NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

 

 + + + + +

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

 SAFETY AND HEALTH

 

 + + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

 + + + + +

 88th MEETING

 + + + + +

 WEDNESDAY,

 DECEMBER 12, 2012

 + + + + +

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

Eastern Standard Time, in the Hilton

Knoxville, 501 West Church Avenue, Knoxville,

Tennessee, James M. Melius, Chairman,

presiding.

 

PRESENT:
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE M. BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member*

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

THEODORE M. KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

ADLER, SANDRA

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

ALLEN, DAVID, DCAS

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

DEHART, JULIA

DEHART, ROY

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS Contractor 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAHATHY, MIKE, ORAU Team

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

MCQUADE, JAMES, DOL

NETON, JIM, DCAS

PRESLEY, LOUISE

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

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 www.nealrgross.com

4

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

Welcome - Dr. James Melius, Chair 4

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. 6

(Ft. Wayne, IN), SEC petition (PV)

 Dr. Sam Glover, NIOSH 

Petitioner: Ms. Kristi Keller,

 Ms. Betty Keller (possibly)

SEC Petitions Status Update 41

 Mr. LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH 

Baker Brothers (Toledo, OH) SEC 47

petition (PV)

 Dr. James Neton, NIOSH 

Petitioners: Not participating 

Board Work Session 74

- Correspondence 74

- WG Reports 77

- Scheduling meetings 107

 Dr. James Melius, Chair
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

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

2 (8:31 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning, 

4 everybody. We'll get started with the second 

5 day of meeting number 88. And, Ted, do you 

6 want to do the introduction?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. Good morning, 

8 everyone, to the Advisory Board of Radiation 

9 and Worker Health. For people on the phone, 

10 the materials for today's meeting, the 

11 presentations, are all posted on the NIOSH 

12 website under the Board section under today's 

13 -- under meetings, today's date. So you can 

14 follow along with the presentations as they're 

15 given. There is no public comment session 

16 today.

17 And I would ask you all on the 

18 phone to please mute your phones for the 

19 entirety of these proceedings. Press *6 to 

20 mute your phone.

21 And then we do have two petitions 

22 being presented: Joslyn and Baker Brothers. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 And when those are presented, the petitioners 

2 have the opportunity to speak. And those 

3 petitioners, if you are on the line now, you 

4 would take your phone off of mute so that you 

5 can speak when your portion of that session 

6 comes up.

7 Let's just do -- we have no 

8 conflicts. So I don't have to address that 

9 when doing Board roll call, but let's run 

10 Board roll call alphabetically.

11 (Roll call.)

12 MR. KATZ: That's good. We have a 

13 quorum, and we're good to go.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For those of you 

15 who haven't checked out yet or whatever, we 

16 will fit in a break around 10:00 o'clock, 

17 despite our DFO forgetting to include a break 

18 this morning.

19 So our first item this morning is 

20 Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply, Fort Wayne, 

21 and Sam Glover.

22 DR. GLOVER: All right. So we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 going to talk about Joslyn Manufacturing. 

2 This is one of the earliest sites. This 

3 facility was part of the very earliest war 

4 effort. So this is the beginning of rolling 

5 of uranium. This is where it started.

6 All right. So Joslyn is listed as 

7 an Atomic Weapons Employer for the AEC from 

8 March of 1943 to 1952. The principal 

9 operations include the machining and rolling 

10 of uranium rods with limited thorium machining 

11 operations. Joslyn was primarily a commercial 

12 rolling facility for the AEC. And if you 

13 recall, Simonds Saw and Steel in 1948 

14 essentially took over the commercial rolling 

15 operations for the AEC, but before that, it 

16 was primarily Joslyn.

17 Petition overview. SEC-00200 was 

18 received March 15th, 2012 and qualified on May 

19 10th. Petitioner-proposed Class was all 

20 employees who worked in any area of the Joslyn 

21 Manufacturing and Supply Company in Fort 

22 Wayne, Indiana from 1944 through 1952.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 NIOSH extended the Class slightly. 

2 We extended that through March 1, 1943, in 

3 part, because there were changes in the Class. 

4 As time went along we found new documentation 

5 that was provided to the Department of Labor, 

6 and they changed the covered period.

7 The total number of claims 

8 submitted. I was shocked when I put this 

9 slide together because it doubled in the last 

10 two months. We had 36 just a short time ago, 

11 and now we have 62. So DOL outreach worked 

12 pretty well. They had an outreach meeting not 

13 very long ago, and we were out there as well.

14 So of the 62 cases, 36 have a DR 

15 at DOL. Number of claims with internal or 

16 external records is zero. And number of 

17 claims with a PoC greater than 50 percent is 

18 27.

19 Joslyn Manufacturing is obviously 

20 located in Fort Wayne. And they have a long 

21 history of producing stainless steel. They 

22 participated in a number of radiological 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 operations for the MED and later AEC, 

2 including hot rolling, quenching, 

3 straightening, cooling, grinding, waste 

4 burning, abrasive cutting of natural uranium 

5 billets into metal rods.

6 Background continued. Much of the 

7 early work at Joslyn, pre-'48, was related to 

8 the production of uranium for the Hanford 

9 site. They were also used for numerous 

10 experiments to develop procedures for rolling 

11 uranium metal for use in nuclear reactors, 

12 performed rolling operations associated with 

13 testing of uranium metal rods at the Chalk 

14 River reactors in Canada. They prepared 

15 uranium metal for the British government.

16 This is just kind of a simple 

17 diagram. When you go to the facility, it 

18 makes a lot more sense, and I think of it sort 

19 of turned on its side here because of how you 

20 come into it.

21 But basically the entire facility, 

22 this stuff was trucked through it for one part 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 or another. Between the grinding operations 

2 and the handling and the packing, it pretty 

3 much all made its way through the whole plant. 

4 Not every part of the plant was as highly 

5 contaminated, let's say, like in the burning 

6 areas of the rolling mills, but it did make 

7 its way through quite a bit of the plant.

8 So, sources of exposure. 

9 Principal source of exposure include the 

10 inhalation and ingestion of natural uranium 

11 oxide from the production and shaping of 

12 uranium metal rods. Joslyn was a hand 

13 operated shop. People grabbed. As the stuff 

14 came through the rolling passes, they used 

15 tongs and actually pulled it through and drug 

16 it back around and manually reinserted it. So 

17 they were manually reinserted into the mill. 

18 There was no automatic roller like Bethlehem 

19 Steel.

20 And they did that the number of 

21 times required. And that may be 20-25 passes 

22 to get a rod down to shape. Then they would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 drag it to the next mill and do that again. 

2 And then they would drag it to the third mill 

3 and do that again until they got the right 

4 size and shape.

5 So there were three mills, all 

6 sort of in this one big room. They had an 

7 18-inch basically to crush it down from really 

8 big sizes, the 12-inch mill, and 9-inch 

9 finishing mill. Basically they would just run 

10 this. And they needed to let it cool down in 

11 certain phases. So they would let them rest 

12 and start with the next one so they would keep 

13 them in the right metallurgical phases.

14 Rolling of uranium was conducted 

15 on rollers which had water-cooled bearings. 

16 And this is very unusual. And they would 

17 interact with this. So the steam would 

18 explode and caused, you know, extra 

19 contamination in the air. So they had high 

20 levels of contamination. It was an unusual 

21 process compared to other facilities.

22 Additional machining and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 preparation steps. They did centerless 

2 grinding, cutting, heating, quenching, and 

3 threading. So they threaded these uranium 

4 rods so they could be put into a reactor and 

5 get good contact. They were carried out on 

6 uranium metal prepared at Joslyn as well as 

7 other facilities.

8 They also had a long-term billet 

9 storage. I actually was able to go on site. 

10 And they walked me around the facility, showed 

11 me where the billet storage area existed. It 

12 didn't exist anymore, but you could still see 

13 the outlines of the area that they had set up. 

14 But they would keep those on site for 

15 experiments as Hanford needed them done.

16 Uranium waste was noted to be 

17 collected and burned outside. They actually 

18 were -- it became evident they talked about a 

19 drum of it blowing up. And they explained why 

20 it happened. It got wet. And they didn't 

21 properly dry it. And at their transfer 

22 station in Joslyn, this thing exploded. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 that sort of caught my attention, but it also 

2 caught my attention that they were burning 

3 this in an open area.

4 So they had a person collect it. 

5 And I've seen different things described, but 

6 they would burn this stuff on a metal plate. 

7 And that area is still contaminated.

8 So grinding operation is described 

9 as being conducted inside of a shed. They 

10 call these buildings sheds. They're really 

11 big metal, you know, big standard mills-type, 

12 you know, sheet metal facilities, but they 

13 called them sheds. So, you know, it can be 

14 between which author you listen to what they 

15 really mean. They call it a shed inside of 

16 another shed. I also heard it called tenting, 

17 that they tented over these things. So there 

18 are some descriptive back and forth of what 

19 different operation they were doing.

20 But by putting these structures 

21 over this, they sort of contained it, but they 

22 also entrapped the workers in this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 contaminated area.

2 So they describe also the grinder 

3 had an overhead hood, which discharged inside 

4 the larger building. So it didn't even 

5 discharge outside.

6 Machining operations were noted to 

7 be conducted with a heavy flow of coolant 

8 fluid over the cutting and grinding surfaces 

9 to reduce sparking. And, as I said, they 

10 discussed tenting of areas to prevent 

11 broad-scale contamination, but people worked 

12 in that area. So that would stop normal 

13 dispersal of materials.

14 So, for all operations, Joslyn was 

15 further responsible for packaging, handling, 

16 and loading. And they noted that they -- I 

17 guess when they had switched to other places, 

18 the QC that Joslyn did associated was not 

19 necessarily seen at some of the other area 

20 facilities. And so they took a lot of time to 

21 do that work.

22 Manhattan Engineer District kept 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 strict records of materials. And they sought 

2 to regain as much of the material as possible. 

3 And so they were responsible for cleanup and 

4 accounting of the materials. And you see that 

5 in the records.

6 Documents do describe that there 

7 was required medical surveillance blood work 

8 as well as X-rays.

9 Just to give you a feel, you can 

10 see here the big push. In the early '44-'45 

11 time frame, you've got -- and I just did it in 

12 six-month intervals. And I put "approximate" 

13 because I see that there are a lot of 

14 different documents to try to go through. But 

15 this is the bulk of the million-plus pounds of 

16 stuff. There's probably some new stuff that I 

17 missed, but this kind of gives you a feel for 

18 the throughput.

19 And so you see the '44-'45 push 

20 for the war. And then you see the 1948. 

21 Hanford in 1948 quite using extruded uranium 

22 rods. This is why Bethlehem Steel was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 engaged. This is the start of the big rolling 

2 program in 1948.

3 The extruded rods were -- as they 

4 ramped the power up in the Hanford reactors

5 they were fracturing and shutting the reactors 

6 down. So they thought the rolling mills would 

7 provide a more stable source of uranium that 

8 would hold up better in this neutron flux. So 

9 that's why Joslyn got engaged in 1948. And 

10 you can see they roll about 600,000 pounds of 

11 uranium in that first half of 1948. And after 

12 that, it was much smaller. Simonds Saw and 

13 Steel took over.

14 Joslyn has two recorded 

15 thorium-related processing, both before 1948. 

16 You see they had straightening and centerless 

17 grinding of six thorium rods and another in 

18 '47. They had centerless grinding of five 

19 extruded thorium rods.

20 This is external monitoring 

21 programs. We have no evidence that a routine 

22 monitoring program existed. Extremely few 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 measurements are available. This would have 

2 to be a source term basis, basically a 

3 TBD-6000 approach. We do have a Survey by 

4 Health and Safety Lab of some contamination 

5 levels and dose rates in several areas.

6 And for internal dosimetry, again, 

7 there is no routine air monitoring or bioassay 

8 program. We have limited air samples on three 

9 occasions: December 1943, May of '44, and 

10 October of '51. These are very limited in 

11 scope, mostly GA samples.

12 Early data was taken with 

13 equipment, maybe using electrostatic 

14 precipitators. This was the first time --

15 I've also looked at the difference when we 

16 looked at Electro Met, why HASL came in and 

17 found very different air samples four years 

18 later. Rochester was using electrostatic 

19 precipitators as best as we can tell. And 

20 they described that in this series of 

21 documents. So there's a very different 

22 fundamental air sampling, and it gave very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 different results when you come in and compare 

2 these results to what they did in 1952.

3 There was a much larger study, as 

4 I say here, January 8th, 1952, where HASL came 

5 in and conducted a time-weighted average study 

6 of various operations at Joslyn. And I'll 

7 show you that data shortly.

8 So, approach to bounding doses. 

9 So from January 1, 1948 through December 31st, 

10 1952, NIOSH proposes to use the data from 

11 TBD-6000 and known rolling days to determine 

12 internal and external dose and will use a 

13 standard approach to medical X-ray dose.

14 So, the post-1947. So what I'm 

15 saying here is that before that date, we don't 

16 believe we can do dose reconstruction for 

17 internal dose. TBD-6000. So the tabulated 

18 data converted per calendar day to rolling 

19 days, there are tabulated inhalation exposures 

20 for various operations.

21 And this is for a rolling 

22 operation, a roller. And so if we convert 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 that to a per-day and then use the number of 

2 rolling days, you can see here we have 42 

3 rolling days and 48 and a substantially 

4 smaller in '49, '51, '50, '52. You can use 

5 those inhalation rates and ingestion rates to 

6 determine the intakes.

7 And also we have both rolling days 

8 and non-rolling day intake rates. Those are 

9 directly out of TBD-6000.

10 So this was the air concentration 

11 data. All of the air data as compared to --

12 actually, this just shows the 95th percentile, 

13 show how it compares to TBD-6000 in a second. 

14 You see it's a very nice log-normal fit. This 

15 is both the GA samples as well as the 

16 breathing zone samples from that 1952 study.

17 And you can see here this is a 

18 summary of the table that HASL came up with. 

19 If you remember, 50 micrograms per meter 

20 cubed, which would be about 70 dpm per meter 

21 cubed, would have been the limit. And you can 

22 see here, they're up to the nine-inch 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 finishing mill on the east side. That's the 

2 side that you would insert the rod at over 

3 16,000 picocuries per meter cubed. So if you 

4 multiply that 2.22, you're in around 32-35 

5 thousand dpm per meter cubed. That's a pretty 

6 healthy inhalation in 1952 after we have 

7 learned quite a bit.

8 But it compares. If you look at 

9 TBD-6000, what are the rolling data that they 

10 found from that time frame? The TBD-6000, 

11 that blue line, shows you the rough rolling 

12 geometric mean. And the red line shows you 

13 the 95th percentile. You can see there the 

14 data is fairly consistent, actually slightly 

15 below what TBD-6000 shows.

16 And this is also these are the BZ 

17 data from the operation. So these were 

18 actually only data from the BZ samples.

19 So the external dose rate factors 

20 for rolling days and contaminated surfaces 

21 will be applied. Billets were stored on site 

22 for an extended amount of time. And, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 therefore, for the purpose of dose 

2 reconstructions, we're going to for every 

3 rolling day assume ten hours of exposure to a 

4 long billet at one foot for each rolling day. 

5 And so for the billet storage area, for the 

6 rest of the non-rolling days, we're going to 

7 assume a ten-hour exposure to a long billet at 

8 one meter. You can see that the dose rate per 

9 day is about seven millirem per day versus one 

10 millirem per day.

11 So, just to describe a summary of 

12 the monitoring gaps. External, we have no 

13 film badge results. The source term and 

14 operational information is required. And we 

15 have detailed materials from the history of 

16 the site, the rolling days and operations that 

17 were on site.

18 For internal, we have no bioassay. 

19 We have very limited air monitoring samples, 

20 pretty much for single operations, especially 

21 before 1951. Early data is not representative 

22 of the varied operations and was obtained 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 using non-standard equipment, particularly 

2 compared to HASL. Back extrapolation of 1952 

3 air sample data to support operation exposure 

4 prior to 1948 we do not believe is 

5 appropriate. This accounts for experiences 

6 gained and undocumented changes in procedures 

7 and oversight.

8 There was also a change in the 

9 maximum allowable limits, which the MED to the 

10 AEC in 1948 limits the switch from 150 

11 micrograms per meter cubed to 50 micrograms 

12 per meter cubed. So we actually had limits on 

13 the allowable, the permissible allowable 

14 limits during that time.

15 So NIOSH proposes the following 

16 Class. All atomic weapons employees who 

17 worked in any building or area owned by the 

18 Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company or 

19 subsequent owner in Fort Wayne, Indiana from 

20 March 1, 1943 through December 31st, 1947 for 

21 a number of workdays aggregating at least 250 

22 workdays, occurring either solely under this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 employment or in combination with workdays 

2 within the parameters established for one or 

3 more other Classes of employees included in 

4 the Special Exposure Cohort.

5 So why the Class? Workers were 

6 potentially exposed to uranium and thorium who 

7 were not monitored. Nor does a suitable dose 

8 reconstruction method exist prior to 1948 at 

9 Joslyn. The decision was based on lack of 

10 adequate biological monitoring data, 

11 sufficient air monitoring data information, 

12 and difference in operational characteristics 

13 from other metal working facilities which were 

14 monitored after 1948. Therefore, no 

15 appropriate surrogate data exists.

16 Why everyone? Based on reports by 

17 the AEC and facility layout, the process areas 

18 were broadly distributed, and controls for 

19 preventing movement in these areas was not 

20 enforced.

21 What about employees not included 

22 in the SEC? NIOSH intends to use any internal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 monitoring data that may become available for 

2 any individual claim and that can be 

3 interpreted using existing dose reconstruction 

4 processes or procedures. Therefore, dose 

5 reconstructions for individuals employed at 

6 the Joslyn site during the period March 1, 

7 1943 through December 31st, 1947 but who do 

8 not qualify for inclusion in the SEC may be 

9 performed using these data as appropriate.

10 We will also use the external --

11 we may be able to use the external doses, it's 

12 primarily internal. I'll show that in a 

13 second. So NIOSH may be able to reconstruct 

14 external doses from March 1, '43 through '47 

15 using the known rolling days and TBD-6000 

16 approaches, similar to the proposed approach 

17 post-1947. Further, NIOSH intends to estimate 

18 doses from medical X-rays.

19 So why stop in '48? NIOSH feels 

20 that surrogate data from TBD-6000 coupled with 

21 the known operational data and source term 

22 information provides support that a realistic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 dose can be determined.

2 So the standard health 

3 endangerment evidence reviewed in the case 

4 that some workers may have accumulated chronic 

5 radiation exposures through intakes of 

6 radionuclides and direct exposure to 

7 radioactive materials. Consequently, NIOSH is 

8 specifying health may have been endangered.

9 A summary slide. So the dose 

10 reconstruction is not feasible for uranium or 

11 thorium for internal from March 1, '43 through 

12 December 31st, 1947, but for uranium, it is 

13 feasible from January 1, 1948 through December 

14 31st, 1952. And we are saying that external 

15 gamma and beta and occupational X-rays are 

16 doable for all the years, may be doable for 

17 all years.

18 Thank you very much.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Sam.

20 Do Board Members have questions? 

21 Yes, Paul?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I noticed in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 specification of the Class, that you used a 

2 term which I don't recall us using before. 

3 And that's the ownership of the facility in 

4 Fort Wayne. And it just occurs to me that 

5 it's quite possible that the company could 

6 have owned property that was not part of this 

7 site. Is that ownership statement something 

8 new?

9 DR. GLOVER: I think what we 

10 usually include, that's for residual. There 

11 was actually not a residual period at Joslyn. 

12 And I think I need to make sure that as we 

13 write that, whether that should be included in 

14 your definition, that it perhaps is a word 

15 that stayed in there that may not. We will 

16 need to check with that. It's a nuance that 

17 usually is because during residual periods, 

18 ownership can change. And, therefore, people 

19 -- so that may be an oversight on my part to 

20 have left that word in.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Even operational 

22 periods it can --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- it can 

3 change. And I think it came up as one of the 

4 sites a few months ago. And so Department of 

5 Labor has asked that we include that 

6 terminology. It had applied to residual, but 

7 sometimes tracing who owned the facility, 

8 changes in ownership can be tricky. And if 

9 the workers are still there under the, you 

10 know, same workforce, different ownership. I 

11 don't know how it applies here.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sorry. I 

13 missed the reference to the ownership. Where 

14 is that in the slide?

15 DR. GLOVER: It is when I 

16 designated the --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Twenty-three.

18 DR. GLOVER: Yes, the proposed 

19 Class on the front page of the document.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. Yes. 

21 I see. Thank you.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I wasn't objecting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 to its use. I just wanted to make sure that 

2 it doesn't somehow exclude or include 

3 something that is unintended.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think I 

5 have had three impromptu meetings in the last 

6 couple of minutes trying to figure this out. 

7 We were asked by Department of Labor some time 

8 ago to include or subsequent owner 

9 information, you know, in terms of residual 

10 and the properties owned by a subsequent owner 

11 on sites where we were recommending residual 

12 because the ownership could change.

13 And we agree, Paul, with your 

14 statement that this is not phrased 

15 particularly well because any buildings owned 

16 by Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply, they could 

17 have owned, as you say, other properties in 

18 Fort Wayne that were unrelated to the uranium 

19 work. So I think there's probably a fairly 

20 simple wording change that could be made to 

21 this Class to change that.

22 In this instance, Joslyn owned 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 this property throughout the years we're 

2 recommending, '43 to '47. So there really is 

3 no need, I don't believe, for the 

4 parenthetical "or subsequent owner" either. I 

5 think there's probably no need for that either 

6 because we're not going for a long period of 

7 time. We know the owner for these years, '43 

8 to '47. So we can take the parenthetical out, 

9 should be able to.

10 And we should be able to make a 

11 fairly simple change to indicate, you know, 

12 all employees at the covered facility, the 

13 Joslyn Manufacturing covered facility, in Fort 

14 Wayne, which is a sort of -- you know, it's 

15 defined elsewhere. We don't have to define 

16 address or anything like that.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was going 

18 to say you might define the address, and that 

19 would --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we could. I 

21 like the idea of calling it the covered 

22 facility because it's defined elsewhere and we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 don't have to write a definition.

2 DR. GLOVER: So I apologize. That 

3 was an oversight. It should not have been 

4 written quite that way.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So my 

6 secretarial duties here, so you want who 

7 worked at the covered facility at Joslyn --

8 DR. GLOVER: Yes, that will work.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- in Fort 

10 Wayne? Yes?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Sam, I am just 

12 curious why no residual period for the site.

13 DR. GLOVER: When it was reviewed, 

14 no data after -- you know, they had the FUSRAP 

15 studies later on. There was no significant 

16 residual contamination found. They did a 

17 cleanup. And they had some measurements done 

18 in 1949. It was very light use of the 

19 facility after 1949.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: The standard 

21 practice and a Residual Contamination Report, 

22 which defines residual contamination areas, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 there is a -- we can find documentation of a 

2 cleanup, which appears to be unsuccessful 

3 cleanup, and subsequent FUSRAP surveys later 

4 on didn't identify contamination that make it 

5 clean up. We say okay. There apparently 

6 wasn't residual contamination.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

8 questions? Board Members on the phone, do you 

9 have questions?

10 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. This is Bill. 

11 Sam, I have a question on slide 19. I was 

12 just wondering why there is so much difference 

13 between the 18-inch roll area and 9-inch roll 

14 area but not the 12-inch roll area, if you had 

15 any idea why there is so much difference 

16 there.

17 DR. GLOVER: A lot of things could 

18 happen with that. It's whether oxidation --

19 these were uncoated materials. It had begun 

20 to get hot, and they had to be rested. You 

21 know, depending on the past schedule and the 

22 aggressiveness of that, they could have very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 much affected the rate of production.

2 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. I think I 

3 caught that.

4 DR. GLOVER: Essentially what 

5 happened, you know, they had to keep the rod 

6 within a certain temperature rate. So they 

7 had to put them through -- so but they also 

8 had to rest them. And then they had to drag 

9 them over. So that material was hot. It can 

10 develop oxide. And then they would have to 

11 insert them to this nine-inch mill.

12 And so various factors, including, 

13 you know, the aggressiveness of that bite on 

14 that series of rolling mills, it clearly 

15 produced a much higher concentration on the 

16 east side of the rolling mill. But, you know, 

17 it's just something associated with that on 

18 how that bar and oxide production occurred in 

19 the process.

20 MEMBER FIELD: It looks like 

21 there's a range of TWAs, you know, for that 

22 process. Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

2 Members on the phone have questions?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: No questions.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

5 you.

6 I suggest that when we discuss 

7 this, we think of this in two different phases 

8 in terms of how we resolve. The one is the 

9 first time period and the second being the 

10 post-'47 time period. But before we start 

11 that, I'd like to hear from the petitioners. 

12 Wish to say anything, the petitioners who are 

13 on the line? You don't need to, but I just 

14 wanted to make the offer.

15 (No response.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. So 

17 let's talk about the earlier time period where 

18 we have the recommendation. We'll have a --

19 how do we want to move forward with this? I 

20 know who I can rely on.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes. I am 

22 prepared to offer the proposed Class as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 presented to us by NIOSH, although you have 

2 the correct wording.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I will 

4 --

5 MEMBER MUNN: I move that we 

6 accept the Class as proposed.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The new wording 

9 I have is "all atomic weapons employees who 

10 worked for Joslyn Manufacturing Supply Company 

11 at the covered facility, in Fort Wayne, 

12 Indiana from March 1st, 1943 through December 

13 31st, 1947 for a number of workdays 

14 aggregating at least 250 workdays occurring 

15 either solely under this employment, in 

16 combination with the workdays, within the 

17 parameters established for one or more other 

18 Classes of employees included in the Special 

19 Exposure Cohort."

20 Any further discussion? Yes?

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Just 

22 looking at slide 12 there, it seems like the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 majority of the processing or the rolling 

2 uranium was in '48. And then after '48, 

3 there's very little quantity. So I'm just 

4 wondering why we would start that just before 

5 or end the Class just before, you know, the 

6 first quarter, where they really did most of 

7 the work. I mean, it would seem '48 with all 

8 that processing would be quite different than 

9 trying to estimate if you look at the 

10 quantities. Second half of '48, they didn't 

11 roll any.

12 DR. GLOVER: Beginning in '48, 

13 January 1, '48, AEC took control of the 

14 operation. So there was a significant shift. 

15 And so we're trying to find out when we 

16 thought surrogate data and our TBD-6000 

17 approaches would be applicable. It's about 

18 equal, about 600,000 pounds in '48 or that 

19 first half of '48 and about 600,000 pounds 

20 before it.

21 So I understand. We certainly 

22 discussed this as we look back about the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 changes that occurred, which happened, you 

2 know, with the regulations and the changes, 

3 you know, the 150 to 50. That would have 

4 occurred beginning in '48 with the AEC taking 

5 control. You had a change in ownership of the 

6 facilities and who was monitoring these. So 

7 we felt that, all put together, that TBD-6000 

8 seemed to be appropriate.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, how 

10 quickly would they have implemented that if 

11 the start-up of the changeover was January 1 

12 and we're really starting the big roll-in, you 

13 know, went through the first half? I mean, 

14 what kind of records do you have? Did they 

15 really step in and have major changes occur 

16 right away or usually these things sort of 

17 gradually take hold in the facilities.

18 DR. GLOVER: I have no clear 

19 record that says massive changes occurred.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. This is Stu. 

22 I suppose this has occurred to some other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 people, too, that this has sort of been the 

2 second. The 1948 is in the second piece of 

3 what we're considering. So if we approve what 

4 we recommended up to '47, then presumably 

5 there will be some action on '48 and later to 

6 follow. Then maybe this could be addressed 

7 then.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't mean to 

10 step out of bounds here but just a suggestion, 

11 rather than try to resolve the issue here and 

12 the questions here, where we may not have 

13 enough -- you know, that I don't think we have 

14 enough information here today that we can't 

15 resolve this specific issue.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just to comment, 

18 I mean, I have been puzzling over the same 

19 thing. And they have like this rolling day 

20 approach, but there appears to be -- and I'm 

21 sure there's an explanation for it, but they 

22 are treating '48 days, rolling days, a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 differently than later rolling days. And I 

2 can't understand it either.

3 And, again, I would suggest we 

4 sort of deal with that --

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- time period 

7 separately because, again, I don't think we 

8 can resolve it here today, though I'm as 

9 skeptical as you are, Henry, about it.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But there may be 

12 an explanation. So I want to --

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we have a 

15 motion, a second. Is there is any further 

16 discussion?

17 (No response.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, Ted, do 

19 you want to do the roll call?

20 MR. KATZ: Sure. Thanks.

21 Dr. Anderson?

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

6 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck?

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Valerio?

20 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 MR. KATZ: And the motion passes 

2 unanimously. And I'll collect the absentee 

3 votes after this meeting.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let's move on to 

5 the second time period. I think, at least my 

6 suggestion would be that, one, is to get SEC 

7 to review that; and, secondly, refer it to my 

8 left.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: To the 6000 

10 Committee.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is that 

12 appropriate?

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Good. So 

15 I think we need a motion to that effect.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: I will move 

17 that.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

19 MEMBER BEACH: I'll second.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second. Okay. 

21 Just a voice vote. All in favor?

22 (Whereupon, there was a chorus of
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 "Ayes.")

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed?

3 (No response.)

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I heard a 

5 resounding "Aye" from the telephone. So I 

6 assume it's unanimous. Let's go ahead. 

7 LaVon?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. I'm 

9 LaVon Rutherford. I'm going to talk about the 

10 presentation on status of upcoming SEC 

11 petitions. We do this -- okay. It's not 

12 moving now, Stu.

13 All right. I think we're back on 

14 here. We provide this presentation at each 

15 Board meeting. It gives the Board an idea of 

16 what SEC petitions we have in our hopper, in 

17 our evaluation phase/qualification phase, so 

18 on, and helps the Advisory Board prepare for 

19 Work Group meetings and future Advisory Board 

20 meetings.

21 Summary table provides information 

22 on the number of petitions we have received. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 You can see there are 208 petitions. This is 

2 I think the first time I have ever presented 

3 where we have no petitions in the 

4 qualification process at this time. You can 

5 see that 128 petitions qualified and 80 didn't 

6 and the rest of the stats there.

7 SEC petitions we presented at this 

8 meeting, we had Battelle Laboratories on King 

9 Avenue, which was an 83.14; Savannah River 

10 Site Addendum, which is 83.13; Joslyn, which 

11 Sam just presented, an 83.13; and then Baker 

12 Brothers, who will follow this presentation. 

13 That's an 83.13.

14 SEC petitions that are currently 

15 under the Advisory Board review, we have a few 

16 petitions that have had action by the Advisory 

17 Board, but they continue to have further 

18 evaluation. That's Fernald, Hanford, Pantex, 

19 and Los Alamos. I think that the Work Group 

20 Chairs have already provided updates on each 

21 of those.

22 Petitions that are with the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 Advisory Board that have not had any action at 

2 this point are GSI, which is kind of a 

3 tentative action right now; and the Rocky 

4 Flats Plant. And I believe Mark Griffon gave 

5 the update on Rocky Flats.

6 We have some potential 83.14s that 

7 are in the hopper: Sandia National Lab -

8 Albuquerque, the '45 to '48. This is actually 

9 the period where the Z Division was specified 

10 for LANL. And then they came back and 

11 adjusted the Sandia National Lab covered 

12 period to add '45 to '48. At this time, we 

13 are still waiting for a claim that we could 

14 use as a litmus claim to move that 83.14 

15 forward.

16 The same thing with General 

17 Atomics. A long time ago, we looked back at 

18 our Class Definitions and took action to 

19 modify Class Definition to make it more 

20 consistent with what we were doing today.

21 General Atomics is one that we had 

22 identified that we want to modify that Class 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 Definition. However, we are still waiting for 

2 a claim that would be rejected by the 

3 Department of Labor that would support moving 

4 this one forward.

5 Dayton Project Monsanto. The 

6 designation for that facility was changed. It 

7 was changed to a DOE facility. So, one, we're 

8 going to do an 83.14 to modify the Class 

9 Definition to indicate it's a Department of 

10 Energy facility. And also there was a 

11 nine-month period when the facility 

12 designations were changed. It left a 

13 nine-month gap in there that we need to pick 

14 up. However, again, with this facility, we do 

15 not have a litmus claim as well.

16 I haven't mentioned this in here, 

17 but we are doing some additional due diligence 

18 at Sandia National Lab, Livermore. So we 

19 haven't made a determination on that facility.

20 And that's about it right now for 

21 the SECs.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 presentations are getting shorter and shorter. 

2 Is it our questions?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I guess I'll have 

4 to start thinking of new things to add.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. 

6 Henry?

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. There are 

8 128 that you have completed. How many of 

9 those has the Board over the years acted on?

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, the Board 

11 has acted on all except --

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: All but ten?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: All but the ones 

14 that are with the Board right now, which are 

15 ten.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: All but the ten. 

17 Okay.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. And, 

19 actually, that's even less than that because 

20 that includes, that ten includes, the ones 

21 that came to the Board for this Board meeting.

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So the list is 

2 getting smaller?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, very 

4 definitely.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And that's a good 

6 thing.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So I think 

8 there's more than enough work to do on the 

9 ones we have. Any other questions? Anybody 

10 on the phone have questions for, Board Members 

11 on the phone have questions for LaVon?

12 MEMBER FIELD: No.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: No questions.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

16 for that.

17 What we will do is we'll do one 

18 letter now: Battelle. And then we'll --

19 okay. Why don't we take a break? If you'd 

20 come back at a quarter of 10:00? We'll do the 

21 letter first. Then we'll go right into Baker 

22 Brothers or vice versa. I'm not sure. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 we'll --

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

3 matter went off the record at 9:15 a.m. and 

4 resumed at 9:50 a.m.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are 

6 reconvening now. And we'll start with Jim 

7 Neton and Baker Brothers.

8 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

9 I've given a lot of presentations to the 

10 Board. This is the first time I remember

11 giving the very last presentation of the 

12 meeting.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We usually save 

14 that for LaVon.

15 DR. NETON: Yes. This may be a 

16 new role here.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I wonder what 

18 happened to your travel budget, though. 

19 Suddenly we're doing like Toledo and Fort 

20 Wayne. You're staying closer to home.

21 Go ahead, Jim.

22 DR. NETON: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 I am presenting our Petition 

2 Evaluation Report for Baker Brothers Special 

3 Exposure Cohort petition. Baker Brothers is 

4 sort of like the Joslyn facility that Sam

5 presented. It was one of the very early AEC 

6 contracted operations. It was located in 

7 Toledo, Ohio and started to do some machining 

8 and lathing and those sorts of things, 

9 finishing products on rods. They didn't roll 

10 rods, but they took the rods and made them 

11 into slugs.

12 The operation started very early. 

13 1943-1944 is the 2-year covered period that 

14 this facility is listed at. But there is a 

15 long residual radiation exposure period. It 

16 goes from 1945 to 1994.

17 There is a hiatus in 1995 where 

18 some remediation work went on. It actually, I 

19 think it was Bechtel, had a contract in '95 

20 into early '96 to remediate the facility. And 

21 there was some on-site work going on there 

22 I'll talk about. And, finally, in 1996, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 ended the residual period when it was closed 

2 out as having been cleaned up.

3 This facility was contracted by 

4 the University of Chicago, more specifically 

5 the Metallurgical Laboratory, again to machine 

6 metal rods, the rods that were rolled early on 

7 in the process, into slugs that could be used 

8 for fuel in the reactors at Hanford and Oak 

9 Ridge. So this was some very, very early, 

10 early AWE-type work.

11 We received this petition in June. 

12 It was an 83.13 petition that requested the 

13 SEC be granted from '43 to '96. It was a 

14 pretty fast track petition. It would qualify 

15 July 24th. And in November 14th, an 

16 Evaluation Report was approved and issued.

17 I'll cut to the chase here. The 

18 SEC -- we're going to recommend a Class here 

19 for the covered period from '43 to '44, which 

20 hopefully I'll explain why in the next slides.

21 The basis for qualification, like 

22 most of these early facilities, was that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 were exposures that would occur by a number of 

2 people, but there was no monitoring conducted 

3 on those personnel, which is true in this 

4 case.

5 The petitioner, as I mentioned 

6 earlier, requested that SEC go from '43 to 

7 '96. And we're recommending coverage from 

8 June 1st, 1943 through December 31st, '44.

9 We did evaluate the Class for the 

10 entire period, of course, from June 1st, '43 

11 until the end of December 1996. And the start 

12 date of June 1st is consistent with the MED 

13 operations, the first contract that was issued 

14 at Baker Brothers. And the end date is the 

15 last date of the calendar year, which when we 

16 don't know for certain when the operation 

17 stopped, we'll go through the end of that 

18 year.

19 Sources of information available 

20 to reconstruct doses consists of the Site 

21 Profile TBD-6000, which covers uranium 

22 rolling, machining, milling-type operations 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 during the covered period and OTIB-0070, which 

2 is the residual. It's the OTIB that 

3 prescribes methods for handling residual 

4 contamination periods. We also had about 154 

5 documents that were captured related to 

6 activities at this facility, many of which are 

7 early AEC memos that provide for some pretty 

8 interesting readings.

9 And also our normal data searches 

10 were conducted, a lot of data capture efforts 

11 at numerous records facilities. In fact, the 

12 documents were found in some pretty widespread 

13 locations for this facility. I think we found 

14 some in the Atlanta records facility. We 

15 found some in Kansas City records facility, 

16 some at the DOE Legacy Management in Denver. 

17 So these documents were captured throughout 

18 the various records facilities in the country.

19 We don't have many claimants at 

20 this facility. There are four claims that 

21 have been submitted to NIOSH for dose 

22 reconstruction by the Department of Labor. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 There's only one claim with employment in the 

2 contract period: in 1943 and 1944.

3 I think there was a second claim, 

4 but that claim had employment at another 

5 facility that was granted an SEC. And I think 

6 that claim was disposition in that manner. So 

7 right now there is only one claim that would 

8 be affected by this petition.

9 There are a couple of claims that 

10 have employment in the residual contamination 

11 period only, it's two. And we have zero 

12 dosimetry records or bioassay data for anyone 

13 that worked at this facility.

14 As I mentioned, they were a 

15 subcontractor to DuPont, produced slugs for 

16 the production reactors at Hanford and Oak 

17 Ridge. And, again, they were the first ones 

18 of its kind to be produced.

19 Machining work started in June of 

20 '43. And they utilized lathes for both rough 

21 and finish turning. They would take the rods 

22 and then lay them and then section them into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 various six, eight-inch-type pieces.

2 The machining work, as far as we 

3 know, was completed in August of 1944, almost 

4 the end of '44, although it appears to us that 

5 some residual material stayed there and was 

6 shipped out later. Since we're not certain 

7 exactly when in '44 that occurred, we believe 

8 that the end date for this period would be the 

9 end of 1944.

10 Like I said, the shipping records 

11 indicate scrap metal and turnings remained on 

12 site through October. And they said they were 

13 shipped. We have no confirmation that they 

14 actually were shipped. So we're going to 

15 assume for claimant favorability purposes that 

16 the site's covered through the end of '44.

17 This is a little diagram of the 

18 site. There are four areas: the north, 

19 south, east, and west facilities. I think --

20 yes. This slide is, unfortunately, wrong. I 

21 don't know how this one got in here, but where 

22 it shows "uranium machined here," that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 incorrect. Uranium was machined in the North 

2 Building area 7, which is just beneath that 

3 blue shaded area on the top left-hand corner 

4 of the graph. Just underneath there is the 

5 North Building. Area 7 is in the southwest 

6 corner of the North Building. That's the only 

7 place in the entire site that the uranium was 

8 actually processed, so a fairly limited 

9 operation at the site.

10 Just north of area 7 was a 

11 courtyard area, where they stored, staged the 

12 rods for processing. And that became somewhat 

13 contaminated as well.

14 There were a total of 41,000 slugs 

15 that were produced. As I said, they sectioned 

16 these rolled rods, about 2,000 that were 

17 processed. The rods were about eight feet 

18 long, and the slugs would vary anywhere from 

19 four to six inches and end up being about 1.3 

20 inches in diameter. The initial order was 

21 shipped by the end of October '43.

22 There was some heavy, heavy demand 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 on these facilities. AEC had some target 

2 dates to meet to get production going. So 

3 oftentimes this facility was operated 24 hours 

4 a day, 7 days a week to meet production 

5 quotas. I think that was more prevalent in 

6 the 1944 time frame, but there were some very 

7 strict production deadlines that they had to 

8 meet.

9 They didn't just lathe these rods. 

10 There were some other specifications for the 

11 slugs that had to be met, such as milling 

12 grooves into previously machined slugs. They 

13 did some work with reclaiming used 

14 experimental slugs. They also had some 

15 production work for Hanford in '44, so various 

16 types of operations.

17 I think the total tonnage is 

18 somewhere around 90 tons of total uranium 

19 produced, not a huge amount by production 

20 standards but a substantial quantity. I've 

21 seen it described as somewhere in the vicinity 

22 of one to four carloads of uranium was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 processed through this facility.

2 These are just some more 

3 production numbers of the total slugs to give 

4 you a feel for the quantity of material 

5 processed here. And, again, about 90 tons of 

6 uranium were received and shipped.

7 Post-production, there is a 

8 residual contamination period. And the FUSRAP 

9 program went and evaluated this facility and 

10 found that there was contamination in excess 

11 of existing guidelines, although it wasn't 

12 substantial contamination. I'm recalling, you 

13 know, five, six thousand dpm per hundred 

14 square centimeters in some areas, many areas 

15 with nothing. I think at one point, they did 

16 detect 60,000 dpm was the highest number I've 

17 seen, but that was sort of an isolated spot.

18 A Corps of Engineers letter from 

19 '44 indicated the Baker Brothers was closed 

20 out and all scrap and turnings were shipped 

21 off site. So, although there's no indication 

22 that a real sort of decontamination occurred 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 at this facility, they did clean out the 

2 facility of all the turnings and sweepings and 

3 that sort of material and shipped them back to 

4 the AEC.

5 The Baker Brothers assets were 

6 eventually liquidated, and the equipment was 

7 sold. It's not certain exactly when it 

8 terminated. The best we can tell, it was 

9 somewhere around 1970 or thereafter. One of 

10 the claimants we have actually has employment 

11 at Baker Brothers through 1970. So that's 

12 kind of how we know that.

13 Okay. Sources of internal dose is 

14 what you would be expecting. This facility 

15 handled only natural uranium. So there was a 

16 source of ingestion and inhalation from the 

17 machining operations obviously and also during 

18 both the covered period and the residual 

19 contamination period. And, likewise, sources 

20 of external exposure would be from the natural 

21 uranium metal, photon and beta exposures like 

22 we see at most of these Atomic Weapons 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 Employer facilities, nothing unusual about 

2 that. There was no ore processed here, no 

3 radium source term or anything like that.

4 Workers did have periodic medical 

5 monitoring, but, to our -- well, we determined 

6 that if they did have X-rays, they were taken 

7 off site at a hospital. So medical X-rays 

8 would not be covered at this facility in the 

9 way we normally do things.

10 Personal monitoring data is not 

11 known to exist at all, no external exposure 

12 monitoring or internal.

13 We do have some limited air 

14 samples that were taken, 3 in 1943, towards 

15 the end of '43; and 4 samples taken in 1944. 

16 Interestingly, these samples, at least the 

17 reports, were issued by physicians that 

18 visited the site, metallurgical laboratory 

19 physicians that visited the site to look at 

20 the conditions of the facility. And they 

21 signed the reports. I don't know if they had 

22 a team or not, but there were air samples 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 taken.

2 The ones that Sam mentioned 

3 earlier were the electrostatic precipitator 

4 type. We've never been able to determine how 

5 those things function properly or how they 

6 worked, capture efficiency, that sort of 

7 thing. So it's uncertain as to what these air 

8 samples really were measuring, although the 

9 reports indicated that values were somewhere 

10 in the 100 to 110 microgram per cubic meter 

11 range. At that time, the recommended exposure 

12 limit was I think 151 microgram per cubic 

13 meter. But, again, we don't have any 

14 confidence in these air samples at all.

15 Residual and remediation periods. 

16 We do have bioassay data. I mentioned 1995. 

17 I think Bechtel was the contractor that 

18 remediated the site, fairly good records of 

19 bioassay. We have access logs that indicate 

20 35 employees were in there. We have bioassay 

21 samples, entrance and exit samples, on 24 of 

22 the 35 employees. So if any of those people 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 were to file claims, we certainly would be 

2 able to reconstruct their internal exposure 

3 for those that weren't monitored. We would 

4 use the 24 people, the coworker model to 

5 establish their exposures.

6 There were air samples taken in 

7 the residual period in the FUSRAP era, in 1989 

8 and 1995. In '89, I think the samples were 

9 reported as nondetectable. There was nothing 

10 measured above the detection limit, which I 

11 think was somewhere, the MDA was somewhere 

12 around three percent of the derived air 

13 concentration level at that time period.

14 And in 1995, during the act of 

15 remediation, there were samples taken. They 

16 were positive, not really, really high, but 

17 there were some positive samples taken. And 

18 we could use those values also to reconstruct 

19 intakes in 1995.

20 Prior to that, though, there's no 

21 personal external dosimetry data at this 

22 facility. There were a number of radiation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 and contamination surveys performed at this 

2 facility starting in 1981. I think Argonne 

3 National Laboratory went in, did a 

4 characterization. As I said, the values were 

5 fairly low, as these types of facilities go, 

6 you know, 5,000 dpm and less per 100 square 

7 centimeters.

8 '89, there were some follow-up 

9 surveys done by ORAU in 1990. And then 1995, 

10 there were some remediation cleanup surveys. 

11 And 1996 was a survey that released it to be 

12 free of contamination above the existing 

13 guidelines.

14 So dose reconstruction during the 

15 AWE period, again, that should be seven air 

16 samples taken over in three days in 1943 and 

17 '44. We believe that dose samples are not 

18 sufficient to characterize the exposures to 

19 these workers.

20 The interesting thing about these 

21 early periods is they were still experimenting 

22 with how one would process and machine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 uranium. They were using water as a coolant 

2 early on. As Sam had indicated, they were 

3 using for the rolling operations, which ended 

4 up having -- there were a fair number of 

5 fires that occurred throughout the plant, 

6 almost to the point where you could almost 

7 consider it a chronic exposure from fires. At 

8 one point, there was a report where 100 pounds 

9 of uranium just burned up sitting in a pile. 

10 So it would catch fire in the tray.

11 So you had fires going on. They 

12 were also experimenting with the machining 

13 speed. How fast you would turn these things I 

14 guess could depend on how much exposure for 

15 people to get and how it would mitigate the 

16 fires and that sort of thing, so a lot of 

17 experimentation on how best to roll or, I 

18 mean, grind and process uranium during this 

19 period.

20 Because of that, we feel that the 

21 data in TBD-6000 -- it was in the Kingsley and 

22 Harris report -- are really not applicable 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 representative exposures from this time 

2 period. Again, Kingsley and Harris I think 

3 used data that started to be collected around 

4 the 1948 time frame. Once things sort of got 

5 under control -- I use that term loosely, but, 

6 you know, under better control to put it that 

7 way, where they were more familiar with the 

8 process and keeping the fires down and that 

9 sort of thing.

10 So because of that, we are going 

11 to recommend the Class from '43 to '44 because 

12 we can't reconstruct internal exposures.

13 External doses. We don't have any 

14 radiation measurements for external exposures, 

15 but we do believe TBD-6000 can be used to be 

16 representative of external exposures to 

17 workers. There are some fairly good tables 

18 there about what a worker would be exposed to 

19 handling their uranium metal and moving it 

20 about at one foot and one meter and those 

21 types of things.

22 So if we apply some time/motion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 information to these workers, we believe we 

2 will come up with bounding estimates of 

3 external exposures. I think the Evaluation 

4 Report characterizes the exposures. Like in 

5 '43, it will be somewhere around 1,500 

6 millirem for each worker is what they would 

7 receive based on TBD-6000. So we believe 

8 using the values in 6000, that we can 

9 reconstruct dose with sufficient accuracy.

10 Okay. During the residual period, 

11 we believe at the and of 1945, the processes 

12 were worked out to a better extent where the 

13 fires were more controlled. We have some air 

14 sample data towards the end of 1945. And we 

15 believe that we can use a value from TBD-6000 

16 to start the air concentration at the 

17 beginning of the residual period. In other 

18 words, we would take, I think it is, 5,000 dpm 

19 per cubic meter. We would assume for the last 

20 month of operation and settle that amount of 

21 material onto the ground and use that as a 

22 starting point for the residual period.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 I think if you take 5,000 dpm per 

2 cubic meter and settle it with a settling 

3 velocity of 7.5 times 10 to the -4 meters per 

4 second over 30 days, you end up with something 

5 around 11 million dpm per square meter on the 

6 ground. That would be our starting point for 

7 the surface contamination at the facility. 

8 And then, of course, we can resuspend that 

9 using a 1 times 10 to the -6 resuspension 

10 factor to estimate the air inhalation from the 

11 residual period.

12 If we couple that with these air 

13 samples that we have in 1989 that were taken 

14 and the contamination surveys, we can use 

15 TIB-70 to essentially do a straight line 

16 depreciation of the values from 1945 to 1989 

17 and estimate the residual, exposures from 

18 residual contamination during that period. 

19 And that's what we intend to do. So, using 

20 that, we can estimate the annual 

21 inhalation/ingestion values for each year from 

22 '44 through 1995 or 1994.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 For the remediation period, as I 

2 said, there was active work going on 

3 remediating the site, but we do have bioassay 

4 data for the remediation workers. There are 

5 also some general area airborne data 

6 available.

7 So the 1995 dose bounds the dose 

8 from work from '95 through, into '96, when it 

9 stopped. And then 1996, there were some 

10 contamination surveys that ORAU did where they 

11 found a couple of small spots of 

12 contamination, cleaned them up, and then 

13 basically declared the site free of 

14 contamination in excess of recommended 

15 guidelines.

16 For external dose in the residual 

17 period, the characterization data, as I said, 

18 indicated fairly low radiation levels. The 

19 contamination levels were low. So you would 

20 expect the exposure levels to be low and were 

21 not significantly higher than background for 

22 whole body exposures in most areas.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 The highest dose rates were found 

2 in -- I mentioned that there was this 

3 courtyard where they staged the uranium rods 

4 just north of the area 7. The highest value 

5 was found there. And if we use that value 

6 over the entire time period, we're going to 

7 bound the external dose by assigning 0.037 

8 millirem per work year from 1945 to 1946. 

9 That would be the highest value that was 

10 measured on the facility at that time.

11 So feasibility of dose 

12 reconstruction. We found that the monitoring 

13 records are insufficient to estimate intakes 

14 of internal dose. Bakers was one of the first 

15 companies to produce uranium on a production 

16 scale. As I mentioned, there are a lot of 

17 issues with their lack of mitigation of the 

18 exposures by inappropriate application of 

19 water coolants and the fires, that sort of 

20 thing, that made TBD-6000 not applicable for 

21 the situation.

22 So because of that, intakes could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 not be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy, 

2 although we do feel that the external 

3 exposures can be reconstructed, as I suggested 

4 earlier.

5 During the residual and 

6 remediation period, we feel we can do internal 

7 and external doses using the TIB-70 approach 

8 that I mentioned.

9 And this is the overall slide 

10 summary that we show where internal dose for 

11 uranium is not feasible during '43 and '44 

12 external from beta/gamma is feasible to be 

13 reconstructed. Neutrons are not applicable 

14 for this facility.

15 There are really no exposures to 

16 neutrons to speak of and medical X-rays were 

17 taken off site. So they're not covered under 

18 this for this facility.

19 In the 1945 to 1996 time frame, we 

20 believe that we can reconstruct the uranium 

21 intakes as well as the external exposures that 

22 the workers may have received.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 That concludes my presentation. I 

2 will be happy to answer any questions.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

4 DR. NETON: I do have a 

5 recommended Class here. I should probably 

6 finish with that, that it's all workers at the 

7 Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio during the 

8 period June 1st, '43 through December 31st, 

9 '44, for 250 days. And that concludes my 

10 presentation.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Trying to slip 

12 one by us.

13 DR. NETON: Yes.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

16 you, Jim.

17 Board Members have questions? 

18 Yes, Brad?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, you spoke of 

20 that they brought test elements back that they 

21 were working on. Had these been through the 

22 reactor or what did you mean by test slugs?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 DR. NETON: No. I think they were 

2 experimental design-type situations. They had 

3 not been through the reactor to my knowledge, 

4 no.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: So we're not 

6 dealing with any kind of recycled uranium, 

7 then? That's --

8 DR. NETON: No, not to my 

9 knowledge.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Other questions? 

11 Board Members on the phone, do you have any 

12 questions?

13 MEMBER FIELD: Bill Field. No 

14 questions.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Gen?

16 (No response.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I believe 

18 my understanding is that the petitioner here 

19 does not wish to speak or participate. So if 

20 we have no further questions, do I have a 

21 suggested action or --

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I am pleased 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 to move that we accept the recommended Class 

2 of all atomic weapons employees who worked at 

3 the Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio during 

4 the period from June 1, '43 through December 

5 31, 1944, as proposed by NIOSH.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: I second it.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So we have a

8 motion from Wanda, a second from Brad. Any 

9 further discussion?

10 (No response.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If not, 

12 Ted?

13 MR. KATZ: I was planning to do 

14 that.

15 Dr. Ziemer?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Valerio?

18 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: Ted, are you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 calling roll?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm calling for the 

3 vote. This is for Baker Brothers, we're 

4 voting.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, you and Jim 

6 are hard to hear but yes on this one.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck?

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Anderson?

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 MR. KATZ: Then it is unanimous. 

2 Motion passes. And I'll collect the absentee 

3 votes after the meeting.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry, you got 

5 your wish. We took you off the hot spot, 

6 tough vote.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. While 

9 Baker Brothers is fresh in our minds, why 

10 don't I do the letter here?

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And Ted will be 

13 distributing. Yes?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Are we going to do 

15 anything with the years after?

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: The residual?

17 MEMBER BEACH: The residual?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I will tell you. 

19 How do we want to do that? I guess I was 

20 assuming I was going to send that over to my 

21 friend on the left, to my left, TBD-6000 

22 Committee. Paul? We're referring it to you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is not my 

2 decision.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, you are 

4 allowed to object. So I have a motion to 

5 refer it from Josie? We need to officially do 

6 that.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. That's a 

8 motion and task to SC&A also.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I hear a 

10 second to that?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Second 

13 from Brad. Voice vote. All in favor say aye?

14 (Whereupon, there was a chorus of 

15 "Ayes.")

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So it 

17 carries. So we've taken care of that. I 

18 think on this one, we can leave it up to 

19 TBD-6000 whether they want to task SC&A and 

20 how they want to do it at this point. I will 

21 go ahead and read the letter now for the 

22 record. "The Advisory Board on Radiation and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated 

2 Special Exposure Cohort petition 00204 

3 concerning workers at the Baker Brothers site 

4 in Toledo, Ohio and to the statutory 

5 requirements established by the Energy 

6 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

7 Program Act of 2000 and incorporated into 42 

8 CFR 83.13.

9 "The Board respectfully recommends 

10 that SEC status be accorded to 'All atomic 

11 weapon employees who worked at the Baker 

12 Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio during the 

13 period from June 1st, 1943 through December 

14 31st, 1944 for a number of workdays 

15 aggregating at least 250 workdays occurring 

16 either solely under this employment or in 

17 combination with workdays within the 

18 parameters established for one or more other 

19 Classes of employees included in the Special 

20 Exposure Cohort.'

21 "This recommendation is based on 

22 the following factors. Individuals employed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 at the Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio did 

2 work related to the development and production 

3 of nuclear weapons.

4 "The National Institute for 

5 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review 

6 of available monitoring data as well as 

7 available process and source term information 

8 for this facility found that NIOSH lacked the 

9 sufficient information necessary to complete 

10 individual dose reconstructions with 

11 sufficient accuracy for internal radiological 

12 exposures from uranium to which these workers 

13 may have been subjected during that time 

14 period in question. The Board concurs with 

15 this determination.

16 "Three, NIOSH determined that 

17 health may have been endangered for these 

18 Baker Brothers employees during the time 

19 period in question. The Board also concurs 

20 with this determination.

21 "Based on these considerations and 

22 discussion at the December 11th and 12th Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 meeting held in Knoxville, Tennessee, the 

2 Board recommends that this Class be added to 

3 the SEC.

4 "Enclosed is the documentation 

5 from the Board meeting where this SEC Class 

6 was discussed. Documentation includes copies 

7 of the petition, the NIOSH review thereof, and 

8 related materials. If any of these items are 

9 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

10 shortly."

11 If you have commas, periods, 

12 punctuation, refer those to our lawyer. We'll 

13 be glad to accept those. That's satisfactory 

14 to everybody, hearing no objection.

15 We have two other letters. Let's 

16 do those at the end. And we have one other 

17 small piece of Board business, but before 

18 that, we have one report left from our 

19 Procedures Subcommittee. And we're going to 

20 use a new procedure for our Procedures 

21 Subcommittee report. And we'll start with 

22 Wanda and proceed from there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 MEMBER MUNN: I hate to steal 

2 Jim's, Jim Neton's, thunder by being the last 

3 presentation, but it looks like that's the way 

4 it's going to be.

5 The Subcommittee on Procedures 

6 Review was informed a couple of months ago 

7 that we needed to expand the information 

8 that's coming to the Board because a number of 

9 the Board Members were very interested in what 

10 we do and did not feel fully apprised of our 

11 actions at all times. So we're making an 

12 attempt to do that.

13 I think you are all familiar with 

14 who is on the Subcommittee and roughly 

15 familiar with what we do, but we're going to 

16 try to make a formal presentation for you, 

17 this being our dry run. You'll need to bear 

18 with us a little bit.

19 We were also advised that it would 

20 be wise for our contractor to provide 

21 information for us with a slide show. And we 

22 provided basic information about what we would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 probably be looking for. And our contractor 

2 with its usual very close attention to detail 

3 has provided us with an extremely 

4 comprehensive review of one of the procedures 

5 that we have been working with.

6 You have had that in your hands 

7 early on. And I'm assuming that any of you 

8 who have great interest in what we're doing 

9 have absorbed the contents of that quite well.

10 Needless to say, my slide 

11 presentations are seldom, if ever, that 

12 detailed. And I have to thank our contractor 

13 for the extreme attention and comprehension 

14 that was devoted to this. I am not going to 

15 cover that very thoroughly because I am 

16 working on the assumption if you have 

17 questions about it, we can direct that to the 

18 contractor and that you have already read it.

19 I am going to mention to you 

20 several of the types of activities that we are 

21 involved in. These are simply examples. We 

22 are certainly not limited to the type of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 activities you see here. We cover a broad 

2 spectrum of documents that are in various 

3 stages of completion and require interaction 

4 with virtually all aspects of the Board. 

5 We're a pretty wide-ranging group.

6 I want to start with a comment 

7 about the procedure evaluation reviews. We 

8 have approximately -- we have already as a 

9 Board identified 14 PERs that we have in 

10 SC&A's hands for review.

11 Now, whenever we assign these 

12 reviews to our contractor, they undertake five 

13 subtasks as they look at each one of these 

14 documents. So this is a fairly involved 

15 procedure. This is truly the audit process 

16 that our contractor is assigned.

17 And their first task when they 

18 approach a PER is to assess NIOSH's evaluation 

19 that gave rise to the PER to begin with. And 

20 their second task is to assess the specific 

21 methods that are proposed for the corrective 

22 action. You understand that in order for a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 PER to have been generated, there was an 

2 inferred corrective action that would be 

3 applied.

4 The third step that they take is 

5 to evaluate the approach for identifying the 

6 effective cases and looking at the criteria 

7 for choosing the dose reconstruction cases 

8 that they are going to reevaluate.

9 The pool of cases is identified. 

10 And we choose from that pool how many and 

11 which of the cases are going to be audited. 

12 Then the fourth step is to conduct the audit 

13 of those chosen dose reconstructions. A fifth 

14 and final step is to prepare their 

15 comprehensive report on the results and bring 

16 them to us and to the Board as a whole.

17 The second type of documents that 

18 we're looking at right now and have been 

19 throughout most of our activity is the IGs, 

20 the internal guidance documents. These are 

21 very, very basic documents and, as we have 

22 discussed in the Subcommittee, are by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 definition guidance documents.

2 We have recently looked at IG-001, 

3 which is titled "External Dose Reconstruction 

4 Implementation Guidelines." We had 24 

5 findings from that particular IG, of which 14 

6 are now closed, 6 are in abeyance, and 4 are 

7 in progress.

8 I think you're familiar now with 

9 what those terminologies mean. If there's any 

10 question in your mind, a very quick review. 

11 An open item is one that has not yet been 

12 addressed by NIOSH. In-abeyance item is one 

13 that we have addressed and which, for our 

14 purposes, has reached a resolution is now 

15 awaiting only revision to the document in 

16 question. And in-progress documents are those 

17 that are currently being worked upon. Closed 

18 is, I think, self-explanatory.

19 We have also looked at several 

20 program procedures, most recently PROC-44, 

21 titled "Special Exposure Cohort." We had ten 

22 findings on PROC-44. It is an open item. All 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 ten of them are open. NIOSH is currently 

2 preparing responses for those.

3 We're going to go back to 

4 procedure evaluation reviews just a little bit 

5 before we take on the burden of quickly going 

6 through OTIB-52, the large item, which you had 

7 been provided with earlier.

8 Among the PERs we have been 

9 looking at are -- and this is not the 

10 extensive list, just the ones that we looked 

11 at that we touched on, for some reason, in our 

12 most recent meeting, which was the 1st of 

13 November. We'll be meeting next in February.

14 PER-12, entitled "Evaluation of 

15 Highly Insoluble Plutonium Compounds," was 

16 reported on in great length by SC&A. The 

17 report is out. They reworked three of the 

18 covered cases. And their essential finding 

19 was that the proper procedures had been 

20 followed in completing those dose 

21 reconstructions by NIOSH initially.

22 We also had looked at PER-14, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 constructions trades workers. That's the one 

2 which led to OTIB-0052 that we'll be looking 

3 at later. There were six findings. And we 

4 are currently in the process of -- I should 

5 say we, not the Subcommittee, our contractor, 

6 is currently in the process of working with 

7 NIOSH to determine the pool of available dose 

8 reconstructions that are going to be audited 

9 for that particular PER.

10 We have looked at PER-17, which is 

11 entitled "ANL Internal Dose Records." There 

12 are six cases that have been chosen for audit 

13 in that PER, and it's in progress. PER-18 is 

14 the Los Alamos external TBD, rev. 1. There 

15 are five findings there. And they have been 

16 transferred to the LANL Work Group to resolve.

17 PER-20 is a Blockson TBD revision. 

18 Right now NIOSH is providing data on the 

19 number of cases that are available, the PER 

20 findings, number 3. And they are closed right 

21 now.

22 This leads us into the OCAS 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 Technical Information Bulletins, the OTIBs, 

2 that we work with on a continuing basis. Give 

3 me just a moment here. I'm going to go to the 

4 other -- I think I'm going to go to the 

5 OTIB-52 process that you have there. Oh, I'm 

6 going to do something fancy here. Here we go.

7 I am relying on the fact that you 

8 have already read this. So I am not going to 

9 really and truly go through it step by step 

10 the way one normally does when you are 

11 providing a procedure, when you are reviewing 

12 a procedure, because truthfully, as I 

13 mentioned to begin with, our contractor is 

14 much more detail-oriented than I and did an 

15 extremely thorough job in providing you the 

16 information that we have looked at with 

17 OTIB-52.

18 So, very quickly, this is 

19 parameters to consider when processing claims 

20 for construction trade workers. It's a result 

21 of the PER-14 revisions that have been made. 

22 And the summary is given for you in quite good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 detail. It's basically the assertion that 

2 because construction trade workers are 

3 different than other workers at the site 

4 because the exposure data that we have for 

5 other workers cannot always be applied 

6 directly to construction workers because of 

7 the way they move around and because of the 

8 variance of the type of work that they 

9 actually do.

10 The timeline is very 

11 straightforward. We have been working on this 

12 since 2006. And because of the involved 

13 nature of the dose reconstructions that we 

14 have to deal with, we want to be as thorough 

15 as possible. All of the entities involved are 

16 trying to work this so that it is as accurate 

17 and as claimant-friendly as we can make it.

18 We have used the OTIB to calculate 

19 the worker doses. And we have a great deal of 

20 data from all of the major sites, not 

21 necessarily the AWEs but most of the major 

22 sites have extensive information from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 non-construction workers, which have been used 

2 to assess how construction worker claims will 

3 be addressed.

4 There is the methodology, very 

5 quick review. The review findings were 

6 numerous, as you can see. We had a total of 

7 16. And, of those, we're looking at only two 

8 of the findings. You're welcome to look these 

9 up on our database, which we call the SRB. 

10 And you know how to find it, I hope.

11 We didn't have a very good 

12 instruction session the last time I spoke to 

13 you. We made an effort to do that. And I am 

14 unsure of exactly how comfortable you are with 

15 using that database, but I hope I can 

16 encourage you to go to it and seek the details 

17 of each one of these findings and how they 

18 were addressed. We'll touch only on two here, 

19 one being finding 5. The finding was that 

20 plutonium and uranium were used to compare 

21 internal construction trade workers to AMW 

22 doses and what do other radionuclides do to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 the dose reconstruction for these specific 

2 workers.

3 Plutonium was used as the standard 

4 for internal doses at three of the sites, but 

5 no documentation was found in this particular 

6 OTIB to begin with or its supporting documents 

7 to demonstrate that using uranium and 

8 plutonium was the proper standard for 

9 claimant-favorable dose reconstruction with 

10 respect to other nuclides. So NIOSH 

11 constructed the finding and reply.

12 And, as you can see, there were 

13 questions outstanding from SC&A. And the 

14 final resolution is limitation on rev. 1 for 

15 the use of internal dose reconstruction 

16 portions of OTIB-52.

17 Intakes of less common 

18 radionuclides, those other than uranium or 

19 plutonium, are not assessed. You should see 

20 the Technical Basis Document for the 

21 information about less common radionuclides. 

22 SC&A has agreed that that approach is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 acceptable. And we have concurred, and we 

2 have closed that finding.

3 SC&A is also suggesting that a PER 

4 is developed to determine if any construction 

5 trade workers, internal doses from those 

6 unusual nuclides, including tritium, had been 

7 constructed in the past by OTIB-0052 between 

8 the 2 revisions that have been reviewed.

9 Finding 1 question was addressing 

10 the differences in doses received by different 

11 construction occupations, as you can well 

12 imagine without even thinking about it as 

13 obvious to us, that the occupations would be 

14 subjected to varying kinds of exposures 

15 depending largely on where they were and what 

16 kind of specialty they were involved in.

17 The table is fairly extensive. I 

18 think you can see how it's being handled, how 

19 it's proposed to be handled. And we'll see 

20 that the coverage goes extensively.

21 NIOSH originally said, I believe, 

22 the goal of favorable treatment has been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 achieved by assigning doses that were among 

2 the very highest. And SC&A had further 

3 questions to that. It was resolved in the 

4 Subcommittee with routinely exposed workers. 

5 That is, those who probably should have been 

6 monitored would have received the 95th 

7 percentile of dose with the application 

8 determining what their reconstruction would 

9 be.

10 Certain construction trades, like 

11 the pipefitters, probably received higher 

12 exposures than general construction workers. 

13 And so they might fall into the category 

14 that's being covered by this resolution.

15 And at this moment, that finding 

16 is closed. SC&A did recommend that a PER be 

17 developed to determine if pipefitters who had 

18 their doses constructed between the two 

19 revisions have been properly addressed.

20 And, as I said earlier, if you 

21 want to see the current status of the other 

22 findings, please feel free to go to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 database. And you can expand the statement 

2 that's made in the database by clicking the 

3 plus sign in the lower left-hand corner of 

4 your screen. When you're looking at any given 

5 finding, it will give you a blow-by-blow 

6 response to where we have gone in our 

7 deliberations of each of those findings.

8 I am available for questions, 

9 though I don't know whether I -- fortunately, 

10 we have our SC&A expert here with us to 

11 address any specific questions that you might 

12 have if I can't answer them for you. Anyone 

13 who has any suggestion, comment, question?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Dave?

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Where is the 

16 construction trades' data from? What groups? 

17 These are experimental for some workers? No. 

18 That was the previous one. Yes. Where was 

19 that data from?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Where is this data 

21 from?

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Is this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 -- oh, SRS construction trades.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank 

4 you.

5 MEMBER MUNN: The Savannah River 

6 --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: -- data. Anyone 

9 else? Do you want to stay and talk about this 

10 or do you want to go home?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think the real 

12 question here is the Board has never reviewed 

13 and approved any recommendation from the 

14 Procedures Review Subcommittee. That 

15 Subcommittee has been operating without -- I 

16 mean, Wanda has been -- the Committee has been 

17 reporting back to the Board, but most of that 

18 has been, you know, sort of procedural, 

19 numbers and without any presentation of 

20 actually what was going on with those 

21 procedures. That information has been made 

22 available to us. And, you know, some of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 is because of simply time constraints on what 

2 the Board could do given all of the other work 

3 that we had.

4 And I think the question I put to 

5 the Board Members is, do we want to actively 

6 review at least key procedures and review the 

7 resolutions that are made by the Subcommittee 

8 or do we want to basically delegate all of 

9 those decisions to the Subcommittee knowing 

10 that -- and I'm not being critical of the 

11 Subcommittee, but the question is, do we want 

12 to continue to just turn everything over to 

13 them or do we want to, at least on procedures 

14 that cut across, you know, sites and are 

15 critical for dose reconstruction on many 

16 workers, do we want more input and more time 

17 on sort of how those decisions are made and 

18 basically more knowledge of that?

19 Now, I don't think it's quite 

20 fair, Wanda, to say that everybody had plenty

21 of time. I received OTIB-52 presentation at 

22 4:45 on Friday of last week. And so it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 hardly enough time to prepare and get ready 

2 for this meeting. I don't think it's fair to 

3 expect all of the Board Members to be fully 

4 prepared to answer questions.

5 And I think we need to work out, 

6 one, whether we want to go into more detail; 

7 and, secondly, if we do want to go into more 

8 detail and do more review, what's the best 

9 procedure for doing that. What Ted and I 

10 thought, at least as a start, was to have a 

11 more detailed presentation from SC&A on their 

12 review and on the process.

13 Obviously if we're going to do 

14 that, we need to give the Board Members more 

15 time to, you know, familiarize yourselves. 

16 These are long procedures. The resolution 

17 process, as with other SEC and Site Profile 

18 issues, takes a considerable amount of time 

19 and effort. And we need to become familiar 

20 with it and identify key issues. It does take 

21 some time and effort.

22 And there are different ways we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 can approach this. We can do this in more 

2 than one step. We can do it in -- and, again, 

3 I don't think you necessarily would need to 

4 apply it to every procedure, but when we set 

5 up the Procedure Subcommittee, much like when 

6 we set up the Dose Reconstruction 

7 Subcommittee, the Board is not delegating to 

8 that Subcommittee authority to approve on our 

9 behalf.

10 And it may be strong to say we 

11 have been neglectful, but I think we need to 

12 decide now that maybe we have a little bit 

13 more time to do this and the Procedures 

14 Subcommittee has done a good job of organizing 

15 a tool that we can use to identify procedures 

16 and follow the review process.

17 So I guess I'd like to have some 

18 input from other Board Members on what you 

19 think about that and how you would like to go 

20 about doing this. And we don't need to 

21 resolve that right now, but --

22 MEMBER MUNN: Your comments are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 certainly well-received, Dr. Melius. And I 

2 would be very appreciative of feedback from 

3 the Board as well exactly how involved in this 

4 deliberative activity you want to be. 

5 Certainly it is within the realm of 

6 possibility that I can bring to you at each 

7 meeting the individual finding items that we 

8 have closed, for example, or that we have 

9 resolved during the preceding meetings without 

10 any great stress or strain.

11 As Dr. Melius has pointed out, 

12 this would be a fairly time-consuming activity 

13 for the Board as a whole. And getting you the 

14 information that you would perhaps want to 

15 have in advance might not be a simple task 

16 either. But somewhere between making all of 

17 these decisions yourselves and not knowing 

18 until long after they're done that they were 

19 closed would hopefully be a happy medium that 

20 would satisfy any desires of Board Members to 

21 be more involved in this process and our need 

22 to keep it enough streamlined that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 Subcommittee can be expected to resolve most 

2 of these issues for you.

3 Any feedback would certainly be 

4 greatly appreciated.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Paul?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I am on the 

7 Subcommittee. So I have a fairly good feel 

8 for the volume of items that are involved. 

9 And it seems to me that it wouldn't be very 

10 productive to bring all of the findings back 

11 to this Board. But we need to think about 

12 ways to identify significant issues.

13 And I think OTIB-0052 is one that 

14 we might think of as pretty cross-cutting and 

15 one that would be of significant interest to 

16 all Board Members. I think there are other 

17 procedures that we would look at that are a 

18 little more routine and I think we can be 

19 fairly confident or at least comfortable in 

20 letting the Subcommittee handle those and 

21 simply report out that these have been closed.

22 There's always the opportunity if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 someone is uncomfortable with that to raise an 

2 issue, but we might want you to identify. And 

3 maybe the Subcommittee itself could take a 

4 first cut and say, "Here are the significant 

5 procedures that we think the Board ought to 

6 take a look at" or the Board could do that 

7 itself. But we need a starting list, I think, 

8 of some sort.

9 It seems to me that it would make 

10 sense to ask the Subcommittee to do that at 

11 the front end as a starting place and go from 

12 there, but I think it would not be productive 

13 for this Board to try to review all of the 

14 findings of all of the procedures.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Well, adding on to 

16 what Paul had to say, our tool is available to 

17 us for making some of those decisions, I 

18 think. It is a fairly easy task for all of us 

19 to pull up the BRS. And if we go through the 

20 BRS visually, it should be easier for the 

21 Board Members to identify the procedures with 

22 which they have some close connection or some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 close concern. And we could work with the 

2 Subcommittee's normal process to try to flag 

3 those in some way so that whenever we take 

4 action on one of the findings, we could bring 

5 that to you.

6 But I certainly agree with Paul's 

7 suggestion that perhaps it will be beneficial 

8 for the Subcommittee to take the first cut if 

9 that's the Board's desire.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And probably a 

11 better alternative is to be selective than to 

12 try to schedule a 60-day Board meeting. If we 

13 select the location, then maybe we could do 

14 it.

15 MEMBER MUNN: You can come to 

16 Hanford.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I wasn't 

18 thinking of Hanford. But I won't say where I 

19 was thinking of on the record. We'll get in 

20 trouble someplace.

21 The other criterion I think I 

22 would suggest is this difficulty resolving a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 procedure, where within the Work Group or 

2 between SC&A and NIOSH, the Work Group, that 

3 dynamic, where it's just hard to make a final 

4 recommendation or certain and where Board 

5 input might be helpful, similarly to what we 

6 do with SECs and occasionally with Site

7 Profile issues. It's hard to resolve. Let's 

8 bring it back. Now, again, it ought to also 

9 take into account that it's an important 

10 procedure and it's a significant issue.

11 Other Board Members have 

12 suggestions or input? Henry?

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. I think 

14 that sounds like a good -- I mean, there's 

15 been a lot of review that's gone on. And I 

16 think it's important to review them. Every 

17 review doesn't result in an overly strong set 

18 of changes that may impact how the procedures 

19 are applied, but it is good that somebody has 

20 looked at them to kind of validate that they 

21 seem appropriate if there are significant -- I 

22 think this one is one that one could see how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 this might make an impact moving forward or 

2 might have impacted changes in awards in the 

3 past.

4 So I would ask the Committee. I 

5 would agree. Have the Committee take a look 

6 at them, prioritize some to bring here. And 

7 then, you know, make a recommendation if 

8 you're proposing changes. And those changes 

9 ought not just be filed, but we ought to look 

10 at and agree with them all.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

12 agree/disagree? Brad?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree with 

14 that. I guess one of my things is as a Work 

15 Group Chair, I have seen a lot of our stuff go 

16 to the procedures group. And I know it falls 

17 on, really, for me to dig through and see how 

18 it's affected, but I want to make sure that 

19 the procedures group, you know, goes through 

20 it first. I'd kind of like to see how it's 

21 going to play out into the sites that I was 

22 responsible for participating in because --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 MEMBER MUNN: I can't quite hear 

2 you, Brad.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would just like 

4 to be a part of after the procedures group has 

5 gone through, you know, the review process or 

6 whatever because I want to see how it is going 

7 to affect the site that --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- and the 

10 process that way. That is my only thing. I 

11 have seen so many of them go to the procedures 

12 group, you know. And we laugh. And it is an 

13 overwhelming task to be able to go through a 

14 lot of these and to be able to take them, but 

15 I still wanted to follow it to a point 

16 through, too.

17 MEMBER MUNN: You understand, 

18 Brad, that in most cases where our procedures 

19 are -- that we have under review are directly 

20 related to a specific site. That it's our 

21 normal process to refer them to the Work Group 

22 for that site for resolution.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 And the other point that I perhaps 

2 need to make again is that what we try to do 

3 in the Subcommittee, what we have historically 

4 tried to do is to spend most of our time and 

5 energy addressing the technical issues. And 

6 we try to administer the exchange of ideas 

7 that go back and forth between our contractor 

8 and our agency in an attempt to specifically 

9 resolve the technical material that really 

10 gets down in the weeds quite often. We may 

11 have changed our attitude about those things 

12 in the past.

13 It's been I think the position of 

14 the Board -- it certainly was originally --

15 that these, most of these, items were so 

16 technical in nature that the Board Members 

17 individually may not have the kind of 

18 expertise to be able to address them and 

19 comprehend all of the minute details that are 

20 involved. And that's the reason that we have 

21 our technical contractor looking at them. But 

22 certainly those that are not being resolved on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 a technical basis are usually administrative 

2 in nature.

3 It's, as I said, wonderful to get 

4 feedback from you folks as to exactly how 

5 detailed you want it to be. I don't know that 

6 I interpreted Brad's comments correctly. If 

7 you're saying that issues that involve any 

8 site in addition to being referred to the 

9 site-specific Work Group should come to the 

10 Board, I get -- well, we can talk about 

11 offline how you see that process flowing in 

12 your mind, what you would like to see brought 

13 to you. That's what I really want to hear 

14 back from you, is specifically what you would 

15 like to have brought to you.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I would just 

17 add I think we have some similar issues with 

18 Site Profile reviews that need to come to the 

19 Board also. We have done that selectively but 

20 do that and how we resolve when they sort of 

21 overlap. But all of these issues are going to 

22 overlap. You know that. What we deal with in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 an SEC and dose reconstruction review and 

2 procedures and Site Profile reviews are all 

3 part and parcel of the same approach to dose 

4 reconstruction.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Inextricably 

6 related.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. So if 

8 I understand the consensus of the Board here, 

9 what everyone is thinking or saying is that --

10 I'm not sure I understand what you all think, 

11 probably don't want to know -- is that we will 

12 put this on as a specific agenda item. So 

13 we'll set aside a specific amount of time next 

14 time, so not just do it, you know, as part of 

15 the Work Group/Subcommittee reports.

16 So we'll set aside a significant 

17 amount of time for that for two things. One 

18 is the Subcommittee to come back with a set of 

19 recommendations on sort of ten procedures or 

20 whatever is appropriate as priorities for full 

21 Board consideration.

22 And, secondly, I would suggest 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 that we also continue with the OTIB-52. Then 

2 let's use that as an example. It's a 

3 complicated one. There are a lot of issues, 

4 too. And it's an important one that keeps 

5 coming up. We're wrestling with it in some 

6 ways with Fernald, SRS, and other sites also 

7 in terms of its implications for SEC 

8 decisions. So we'll set aside time for that.

9 It will be on the agenda. And 

10 there is going to be an expectation that 

11 people not only look at the PowerPoint, which 

12 I'm sure will get changed again because they 

13 always do, before the next meeting but also 

14 look at the actual procedure reviews. There's 

15 some of that information also, particularly if 

16 you have concerns or questions about a 

17 particular issue.

18 So is that satisfactory to do 

19 that? Okay. And thank you very much, Wanda, 

20 for --

21 MEMBER MUNN: You are most 

22 welcome.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- putting up 

2 with some of this confusion.

3 MEMBER MUNN: We'll expect next 

4 time to bring you both a list of -- at the 

5 very least a list of recommendations from the 

6 Subcommittee with respect to material that we 

7 believe you would want to see. And we expect 

8 that to be augmented by your instruction on 

9 what you want to see as well. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

11 Wanda. Okay. We have, really, one other, two 

12 other letters to go through. And I just want 

13 to -- before I do that, I want to talk about 

14 the next meeting. If I understand where we 

15 were with LaVon in terms of expected reports, 

16 it's not to expect a lot.

17 So I think we can plan on probably 

18 a maximum of a two-day meeting in Augusta. 

19 And I would again start the week at the 

20 beginning. Twelfth and 13th? Is that?

21 (No response.)

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't remember 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 when we set up this meeting if anybody had 

2 conflicts on the 12th or the 13th, but it 

3 would be better for people. If not, if there 

4 aren't any, then let's assume that the 12th 

5 and 13th will be the dates for the meeting now 

6 unless Ted and Zaida run into trouble getting 

7 a hotel or something, but I wouldn't expect 

8 it.

9 Yes? The lawyers? Twelfth and 

10 13th, March. The annual ethics training is 

11 what, an hour?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Fifteen minutes?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. We will plan on 

15 an hour. And we'll just do it --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: -- in advance of the 

18 full meeting, welcome part of the meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 

20 We'll fit it in, all five minutes of it, 

21 right? We can do that. No. We don't want to 

22 upset the lawyers, full hour. We'll sit there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 in rapt attention. Fourteenth is clear. Can 

2 you circulate that to people who aren't here?

3 MR. KATZ: Circulate?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The timing.

5 MR. KATZ: So we prefer the 13th 

6 and 14th? Is that what you're saying? Oh, 

7 no. Twelfth and 13th. Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The 14th is now 

9 clear. They can pull it off their calendars.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. Okay. Exactly. 

11 Okay. Thanks.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Bear with 

13 me. Now I'll start with Battelle. "The 

14 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

15 the Board, has evaluated Special Exposure 

16 Cohort petition 00208 concerning workers at 

17 the Battelle Laboratories' King Avenue 

18 facility, Columbus, Ohio under the statutory 

19 requirements established by the Energy 

20 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

21 Program Act of 2000, incorporated into 42 CFR 

22 83.13.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 "The Board respectfully recommends 

2 that SEC status be accorded to 'All atomic 

3 weapons employees who worked at the King 

4 Avenue facility owned by Battelle Laboratories 

5 in Columbus, Ohio during the period from April 

6 16th, 1943 through June 30th, 1956 for a 

7 number of workdays aggregating at least 250 

8 workdays occurring either solely under this 

9 employment or in combination with workdays 

10 within the parameters established for one or 

11 more other Classes of employees included in 

12 the Special Exposure Cohort.'

13 "This recommendation is based on 

14 the following factors. Individuals employed 

15 at the King Avenue facility worked on a number 

16 of projects related to the development of 

17 nuclear weapons.

18 "Two, the National Institute for 

19 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review 

20 of available monitoring data as well as 

21 available process and source term information 

22 for this facility found that NIOSH lacks the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 sufficient information necessary to complete 

2 individual dose reconstructions with 

3 sufficient accuracy for internal radiological 

4 exposures from thorium, uranium, or their 

5 progeny to which these workers may have been 

6 subjected during the time period in question. 

7 The Board concurs with this determination.

8 "Three, NIOSH determined that the 

9 health may have been endangered for these 

10 Battelle King Avenue facility employees during 

11 the time period in question. The Board also 

12 concurs with this determination.

13 "Based on these considerations and 

14 discussion at the December 11th to 12th, 2012 

15 Board meeting held in Knoxville, Tennessee, 

16 the Board recommends that this Class be added 

17 to the SEC.

18 "Enclosed is the documentation 

19 from the Board meeting where this SEC Class 

20 was discussed. This documentation includes 

21 copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

22 thereof, and related materials. If any of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 these items are unavailable at this time, they 

2 will follow shortly."

3 Any comments, questions, 

4 confusion? Yes?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I hate to 

6 wordsmith too much because we have standard 

7 boilerplate that we have been using over and 

8 over, but I finally noticed in the second 

9 bullet, we have "sufficient information" and 

10 "sufficient accuracy."

11 I really believe the first 

12 "sufficient" is superfluous. We lack the 

13 information is my view of it. I don't know 

14 how others feel, but the two "sufficients" 

15 sounds awkward. And I don't think it's needed 

16 on the information part unless the attorneys 

17 think we do.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no. I will 

19 tell you it snuck through in an earlier 

20 letter. But I agree with you also. Okay.

21 Next, "The Advisory Board on 

22 Radiation and Worker Health, the Board, has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 evaluated Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) 

2 petition 00200 concerning the workers at the 

3 Joslyn Manufacturing Supply Company in Fort 

4 Wayne, Indiana under the statutory 

5 requirements established by the Energy 

6 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

7 Program Act of 2000, incorporated into 42 CFR 

8 83.13.

9 "The Board respectfully recommends 

10 that SEC status be accorded to 'All atomic 

11 weapon employees who worked for Joslyn 

12 Manufacturing Supply Company at the covered 

13 facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana from March 

14 1st, 1943 through December 31st, 1947 for a 

15 number of workdays aggregating at least 250 

16 workdays occurring either solely under this 

17 employment or in combination with the workdays 

18 within the parameters established for one or 

19 more other Classes of employees included in 

20 the Special Exposure Cohort.'

21 "The recommendation is based on 

22 the following factors. Individuals employed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 at the Joslyn Manufacturing Supply Company 

2 worked on a number of projects related to the 

3 manufacture and development of nuclear 

4 weapons.

5 "Two, the National Institute for 

6 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review 

7 of available monitoring data as well as 

8 available process and source term information 

9 for this facility found that NIOSH lacked the 

10 information necessary to complete individual 

11 dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy 

12 for internal radiological exposures from 

13 thorium, uranium, or their progeny to which 

14 these workers may have been subjected during 

15 the time period in question. The Board 

16 concurs with this determination.

17 "Three, NIOSH determined that the 

18 health may have been endangered for these 

19 Joslyn Manufacturing Supply Company employees 

20 during the time period in question. The Board 

21 also concurs with this determination.

22 "Based on these considerations and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 discussion at the December 11th to 12th, 2012 

2 Board meeting held in Knoxville, Tennessee, 

3 the Board recommends that this Class be added 

4 to the SEC.

5 "Enclosed is the documentation 

6 from the Board meeting where this SEC Class 

7 was discussed. This documentation includes 

8 copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

9 thereof, and related materials. If any of 

10 these items are unavailable at this time, they 

11 will follow shortly."

12 And I dropped the first 

13 "sufficient" from the written version. Any 

14 questions or comments to that? I guess I 

15 would ask you that when the Department of 

16 Labor or our lawyers, when they review this, 

17 it's sort of a new wording where we've added 

18 "covered facility." If that causes a problem, 

19 it could be reworded. I wouldn't be 

20 surprised.

21 Yes, Dave?

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, if we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 aren't going to wordsmith, thorium in the 

2 thing, "thorium, uranium, or their progeny," 

3 if you don't have thorium or uranium, you 

4 don't have progeny. So that actually should 

5 be "thorium and/or uranium and their progeny." 

6 That is, there has to be thorium or uranium. 

7 "Thorium and/or uranium and their progeny." 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will see if 

9 NIOSH accepts that.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It has been 

12 their wording for several letters.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, but I 

14 think it is logically not correct.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't 

16 disagree. I am just telling you.

17 Okay. Anything else? Any other 

18 business? Wanda?

19 MEMBER MUNN: I was just going to 

20 comment that when you start looking at the 

21 simplistic language that we were attempting to 

22 change with respect to identifying ownership, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 you develop a real appreciation for what a 

2 rat's nest that can be. If I read our current 

3 statement here, the use of the word "for" gets 

4 us back into the ownership issue.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: And the question 

7 that you think when you see this is -- it's 

8 not applicable in this case since Joslyn did 

9 own the place through the entire period. If 

10 that were not the case, then we would -- or 

11 if, for any reason, people were there who were 

12 not specifically employed by Joslyn, but were, 

13 nevertheless, exposed, it is an issue. So I 

14 appreciate the comment that the wording is 

15 likely to change.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I agree. Yes. 

17 We've never used "covered facility" language 

18 before. So it's a little tricky.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It is.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And if they're 

21 not employed by Joslyn, they're not eligible. 

22 Let's let them work it out with DOL --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- in terms of 

3 what the recommendation is. Our attempts to 

4 do it in these meetings are not always very 

5 successful because we don't have all the 

6 information, but it's a good point.

7 Okay. If there is no further 

8 business, comments, we are adjourned. See you 

9 all in Augusta and on the phone.

10 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

12 matter went off the record at 11:11 a.m.) 

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 www.nealrgross.com

119

1