintenance activities were terminated in March 1975. 

INCO security guards made the rounds through 

November 26th, 1978, and demolition began on 

November 27th, 1978.

So, as a real quick background of how we had initially 

calculated how long these security routes would take, 

because that's going to be part of another presentation 

today about the recalculation.

For the original calculation here, we've got the layout in 

front of you, which shows the process building being 

measured 130-feet long. It's a five-story-tall building. 

The compressor building was 150-feet long with a single 

floor. And then, there's a small, two-story structure in 

one corner. It's 3.67 acres, and it's a rectangle 500 feet 

by 320 feet. So, the total perimeter distance here, 

because we're going to calculate the guards walking the 

perimeter, is 1,640 feet.

So, the original walkthrough exposure time for the 

security guards was estimated as listed here. So, we 

estimated five minutes, allowing for staff to walk the 

length of the compressor building. So, walking 150 feet 

at 4.4 feet per second. A factor of three was applied to 

allow for walking both through the process building and 

the compressor building, as well as the complete 

grounds. So, that yields about 15 minutes a day at RPP 
8

and 15 minutes multiplied by 365. So, the total 

exposure time was 91.3 hours per year.

And that's all I've got for background. So, please let me 

know if you have any questions.

Chair Anderson: Anyone have any questions?

Member Field: Andy, this is Bill. I just have a quick 

question.

As we've heard, there were maintenance folks at the 

plant as well? Or was this just security at this time?

Ms. Gheen: The class that we are looking into is just 

security.

Member Field: Just security. Okay. I'm just curious. Do 

you know if there was maintenance there at that time, 

though?

Ms. Gheen: Go ahead, Tim.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. Actually, the maintenance activities 

were shut down about a year before.

Member Field: Okay. Thanks. Angelica, what did the 

security guys do the rest of the time? What were their 

responsibilities and where were they? Do you know what 

else they did? I mean, if there were 15 minutes a day 

here and the place was all closed down, what did they 

do?

Ms. Gheen: Somebody else can correct me if I'm wrong 

here. But I believe that they were at a guard station, not 

on the plant ground itself.

Chair Anderson: Okay. So, there was no -- just knowing 

a lot about some of the security folks here, was there a 

place, in inclement weather, if they had another station, 

but would they have had an opportunity to sit, or 

whatever, inside one of the buildings?

Member Kotelchuck: Yes. Dave.

That's a good point. I think that should be checked when 

there are conversations with the employees, or that may 

have already been checked, just to affirm that. I think 

that's probably correct.
9

Mr. Barton: This is Bob.

Angelica or, also, Ron Buchanan is on the line directly.

But, I mean, this was just one building as part of the 

facility. So, the security would go through the building 

three times per day, but this wasn't the only location at 

the site. So, they weren't there just to protect that 

building, which was in the shutdown mode. So, there 

weren't many people in there. It was just the security 

guards walking through the building.

Chair Anderson: All right. Okay.

Ms. Gheen: Correct. This is adjacent to the rest of the 

facility.

Chair Anderson: Oh.

Member Field: This is Bill. I just have one other 

question. It sounds like you have pretty specific 

information about how long it took to walk through it. 

Was that based on interviews with the security 

personnel? Or was that just an estimate based on 

somebody walking through themselves?

Mr. Barton: I think we're going to get to that.

Member Field: Oh, okay. Sorry. Sorry.

Ms. Gheen: Yes. No, that's fine.

Member Field: Jumping ahead too far.

Ms. Gheen: We're going to get to how it's -- so, the 

revision that we're suggesting is going to calculate that 

a little bit more precisely.

Member Field: Okay. Thanks.

Ms. Gheen: But the initial one is just based on what's 

called biological preferred walking speed --

Member Field: Okay. Yes.

Ms. Gheen: -- along perimeters and things like that.

Member Field: Okay. Sorry.
10

Ms. Gheen: But we'll get into a little bit more specifics.

Chair Anderson: And while this period wasn't covered 

before, do we know, have there been claims from this 

facility prior to that?

Ms. Gheen: I do not know the answer to that.

Do you know that, Tim?

Mr. Barton: There are definitely claims for this facility. In 

fact, the information that Dr. Field was just referring to, 

interviews, came from that population of information. 

So, we do know people who performed that job, and 

that's where a more specific estimate of the time spent 

actually doing these walkthroughs and the number of 

levels, how long it took, that's where it comes from. And 

that's why the revision is suggested.

Chair Anderson: There were 77 claims. Okay. That's 

helpful. And were measurements available for any of 

those exposures?

Dr. Buchanan: This is Ron Buchanan. We'll get to that.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Dr. Buchanan: Not dosimetry, but there was some 

indication of the walkthrough time.

Chair Anderson: But my question is, was there any 

dosimetry for not necessarily people in this class, but in 

the facility?

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. No.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: But we do have radiation measurements 

for the areas, which is why this walkthrough time 

becomes important.

Chair Anderson: Yes. Okay. So, no measurements on 

anybody in this facility?

Dr. Taulbee: No personal dosimetry, no.

Chair Anderson: Yes, yes. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Well --
11

Ms. Gheen: And during this time, as mentioned, there's 

no maintenance being done or anything. So, the only 

people who are going into the facility at all are these 

security personnel.

Chair Anderson: No, my question was more, if there was 

other workers there that did have some monitoring 

done, that would give a sense of what might have been 

present in the facility, other than general information 

that you have now.

Dr. Taulbee: The rest of the facility, Dr. Anderson, was 

not a radiological facility. So, there was no other 

operations. This was just this operation within that 

confines.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Thank you. That, I wasn't sure 

about. Okay, let's move on to SC&A's review, if there 

are no more questions. I know we're asking some of the 

questions that we're going to ask the SC&A people.

Ms. Gheen: Yes, it might be a little clearer after their 

presentation.

Chair Anderson: Yes, right.

SC&A Presentation: Review of SEC-00253 RPP 

Petition Evaluation Report

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. This is Ron Buchanan with SC&A, 

and Rose will be turning the slides for me today.

So, this is SC&A's review of NIOSH's ER report for SEC0253 for the Reduction Pilot Plant, and it's RPP in 

Huntington, West Virginia.

Next slide. Okay. On September 2nd of 2020, SC&A was 

tasked to review the ER for this SEC for the focused 

worker group for the time period stated. And SC&A did 

that review and delivered our report in April of 2021. 

And then, NIOSH issued a response memo to our review 

in April of 2021. A lot occurred in April.

Next slide. Now, the way we approached this was that 

SC&A reviewed 77 claimant files in NIOSH's files that 

were associated with RPP to identify any information 

relevant to dose reconstruction feasibility for this 

security personnel group during the period June 7th, 
12

1976 to November 26th, 1978.

We found that there was a total of 44 of these claimants 

out of 77 that worked a portion or all of 1976 through 

1978 at RPP. Now, just a little bit of clarification.

This was a nickel plant which was a large plant, and this 

was just a small facility to the side, the way I 

understand it, that reprocessed material from, I believe 

it was Oak Ridge, nickel that had some contamination of 

uranium in it. So, the main company was not concerned 

with radiation. It was just this fenced-in area.

Okay. Next slide. So, our review results was that we 

found that we didn't identify any information that would 

impact the feasibility of dose reconstruction during the 

SEC period for the security folks.

We did, however, look at the Site Profile issues and 

found that a key facet of the ER process was to include 

the exposure time, which we touched on a little bit. It's 

important to ensure that the exposure time was 

estimated during the relevant activities, and that it 

properly characterizes in pounds the possible time it 

took to walk through the facility.

Now, in this case, we used exposure time to mean the 

time spent inside of the facility where residual 

contamination are precedent or to walk the perimeter of 

the facility, which the security guards, we understand 

they just came in, did this, then left, once per shift. So, 

that was the only exposure that took place to radioactive 

material.

Next slide. Now we did have Observation 1, which 

suggested further refinement of the exposure time. We 

looked at the CATIs, and they indicated that the 

exposure time may be longer than the original 15 

minutes that previously was described.

And we interviewed with Claimant A, who said they kept 

all seven floors and perimeters. And Claimant B 

estimated it took about 30 minutes per day.

And we recommended to NIOSH that it would be 

beneficial to attempt to contact and interview these 

guards and other workers with specific knowledge to 

maybe determine a more accurate or at least a better 
13

bounding estimate of time required to walk through the 

facility.

And we also wanted to emphasize that we don't think 

that the exposure time should include the ER feasibility 

and can be considered a Site Profile issue.

Next slide. NIOSH's response to our Observation 1, in 

April of '21, they revised the estimate of time spent in 

the facility: 52 minutes per day, six days per week, for 

250 days per year. That led to 260 hours per year, and 

they estimated that it took five minutes per floor. And 

multiply the seven floors, and then, walking the rate 

around the perimeter at 4.4 feet per second, I think is 

what was intended. And this increased the exposure 

time by about a factor of three from what was 

previously estimated, 92 to about 260. So, it's 

approximately a factor of three greater.

Next slide. And now, the cautious response to our 

observation concerning the dose rate. NIOSH used a 

maximum dose rate of .035 millirem per hour in the ER 

in a timely manner. That was the maximum dose rate 

calculated. And NIOSH will evaluate all the dose rates 

for the Site Profile, and it will be revised to consider all 

the various dose rates that potentially exposed the 

security guards to. And the Site Profile will also be 

revised to include the standby period of 1963 to 1978 as 

the covered period.

Next slide. So, NIOSH's response to Observation 1, in 

summary, was that the overall annual doses remain 

lower, even though they would be using an increased 

exposure time, because in the Site Profile they'll look at 

all the dose rates, and the actual dose rates may 

decrease. And if you multiply that by an increased 

exposure time, you might get the same or even less 

total dose assigned, but it would be more accurate.

Next slide. So, our evaluation to NIOSH's response to 

our Observation 1, we concur with NIOSH's reevaluation 

of potential overexposure time and find that it's 

reasonable. We concur with NIOSH's having used the 

maximum dose rate to facilitate the completion of the 

ER. And we find it appropriate to consider all the dose 

rate data in the revised Site Profile. We recommend that 

this remain in abeyance until the Site Profile is revised 
14

and we'll be able to review both the exposure time and 

the revised dose rate approach.

Next slide. Now, Observation 2 that we originally had 

was ingested intake not addressed in the SEC period. 

Now, in the Site Profile, originally it was. On 318, Tables 

3 and 4 give an ingestion intake value. However, the ER 

did not consider ingestion intake for the SEC period. 

Although this will probably be very small, it should be an 

accurate estimate.

And so, next slide. So, NIOSH responded to Observation 

2 that ingestion for the security guards had been 

estimated based on the contamination level, and the ER 

used a bound alpha contamination value of 19 dpm per 

hundred square centimeters to estimate the intake 

inhalation, and applied that using the NRC guides to 

determine the potential ingestion intake of 0.19 

disintegrations per hour of alpha ingestion rate for the 

security guards, which would obviously be very low, but 

it will be addressed. And details for assigning this 

ingested intake will be included in the revised Site 

Profile.

Next slide. So, we reevaluated NIOSH's response to 

Observation 2, and we concur with NIOSH's 

recommendation for addressing ingestion intake, and we 

recommend that this observation also remain in 

abeyance, pending the issue of the revised Site Profile 

and our review of that Site Profile.

Next slide. So, in summary, on the Site Profile issues: 

Observation 1, we concur with NIOSH's approach and to 

reevaluate all the applicable dose rate data. And we 

recommend that that remain in abeyance until we have 

a chance to review that for both the (audio interference) 

and the time component.

And Observation 2, ingestion intake, we concur with the 

recommendations and, again, recommend that it remain 

in abeyance, pending review of the revised Site Profile.

Next slide. Okay. In conclusion, as far as the SEC is 

concerned, we concur with NIOSH that upper bounds 

can be established for internal intake and external 

exposures. And we concur that the ER is feasible for the 

security guards during the SEC period.
15

Okay. Next slide. Okay. That completes my 

presentation, and I open up for questions.

Work Group Discussion

Chair Anderson: Board Members, any questions?

If you're talking, Dave, you've got to be off mute.

Member Kotelchuck: All right. No, I don't have any. It 

seems, because they have a very clear pattern of how 

they walked, we know what the exposure levels are. We 

know what the contamination levels are area wide. And 

it seems reasonable.

Chair Anderson: Bill, any thoughts?

Member Field: I just was curious, can you remind me, 

where's the .035 millirem per hour come from? What's 

the source of that?

Mr. Barton: I think maybe I can take this. Or, Ron, if 

you want to step in?

But, I mean, those were from contamination surveys of 

the building --

Member Field: Okay.

Mr. Barton: -- and that was, I think, the maximum read 

level that was used, I think, simply to confirm feasibility 

of dose reconstruction. However, in the updated TBD, 

NIOSH is going to go back and look at all of those 

survey measurements and get a more reasonable level 

than just the maximum seen. And as you can tell, it's 

rather low.

Member Field: Right. Thanks.

Chair Anderson: Any other comments?

Member Kotelchuck: I mean, it is normally vague. I 

mean, normally, we're in a bind; we don't have any 

personal radiation measurements. On the other hand, 

this is such a routinized walkthrough; I think it's safe to 

say we really know where the people were and about 

how long it took. And we have some CATI reports from 

them, which we're following. So, I don't see any problem 

here.
16

Chair Anderson: There are some area measurement 

data that can be applicable here.

Member Kotelchuck: Right.

Chair Anderson: And I think taking the highest 

measurement found is certainly erring on the side of 

protection.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes, I agree.

Chair Anderson: And just a question for the 77 claims. 

Do we know, were any of them paid?

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim.

I don't know that off the top of my head here. In fact, 

getting that information now is rather difficult for us, 

given the current task.

Chair Anderson: Yes, I know.

Dr. Taulbee: It's not --

Chair Anderson: Yes, it doesn't really -- I think what 

you've got for this period, since there wouldn't have 

been accidents or things going on, but it would be 

interesting just to have a sense of, was most of the 

exposure in the processing, the basis, you know, the 

background measurement sort of things that were made 

that are just being applied through this down period?

Mr. Barton: This is Bob again.

I think, yes, this is sort of a unique situation in which 

we're in the residual period and it's really there's nobody 

in there. The building was shut down and it was in 

stasis. Where a lot of times we have production 

processes still going on during the residual period, in 

this case it was really them just checking to make sure 

like nobody else was in there, essentially.

Chair Anderson: Yes, yes.

Mr. Barton: So, it was just those walkthroughs occurring 

three times a day, which I think is a very conservative 

estimate. And I think that it just came down to, well, 

what is the exposure time there, and what is the 

exposure rate based on measurements that were made 
17

in the building? So, in a lot of ways, this is sort of a very 

straightforward one.

Chair Anderson: From the CATI interviews, I mean, if 

there was nothing going on and no maintenance staff, 

there's going to be dust settling out. And it's a four-year 

period. So, it wouldn't get to be inches, you wouldn't 

think, but that would potentially have more particulate 

to be raised in a dust cloud, if they're walking through 

the entry or part of the building.

Dr. Taulbee: If I could interject here?

Chair Anderson: Yes. Sure.

Dr. Taulbee: The survey data that we have is January of 

1975. So, it's actually right before this particular -- the 

SEC period of evaluation. So, we kind of have the point 

where it would be the maximum from the settling part 

that you're talking about.

Chair Anderson: Right. It had been closed before then, 

right? Yes. Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: That's correct, it had been closed since 

1961.

Chair Anderson: Yes, yes.

Member Kotelchuck: Dave. For individual claimants, is 

there any possibility -- I assume that, for individual 

security guards, they would be assessed one 

walkthrough a day, since it's a 24-hour period, right, 

three shifts? But I wondered if there were times when 

one security guard went through as he/she came on, 

and then, went around before the end of the shift, just 

to kind of cover for the next person or if somebody was 

missing. It may be worth checking on the individual 

claim, individuals who are claimed, when there's a 

discussion with them. This is a small, this would be a 

small correction, if any, but --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gheen: The current -- oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Member Kotelchuck: Go ahead. Go ahead.
18

Ms. Gheen: I was just going to say, the current 

calculations account for a six-day workweek. So, there is 

a lot of wiggle room there, I feel like, for being claimantfavorable, even if they were picking up extra shifts.

Member Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm. Okay. Good, good. 

Thank you.

Chair Anderson: So, any other thoughts?

Member Field: Henry, did you see the chat? You may 

just want to read that to get it into the record.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I can read it.

Chair Anderson: Well, I got it.

Member Field: Okay. Thanks.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Anderson: I'll read it, too.

"To answer Henry's question on number of claims paid, I 

have old data, 2015, but at that point, 16 of the 75 

claims had a POC of over 50 percent."

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Barton: But, also, that would have probably included 

work that was outside this period in question.

Chair Anderson: Correct. Yes.

Mr. Barton: Right.

Chair Anderson: But it speaks to the activity and 

exposures that were going on inside the plant when it 

was operational. So, yes.

Mr. Barton: For sure.

Chair Anderson: And decontamination issues that would 

go on. I mean, this is clearly a period at the far end of 

the episode, but it does give a sense of the potential 

exposures that went on at the facility.

Mr. Barton: And also, just as, I guess, an editorial 
19

comment -- and Angelica can probably correct me if I'm 

wrong here -- but, once they started actually tearing 

down the building, those workers were actually put on a 

pre-screen uranium bioassay and followed up on. So 

that, as they were tearing some of these things down, 

which is where you would expect a lot of the dust to be 

generated and exposures to happen, that was much 

more regulated than what we're talking about today,

which is really simply a security check happening a 

couple of times a day in an empty building.

Chair Anderson: Yes. Was everything removed from the 

building already, the interior?

Mr. Barton: I believe it has gone completely down to 

maybe the slab is still there, but I think everything else 

was removed shortly after this period that we're talking 

about.

Chair Anderson: Yes. But all the equipment would have 

been removed prior to this period?

Dr. Taulbee: No.

Chair Anderson: No?

Dr. Taulbee: Prior to this, prior to the period of 

evaluation, it was placed in standby. So, all the 

equipment was present. And then, in May of 1975 is 

when they terminated all the maintenance on it, and it 

was just the security guards walking through. And 

actually, just before they terminated the maintenance is 

when they did the survey that we have the data for, the 

contamination and radiation dose rate measurements.

And then, after this time period of just security walking 

through is -- starting, then, in, let's see, November; I'm 

looking for the date here.

Ms. Gheen: November 27th.

Dr. Taulbee: November 27th, 1978 is when they started 

the demolition.

Chair Anderson: Oh, okay.

Dr. Taulbee: And tearing the building down to nothing.
20

Chair Anderson: Yes. I didn't know if they had ever 

moved the equipment that was inside prior to that or if 

it was just going to be abandoned. Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: No, it was maintained in standby condition 

from '61 through '75.

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: Well, through '78, actually.

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Ms. Gheen: And like Tim mentioned, that year we're 

basing maximum removable contamination was taken in 

1975. So, it was during the middle of the standby 

period, but way after the operations had ceased.

Chair Anderson: Yes. That sort of explains the levels 

that were found.

Okay. Other questions?

Member Field: Henry, I was just curious if we're going to 

hear from petitioners at all.

Chair Anderson: Yes, I was going to say, we'll go to 

them next.

Member Field: Okay.

Chair Anderson: And then we can talk about where do 

we go from here.

So, okay. Do we know who is going to speak for the 

petitioners?

Ms. Wood: I am here for [identifying information 

redacted].

Chair Anderson: Okay. Why don't you go ahead?

Petitioner Comments

Ms. Wood: Well, I think you all have the information that 

we've sent. [identifying information redacted], 

but she passed away this past October. So, 

[identifying information redacted]-- my 

[identifying information redacted], and I -- are 
21

kind of taking that over. [identifying information 

redacted]and I, we were the ones that started the 

petition with my mother. My [identifying 

information redacted] was exposed and he had a 

very painful death.

And most of your petitioners, or the ones that we 

submitted as being in the plant at that time, most of 

them have passed, I believe.

But do you have any questions for me?

Chair Anderson: I guess that a question would be, based 

on your recollection for your mom and others who were 

security guards, does the description of what they did, 

and how much time it took to do that, does that sound 

reasonable to you?

Ms. Wood: I think the new, the 260 hours a year would 

be more accurate, if not more. They did walk through, 

you know, three times a shift. And, you know, my dad, 

in particular, was very meticulous about checking 

everything. And, you know, his medical records that we 

have submitted, you know, kind of go along with what 

had happened in there, and everything.

But one of the things that I guess you all know, because 

the thing was this was an undercover, well, a classified 

period of time. And that's why it was never submitted 

with the original claims.

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Ms. Wood: That's why we petitioned, you know, to get 

this for them.

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Board Members, do you have questions of her at all?

(No response.)

Chair Anderson: Thank you very much. Do we have 

anyone else?

(No response.)

Chair Anderson: For those on the phone, if you're muted 
22

and you want to speak, please take yourself off mute.

Member Kotelchuck: My goodness, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank 

you.

Ms. LeMaster (sic), you had mentioned something, that 

they walked three times per shift. You mean three times 

a day, right?

Ms. Wood: For that shift.

Member Kotelchuck: Do I misunderstand?

Ms. Wood: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: That is, each shift walked, each 

eight-hour shift walked through once?

Ms. Wood: Three times. Yes. Yes, three.

Member Kotelchuck: And that was perhaps then -- what 

was the timeframe? Are we talking about 24 hours, over 

24 hours? Three times a --

Ms. Wood: It was not --

Member Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Ms. Wood: It is my understanding that, for an eighthour shift, they did it three times a day.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Wood: But we submitted records that should show 

that.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Wood: A lot of the records were gone, of course, or 

not at the plant, because they were, like I said, they had 

to get security clearance from the FBI, and everything. 

So, it was kind of hard to get a lot of records.

Member Kotelchuck: Right. So, really, it was during an 

eight-hour shift that these three walkthroughs were 

done?

Ms. Wood: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: I didn't know whether the plant 
23

was -- whether they inspected over a 24-hour day. No, 

just an eight-hour, an eight-hour normal workday, six 

days a week?

Ms. Wood: Right.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine. Thanks.

Ms. Wood: Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Any other comments or 

questions?

(No response.)

Work Group Discussion & Path Forward

Chair Anderson: Well, now, we can have our Work 

Group discussion and plan forward.

We have really kind of two issues here. The first is dose 

reconstruction and the request to include this group as 

an SEC, that I think at least it appears to be an SEC --

and SC&A agrees -- that does reconstruction is feasible, 

even though the individuals did not have any personal 

biomonitoring conducted. But we have enough 

information, and especially the limited amount of time 

that they spent, and the protocol of what they did during 

their inspection. That gives us a pretty good set, so we 

can be sure we have a claimant-favorable assessment 

on the exposure.

So, the first question is for you other Board members, 

do we want to accept NIOSH's conclusion that they can 

be dose reconstructed?

Member Kotelchuck: I think so.

Chair Anderson: Bill?

Member Field: Yes. I think so as well. I think just 

following SC&A's recommendations seems appropriate.

Chair Anderson: Yes, I would agree. So, I think we're 

unanimous in accepting the SC&A review and their 

conclusion on the dose reconstructions. So, I think that's 

a unanimous decision as relates to the proposal to add 

this to the SEC.
24

The second issue, then, is, do we want to put the issues 

raised by SC&A, as they say, for the Site Profile in 

abeyance until those changes are made? I think we've 

done that in the past.

I also think there's good agreement, but do we now ask 

SC&A and NIOSH as to what changes need to be made? 

And now, it's just the implementation of that. So, once 

that's done, that will come back, and then, we'll close 

everything out, as we have with some of the other sites.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes, sounds fine.

Member Field: Yes.

Chair Anderson: So, I think that's the only followup 

actions that we have.

Rashaun, anything else we need to do?

You're on mute.

Dr. Roberts: Just in terms of the April Board meeting,

we'll be having an agenda item where bringing this to 

the Board?

Chair Anderson: Yes, I think we can probably do -- I 

don't know whether we want to have -- SC&A, I don't 

remember; were you on the last Board meeting to talk 

about it? I mean, has the full Board seen your review?

Mr. Barton: No. I think this is the first time it's actually 

been broached with the Board.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Mr. Barton: I think at the Board meeting --

Chair Anderson: So, I think at the Board meeting, to 

close this out, we could have you present your 

conclusions, and then, I can report on the Committee's 

action on it and the abeyance issue, and then, ask the 

full Board to agree to that.

Mr. Barton: We can certainly do that.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: And about how much time do you guys 
25

need for the agenda?

Mr. Barton: Well, this meeting itself is under an hour. I 

would think an hour would be max to allow time for 

comment and questions. So, probably 60 minutes would 

be fine, and it will probably take less than that.

Chair Anderson: Yes, I think the only unknown is 

whether other Board members will have any questions 

or comments to trigger further discussion. But I think 

circulating the report and the other reports, I can't 

imagine there will be a whole lot of concern with the 

decisions we've made. So, I think, you know, an hour at 

most. Probably a half-hour will suffice.

Okay, Rashaun?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, that's fine.

Chair Anderson: Tim, any other thoughts?

Dr. Taulbee: No. I think an hour is appropriate as well. I 

can't imagine it taking longer than that, but 30 minutes 

might actually push it, when you add in the other Board 

member questions.

Chair Anderson: Yes. Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: And our main go-to here is to update the 

Site Profile, based upon what we've all agreed to here 

today.

Chair Anderson: Yes. Right.

Dr. Taulbee: So, we will go forth and do that.

Chair Anderson: Yes. Okay.

Any other comments or issues?

Member Field: This is Bill. I just want to thank Angelica 

and Ron for the pretty clear presentation. Thank you for 

that.

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: Agree.

Chair Anderson: Okay?
26

Ms. Gheen: Thank you so much.

Dr. Buchanan: Thank you.

Adjourn

Chair Anderson: If there is nothing else, one or the 

other Board members want to recommend that we 

adjourn?

Member Kotelchuck: So moved.

Member Field: I would second.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Any final comments?

(No response.)

Chair Anderson: I think we're good moving forward.

Member Kotelchuck: It was a pleasure doing this on 

Zoom. That's what I found.

Member Field: Yes, it was. It was. Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes. Nice to see people.

Member Field: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: We can't shake hands anymore or 

have lunch.

(Laughter.)

Member Kotelchuck: But we can say, "Hello."

Chair Anderson: And I certainly appreciate the 

participation by the petitioner.

Member Field: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Chair Anderson: And confirming that the description that 

we're basing our decisions on is an accurate depiction of 

how exposures occurred. Okay.

Ms. Wood: Thank you all so much.

Member Kotelchuck: Thank you.
27

Ms. Wood: I appreciate you.

Chair Anderson: We'll let you know about the April 

Board meeting, if you want to listen into that as well.

Ms. Wood: That would be great. I appreciate it.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Rashaun, I was looking through 

my notes. Do we have any other sites that we're now 

waiting on things here for this group?

Dr. Roberts: Not that I'm aware of. Nothing comes to 

mind immediately.

Chair Anderson: Okay. And there's no proposed new 

SECs for our group. So, it's just tracking the Site Profile 

changes that needed to be made for the various sites, 

and I think we're making good progress on those.

So, with that, I'll say, have a good weekend, everybody.

Member Field: Okay. Thank you.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Bye-bye.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:53 a.m.)