1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

67th MEETING

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

FEBRUARY 9, 2010

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m. 

Pacific Standard Time, in the Marriott 

Manhattan Beach, 1400 Parkview Avenue, 

Manhattan Beach, California, James M. Melius, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member*

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

PRESENT: (CONT.)

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member*

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

THEODORE M. KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

ANNO, GEORGE, Public

BRADFORD, SHANNON, OCAS

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

CANO, REGINA, DOE

CLERICUZIO, KAREN, Public*

CRUZ, RUBEN, CDC

DARNELL, PETE, OCAS

GLOVER, SAM, OCAS

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

HINNEFELD, STU, OCAS

HOWARD, JOHN, NIOSH

HUGHES, LARA, OCAS

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FROWISS, AL, Public

FUNK, JOHN, Public*

KLEA, BONNIE, Santa Susana Petitioner

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LARSON, VERNON, Public

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU Team

NASH, VIVIAN, Public*

NETON, JIM, OCAS

ONEY MOAK, MARCIA, Public

PRESLEY, LOUISE

PULTE, JANIE, Public*

RABINOWITZ, RANDY, Public

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHRYN, SC&A

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, OCAS

SCHWERING, CARL, Public

SCHWERING, LINDA, Public

SHETRONE, HARRY, Public*

SHETRONE, MARY, Public*

TURNER, LEROY, OCAS

WADE, LEW, OCAS

WALKER, FLOYD, Public*

ZEITOUN, ABE, SC&A

*Participating via telephone
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C O N T E N T S

Welcome

Dr. John Howard............................ 5

NIOSH

Dr. Paul Ziemer............................ 7

Chair

NIOSH Program Update

and Program Evaluation 

Plans

Dr. Lewis Wade............................ 25

NIOSH

Stuart Hinnefeld,......................... 41

NIOSH

Q&A session............................... 73

Jeffrey L. Kotsch......................... 85

DOL

Q&A session.............................. 101

Greg Lewis............................... 102

DOE

(substituting

for Mr. Podonsky)

Q&A session.............................. 123

Dr. James Neton.......................... 136

NIOSH

Q&A session.............................. 155

Dr. Sam Glover........................... 169

NIOSH Petitioner

Q&A session.............................. 176

Dr. Lara Hughes.......................... 200

NIOSH Petitioner

Santa Susana Field Lab

Area IV

SEC Petition (83.14)

Bonnie Klea.............................. 211

Petitioner

Santa Susana Field Lab
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

SEC Petition

Q&A Session.............................. 220

Dr. Lara Hughes.......................... 262

NIOSH Petitioner

Canoga Avenue Facility

SEC Petition

Q&A Session.............................. 274

Vernon Larson............................ 286

the petitioner

Canoga Avenue Facility

Q&A Session.............................. 325

Public comment........................... 337

Adjourn
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (8:57 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So welcome, all. My 

4 name is Ted Katz. I'm the administrator to 

5 the Advisory Board on the issue of Health, and 

6 we're going to get started here. The first 

7 thing I'd like to do, though, is check the 

8 phones and see that the audio's good for 

9 people who are connecting by phone. So I 

10 would just ask anybody who's on the line, let 

11 me know, can you hear this? Is this clear? 

12 Do we have anyone on the telephone line?

13 Good morning. So we're going to 

14 restart here. This is the Advisory Board on 

15 Radiation and Worker Health.

16 My name's Ted Katz. I'm the 

17 administrator of the Advisory Board, and first 

18 things first. I'd like to check on the phone 

19 lines and see that they have clear audio. So 

20 if someone on the phone, anybody, would just 

21 let me know that you can hear us and that this

22 is clear.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 PARTICIPANT: Could be better but 

2 it's okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Could be better but 

4 it's okay. A lot of static?

5 PARTICIPANT: No, just a lot of 

6 echo.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. We'll try to 

8 work on that as this goes on, improving that 

9 audio quality.

10 Okay. So let me just ask -- one 

11 thing that will improve your audio a little 

12 bit, everyone who's on the phone line, if you 

13 would mute your phones, that'll help a little 

14 bit, and to do that, if you don't have a mute 

15 button on your phone, if you'll just punch *6, 

16 that'll mute your phone, and then at some 

17 point, if you are a person who needs to 

18 address the Board at the proper time, if you 

19 press *6 again, that'll take it off mute. And 

20 the other thing I would just ask everyone on 

21 the phone is to please do not put the call on 

22 hold at any point because that'll be very 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 disruptive for the people here. If you would 

2 just disconnect and call back in, if you need 

3 to leave the call at any point, that would be 

4 great.

5 So we're going to start a little 

6 bit -- with a little bit different order this 

7 time than usual.

8 I'm going to ask Dr. John Howard 

9 if he would make a little -- address the Board 

10 first, and then we'll carry on from there with 

11 the Chairman.

12 DR. HOWARD: Thank you, Ted, and 

13 good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the 

14 Board. It's my pleasure to announce that the 

15 President has designated Dr. Melius as the new 

16 chair of the Board. I'd like to welcome him 

17 to that August position. I'd like to thank 

18 Dr. Ziemer for his years of wonderful, 

19 dedicated and excellent service as chair of 

20 the Board, and hopefully, we will welcome him 

21 to continue service to the Board. Thank you 

22 very much. 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I also want to welcome four new 

2 Members of the Board to our first face-to-face 

3 meeting. Thank you all very much for your 

4 service to the Secretary of the Department of 

5 Health and Human Services.

6 I also want to formally notify the 

7 Board that Stuart Hinnefeld has been appointed 

8 as interim director of the NIOSH Office of 

9 Compensation Analysis and Support. NIOSH 

10 plans a national search for a permanent 

11 director for the office in 2010.

12 I also want to thank Larry Elliot 

13 for his service as the founding director of 

14 the Office of Compensation Analysis and 

15 Support.

16 Lastly, I want to inform the 

17 Board, that I have begun a 10-year review --

18 yes, it's almost 10 years since The Act was 

19 passed -- of our Dose Reconstruction Program, 

20 and I want to actively solicit the input of 

21 the Board as we go through this process.

22 I've asked Dr. Lewis Wade to serve 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as executive director of the program review, 

2 and he will brief the Board this morning on 

3 the details of the program review, and how the 

4 Board and claimants and stakeholders, and 

5 other interested parties can participate. 

6 I thank you for allowing me these 

7 few minutes. I welcome Dr. Melius in his new 

8 role, thank Dr. Ziemer, welcome all the new 

9 Board Members. Thank you very much. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I also asked for, 

11 as a point of personal privilege, to make a 

12 few remarks here at the beginning of the 

13 meeting, actually, before our meeting was 

14 called to order, and I think I'm so used to 

15 signing the registration form, and picking up 

16 the agenda, I have to be careful and not lapse 

17 into that, I think Dr. Melius will remind you, 

18 although that's a good reminder, to start 

19 with.

20 When I was asked to chair the 

21 Board in the fall of 2001, which is over eight 

22 years ago, I would not have guessed that I 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would still be involved in the year 2010. As 

2 you know, under the EEOICPA legislation, the 

3 chair is appointed by the President, and I 

4 actually expected the change to occur in the 

5 leadership position over a year ago.

6 But this past Friday, I did 

7 receive a call from the White House, 

8 indicating that Dr. Melius was being appointed 

9 to chair the Board, and the White House also 

10 requested that I continue on the Board and I 

11 have agreed to do so.

12 So now, in sort of parallel with 

13 my position at Purdue, which is professor 

14 emeritus, I'm dubbing myself chairman 

15 emeritus. Of course you recognize emeritus is 

16 Latin for no longer needed.

17 So this morning I do want to 

18 congratulate Dr. Melius on this appointment 

19 and wish him the very best as he leads the 

20 tasks and responsibilities that are before the 

21 Board and before all of us.

22 I contacted him last Friday 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 afternoon and assured him that I would do 

2 everything I could to make the transition as 

3 smooth as possible.

4 Now, I recognize that this is not 

5 a retirement for me, nor is it an Oscar 

6 performance or something, but I do need to 

7 thank some people, nonetheless. So I want to 

8 take a minute and do that, if you'll indulge 

9 me a couple extra minutes.

10 I do thank the lord that he's 

11 given me the health and stamina, and perhaps 

12 the patience to do this for the past eight13 plus years. I do also want to thank all of 

14 the Board Members, who I consider not only 

15 professional colleagues but personal friends 

16 as well. They are hard-working. They're more 

17 than willing to assist in all aspects of the 

18 work of the Board, and each one has made a 

19 significant contribution to our mission by 

20 actively engaging in Work Groups and 

21 Subcommittees, and all of the Board work, and 

22 I do thank them all for their conscientious 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 efforts.

2 I might note, the Board, as you 

3 know, has a very challenging role in dealing 

4 both with the science of dose reconstruction 

5 as well as the public policy of dose 

6 reconstruction, and both are important and the 

7 interaction between those two is not always an 

8 easy one.

9 In part, this is due to the fact 

10 that neither the science nor the public policy 

11 are perfect. In fact, neither one can do a 

12 fine job of what we're needing to do by 

13 itself. Both need to work together, in 

14 tandem.

15 And although they cannot perfectly 

16 address these issues, nonetheless, by plying 

17 both in a very responsible way, and in the 

18 fashion that we need to, I believe that we can 

19 meet the objectives of EEOICPA in a manner 

20 that will be fair and equitable to the 

21 claimants.

22 And I hope that each of you on the 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board will continue to give due weight and 

2 consideration to each of these areas, in 

3 dealing with the issues that are before the 

4 Board, due diligence to the science and to the 

5 public policy.

6 I also want to take a minute and 

7 thank those other individuals who've been very 

8 much involved in serving with us, particularly 

9 our designated federal officials. We've had 

10 several, actually starting with Larry Elliot, 

11 and then Lew Wade, and Christine Branch, and 

12 Ted Katz, and all of those individuals have 

13 been so helpful in supporting our activities, 

14 and actually interacting with us and handling 

15 all the details of the work of the Board.

16 I also want to thank the Board's 

17 contractor, SC&A, and I won't name all those 

18 people because I'll likely leave some out, but 

19 they've been so helpful to the Board in 

20 reviewing the dose reconstruction, the Site 

21 Profiles, the SEC Petitions, and all the 

22 related matters that have helped our Board and 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our Work Groups, and our Subcommittees carry 

2 out their tasks.

3 And I also want to acknowledge all 

4 the work of the various federal agencies that 

5 have been involved. This includes NIOSH-OCAS, 

6 includes the Department of Labor, the 

7 Department of Energy, of course other parts of 

8 Health and Human Services, and again, I won't 

9 name all those individuals, but the Board 

10 Members know who you are and we all appreciate 

11 you.

12 Now it would be appropriate if I 

13 provided some advice to our new chairman, and 

14 I have three words of advice for him. 

15 Dr. Melius, I've observed, over 

16 the years, that invariably people come to the 

17 Board with concerns, mainly about how long 

18 it's taking to get things done, and I've found 

19 that there's really, when it comes down to it, 

20 three possible answers that you can provide, 

21 and I want to tell you what those are, so 

22 you'll have those at the ready.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The first answer is that the 

2 problem is with NIOSH. They're still doing 

3 data captures, and building coworker models, 

4 and conducting evaluations, so the slowness of 

5 a particular issue is due to NIOSH.

6 Now that only works for so long. 

7 So your second approach is to indicate that 

8 the problem is with SC&A. They've identified 

9 an extremely long list of findings. They've 

10 developed a complex resolution matrix that 

11 they are working with the Board to develop and 

12 to resolve. But again, it takes a long time.

13 Well, you can only do those two 

14 for so long, and it finally reverts back to 

15 the Board and you have to tell them the 

16 problem is with the Board.

17 In actual practice, what you want 

18 to tell them is, our Work Groups have come up 

19 and developed a recommendation but it will 

20 take quite a while to prepare for final form, 

21 because it is simply filled with too many 

22 dangling participles.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Well, that's my advice, and I'm 

2 sticking to it.

3 Dr. Melius, I want to turn over 

4 the gavel to you and wish you well.

5 (Applause.)

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. And 

7 thank you, Dr. Ziemer. We all appreciate your 

8 hard work and dedication over 66 meetings of 

9 this Board, now going on our 67th meeting here 

10 today.

11 We're actually particularly glad 

12 that you are staying on the Board because how 

13 you -- the three answers that you had to the 

14 complaint question are appropriate, cause all 

15 of us Board Members have one answer that we've 

16 used, which is, if you have a complaint about 

17 something taking too long -- I don't know 

18 anything about it -- go ask Ziemer. And we 

19 will be able to continue to use that response.

20 Now I was also considering naming 

21 you head of a special Work Group on grammar, 

22 and maybe we'll consider that later during our 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 work session on Thursday.

2 Anyway, welcome, everybody. Ted's 

3 got a few housekeeping things he needs to do 

4 and then --

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. One thing I 

6 should have done at the front end of this, and 

7 fell down on the job is check just for the 

8 record, we have almost all of the Board 

9 Members here at the table, but there are two 

10 Board Members who are having to connect 

11 remotely, and I haven't checked to see that 

12 they are in attendance.

13 One of those is David Richardson 

14 who's joining us from France. So David, are 

15 you with us? 

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I am, 

17 Ted.

18 MR. KATZ: Good to hear your 

19 voice. And the second is Mr. Mike Gibson who 

20 is in Ohio.

21 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Ted. I'm 

22 here.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Good to hear your 

2 voice, too. Great. Thank you both. It's all 

3 yours.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I thought it 

5 would be helpful, since we have our four new 

6 Board Members here for their first full 

7 meeting -- actually, Henry is back, I guess, 

8 the return. So that if we all sort of, Board 

9 Members introduce ourselves, but if the new 

10 Board Members wouldn't mind saying a few words 

11 of background, so forth, and we welcome you 

12 all and we'll start with you, Dick.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm Dick Lemen. I 

14 used to be with NIOSH a long, long time ago. 

15 I started with NIOSH when it actually began in 

16 1970, and I was the -- ended up as the deputy 

17 director of the Institute, and for about a 

18 year, I was the acting director of NIOSH. I 

19 retired from NIOSH in 1996 and I have taught 

20 at Emory University in Atlanta for about six

21 years and then I retired from that, and I'm 

22 now semi-retired but still doing some private 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 consulting. And that's my story and I guess 

2 I'll stick with it.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda, do you 

4 want to say just a brief -- for the new Board 

5 Members. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: I'm Wanda Munn. I 

7 make trouble.

8 (Laughter.)

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bill. 

10 MEMBER FIELD: I'm Bill Field. I'm 

11 a professor in College of Public Health, 

12 University of Iowa. I'm actually in two 

13 departments: in Occupational & Environmental 

14 Health and also in Epidemiology. I've been a 

15 faculty member since 94. Prior to that, I was 

16 a consultant and worked as a health physicist 

17 at University of California, Berkeley. And 

18 it's great to be with the Board. Appreciate 

19 it.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Welcome.

21 Gen.

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: I'm Gen 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Roessler. I've been on the Board since the 

2 very beginning.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Until the end, 

4 right? Phil. 

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'd just like 

6 to welcome the new Board Members, and I think 

7 we'll find the addition of new Members will be 

8 a big help to us.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John.

10 MEMBER POSTON: I'm John Poston. 

11 I'm professor of Nuclear Engineering at Texas 

12 A&M University.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

14 Bob.

15 MEMBER PRESLEY: I'm Robert 

16 Presley, Board Member.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad. We'll go 

18 down the line.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm Brad Clawson. 

20 I'm also -- I still work in the industry. 

21 I'm a nuclear fuel handler for the Idaho 

22 National Engineering Lab for the last 20 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 years. I'd also like to take this brief 

2 moment to thank Paul for all the inspiration 

3 that he's given many of us, sometimes a pat on 

4 the back out in the hall, come on, we can all 

5 do this, and I'd like to really tell him that 

6 I appreciate everything that I've learned from 

7 him, and the example that he's set for us. 

8 Thanks.

9 MEMBER BEACH: And good morning. 

10 I'm Josie Beach. I'm also still in the 

11 industry. I'm a nuclear chemical operator out 

12 at Hanford. I also teach respiratory and 

13 hazardous waste to fellow workers, which I'm 

14 happy to still be able to do that, and as Brad 

15 said, thank you, Paul, for helping us in the 

16 last couple years as we began this journey on 

17 the Board.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Welcome back, 

19 Henry.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: I'm Henry 

21 Anderson. Just to confuse things, I'm also 

22 known as Andy, so you can address me either as 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Andy or Henry and I will respond most of the 

2 time. Currently, I'm the chief medical 

3 officer and state environmental and 

4 occupational disease epidemiologist with the 

5 Wisconsin Division of Public Health. Was a 

6 initial Board Member who then was rotated off, 

7 and I guess rotations are something that 

8 hasn't happened for a while yet since then. 

9 But I'm happy to be back, and the only kind of 

10 interesting thing is, shortly after I left the 

11 Board, I then was appointed the state health 

12 officer in Wisconsin as an activity that I did 

13 for about nine months before we were able to 

14 finally recruit somebody to take a political 

15 appointment job during a recession.

16 So I went back to being state 

17 epidemiologist. I did have an interesting 

18 time on the political side. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim.

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. I'm at 

21 the University of Cincinnati, pulmonary doc, 

22 and mostly involved with population-based 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 research.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon. 

4 I'm a health physicist.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Paul, do 

6 you want to thank yourself again?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, 

8 professor emeritus from Purdue University.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mike, can you 

10 hear me on the phone? 

11 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. Yes, I'm 

12 here, Jim.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Just want 

14 to introduce yourself briefly? 

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson. I am 

16 retired from the Mound facility in Ohio after 

17 22 years of being an electrician. I was 

18 appointed to the Board in 2002 and have 

19 appreciated working with the Board and 

20 claimants and trying to get the just 

21 compensation.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 David, from France, welcome. Do you want to 

2 say a few words? 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I'm 

4 David Richardson. I'm on the faculty at the 

5 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in 

6 the Department of Epidemiology, and I'm 

7 looking forward to working with you. I'm 

8 sorry I'm not there in person but I'll eat 

9 something good for you in France.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're sorry 

11 we're not there with you, probably. But 

12 anyway, welcome, everybody, and to our new 

13 Members, and we'll now start with our agenda, 

14 and I think Stu, you're --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Lew's going first.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Lew's going 

17 first. Okay. 

18 DR. WADE: Thank you. Before I 

19 begin my comments, since I have the 

20 microphone, I'd like to take one minute and 

21 offer my personal thanks to Paul. I got to 

22 sit next to him for several years, and what I 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saw was a man not only of great intelligence 

2 but a man of great wisdom, tact, and most of 

3 all, a kind heart in how he dealt with 

4 everyone.

5 So Paul, thank you for what you 

6 brought to us and what you taught me 

7 personally. I do appreciate that.

8 We'll talk a little bit about the 

9 10-year review of the Radiation Dose 

10 Evaluation Program as John has mentioned.

11 NIOSH, under John, has operated 

12 with a series of sort of core values. Among 

13 those core values are things like 

14 accountability, a commitment to excellence, 

15 transparency. One of those things that those 

16 values have coalesced to, in terms of a way of 

17 doing business, is that we've undertaken, in 

18 many cases, an in-depth study of the past, so 

19 that we could decide how to improve our public 

20 service into the future.

21 Anyone who's been involved in 

22 NIOSH, over the last several years, is aware 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the in-depth activity we've undertaken with 

2 the Academies of Science and Medicine to 

3 review the top eight NIOSH research programs, 

4 and those reports are available.

5 Again, we've learned a lot about 

6 ourselves in the past, and we've been able to 

7 apply that to how we can be a better agency 

8 and better serve into the future.

9 In September of 2009, John Howard 

10 decided that such a retrospective 10-year 

11 review of the OCAS Program, the Dose 

12 Reconstruction Program, was appropriate. 

13 Again, that review is to study the past, to 

14 learn lessons from it to apply to the future 

15 so we can do an ever better job.

16 The review will take place in two 

17 phases. The first phase, really data-driven, 

18 an analytical assessment of how the program is 

19 done. This is not the place for subjective 

20 opinions or judgments, but it will be an 

21 attempt to lay a foundation of fact as to the 

22 program's performance.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 These activities will be 

2 undertaken by an array of NIOSH employees and 

3 contractors. I'll share with you who those 

4 folks are in a moment, and it'll proceed along 

5 the lines of five basic topics that I'll also 

6 tell you about in a moment.

7 That will provide the foundation 

8 to Phase II and in Phase II we'll look at 

9 those reports. Those reports will be looked 

10 at in terms of the information they provide 

11 with an eye towards evaluating NIOSH's 

12 performance relative to the legislative 

13 requirements, the implementing regulations 

14 with an eye towards recommendations for 

15 program improvements.

16 So again, two phases, the first 

17 phase analytical, the second phase looking at 

18 areas for potential program improvement.

19 I'll go through the five topics 

20 that I mentioned. The first is to look at the 

21 quality of science practice currently and 

22 throughout the life span of the program. This 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is a huge undertaking, if you think about it, 

2 to better focus an individual's ability to 

3 write to this topic. Some specific questions 

4 were developed. Those questions are in the 

5 handouts you have. I also provided for you a 

6 larger-type version of those questions. I 

7 won't read them for you; you're more than 

8 capable of looking at them yourself, but these 

9 questions are designed to draw focus to what, 

10 at this point, we think are the key science 

11 challenges that the program has faced, and an 

12 assessment as to how those science challenges 

13 have been met.

14 Again, I'll say this several times 

15 in my presentation -- should you find that you 

16 would like to offer, the Board would like to 

17 offer improvement, or recommendation or change 

18 to this, please let us know. It's a work in 

19 progress. But we offer you these five 

20 questions as a way of attempting to focus the 

21 science review. And these are those questions 

22 and you have them in a larger font before you 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to look at.

2 The second topic is looking at the 

3 timing of the accomplishment of program tasks. 

4 Paul mentioned that people will often come 

5 and say it's taking too long. Well, we need 

6 to start to look at that analytically. How 

7 long has it taken? How long did it take in 

8 the beginning? How long is it taking now? 

9 How has the program improved? Those are 

10 things that we need to begin to look at, and 

11 that will take place against the second of the 

12 topics, the timing of program accomplishment.

13 The third, a little bit wordy, but 

14 the appropriateness as determined by the 

15 sufficiency of the supporting basis, and the 

16 consistency of program actions concerning the 

17 qualification of SEC Petition requests, 

18 petition Evaluation Reports, including 

19 amendments and modifications.

20 So this subtopic will look at the 

21 issue of SEC performance.

22 Number four, same thing. 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Basically looking at dose reconstruction, 

2 again looking at the appropriateness of the 

3 supporting basis, looking at the consistency 

4 of actions as they've taken place over the 

5 life of the program.

6 These would include things like 

7 the use of over -- and underestimating 

8 techniques, the use of best estimating 

9 techniques, the issuance of program Evaluation 

10 Reports. This is where NIOSH determines that 

11 a sufficient change has taken place and dose 

12 reconstructions need to be redone. We need to 

13 look at how that activity has taken place from 

14 a consistency point of view, from the 

15 soundness of the basis, as well.

16 And the fifth of the topics is 

17 maybe the most difficult, in my opinion, to 

18 quantify, is the quality of timing of services 

19 provided to claimants, petitioners and their 

20 representatives.

21 Anyone who's been around this 

22 Board has heard many issues raised about 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whether or not the interests of claimant and 

2 petitioners have been served in a way that is 

3 in their best interest. We need to try to get 

4 a handle on this, and this will be the fifth 

5 of the topics that we're looking at.

6 Now to look at the individuals who 

7 will undertake this activity. The first is 

8 the quality of science. Doug Daniels, the 

9 first name listed, Doug is the lead of the 

10 Occupational Energy Research Program within 

11 NIOSH. He's a very experienced and balanced 

12 health physicist, and he's held in the highest 

13 regard within the Institute, and he'll be 

14 involved in this activity.

15 Friday of last week, I traveled to 

16 Cincinnati and had discussions with Dr. Henry 

17 Spitz, who's a professor of engineering and 

18 the director of the Health Physics Institute 

19 at the University of Cincinnati, and we will 

20 ask Henry to join Doug in undertaking this 

21 most difficult task of assessing the quality 

22 of science.
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The timing task. You know Nancy 

2 Adams, she's been around this Board. She'll 

3 be tasked with assembling the information that 

4 looks at timing from a quantitative point of 

5 view.

6 Third, on the SEC Petition task, a 

7 wonderful woman by the name of Randy 

8 Rabinowitz, who's a NIOSH contractor, who's 

9 with us, and Randy can stand and be so 

10 identified. Randy brings some unique 

11 credentials to the task. She was counsel to 

12 the House Education and Labor Committee during 

13 the time of the implementation of The Act. So 

14 she was there when it was done. She'll bring 

15 a perspective as to what those intentions 

16 were.

17 Randy also asked me to mention to 

18 you that she currently is the editor in chief 

19 of a treatise on occupational safety and 

20 health law. By my experience, eminently 

21 qualified to begin to assemble this task with 

22 regard to the SEC Petition.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Topic four, dose reconstruction. 

2 This is where we have the most questions as to 

3 the individual tasked with this. But that's 

4 me. I will lean heavily upon the work that 

5 this Board has done in terms of reviewing 

6 individual dose reconstructions. You can rest 

7 assured that the fine work you've done will 

8 raise to the top of the preparation of my 

9 report with regard to dose reconstruction.

10 And then topic five, Denise Brock, 

11 who's known to all of you as a fierce advocate 

12 for claimants and petitioners, will undertake 

13 that task. She'll be ably assisted by Nancy, 

14 as Denise has so much work she's doing, she'll 

15 need some help to carry this on.

16 But these are the individuals who 

17 will undertake this Phase I, which is the 

18 writing of these factual reports.

19 We will not limit these authors' 

20 ability to offer opinion, if they like, after 

21 they've done their factual report. The 

22 Appendix will be open to them and their 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reports to offer their suggestions or thoughts 

2 as to potential improvements.

3 Phase II will be accomplished by a 

4 team of senior NIOSH leaders, and John Howard 

5 will chair that activity. So they'll be 

6 taking the results of these five factual 

7 studies and rendering them into an opinion as 

8 to how well NIOSH has done in meeting the 

9 intention of The Act, the regulations and 

10 making suggestions for potential improvements 

11 as we move forward. 

12 In terms of public involvement, in 

13 fact, the first bullet is now not true. There 

14 is now on the NIOSH website, a page that 

15 describes this review. That page can be 

16 changed if the Board has things to say, 

17 obviously. But we want this to be as 

18 transparent an activity as possible.

19 So all the work that is undertaken 

20 here will be made transparently available on 

21 the website, and we will welcome comments from 

22 the public on any and all of these topics. 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'll be monitoring that website and funneling 

2 the comments to the appropriate authors of 

3 these pieces. You can go to the website, 

4 which is cdc.gov/niosh, and you can easily 

5 navigate to the page that will describe this 

6 review. That page will be regularly updated 

7 and people will know what's going on and have 

8 the ability to comment.

9 The NIOSH docket will be used for 

10 the purposes of receipt transparency and 

11 establishing comment deadlines. So again we 

12 want this to be as transparent and open to 

13 review as possible, and we'll do that through 

14 the use of the webpage and the maintenance of 

15 a docket to accept public comment.

16 The Board involvement. Now that's 

17 up to you, obviously, but what we would like 

18 to see as Board involvement is that NIOSH will 

19 present a brief status report at each in20 person Advisory Board meeting, if you want 

21 updates during your telephone calls, and I'll 

22 be available to do that as well.
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The Board comments will be welcome 

2 at these meetings. Board and/or individual 

3 comments can always be made to the docket as 

4 you would like.

5 For example, this week, if you 

6 have time, and you want to address yourself to 

7 any of these questions, and make a statement 

8 as a Board, we'll accept that statement, and 

9 I'll tell you, we'll be guided by the kinds of 

10 statements the Board makes. If individuals 

11 want to say something to me, I'll accept that 

12 as a comment. 

13 Again, NIOSH will come to the 

14 Board with the Phase I and Phase II drafts 

15 before they're finalized, and ask the Board 

16 for comment on both the factual reports as 

17 well as the reports looking at evaluation and 

18 potential policy movement.

19 Time frame. The dreaded time 

20 frame slide. We'd like to complete Phase I by 

21 July of 2010, Phase II by October of 2010. 

22 I'm under great siege, already, by some of the 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 authors, saying that July time frame is 

2 questionable. What I want to ensure happens 

3 is that this review is done by the end of the 

4 calendar year.

5 There'll be a little bit of 

6 possible slip. We'll keep you informed. It 

7 seems to me, unless you set an aggressive 

8 deadline, you'll never complete the activity. 

9 So those are the time frames we're aiming at. 

10 Stay tuned. We'll see how well we do.

11 My final comment, and John asked 

12 me to make this, is that we'll not suspend our 

13 responsibility to ever improve the program 

14 while this review is ongoing. If there are 

15 things that need to be done, and we feel they 

16 need to be done, we'll do them. If the Board 

17 feels there are things that need to be done, 

18 we don't have to wait until the conclusion of 

19 this review to do that.

20 So we'll focus on the review, but 

21 if situation demands activity, then we'll take 

22 that activity on in the time that best serves 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the people that we serve.

2 And those conclude my comments. 

3 I'll certainly answer any questions you might 

4 have now. Again, I thank the Board in advance 

5 for its contribution to what I think is a most 

6 important 10-year retrospective review.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

8 you, Lew. Questions. Josie. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: I have just a quick 

10 question. Can we get a copy of your 

11 presentation?

12 DR. WADE: I would hope it's in 

13 your --

14 MEMBER BEACH: I looked. I didn't 

15 see it, unless I just missed it. What's it 

16 under? NIOSH Update. Okay. Thank you.

17 DR. WADE: Yes. It looked like 

18 its Stu's. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: And then, also, 

20 will the updates come to us? Will we get 

21 notified of the updates in the usual manner?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Lew, with respect 

4 to the interactions with claimants, and so on, 

5 I believe you indicated that was the one that 

6 Denise Brock was doing -- is she restricted to 

7 focus only on the NIOSH part of that or is she 

8 allowed to stray into the Department of Labor?

9 The reason I ask that -- you all 

10 know that many of the comments we get here, 

11 these get intertwined, but -- I know there's 

12 some sort of technical boundaries, but it 

13 seems to me that to some extent, we have to 

14 look at that interaction. I wondered how 

15 restricted they will be on that issue.

16 DR. WADE: Right. I agree, Paul. 

17 I think our instructions to Denise will be to 

18 concentrate on the program but not to turn a 

19 deaf ear to things she hears and concerns that 

20 are raised, and we would ask her to chronicle 

21 those and bring those to us as well. And if 

22 you know Denise, you know that she's not going 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to turn a deaf ear to anything she hears. 

2 MR. KATZ: Before we go on with 

3 more questions, I can hear, there's a lot of 

4 back-talk on the telephone line, and it's 

5 probably making it especially difficult for 

6 other people on the telephone line to hear 

7 this. So please -- everyone on the telephone 

8 line should have their phones muted. Use *6, 

9 if you don't have a mute button. Thank you.

10 Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Other questions?

12 (No response.) 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 DR. WADE: Well, I look forward to 

15 chatting with --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Lew. 

17 And, Stu, you're up.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you, Dr. 

19 Melius. Good morning, everyone. For those of 

20 you who are not in the room and can't see the 

21 presentation, my name is Stu Hinnefeld. I'm 

22 the interim director of the Office of 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Compensation Analysis and Support. I've, of 

2 course, addressed the Board a number of times 

3 in different capacities. This the first time 

4 in this capacity and I'm looking forward to a 

5 continuing relationship as long as the interim 

6 period lasts.

7 When I told my wife that I'd been 

8 appointed interim director -- and my wife is 

9 like my best friend -- and she's the only one 

10 of my friends who will tolerate my boring work 

11 stories, and even though she does it 

12 grudgingly -- when I told her I was appointed 

13 the interim director of the office, she wasn't 

14 particularly interested in the director part 

15 but she asked about the interim part. You 

16 know, interim. You know, that's sort of like 

17 a set period, like between things, like, 

18 meanwhile, she said. So what's the interim 

19 period? And I said, well, it's in the interim 

20 between when I got the job and when I don't 

21 have the job anymore. So it's kind of like 

22 any other job.
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I'll go ahead and start with 

2 our presentation. This is following, pretty 

3 much, the standard format that this NIOSH 

4 update presentation has provided, has been 

5 done for a number of years.

6 As of December 31st, which was the 

7 last convenient cut-off, end-of-the month cut8 off, I thought that January 31st would be too 

9 close to the date of the meeting to be 

10 prepared, get the slides prepared.

11 As of December 31st, we had almost 

12 31,000 cases referred to us for dose 

13 reconstruction, and well over 26,000 of those, 

14 or some 86 percent, had been returned.

15 MR. KATZ: Stu, can you just hold 

16 a bit. The people on the phone can't hear. 

17 There's a number of audio problems going on at 

18 once, but one is that some people don't have 

19 their phone muted on the telephone line, and 

20 everyone's hearing whatever is being talked 

21 about, to the detriment of everybody else 

22 trying to speak in this Board meeting. *6, 
44

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 mute, if someone can hear me out there.

2 The other thing, let me just -- I 

3 don't know if you can hear me on the phone --

4 this arrangement is not correct and we're 

5 trying to get it corrected for the audio 

6 system and I can only apologize at this point. 

7 They're going to have to get other hardware 

8 in here to correct the situation as it is.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can go back

10 on the record now and, Stu, you can continue.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you, Dr. 

12 Melius. Starting again, this is the first 

13 slide of the presentation. As of December 

14 31st, we had received almost 31,000 cases from 

15 the Department of Labor for dose 

16 reconstruction and well over 26,000, or some 

17 86 percent of those cases, have been returned 

18 to the Department of Labor in one of three 

19 categories.

20 A little over 23,000 of them have 

21 been sent with a Dose Reconstruction Report. 

22 Let me go to the bottom number here. Two-
45

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 thousand three-hundred fourteen cases have 

2 been pulled and returned to the Department of 

3 Labor because they appeared in our -- based on 

4 the information we had -- to be compensable 

5 cancers in an SEC class that has been added. 

6 The statutory SECs don't come to us. So these 

7 are cases that came to us, and once the case 

8 was in our hands, the determination was made 

9 that an SEC class should be added, and these 

10 cases were then sent back to Department of 

11 Labor for adjudication without the dose 

12 reconstruction process.

13 And then there are about a 

14 thousand that have been pulled from dose 

15 reconstruction by the Department of Labor, for 

16 a variety of reasons. Some of those were 

17 mistakenly sent, and then there are other 

18 reasons, sometimes, why a case will get pulled 

19 by the Department of Labor. So that's the --

20 constitutes the total of ones that have been 

21 returned.

22 So that leaves some almost four 
46

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 thousand, or 12 percent of the cases referred, 

2 that are still at NIOSH for dose 

3 reconstruction, except that of that number,

4 some 581 cases were administratively closed.

5 Now a case, for anyone who's 

6 listening who doesn't know the administrative 

7 closure process, a case is administratively 

8 closed when the claimant does not sign and 

9 return the OCAS-1 form, and that happens with 

10 some frequency, about 2 percent, it looks 

11 like, for claimants whose dose reconstruction 

12 is not favorable, it doesn't come out with a 

13 favorable outcome. Sometimes they sort of 

14 stop the process or opt out of the process at 

15 that time and don't return to the OCAS-1.

16 And without the OCAS-1, then, we 

17 do not return the case to the Department of 

18 Labor with the dose reconstruction. It's 

19 closed at our offices.

20 A bar chart showing sort of the 

21 breakdown of the current cases. Much of the 

22 information I just mentioned was in here. 
47

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 This breaks down the cases remaining in our 

2 hands into what we call active and pending. A 

3 pending case is just one where there is some 

4 type of information missing that's preventing 

5 -- but readily retrievable, or retrievable in 

6 fairly short order, that's preventing us from 

7 going forward with that dose reconstruction.

8 And so to make sure the efforts 

9 are focused on the ones that can move forward 

10 today, we take those appended cases and put 

11 them in this other pending category.

12 Of those 3,844 cases that are 

13 still with us, a little over 1,200 of those 

14 cases are in the dose reconstruction process, 

15 meaning some aspect of the work has started. 

16 Some aspect of work after the initial case 

17 development work. The 564 cases I mentioned 

18 earlier -- or I'm sorry, these are not the 

19 ones I mentioned earlier. 564 of those cases 

20 have a initial draft dose reconstruction in 

21 the hands of the claimant, so they have not 

22 provided us with a response yet, on whether 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they have any more information to add for us 

2 to consider, and so those are in the hands of 

3 the claimants. There is always some 

4 population of claims in the hands of the 

5 claimants, because we're always sending draft 

6 dose reconstructions to claimants.

7 And there are some 2,000 cases 

8 that are in development stages and so they 

9 haven't -- the dose reconstruction hasn't 

10 started. The development work includes 

11 requesting and receiving exposure history 

12 information that the Department of Energy 

13 might have on the claimant and also conducting 

14 claimant interviews to obtain the interview 

15 information for the claimant.

16 And of these there are some --

17 those top three numbers total the entire 

18 population and the 1,136 pending cases are 

19 likely spread among those, although a few of 

20 them would be in the initial draft. There may 

21 not be any in the initial draft category, but 

22 they'd be spread between the other two 
49

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 categories, in all likelihood.

2 Of the 1,136 cases pended in our 

3 offices, here are the top four categories. 

4 There are quite a number of other categories 

5 of pending cases, and so these numbers don't 

6 add up to 1,136. See, they're just the four 

7 categories with the highest number of cases 

8 pended for this reason.

9 One is a non-SEC claim in an SEC 

10 class. In other words, these are claims where 

11 they would have been in the Class except they 

12 don't qualify for compensation for payment, 

13 probably because they don't have one of the 

14 SEC cancers, so dose reconstruction, to the 

15 extent that we can do one, still has to be 

16 done and oftentimes -- or not oftentimes --

17 but not uncommonly, when we reach the 

18 conclusion that a class needs to be added for 

19 a site, because we've determined that there is 

20 some aspect of the dose that cannot be 

21 reconstructed, we proceed with that action and 

22 that recommendation and bring that 
50

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 recommendation to the Board, before we sort 

2 out all the details of how much of the dose it 

3 is that we can reconstruct.

4 And so sometimes classes are 

5 added, and we haven't entirely worked out the 

6 DR methodology for the non-SEC cases. So 

7 that's why there's some classes in that 

8 category.

9 There are some 110 cases--again, 

10 this was as of December 31st, that were pended 

11 before final designation of the SEC and these 

12 are cases which are expected to go -- that we 

13 expect will end up in SEC classes, but there 

14 has -- so in other words, we will have reached 

15 a pretty firm conclusion, in our minds, that a 

16 class is going to be added, but the action 

17 would not be taken yet, like this would be 

18 between the time we've completed an Evaluation 

19 Report and the time the Board makes a 

20 recommendation on the basis of that Evaluation 

21 Report.

22 So that's that category. There 
51

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 are some 55 cases appended for Technical Basis 

2 Document issues, which means there's some 

3 aspect of dose reconstruction methodology 

4 which we have not yet finalized, that we need 

5 to work out in order to complete those claims.

6 And then there are some 33 claims 

7 that are pended because of additional DOE data 

8 requests. This usually occurs when a claim --

9 we learn, during our processing of the claim, 

10 that the person could have additional 

11 radiation exposure information at other DOE 

12 sites other than the ones identified when the 

13 claim was referred to us and so, when we learn 

14 of that, they may have worked at an additional 

15 site or they may have made frequent visits, or 

16 occasional visits to another site, we will 

17 make supplemental information requests, 

18 exposure history requests, and then we'll 

19 wait. 

20 We pend these cases to make sure 

21 we hear a response to that request of DOE, 

22 before proceeding on with the dose 
52

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 reconstruction.

2 And in terms of outcomes of the 

3 23,000 cases that we've sent back to DOL with 

4 dose reconstruction, some 31 percent of those 

5 cases had a PoC greater than or equal to 50 

6 percent, and 69 percent had PoCs less than 50 

7 percent. And that's a change, I believe, of 

8 one percent since the October presentation. I 

9 believe at that time, it was 32 and 68. 

10 This distribution of the PoC 

11 outcomes for dose reconstruction has been a 

12 staple of this presentation for quite some 

13 time. I think it's pretty familiar to all the 

14 -- certainly the Board Members who have been 

15 on the Board for a while.

16 You can see a fairly high number 

17 of quite low PoCs, and then the final bar is 

18 everything above fifty, so it sort of skews --

19 the right side of the bar chart is all pushed 

20 into one bar. That's why you have that high 

21 bar on the right in the chart, that's because 

22 everything above fifty is put into one chart, 
53

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 one bar.

2 This is a chart of the program 

3 receipts, and it shows both the new referrals 

4 which are in -- I guess that's blue. One of 

5 the problems with me giving color slides is 

6 I'm color blind, and then the returns which 

7 are in red -- I guess that's red. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: No. Red is 

9 received. Blue is returns.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Red is the 

11 new ones. Blue is the returns. Actually, red 

12 is total received, I believe. Blue is 

13 returns. So the difference between those two 

14 bar charts is the initials, the one smaller 

15 initial. I think.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We lost your --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I lost my slide.

18 The Board Members have the slides. 

19 These slides I believe are also in the back 

20 of the room, for anyone who wants to follow 

21 along with the slides. They're also in the 

22 back room.
54

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 These are actually -- this entire 

2 chart is reworked, so I'm getting confused on 

3 the slides. This entire chart is only about 

4 reworks. The red is of them coming in. The 

5 blue is us sending them back to Department of 

6 Labor. So this is strictly about reworkings.

7 And here is a history one. As I 

8 said, one of the processes in preparing a 

9 claim is to send requests to the Department of 

10 Energy for exposure histories for the 

11 claimant. This is the current history of--or 

12 where we stood on December 31st in terms of 

13 DOE response to those requests.

14 There were some 189 requests 

15 outstanding. There were about twenty-two of 

16 those, were outstanding longer than 60 days 

17 meaning 60 days have elapsed since the time of 

18 our request and we've not had a response.

19 To contrast this with the October 

20 presentation, the October presentation, and 

21 that included, I believe, information through 

22 the end of September, there were 304 
55

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 outstanding requests and eighty of those were 

2 over 60 days old. So you can see in those 

3 three months, the Department of Energy has 

4 emphasized getting those older things back and 

5 being prompt in their responses. And so you 

6 can see a considerable improvement in those 

7 numbers, in that three month period, based on 

8 Department of Energy's emphasis on that 

9 process.

10 Now at least in October, and maybe 

11 before that, Larry announced to the Board our 

12 management objective to improve the timeliness 

13 of the returning dose reconstructions to 

14 claimants, and this management objective, as 

15 you can imagine, kind of shapes all of our 

16 conversations in the office, these days, about 

17 trying to remove any barriers that might 

18 remain to getting this process done.

19 Our objective is to get to the 

20 point where we will complete and have all dose 

21 reconstructions completed within a year of 

22 being sent to us. Or resent to us.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so we adopted that around June 

2 1st. We realized that that wasn't the 

3 situation on June 1st. We had to have some 

4 implementation period in order to get to that 

5 state, and so we chose a one year 

6 implementation which is proving to be 

7 aggressive but I think attainable.

8 And so our effective date is June 

9 1st. And so we now speak about the pool of 

10 claims, which means the claims that have to be 

11 done by June 1st, and how are we going to get 

12 these claims done in that time frame.

13 The reasons why this was 

14 considered an appropriate time, or even a 

15 doable time for this objective, include the 

16 extent to which we have completed technical 

17 documents for the various sites, and the site 

18 research we have done. Gosh, I guess I kept 

19 up on the computer, so we're on the same page.

20 And so we have done -- of course 

21 we've been researching sites for years, and we 

22 have made a lot of progress toward having 
57

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 technical approaches in place, have very, very 

2 many of the sites, and the few remaining are 

3 the ones we are trying now very hard to 

4 complete before the due date.

5 We have a strong infrastructure in 

6 place, which just means we've been doing this, 

7 our contractor's been doing this for a while, 

8 and we are a lot more comfortable in our 

9 ability to do the dose reconstructions, and as 

10 problems are encountered in getting things 

11 done, we have more of a suite of opportunities 

12 and actions we've taken in the past, that will 

13 help us solve those problems.

14 We have quite a lot of experience 

15 in doing dose reconstructions, and so we're 

16 more comfortable with that, and that's a more 

17 efficient process. We have SEC petitions and 

18 classes added, and we are continuing to do 

19 that. As we're completing our research, and 

20 we're finding that we cannot obtain enough 

21 information to make dose reconstruction 

22 feasible, we are now finishing out, in our 
58

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 view, the last of -- the likely last, or the 

2 last of the obvious 83.14s that will come from 

3 this initial round of research. I'm saying 

4 the likely ones because these are the ones 

5 that come from the initial round.

6 It's always possible that we'll 

7 learn something in the future that would cause 

8 us to initiate an 83.14, but it took quite a 

9 number of years, given the number of sites, 

10 and the amount of research that was needed, 

11 just to work through the sites.

12 So we're working out some of the 

13 smaller ones now.

14 Our technical support contract is 

15 in place. You'll recall, we had about two 

16 years worth of extensions on our technical 

17 contract at its end. When we were extending, 

18 you know, in multiple month periods, it's very 

19 difficult to make long-term plans and 

20 accomplish long-term objectives when you're 

21 working with two and three months extensions 

22 on the contract.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So we now have awarded a technical 

2 support contract, replacement contract, and so 

3 we've added a much more stable situation, it 

4 allows for more stable work planning, and our 

5 level of funding is adequate to make this, to 

6 keep the objective.

7 You can always work faster if you 

8 have more money, but we believe what we have 

9 is sufficient to meet this objective.

10 We have here now a bar chart 

11 showing the completion of what we call the 

12 pool, the pool of claims that we must complete 

13 by June 1st. The first slide is for the 

14 initial claims. That means the ones that were 

15 referred to us for the first time and have not 

16 had a dose reconstruction and return. And you 

17 can see at the start, around June, when we 

18 started this objective, there were 2,500 cases 

19 in the pool, initial cases. We're now down to 

20 1,311 after six months. You can do the 

21 arithmetic as well as I do. You can see that 

22 we're not quite halfway there, which of course 
60

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 doesn't make me entirely comfortable, but 

2 doesn't make me entirely uncomfortable, 

3 because I know there are SECs that we hope to 

4 be added yet, that will remove essentially --

5 that remove the blocks of claims from dose 

6 reconstructions, the ones that are paid via 

7 the SEC.

8 And we also now are seeing an 

9 acceleration in the dose reconstruction 

10 capability of the contractor, which we had 

11 anticipated would occur about this time, their 

12 resources being diverted, up to now, more on 

13 site research in order to complete either the 

14 research we needed to either reach the 

15 determination that we were going to recommend 

16 an 83.14 class, or that the research we needed 

17 in order to develop a dose reconstruction 

18 methodology.

19 And that research is not completed 

20 but it is partially completed, and so 

21 resources that were being used for that 

22 process can now be moved to the dose 
61

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 reconstruction process.

2 And so for the last couple of 

3 weeks, and these numbers are not reflected on 

4 the chart because this was run, what I'm 

5 describing now occurred in January. For the 

6 last couple weeks, we have seen an 

7 acceleration in the completion of dose 

8 reconstructions by our contractor.

9 And just for perspective, since 

10 1,311 data is now over a month old, our daily 

11 report this morning indicates that in this 

12 pool of initial cases, the number remaining is 

13 now 610, so -- I believe I screwed that up. 

14 No, I guess that's right. I guess it's 610. 

15 And so there has been quite a lot of 

16 improvement in the last seven or eight weeks. 

17 Next is the same bar chart. This 

18 is just for reworked claims. So this is 

19 claims that a dose reconstruction and now were 

20 returned back to us by the Department of Labor 

21 because some new information became known. 

22 Quite often, this is an additional cancer is 
62

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 identified. It can also be that there was 

2 additional employment identified to the 

3 claimant, that had not been identified to us 

4 earlier.

5 So this is for -- I think I got my 

6 numbers backwards, at some point. Yes. This 

7 number is the one that is 610. The previous 

8 slide -- I knew that was too good to be true -

9 - the previous slide is 1,013. So on February 

10 8th, the report said there were 1,018 

11 remaining on this chart, and on February 8th, 

12 it said there were 610 remaining on this 

13 chart.

14 You'll see that that's still 

15 something of an acceleration, because these 

16 are moving in roughly 300 number increments 

17 for a three month period, and in slightly more 

18 than one month, we have about a 200 claim 

19 reduction. So you see there is some 

20 acceleration. And for the combined, this is 

21 the same bar chart again. This is just the 

22 combined, the last two bar charts added 
63

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 together. You can see we've gone from 3,934 

2 to 2,124. Again that's not half, and I would 

3 like to be at half, or lower. However, we are 

4 seeing some acceleration. This number is now 

5 1,623 as of last night.

6 So we've cleared about 500 of 

7 those 2,100 in about five weeks, or maybe six 

8 weeks. So that's an improvement in rate as 

9 well. As of today, there's some 89 sites 

10 represented in this combined total, in the 

11 initial exam reworks, 89 sites represented by 

12 the claims remaining. 

13 In October's presentation there 

14 were a hundred and fourteen. So you can see, 

15 some of the sites are being completed 

16 entirely. And you can see our progress on 

17 sites with holds. This would be sites like I 

18 mentioned earlier, where we don't have a dose

19 reconstruction methodology. There's some 

20 reason why we're holding on, not proceeding 

21 forward with claims from that site. There 

22 were some 33 sites down there with holds, and 
64

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 by December 31st, we were down to nineteen. 

2 So we're making progress on eliminating those 

3 barriers to dose reconstruction.

4 Now we've defined our consequence 

5 a little bit. If we don't, what happens to 

6 claims that are not done by June 1st, 2010? 

7 Because experience indicates to us that it's 

8 very hard to finish 100 percent of anything by 

9 any specified time. And there could be some 

10 stragglers. We don't think there'll be very 

11 many but there could very well be some 

12 stragglers.

13 And in that instance, we will 

14 critically evaluate each of those cases, and 

15 we'll prepare a memo to the file that 

16 recommends how best to proceed, and the best 

17 way to proceed might be that we know this is 

18 going to be resolved in the next six weeks, or 

19 whatever time period we chose, and so we will 

20 proceed and we'll catch it as we can.

21 Or we might say that this problem 

22 is intractable, and we need some other remedy, 
65

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 which the other remedy usually available is 

2 some sort of SEC class addition.

3 Another one of our golden-oldie 

4 charts, this is up here every time in this 

5 presentation, it shows the submittal of the 

6 claims to us by the Department of Labor versus 

7 our returns to them, and it also shows our 

8 drafts to claimants in three different colors.

9 So you can see that clearly, in 

10 the early days of the program we started out 

11 with tens of thousands, or about 10,000 cases

12 behind, and we have been making progress ever 

13 since. Progress has slowed. The slowing of 

14 the progress represented a -- it's actually a 

15 financial consideration.

16 Our funding was kind of set at a 

17 fairly constant level, actually throughout all 

18 of these, several, first three years. As you 

19 can see, we weren't spending very fast during 

20 the early years, and so we had quite a lot of 

21 carryover which we were allowed then to use. 

22 We didn't lose it. As I recall, there's 
66

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 something apparently in the government called 

2 know your money, which is what we have, and so 

3 we could keep that and carry it forward in 

4 order to accomplish this work.

5 So then we were able to, once we 

6 had the infrastructure in place, we were able 

7 to proceed at quite a rapid pace, and spend at 

8 a level that allowed us to not only spend our 

9 annual allocations but the carryover as well. 

10 And then we ran out of the carryover and so 

11 we have to make do with our annual allocation. 

12 There's also some adjustment here for a focus 

13 on -- the focus on site research that we've 

14 been doing lately can also affect dose 

15 reconstruction numbers, down here. Now LaVon 

16 Rutherford will give a much more complete 

17 description of this Special Exposure Cohort 

18 status later on. Here's one slide that 

19 describes it.

20 We've received 163 petitions so 

21 far, and we are expecting to present it today. 

22 So these are the various statuses, I won't 
67

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 read the entire chart, the various statuses 

2 before the courts.

3 In terms of additions, we've had 

4 some 51 SEC classes added. The Board of 

5 course has recommended all of those. Twenty6 seven of those, or 53 percent, have been 

7 through the 83.13 process. That's where a 

8 claimant or an interested party initiates the 

9 petition.

10 Twenty-four classes, or 47 percent 

11 of those classes have been through the 83.14 

12 process. That's where we identify, through 

13 our research, that we are not able to feasibly 

14 reconstruct all of the doses, and then we 

15 recruit a petitioner and proceed in that 

16 fashion.

17 This represents classes of workers 

18 from 41 sites and represents a little over 

19 2,300 potential cases. Just a little update 

20 on some program issue, things that have been 

21 discussed and were discussed at the last 

22 meeting.
68

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 At the last meeting, there was a 

2 conversation about policy on the use of 

3 classified information, and we're working on 

4 that. That's a little difficult to put 

5 together but we are working on that policy.

6 Something that could likely come 

7 out now, our first approach on this will 

8 always be to try to prepare unclassified 

9 information, either get the information

10 unclassified, or to write unclassified 

11 material that defines the problems 

12 sufficiently, so that the technical question 

13 can be answered in public. That's always our 

14 first option and what we will attempt to do.

15 There may be instances, though, 

16 when we can't do that. That the determination 

17 of, or the answer to a particular technical 

18 question depends upon the interpretation of 

19 classified materials, classified information, 

20 and so we will develop our policy on how we 

21 hope to do this.

22 It may fall to the Board, I mean, 
69

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 to do something similar for its own 

2 activities. You know, how would the Board act 

3 in that fashion when presented with this 

4 issue? That is to say, there is a continuing 

5 difference of opinion between NIOSH and the 

6 Board's technical support contractor, and that 

7 opinion is based on varying interpretations of 

8 classified information.

9 How would the Board want to 

10 proceed in that? That might be something that 

11 the Board may want to consider.

12 Also at the last meeting, there 

13 were questions asked about comments made in 

14 the public comment session at Advisory Board 

15 meetings, and are those being recorded, and we 

16 said, well, sure, we can do that. And so we 

17 have prepared tables.

18 These are abbreviated tables, in 

19 order to get them on the slide. But these are 

20 issues raised at the July 27-29th meeting, 

21 where we went through the transcript. 

22 Actually, we had one of our contractors go 
70

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 through the transcript, identify comments made 

2 in the public comment session, identify the 

3 location in the transcript, so that whoever 

4 wants to see this can go find the full extent 

5 of the discussion, identify the speaker, and 

6 the issue is summarized, is very briefly 

7 summarized here. There's an additional column 

8 in the full spreadsheet that we put together, 

9 that talked about the site affected. 

10 So you can see if it's a claim 

11 specific to Hanford or if it's a general 

12 claim. So this is an example, or abbreviated 

13 example of what was prepared for the July 27-

14 29th meeting.

15 This, by the way, has been shared 

16 with the Board's Working Group on Worker 

17 Outreach, and so I think they are picking up 

18 this particular issue and what to do about 

19 these comments.

20 And then here are comments from 

21 the October 20-22nd meeting, which was held in 

22 Long Island, and that continues on to a second 
71

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 page.

2 So I believe we are proceeding 

3 with this, we are summarizing, capturing these 

4 comments from public comment, and we are 

5 working with the Working Group on Worker 

6 Outreach, essentially in terms of dealing with 

7 these, and what to do, ultimately, from these.

8 A couple remaining program issues. 

9 The last one of course is the program review 

10 that Lew talked about. I won't say any more 

11 about that. And the one previously is 

12 reviewing the uses of surrogate data against 

13 criteria in IG-004.

14 I recognize that surrogate data is 

15 still being discussed, and there's a Working 

16 Group that is addressing surrogate data, and 

17 there may be advice and guidance from that 

18 Work Group. And certainly we intend to, you 

19 know, behave accordingly when we get the 

20 advice. But at the moment, we have our own 

21 documentation that says, you know, that gives 

22 criteria for using surrogate data.
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so we said, well, that 

2 criteria came along after we had already made 

3 some use of surrogate data. We ought to at 

4 least make sure that those uses of surrogate 

5 data are consistent with the criteria we have. 

6 And so we're embarked on that too. We have 

7 some, now, a handful of cases so far, or 

8 examples we have started to analyze, and 

9 decide whether, in fact, these are valid uses, 

10 given the criteria we've put out. And of 

11 course we may do this again if there are 

12 different criteria that come out after the 

13 Work Group's activities.

14 Well, just in time before my voice 

15 is gone, I got to the end of my slides. Any 

16 questions?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Brad? 

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: You've heard me 

19 mention about this before, but one of the 

20 things I wanted to bring up to you, when we 

21 implemented the procedures 10 and 11, data 

22 retrieval -- and I brought this up to you last 
73

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 time -- have we been able to make any strides 

2 forward? I read through one of the e-mails 

3 that your OCAS, or ORAU, sent back, that they 

4 don't feel that they have to make a data 

5 retrieval plan.

6 It makes it very difficult for our 

7 contractor, and so forth, to be able to even 

8 know what has been pulled. Now I know the one 

9 site that I'm dealing with has other issues 

10 along with it, being Pantex, but when these 

11 procedures were implemented, this was to make 

12 it more friendly, so that we weren't 

13 bombarding DOE with the same request for the 

14 same documents.

15 And without these data retrieval 

16 plans, we don't know what has been done.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think John 

18 Mauro might have a better idea of offering 

19 some information on this. We may have a 

20 different view. What I believe we're doing 

21 now is that we, when we're making a data 

22 capture -- I think we're doing this -- is that 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we notify SC&A that we're making a data 

2 request. Now typically these things do -- you 

3 know, these occur in a couple stages. We'll 

4 normally put together a list of keywords, 

5 cause at a lot of these sites, record storage 

6 is electronically stored.

7 You know, they have electronic 

8 databases that kind of tell what kind of 

9 records they have. And they have keywords. 

10 And so you can search those databases on 

11 keywords.

12 So we'll put together a list of 

13 keywords and we will notify SC&A -- I believe 

14 we do this -- notify SC&A that we're going to 

15 send a list of keywords to such and such a 

16 site, and are you doing research there now, 

17 and do you want to add keywords to this list?

18 And so we participate in that way. 

19 And then I think, when we're going on a 

20 capture, if I'm not mistaken, we try to notify 

21 SC&A. Now sometimes we may not give them very 

22 much notice but we try to notify SC&A that 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're going to be at such and such a site on a 

2 data capture, and do you want to participate, 

3 or go along for your own purpose. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand that, 

5 but as with many times, we'll throw out a 

6 keyword search, these are the things that 

7 we're looking for, but then, when we finally 

8 find the documents that we are provided with, 

9 and so forth, like that, to know what actually 

10 was pulled -- because a lot of times, we'll 

11 throw out a lot of stuff out there, and some 

12 of it'll be fruitful, some of it won't.

13 But what we're getting back to is 

14 the final process of what has actually been 

15 retrieved, and where it's at, and a lot of 

16 times, as a Board Member, when I raise these 

17 questions or I try to find these problems, and 

18 I even use our contractor, SC&A, to be able to 

19 find some of these, the only thing that I get 

20 back is, well, it's on the O: drive, and, 

21 unfortunately, that is not the most user22 friendly system that there is.
76

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 I know that we're trying to work 

2 through these issues but there's got to be a 

3 way that we -- per the procedures, I know that 

4 the NIOSH is the point of contact for all of 

5 this, and so forth, but I want to make sure 

6 that we're adequately doing this, because I 

7 have not, I'm not raising it so far, but maybe 

8 John wants to --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we're not 

10 the sole point of contact anymore. I mean, 

11 SC&A has its own point of contact for these 

12 various sites, and, you know, they can make 

13 their own request without going through us. 

14 That's not in place anymore. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, when you 

16 make the request, it has to go through your 

17 site, it has to go through your point of 

18 contact, and the point that I'm making on this 

19 is your contractor has to go through your 

20 point of contact so that we know what's going 

21 on.

22 And I can't bring up the email 
77

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 right now, but they basically say for active 

2 DOE sites, that they don't have data capture 

3 plans.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think that 

5 might be an administrative task, that they 

6 haven't done in every case. I think that's 

7 true. But I can go find out more, and I can 

8 work with John or Joe, and see what else can 

9 be done.

10 Certainly, if you're being told, 

11 well, such and such is on the O: drive, we 

12 could be more forthcoming than that. I mean, 

13 we could identify that more clearly.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. And I've 

15 even found out, that in going to Pantex, we 

16 put forth requests, and we were actually -- we 

17 shut down for quite a long period of time till 

18 we got our procedures in line of how we were 

19 going to do it, and with the point of contact 

20 with NIOSH, and we were actually, did not do 

21 any site visits for a while till we got those 

22 procedures in place, so that we could go back 
78

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 to work.

2 And then we go to certain sites, 

3 and we get down there, and they says, you 

4 know, we just sent that all back to the 

5 repository, why are you guys requesting this 

6 again? And where is it at? And it still--I 

7 think there's some room, that we could work on 

8 this and proceed forward.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. Absolutely; 

10 absolutely. Well, we need to know about rough 

11 spots like that, so we can work on that. 

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: And John -- I'm 

13 sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'd like to add 

15 a couple of points.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Would you 

17 introduce yourself, John.

18 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

19 I'm the manager of the SC&A program supporting 

20 the Board. There have been times -- to get a 

21 little philosophical, we, in effect, 

22 independently review the work, and, in 
79

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 general, with the idea being we're separate.

2 You folks proceed and do your 

3 work, generate your work products. Then we 

4 independently review that work. But we have a 

5 circumstance here where we need to cooperate 

6 in order to not overload DOE with repetitive 

7 requests.

8 So in this particular aspect of 

9 the program, we have to be connected at the 

10 hip. Your point of contact and our point of 

11 contact have to work together as if we're --

12 and coordinate the definition of the data 

13 capture process, key words.

14 Now we've run into a problem where 

15 you folks have been way out front, you've been 

16 working the problem for a long time, you've 

17 downloaded thousands of documents, and they're 

18 all on the O: drive, and then we're coming 

19 into the picture at some point in the process, 

20 and we're going to need some help navigating 

21 our way through this incredible, vast amount 

22 of material, to understand -- because it's not 
80

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 always apparent, what those documents are, and 

2 we have our interests.

3 So what I'm getting at is it's 

4 been -- they're not even depending on the 

5 NIOSH point of contact, sometime it's been a 

6 very nicely-integrated activity where it went 

7 well, but there are other cases where that's 

8 not been the case, where we were not really in 

9 the loop, and to some extent, part of the 

10 problem has been because we come into the 

11 process late, when you folks are very mature, 

12 down the line, and we're going to need a lot 

13 of help, working with you folks, to understand 

14 fully the scope of the data capture that's 

15 been accomplished, the keywords that were 

16 performed, so that we could understand the 

17 records, so we could avoid having to go back 

18 to DOE and ask for the same material again.

19 So I think there's -- when it 

20 comes to this part of the program, it's almost 

21 a mind set, where, when we come to data 

22 capture, we've got to be a lot more closely 
81

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 linked together.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we'll work 

3 on that, then. It sounds like something we 

4 need to work on.

5 DR. MAURO: Right. And I just 

6 found you an email, and this is from ORAU team 

7 manager. 

8 No data capture plans were 

9 developed for certain sites. Data capture 

10 plans typically are not developed for an 

11 active DOE facility. All documents currently 

12 available for this site have been processed, 

13 they're on the O: drive, and now are available 

14 on the SRDB. All interviews are processed and 

15 on the O: drive.

16 And this is what we've got, and I 

17 just -- there's something still lacking there, 

18 Stu, is what I wanted to bring to --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. It sounds 

20 like there's maybe some clarity and linking 

21 what's with the O: drive with what questions 

22 were asked, essentially. 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. Okay. 

2 Thank you.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Something like 

4 that. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see what we 

7 can do. That's all I can say. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bob. 

10 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob 

11 Presley. Steve, are we still having trouble 

12 with the same two or three sites, that we have 

13 been all along, about getting data from those 

14 sites? Or are the sites that we've been 

15 having problems with been a little bit better?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you talking 

17 about individual exposure information? 

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: That, plus some 

19 of the other data that you all are going 

20 after.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, for 

22 individual exposure information, the sites 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that were kind of slow are way caught up --

2 they're caught up quite a lot. 

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: Have they been 

4 better now?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Site research is a 

8 little hard to give a consistent story about 

9 because site research changes kind a -- the 

10 sites we're researching change from place to 

11 place. 

12 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Any given time, 

14 we're probably researching some sites that are 

15 not as easy to get information out of as 

16 others, but I don't know that there's a real 

17 long-standing -- nothing on the sites really 

18 come to mind as being terribly long-standing. 

19 MEMBER PRESLEY: Well, most of the 

20 problems were with the individual doses.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Individual 

22 histories -- there was one grouping of sites 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that was kind a problematic for a while, and 

2 they're really catching up. 

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: All right. Thank 

4 you.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil.

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phil Schofield 

7 here. I've got a quick question for you, Stu. 

8 The site research database is a nightmare for 

9 pulling information. Is there anybody working 

10 on that, making it so you can go in and do a 

11 search, word search?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I think so. I 

13 need to find out some more information and 

14 talk to you about that later. 

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. Thank 

16 you.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: It may require 

18 sort of a user's -- meaning people who are 

19 using it, user's requirements thing put 

20 together, so that the people, that data people 

21 can kind a figure out how can we make this 

22 thing work to satisfy the users. It may 
85

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 require some effort like that. But I'll talk 

2 to you later on. 

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I appreciate 

4 that.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

6 questions for Stu?

7 (No response.)

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

9 you, Stu, and we'll move on to OSHA. Excuse 

10 me, OSHA. DOL. Didn't mean to insult you 

11 Jeff.

12 MR. KOTSCH: Thank you.

13 Good morning. I'm Jeff Kotsch 

14 with Department of Labor. This will be the 

15 update for the -- well, for the last few 

16 months. The initial part is somewhat 

17 redundant of previous presentations, but 

18 hopefully there are a few new people in the 

19 audience, and maybe on the phone, that haven't 

20 heard all of this, so we'll go through it 

21 again quickly.

22 The Act has two parts that we're 
86

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 involved with. Part B, which became effective 

2 on July 31st, 2001, which is the part that 

3 NIOSH is involved in. It's primarily related 

4 to cancers but also includes chronic beryllium 

5 disease, silicosis, the RECA portion.

6 And most of these slides, at least 

7 initially, are from January 25th, 2010. We've 

8 had 69,975 cases, or 102,856 claims that have 

9 been filed. Again, just as my standard aside, 

10 for cases where there are survivors, there 

11 could be one or more survivors, and so in 

12 those cases you have more claimants than you 

13 have cases, essentially.

14 So that's why the number of claims 

15 is always higher. 

16 31,218 cases have been referred to 

17 NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Again, these 

18 numbers will differ a little bit from Stu's 

19 because I think he captured data a little bit 

20 -- at the end of last year, and we went a 

21 little further into January.

22 The other portion of the program 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we deal with is the Part E program, which 

2 became effective on October 28th, 2004, for 

3 the Department of Labor. This was, formerly , 

4 the Part D program, which was administered by 

5 the Department of Energy.

6 60,219 cases have been filed, 

7 that's 85,209 claims, and over 25,000 cases 

8 were initially transferred from the old Part D 

9 program. And this is just the general 

10 breakdown of the compensation as of, again, 

11 the 25th of January. $5.4 billion have been 

12 paid in total compensation. $3.16 billion of 

13 that is Part B. $1.83 billion is Part E, and 

14 $433 million is in medical payments.

15 As far as the paid cases under The 

16 Act, 56,465 payees in 42,067 Part B and E 

17 cases. 39,004 Part B payees and 25,504 cases, 

18 and 17,461 Part E cases and a little--16,563 

19 cases. So Part B is about 61 -- Part B is 

20 about 61 percent. Part E is about 39 percent.

21 A quick overview of Part B. 

22 Again, this is the radiation-induced cancers, 
88

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 includes the Special Exposure Cohort, chronic 

2 beryllium disease and beryllium sensitivity, 

3 silicosis for the miners, and at the Nevada 

4 Test Site and the Alaska Test Site, at 

5 Amchitka, and the supplement for the RECA 

6 Section 5 uranium workers. That's the 

7 supplement to the Department of Justice's 

8 program.

9 Just a quick -- you can read most 

10 of this. Part B, who's eligible. The DOE 

11 employee, the contractors, the subcontractors 

12 for DOE, the atomic weapons employers, the 

13 beryllium vendors. The listing of the 

14 survivors there of deceased workers, and the 

15 RECA Section 5 uranium workers.

16 There is presumptive coverage for 

17 workers with the 22 specified cancers for the 

18 Special Exposure Cohort Sites. Those are the 

19 statutory cancers at the four legislated 

20 facilities, the three gaseous diffusion plants 

21 plus Amchitka, and as of February 3rd, 2010, 

22 51 classes have been added. I guess Stu's 
89

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 gone over that.

2 As far a quick overview of the 

3 benefits for Part B. We pay a lump-sum 

4 payment of $150,000, medical benefits for 

5 covered conditions for surviving workers, and 

6 medical treatment and monitoring, but only for 

7 beryllium sensitivity.

8 Just a breakdown of the Part B 

9 final decisions. On the left, 27,265 final 

10 decisions approved. On the right, 20,716 

11 final decisions denied. The other bars, the 

12 yellow bars, 605 survivors who are not 

13 eligible for the -- cases were not eligible.

14 A little over 14,500, where the 

15 Probability of Causation is less than 50 

16 percent, and a little over 5,500 with medical 

17 information insufficient to support claim.

18 Those are the breakdowns for the 

19 denied final decisions.

20 Quickly, an overview of Part E. 

21 Created in 2004 to replace the old Part D 

22 program. It's a federal entitlement like the 
90

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 Part D program. This one pays a lump sum, and 

2 a lump-sum payment up to $250,000, which is 

3 generally on top of the Part B payment, plus -

4 - and in addition includes medical benefits 

5 for the accepted conditions.

6 Again, these are all the toxic 

7 exposure conditions from employment at only 

8 DOE facilities. So it covers DOE contractors 

9 and subcontractors. It does not include AWE 

10 sites or the beryllium vendor workers.

11 And the survivor list for deceased 

12 workers is a little different than the 

13 previous under Part B. It's not as expansive 

14 per the statute.

15 Part B includes impairment. It 

16 includes a determination of the percent of 

17 permanent whole body, whole person impairment 

18 due to covered illness. It uses the AMA's 

19 guide for the evaluation of permanent 

20 impairment, which is the fifth edition, there 

21 is a more current edition but we still are 

22 using the fifth edition, and awards 
91

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 essentially 25,000 for each percentage point 

2 of impairment.

3 It also addresses, in Part E, wage 

4 loss. There needs to be medical evidence 

5 showing decreased capacity to work, and 

6 there's the formulas for the employee 

7 compensation for wage loss.

8 For Part E, the final decisions, 

9 again, on the left is the bar for the final 

10 decisions approved. That's 22,603. And on

11 the right, 18,933. Those numbers are as of 

12 January 25th. The two breakdowns for the 

13 denied, a little over 1,500 for cancers --

14 with PFCs less than 50 percent, and a little 

15 over 13,000 for insufficient medical 

16 information to support the claim.

17 A quick overview of the NIOSH 

18 referral status. 31,218 cases were referred 

19 to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Again, this 

20 is January 25th. Twenty-six thousand five21 hundred forty-two returned, that are currently 

22 at DOL. Twenty-three thousand ninety-eight 
92

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 with dose reconstructions, and a little under 

2 3,500 without dose reconstructions, ones that 

3 were pulled back.

4 There were 46,076 cases that are 

5 currently at NIOSH, a little over 2,900 are 

6 initial referrals to NIOSH, and a little over 

7 1,700 are reworks or returns. The primary 

8 driver for anyone who hasn't heard this 

9 before, as far as reworks, is basically new 

10 evidence, whatever's changed to the dose 

11 reconstruction that requires it to be 

12 reworked, and generally it's the 

13 identification of a new cancer or cancers, or 

14 identification of additional unemployment, 

15 things that were not addressed in the previous 

16 dose reconstruction.

17 New SEC-related cases. There have 

18 been 3,071 cases withdrawn from NIOSH for 

19 review; 2,681 final decisions have been 

20 issued, with 2,594 final approvals. And then 

21 these are the internal placements of the cases 

22 currently at DOL. There's 35 with recommended 
93

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 decisions, but no final decisions.

2 That means they're in the portion 

3 of our program with the Final Adjudication 

4 Branch, the FAB. There are 87 cases pending. 

5 That means they're being held for additional 

6 information, and 268 cases were closed.

7 Those numbers are as of January 

8 21st. So 87 percent, for the SEC cases, now 

9 have final decisions.

10 The NIOSH dose reconstruction case 

11 status. We are showing 23,098 cases returned 

12 by NIOSH with the dose reconstruction, and 

13 21,024 of those cases now at final decisions. 

14 That's 66 percent. And final approvals are 

15 34 percent. Of that 21,024 cases with dose 

16 reconstruction and a final decision, 7,055 had

17 final approvals with PoCs greater than 50 

18 percent, 13,962 had final denials with 

19 obviously a PoC less than 50 percent.

20 Just a quick slide on the Part B 

21 cancer cases with final decisions to accept. 

22 A little over 6,700 dose reconstruction cases 
94

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 have been accepted, to the amount of $597.5 

2 million in compensation. The accepted SEC 

3 cases are 10,115, with $1.5 billion in 

4 compensation. Cases accepted based on SEC 

5 status and a PoC greater than 50 are 326, for 

6 $40.6 million. Those would be also included 

7 DRs that were done, dose reconstructions that 

8 were done for medical benefits in the 

9 supplement to the SEC cancers.

10 So the totals -- all accepted SEC 

11 and dose reconstructed cases were 17,170 for 

12 $2.5 billion in compensation.

13 This is just a monthly, for the 

14 last year, roughly, of Part B cases sent to 

15 NIOSH. Usually it runs in the low 300, 

16 sometimes in the mid 200's. There's been a 

17 slight uptick. I don't know that that has any 

18 relevance. In December of 2009, it was 310 

19 cases sent to NIOSH. Nationwide, the new Part 

20 B cases that we, at DOL, have received. The 

21 last, December 2009, it was 405. It's tailing 

22 up slightly but it's generally averaging the 
95

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 mid 300's.

2 We identified the top four work 

3 sites that were generating new Part B cases, 

4 and they're covered on the next four slides. 

5 The first one is Hanford, and there's the 

6 distribution there. Again, it's -- you know, 

7 it's probably in the mid 40's, generally. It 

8 ticked up a little bit in the last couple 

9 months.

10 Y-12, new Part B cases, generally 

11 running in the -- I don't know, 40's and 50's. 

12 It was 50 in December. Savannah River. The 

13 new Part B cases -- there are the monthly 

14 numbers, running, you know, generally in the 

15 mid 30's. And the Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion 

16 plant at K-25, probably running more in the 

17 mid 20 to upper 20 range. Twenty-six for 

18 December 2009.

19 And this is just the presentation 

20 of the percentage of the new Part B DOE cases 

21 received monthly by Department of Labor.

22 Generally, it runs in the low 90 
96

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 percent. November 2009 was 92. December was 

2 87, and then this is the converse of that, the 

3 AWE cases received monthly, which was 8 

4 percent in November of last year, and 13 

5 percent in December.

6 This is the general breakdown for 

7 selected sites, sites that will be discussed 

8 during the meeting this week. The Hanford 

9 Site, you see the numbers, the cases, and the 

10 claims numbers for each of those sites. 

11 Hanford, 10,461 cases. Hanford, DOE sites are 

12 both Part B and D. So we have a little over 

13 2,000 cases returned by NIOSH with dose 

14 reconstructions, a little less than 3,800 with 

15 final Part B decisions, a little over 2,000 

16 with Part D approvals, 1923 Part E approvals, 

17 and total compensation and medical bill 

18 payments for Hanford of $436.3 million.

19 Lawrence Livermore, a little under 

20 2,500 cases, again Part B and E. 455 dose 

21 reconstructions returned by NIOSH. Nine22 hundred twenty Part B final decisions, and 534 
97

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 Part B approvals. Four-hundred seventy-seven 

2 Part E approvals, and that's $110 million in 

3 total compensation and medical bills.

4 Santa Susana, Area IV, 827 cases, 

5 197 dose reconstructions, 262 final Part B 

6 decisions, 78 approvals, 90 Part E approvals, 

7 and $20.1 million in total compensation.

8 Again, those numbers are as of 

9 January 25th. Canoga Avenue, 616 cases. We 

10 have 32 Part B approvals, 43 Part D approvals, 

11 and total compensation of $8.5 million.

12 Lawrence Berkeley, 628 cases, 226 

13 final decision, Part B, 76 approvals for B, 86 

14 for E, $17.5 million in total compensation.

15 General Electric-Evendale. Yes. I 

16 think that's Evendale, Ohio. Five-hundred 

17 eighty-nine Part B and E cases. One-hundred 

18 fifteen final Part B decisions, 33 Part -- I'm 

19 sorry. Yes. Final decisions for Part B were 

20 115. Thirty-three approvals for B, 50 for E, 

21 $9.2 million total compensation.

22 Blockson Chemical, there were 215 
98

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 cases, Part B only. This is an AWE site. 139 

2 final Part B decisions, 54 Part B approvals 

3 and 8.2 in total compensation.

4 Chapman Valve, 218 cases, Part B 

5 again only, 149 final Part B decisions, 44 

6 Part B approvals, $6.6 million compensation.

7 United Nuclear Corporation, 152 

8 cases, 86 Part B final decisions, 42 Part B 

9 approvals, and $5.2 million.

10 Hangar 481 at Kirkland Air Force 

11 Base, six cases, Part B only, four final 

12 decisions, zero approvals -- $2,625 in 

13 medical bills.

14 Nevada Test Site, 6,365 Part B and 

15 E cases, 2,316 Part B decisions, final 

16 decisions, 970 Part B approvals, 1,024 Part E 

17 approvals and total compensation was $233.9 

18 million.

19 Westinghouse Electric is 

20 Bloomfield, New Jersey. Fourteen cases, Part 

21 B only. It's an AWE-7, Part B decisions, 

22 approvals was $600,000. And that's just the 
99

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 pie chart for the Part B cases filed.

2 The other, the 38 percent other 

3 is, again, the silicosis, chronic beryllium 

4 disease portion of the program. RECA is 11 

5 percent for the cases referred. SEC cases 

6 never sent to NIOSH, nine percent. SEC cases 

7 referred to NIOSH, seven, and referred to 

8 NIOSH, 35 percent.

9 And I just want to give a quick 

10 update on what we'll be doing over the next 

11 month, I guess, for two of the new SEC classes 

12 that will be implemented.

13 The other ones are smaller and are 

14 generally covered on a case by case basis with 

15 the actual letters to the affected people. 

16 But there will be town hall meetings for both 

17 Brookhaven -- these are proposed dates but 

18 hopefully they'll be pretty firm. Town hall 

19 meetings on March 3rd, and there are the 

20 times. Traveling resource center at the same 

21 time, and the reference to our bulletin that 

22 addresses how we're handling the SEC cases for 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that site. That's Bulletin 10-03.

2 For Hanford, the town hall 

3 meetings on March 16th, March 17th, travel 

4 resource center, both those days for the times 

5 listed, and the bulletin that addresses that 

6 site is on our website, gave the citation 

7 there, and that bulletin is 10-04. And that's 

8 it.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

10 you, Jeff. Questions.

11 Mark. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just to follow up 

13 on a question I've asked the last couple 

14 meetings. The Rocky Flats, the interpretation 

15 of the Class language. I think you were 

16 looking into that, and I just wanted to know 

17 the status. I'm sure others are interested.

18 MR. KOTSCH: Yes. I traveled to 

19 Denver and met with Martha Ruttenber on 

20 January 13th with a couple hour discussion on 

21 the Rocky Flats worker database. She needed 

22 to get me some further information, which she 
101

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 did get me, finally, on February 2nd. So 

2 we're looking at that.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. So it's 

4 still being reviewed; okay.

5 MR. KOTSCH: Yes. I mean the 

6 intent is -- yes, we're still reviewing that, 

7 to see whether that database would be helpful 

8 in us putting people in the Class.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

11 questions for Jeff?

12 (No response.) 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. It's time 

14 for a break. We're actually running ahead of 

15 schedule by 20 minutes. We'll start again at 

16 11:15.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter went off the record at 10:42 a.m. and 

19 resumed at 11:15 a.m.)

20 MR. KATZ: While we're getting 

21 seated, someone on the phone, would you let us 

22 know if you can hear us. I don't think 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're live yet. The phone is not live yet.

2 Okay. Someone on the phone line, 

3 would you let us know if you can hear us, 

4 clearly.

5 PARTICIPANT: Yes. I'm here. I 

6 can hear you.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks. And let 

8 me just remind the speakers, or say for the 

9 first time to the speakers, please, 

10 particularly the presenters, speak -- but 

11 everyone on the Board as well -- try to speak 

12 into your mike, because when you look away, it 

13 makes it difficult for the folks on the phone. 

14 Thank you.

15 MR. LEWIS: All right. Thank you, 

16 Dr. Melius. My name is Greg Lewis. I'm with 

17 the DOE. I'm the program manager for the 

18 EEOICPA program, and before I go ahead and 

19 give the presentation, I just wanted to 

20 express my regrets.

21 Glenn Podonsky, the chief health 

22 safety and security officer had planned to be 
103

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 here to address the Board, and all of you 

2 today, but due to the big snowstorm back in 

3 Washington, he was unable to make it. The 

4 same goes for Dr. Worthington and Regina Cano. 

5 They had also tried to make it, once they 

6 realized he couldn't, and flights were hard to 

7 come by after what they were calling the 

8 "snowpocalypse" back in Washington. So 

9 anyway, I'm going to give the presentation, 

10 and I also wanted to focus on -- you know, one 

11 of the big reasons Glenn wanted to be here 

12 today, to speak with you all, is the work he's 

13 been doing to respond to some concerns that 

14 had been raised at the last Board meeting and 

15 the previous Board meeting as well. There had 

16 been some concerns about workers that may not 

17 want to be part of the interview process for 

18 the SEC research, you know, efforts by NIOSH 

19 and SC&A, due to fears of reprisal or 

20 retaliation from sites.

21 And so there had been a request 

22 for DOE to send a memo, or some type of 
104

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 written confirmation that we support these 

2 interviews, and there will be no reprisal,

3 and, you know, for the last few months, since, 

4 you know, both the last Board meetings, Glenn 

5 has been working hard to get that 

6 accomplished, make sure everyone -- you know, 

7 to get a memo released from the highest levels 

8 of DOE, you need the proper sign-offs, and 

9 everyone needs to make sure that they're on 

10 Board. 

11 So he was able to do that and that 

12 memo was released as of last week, and I 

13 believe the Board all has copies, and there 

14 are some copies on the back table as well.

15 And then in addition to the memo, 

16 Glenn personally met with the deputy 

17 secretary, and the three under secretaries in 

18 charge of the major program offices, to stress 

19 his concern about this issue, emphasize the 

20 importance of this memo, and make sure that it 

21 was distributed within their organizations to 

22 the right levels of management.
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So he was, you know, excited to be 

2 here, to talk to you about that, and 

3 unfortunately was unable to make it.

4 And then also just because I 

5 haven't, you know, met some of you Board 

6 Members before, I do look forward to working 

7 with the new Board Members. You know, we're 

8 glad to help you in any way we can, and also 

9 look forward to working with Dr. Melius in his 

10 new role as chair, and also want to thank Dr. 

11 Ziemer for the work he's done. It's always 

12 been a pleasure to work with him, and we 

13 really appreciate what he's done.

14 So on to the presentation. I'm 

15 just going to talk to you about, you know, our 

16 role, and some of the things we're doing here 

17 at DOE.

18 Our core mandate is to work on 

19 behalf of the program claimants, to ensure 

20 that all available worker and facility records 

21 and data are provided to DOL, NIOSH and the 

22 Advisory Board. And I guess I could add "in a 
106

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 timely manner." So we do try to do that to 

2 the extent possible, and that's what we focus 

3 on every day at DOE.

4 We have three major 

5 responsibilities. We respond to individual 

6 requests for records. We provide support and 

7 assistance to DOL, NIOSH, and other groups, on 

8 large-scale records research efforts, such as 

9 the SEC evaluations and research in that 

10 regard. And then we conduct research on 

11 issues related to covered-facility 

12 designations.

13 For individual requests, we 

14 process three major types of request. 

15 Employment verification from DOL, of which we 

16 respond to about 6,500 per year. Requests for 

17 dose records from NIOSH. We respond to about 

18 three thousand per year. And what we call 

19 document acquisition requests, or DARs, from 

20 the Department of Labor, which we respond to 

21 about 6,500 a year, and those are requests for 

22 additional exposure information like medical 
107

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 records and industrial hygiene records, things 

2 of that nature.

3 And this gives you an idea of the 

4 total number of individual requests we respond 

5 to each year. In fiscal year 2008, we 

6 responded to 16,800, and in fiscal year 2009, 

7 it was about 15,900. It looks like the total 

8 is going down somewhat, but, you know, we're 

9 still not sure if that's an ongoing trend or 

10 that was just a fluctuation from year to year.

11 And then, you know, we also would 

12 like to point out, in terms of our workload, 

13 certainly we wouldn't say that it went down in 

14 2009 because we were actually working with 

15 what we think are more large-scale records 

16 research projects, particularly related to the 

17 SECs.

18 And so on that note, I'll talk 

19 about some of the SEC research we've 

20 supported. There are ten sites there. We 

21 certainly support more than ten sites, 

22 especially some of the smaller sites, but 
108

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 these are the ones that we've had a more major 

2 involvement within the last few months or over 

3 the last year. So I'm going to give some 

4 stats and information on a few of these, not 

5 all, in the interest of time, and I'll go 

6 through these fairly fast, but if there are 

7 questions, please don't hesitate to raise 

8 them.

9 At Hanford, we produced 

10 approximately a million pages for review. 

11 These are from boxes and documents. Nearly 

12 8,000 documents were reviewed by Hanford for 

13 classification and Privacy Act information. 

14 We hosted numerous on-site visits, 

15 approximately once a month over the last year 

16 and a half, I would say.

17 We facilitated tours of a number 

18 of facilities, as you can see there, and I 

19 know at one particular facility, we actually 

20 had people trained and suited up to go into 

21 some specific areas based on their requests.

22 So, you know, we've done quite a 
109

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 bit as far as facilitating tours.

2 We've also provided them, you 

3 know, the researchers, with a dedicated 

4 workspace and equipment to conduct their work.

5 At Savannah River, we've hosted 12 

6 NIOSH site visits, two site visits for Members 

7 of the Advisory Board. We conducted document 

8 reviews on over 3,500 documents, or 268,000 

9 pages of information, and at this point we've 

10 completed security reviews on almost all 

11 documents. There may be a few stragglers out 

12 there.

13 And now at Mound, we've most 

14 recently been facilitating meetings for 

15 members of NIOSH, the Advisory Board and the 

16 contractors. We also had DOE classification 

17 experts available for spot reviews of notes 

18 and to provide general information on areas of 

19 concern.

20 We're also in the next month 

21 facilitating a secure meeting space for Mound 

22 discussions, where Members of the Board, their 
110

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 contractor, NIOSH, can meet and discuss 

2 classified information in a secure location.

3 At Brookhaven, we've hosted over 

4 six data capture visits, we've identified 

5 hundreds of boxes, and made them available at 

6 on- and off-site record storage locations. 

7 We've also arranged for subject matter experts 

8 to be available to talk with NIOSH and SC&A 

9 researchers, and we facilitated a site tour in 

10 conjunction with the last Advisory Board 

11 meeting.

12 At Pantex, we continue to 

13 facilitate worker interviews and some document 

14 reviews, although it seems to be mostly worker 

15 interviews at this point. The next interview 

16 visit is planned for a March time frame, and 

17 we're also working to set up a second tour for 

18 more specific areas of interest for NIOSH and 

19 the Board.

20 And I want to talk about some 

21 recent initiatives related to SEC research and 

22 what you, the Board, are doing. 
111

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 Since the October meeting, we've 

2 been working with each of the EEOICPA POCs and 

3 site managers, to emphasize cooperation with 

4 NIOSH and DOL. We've coordinated with senior 

5 management to send out the memo that you have 

6 in front of you, and that I discussed at the 

7 beginning. This memo is focusing on our 

8 support for worker interviews.

9 We're encouraging workers to 

10 participate in these interviews. It's 

11 obviously at their discretion, but we're 

12 encouraging them to do so, if they'd like to, 

13 and we also want to make sure that they can 

14 participate in these interviews without fear 

15 of reprisal or adverse consequences, if they 

16 do so.

17 So, again, this is something that 

18 Mr. Podonsky has been focusing on in the last 

19 couple months, trying to get this memo out.

20 And then also, you know, releasing 

21 the memo we felt was the first step, not the 

22 final step in our efforts to make sure workers 
112

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 feel comfortable interviewing.

2 We've also, as I said, Glenn, Mr. 

3 Podonsky has spoken personally with the deputy 

4 secretary and the three under secretaries. My 

5 office has sent this information, this memo, 

6 out to each of the EEOICPA POCs, or the people 

7 that manage the process at each site. We've 

8 also made it available online. We've provided 

9 it to NIOSH. We're encouraging our POCs to 

10 provide this note to people participating in 

11 interviews, so, you know, to make sure that 

12 they're aware that this is out there, if 

13 they're not already so.

14 And then, you know, I think, you 

15 know, we're just going to continue to focus on 

16 that, make sure the word is out. So, you 

17 know, if anyone hears concerns, or if there 

18 are any concerns from Board Members or

19 claimants, or advocates, please bring them to 

20 our attention because this is a significant 

21 priority for us.

22 As far as document reviews, since 
113

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 October of 2009, so since around the last 

2 Board meeting, we've had 86 documents 

3 submitted for classification review. Now this 

4 is for a headquarters classification review, 

5 so this is 86 final reports or documents 

6 submitted to headquarters for classification 

7 review, and the average turnaround was 

8 approximately eight working days.

9 So typically, by the next week, or 

10 within two weeks, we'd have that document back 

11 to the requester. 

12 In certain cases where an 

13 expedited review was necessary, DOE has 

14 returned documents in two days, if necessary. 

15 So now moving on to the third major 

16 responsibility DOE has, is the covered 

17 facility database and facility designations.

18 We maintain a database of over 300 

19 facilities covered under EEOICPA. This 

20 includes DOE facilities, atomic weapons 

21 employers, and beryllium vendors.

22 We have a dedicated research team, 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we've worked with the DOE Office of 

2 Legacy Management to subcontract with us, and 

3 they provide DOE with AEC, Atomic Energy 

4 Commission era records management experience. 

5 They have five staff, average of 20 years 

6 each of records management and research 

7 experience. They have extensive contacts in 

8 the DOE network, so if we're researching 

9 information related to, you know, a lab, an 

10 active facility, a closure site, they know who 

11 to contact, where to go for records, and how 

12 to identify the proper, you know, response for 

13 NIOSH.

14 And they're also, you know, 

15 trained in records management practices, 

16 including how the Federal Records Centers work 

17 and National Archives work, so they can 

18 identify and locate information in those 

19 sources as well.

20 These are a few -- we're 

21 researching many sites at any given time, but 

22 three of the major sites that, you know, we're 
115

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 conducting research on right now, are the 

2 Comparative Animal Research Laboratory or the 

3 CARL facility. That's in Oak Ridge, 

4 Tennessee. The St. Louis Small Arms Plant, 

5 St. Louis, Missouri. And the GE plant in 

6 Vallecitos, California.

7 I'm going to talk about a couple 

8 of general initiatives that we've been 

9 undertaking in the past couple months. We've 

10 been holding weekly conference calls with 

11 members of NIOSH and its contractors, to 

12 ensure that these groups are receiving 

13 information and support they need from both 

14 DOE headquarters and the DOE sites, and where, 

15 you know, issues and problems are identified, 

16 we take steps to correct that. 

17 We've identified subject matter 

18 experts to participate and contribute to the 

19 NIOSH Advisory Board Working Groups and 

20 conference calls, if necessary. We don't 

21 always have experts on, but they're always 

22 available, if requested, and sometimes they do 
116

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 participate based on need.

2 We're working with the DOE chief 

3 information officer's office to revise 

4 contracting provisions and our acquisition 

5 guide, to ensure that DOE has the right to 

6 access and maintain ownership of records.

7 This is particularly relevant to 

8 subcontractors who, depending on how their 

9 contract is structured, may or may not have to 

10 provide DOE copies of records when they leave 

11 the site. So we do everything we can to 

12 obtain those records and we're taking steps, 

13 right now, to make sure that at all levels we 

14 are retaining the records that are important 

15 for this program in years to come.

16 Another initiative is with the set 

17 of records originally held by the Los Alamos 

18 Medical Center. We've been working 

19 cooperatively with the medical center, to take 

20 custody of a set of records that were created 

21 before 1964, when the medical center was a 

22 part of the Los Alamos Site. So those records 
117

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 probably should have remained with DOE, for 

2 whatever reason in 1964 they did not, and 

3 we're taking steps to recapture them and make 

4 sure they're available for, you know, 

5 claimants' EEOICPA program, and also for NIOSH 

6 researchers, if, you know, the need arises.

7 And we've also launched an 

8 aggressive DOE-wide outreach and awareness 

9 campaign focused on current and former 

10 workers. This slide here shows three 

11 informational pamphlets that we've put 

12 together. The links below them show how to 

13 access them but they're on our DOE EEOICPA 

14 website. They provide general information 

15 about the EEOICPA program as well as the 

16 Former Worker Medical Screening Program which, 

17 you know, screens former workers, and, you 

18 know, when necessary, or when possible, they 

19 will feed them into the EEOICPA process or 

20 refer them to the Department of Labor. And 

21 then also our 10 CFR 851 rule which is focused 

22 on worker safety and health, and which 
118

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 obviously is relevant to current workers.

2 As I said, we've launched an 

3 aggressive outreach campaign. DOE 

4 headquarters initiated a joint outreach task 

5 force that included DOE, DOL, NIOSH, the DOL 

6 ombudsman, the NIOSH ombudsman, as well as the 

7 DOE Former Worker Medical Screening Programs.

8 The goal of this Work Group is to 

9 create and produce outreach efforts, 

10 coordinate and improve outreach efforts 

11 between the agencies. Generally, all of these 

12 groups, in one form or another, are trying to 

13 reach roughly the same population and we're 

14 hoping to pool efforts, combine resources, and 

15 in the end, enable us to, you know, reach more 

16 people that could benefit from one or all of 

17 these programs.

18 To that end, we held 18 town hall 

19 meetings near the communities of nine DOE 

20 sites, and if you would like information on 

21 upcoming events and locations, you can, you 

22 know, go to that link below, and, you know, 
119

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 there's a copy of this presentation on the 

2 back table and it'll talk about our upcoming 

3 efforts.

4 Another main focus of our outreach 

5 efforts is our DOE EEOICPA site POCs. These 

6 are the folks that manage the EEOICPA process 

7 at the sites. These folks are very active in 

8 their work, not only, you know, processing 

9 records requests, and helping these large10 scale records research efforts, but they also 

11 attend local public meetings, even schedule 

12 local public meetings in some cases.

13 They set up site visits and tours 

14 for the DOL resource center staffs, and other 

15 groups, including the Board and some of the 

16 SC&A and NIOSH researchers. They work with 

17 DOL and NIOSH to facilitate interviews with 

18 current and former workers. This includes 

19 identifying former workers, even attempting to 

20 contact them or provide contact information 

21 for workers that have separated from the 

22 facility.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And they also provide site 

2 experts, when needed, to participate and 

3 contribute to the Advisory Board Working Group 

4 and conference calls.

5 They are an on-site source of 

6 EEOICPA information workers, they often speak 

7 with workers, and in fact are sometimes a 

8 primary source, if the worker is aware of them 

9 or knows them in their daily work existence. 

10 So many times, they may go to our site EEOICPA 

11 personnel before going to the DOL resource 

12 center, which, you know, is not always the 

13 correct way to go. Sometimes we refer them to 

14 a resource center but we will do everything we 

15 can to help them and provide them with the 

16 information they're looking for.

17 I just wanted to mention the 

18 Former Worker Medical Screening Program, for 

19 those of you who may be here, that know 

20 people, or you yourself may be eligible for 

21 this program. The mission of the program is 

22 to identify and notify former workers at risk 
121

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 for occupational disease and offer them 

2 medical screening that can eventually lead to 

3 treatment.

4 The program now serves all former 

5 workers from all DOE sites and locations close 

6 to their residence, and that's actually, there 

7 are certain on-site facilities, or, you know, 

8 we have certain contractors that are set up 

9 close to large, major DOE facilities. But we 

10 also have a National Supplemental Screening 

11 Program that can arrange for a screening at 

12 any location throughout the U.S.

13 So more information can be found 

14 at that link. The local screening programs 

15 for Livermore and Berkeley and Sandia 

16 Livermore, I don't know how truly local they 

17 are, it's up in the Bay Area, but the 

18 screening program for that area is Boston 

19 University and UC-San Francisco. The 

20 principal investigator is Dr. Lew Pepper and 

21 there's a contact number there.

22 Dr. Pepper will also begin 
122

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 screening former workers from ETEC, or the 

2 Santa Susana Field Lab as of October 2010. So 

3 they're already taking steps to set up their 

4 operation here, and contract with local 

5 medical providers, and such, but they're not 

6 planning to start until October.

7 So currently, screening is 

8 conducted by the National Supplemental 

9 Screening Program. The principal investigator 

10 is Dr. Donna Cragle and the local outreach 

11 number is listed there. And that is all I 

12 have. So questions?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

14 Brad. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, Greg, I'd 

16 like to personally thank you. I know you're 

17 working on my tour. I know that the sites, 

18 some of the sites that I have are quite 

19 difficult to be able to deal with, and they 

20 have a lot of national security issues, and so 

21 forth. So I know that it is a difficult 

22 issue.
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But one thing that I would like to 

2 be able to ask you is, at these sites, when we 

3 have documents pulled, and they're of a 

4 classified nature, and so forth, is there any 

5 way, at that site, that we can have them held, 

6 say, in a box for us, or something like that, 

7 so that we're not trying to re-pull these 

8 every time, because that creates a problem for 

9 NIOSH and also for SC&A.

10 MR. LEWIS: To the specific 

11 question, I'm not, I can't absolutely commit 

12 that we can hold these documents, especially 

13 given the different sites and their 

14 requirements. I do think that's a reasonable 

15 request, though. I'm sure that we can honor 

16 that in certain places, and hopefully we can 

17 come to an arrangement where we can make sure 

18 the documents you need will be available. If 

19 we need to re-pull them, we can do that. 

20 We'll just have to make sure that we have a 

21 list or know exactly what documents they are, 

22 so we can make sure that they're available, 
124

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 you know, when you're on site. 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: With the data 

3 capture plan, you heard of my issues with that 

4 earlier, and I guess I wanted to see what your 

5 feelings are on -- what you've seen from your 

6 side, because I know that all of us are 

7 dealing with different issues. And I'm just 

8 wondering what your feelings -- if you have 

9 anything to say, or --

10 MR. LEWIS: I mean, first, I would 

11 say we do appreciate, you know, having data 

12 capture plans. We've requested them some time 

13 ago and I think we've made great progress. So 

14 on our end, it really helps, when we have a 

15 clearly defined set of information and goals 

16 for each visit, and, you know, the SEC effort, 

17 as a whole, at least to the extent that you 

18 can do so at any given time.

19 I realize these plans build upon 

20 themselves as you discover more information.

21 We have found that there has been 

22 a bit of a disparity between certain sites. 
125

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 Some data capture plans are more extensive 

2 than others. The better the plan is, the more 

3 it helps us. So any efforts that, you know, 

4 both NIOSH and the SC&A group can make to make

5 these plans as complete as possible, is 

6 certainly appreciated by DOE.

7 It not only helps us prepare for 

8 visits and make sure that the visit is 

9 productive as possible, but it also helps down 

10 the line, when either the same group, or 

11 another group of researchers, whether that be 

12 SC&A or NIOSH, comes in on the back end. 

13 They'll be able to know what was requested, 

14 what was reviewed, what was pulled and what 

15 was copied, so we'll make sure not to 

16 duplicate effort and we'll also be able to 

17 pull, you know, certain sets of documents, if 

18 one group wants to, you know, review a certain 

19 set of information again, or in a more 

20 comprehensive manner. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I appreciate 

22 that. You know, you were talking to us about 
126

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 document turnaround and you were shooting for 

2 the eighth day, and I just want you to know 

3 that it was six months for worker interview 

4 notes that we've had from Pantex and we're 

5 still waiting for them.

6 MR. LEWIS: You know --

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: And Greg, I'll 

8 tell you why this is important. Because we're 

9 held up at a standstill.

10 MR. LEWIS: You know, and I should 

11 have clarified my comments while I was doing 

12 the presentation. But that two to eight 

13 working days is accurate, but it's with 

14 respect to headquarters reviews, and typically 

15 at headquarters we review final documents, or 

16 certain documents where the site is having 

17 issues of problems reviewing it. So it's 

18 somewhat of a smaller subset that comes to 

19 headquarters for review.

20 And we have really worked on that 

21 process over the last year. We have it down 

22 to about two to eight days, and, you know, 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're very confident in that process.

2 But at the sites, it's a little 

3 bit trickier in terms of document reviews and 

4 we realize that's something that we need to 

5 work on and continue to work on.

6 Certain sites, especially the 

7 larger sites with larger SEC research 

8 projects, such as Savannah River and Hanford, 

9 we've come up with Comprehensive Plans on how 

10 we're going to review information.

11 I mean, we've reviewed thousands 

12 of pages, hundreds of documents, and these 

13 aren't, you know, final reports, that may be 

14 20 to 80 pages. I mean, these can be 300, 400 

15 page documents. So it creates quite a 

16 challenge out at the site.

17 For some of the sites, you know, 

18 where we've had a large amount in front of us, 

19 we've come up with a Comprehensive Plan, hired 

20 additional staff or subcontractors to do it, 

21 and we made sure to do it in a reasonable time 

22 frame. Some of the sites with smaller-scale 
128

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 requests, the response time has varied, and 

2 that's certainly something that we need to 

3 focus on and we will be working on cause 

4 that's, you know, as I said, the headquarters 

5 process is -- you know, we feel very confident 

6 and we're working with the field sites to 

7 improve, you know, some of their process. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

9 that. And one of the things about these 

10 worker interview notes that are critical is 

11 once they've passed that, we have to be able 

12 to take them back to the interviewees and 

13 establish, to make sure that what they said 

14 was correct and that they agree with.

15 And we have many of the 

16 petitioners, many of the people, so forth, are 

17 still wondering -- they think their notes have 

18 been lost and so forth. So this is a critical 

19 thing.

20 But I'd also like to thank you for 

21 taking us to DOE with the classification 

22 officer back there, because that made our 
129

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 ability out at Pantex a lot easier to be able 

2 to deal with, and it also gives Pantex a point 

3 of contact that they can, when they have 

4 questions, and I think that was a very good 

5 thought. But I just -- this issue at these 

6 sites, I hope that -- I hope we keep pressing 

7 forward with the tour and I hope we can work 

8 on the document return, and also with the 

9 request on this. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Ziemer. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you, Greg. 

12 I certainly want to acknowledge the excellent 

13 work DOE's done, particularly in the past 

14 couple years under Mr. Podonsky and Dr. 

15 Worthington, and we really appreciate that.

16 I wanted to note for the record 

17 one thing that you didn't mention, but 

18 sometimes the agencies, they're almost too 

19 modest. On January 21st, the DOE folks helped 

20 facilitate a meeting that had been requested 

21 by the Alliance of Nuclear Workers Advocacy 

22 Group, or ANWAG, and that meeting took place 
130

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 at DOE. The Department of Labor was in 

2 attendance, NIOSH, of course DOE itself, and 

3 the ANWAG people. I was there on behalf of 

4 the Board, and a number of our Board Members 

5 were there by phone lines.

6 But I think just for the record, 

7 we want to acknowledge the efforts that DOE 

8 went through to simply facilitate a meeting of 

9 that type, which was unusual. So we thank you 

10 for that as well.

11 MR. LEWIS: And thank you for 

12 mentioning that, Dr. Ziemer. I would like to 

13 express our appreciation for ANWAG and NIOSH 

14 and DOL for participating. We think we had a 

15 good discussion and came out with some 

16 positive action items. So we really 

17 appreciate the opportunity to talk with the 

18 various groups.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'd also like to 

20 thank DOE for your memo on retaliation and 

21 issues. I actually had agreed to speak at a 

22 meeting in Nashville with Glenn, so I could 
131

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 remind him of his commitment to do this. Now 

2 I will see whether I will go to Nashville for 

3 that meeting. But I do appreciate, again, I 

4 think it's very helpful to have that kind of a 

5 piece of paper for the workers there. Given 

6 sensitivities and past problems at these 

7 sites, I think it will provide, you know, some 

8 reassurance about, you know, retaliation. So 

9 I really do thank you for doing that. We 

10 expect it to take some time within your 

11 bureaucracy. So I actually don't think you 

12 did too bad. I just wanted to assure it was 

13 going to get done. But it did. So anyway, 

14 thank you, and thank Glenn for getting that 

15 done.

16 I want to follow up on Brad's 

17 concerns, though, with Pantex, and I've spoken 

18 about this before at meetings.

19 I get very concerned, when we have 

20 a site like Pantex, which is a very sensitive 

21 site in terms of classification, and so forth, 

22 how we're going to be able to deal with that 
132

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 in a timely and fair fashion to the 

2 petitioners, if it's taking six months to 

3 clear worker interview information, to be able 

4 -- I mean, which seems to me to be a 

5 relatively straightforward type document.

6 I don't know the details of what 

7 were in these interviews, or anything, 

8 obviously, but I really think we either need 

9 to put adequate resources in there -- I'm glad 

10 that NIOSH is developing a plan to deal with 

11 the classification issue in terms of the 

12 program. But hearing dates like, you know, 

13 six months to clear -- over six months, 

14 really, cause we still don't even know when 

15 we're going to get them back. I get very 

16 concerned, and that really is not fair to the 

17 petitioners, or our ability to address these 

18 requests in a timely fashion.

19 So I would hope that to the 

20 extent, if it's a resource issue, that we, you 

21 know, try to address that from the DOE level.

22 If it's an issue of the nature of 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the information, those interviews, then I 

2 think we need to rethink again how we're going 

3 to approach these particular sites where, 

4 again, so much sensitivity about 

5 classification and whether it's appropriate to 

6 move forward in the way we're trying to move 

7 forward at that site. So I just pass that 

8 along.

9 MR. LEWIS: Yes, and I appreciate 

10 your concerns. I'm not familiar with the 

11 exact nature of this request, or, you know, 

12 what the issue is. I do believe, in working 

13 with them in the past, there was some 

14 confusion on what was requested, or, you know, 

15 how it was supposed to be provided. Again, I 

16 don't know the details but I believe there was 

17 some confusion on that end of it.

18 And one thing I do want to 

19 mention, I believe, in talking with SC&A, they 

20 are going to be coming up with some kind of 

21 tracking system for the requests made to the 

22 field, which actually we appreciate, and I 
134

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 believe that will help them as well as us, you 

2 know, make sure that, you know, we know what 

3 has been submitted, and when, so we can follow 

4 up in a timely manner. So we are continuing 

5 to work to improve our process, and we think 

6 that that may be, you know, one thing that 

7 will assist both us and SC&A in our efforts.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

9 you. Any more questions for DOE?

10 (No response.) 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, we will 

12 break for lunch. We will return at 1:30. And 

13 this afternoon we're dealing with a number of 

14 petitions and possibly petitioners, so we're 

15 going to try to keep pretty tight to that 

16 schedule, at least in terms of when we start 

17 some of the presentations, and so forth.

18 So be back here promptly at 1:30 

19 and note that we will need to follow through, 

20 and then we also have a public comment period 

21 at the end of the day.

22 So do you want to give the usual 
135

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 reminder, Ted.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, so I'll give the 

3 reminder for public comment, just in advance 

4 of it, but that's at 4:30, begins at 4:30.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And people need 

6 to sign up.

7 MR. KATZ: And just for people on 

8 the phone to recognize too. For that public 

9 comment session, it will begin at 4:30 but it 

10 will end at 6:00, or when the public comments 

11 end. If the public comments end early, then 

12 the public comment session will end earlier.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. See you 

14 all at 1:30.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 matter went off the record at 11:50 a.m. and 

17 resumed at 1:34 p.m.)

18

19

20

21

22
136

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 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 (1:34 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Before we get started, 

4 we're going to begin with a session on the 

5 Santa Susana Field Laboratory, an SEC 

6 Petition, so I'd just like to ask at this 

7 point Board Member --

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no, no.

9 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm the Board 

11 Chair. Come on. At least I know what's on 

12 the agenda, Ted. Come on.

13 MR. KATZ: Sorry. I got ahead of 

14 myself.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim Neton. Get 

16 us on the right agenda here.

17 DR. NETON: Before I get started, 

18 it might be good to give the new Board Members 

19 a little background information on what this 

20 science update presentation is about. It's 

21 become somewhat of a regular presentation at 

22 the Board meetings, and it's really meant to 
137

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 be focused on issues that are somewhat 

2 overarching, not the specific, site-specific 

3 type analyses that we do for, you know, all 

4 these various 300 sites that we're doing 

5 research on. But over a period of like the 

6 last seven or eight years, a number of 

7 overarching issues have been identified, and 

8 from time to time, I update the Board on the 

9 status of where we are with those issues.

10 At the October meeting, I'm going 

11 to present this slide again, which is even 

12 more than keeping a list. We have developed 

13 some science goals by fiscal year, and these 

14 represent the ones that we've selected to 

15 specifically target this fiscal year, to make 

16 sure that we keep our eye on them, they don't 

17 drop off the table, and we make some 

18 definitive progress.

19 The ones that are listed here are 

20 the chronic lymphocytic leukemia model. We 

21 hope to propose that to the Secretary by the 

22 end of second quarter this fiscal year.
138

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 This one, the second one's been on 

2 the agenda for quite some time now. But it's 

3 the issue, some formal NIOSH documentation on 

4 ingestion, oral-nasal breathing of thoriated 

5 welding rods. These are three scientific 

6 issues that were identified through the SC&A 

7 review, the Board's review process.

8 We have come to a formal 

9 conclusion within NIOSH on our position on 

10 this, but as of yet, we have not formally 

11 documented that in what will most likely be a 

12 Technical Information Bulletin.

13 The third bullet item here is to 

14 issue an OCAS-sponsored review paper on dose 

15 and dose-rate effectiveness factor. We've 

16 worked on this very hard with our, SENES Oak 

17 Ridge, our contractor that does most of our 

18 risk-modeling efforts, and, in fact, that 

19 review paper is undergoing scientific peer 

20 review at the current time.

21 And the fourth item is a published 

22 review paper on the radiogenicity of cancer as 
139

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 it relates to compensation programs. This 

2 stems from an analysis that we did at the 

3 request of Congress, to evaluate the cancers, 

4 the nonpresumptive cancers, and make a 

5 recommendation as to which if any cancers that 

6 are not on the current list should be added.

7 And I received confirmation that 

8 the report that we issued was finally received 

9 by the Senate Appropriations Committee in 

10 December. So that has made its way to 

11 Congress and is in their hands now.

12 But what I'd like to talk about 

13 today are the two top issues, which is the 

14 chronic lymphocytic leukemia model and the 

15 documentation on ingestion.

16 If you remember, the ingestion 

17 issue has been lingering for some time now, 

18 and one of the key issues had to do with how 

19 we would predict the amount of surface 

20 contamination available at a facility. In 

21 particular, this is relevant to atomic weapons 

22 employer facilities. Surface contamination 
140

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 measurements are sparse. We have very few 

2 measurements that were taken during the AWE 

3 operations.

4 Yet, the data that we do have show 

5 that there is an empirical relationship 

6 between the air concentration measured at some 

7 of these facilities and the amount of 

8 contaminations on the surface.

9 One does have to keep in mind, 

10 though, that of course the amount that's on 

11 the surface is directly related to how long 

12 that operation has been in existence. In 

13 other words, the longer the operation runs, 

14 the more there's time for surface 

15 contamination to accumulate.

16 So to predict the surface 

17 contamination values, it was key -- and this 

18 is used in our OCAS TIB-0009 -- that's 

19 Technical Information Bulletin 9 -- that you 

20 have to know what the settling velocity of the 

21 particulates are. That's a key factor in 

22 developing this model.
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And this issue has been the 

2 subject of some debate between the Advisory 

3 Board Working Group and SC&A and NIOSH. And 

4 I'd like to talk a little bit more about how I 

5 think we've come to some conclusion on that 

6 settling velocity issue.

7 There's a simple equation here. 

8 It just depicts the relationship between the 

9 surface contamination that's available for 

10 ingestion anywhere in a plant, as a function 

11 of the concentration in the air in picocuries 

12 per cubic meter, and the settling velocity in 

13 meters per second, and if you throw a time in 

14 there, you can get the surface contamination, 

15 picocuries per square meter. 

16 This is for a situation where

17 there's no removal mechanism. That is, it 

18 just keeps accumulating indefinitely. Of 

19 course if you have some removal mechanism, if 

20 you put a removal rate in there, you know, the 

21 equation by some removal rate, you can come up 

22 with some sort of equilibrium value that one 
142

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 could assume. But that's the subject of 

2 another discussion.

3 Just suffice to say that this is 

4 the equation that's used in TIB-0009 to 

5 predict surface contamination.

6 This slide I've shown before, but 

7 this just shows the empirical relationship of 

8 surface contamination as a function of air 

9 concentration measured at -- I think it's only 

10 maybe two or three facilities, we were able to 

11 collect this data, and I point out that this 

12 is a log-log graph, so things tend to look 

13 pretty linear on log-log graphs.

14 I think the point is that even 

15 though this looks halfway decent, one needs to 

16 know the amount of time that the surface 

17 contamination accumulated to develop that 

18 relationship. And the key to that, to 

19 determine the concentration, again is this 

20 settling velocity issue.

21 Again, TIB-0009, which is the 

22 fundamental basis for the ingestion, that we 
143

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 use for atomic weapons employer facilities, 

2 assumes a terminal settlement velocity of what 

3 I've listed here as .00075 meters per second. 

4 I think that's somewhere around a 10th of a 

5 centimeter per second.

6 That value had been under some 

7 discussion between SC&A and NIOSH as to its 

8 validity. So we had a unique opportunity, as 

9 part of a TBD-6000 review--that's the generic 

10 model for uranium, prediction of uranium doses 

11 at uranium facilities -- we had an opportunity 

12 to, I wouldn't call it validate, but somewhat 

13 verify that that number is a good number to be 

14 used.

15 And the way we went about this is 

16 to look at the settling plate data collected 

17 at the Hanford mount facility in the late 

18 1940's. This comes out of a very nice 

19 document written by Adley, Gill and Scott, who 

20 collected data over a time period from, I 

21 think 1947 to '52, in a uranium facility, an 

22 operational uranium facility at Hanford, that 
144

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 did a number of uranium processing operations.

2 They were melting uranium, 

3 casting, straightening rods, grinding -- sort 

4 of the gamut of what you'd expect at one of 

5 these atomic weapons employer facilities.

6 So what they did was they put out 

7 13 plates around the plant during the winter 

8 and summer months, and collected the amount of 

9 uranium that actually deposited on those 

10 plates. These were one foot diameter plates, 

11 approximately four inches deep, with 

12 essentially a piece of Whatman filter paper on 

13 top.

14 They allowed those to remain out 

15 there for, I think about four months each, 

16 during the winter and summer, and they 

17 measured, as I report here, the amount of 

18 uranium that's deposited on those plates per 

19 square foot per day. So you have a settling 

20 rate of the uranium coming out of the air at 

21 this plant over an extended period of time.

22 For our purposes, uranium per 
145

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 square foot per day wasn't very good. So we 

2 ended up converting that to uranium per square 

3 meter per second, but the math is sort of a 

4 straightforward conversion.

5 The unique thing about this 

6 calculation, though, is we also had known air 

7 concentrations in the plant at the same time. 

8 So you combine these settling rate 

9 measurements with the known air content 

10 concentration measurements that were taken in 

11 micrograms per cubic meter, you can get an 

12 estimate of the settling rate of the uranium 

13 in the plant in meters per second.

14 So, in other words, we can now 

15 have an empirical way to determine if this 

16 .00075 meters per second value is appropriate 

17 for use in atomic weapons employer facilities.

18 Now I'll just cut to the chase 

19 here and present a brief slide of the results, 

20 and the solid black line that you see is that 

21 exact value I just talked about, the .00075 

22 meters per second settling rate, and the solid 
146

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 circles are the actual measure, or calculated 

2 settling rate values for those plates that 

3 were put out in the plant during the winter 

4 and summer months.

5 As you can see, all the values are 

6 below, except for one, the value that's used 

7 in TIB-0009, and I think the median value, if 

8 you took the median value of all those solid 

9 black dots, is somewhere around a factor of 

10 three lower than the value in TIB-0009. The 

11 95th percentile, somewhat coincidentally, 

12 matches pretty close to what we've used in 

13 TIB-0009.

14 So what we think we have here is a 

15 pretty good empirical verification, that what 

16 we're using in TIB-0009 to estimate the 

17 settling rate, and that is used to estimate 

18 the potential ingestion values in plants, is a 

19 pretty decent value.

20 Okay. Shifting gears into chronic 

21 lymphocytic leukemia, I talked about this last 

22 time, that we received comments, and the slide 
147

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 says five subject matter experts. It should 

2 be four. We received the comments from the 

3 four subject matter experts. We've addressed 

4 all those comments. We now have a 22-page 

5 report that discusses our opinion on the 

6 comments that were rendered, and we've ended 

7 up with a final model.

8 The final model, after reviewing 

9 all the comments, still relies on a current, 

10 the IREP model, for lymphoma in multiple 

11 myeloma, that's what we're going to be using, 

12 or recommending to use as the model for 

13 chronic lymphocytic leukemia. But as a result 

14 of the subject matter expert review comments, 

15 we have changed the midpoint of the latency 

16 function from 15 to 10 years. 

17 So, in other words, the middle 

18 value -- with all of our cancer models, 

19 there's some adjustment for latency. That is, 

20 if you develop cancer within one month after 

21 exposure, you adjust the risk model downward, 

22 so that you infer less risk than if it were 
148

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 like a longer period, post exposure.

2 So based on the comments we 

3 received from at least two of the reviewers, 

4 we felt it was appropriate to move that 

5 latency period down to 10 years. So there'll 

6 be very little risk conferred at very short 

7 times exposure.

8 Maximum risk would be at about 15 

9 years, post exposure, and the middle, as 

10 suggested here, would be at about 10.

11 We're very close -- the science is 

12 complete on this. We're done, we've got the 

13 package done, we've got the review comments 

14 addressed. So we're working now with a 

15 transmittal package to the Secretary, that we 

16 hope to get out very shortly. I'm working 

17 with staff from OGC as well as staff in the 

18 OD's office at NIOSH. They're assisting me in 

19 preparing the, sort of the ins and outs of the 

20 formality of getting this package out the door 

21 and getting it up the chain. 

22 Okay. And lastly, I just want to 
149

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 touch on something that we present 

2 occasionally. I think it was about a year and 

3 a half ago, that we talked about this.

4 But that's what are the 

5 compensation rates experienced -- what's the 

6 compensation rates by NIOSH cancer model that 

7 we're seeing at the current time? I think 

8 August 2008 was the last time we updated this. 

9 The most recent analysis is through January 

10 11, 2010, and it's based on significantly more 

11 cases. 

12 I think the last time, we had 

13 about 12,000 cases. This time, we've analyzed 

14 almost 21,000 cases. We only selected cases, 

15 though, where we received notice from 

16 Department of Labor that a final compensation 

17 decision has been made.

18 In other words, we didn't look at 

19 cases where we did a dose reconstruction and 

20 sent it over to Labor. We made sure that we 

21 got feedback from Labor, that the compensation 

22 decision has been filed and adjudicated.
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We have our usual caveats here, 

2 that these rates may not be predictive of 

3 future results. There's various reasons why a 

4 snapshot in time can go up and down. In the 

5 beginning of the program, we were concerned 

6 about how the efficiency process might affect 

7 that. Now there may be some issues related to 

8 how we're processing the legacy claims, the 

9 ones that Stu talked about earlier.

10 There may be a reason that those 

11 may have a lower compensation rate than 

12 others. And there's also the effect of -- how 

13 the effect of special exposure -- removing 

14 cases with special, that go into Special 

15 Exposure Cohort out of the pool, how that 

16 actually reflects those numbers.

17 Unless otherwise noted, we're 

18 trying to also just show the rates for claims 

19 with only one reported primary cancer. And in 

20 some cases, the reported rates are based on a 

21 small number of cancers.

22 Now I have a couple summary slides 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that highlight the top 15 or so. At the back 

2 table, and you should have in your packets 

3 also an Excel spreadsheet that has all 32 

4 cancer models reported. 

5 But briefly, the highlights here 

6 are that lung cancer still remains the most 

7 highly-compensated cancer in this program, at 

8 around 70 percent. That's by and large, in my 

9 opinion, a function of the inhalation of alpha 

10 emitting radionuclides in the DOE complex. 

11 They deliver a very high dose per unit intake.

12 And in particular, the bioassay 

13 programs aren't particularly very sensitive, 

14 so the missed dose, the dose that could have 

15 been received and not detected by the 

16 monitoring program, which we assume to be 

17 delivered to the claimant, drives up the dose 

18 considerably.

19 Also not surprisingly, in the top 

20 of the category are leukemias. That just 

21 reflects, in my opinion, the radiogenicity of 

22 leukemia. It's a fairly radiogenic disease. 
152

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 Low doses can get you over the 50th percentile 

2 pretty quickly.

3 Interestingly, basal cell 

4 carcinoma still stays fairly high on the list, 

5 it's at almost 60 percent compensation rate, 

6 and that is the cancer that we reported to, 

7 and our report to Congress suggested that 

8 basal cell carcinoma is a radiogenic cancer 

9 that could be considered for inclusion in the 

10 Special Exposure Cohort.

11 And then going down the line, 

12 liver cancer you see is on there. Again, I 

13 think liver has a fairly low dose threshold 

14 for compensation, as well as the fact that it 

15 is an organ that does accumulate the 

16 radionuclides of interest in the DOE complex, 

17 that is, plutonium, in particular, but 

18 uranium, to some extent as well.

19 So if you inhale uranium, 

20 plutonium, it could deliver a fairly 

21 significant dose.

22 The bottom slide, the bottom one 
153

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 on this slide, lymphoma, is up around 30 

2 percent. We saw that jump the last time, 

3 because if you remember, we changed the way we 

4 calculated the dose for lymphomas, and we now 

5 assume, in many of these instances, that the 

6 dose was delivered to the lymph nodes in the 

7 tracheal bronchial tree, which drives the dose 

8 up pretty high, resulting in a fairly high 

9 compensation rate for that particular cancer.

10 And the next slide just continues 

11 on down through the rest of them. Nothing 

12 very surprising here. The patterns stay 

13 fairly representative. When you get down to 

14 like the 11 percent value for eye cancers, I 

15 think that's only four cases of eye cancer out 

16 of 36, or something like that.

17 Getting down to a little more 

18 rough numbers here, of the single primary 

19 cancers, the compensation rate is still up, 

20 very close to 30 percent. If you look at 

21 cases with multiple primary cancers, as you'd 

22 expect, the rate increases to around 40 
154

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 percent, and the total for all claims, as of 

2 this date, is 32.5 percent.

3 Finally, I just listed some of the 

4 cases, some of the claims where the 

5 compensation rates are pretty low. Ovary 

6 cancer still has zero compensated cases, and 

7 that's out of a total of 56 total cases. 

8 Female genitalia, the same way. I think 

9 there's one nervous system cancer that's been 

10 compensated thus far, a brain cancer, and 

11 rectum and non-melanoma are still fairly low 

12 as well.

13 That concludes my formal remarks. 

14 I'd be happy to answer any questions, if 

15 there are any.

16 Dr. Anderson. 

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. I'm 

18 interested in the settled dust issue. I would 

19 think in these facilities, there's quite a bit 

20 of air mixing, air movement, so the air 

21 measurements throughout a fairly large room 

22 may be pretty constant. But oftentimes you'll 
155

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 see settled dust would pile up in certain 

2 areas where you have eddies, and things, and 

3 especially with something like uranium that's 

4 quite heavy.

5 When they set out those disks, it 

6 looks like you treated each of them as an 

7 independent sample?

8 DR. NETON: Yes. 

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Were some of 

10 them in the same room, so that you could look 

11 at, is the settled dust, the amount of dust in 

12 one area different than in another, and 

13 therefore, if a worker were in kind of a quiet 

14 area, they would get more settled than in 

15 somebody where either there's a lot more 

16 movement, or heat, and swirling air?

17 DR. NETON: It's a good question. 

18 These were distributed fairly widely 

19 throughout this plant area, including, I 

20 think, office locations, as well as right on 

21 top of process equipment, you know, near some 

22 of the grinding operations. So they were 
156

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 fairly well-distributed and thought about. 

2 And you can see the values do vary.

3 The settling rates stay fairly 

4 constant. What I didn't show you is the 

5 actual amount of material that actually 

6 collected on the filters themselves, and that 

7 was quite variable.

8 Like very near the process 

9 equipment, you'll see a high concentration of 

10 -- a higher amount of material deposited than 

11 for the offices. But if you normalize that, 

12 using the air concentrations that were there, 

13 you can get the settling rate, and that's what 

14 we're trying to get a handle on.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: And for the 

16 filters, once it falls on them, do they stick? 

17 DR. NETON: Yes. 

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, if it's 

19 a "hot" particle, it's more apt to stick, and 

20 if it's a very fine particle, somebody walks 

21 by and they could blow it off after four 

22 months.
157

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 DR. NETON: Well, these were 

2 twelve -- the way they're described in the 

3 report, they were 12-inch diameter, 4 inches 

4 deep. So they weren't just flat plates. They 

5 did have a 4-inch lip on them. I suspect that 

6 one could come up with some mechanism to have 

7 some removal, but it doesn't seem like it 

8 would be a large percentage. 

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: So the 

10 correlation with the air measurements, were 

11 there more than one air measurement and --

12 DR. NETON: Yes. There were air 

13 measurements throughout -- 

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Were air 

15 measurements done where the plates were, or 

16 were they --

17 DR. NETON: Yes; yes. These are 

18 throughout the plant. There were a number of 

19 -- there were time-weighted average air 

20 measurements that were used. 

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Were some of 

22 these -- when they did these studies, did they 
158

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 do it where they're doing different types of 

2 processes, so that particles --

3 DR. NETON: Yes. That was 

4 actually the key. The purpose of the study 

5 was to look at these various processes, to see 

6 how much was settling out at these various 

7 operations. It was a pretty good mixture of 

8 activities, very much like you'd see at a 

9 number of our AWE facilities that are 

10 reconstructing -- rod straightening, grinding, 

11 burnout, crucible burnout area, melting 

12 uranium. You know, the whole gamut of what 

13 you'd expect -- or a large amount of the whole 

14 gamut of what you'd expect at one of these AWE 

15 facilities.

16 It's a very nice study. I was 

17 impressed with it. Well put together.

18 Bill. 

19 MEMBER FIELD: Bill Field. I have 

20 a question along the same lines. I guess my 

21 question is what are the effect of particle 

22 size air flow and humidity on deposition 
159

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 rates. I think it'd be interesting to vary 

2 the deposition rates, or vary those 

3 parameters, and see what effect it may have.

4

5 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, you have a 

6 little bit of that by looking at the -- they 

7 did the winter and summer months, where the 

8 winter, when the building was more closed up 

9 versus summer months, and honestly, you didn't 

10 see that big a difference in the settling 

11 rates between those two. I think it was 

12 within a factor of two of each other which for 

13 those purposes -- 

14 MEMBER FIELD: I guess you'd expect the 

15 air flow and humidity to be the big factors 

16 working there. And then another question I 

17 had, which is I think just very interesting, 

18 in general, as far as its radiogenicity.

19 What are you listing as the target 

20 organ?

21 DR. NETON: Well, I've given a 

22 presentation on this in the past, and that was 
160

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 probably one of our biggest challenges in 

2 this. The risk model itself turned out not to 

3 be that -- well, you can argue about the risk 

4 model itself, but we're using the existing 

5 model with an extended latency.

6 The target organ itself -- you 

7 know, when we started this, naively, we were 

8 thinking bone marrow, and that's not really 

9 the case.

10 We commissioned a full review by 

11 experts on this, and we're ending up with a 

12 weighted model versus -- based on the 

13 proportionality of where these lymphocytes are 

14 in the body at any given time, and then you 

15 weight the dose based on that.

16 It's somewhat of a departure from 

17 what we've done for current lymphomas, which 

18 is to assume that it's all in the tracheal19 bronchial lymph nodes. That gives you massive 

20 doses. Well, in some instances large does, 

21 because if you inhale any kind of uranium or 

22 plutonium, the dose in those lymph nodes is 
161

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 large.

2 So we are adopting this 

3 proportional model based on, like I said, the 

4 distribution of the lymphocytes.

5 Now there is a lot of uncertainty 

6 with that, and we're incorporating uncertainty 

7 distributions into those models, and it's 

8 currently undergoing external peer review by a 

9 noted internal dosimetrist, is all I can say 

10 right now. 

11 MEMBER FIELD: One of the reasons 

12 I asked that, I'm not sure if you were there, 

13 but about two years ago, NCI had that special 

14 meeting on CLL, and in the room were probably 

15 the world's leading experts on CLL, and no one 

16 could come to an agreement on what the target 

17 organ was, so --

18 DR. NETON: Yes. 

19 MEMBER FIELD: -- you know, I'm 

20 not surprised. I think the way the model --

21 DR. NETON: Yes, and, in fact, I 

22 think that meeting was, at least in part, 
162

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 cosponsored by NIOSH at the time. That was 

2 one of our research program's interests. 

3 Interestingly, if you look at the 

4 Hiroshima-Nagasaki analyses for the risk 

5 models for lymphomas, usually the red bone 

6 marrow dose in the dosimetry. Now it doesn't 

7 make that big a difference in that situation, 

8 because it's an external exposure, so the dose 

9 to the red bone marrow versus some other organ 

10 is not that -- just different.

11 In this particular situation, 

12 though, when we're dealing with a lot of 

13 internal exposure, you're absolutely right. 

14 It's a difficult issue.

15 Paul. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, you've 

17 indicated, though, what the priorities are for 

18 this year. I wonder if it would be helpful, 

19 particular for new Members, to remind us of 

20 what else is on the list "coming down the 

21 pike" later in terms of science issues. Off 

22 the top of your head -- I maybe caught you 
163

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 perhaps off-guard -- but some idea of what 

2 else is on the list might be of help.

3 DR. NETON: Yes. It'd be 

4 difficult to reconstruct off the top of my 

5 head, but they fall in two general categories. 

6 One is the risk model issue, such as the CLL, 

7 and the other is the dose reconstruction8 related issues. In the dose reconstruction 

9 areas, there aren't that many additional 

10 issues remaining.

11 We've sort of either decided that 

12 they become site-specific issues very quickly, 

13 like we were concerned, at one point, about 

14 people who didn't wear their badges, and could 

15 there be a generic way to correct for that 

16 when you're dose reconstructions for coworker 

17 modeling?

18 And the answer is no, you can't. 

19 You have to look at every site specifically 

20 and evaluate it on its own merits. So those 

21 kind of issues have fallen off the table. 

22 It's the "cheat sheet." 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not sure of the 

2 amount --

3 DR. NETON: Actually, these are 

4 very similar to what I just talked about. In 

5 the risk model area, we have a lot of issues 

6 that were on the table. We've got the BEIR 

7 VII analyses that we're looking at, how does 

8 BEIR VII weigh into our risk models? Age at 

9 exposure from an epidemiologic perspective has 

10 been hanging out there.

11 We've dealt with the smoking 

12 issue. We've corrected the IREP -- or we've 

13 modified the IREP model to adjust for the new 

14 smoking adjustment that was done by the RERF. 

15 Which other ones are out there? We did 

16 exposure --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Perhaps at our 

18 next meeting, you can give that.

19 DR. NETON: Yes. And if you like, 

20 I can distribute that more encompassing list 

21 via email to the Board, in general, just so 

22 they could have a copy of it.
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I do really 

2 think it would be good to talk about that --

3 DR. NETON: I probably should have 

4 done that. I apologize.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We'll give you a 

6 little more time, the next meeting also.

7 DR. NETON: Thanks. Okay. 

8 Thanks.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry, you had 

10 one?

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just quickly. 

12 So how do you go about setting the priority? 

13 I mean, you can have a "laundry list" length 

14 and there's always exciting things to do 

15 research on. But how do you go about setting 

16 the -- you know, how did these five get to the 

17 top?

18 DR. NETON: That's a good 

19 question. There's always competing and 

20 conflicting demands, and these are above and 

21 beyond the site-specific issues that we're 

22 dealing with on a constant basis.
166

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 Partly, that they've been on the 

2 list for quite some time, and partly because 

3 they affect some real cases. I think the 

4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia model is a good 

5 example of that. We've been working on this 

6 for a long time, but we've had to -- it was a 

7 terribly difficult scientific analysis to be 

8 done.

9 First, we had to determine, it 

10 wasn't radiogenic or not. We said yes, we 

11 believe it is. Can there be a risk model 

12 done? Yes. Can we do a dose reconstruction? 

13 Is there a way to do dose reconstructions 

14 based on what we know about it?

15 So I think that one has been on 

16 there for quite some time, and I think -- 

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: That was there 

18 before I left --

19 DR. NETON: Yes. that's been on 

20 there. Then the other ones --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We decided to 

22 hold it until you came back. 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right. Exactly.

2 DR. NETON: The other ones, like 

3 the ingestion model, it affects more than just 

4 ingestion. As it turns out, that the residual 

5 contamination that's at these sites, after the 

6 operation stopped, are affected by this 

7 settling velocity and the surface 

8 contamination issues that we estimate, because 

9 once they stop operations, the materials there 

10 on the floor, or on the surfaces, you need to 

11 know how much was there.

12 That would then affect how much 

13 you would inhale based on resuspension, would 

14 affect your external exposure model. So I 

15 guess we picked the ones that seemed to have 

16 the biggest potential for affecting the claims 

17 and the cases at the time, plus the fact that 

18 these have been on the table for quite some 

19 time. They need to go off.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I have one 

21 brief question. The ingestion model, so forth 

22 -- that's still before the Procedures 
168

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 Subcommittee? I couldn't quite understand in 

2 the presentation --

3 DR. NETON: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- where that 

5 was in terms of resolution.

6 DR. NETON: Well, this one piece I 

7 presented, I believe, I think we've got fairly 

8 substantial agreement with SC&A on this one 

9 piece, and this was sort of a good piece to 

10 get put away and agreed upon.

11 The remaining issue has to do with 

12 how much of a surface area a person ingests 

13 per day, and I think that we end up -- at the 

14 end of the day, we will end up agreeing to 

15 disagree with SC&A on that point.

16 That is, we are using a value that 

17 is based out of the RESRAD models that are out 

18 there. SC&A believes the value is slightly 

19 larger than we're using, and that's where that 

20 issue remains.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Tune in, I 

22 guess.
169

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 DR. NETON: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

3 you, Jim. We are moving on. We have a 

4 presentation on an SEC 84.14 petition. 

5 Lawrence Livermore. And Sam Glover, I believe 

6 you're --

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. While Sam's 

8 coming up, just for the record, when the Board 

9 has Members that have conflicts with 

10 particular sites for the SEC petition 

11 discussions, they leave the table, and let the 

12 record note that Dr. Poston is leaving the 

13 table. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we won't 

15 forget you, John. We'll retrieve you later.

16 DR. GLOVER: All right. Thank 

17 you, Dr. Melius. If this seems familiar to 

18 many of the Board Members, it's because it is. 

19 Livermore, I was -- I presented this a couple 

20 years ago, and we're actually going to present 

21 an 83.14, kind of an added -- an addendum to 

22 what we presented two years ago.
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So this is an 83.14. It means it 

2 was submitted by NIOSH. It's submitted by a 

3 New York claimant whose dose reconstruction 

4 could not be completed by NIOSH. The claimant 

5 was employed at Lawrence Livermore during the 

6 DOE operational period, and obviously, as I 

7 said, this is an 83.14 versus an 83.13, which 

8 many of you Members will become very familiar 

9 with.

10 Essentially, an 83.14 is something 

11 that we have initiated. It's a NIOSH12 initiated SEC. 

13 Just a little bit of background on 

14 Livermore. From 1942 to 1950, it was a Navy 

15 facility. AEC, the Atomic Energy Commission, 

16 began using the property in 1950 and the AEC 

17 took ownership in 1951. Previously known as 

18 the University of California Radiation 

19 Laboratory at Livermore, and later as Lawrence 

20 Radiation Laboratory at Livermore.

21 Another just a real quick map. 

22 Here we have the Livermore Site, and then we 
171

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 also have the Livermore 300 area, Site 300. 

2 Obviously near Livermore, California, and the 

3 300 area is located fairly close. That's 

4 typically where they did a lot of the 

5 explosives testing. 

6 That didn't work nearly as well as 

7 I thought it would.

8 All right. The original mission 

9 was thermonuclear weapon development. In 

10 1957, Livermore had a diversified activity 

11 including nuclear propulsion, fusion research, 

12 atomic vapor laser isotope separation, the 

13 Atlas Program, charged- particle beam and 

14 laser research.

15 So this is where we get to the --

16 you've seen it before, to some degree.

17 In December 2008, NIOSH presented 

18 its Evaluation Report for SEC-00092. This was 

19 also an 83.14. It was based on an 

20 infeasibility to reconstruct internal dose 

21 from fission and activation products.

22 Classes added to the SEC effective 
172

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 April 2nd, 2008. That doesn't seem to jibe. 

2 Maybe it was two -- anyway. April 2nd, 2008 -

3 - but my math doesn't work here.

4 But what we said is that the

5 employees of the DOE facility, its predecessor 

6 agencies, who were monitored for radiation 

7 exposure -- this was the first time Department 

8 of Labor, they asked us to look at our 

9 language about -- we usually used "who were 

10 monitored" or "should have been monitored," 

11 and this is our first time that we actually 

12 had -- we tried to use some different language 

13 to assist them, and fell in this class. That 

14 the site was from 1950 through 1973, December 

15 31st, 1973. We worked an aggregate of at 

16 least 250 days.

17 So associated SEC class was 

18 designated by HHS, included only those 

19 employees who were monitored for radiation 

20 exposure while working at LLNL. Its class 

21 description was based on NIOSH's determination 

22 that all workers with potential for radiation 
173

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 exposure during the proposed SEC Class time 

2 were included in the external dose monitoring 

3 program, and that unmonitored workers had no 

4 potential for radiation exposure.

5 So NIOSH has determined, through 

6 the course of ongoing dose reconstruction, 

7 several issues which impact the previous 

8 Class. That monitoring records are not always 

9 complete for LLNL employees, the workers who 

10 may have been exposed to fission and 

11 activation products.

12 The existence or non-existence of 

13 Livermore monitoring records is not always an 

14 accurate indicator of potential radiation 

15 exposure during this time frame. In light of 

16 this, NIOSH is recommending a more broadly 

17 defined SEC Class.

18 NIOSH does not have access to 

19 sufficient personnel monitoring, workplace 

20 monitoring, or source term data to estimate 

21 potential internal exposures to fission and 

22 activation products, potentially received at 
174

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 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory during 

2 the period January 1st, 1950 through December 

3 31, 1973.

4 NIOSH finds that it is not 

5 feasible to estimate, with sufficient 

6 accuracy, internal exposures to fission and 

7 activation products, resulting doses for the 

8 Class of employees covered by this evaluation. 

9 Health endangerment is required. Evidence 

10 reviewed in this evaluation indicates that 

11 some workers in the Class may have accumulated 

12 chronic radiation exposures through intakes of 

13 fission and activation products. 

14 Consequently, NIOSH is specifying 

15 that the health may have been endangered for 

16 those workers covered by this evaluation who 

17 were employed for a number of work days, 

18 aggregating at least 250 work days, within the 

19 parameters established for this Class, or in 

20 combination with work days within the 

21 parameters established for one or more other 

22 Classes with SEC.
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The feasibility of partial dose 

2 reconstructions. NIOSH found that it is not 

3 possible to completely reconstruct dose for 

4 the proposed Class. NIOSH intends to use any 

5 internal and external monitoring data that may 

6 become available in individual claims.

7 And that can be interpreted using 

8 existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes 

9 and procedures. Therefore, dose 

10 reconstructions for individuals employed at 

11 LNL, during the period from January 1, 1950 

12 through December 31st, 1973, but who do not 

13 qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be using 

14 these data, as appropriate.

15 So our recommendation is for the 

16 period January 1, 1950 through December 31st, 

17 1973, NIOSH finds that radiation dose 

18 estimates cannot be reconstructed for 

19 compensation purposes. So the feasibility for 

20 this period is no, with a health endangerment 

21 of yes.

22 So this essentially restates our 
176

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 proposed Class Definition.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

3 DR. GLOVER: Thank you very much. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Sam.

5 Do we have a petitioner that is 

6 going to speak?

7 MR. KATZ: Possibly. So do we 

8 have a petitioner online, on the phone, for 

9 Lawrence Livermore National Lab? 

10 (No response.) 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Then do 

12 any of the Board Members have questions? 

13 MEMBER BEACH: I just have a 

14 clarifying question. What happens to SEC15 00092? It's Navy 314. Does it get absorbed? 

16 It looks identical. I'm just a little 

17 confused.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, the 

19 SEC-00092, the original one, is actually 

20 encompassed into this new one now. So what we 

21 did was we recognized that the Class wasn't 

22 being implemented, could be implemented the 
177

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 way we had intended, and so we went back, did 

2 an 83.14 to modify, broaden that Class 

3 Definition to ensure that we didn't miss 

4 anyone. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: So basically you 

6 changed the Class Definition. That's it.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's exactly 

8 what we did, but we did it in the way that the 

9 SEC rule allows us to do it, and that was to 

10 do an 83.14. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: How did you --

13 I'm curious, or interested, more than just for 

14 this particular petition. How was this -- how 

15 did you discover that this Class Definition 

16 was not working? Cause you should not -- you 

17 should only be seeing non-SEC cancers; 

18 correct?

19 DR. GLOVER: That's correct. But 

20 some of the work titles, to lead forth, we 

21 clearly were having -- there were people who 

22 had monitoring, that we did not have 
178

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 monitoring records for. They were Class 

2 titles that would have been on site, doing 

3 work, and with the understanding that a 100 

4 percent of the people would have had 

5 monitoring at the time, if they were on site.

6 That wasn't always the case. It 

7 changed during different time frames. So we 

8 became better aware of different periods, 

9 where they did or did not monitor, supposedly 

10 everybody. It was clear we weren't getting 

11 all the records for some people.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So you 

13 found out, though, doing the non-SEC cancers. 

14 Would that be correct? So I guess my then 

15 question would be, there were probably a 

16 number of people that could have applied 

17 through the SEC route. Are we missing anybody 

18 that would -- that might apply to DOL, that 

19 might not have come over to NIOSH, for some 

20 reason, for dose -- or can we identify all the 

21 people that may have been rejected before this 

22 was discovered, I guess is my question?
179

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 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can kind a go 

2 through our process, what happens. When we 

3 send the claims back to the Department of 

4 Labor, the Department of Labor makes their 

5 determination as to whether they fit into the 

6 Class. So they would have been looking for 

7 monitoring records for those individuals, and 

8 then, when those claims come back to us for 

9 dose reconstruction, part of that process is 

10 we will, you know, not only look for 

11 monitoring records for individuals, even 

12 though we wouldn't expect monitoring records, 

13 we'd also look at job titles and such, and 

14 other information about that, for doing dose 

15 reconstruction.

16 And in this case, as we were 

17 reviewing claims that came back, we recognized 

18 not only -- and if I remember correct, correct 

19 me if I'm wrong, Sam -- that if an 

20 individual's monitored and his dose is zero, 

21 they do not always indicate a record in his 

22 file. Am I correct?
180

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 DR. GLOVER: That is correct. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: And because of 

3 that, Department of Labor may not have -- they 

4 would not have known if the individual was 

5 monitored or not. We recognized this after 

6 the fact, and part of our process was to 

7 correct that problem.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Then my other 

9 question would be why could you not have used 

10 a definition of "monitored or should have been 

11 monitored"? 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. If you 

13 remember, a while back, we were using 

14 monitored or should have been monitored, and 

15 then the Department of Labor, over a period of 

16 time, determined that monitored or should have 

17 been monitored was hard for them to implement 

18 as well, because that lent subjectivity to it.

19 And so after that, we went to this 

20 -- we got rid of monitored or should have been 

21 monitored, and went to the "all employees" 

22 situation. Even though the statutory SECs 
181

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 identify monitored or should have been 

2 monitored. Even though that in order for the 

3 Department of Labor to implement this, it was 

4 easier for us to go to the "all employees."

5 And you're taking away my whole 

6 presentation for Thursday here!

7 (Laughter.)

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, you should 

9 have gone first. Cause my next question I 

10 think is the obvious one, and maybe you can 

11 defer it till tomorrow, but is what about all 

12 the other Classes we've defined with "should 

13 have been monitored"? 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: And that is --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are we going to 

16 go back? 

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: We actually are 

18 going back and we are looking at all those, 

19 and part of my presentation on Thursday will 

20 be to discuss our approach. We did an 

21 internal assessment on how we define Classes, 

22 over time, from the beginning of our first SEC 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Class to the end. We've looked at how that 

2 has changed and we have noticed there has been 

3 changed, obviously.

4 We started out, if you remember 

5 back to Mallinckrodt, we did uranium 

6 enrichment division, and, you know, as part of 

7 our Class Definition. Then we went "monitored 

8 or should have been monitored." We got rid of 

9 that. We had building-specific SECs. And so 

10 we went back and we've looked at that, and so 

11 we've got a path forward and I'll talk a 

12 little bit about that Thursday.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I'll save 

14 my other questions until then. I don't want 

15 you to, you know, not have anything to answer.

16 Yes, Josie? 

17 MEMBER BEACH: I actually have 

18 another questions for Sam. Why did you stop 

19 at seventy-three? Did the petition only go up 

20 to 73, or I wasn't able to find that, readily.

21 DR. GLOVER: Most of it would be 

22 in the previous 83.14 that we wrote. The 
183

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 other was not an 83.13. It was an 83.14. And 

2 we believe after that time period, that the 

3 radiation procedures, then the whole body 

4 counting facility was adequate to do dose 

5 reconstruction. Essentially, we're revising 

6 an existing SEC Class. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: I believe the first 

8 one was the exact same date.

9 DR. GLOVER: It was exactly the 

10 same dates. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: But I do know the 

12 testing went on for several years.

13 DR. GLOVER: Oh, we'd gone through 

14 1992 with the actual testing. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Right; okay.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, my 

18 question was the same one as your final one, 

19 but since you called on me -- I didn't put my 

20 flag down -- but let me do a slight follow-up. 

21 Maybe LaVon will be covering this.

22 But under this new definition, 
184

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 doesn't that open the door for compensation of 

2 individuals who have no access to the 

3 restricted areas, as opposed to the "monitored 

4 or should have been monitored approach," 

5 realizing it may be hard for Labor to 

6 administer, but a difficulty in administering 

7 -- is that our criteria?

8 DR. GLOVER: In this case -- I'll 

9 speak to Livermore but you may speak for -- at 

10 Livermore, once you had access to a facility, 

11 you had a security badge, and you essentially 

12 had access to the Livermore. They didn't have 

13 significant access controls, once you were 

14 inside. So you could certainly reach -- he 

15 may speak to other site-specific problems --

16 but at this facility, when you were issued a 

17 badge, you gained access to the site. You had 

18 broad-scale access. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which then says 

20 you should have been monitored. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now on the global 

22 issue of the -- how you define the Class, one 
185

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 of the parts, one of the things we have to do 

2 is we have to submit the Class definition to 

3 Department of Labor, to ensure that they can 

4 administer the Class, as written.

5 And, you know, at this time, when 

6 we submitted the "monitored," you know, they 

7 thought they could. But recognize that, you 

8 know, sometimes DOL may not even recognize 

9 that they can't administer the Class, as 

10 written. In this case, it was us. We're the 

11 ones that recognized that not all individuals 

12 are going to have a record that they were 

13 monitored, and because of that, they would be 

14 missed and in this situation.

15 And I think that we've got other 

16 ones that are coming up. Whenever we send a 

17 Class Definition to the Department of Labor, 

18 and we tell them a specific building, if they 

19 come back and tell us, well, you know, we 

20 can't put people in that building, then, in 

21 order for them to administer that Class, we 

22 broaden that Class Definition to allow them a 
186

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 method to administer that Class.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But 

3 hypothetically, with this particular 

4 situation, if it were monitored, or should 

5 have been monitored, would it be in effect the 

6 same as the definition you're proposing?

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, and I would 

8 have to ask Department of Labor to explain why 

9 "monitored or should have been monitored" 

10 didn't work, because I was -- you know, that's 

11 what we used for a while, but Department of 

12 Labor decided they didn't like that, and, you 

13 know, we just wanted to get the Classes 

14 through, so --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jeff, are you 

16 here on Thursday, if we --

17 MR. KOTSCH: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I mean, I don't 

19 think it matters here. At least personally, 

20 that's my viewpoint, that it matters here, but 

21 I think in the broader sense, I think we need 

22 to come to some better understanding of this, 
187

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 which we talk about -- for those of you that 

2 are new to the Board, this is an issue of how 

3 to do the Class Definitions, and make them 

4 practical and workable, is something we've 

5 wrestled with, on and off, for many years, and 

6 keep -- you know -- it's difficult.

7 Any other comments?

8 Bob. Yes? 

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: Sam, you 

10 mentioned that if they had a badge, that they 

11 had access to the site. If you didn't have a 

12 Q, or at least one of the immediate lower13 level badges, if you were uncleared, there was 

14 a tremendous amount of sites out there you 

15 couldn't go into, because that's where they 

16 did the Classified work.

17 So just having a badge would not 

18 put you in any building out there.

19 DR. GLOVER: The issue is that 

20 Livermore couldn't people in places. If you 

21 asked Livermore what building they would have 

22 worked in -- I agree with you -- you couldn't 
188

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 maybe go to all -- and certainly the Q 

2 clearance, who or what may have -- you know, 

3 what type of security credential they had. 

4 But Livermore cannot put them in a particular 

5 building, if we would try to associate --

6 cause our initial 83.14 was building specific, 

7 and they just couldn't do it. That just 

8 wasn't something that was a path forward.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil. 

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. Within 

11 the people were red-badged, uncleared people 

12 who were brought in, for various reasons, to 

13 some of these areas that were secured and 

14 Classified. And you would like to think there 

15 was always good documentation, these people 

16 having been there, but I don't really think, 

17 when you go back and look, a lot of that 

18 documentation is probably missing.

19 And so it is potentially, that 

20 some of these people were brought into some of 

21 these areas, and spent some time there.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any further 
189

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 questions? Comments? 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. This is 

3 Dave Richardson. I've got --

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody have one 

5 to make a, at least a preliminary motion on 

6 how we handle this particular one?

7 I'm sorry. 

8 MR. RICHARDSON: Hello.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Hi.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hi. So one 

11 question is at what point do they --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you identify 

13 yourself, please.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- offer 

15 dosimeters into the security badges? Or did 

16 they not?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could you please 

18 identify yourself.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David 

20 Richardson.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just for the 

22 court reporter. That was for the record. 
190

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 Okay, Dave.

2 DR. GLOVER: I'm sorry. I didn't 

3 catch the question.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm sorry. I 

5 interrupted. Could you repeat your question, 

6 David.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. You were 

8 drawing several distinctions, and one of them 

9 was the contention that for these workers, the 

10 distinction between should have been 

11 monitored, and including everybody, regardless 

12 of monitoring status, is inconsequential.

13 So my first question is: Did they 

14 ever institute sitewide monitoring? That is, 

15 did the security badge have a dosimeter 

16 incorporated into it?

17 DR. GLOVER: It's actually fairly 

18 complicated, because University of California, 

19 when you get into the University of California 

20 system, if you were at UC-Berkeley, you could 

21 enter the Livermore complex with your badge. 

22 Your security credential could get you on 
191

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 site. You could have different levels of --

2 so it has changed a lot, over time. We're 

3 talking about some of the early years. So it 

4 can be a very complex situation when you're 

5 talking about try to identify via security 

6 badge or the exact badging.

7 And also we have an issue with 

8 what materials we get as a function of our 

9 current status. We don't get the monitoring 

10 records for some of these people, even though 

11 they were monitored, if they had a zero on 

12 their badge, which would indicate a presence 

13 on the facility, that they were in a badge 

14 status, we don't always -- we don't get that 

15 for everybody. So that's a deficiency we're 

16 trying to correct.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: When you're 

18 saying they got a zero, you mean if they were 

19 monitored, they were issued a personal 

20 dosimeter, and the reading was below a 

21 detection limit, and a zero was recorded, you 

22 don't receive those records. Is that the 
192

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 issue?

2 DR. GLOVER: Yes; that's true.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is that just 

4 an issue of recording or is that that there 

5 are proprietary reasons between the State of 

6 California and the DOE?

7 DR. GLOVER: No. This was how 

8 they implemented their database. They chose 

9 not to record it.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So it's just a 

11 recording issue. It's not that you don't have 

12 access to some information?

13 DR. GLOVER: Yes; that's correct.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Another 

15 question was you said that records are not 

16 complete for some workers, and, to me, that 

17 could mean two things. That one could be that 

18 episodically, as you're saying, somebody, 

19 during one badging cycle has a zero and you 

20 don't receive a record for that, and yet you 

21 would -- over their work history, it's 

22 possible that they -- you do have some 
193

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 information. The other way that information 

2 could be not complete would be that some 

3 workers are completely missing dosimetry 

4 information altogether.

5 DR. GLOVER: In this case -- I'm 

6 sorry. I was going to say in this case, it's 

7 because they could not be placed in the 

8 facility. They're missing -- they were 

9 clearly a worker who would have been 

10 monitored. Their only job function could have 

11 been at the facility, they were a machinist or 

12 whatever, and they have no monitoring records 

13 in periods where they should have had a 100 

14 percent of monitoring at Livermore.

15 So it's the latter, where you have 

16 no monitoring, which it causes our Class -- if 

17 we had the other monitoring records, we would 

18 have placed them on the facility and then it 

19 would have just dealt with an incomplete 

20 record. In this case, it's not providing a 

21 record of evidence that they were monitored, 

22 which we're trying to correct here.
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And you think 

2 that's arising -- why? It's still not clear 

3 to me. Was your explanation entirely that 

4 these are zero -- that these are -- there are 

5 no dosimetry records? 

6 DR. GLOVER: I don't know --

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Or is it that 

8 you're missing -- that there's some place 

9 there are boxes of dosimetry records that you 

10 don't have access to? Because we've had --

11 I've experienced both of those before.

12 You know, the people have found 

13 lost records, for example. 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Richardson, 

15 this is LaVon Rutherford. I believe the fact 

16 is, is that whenever they were below the 

17 detection limit, they were just not recorded, 

18 and so we do not get that recording for those 

19 individuals. That's the only evidence we have 

20 right now.

21 We don't have any other evidence 

22 of lost records in that manner.
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And you don't 

2 have -- and this was systematically. So even 

3 going back to dosimetry log books, there's not 

4 some place they haven't recorded, that they 

5 ran that dosimeter? 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: And the 

7 difficulty here, though, I mean, even if you 

8 go back into dosimetry log books, and you're 

9 implementing a Class here -- remember, we're 

10 asking the Department of Labor to implement 

11 this Class, and we would have to ask the 

12 Department of Labor to go back and look at log 

13 book records to make determination as to 

14 individuals fitting into the Class, or not, 

15 and --

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. 

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's where the 

18 difficulty is.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, but I 

20 mean, you know, that's not an impossibility --

21 I mean, cause what you're proposing instead is 

22 that all librarians, cafeteria workers, 
196

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 everybody gets entered in that Class because 

2 Department of Labor doesn't want to go into 

3 the quarterly log books. 

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: If those 

5 quarterly log books exist. Well, I can't 

6 speak for the Department of Labor but I can 

7 tell you that is a monumental task.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I 

9 understand.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other --

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Thank you. 

12 That helps me understand the meaning of the 

13 gaps.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

15 questions or comments? 

16 (No response.) 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We need a 

18 motion. It's a preliminary motion because we 

19 haven't got -- we need to do a final one on 

20 Thursday, I believe. But we will entertain a 

21 preliminary one, since you volunteered. 

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Without knowing 
197

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 exactly what you need, I would say we put -- I 

2 would propose that we would adopt the -- or 

3 accept the change in the Class Definition.

4 PARTICIPANT: Second. 

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: As proposed.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any discussion?

7 (No response.) 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: All in favor say 

9 aye.

10 (Chorus of ayes.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed?

12 Abstain? Good. 

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Do I need to do 

14 anything more?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not yet but 

16 we'll be thinking about that. 

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. Wednesday 

18 night, I have to write something.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Do you 

20 want to do a roll call, or --

21 MR. KATZ: I think we've always 

22 had a tradition of doing this by roll call, 
198

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 though it sounded unanimous to me. But let's 

2 just do that for tradition's sake.

3 Anderson. 

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Beach. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Clawson. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Field. 

10 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Gibson. 

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Griffon. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Lemen. 

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Lockey. 

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Melius.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Munn. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
199

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 MR. KATZ: Poston. Oh, I'm sorry. 

2 Poston is abstained. 

3 MR. KATZ: Presley. 

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Richardson. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Roessler. 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Schofield? 

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: And Ziemer. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: It's unanimous.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. For those 

15 of you who are new on the Board, we usually 

16 get a volunteer. It used to me. I 

17 occasionally get Jim Lockey and others to do 

18 it -- to write the formal letter that goes to 

19 the Secretary, that includes the rationale for 

20 our approval, or our recommendation, and so 

21 we'll figure that out before Thursday.

22 This one's actually easy cause 
200

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 it's copying the old letter off the website; 

2 one minor change. But anyway, we'll figure 

3 that out.

4 And welcome back Dr. Poston.

5 Our next petition, Santa Susana. 

6 Lara. Okay, Lara.

7 DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Dr. 

8 Melius. Good afternoon. I'm here to present 

9 on behalf of NIOSH, an SEC petitioner 

10 evaluation for Area IV of the Santa Susana 

11 Field Laboratory. This is a petition that was 

12 submitted to NIOSH under paragraph 18-14, by a 

13 petitioner whose dose could not be 

14 reconstructed by NIOSH, and this petition 

15 evaluation also considered a Class of worker 

16 similar to the petitioner, as given by the 

17 rule. This petition was received by a 

18 petitioner for whom NIOSH was unable to obtain 

19 sufficient information to complete a dose 

20 reconstruction for the existing claim.

21 Therefore, on November 19th --

22 actually, two claimants in this case were 
201

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 notified that a dose reconstruction could not 

2 be completed, and Special Exposure Cohort 

3 Petition form was solicited from the 

4 petitioners, and NIOSH actually received two 

5 petitions for this one.

6 They were submitted to NIOSH on 

7 November 27th and December 7th, respectively, 

8 of last year.

9 The evaluation process is a two10 prong test that consists of a feasibility 

11 determination, whether or not dose 

12 reconstruction is feasible, followed by a 

13 health endangerment determination.

14 As you know, there's already an 

15 existing SEC Class for Area IV Santa Susana 

16 Field Laboratory. This Class was added to the 

17 SEC effective July 18 of last year, and it 

18 encompasses all employees of the Department of 

19 Energy, its predecessor agencies, DOE 

20 contractors, subcontractors, who worked in any 

21 area of Area IV of the Santa Susana Field 

22 Laboratory for a number of work days, 
202

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 aggregating at least 250 days from January 

2 1st, 1955 through December 31st, 1958.

3 Now the rationale for recommending 

4 an additional Class is that, as you know, the 

5 Santa Susana Work Group has been active, and 

6 NIOSH has been actively pursuing data capture 

7 at this site, and doing additional research 

8 into the monitoring situation of the site.

9 And what we have found is that 

10 there was a significant unmonitored worker 

11 population at this site, that had a potential 

12 for exposure, and for this reason, in such 

13 cases what NIOSH does is develop coworker 

14 models to assign doses to unmonitored workers. 

15 The reason these unmonitored workers had an 

16 exposure potential was that there were limited 

17 access restrictions in Area IV. When the 

18 worker was located in Area IV, they could 

19 enter any building. And there were also 

20 several incidents at the site where releases 

21 were not very well documented, that could have 

22 posed an exposure potential to workers.
203

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 Now fortunately, the site actually 

2 had databases that contained the entirety of 

3 the monitoring data, and that is what NIOSH 

4 uses to construct these coworker models. 

5 Unfortunately, these, upon further analysis of 

6 this database, NIOSH found that prior to 1965, 

7 this database contained missing positive data 

8 points. This is for internal data.

9 And the way this was presented in 

10 the databases was that there was just a plus 

11 sign entered instead of the actual bioassay 

12 result, and NIOSH has been unable, during our 

13 data captures, to find any values that would 

14 go with these entries. So the data that is 

15 available is not suitable to develop a 

16 internal coworker dose model for these years, 

17 ranging from 1959 through 1964, which is the 

18 NIOSH-proposed Class in this case.

19 Very briefly, the site history. 

20 Santa Susana Field Laboratory consists of a 

21 2,800 acre site located in the Simi Hills, 

22 Ventura County, appropriately 30 miles 
204

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 northwest of Los Angeles, and the site is

2 divided into four administrative and 

3 operational areas, Area I through IV. 

4 The DOE nuclear operations were 

5 limited to the Area IV, and this is what is 

6 currently the covered part of the site. Under 

7 this program, Area IV was established in 1953. 

8 It was established and being developed. In 

9 1955, it started nuclear operation, and the 

10 company that was operating it was called 

11 Atomics International. There is also a part 

12 of the site, the larger part, Areas I through 

13 III, and part of Area IV, that did rocket 

14 testing under a company named Rocketdyne, 

15 which both, Atomics International and 

16 Rocketdyne were owned by a parent company, 

17 North American Aviation.

18 Those two entities merged in '84 

19 and became part of Rockwell International, and 

20 currently, the site is owned by Boeing since 

21 1966.

22 The site operations consisted of 
205

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 nuclear reactor development. That went on 

2 from 1955 through 1980. Overall, about ten 

3 experimental reactor types were developed and 

4 operated, in addition to several criticality 

5 test facilities.

6 In addition, there were nuclear 

7 support operations, anything from reactor fuel 

8 manufacturing, reactor disassembly, 

9 radioactive source production, fuel 

10 reprocessing experimentations, and preparation 

11 of waste for disposal.

12 Additionally, there were some non13 nuclear operations that were related to 

14 activities such as liquid metal technology 

15 development. The information that is 

16 available for NIOSH dose reconstruction 

17 consists of the technical information 

18 bulletins and Site Profile information, case 

19 files that are available in the NIOSH 

20 database, and the NIOSH site research 

21 database, which is the collective database for 

22 all information that NIOSH has collected on 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the site.

2 The information was gathered 

3 through data capture visits to the site Area 

4 IV. I think there were four or five site 

5 visits in the last two years. Also NIOSH 

6 looked at the records available at the Federal 

7 Records Center in San Bruno as well as DOE and 

8 NRC electronic databases, and also contacted 

9 the State of California for information.

10 Additionally, any documentation 

11 that was submitted by the petitioners in the 

12 form of affidavits or documents were reviewed. 

13 Several interviews with former Area IV 

14 workers were conducted. The Comprehensive 

15 Epidemiologic Data Resource Database was 

16 consulted as well as scientific publications.

17 Now the site did have internal 

18 monitoring data, starting in 1958, in form of 

19 urine bioassay that was available for, of 

20 course, alpha, gross beta emitters, some 

21 uranium mixed fission products, in rare cases, 

22 plutonium, thorium and polonium. I say in rare 
207

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 cases. For the early years and later years, 

2 they had a much more comprehensive internal 

3 dosimetry program.

4 Now the internal monitoring 

5 program at the site was limited to radiation 

6 workers working with unencapsulated material, 

7 and this was a judgement call made by the 

8 health physics department, and overall, the 

9 database that I have mentioned, contained over 

10 100,000 internal data points that are 

11 available for internal monitoring, in the 

12 years between 1959 and 1999.

13 Again, NIOSH has determined that 

14 this radionuclide intake potential existed for 

15 unmonitored workers at the site, workers that 

16 were not part of the internal program, and 

17 therefore NIOSH is developing, is currently in 

18 the process of developing a coworker model. 

19 However, the bioassay database 

20 received from the site contains missing 

21 positive data up to the year 1955, and 

22 therefore NIOSH is unable to bound internal 
208

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 doses for coworker, in form of a coworker 

2 model before the year 1965.

3 By 1965, and after, the internal 

4 database is complete and sufficient to 

5 construct a coworker model.

6 The external monitoring situation 

7 is better. Data is available for all years of 

8 site operation at the site. Again, the 

9 external monitoring was assigned based on job 

10 exposure potential. The form of external 

11 monitoring was in the form of beta-gamma, a 

12 pocket or pencil dosimeters, film dosimeters, 

13 or TLD, depending on what year you look at. 

14 Neutrons were monitored using NTA film, and 

15 overall, 4,665 individuals were enrolled in 

16 the external dosimetry program between the 

17 years of 1955 and 1999.

18 And NIOSH was able to use the data 

19 that is available in the form of a database to 

20 develop a coworker model to assess doses to 

21 unmonitored workers, and this has been 

22 published in the Technical Information 
209

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 Bulletin 77.

2 In conclusion, NIOSH lacks 

3 sufficient monitoring process or source 

4 information for various nuclear research 

5 operations in order to estimate internal 

6 radiation doses to Area IV Santa Susana Field 

7 Laboratory employees for the period of January 

8 1st, 1959 through December 31st, 1964, and 

9 NIOSH believes that it has sufficient data to 

10 reconstruct external doses to all workers at 

11 the site.

12 NIOSH will use individual personal 

13 monitoring data for partial dose 

14 reconstructions as appropriate.

15 NIOSH has also determined that it 

16 is not feasible to estimate internal radiation 

17 doses with sufficient accuracy, and that the 

18 health of the covered employees may have been 

19 endangered.

20 The evidence indicates that 

21 workers in the Class may have accumulated 

22 intakes of uranium, mixed fission products, 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and other radionuclides during the period from 

2 January 1st, 1959 through December 31st, 1964.

3 And therefore, in summary, NIOSH 

4 proposes that from the year 1958 through 1964, 

5 internal radiation dose reconstruction for all 

6 radionuclides is not feasible. However, dose 

7 reconstruction is feasible from 1965 through 

8 the present, and external dose reconstructions 

9 is also feasible.

10 So in conclusion, the proposed 

11 Class Definition is all employees of the 

12 Department of Energy, its predecessor 

13 agencies, and contractor and subcontractors, 

14 who worked in any area of Area IV of the Santa 

15 Susana Field Laboratory from January 1st, 1959 

16 through December 31st, 1964, for a number of 

17 work days, aggregating at least 250 work days, 

18 occurring either solely under this employment 

19 or in combination with work days with the 

20 parameters established for one or more other 

21 Classes of employees included in the Special 

22 Exposure Cohort.
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And again, NIOSH recommends that 

2 for the period January 1st, 1959 through 

3 December 31st, 1964, radiation doses cannot be 

4 reconstructed for compensation purposes, and 

5 that concludes my presentation.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

7 you, Lara. Why don't we hear from the 

8 petitioners. Then we can ask questions, and 

9 gather information. I actually believe the 

10 petitioner for the -- if I understand it 

11 right, from what Ted told me -- the 83.14 

12 petitioner is not going to speak. But there 

13 is another active petition there that dealt 

14 with the earlier time period, and other time 

15 periods, and so we will hear from that one. A 

16 bit confusing. And then we'll ask questions, 

17 I think after.

18 MS. KLEA: Good afternoon. I'm 

19 Bonnie Klea, petitioner for the Santa Susana 

20 Field Lab, and thank you, everyone, for coming 

21 back to Southern California. It's really 

22 interesting for me to be here before the 
212

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 Board, and to see how it works. Thank you for 

2 everyone who helped work on the Santa Susana 

3 petition.

4 I have some visuals that I'm going 

5 to pass around for you to look at, and then 

6 I'm going to discuss them. As you know, we 

7 had a sodium reactor that failed, and this is 

8 one of its kind. In June of 1959, there's a 

9 picture of the sodium reactor and the story 

10 about how it reached a record steam heat, 

11 never before reached, and what people didn't 

12 know, in July of that year, it was diagnosed 

13 as having a third of the fuel rods melted. 

14 That was our meltdown.

15 Here is another picture, and it 

16 shows the workers trying to diagnose the 

17 situation with the SRE. They knew they had a 

18 big, big problem and they didn't know yet 

19 exactly what happened.

20 You can see they're laying on top 

21 of the reactor without a respirator. They put 

22 down sheets of plastic and when the plastic 
213

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 would get really contaminated, they'd throw it 

2 away.

3 So it shows you how lax the 

4 protection was. So I'll just pass that 

5 around. Also I have something to pass around. 

6 Now you have a copy of this in the handout I 

7 gave you. It's behind my comments. And you 

8 can ignore my comments because I've already 

9 changed them. But this shows how small the 

10 DOE area was.

11 And this used to be all of 

12 Rocketdyne and Area IV, where this is Area IV 

13 today, you can see in 1956, that it was just a 

14 smidgen of that area. So we had existing 

15 Rocketdyne workers who were already there. We 

16 had maintenance people and firemen who did 

17 support services and they can't get paid 

18 because they're listed as being in Area III.

19 So if you want to pass that 

20 around, it shows you the site today which is 

21 just another visual of that. It shows in 1956 

22 and you have a copy of that. 
214

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 Also you have a visual on your 

2 table of SNAP-10A. Now I don't know if you 

3 knew that Santa Susana sent a reactor into 

4 space, it was SNAP-10A and it was launched by 

5 the Rocketdyne engine. So we had the 

6 Rocketdyne workers and the Atomics 

7 International workers working side by side, 

8 yet we are not able to get the Rocketdyne 

9 workers compensated. They either are short a 

10 few days, or there are big problems. And one 

11 is the boundaries, and one is we had 

12 Rocketdyne and we had Atomics International 

13 workers.

14 So now I have my notes and they're 

15 a mess, so bear with me.

16 Anyway, Atomics International 

17 consisted of four sites, Santa Susana, Canoga, 

18 Downey and De Soto, and they were all covered 

19 under one monitoring program, and we had the 

20 workers rotating constantly. So many of them 

21 won't get paid if only SEC is passed for Santa 

22 Susana. We need De Soto and we need Canoga 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and Downey.

2 We need those SECs passed also 

3 because we had one monitoring program, because 

4 some of the firemen worked six months on and 

5 six months off.

6 We had ten experimental reactors 

7 at Santa Susana, four suffering very serious 

8 problems. In March of 1959, AE6 had a large 

9 failure and exposure to every worker in the 

10 building, and they had to open the doors to 

11 help lower the readings inside the building, 

12 and so then after that, it was a lesson. They 

13 wrote procedures that they had to wear full 

14 protective gear inside the building.

15 In July of 1959, the SRE was 

16 diagnosed as having a very large meltdown. 

17 Thirteen out of 43 fuel rods had complete and 

18 total melting and it's documented. You can 

19 look it up on the internet. We were on the 

20 History Channel.

21 And I'm working very closely with 

22 a man who was there and he actually took the 
216

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 picture of the workers laying down on the 

2 reactor, and his story was that they knew 

3 something bad had happened. After you read 

4 that story about reaching a level never 

5 attained before -- they had melted the fuel 

6 rods -- and he said, you know, the management 

7 were pacing and were nervous, and then they 

8 found out that all the workers that were there 

9 at that time had to go home for two weeks. 

10 They had maximum exposure.

11 And what they did is they rounded 

12 up all the workers who were in the Rocketdyne 

13 Site and brought them in. They did not have 

14 security clearance but they had to go behind 

15 the reactor, bypass the guard gate and come in 

16 and help.

17 When the workers were done with 

18 their two weeks, they came back and they 

19 observed that behind the reactor, the building 

20 had been cleaned out. All the files, log 

21 books, clothes, desks, chairs--everything was 

22 laying out back. And that's also where they 
217

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 put the plastic sheeting. When it got hot, 

2 they threw it out back.

3 Then the SNAP-10ER in 1964. It 

4 ran for 64 and 65. When they shut it down, 80 

5 percent of the fuel rods had cracked cladding 

6 and a large tritium plume was suspected to 

7 have been released at that time. Later, in 

8 1968, SNAP-10DR failed. They had 72 fuel rods 

9 that had cracked cladding.

10 So my data show that we have a 

11 lack of internal monitoring that's been 

12 recognized by Boeing, EPA, in the DOE Tiger 

13 Team report through the whole work history, 

14 not just stopping at 64 or 65. Boeing stated, 

15 in 1997, that the UCLA worker study was 

16 unreliable because there was a lack of 

17 internal monitoring records.

18 EPA and DOE wrote their criticisms 

19 in 1989. These findings dispute NIOSH's 

20 opinion that, after 64, they had adequate 

21 records to do dose reconstruction.

22 The workers from the SRE told me 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that they had to relinquish their badges, and 

2 because it was so hot, they were put in a lead 

3 safe while the workers were--this is the story 

4 of many of the workers on other projects also. 

5 They did not wear their badges because they 

6 did not want to have to go on leave, lose 

7 their job because of overexposure.

8 Also SC&A found poor quality of 

9 the monitoring data, and the workers 

10 testified--I already told you that they had to 

11 remove their badges. We also have missing 

12 records.

13 Now NIOSH also states that Area 

14 IV, and other areas were separate and 

15 distinct. Now I don't know if I would 

16 consider this separate and distinct.

17 If you see that little map I gave 

18 you, this was only the DOE area. The rest of 

19 it was already occupied by the Rocketdyne 

20 workers. Is across the road separate and 

21 distinct? I don't think so. 

22 Also I have written testimony from
219

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 workers in Area I, that they had fallout of 

2 the sodium during the 1959 accident, and the 

3 company had to pay to repaint their car. So I 

4 know it went far and wide.

5 Now this is the community's 

6 reservoir, drinking water reservoir and I know 

7 I've pointed this out before. But it was 

8 closed in 1969, and we have records that the 

9 radiation measurements in that reservoir were 

10 six times higher than the water that was being 

11 piped in.

12 We also had a big problem of work 

13 areas. We have the support staff already 

14 here. The firemen and the maintenance workers 

15 worked in Area IV. We're having a very hard 

16 time to get them compensated because the whole 

17 hill was developed and staffed by NASA, DoD, 

18 and Navy workers, and I know that it's been 

19 difficult to distinguish who worked for which 

20 agency.

21 Then also I think I mentioned that 

22 Boeing said that the worker locations were not 
220

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 noted in their records. They had a code. So 

2 many projects required that Rocketdyne and DOE 

3 workers work side by side and one of them is 

4 that SNAP reactor which I mentioned. It was a 

5 small reactor and needed the rocket engines to 

6 propel it.

7 Also I would like to ask the Board 

8 that my petition be evaluated after 65. I've 

9 only had an evaluation through 65 and I think 

10 that the evidence shows that, even through the 

11 period of 88 and the residual clean-up period, 

12 that there were still poor records and 

13 exposures. Okay. Poor monitoring records, 

14 poor internal monitoring.

15 And so I would like to ask that my 

16 petition be evaluated again for the later 

17 years. I think I've covered everything. Does 

18 anyone have any questions?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any questions? 

20 Yes, Brad. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: How did they 

22 distinguish the boundaries between the DOE 
221

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 facilities and the other Rocketdyne? Did they 

2 have fences? Was it plexiglass?

3 MS. KLEA: No. No fences, and if 

4 you asked the workers what area they worked 

5 in, they would say, what are you talking 

6 about? They had no idea, which area they 

7 worked in. You know, even the nuclear 

8 workers, they didn't know exactly, and if you 

9 look at that little--at some of the stuff I 

10 passed around, you know, this was just a 

11 little tiny area and then gradually the 

12 reactors spread and they built next to Area 

13 III Rocketdyne workers, and no one knew 

14 boundaries. I don't even know when the 

15 boundaries changed after that little portion 

16 in 1956 was identified. 

17 We are missing an awful lot of 

18 information, a tremendous amount, but we still 

19 have a few workers who were there at that 

20 time, and they've given a wealth of 

21 information. So that is a good question: When 

22 did those boundaries change? And I'm working 
222

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 with EPA, and I have for ten years, and they 

2 have, under a lawsuit, have been getting new 

3 information from Boeing and we are currently 

4 doing a new site assessment for residual--or 

5 not residual radiation--we're looking at 

6 background and it's in a huge cleanup right 

7 now.

8 So it's really under a magnifying 

9 glass, right now, with EPA, and hopefully 

10 we'll have more information about the 

11 background, and to know, really, what's there 

12 that shouldn't be there, that was manmade and 

13 not natural. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Ziemer. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm trying to 

17 understand--and this might be a question for 

18 NIOSH staff and, perhaps partially, Department 

19 of Labor as well, but aside from the boundary 

20 issue, there clearly must have been support 

21 staff who--maybe firemen and others--who 

22 worked in all the areas, including Area IV. 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But under our present Classification, or under 

2 the newly proposed one, how are such people 

3 treated? 

4 For example, on the 250-day issue, 

5 is that weighted for the amount of time they 

6 would have spent, under the current 

7 definitions, in Area IV? Or if they were 

8 employed by the Agency for 250 days, is that 

9 distinction made? This may have been covered 

10 before but I just don't remember how that's 

11 handled. 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think it's a 

13 department--this is LaVon Rutherford. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know it's a 

15 Department of Labor issue, but I'm trying to 

16 get a feel for--because it also carries over 

17 into the Class Definition of--is it only 

18 people who had an assignment to Area IV, or 

19 anyone who worked there part of the time?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jeffrey. 

21 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, 

22 Department of Labor. As in most cases, it 
224

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 would be case by case. It would have been a 

2 determination to determine if the records 

3 indicated that there were days of employment 

4 in Area IV. That's to the best that we could.

5 MS. KLEA: I'd like to make a 

6 comment. The claims that I've been reviewing 

7 show no work location is known. They have all 

8 of the 50s and early 60s for individual 

9 workers with no worker location. So instead 

10 of assuming they were in Area IV, they assumed 

11 they weren't. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're talking 

13 about the support workers--

14 MS. KLEA: Yes. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: --other than 

16 people who were actually assigned to Area IV?

17 MS. KLEA: Yes, especially the 

18 maintenance workers, which you know they do 

19 the dirtiest--

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Understand. 

21 Right, right. 

22 MS. KLEA: They're the ones that 
225

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 are being hurt the worst. They were already 

2 there and they served the whole hill. They 

3 have no work locations, it's just a blank, 

4 and--

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. That's 

6 what I was trying to understand, if there is 

7 in fact a way that Department of Labor, other 

8 than perhaps individual records of--or 

9 interviews or whatever, whether that would be 

10 established in some way. I suppose it would 

11 be unreasonable to think they spent 100 

12 percent of their time in Area IV, but if you 

13 can't identify it, maybe you have to assume 

14 that.

15 MS. KLEA: No, and I don't know of 

16 any maintenance worker or fireman who's alive. 

17 All the firemen families--the firemen died of 

18 glioblastoma, and that's a big issue that I'm 

19 hoping gets resolved when we tie in the De 

20 Soto facility, because they were moving around 

21 to all the facilities. So that is the big 

22 problem, is where did they work, and I have 
226

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 just dozens of claims where there's a big 

2 blank space. They may have ended up maybe in 

3 64-65 in Area IV, but every time period from 

4 the 50s, before that is a blank space.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jeff, do you 

6 have other comments to say or you're just 

7 waiting --

8 MR. KOTSCH: No, I mean that --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

10 Josie. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: I know we do have a 

12 petition for Canoga--

13 MS. KLEA: Canoga. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Do we have a 

15 petition currently for De Soto? I haven't 

16 seen one, or don't remember.

17 MS. KLEA: I understand it's in 

18 the works. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: We are working 

20 right now on 83.14s for De Soto and Downey. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you..

22 MS. KLEA: Thank you on behalf of 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the workers.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil first and 

3 then I have a question. 

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I've just got 

5 one quick question. In the records research, 

6 have they been able to go into the badging, to 

7 see how many of these people were badged for 

8 multiple areas? I mean, if they're going to 

9 try and define Area IV, or which area, some 

10 people would have been badged, obviously, for 

11 all areas.

12 MS. KLEA: I don't know how that 

13 worked, and I don't know if SC&A's been able 

14 to uncover that information. From what I 

15 found out, it was very loose up there. I 

16 mean, I had a Q clearance when I worked in 

17 Area IV but I had no restrictions. You know, 

18 I was just given a car by the Agency, driving 

19 around, delivering paychecks, doing anything. 

20 And there were no restrictions and of course, 

21 as a secretary, I didn't know what they were 

22 doing and I was not trained to beware of this 
228

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 sign or that sign. So it was loose.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We also have a 

3 Work Group on the Santa Susana Site, and then 

4 also I believe ongoing activity from SC&A. So 

5 it might be helpful, because this is somewhat 

6 confusing even to those of us who've been on 

7 the Board a long time and you've raised some 

8 good questions about how we pull all this 

9 together in here.

10 MS. KLEA: Difficult.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mike Gibson is 

12 the Chair. Are you still on the phone, Mike? 

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, 

14 and if I could comment. You know, when I 

15 toured the site, it is just one big site and 

16 there's no, really, distinguishing anything 

17 that lets you know if you're in Area I, II, 

18 III or IV. Just our tour guide had to tell 

19 us, you know, now we're entering Area IV. But 

20 there were clearly contaminated areas outside 

21 of Area IV. I asked a question, how could 

22 they determine when workers, who may have 
229

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 primarily been assigned to other areas, were 

2 transferred to Area IV and they had no answer.

3 So, you know, while I appreciate 

4 NIOSH expanding its Class somewhat, I 

5 personally believe we just really have a lot 

6 more work to do, and look at some of the areas 

7 outside of Area IV.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

9 MS. KLEA: Thank you, Mike.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John, do you 

11 want to say anything about the current status 

12 of SC&A activities?

13 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro 

14 with SC&A. SC&A reviewed, originally, the 

15 Site Profile, and then of course we requested 

16 to review the Evaluation Report with respect 

17 to Area IV. We identified a list of issues. 

18 With respect to the SEC, I recollect one issue 

19 in particular but there may be more and what I 

20 could add to is that one of our major concerns 

21 was, at the time, the bioassay data appeared 

22 to be limited beyond--and it was after 1958, 
230

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 which was the original boundary, we were 

2 concerned that the bioassay data was still 

3 quite limited, well into the 1960s.

4 We also, I recall, had some 

5 concerns about the definition, in terms of 

6 when we reviewed the Site Profile and the ER; 

7 were we dealing only with Area IV, or are we 

8 dealing with other areas related to that.

9 And I believe during the process, 

10 it became clear that our concerns at that 

11 time, that we were dealing--SC&A was dealing 

12 with, was Area IV. So, unfortunately, our 

13 point of contact that led this effort, Greg 

14 Beronja, is not here today to perhaps give a 

15 little bit more detail, but a summary of all 

16 of our findings regarding both our Site 

17 Profile Review, and our Evaluation Report 

18 review, should be available on the Web. I 

19 haven't looked at it in some time.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: LaVon. Go 

21 ahead. 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I just 
231

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 wanted to point out our responsibility is to 

2 evaluate what is considered the designated 

3 facility under the DOE facility database and 

4 so that is Area IV. The Department of Labor 

5 makes that determination for DOE sites and 

6 that's what we evaluated.

7 Now during our process, if we 

8 uncover information that we think may--that 

9 Department of Labor needs to look at, or 

10 Department of Energy needs to look at because 

11 of potential changes in covered periods, 

12 covered activities, we provide that to 

13 Department of Labor, Department of Energy but 

14 our evaluation process solely looked at Area 

15 IV.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And at least 

17 according to what's on the website, the 

18 original petition was Area IV, because that's 

19 all you can really petition. That's all it 

20 designated and so forth. But the original 

21 petition went for a longer period of time, it 

22 went to the present and --
232

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 MS. KLEA: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: --so I think the 

3 other--I guess this 83.14 makes up part of 

4 the--extends time, and for reasons I don't 

5 completely understand, NIOSH prefers to handle 

6 these situations with an 83.14, even though 

7 there's an active petition, 83.13 petition, 

8 that covers the area.

9 Maybe after a few more times I'll 

10 understand it. But there's still a longer 

11 time period, potentially, that is under 

12 consideration by the Work Group, and I don't 

13 know if NIOSH, or findings from SC&A would --

14 and from the Work Group -- would come up with 

15 a recommendation concerning that time period, 

16 because I think that's still open to question.

17 MS. KLEA: Well, I requested that 

18 it be through the DOE period, and through the 

19 residual cleanup period, and to this day, I 

20 don't really know why it was only evaluated 

21 through 1965. We have not been able to get a 

22 real, what I could understand, answer to that. 
233

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 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon 

2 Rutherford. The petition was qualified up 

3 through 1965 on the basis of a lack of 

4 monitoring data. We only qualified up to that 

5 period because after that period, we had 

6 indication, and we had monitoring data that 

7 was--we had monitoring data. So we only 

8 qualified up through 1965.

9 So our evaluation focused from the 

10 beginning up through 1965. It did not go 

11 beyond that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

13 questions or comments? And I didn't mean to 

14 leave out Lara either. I can't see you behind 

15 the poster. Are there questions for her, 

16 also, now that we can see her?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

18 Richardson again.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

20 you. Go ahead, David.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I guess I had 

22 one observation about the comment, that when 
234

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 NIOSH identifies information about--it would 

2 pass it on to the Department of Labor. It 

3 would seem to me that the determination that 

4 there's insufficient access controls to Area 

5 IV becomes one of those pieces of information 

6 that you would want to pass on to DOL. 

7 Because I mean, it seems like this is getting 

8 to the rationale for expanding this SEC, is 

9 that there are people moving in and out of 

10 Area IV from other areas and they're 

11 unmonitored. So you took the next step of 

12 trying to develop a coworker model for them 

13 and then you found that the dosimetry data, 

14 even for those people who are monitored, was 

15 inadequate to be able to do a quantitative 

16 dose reconstruction.

17 So the first step is kind of--it's 

18 overlapping with this issue of what are the 

19 boundaries, or what's the definition of Area 

20 IV, is that you have--there aren't really 

21 access controls in place to determine who's 

22 going in and out.
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And that led you to the second 

2 problem of identifying that the dosimetry 

3 records have gaps, even for those people who 

4 were monitored.

5 I mean, is that my understanding 

6 of the history of this?

7 DR. HUGHES: The NIOSH evaluation 

8 only focuses on Area IV, so lacking access 

9 controls, that I was talking specific to this 

10 petition, actually related to buildings within 

11 Area IV that we had workers such as clerical 

12 workers, secretaries, who were able to get 

13 into reactor buildings for various purposes.

14 The NIOSH evaluation did not 

15 really focus on any of the other three areas 

16 at the site. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But the 

18 general issue of the lack of access controls I 

19 was taking to be part of this conversation 

20 that people were having that for many workers, 

21 there's not a clear boundary between Area IV 

22 and other areas.
236

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 DR. HUGHES: That is probably 

2 correct.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And I had a 

4 question about the report. I think it's 

5 Section 5.2 that describes the database 

6 record, and you really focused on 

7 characterizing the number of urinalysis 

8 records and the number for which there's an 

9 indication of a positive result without a 

10 quantitative dose associated with it, just for 

11 the years 1963 and 1964.

12 And why is that? Why were those 

13 years chosen? Are they the most complete? 

14 The least complete? Because, really, the 

15 issue here, I thought, was dealing with a span 

16 of years up to 1964 and I was wondering if you 

17 could just give us a little bit more 

18 information about how the dosimetry records 

19 look, evolving up to that point.

20 DR. HUGHES: Internal dosimetry 

21 records in the database that is currently 

22 available to NIOSH started in 1960. We know 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that the bioassay program started in 1958. 

2 However, this database that was used for an 

3 epidemiological study in years past only 

4 contains data starting in 1960. 

5 NIOSH spent considerable time 

6 looking at all the data contained in this 

7 database and found that up to 1964, there were 

8 occasions where a positive result was only 

9 marked with a plus sign instead of a value, 

10 and we have been unable to obtain the value 

11 that goes with this indicator that there was a 

12 positive result.

13 And I think the majority of those 

14 missing results are in the years 1963 and 

15 1964, and I think we're looking at something 

16 like 130 missing results. Now that's not a 

17 very large number, but we know that those were 

18 all positive values, and it would be 

19 problematic to develop a bounding coworker 

20 model using this data, knowing that positive 

21 results are missing.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is that clear, 
238

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 David?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I guess I was 

3 wondering, you know, because there was the 

4 question posed; why are we stopping at 1965, 

5 or I guess starting at 1965 and considering 

6 that the data from that point forward are 

7 complete.

8 And so one of the things was the 

9 response that from that point on, the internal 

10 monitoring records are, you know, we have 

11 complete data for, I think, or they're 

12 adequate to do a characterization of 

13 individual doses.

14 DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You know, if 

16 you look just at the value that you gave us, 

17 1963 and 1964, there's 1,100 urinalysis 

18 records in 63, and these are quarterly 

19 records, so that's maybe 275 workers who are 

20 monitored. And then in 1964, there's 1,400 

21 urinalysis records, which implies about 350 

22 workers on a quarterly monitoring schedule.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so I'm wondering; what did it 

2 look like in 62, 61, 60? Is the reason you 

3 don't have more positive results there that 

4 there's, you know, very few workers monitored? 

5 And how is it trending towards 1965? When 

6 you're drawing this boundary there, and saying 

7 that now it's complete, you know, I don't 

8 really have much of a sense for how the 

9 coverage is--what this trending is in 

10 coverage.

11 DR. HUGHES: NIOSH is still 

12 working on the coworker model. I really 

13 cannot give you specifics on the data.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, just a 

15 30-percent change in the number of monitored 

16 workers is pretty substantial.

17 DR. HUGHES: What we know is that 

18 the internal monitoring, starting in 1958, 

19 took a while to ramp up and if you look at the 

20 site operations, the reactor development and 

21 nuclear activities sort of peaked in 1964, 65. 

22 And post-1965, they started to decline as 
240

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 some of these experimental reactors were 

2 decommissioned or shut down and taken apart.

3 So you can sort a see that the 

4 internal data somewhat reflects the activity 

5 at the site. At the time when activity was 

6 ramping up, you see an increase in the number 

7 of data points and as the activities decline 

8 somewhat, you see a decrease in the number of 

9 internal data points. But I really don't have 

10 any specifics with me right now as to the 

11 exact numbers.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank 

13 you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim. 

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: I was wondering, 

16 you said in 64, there was missing data: people 

17 that would have been positive, right? 

18 Therefore, you couldn't put an upper bound on 

19 it: 63, 64?

20 DR. HUGHES: It's from 1960 to 

21 1964, I believe. 

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: There was missing 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data, correct?

2 DR. HUGHES: They're missing in 

3 the sense that this database that we have, 

4 only indicated a plus sign instead of a 

5 positive value. Now, it is conceivable that 

6 some of this data still exists in some files 

7 at the site but it is not possible for us to 

8 take this database and find the record that 

9 goes with it. 

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: And in 65, that no 

11 longer existed as that was --

12 DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can you tell 

14 us anything about the chain of custody of that 

15 epidemiologic data file that you have. Is 

16 that something that John Boice keypunched or 

17 is it an electronic transfer of records?

18 DR. HUGHES: John Boice was the 

19 principal investigator of the study. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Did they 

21 create the file, or was it something that was 

22 given to them?
242

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 DR. HUGHES: I think there was a 

2 team of researchers associated with ORAU that 

3 went out and scanned every single--what they 

4 believed to be every single--bioassay and 

5 external monitoring record. The database that 

6 was given to NIOSH was received directly from 

7 the site, from Boeing and it was created 

8 during the study.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

10 questions? Dick. 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I have one but it 

12 may be because I'm new and don't understand 

13 all of this. But on your presentation, Dr. 

14 Hughes, you talked about the internal 

15 monitoring being done on unencapsulated 

16 material, workers working with unencapsulated 

17 material.

18 What about people working with 

19 capsulated material? Are you assuming that 

20 they're not exposed at all, and in future, if 

21 they don't fit into the Special Exposure 

22 Cohort, and they come back at some point in 
243

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 time, are you going to say you can't do a dose 

2 reconstruction or what's going to happen to 

3 those people?

4 DR. HUGHES: Those people, I 

5 believe, would receive a partial dose 

6 reconstruction based on available data, if 

7 it's a non-SEC. And if it's an SEC.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Where would they 

9 get the data, I guess? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

11 Hinnefeld from OCAS, and I think the situation 

12 you're talking about is, we won't be able to 

13 tell people who worked with capsulated 

14 material from unencapsulated material. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: That's what I was 

16 wondering. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: So every one that 

18 we get, we would do a dose reconstruction. If 

19 we could do a dose reconstruction, we would do 

20 a dose reconstruction: use their monitoring 

21 data or a coworker's set, monitoring set. Now 

22 this is for, like, 65 and later.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LEMEN: That's what I'm 

2 talking about, 65 and later. You'd treat them 

3 the same, in other words? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct; yes. 

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is a 

7 question, I believe, for LaVon but make sure I 

8 understand, that--maybe Lara also--but 

9 presumably, if we approve 83.14, that would 

10 take all of the parts of the original 83.13 

11 petition would then be addressed in terms--

12 because you only qualified that through 1965?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct. 

14 I believe --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: To 65, I guess. 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Is there 

17 any period at all, Dr. Hughes, at all, that we 

18 qualified, that we didn't--would not be 

19 encompassed in this SEC? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I believe that is 

22 correct. I will say that.
245

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 DR. HUGHES: Yes. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: I believe that's 

3 correct.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

5 MS. KLEA: Could I make a comment?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MS. KLEA: We're missing year 

8 1965. My petition was qualified through 1965.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That was why I 

10 was asking--

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I couldn't 

12 remember. That's why I was asking Dr. Hughes, 

13 and I believe Ms. Klea is correct, that it is 

14 through 1965. So that would leave out 1965.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So 1965, still 

16 in question for that petition. The 

17 petitioners, other people have concerns. 

18 Post-65, there would need to be a new 

19 petition. Well, post-65--after 65, then it'd

20 require a new petition. For 1966, it would 

21 require a new petition be qualified. That's 

22 correct. 
246

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 MR. RUTHERFORD: And I would like 

2 to point out, though, that there is always a 

3 possibility that the Work Group, during its 

4 reviews for Site Profile reviews and such 

5 could come up with issues that would force us 

6 into looking at an 83.14, as well.

7 MS. KLEA: Could I make a comment?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. So, again, 

9 I wanted to get it just on the record, that 

10 the Site Profile review ongoing is looking at 

11 issues beyond 65 and so is also looking at the 

12 site.

13 As to extending beyond Area IV, in 

14 terms -- is an issue for Department of Labor, 

15 really, and should the Work Group or NIOSH 

16 have information, that can be submitted to the 

17 Department of Labor. I just wanted, until I 

18 get the context for what we're looking at, 

19 because it is confusing.

20 MS. KLEA: Well, you mentioned 

21 Site Profile and that just brought up another 

22 thought. The Site Profile does not reflect 
247

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 any of these accidents, exposures. It really 

2 does need to be updated.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and we 

4 would expect that the, as part of the Site 

5 Profile review for the conduct of that, which 

6 should be an ongoing review from SC&A, and 

7 interact with NIOSH, would include outreach 

8 to, you know, to you and other people that 

9 have information that would be helpful on 

10 that. Very well. Okay. So I think we're 

11 back to the issue before us, is this 83.14 

12 petition, and Evaluation Report from NIOSH.

13 Anybody have any more questions on 

14 that?

15 (No response.) 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, could we 

17 have a preliminary--

18 MEMBER BEACH: I do. I was going 

19 to bring it up during discussion, but I am 

20 still not a 100 percent clear on how they're 

21 going to handle workers that came into the 

22 site that weren't badged for the sites. I 
248

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 know Jeff spoke, but I'm still not a 100 

2 percent clear.

3 It feels to me like the burden is 

4 on the workers to prove they were in those 

5 sites, not--so I'm not clear on what actually 

6 is going to happen for the firefighters, the 

7 maintenance workers. There's a whole list of 

8 people that are not going to be covered under 

9 this SEC, from my way of thinking. So I do 

10 have an issue with that. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

12 think in the definition they're covered. It's 

13 just the implementation that I'm concerned 

14 about, like you, Josie. I mean, I think it 

15 says all employees who could have worked in 

16 any area of Area IV. 

17 But how do you determine who could 

18 have gone in and out? That's the problem. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: They were badged in 

20 other sites, I, II or III, and they worked in 

21 IV. Those are the people I'm concerned about. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: But that is clearly 
249

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 a Labor issue. It's a Department of Labor 

2 issue. It's not our issue. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: I understand that 

4 but --

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: We shouldn't just 

6 push it down the road. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: No, no.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, right. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: If we pass this, I 

10 just don't want that to be left.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I believe 

12 what we've done before, if my memory is 

13 correct, from having written a lot of these 

14 letters, is that when we've had an issue like 

15 that, we've drawn attention to it in our 

16 letter to the Secretary. So at least we're on 

17 record as pointing out that there's this 

18 issue, and that care needs to be taken in the 

19 implementation of the Class by the Department 

20 of Labor and I think Department of Labor at 

21 least understood that. 

22 I don't know if we have a way of 
250

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 really measuring compliance, but I think it's 

2 at least helpful. We've identified an issue 

3 like that, that we think will be important, 

4 but again, if we don't have an alternative 

5 Class Definition, which I can't think of off 

6 the top of my head, that would address that in 

7 some sort of practical way for Department of 

8 Labor, I don't know if there's anything more 

9 that we can do other than draw attention to 

10 it. I think we think it's important.

11 Brad. 

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. Jim, one of 

13 my questions was when we task SC&A to go in 

14 and look at, are they just looking at Area IV 

15 as their Site Profile? And I'm not on the 

16 Work Group, but the issue that I see is that 

17 they have the burn pits. They had everything 

18 and such close proximity to everything. I'm 

19 just wondering how this Site Profile is going 

20 to be -- because when we task them to only 

21 look at this, this is al --you know. But I'm 

22 sure that we--it was spread a long ways. I 
251

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 know those radiation boundaries hold all that 

2 back but I'm pretty sure some got out.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But I think 

4 that--yes? 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's a question 

6 to me of, you know, we're asking SC&A to 

7 evaluate that but all they can evaluate is 

8 just what we request them.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, all we can 

10 address, really, is the designated facility 

11 and the designated facility is Area IV. And 

12 again, if we find information that we think, 

13 which we may very well have but we're hearing 

14 it today, and have heard before, then I think 

15 it behooves us to take action and to make sure 

16 that that information gets communicated to the 

17 Department of Labor. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Well and, Jim, just 

19 to answer that, I am on the Santa Susana Work 

20 Group, and I believe that's part of our 

21 matrix. Some of those areas that Brad had 

22 mentioned. It's just been a long time since 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we've met, but I'm pretty sure we covered some 

2 of that.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would 

4 certainly urge that that Work Group meet 

5 again, and sort of--let's get up to date on 

6 where we are with these issues, and so forth, 

7 that we really haven't had much--that one of 

8 our other problems with these 83.14s, sort of 

9 come as a surprise to us too, a little bit, in 

10 terms of timing. So until you see them, you 

11 don't know exactly what's going to be coming 

12 out. But I think we can be proactive on those 

13 issues and we may very well have information 

14 that may be useful in terms of looking at what 

15 is the facility.

16 Comments or questions? Yes, 

17 Wanda. I'm sorry. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: I'm just prepared to 

19 make the motion.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just want to 

21 follow up on one--David Richardson's question 

22 on the 63-64 data. Do we have --I've been 
253

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 looking while David was asking that question, 

2 I sort of had the same question running 

3 through my mind, but I was trying to look on 

4 the O: drive for the database that we have 

5 available, and I'm looking at what I believe 

6 is the research file database, which has some 

7 sort of estimated internal doses. It doesn't 

8 have urinalysis data. And if I do a sort on 

9 those: 63, 64, 65, 66, I'm getting a very 

10 similar number of workers for each one of 

11 those years.

12 So I'm obviously not looking at 

13 the right database. I'm wondering if we have 

14 the urinalysis database, and if so, if it's 

15 been put on the O: drive.

16 DR. HUGHES: Yes, we do and I 

17 believe it has been put on the O: drive also 

18 for SC&A to review. I know specifically that 

19 they asked me earlier, this year, last year, 

20 to put it there. If you want, I can point you 

21 to it during the break, if I can find it.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'd appreciate 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, yes, because I do think that's an 

2 important question, if we're really --

3 DR. HUGHES: No, the database I'm 

4 talking of contains actual bioassay results. 

5 There's also this spreadsheet that contains 

6 the dose values, which is something that was 

7 compiled by the investigators of the study but 

8 is obviously not something NIOSH would use.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, okay. I 

10 guess that's the spreadsheet, I'm saying, and 

11 then there was the Access database but it 

12 looked like a database --

13 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that would be--

14 it's an Access database. I'm sorry.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: But this database 

16 that I saw looks like it just tracks where the 

17 different records are, the hard copies of 

18 records and things.

19 DR. HUGHES: Okay. You're 

20 probably looking at something different. I can 

21 show you later.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. But I 
255

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 mean, I think, before we make a motion, I 

2 think this might be an important point. That, 

3 you know, what is that distinction that we're 

4 making here, from 63 to 64, 65? How did the 

5 data change and what's the basis for that cut6 off? Maybe I just need to hear it again. 

7 What's the basis for that cut-off?

8 DR. HUGHES: The main issue was--

9 when we looked at this database, there were 

10 instances where positive data was only 

11 indicated by a plus sign versus the actual 

12 result and I believe we're looking at about 

13 130 or 140 instances where this happened in 

14 this database that contains over 100,000 

15 results. And the NIOSH contractor has gone 

16 through this database, has looked at every 

17 single page of this database and has 

18 determined--or has looked and that this 

19 occurrence where positive values were 

20 indicated by a plus sign only happened up to 

21 1964, including 1964.

22 However, in 1965, all entries in 
256

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 this database would be consisting of an actual 

2 numerical value associated with the unit, that 

3 can be used for an internal coworker model 

4 versus a plus sign.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

6 That's good.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are we ready--

8 yes, Stu?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I just wanted to 

10 make one comment. When it comes time in the 

11 discussion about whether to, you know, design 

12 a motion now or not, is that if you agree with 

13 our recommendation that it's not feasible to 

14 reconstruct the doses through 1964, a possible 

15 course of action is to essentially agree with 

16 that, and withhold judgment on any later 

17 period.

18 And what that allows to happen is 

19 for the people who are covered in this period 

20 that goes to 1964 and who would be paid by 

21 this SEC, that allows those claims to move 

22 forward and become adjudicated.
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So it's just a suggestion about a 

2 possible course that the Board might consider.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. 

4 Wanda, you have the floor. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: With the 

6 understanding that we were approaching this in 

7 the manner just described by Mr. Hinnefeld, I 

8 am prepared to move that we recommend to the 

9 Secretary that the proposed Class Definition 

10 presented to us by Dr. Hughes in this 

11 presentation, covering all Area IV Santa 

12 Susana Field Laboratory workers from January 

13 1, 1959 through December 31, 1964, be 

14 accepted.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I hear a 

16 second to that? 

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Second.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil seconded. 

19 Further discussion? Yes, Jim? 

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: I have one 

21 question. I mean, maybe you said this. Were 

22 individuals who worked in other areas outside 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Area IV, were they also DOE employees?

2 MEMBER GIBSON: They were 

3 Rocketdyne. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Rocketdyne.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: They would have 

6 been Rocketdyne. So they were not--in other 

7 words, people who weren't assigned to Area IV, 

8 but could go in and out of Area IV, were not 

9 DOE employees; correct?

10 DR. HUGHES: I'm not sure they 

11 were actual DOE employees because--

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: I'm sorry?

13 DR. HUGHES: The site was operated 

14 by a company named North American Aviation, 

15 which was a contractor with DOE. The entity 

16 that did nuclear work was called Atomics 

17 International, which was a subunit or a 

18 division of North American Aviation and it was 

19 between North American Aviation and DOE, or 

20 AEC back then, that this contract existed to 

21 do this nuclear work. 

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: All right. So 
259

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 anybody who's a contractor who went in and out 

2 potentially could be covered by this 

3 definition? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It says so in 

5 the Definition. Otherwise, we have no 

6 authority in any case.

7 MEMBER GIBSON: The problem is the 

8 lack of records of people going in and out of 

9 Area IV, not who they were employed by. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mike, you have to 

11 repeat that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You have to say13 -we can't hear you, Mike.

14 MEMBER GIBSON: The problem I see 

15 is that it's not who employed the people; it's 

16 the lack of records to demonstrate when they 

17 were in and out of Area IV and assigned to 

18 Area IV.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. It's an 

20 implementation issue. I think that you have 

21 to have some connection to DOE to--yes. 

22 Right. Okay. Ted.
260

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 MR. KATZ: Okay. A roll call 

2 vote.

3 Dr. Ziemer. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield. 

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler. 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley. 

12 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

14 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey. 

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.
261

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 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson. 

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

6 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson. 

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: That's unanimous in 

14 favor.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I need to know 

16 what the Board's preference are. We don't 

17 have a break scheduled until 4:30, 4:15. 

18 Would you rather just keep going? We do have 

19 a public comment. Or would you like to take a 

20 break.

21 We'll take a break. Fifteen 

22 minutes. 
262

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 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

2 matter went off the record at 3:38 p.m. and 

3 resumed at 3:55 p.m.)

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Why don't 

5 we get started. Our stragglers will make it 

6 back. And, Lara, we'll hear from you again. 

7 Thank you. 

8 DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Dr. 

9 Melius. This is the presentation by NIOSH for 

10 the Canoga Avenue Facility. This facility is 

11 also located in this area. It is located in 

12 the community of Canoga Park, Los Angeles 

13 County, California, and it's located about 25 

14 miles northwest of downtown LA. From 1955 

15 through 1960, the Atomic Energy Commission 

16 then founded research in--at this facility in 

17 a building that was called the Vanowen 

18 Building. It was named after the street it 

19 was situated at or on, and is also known as 

20 Building 38.

21 The parent company for this 

22 contract with the Atomic Energy Commission was 
263

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 called North American Aviation and this 

2 company had a division called Atomics 

3 International, which was the division that 

4 engaged in nuclear research.

5 The nature of the research was 

6 fuel development and nuclear reactor design 

7 and since the companies are the same, you can 

8 probably guess that these operations were 

9 closely related to operations at Area IV of 

10 the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

11 The Atomics International 

12 headquarters was actually located at the 

13 Canoga Avenue facility although, starting in 

14 1955, did operations at Santa Susana Area IV 

15 as well.

16 In 1960, the operations of Atomics 

17 International moved to a different facility 

18 which is called the De Soto facility which is 

19 also located in the area and the Canoga Avenue 

20 facility continued to be operated under the 

21 Rocketdyne division of North American 

22 Aviation.
264

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 Essentially, the facility was 

2 solely devoted to rocket engine research and 

3 did no more nuclear research. Therefore, 

4 currently, the DOE covered period is 1955 

5 through 1960.

6 Here is a photograph of the Canoga 

7 Avenue facility and the building you see in 

8 the circle was the division that was Atomics 

9 International, that was devoted to nuclear 

10 research versus the remainder of the 

11 facilities was engaging in rocket-engine 

12 research. This photograph dates from 

13 approximately 1960.

14 The site operations nuclear 

15 reactor development; those reactors were 

16 small, aqueous-fuel test reactors that used 

17 uranyl sulphate that was up 93 percent 

18 enriched. During those five years, two 

19 different reactor types were developed, the 

20 L47 and the L77 reactor. They were operated 

21 at five- and ten-watt maximum, and they 

22 operated, I believe, the L47 for about 10 
265

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 months, and the L77 for about 21 months in the 

2 years 57 through 1960.

3 In addition, the facility did 

4 nuclear research and development such as 

5 uranium fuel reprocessing experiments, nuclear 

6 fuel development for various experimental 

7 reactors, and chemistry applications.

8 The petition for the site was 

9 received by NIOSH on July 27, 2009 under 

10 paragraph 83.13. It's Petition Number 00151. 

11 On October 15, 2009, NIOSH issued a 

12 professional judgment that the petition 

13 qualifies based on unavailability of personnel 

14 monitoring data.

15 The Federal Register notice was 

16 published October 30th, and January 25th, 

17 2010--I'm sorry, this is a typo--NIOSH issued 

18 an Evaluation Report, and copies were sent to 

19 the Advisory Board and to the petitioner.

20 The petitioner requested NIOSH 

21 evaluate the following Class Definition: all 

22 workers employed by North American Aviation 
266

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 who worked in any areas, in any job capacity 

2 at the Canoga Avenue facility, Los Angeles, 

3 California, from January 1st, 1955 through 

4 December 31st, 1960--and this is also the 

5 Class NIOSH evaluated.

6 Now the NIOSH-recommended Class is 

7 all employees of the Department of Energy, its 

8 predecessor agencies, its contractors and 

9 subcontractors who worked in the Vanowen 

10 Building at the Canoga Avenue facility in Los 

11 Angeles, California, from January 1st, 1955 

12 through December 31st, 1960 for a number of 

13 workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays, 

14 occurring either solely under this employment 

15 or in combination with workdays within the 

16 parameters established for one or more other 

17 Classes of employees in the SEC.

18 Now NIOSH has decided, based on 

19 the current available research, to limit the 

20 proposed Class because at this facility two 

21 different divisions existed, Atomics 

22 International and Rocketdyne, and based on the 
267

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 records, the AEC operations were only 

2 conducted by Atomics International and limited 

3 to one building of the facility, which is the 

4 Vanowen Building.

5 There are no indications that the 

6 Rocketdyne division did any nuclear activities 

7 or research. We interviewed four former 

8 employees of the Atomics International 

9 division for this petition and they all were 

10 unanimous in indicating that the nuclear 

11 workers had different color ID badges from the 

12 Rocketdyne workers, and that the access to the 

13 nuclear operations in the Vanowen Building was 

14 restricted to Atomics International workers, 

15 and that the nuclear operations also had some 

16 form of guard that had limited access except 

17 for Atomics International workers.

18 The sources of available 

19 information that NIOSH evaluated for the 

20 petition consists of the Technical Information 

21 Bulletins, the case files in the NIOSH 

22 database and the site research database. Data 
268

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 capture efforts at the site consisted of 

2 visits to Area IV of Santa Susana Field 

3 Laboratory. The Canoga Avenue facility; the 

4 building does not exist anymore and the 

5 records are stored at Area IV.

6 The Health and Safety records are 

7 stored at Area IV. They are essentially the 

8 same as for Area IV Santa Susana Field 

9 Laboratory.

10 They also looked at records at the 

11 Federal Records Center in San Bruno, the 

12 electronic databases of DOE and NRC, 

13 scientific publications, the State of 

14 California records, documents and affidavits 

15 provided by the petitioner and interviews with 

16 four former employees and the current medical 

17 director of Area IV of Santa Susana Field 

18 Laboratory.

19 The former employees were 

20 employees that worked at the Canoga Avenue 

21 facility during the covered period.

22 Currently, NIOSH has, as of 
269

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 December 22nd, 2009--this is the data 

2 presented in the Evaluation Report. There are 

3 158 cases which meet the evaluated Class 

4 Definition. NIOSH has completed dose 

5 reconstruction for 113 of these. Some claims 

6 contained internal dosimetry information which 

7 consists of uranium analysis between 1958 and 

8 1960, and also there were 33 cases of external 

9 dosimetry information.

10 The internal exposure potential 

11 for workers at this site are a result of 

12 research and development involving such 

13 activities as reactor design and operation, 

14 fuel development for experimental reactors, 

15 fuel reprocessing experiments and 

16 radiochemistry experiments.

17 The external exposure potential at 

18 the site existed as a result from hot cave 

19 operations involving uranium fuel reprocessing 

20 experiment, production of experimental nuclear 

21 fuel, uranium handling, and the operation of 

22 two small nuclear reactors. The availability 
270

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 of internal dosimetry data at the site is 

2 limited. It is in the same, about essentially 

3 as Area IV of the Santa Susana Field 

4 Laboratory, as it was essentially one and the 

5 same program that covered both sites.

6 And as with Area IV, the data 

7 indicated that a routine but limited bioassay 

8 program started in 1958, and again, this was 

9 limited to employees that would handle 

10 unencapsulated radioactive material.

11 This term unencapsulated is 

12 actually, I believe, from a health physics 

13 manual-type document that was collected at the 

14 site that stated the intent of the health 

15 physics program and which workers would be 

16 covered.

17 The initial data, internal 

18 monitoring data, was limited to gross alpha 

19 and beta analyses and isotopic analyses were 

20 done where it was required to be necessary.

21 NIOSH has determined that the 

22 availability bioassay, air and area monitoring 
271

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 information is insufficiently comprehensive to 

2 bound the doses for occupational internal 

3 exposures at the site.

4 The external dosimetry data--

5 again, it's essentially the same data pool as 

6 for Area IV. Workers in the Vanowen Building 

7 monitored for external exposures using two8 element film badges, finger badges, if needed, 

9 and the badge exchange was a routine monthly 

10 exchange that could occur more frequently if a 

11 high-exposure job was done by the worker.

12 The external data has been found 

13 suitable for partial dose reconstruction.

14 The petition basis that were 

15 identified by the petitioner was the 

16 similarity of the monitoring program between 

17 Area IV of Santa Susana Field Laboratory and 

18 the Canoga Avenue facility. The insufficiency 

19 of the personnel monitoring program prior to 

20 1958, as outlined in the SEC Evaluation Report 

21 for Area IV, Santa Susana Field Laboratory. 

22 This would be Petition Number 93.
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And therefore an insufficiency of 

2 personnel monitoring data to do dose 

3 reconstruction. The NIOSH evaluation found 

4 that, indeed, the monitoring program at Canoga 

5 Avenue facility was similar to Area IV of 

6 Santa Susana Field Laboratory in that it was 

7 the same oversight of the program and of the 

8 monitoring data: insufficient to bound all 

9 internal doses. 

10 Again, the evaluation process is a 

11 two-pronged test. A determination of 

12 feasibility, a determination followed by a 

13 health endangerment determination. As for 

14 feasibility, NIOSH found that the available 

15 monitoring records, process description and 

16 source term data are insufficient to complete 

17 dose reconstructions for the proposed Class of 

18 employees and NIOSH currently lacks access to 

19 sufficient monitoring source term data and 

20 process information to estimate the complete 

21 internal and external doses to members of the 

22 Class.
273

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 Therefore the NIOSH-proposed Class 

2 Definition is all employees of the Department 

3 of Energy, its predecessor agencies, its 

4 contractors, subcontractors, who worked in the 

5 Vanowen Building at the Canoga Avenue 

6 facility, Los Angeles, California, from 

7 January 1st, 1955 through December 31st, 1960, 

8 for a number of workdays aggregating at least 

9 250 workdays, occurring either solely under 

10 this employment or in combination with 

11 workdays within the parameters established for 

12 one or more Classes of employees in the SEC.

13 As for health endangerment, NIOSH 

14 has determined that it is not feasible to 

15 complete dose reconstructions with sufficient 

16 accuracy for the Canoga Avenue facility 

17 Vanowen Building, and that the health of the 

18 employees covered might have been endangered.

19 The evidence reviewed indicates 

20 that workers in the Class may have received 

21 chronic internal and external exposure from 

22 various research and development activities at 
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Canoga Avenue facility under contract with 

2 AEC or DOE.

3 In summary, NIOSH has determined 

4 that dose reconstruction is not feasible for 

5 internal doses for all radionuclides for 

6 workers who had occupational exposures in the 

7 Vanowen Building. NIOSH has concluded that 

8 dose reconstruction is feasible for all 

9 internal and external radionuclides internally 

10 for workers who would not have worked in the 

11 Vanowen Building who were rocket engine 

12 workers. NIOSH thinks that it is feasible to 

13 reconstruct doses used in environmental data, 

14 and external dose reconstruction is feasible 

15 for all years at the site.

16 And that concludes my 

17 presentation.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

19 you. Do we have any questions for Lara, 

20 before we hear from the petitioner?

21 Yes, Jim. 

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Maybe I just 
275

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 didn't quite understand. What's the 

2 difference between a non-Vanowen Building and 

3 a--what's the difference? I don't understand 

4 that.

5 DR. HUGHES: This is a fairly 

6 large site consisting of multiple buildings. 

7 MEMBER LOCKEY: So put the map up 

8 for me, would you, so I have a better 

9 understanding.

10 DR. HUGHES: Okay. The circled 

11 building. 

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

13 DR. HUGHES: That's the--it's 

14 called the Vanowen Building. That's what we 

15 call it in the report. This is the building 

16 that has the headquarters of the division, 

17 Atomics International, which is the entity 

18 that had the AEC contract at the site. 

19 MEMBER LOCKEY: So where is the 

20 non-Vanowen buildings--

21 DR. HUGHES: The remainder of the 

22 site, where the arrows are pointing, just 
276

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 anything else would be Rocketdyne, division of 

2 North American Aviation. This is an entity 

3 that did not do nuclear work. The nuclear 

4 operations were a small off-spin, initially, 

5 of this company who was mainly engaged in 

6 rockets and in research. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: And there was 

8 restricted access in that Vanowen Building?

9 DR. HUGHES: Based on the 

10 information we received from interviewing 

11 workers who worked there during the covered 

12 area, yes. 

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: I guess let me 

14 follow up. So the Rocketdyne division 

15 employees were also DOE employees? Or 

16 contractors, subcontractors at this facility?

17 DR. HUGHES: I'm not sure how DOE 

18 would Classify it. The contract existed 

19 between the company that was called North 

20 American Aviation and the AEC and what North 

21 American Aviation did was spin off two 

22 divisions. One was called Rocketdyne, which 
277

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 did rocket engine research, and the other--

2 with the start of this company doing nuclear 

3 research, they founded a division that they 

4 called Atomics International, which was the 

5 entity that did the nuclear research at the 

6 site and this headquarters of this division 

7 was located in this building that is called 

8 the Vanowen Building.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie first and 

10 then Paul. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: Did you monitor for 

12 neutrons?

13 DR. HUGHES: They did NTA film. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: So they were all 

15 workers. There's a statement on page 28 that 

16 said that neutron potential was minimal and so 

17 that--they did not monitor for neutrons. But 

18 then I see on slide 11 that you have 33 cases 

19 with external dosimetry. And then I look at 

20 the back, on page 31, and it talks about 

21 partial doses, and you might include any that 

22 may not be fully developed.
278

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 I guess I'm a little confused on 

2 the neutron monitoring associated with this 

3 site.

4 DR. HUGHES: Generally, they did 

5 monitor for neutrons using NTA film. Not 

6 every worker who worked at the site would have 

7 been monitored for neutrons. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So then the 

9 statement on page 28 that says you did not 

10 monitor is incorrect or--and you don't have to 

11 answer me now. I know you don't have that in 

12 front of you but it's just a concern I have on 

13 the external monitoring--

14 DR. HUGHES: Right. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: --and if you can 

16 actually reconstruct those for that. 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Paul. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I wasn't 

19 going to ask this but I will follow up. 

20 Neutrons aren't mentioned as being part of the 

21 dose reconstruction, feasible, in the last 

22 chart.
279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: But they're in the 

2 Evaluation Report. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: But they're in the 

4 report. So that's a question. But I guess 

5 I'm a little confused about why you would be 

6 doing dose reconstruction outside the building 

7 if only the building is eligible. It says it8 -

9 MEMBER BEACH: It doesn't make 

10 sense.

11 DR. HUGHES: Currently, the--

12 no. The Department of Labor covers the entire 

13 site. So we received claims for the entire 

14 site, whether they be Rocketdyne workers, 

15 workers who worked on rocket engines versus 

16 workers who worked on nuclear activities. 

17 NIOSH has determined that the problem with the

18 dose reconstruction is the occupational 

19 internal monitoring. There is environmental 

20 monitoring available at this site. Dose 

21 reconstruction would--the occupational dose 

22 would be assigned to workers who worked, who 
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were nuclear workers who worked on the nuclear 

2 operations. A worker who just was on the site 

3 but did not work on nuclear operations would 

4 receive an ambient or environmental dose, 

5 which can be reconstructed based on available 

6 data. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So you 

8 would assign an internal dose as well for 

9 those. Is that what you're saying?

10 DR. HUGHES: An internal dose 

11 would be assigned based on area monitoring. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: And the external 

14 for them would be assigned based on what? 

15 Some coworker--well, I'll just leave it at 

16 that.

17 DR. HUGHES: Yes, it could be a 

18 case-by-case thing, I believe. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: A case-by-case 

20 thing? I don't understand. They weren't 

21 badged because they weren't allowed in this 

22 building.
281

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 DR. HUGHES: No, it would be

2 ambient.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just an ambient 

4 model. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: We would use 

6 ambient environmental data, I mean, for 

7 external as well.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. So, not a 

9 coworker model, an ambient model. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Can I ask a follow11 up?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: What do you have 

14 for ambient external monitoring?

15 DR. HUGHES: Currently, the 

16 approach is under revision. We just collected 

17 some data. There's area monitoring data in 

18 the form of--I'd have to go back and look. 

19 Air data. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: So that's a 

21 revision. And then I understand the Site 

22 Profile is also under revision at this time?
282

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 DR. HUGHES: The entire Site 

2 Profile is under revision for the site, based 

3 on all the findings that were found during the 

4 SEC research, essentially, since the TBD was 

5 written before that. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

7 maybe what Josie's leading toward, too, is, 

8 you know, we always have this rule of, you 

9 know, show us how you're going to do something 

10 if you're going to do it. So for the other--

11 I'm not saying it would impact our decision 

12 today, but certainly those people outside the 

13 fence, so to speak, or outside this one, 

14 Vanowen Building, whatever. I think we'd want 

15 to see how--you know, what models, what data 

16 you're using to do the environmental dose and 

17 do the external ambient dose. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: When we get to 

19 them; we're not to them.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, they're 

21 under--they're covered employees; right? So I 

22 mean--
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: No, only the people 

2 who worked in the Vanowen Building.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is not the whole 

4 site covered by DOL? I mean, that's my point.

5 DR. HUGHES: It's covered under 

6 this program. That is correct. But NIOSH 

7 only recommends adding an SEC--

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: But NIOSH is 

9 recommending that. But I'm saying that, you 

10 know, in our review, we might consider that 

11 other area later.

12 DR. HUGHES: Yes.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can we hear from 

15 the petitioner who, I believe, is here. 

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hi. This is 

17 David Richardson. Could I ask a question?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure. I'm 

19 sorry, Dave. Yes.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Has NIOSH 

21 demonstrated that they can discriminate 

22 between workers in the Vanowen Building? I 
284

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 mean, I know that they've -- there's testimony 

2 that they wore different badges and that there 

3 was a guard at the gate but given the existing 

4 records, have they been able to demonstrate 

5 that they can discriminate between these types 

6 of workers?

7 And as kind of a follow-on to 

8 that; you've got Table 4.1 of the number of 

9 claims from the Canoga facility. Are you able 

10 to break that table out into two columns and 

11 report to us the number that are Vanowen12 Building claimants and those that are not? 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'll answer that. 

14 This is LaVon Rutherford. Now during our 

15 review, we felt that we could identify Vanowen 

16 claimants. Okay. We felt that we could 

17 identify the individuals based on who they 

18 worked for and the information in the claim 

19 file, who was part of the Vanowen Building.

20 However, I will point out that we 

21 recently received a letter from Department of 

22 Labor on implementing the existing Class 
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Definition, and in their ability to implement 

2 that Class Definition as defined by the 

3 Vanowen Building, they indicated they do have 

4 some difficulties.

5 So I wanted to point that out. 

6 And the reason that there's some--normally, 

7 what would happen--normally, what we do is we 

8 send our letter to Department of Labor and ask 

9 them to ensure that they can administer the 

10 Class.

11 In this case, we wanted to get the 

12 report--because we're in Los Angeles, we 

13 wanted to be able to present the Canoga 

14 evaluation at this site. So we issued the 

15 Evaluation Report prior to getting Department 

16 of Labor's response back on the 28th.

17 Then Department of Labor's 

18 response, and I don't want to speak for the 

19 Department of Labor, but since they sent an 

20 official letter to us, I can say that they did 

21 indicate in their letter that they do 

22 sometimes have difficulty putting workers in 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Vanowen Building.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let's hear from 

3 the petitioner and then we'll come back to 

4 some of these issues.

5 MR. LARSON: I'm the petitioner 

6 for the Vanowen facility.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could you 

8 introduce yourself by name?

9 MR. LARSON: Vernon Larson.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 MR. LARSON: Yes, sir. And I have 

12 some considerably different views on the 

13 facility and the operation than you may have 

14 heard from others, and I think there's a vast 

15 misconception there as to just how the 

16 corporation operated. I started out as a 

17 junior engineer and ended up as a director. 

18 So I kind a saw the company from all different 

19 levels, when you could walk past the guard and 

20 he would open the door for you and when you 

21 left, he says, who the hell are you. You 

22 know, that was --excuse me for that. Excuse
287

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 me.

2 But as I said, I wrote the 

3 petition and I wrote the petition for all 

4 North American Aviation employees that worked 

5 at any area in the DOE, Federal Register6 defined Canoga Avenue facility.

7 I do not agree that the position 

8 taken in the evaluation of employees -- the 

9 Evaluation Report -- that some employees at 

10 Canoga will be included in the cohort and some 

11 will not be. 

12 And I also strongly, strongly 

13 object to the suggestion that was put up, made 

14 by NIOSH -- they didn't recommend it but they 

15 said it might come up -- that the petition 

16 would be split going ahead with some in the 

17 Vanowen Building and leave the others until 

18 later. I think that will essentially void the 

19 petition.

20 I was challenged by NIOSH in the 

21 pre-evaluation telephone interview. They

22 asked whether I had written the petition for a 
288

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 single person, for all North American people, 

2 all the North American employees at that 

3 facility, and I stated to them very strongly, 

4 as I do now, I wrote it for all the employees 

5 at the Canoga Avenue facility.

6 I carefully defined the Canoga 

7 Avenue facility in my petition. Excuse me. I 

8 need to get a drink of water.

9 It would be disingenuous, now, on 

10 my part, to say, okay, let's go ahead with 

11 Vanowen and forget the rest. Again, I say it 

12 would disenfranchise those people, and I would 

13 disagree with that.

14 Several years ago, at a meeting in 

15 Simi Valley, Peter Turek, then the head of the 

16 DOE EEOIC program, handed out charts of 

17 Canoga, Santa Susana and De Soto, and certain 

18 buildings were marked with yellow and that 

19 implied that those buildings were covered. 

20 Then later, I guess about a year, a year and a 

21 quarter ago or something like that, I learned, 

22 I think through DOL, first, that this had been 
289

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 changed and now these three individual 

2 facilities were all identified as facilities 

3 and they were put in the Federal Register in 

4 June or something like that.

5 That's when I began the petition. 

6 The petition Evaluation Report, and some of 

7 the comments that you've made, seem to imply 

8 that the Vanowen Building and AI, which was in 

9 that building, and Rocketdyne, which was in 

10 the main building and the other buildings, 

11 were autonomous and basically separate 

12 entities. This is the farthest thing from the 

13 actual truth that one can say.

14 This was not the case, and that's 

15 what I'm going to talk about most of the time, 

16 because I believe that is the influence, 

17 strongly the outcome of this petition, this 

18 idea that these were separate, never the twain 

19 shall meet type things.

20 First, North American Aviation 

21 corporate offices ran all of the company. 

22 They selected who was going to be the division 
290

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 president and if he didn't shape up, he was 

2 gone. The shaping up means he did what 

3 corporate wanted. 

4 They selected the division vice 

5 presidents. They selected the chief engineer. 

6 They selected the head of who's going to run 

7 the shop. They approved all the top-level, 

8 executive-level, and then mid-level salary 

9 increases.

10 They controlled what programs this 

11 division should bid on unless it was a very, 

12 very small program. What new business 

13 ventures the company could go--what area it 

14 could go into. One division could not bid 

15 against another, for example.

16 They moved programs around. I had 

17 a program taken away from me one time. I 

18 happened to boast about it at a management 

19 club meeting, and the next thing I know they 

20 say that belongs over there. Bye-bye. And so 

21 did two of my great guys. 

22 North American was the name on 
291

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 every contract. You talk about did AEC 

2 contract with AI or ETEC or Rocketdyne? No. 

3 They contracted with North American Aviation. 

4 That was the name on every contract. Once 

5 North American got the contract, they could 

6 put it any way they wanted and they did 

7 sometimes. 

8 I'm sure you probably don't know 

9 that we had a vast test facility up above 

10 Reno. It was great to go up there because 

11 you'd stay at the Sparks and you could see 

12 Tina and Bertha there, the big elephants that 

13 paraded around on the stage. I made that trip 

14 once.

15 Now think about this. There was 

16 no legal staff at the division level. So how 

17 can you be a division if you don't even have a 

18 legal staff? The contracts went up to 

19 corporate to get the fine print on and 

20 everything else. There was one shop union for 

21 all divisions, and the corporation did the 

22 bargaining. There was one transportation unit 
292

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 too.

2 The corporation did all the 

3 building leasing. I believe this is true but 

4 I can't absolutely say it is but it may clear 

5 up some of your problems.

6 When Boeing bought these 

7 divisions, when Boeing bought them, they 

8 bought division records. They didn't get 

9 corporate records. You know, you say, well, I 

10 can't understand some of this stuff. There 

11 were people there whose job it was just to 

12 make sure of that.

13 They controlled the IRD funds, the 

14 IR&D funds. You know what they are? 

15 Independent research and development. And the 

16 burden that each division, so-called division, 

17 had.

18 And IR&D was a really big deal 

19 because that sponsored most of the independent 

20 work that divisions would want to go. Much of 

21 AI's reactor work was IR&D and much of 

22 Rocketdyne's rocket engine research was.
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The corporate set the pay scales. 

2 They approved the raises. They moved people 

3 around at will. AI's, I think it was second, 

4 might have been third, president, came from 

5 Rocketdyne. He didn't really want to go -- I 

6 knew him -- but he went.

7 And Rocketdyne had four presidents 

8 that came from other divisions. One time, the 

9 corporate just switched. They took our 

10 president and sent him to Autonetics, they 

11 took the RNX president and brought him up to 

12 Rocketdyne. You know. ETEC was run by a 

13 Rocketdyne guy. The guy came from Rocketdyne. 

14 People went back and forth between Rocketdyne 

15 and AI all the time. They would transfer one 

16 place, go there for a year. I knew quite a 

17 few people that did that.

18 The corporation wanted the 

19 divisions to work together and they took 

20 actions to enforce this.

21 Here's a picture of the -- do you 

22 have a pointer? Or I can just go up there. 
294

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 Shall I just go up there? 

2 This is the AI building. This is 

3 a different perspective. The other one, the 

4 picture was turned around. And this is 

5 Rocketdyne. The first thing you can notice is 

6 that Rocketdyne was a little bit bigger than 

7 AI, about three times. This was also a 

8 Rocketdyne -- it was called the engineering 

9 annex there.

10 Originally, when they set up, they 

11 had a cafeteria here and one over here, and I 

12 remember, I wanted to check out the new 

13 secretaries at AI. I went over there the 

14 first day it opened. No guard stopped me 

15 either.

16 This is the entrance here. This 

17 was Owens Avenue and, originally, this was the 

18 main entrance here, and this here was where 

19 all the delivery trucks had to come in, here, 

20 and these were loading docks for AI and these 

21 for Rocketdyne. Everything that went to Santa 

22 Susana -- except it was a contractor building 
295

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 a facility--had to go to these loading docks 

2 because the union would only permit their 

3 trucks -- excuse me, not their trucks -- their 

4 drivers to drive up the private road -- it was 

5 private then--to Santa Susana.

6 This was all open. There's a 

7 fence that ran from here over along this 

8 street. There was a big gate here, and then 

9 it came over, wrapped around this and then the 

10 buildings where the gate--here was a big major 

11 gate. People could get in from this parking 

12 lot. That's a big parking lot.

13 This was the front office here, 

14 and if you were an executive or high-level 

15 manager, you could go in there. There was no 

16 guard there, just the secretary with a push17 button to open the door and you could take 

18 visitors in.

19 Then this was a main gate, people 

20 could come in from here and here. This area 

21 here was all open. Around 58 or so, they 

22 built another building in here and took the 
296

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 cafeterias out, and put this as one cafeteria. 

2 The gate across here, this was really the 

3 main gate. There weren't any terrorists 

4 around then and weekends or something, they'd 

5 have two guards or something. You know, it 

6 wasn't--nobody really had all those secrets 

7 either.

8 Here's another view of just AI. 

9 Whoops. That's wrong. I got that wrong here. 

10 It's not a very good picture.

11 MEMBER BEACH: It's upside down.

12 MR. LARSON: That's the way it is, 

13 yes. I don't see very well without my 

14 glasses. Okay. Here is the--oh. Excuse me. 

15 Here's--I didn't get a picture, or a photo of 

16 one of these because it wasn't that big, but 

17 I'll send it around. It's kind of 

18 interesting.

19 Here was the plant on March 22nd, 

20 55. AI moved in in October and Rocketdyne 

21 moved in in November and this was the 

22 building. I'll send these around, if you 
297

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 would like. And this is the other picture 

2 that I showed, I'll show again, but there's a 

3 real, much better, clearer view of it.

4 And this is one here I'd like to 

5 have you look at very closely, because you can 

6 see here, this is their high-security fence 

7 here. It was made in sections so they could 

8 take it in on weekends so no one would steal

9 it.

10 This is the main entrance, right 

11 here, right here, and this is a car pulled up, 

12 probably delivering pizzas. Years later, I 

13 had an office in here, right in there and a 

14 couple--one of my--two of my good friends in 

15 57 married secretaries that worked over here. 

16 They never had a problem with access.

17 Now one of the things--let me go 

18 back to this. One of the things you have to 

19 realize, and it's clear when you think about 

20 it--there we go--all the people that started 

21 this, all the people that came and started 

22 this, these buildings filled up fast, you can 
298

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 see all the cars there--they were from Downey. 

2 They had worked together for Downey, some of 

3 them for years. They were in the same stress 

4 shops, the same test labs, and they got split 

5 by the corporation and said you're going to 

6 out here to the hinterlands. This was way out 

7 in the sticks then. You're going to go out 

8 here to the hinterlands and you're going to 

9 start up this Atomic International operation 

10 and this Rocketdyne one, and we've given you 

11 these famous names.

12 Rocketdyne hated their name, at 

13 first. They thought it was kind a like a 

14 cartoon thing. Autonetics. They got this 

15 name. What in the hell is an Autonetics? You 

16 know. But now AI, everybody thought they had 

17 a pretty good name.

18 There was no fence in here to 

19 protect AI from those bad Rocketdyne people. 

20 There was no fences in here. There was a 

21 fence across here. There was a fence here--or 

22 excuse me--it went up like this, because the 
299

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 people in this building went in right here. 

2 And there was a gate here. Most of the trucks 

3 came back here. Employees could drop off and 

4 get in.

5 You could just go into the company 

6 through the loading docks along here. And 

7 here was the main entrance to AI. We didn't 

8 even use barbed wire.

9 Everything got locked up at night. 

10 There was a key--these buildings had key 

11 locks and the top executives got the locks. I 

12 once had to work and one boss gave me a key 

13 and got in some trouble for that. That was in 

14 the early 50s.

15 But that's how it worked then. 

16 There wasn't a lot of things. A North 

17 American badge would let you in anywhere, if 

18 you had a North American badge. Originally, 

19 the badges were these pin-on things with a 

20 wire, and then shortly--I don't remember the 

21 year; I've tried to figure it out--we got 

22 picture badges. And everybody got the same, 
300

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 basically the same kind of badge.

2 There wasn't a problem getting in. 

3 If you were wandering around somewhere, of 

4 course a guard, or even anyone else, would ask 

5 you, what are you doing here. You know. It's 

6 just like any place else. You know. What are 

7 you doing? You aren't supposed to be here. 

8 Or you aren't--and there were lots and lots of 

9 locked rooms.

10 The biggest thing they kept locked 

11 up was in the tool cribs, because there are 

12 all these tools and stuff. There were a lot 

13 of other locked rooms. The rooms over here, 

14 AI, they had hot stuff in them, the labs. 

15 They were all locked. They were either--most 

16 of those had a old-fashioned mechanical push17 button lock, and so the people that were 

18 supposed to go in, they'd go in and push the 

19 buttons and go in there, and if someone 

20 knocked on the door, they'd look and see who 

21 it was and if they didn't know him, they 

22 didn't think he should be there, then they 
301

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 didn't bring him in. It's just the normal way 

2 you did business here. There wasn't anything 

3 special about that.

4 Here's the way the badges looked. 

5 I have one. After I retired, I went back to 

6 work to an agency shop and I worked for the 

7 corporation and the first job assignment I had 

8 was down at the Strategic Defense Center. So 

9 this has Rockwell International. The ones in 

10 55 would have had North American Aviation. 

11 And then it has the division. I worked at the 

12 Strategic Defense Center. It's got a picture 

13 of me--everybody had a different picture--and 

14 it had my name, and I didn't have a title so 

15 they just -- the company I was working through 

16 as an agency was Martec.

17 And it's got this green line 

18 through it. Now that designated your 

19 clearance. And that's true, that was 

20 different. Different people. If people had a 

21 Q clearance, they had a different color bar. 

22 If they had a confidential clearance, they had 
302

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 a different kind of bar. And there were some 

2 strange bars, that you'd ask him, what's that 

3 and he says, I can't tell you.

4 In fact, we all objected to this 

5 because we'd been lectured so long before we 

6 got these badges that you couldn't tell anyone 

7 what your security level was. You know, that 

8 was a violation. You couldn't go and tell 

9 anyone. And then they put it on your badge. 

10 So anyway, that's my comment on, yes, they had 

11 special badges at AI, and that kept the 

12 Rocketdyne people out, and this fence over 

13 here did, too. It isn't on this one. 

14 Somebody stole it or something.

15 But this was all open. You could16 -this was great here because if you didn't--if 

17 your wife or somebody was dropping you off, 

18 you didn't have to park. There was some 

19 restricted parking in here--this was--and then 

20 over in here. This was restricted. But all 

21 the rest--if you were in a car pool, you 

22 parked and it might be a couple of Rocketdynes 
303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and an AI person and they'd park here and 

2 they'd go in this way. You know, it's just 

3 the normal way things worked.

4 But, you know, if you were 

5 wandering around, and no matter what badge you 

6 had, somebody would say, what are you doing 

7 here. That's just a natural thing. And I 

8 said there were a lot of locked rooms.

9 Now AI at Vanowen was quite an 

10 active site. They were kind of the 

11 corporation's darling, because in 55, nuclear 

12 stuff was going to do everything. They were 

13 going to make new Panama Canals with nuclear 

14 things and they were working on an airplane 

15 engine, a jet. Yes. I tried to get on that 

16 job. They said, no way, says, young engineers 

17 just out of college do not tell us where we're 

18 going to put you.

19 Those of you who flew in here, how 

20 would you like to have flown into LAX, and all 

21 those airplanes around, you had four reactors22 -
304

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 (Laughter.)

2 But they were one of the 

3 corporation's hot items. Now one of the things 

4 they were working on, and this was at this 

5 site, was this. This is an ad they ran in the 

6 paper. It was a reactor. I can't read that 

7 very well. Here's a copy of it, if anyone 

8 wants to read it. There you go.

9 But this was a reactor, and it was 

10 for sale for $55,000. Now that's about 12 

11 Cadillacs then, and so that's about three12 quarters of a million dollars, and they were 

13 trying to sell it to universities, things like 

14 that, and my best recollection, and I'm not 

15 too sure on this, is they sold about ten of 

16 these.

17 So how many people--how many 

18 people--you sell ten of those. What you have 

19 to--how many tribes of people from colleges 

20 and universities could pony up that much money 

21 and come out and see it and buy one of those 

22 for three quarters of a million dollars in 
305

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 1957 or 58? 

2 There's a lot of people came. It 

3 took a lot of people to come to get ten sold. 

4 And what happened to all those people? They 

5 all came in here. The reactors were way over 

6 here. They went down the main aisle here then 

7 they went across here and they went in and 

8 looked at the reactors for a while.

9 So AI was not that sterile, just 

10 wasn't that sterile. But there wasn't really a 

11 lot of reason to be. Rocketdyne, one time--

12 and we had all this--we were making the 

13 engines for the Atlas, the Thor, every one of 

14 these programs. Every intercontinental 

15 ballistic missile. It was the missile race 

16 era.

17 We were in a program one time, 

18 they had the AIAA, the American Institute of 

19 Aeronautics and Astronautics, had a big 

20 meeting in Los Angeles and we had 20 busloads, 

21 50 to 60 on a bus, that went up to Santa 

22 Susana, drove all around the area and stopped 
306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and saw an engine fire. We had seven firings. 

2 My boss was very active in that, so I was 

3 offered the opportunity of being a tour guide 

4 on one of the buses and that was really fun 

5 because the group I got, we had a horizontal

6 test firing. The engine was--there was a big 

7 canyon. We had one horizontal test down 

8 there. It was kind of a stupid thing.

9 And they ran this engine. They 

10 had a pyrotechnic slug as a starter, you know, 

11 a great big firecracker in there then they 

12 shot the propellant in and they had very 

13 accurate timing, and they kicked the--here we 

14 were, a whole bunch of people sitting on this 

15 side of the canyon, and what's coming across 

16 there? This great big burning mass of a 

17 firecracker. Everybody turned and ran. It 

18 only got about halfway across the canyon, then 

19 it dropped down. 

20 But it was kind of an exciting 

21 thing. All enjoyed it. I did, anyway. So 

22 yes, we had security, but those people had no 
307

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 clearance. They were just people who signed 

2 up to go to the meeting, and for, I don't 

3 know, some small amount, they got the bus ride 

4 up there and a chicken dinner or something 

5 like that. Then they went down.

6 So, I mean, there weren't--there 

7 was a nuclear--excuse me--radiation hazards in 

8 here, but they weren't--we weren't making any 

9 bombs. Besides that, by then you could se how 

10 to make a bomb and I took a Class at UCLA and 

11 one of the instructors was from here, and we 

12 learned how to calculate how much--I don't 

13 remember, it was too many years ago.

14 Now North American did a lot to 

15 include interchange at all levels. Although 

16 the core people came from Downey, the company 

17 was hiring like mad in every division. They 

18 had more contracts than they could handle. 

19 You can see from the cars there, there is a 

20 lot of people. There's parking all along the 

21 street and everything else.

22 And one of the things they did, 
308

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 what they'd learned from their World War II 

2 activities, when they had these shops all over 

3 the United States, you know, building 

4 airplanes is that they needed to have events 

5 and things for the company.

6 So they sponsored all kinds of 

7 clubs and other events to advance the 

8 corporation's image and get the people 

9 together. So there were a lot of clubs and 

10 they were for everybody here and at Santa 

11 Susana. We had a ski club and we could really 

12 offer good deals because we had money. You 

13 could go up to Mammoth for two days, get two 

14 dinners, two nights lodging, two breakfasts, 

15 two days of ski tickets for eighteen dollars. 

16 You know?

17 And they had a rockhound club, a 

18 bridge club, a hiking club. There were golf 

19 outings. There were trips open to every--it 

20 was very much subsidized and in the summer, 

21 they had softball leagues. In the winter, 

22 bowling was popular then. The corporation 
309

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 bought Lou Costello -- Bud Abbott and Lou 

2 Costello -- they bought his ranch that was out 

3 in this area of the San Fernando Valley. So 

4 about ten acres, maybe more, and they turned 

5 this into a rec center. They had a swimming 

6 pool. They had picnic areas. They built it 

7 up quite big over the years. But even at the 

8 very beginning, when they bought it, it was a 

9 great place. 

10 The biggest club they had was the 

11 management club. Now you think about it, 

12 you're all thinking, boy, that would be 

13 boring. But if you'd been able to come to 

14 this management club, you would have come 

15 every month. It cost you virtually nothing, 

16 maybe a couple dollars. You got a prime rib, 

17 a steak or a lobster dinner or something else 

18 like that. It was at the best restaurant in 

19 the valley, San Fernando Valley. It was at 

20 the Sportsmen's Lodge. They had this huge 

21 room that they could fit in maybe 400, 500 

22 people there, and most of the time they'd be 
310

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 bringing out extra tables.

2 You had a social hour. You had to 

3 pay for your drinks, although sometimes you'd 

4 get one ticket for that. You'd get this great 

5 dinner, you'd get a short speech--unlike what 

6 I'm giving--a short one. And then there would 

7 be Hollywood entertainment. It wasn't the A 

8 list; but it was the B list. You know, we'd 

9 have--I don't know how far back you'd go. 

10 But we had Rosemarie once. I 

11 think we had Howard Keel and people like that. 

12 They'd give a--they'd have magicians and all 

13 kinds of other things. And then the big event 

14 came. Then they would have the big event and 

15 that was big.

16 They had this raffle, and you'd 

17 get a few tickets with your lunch--or your 

18 dinner ticket. A color TV then cost about 

19 $600. So that's maybe about what, seven 

20 thousand now, or something like that. And 

21 somebody would win that every time. I once 

22 won a set of golf clubs. That's the best I 
311

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 ever did. But back to the people. These were 

2 all the managers from the different divisions. 

3 They'd sit together. People would know each 

4 other. They'd been friends at Downey, or the 

5 new people that came in, they would know--

6 people--the company wanted to get people to 

7 know each other together, because they'd 

8 learned from World War II that the plants that 

9 did this, they were more productive, less 

10 absenteeism. 

11 All these benefits came to the 

12 company from having the people not be leery of 

13 each other, or--but to be friends. At least 

14 know each other and see what to do. And that 

15 had a big impact on how the company operated.

16 There were a lot of common 

17 operations at this facility. Common 

18 operations. And there was one master print 

19 shop. Offset printing and ditto machines. 

20 You remember ditto machines? Ditto machines 

21 were the norm and offset printing was 

22 expensive. That took a lot. You had to have 
312

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 these big cameras with arc lights and 

2 everything. So the main print shop is over 

3 here. Now I'm not saying Atomics 

4 International didn't have some ditto machines. 

5 That was where the main print shop was. 

6 There was one medical center. They had one 

7 fire truck. The guards would rotate around.

8 North American was a very strong 

9 union shop. The unions here and the unions 

10 here, they were all the same union. I think 

11 it was mentioned before, we had a scheduled 

12 bus service that would pick up people at 

13 different places around here and then take 

14 them up to Santa Susana. This was something 

15 they did for everyone. I think it was 

16 mentioned in the other petition.

17 For a while, we had a single steno 

18 pool, but that was short-lived. And we had 

19 one photo lab, one movie lab, one credit union 

20 and for a while we even had one company store 

21 where you could buy products the company made 

22 at other divisions. Everything--every movable 
313

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 machine, from a typewriter to a lathe to a 

2 milling machine or something had one label on 

3 it: North American Aviation. It had their 

4 property control on it and divisions were not 

5 independent.

6 I covered this. Now let me--

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mr. Larson, 

8 could you sort of wrap up a little bit cause 

9 this is taking a lot of time and we need to 

10 focus on the main points.

11 MR. LARSON: I thought they all 

12 were main.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, somehow, 

14 the ski club I don't think was main.

15 MR. LARSON: How much time--well, 

16 it really was. The two guys that got married, 

17 that worked over here, that married the 

18 secretaries over here, they were in the ski 

19 club. Okay. I'll try. I'm sorry. I was 

20 told that I had either 15 minutes or to take 

21 as much time as I like, by NIOSH. So blame 

22 them, not me.
314

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 Okay. This is something that you 

2 probably would be interested in here. The 

3 time cards in employee locations. They had a 

4 very strict time card policy. You'd put your 

5 charge number on the card that you worked on 

6 and who you worked--and that job only. There 

7 were no exceptions. We actually had time card 

8 monitors. People would come around in the 

9 morning and check that out.

10 Now the policy meant that you 

11 could go to any division. You could be sent 

12 to any division. Excuse me. You could be 

13 sent and work on their project. And there was 

14 no record? No. Yes. It was on the time card. 

15 But the boss would have to sign the time card 

16 and then you could work on it. You didn't 

17 have to be a Rocketdyne or an AI or an 

18 Autonetics division person. You could go down 

19 to Downey, and work for a day or two days or 

20 whatever they wanted.

21 So there wasn't any restriction 

22 and there's no records of that that I know of, 
315

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 unless you could get all the timecard records. 

2 Where they would be, I have no idea.

3 I had a project engineer that was 

4 on loan to one of my groups for about two and 

5 a half years, and he didn't really want to 

6 transfer, and I didn't really want to transfer 

7 him in. We had a good relationship going. 

8 And so he was in AI, on the books as an AI, 

9 and he worked in my group for two and a half 

10 years.

11 The same went on in the shop. Now 

12 employee locations were something else, and 

13 for that, I have something that you'd be 

14 interested in. This is from the Morgenstern 

15 report that the company contracted for at 

16 UCLA, and I hope you can read it. I'll read 

17 it to you.

18 Personnel records provided us with 

19 personal identification and information on the 

20 employment history, including the assigned 

21 division or department, location, code, job 

22 title and pay type, salary, and professional 
316

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 management, et cetera. In addition, the 

2 Remark field was there, indicates laid off. 

3 We received no information that would allow us 

4 to interpret department codes and functions 

5 consistently over time with codes dating back 

6 to 1950 and 60 being essentially problematic.

7 Workload location codes for 

8 Susana, De Soto, and Canoga facilities of 

9 Rocketdyne and AI were very crude and did not 

10 reflect actual work sites but rather timeclock 

11 locations. But people didn't have timeclocks. 

12 This was all a carryover from World War II.

13 For example, at Santa Susana Field 

14 Lab, the only code used on personnel card 

15 indexes prior to 1960 was an S, implying Santa 

16 Susana. From about 1960 to 71, 31 two-letter 

17 codes were used to specify Santa Susana 

18 buildings.

19 After 1970, they were replaced by 

20 35 letter codes. However, at Santa Susana 

21 there were 400 buildings. That there is not--

22 was not a way of tracing people, and it 
317

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 doesn't exist. People can get reassigned, or 

2 anything like that.

3 Now I have another thing I want to 

4 go into. There was a statement that there was 

5 no AEC work except at Vanowen. I personally 

6 know of one rather significant effort. When I 

7 started work at Rocketdyne, in the main 

8 building at Canoga, in November 55, my work 

9 location was in the center of the engineering 

10 bullpen. About 40 feet away was a room with 

11 double doors, pushbutton lock. The room was 

12 about 20 by 30. Desks were about ten.

13 The personnel in that area had a 

14 program with Los Alamos. I don't know the 

15 contractual arrangements. The program was 

16 called NERVA. This program was directed 

17 toward a nuclear reactor-powered rocket engine 

18 and thought to be for a large new missile, to 

19 deliver a very large nuclear bomb, and they 

20 talked about the bomb being made up at 

21 Lawrence Livermore then, which I'm sure you 

22 all are aware of.
318

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 I think there may have been other 

2 names for this. I knew Los Alamos was very 

3 much involved because most all the people went 

4 there. Some stayed for weeks at a time. I 

5 worked in that program. The unit secretary 

6 kept a box of film badges in a locked filing 

7 cabinet.

8 They were given out based on the 

9 supervisor's direction and collected at the 

10 end of the day.

11 I remember the badges clearly 

12 because they were heavy. They had a safety 

13 pin clasp--were supposed to wear them pinned 

14 to your shirt. We had to wear a suit and tie 

15 to work and the problem: they would ruin your 

16 shirt by the end of the day if it got caught. 

17 Even then, it'd leave big holes on it. My 

18 involvement was as an extra hand for tests in 

19 the lab and checking hardware.

20 In the fall of 1958--and it's 

21 possible I'm off by a year, 59--a big team of 

22 about 70, maybe more, was set up to wrap up 
319

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 all the work in the program, get it done and 

2 to prepare for a bid on a follow-on.

3 Personnel from the team came from 

4 Rocketdyne, AI, and Downey, and some corporate 

5 people were there. I had written a lot of 

6 reports by that time, and somehow NASA had 

7 gotten into the act. They'd just been formed. 

8 So I was assigned to this team. My specialty 

9 was mission analysis, and I was called on to 

10 write up a big section on missions, planetary 

11 missions, to go in the report in case NASA was 

12 going to have some major thing.

13 This section was unClassified. I 

14 have a copy with me. The team worked six days 

15 a week over--I don't have to put the picture 

16 up--over in the Vanowen Building in the front. 

17 They had an area set up and we lost the 

18 program. That was the outcome. I lost a whole 

19 year of--or week of skiing on that. I won't go 

20 into that.

21 Many of the people on that team 

22 left the company. They went to the winning 
320

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 contractors. In the 60s, a unit was formed in 

2 Vanowen which was called Nucleonics, made up 

3 of Rocketdyne and AI people. They were trying 

4 to get subcontracts from the winners.

5 Then, in 98 or 99, there was a big 

6 effort, you may have heard of it, with NASA 

7 trying to get--and others, not just NASA--

8 trying to get some new interplanetary programs 

9 started, and I was invited to Los Alamos for a 

10 big three-day conference on it, and they 

11 presented all these papers and everything. 

12 But even though we paid to get the transcripts 

13 and videos, they said their security wouldn't 

14 let them out. 

15 So I put--this was not in the 

16 petition, but there are many--I'm sure if you 

17 dig in, there are other examples of AEC work 

18 that were done there.

19 Now the other thing about AEC 

20 work--and I'll try and make this real short--

21 is this is the Rocketdyne. This is Rocketdyne 

22 shop. Rocketdyne was three times as big as 
321

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 AI, always was, made a lot more money too. 

2 And this is AI and a lot of this was taken up 

3 with the hot labs and stuff like that.

4 They had this whole shop over 

5 there. So when hardware was needed and they 

6 didn't have the capability here, what do you 

7 think happened? They walked across this 40 

8 feet here, talked with a friend they knew over 

9 there and got the piece made. Rocketdyne had 

10 immense fabrication, manufacturing facilities. 

11 They were the premier in drilling because we 

12 made all those injectors. They had brazing 

13 capabilities. They had all kinds of milling 

14 machines and everything.

15 And again, there didn't have to be 

16 a record for that because they just charged 

17 hours in the shop. You could bring it over 

18 and get a planning ticket to get it done. And 

19 the same thing with engineering. Engineering, 

20 we probably had four times more. This was all 

21 an engineering building. Then they built a 

22 two-story one here.
322

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 If AI needed help on some thermal, 

2 or hydro, or something engineering, not 

3 nuclear--but one of those, to get a project 

4 done, they could borrow a person. And this 

5 happened a lot. This wasn't just once in a 

6 while. This happened a lot.

7 Did upper management object? 

8 Absolutely not. Now one thing I want to say 

9 that I had in the petition, and it was really 

10 not addressed, and that is the move to De 

11 Soto--this is the De Soto facility here. They 

12 moved out of that one building and this is the 

13 complex at De Soto. Now this wasn't all built 

14 overnight. This and this was, I remember, the 

15 first two buildings. They moved over that, 

16 moved over that. This was the manufacturing 

17 facility, this great big facility here. 

18 This was the--excuse me. This 

19 building here, this was the administrative 

20 one. This was an engineering building. This 

21 was labs. This was engineering or desk, 

22 office space.
323

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They moved over there in a period 

2 of 18 months They started in mid-58 and they3 -excuse me--mid-59, and they got over there, 

4 finished at the end of 60. So for 18 months, 

5 they were moving out of here, and Rocketdyne 

6 was moving in as fast as they could because 

7 Rocketdyne had people stashed all over the San 

8 Fernando Valley in office space.

9 I asked about, was there ever a 

10 clean-up done. Over the 18 months, were they 

11 exposed to radiation? There was nothing in 

12 the petition that responded to that. There 

13 was nothing.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you wrap 

15 this up?

16 MR. LARSON: Yes. So my view is 

17 that I have a list of, I think ten or twelve 

18 items that were in the petition, that they 

19 were not addressed and this is it. I won't go 

20 through it. But what the petition did address 

21 is it took out three of the items and says we 

22 agree with them, so let's go ahead. But I do 
324

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 not believe the--anything, any knowledge 

2 existed as to the integrated relationships of 

3 AI and Rocketdyne here, and that this colored 

4 the outcome.

5 And so my position is that we 

6 should not go ahead with a petition just for 

7 the AI people. It is completely counter to 

8 what you're doing in the Santa Susana Area IV. 

9 Why it's limited only to the people inside, 

10 and why they--it's a mile--excuse me. This is 

11 about two-tenths of a mile. I think that's 

12 about four-tenths. The Area IV is about a 

13 mile long, right now, on the last chart I 

14 looked at.

15 This is all tightly packed 

16 together, and yet the petition says just cover 

17 this and forget the rest. I can't agree with 

18 that. I think it's an invalid petition if it 

19 goes that way. Think of it this way. Think 

20 of it this way.

21 If North American had not come up 

22 with the AI and the Rocketdyne names, and if 
325

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 North American had just built this facility 

2 and had just taken that surplus from Downey 

3 out, in the way of people, and put them in 

4 here, we wouldn't be here talking about this.

5 Because that's what they did. 

6 They took all those, overflow of people out at 

7 Downey--they had no more land there, they had 

8 all the buildings they could put on the site 

9 and they brought them out here and they put 

10 them in this building and this building. They 

11 built up units down at Downey.

12 And then they had a huge hiring 

13 binge, and that's what resulted. But they're 

14 all the same. It's that simple.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

16 you.

17 MR. LARSON: Sorry to take so 

18 long.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's okay. 

20 It's helpful information. Thank you. Does 

21 anybody on the Board have any questions for 

22 Mr. Larson?
326

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 MR. LARSON: Pardon?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm asking if 

3 anybody here has any questions.

4 (No response.) 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, we need 

6 to come to some -- I don't know, Jeff, if you 

7 had any comments, or information you can 

8 provide us about the Department of Labor 

9 letter regarding the Class Definition?

10 MS. CREASE: Hello.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Who's on the 

12 phone and has a question?

13 MS. CREASE: Yes. This is Mary 

14 Crease and my husband Harry worked there for 

15 many, many years. And now I'm 91 years old 

16 and I'm without finances much and I miss him 

17 so much and he died of cancer, which I feel 

18 was back down to Rockwell and I can't talk too 

19 much about it but I do appreciate all your 

20 hard work and I appreciate what you're doing 

21 and I just hope that things will come up to 

22 help me out in some way or form. And I thank 
327

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 you very much. Thanks for your time, and I'm 

2 very interested in the procedures. Thank you. 

3 Bye.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

5 Okay, Jeff?

6 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, 

7 Department of Labor. Yes. Checking with the 

8 Seattle office as far as the Canoga facility, 

9 we occasionally do have issues with putting 

10 people in--but again, we always do these 

11 things on a case-by-case basis. But we do get 

12 things from the corporate verifier that allow 

13 us, sometimes, to place people in Vanowen.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So you're just 

15 not sure on this? Or I mean, I guess I'm 

16 trying to --

17 MR. KOTSCH: All I'm saying is 

18 that we don't--the Seattle office has said 

19 that sometimes they have difficulty putting 

20 into Vanowen. But other times they get 

21 information from the corporate verifier that 

22 can place people in that building.
328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

2 MR. KOTSCH: It's like at a number 

3 of--well, at other facilities, occasionally we 

4 have problems like that too, you know, where 

5 we can't--like in Iowa--where we can't put 

6 people in certain places sometimes.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

8 Jeff. I appreciate that. I think we're--I'm 

9 sorry, we're not at the public comment period 

10 yet. We'll get to that in a second. 

11 PARTICIPANT: Can I--

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, thank you. 

13 You'll have a chance later, because we need to 

14 come to some plan to move forward on this, on 

15 that, which I think is--I don't think there's 

16 much we can do right now, given the issue on 

17 the Class Definition and I think we have to

18 postpone until the next meeting, until we do.

19 Josie? 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Is it possible to 

21 ask the Santa Susana Work Group to take this 

22 up or are we even beyond that yet?
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I was thinking 

2 that's one possibility, in terms of follow-up. 

3 I'm not sure what we're assigning--and also 

4 there's, I think there's the question of 

5 whether we need to have SC&A look into this, 

6 and what part of it. But I'm not sure until 

7 NIOSH and DOL have had some discussion. We 

8 already heard from Mr. Larson. We may hear 

9 from others in the public comment period 

10 tonight or tomorrow about this issue.

11 Stu? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

13 Hinnefeld from OCAS. I think, based on what 

14 we hear here, and what we've heard just 

15 recently from the Department of Labor, I think 

16 we will be doing additional evaluation of our 

17 work and our conclusion regardless of actions 

18 taken today.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think there 

21 will be some additional work and a report on 

22 our part back to the Advisory Board prior to 
330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the next meeting. We'll submit it to the 

2 Advisory Board prior to your next meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

4 Stu. Henry? 

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Do we have any 

6 idea when the Site Profile will be revised?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There is no Site 

8 profile for this --

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, in the 

10 support document --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is there? There 

12 is one? 

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: It says there's 

14 going to be one. That it's being revised.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I 

16 apologize. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 

18 OCAS again. The Site Profile addresses all 

19 the ETEC sites. So that's Area IV and then 

20 the three other sites, as well. So the Site 

21 Profile addressed them. And I don't have a 

22 deadline on that revision, but understand that 
331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that revision, logically, has to follow after 

2 a decision about feasibility of dose 

3 reconstruction and what aspects are feasible 

4 in dose reconstruction.

5 And so that will be downstream and 

6 the revision of the Site Profile is informed 

7 by the SEC, as opposed to having that revision 

8 inform the SEC.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Because I was 

11 looking at it; it also says you're going to 

12 develop a methodology for bounding, but you 

13 haven't done that yet and I was wondering--and 

14 that'll be in the profile--

15 MR. HINNEFELD: That'll be part of 

16 the additional evaluation of this process, and 

17 then whatever--if that is successful, if you 

18 agree with what we conclude at that time, that 

19 would form the basis of the Site Profile then. 

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: But you've 

21 determined that you can do a dose 

22 reconstruction, but you don't have a 
332

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 methodology? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we came to 

3 this meeting feeling that we could. We have 

4 learned additional information from the 

5 Department of Labor just recently and in this 

6 discussion today, that causes us to feel like, 

7 at the very least, we need to reconsider--we 

8 need to consider our evaluation. I'm not 

9 saying we'll change the evaluation. We need 

10 to consider, based on the information provided 

11 today.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Paul then 

13 Wanda. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was simply 

15 going to ask whether or not this is another 

16 one of these cases where it would be 

17 beneficial for claimants to at least have this 

18 part of the SEC established, even though there 

19 could be additions or additional modifications 

20 later. It's kind of a question maybe NIOSH 

21 might give us some guidance on. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, as a logical 
333

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 matter, it would be beneficial to those people 

2 who are placed in Vanowen, who are, you know, 

3 clearly in Vanowen- that would probably be 

4 Atomics International employees who have SEC 

5 cancers -- it would be beneficial to them to 

6 have the Class, as we recommended today with 

7 the understanding that we're still going to 

8 reevaluate the remainder and do that. The 

9 petitioner, I don't believe, is in favor of 

10 that, but it would be advantageous to that 

11 subgroup of the Canoga claimants.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess the 

13 problem I would see with that is that we then 

14 could be in the position of revising this in 

15 the near future, potentially because DOL was 

16 having trouble with the Class Definition and I 

17 think--I guess I'm a little leery of, when 

18 they're on record opposing or raising--I 

19 shouldn't say opposing--raising concerns about 

20 a Class Definition, that we at least try to 

21 get some dialogue and get it right.

22 I mean, I think this was--you were 
334

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 rushing to get this done in time for this--

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We wanted to 

3 deliver it here. We wanted to deliver it 

4 when--

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we 

6 understand that and I think it's been 

7 valuable. But at the same time, I think I 

8 would say maybe we can have an update at the 

9 next Board call meeting, not waiting until the 

10 next--

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that would be 

12 advantageous.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Then we can make 

14 a determination and we'd still be able, at

15 that time, if it's appropriate to move forward 

16 with it. The current recommendation: we're 

17 trying to figure out some other way, let's see 

18 where we stand there at that time.

19 Wanda. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: A proposal for our 

21 immediate--would it not be wise for us to 

22 table this at this moment with the expectation 
335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we will take it up day after tomorrow 

2 during our Board work time during which time 

3 both NIOSH and the Board will have an 

4 opportunity to consider what actions we really 

5 would prefer to have taken as we attempt to 

6 take a step back and take another look at the 

7 entire Santa Susana issue, whether we want to 

8 have the Work Group undertake some specific 

9 activity and when we might be able to do that.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can certainly 

11 consider that during the Board work time--the 

12 question of an SC&A or other--or Work Group 

13 involvement or we could wait until we get a 

14 report back at the next Board call meeting and 

15 I think we can consider that.

16 I would like to try to at least 

17 reach some conclusion, why--you know, the 

18 petitioner Mr. Larson is here as well as 

19 others, and rather than having them come back 

20 in two days or something, to hear--and I think 

21 we--I think the general sentiment is it's not 

22 officially tabled because we don't really have 
336

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 a motion but would be to not move forward on 

2 this at all in terms of approving or 

3 disapproving until the next meeting. 

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Dr. Melius.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Mike. 

6 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. I 

7 just have one question. NIOSH had told me 

8 that probably the soonest we could have a 

9 meaningful Santa Susana Work Group meeting 

10 would be April. Given this additional 

11 information tonight, I would just like to know 

12 if they think that it's going to delay that 

13 meeting or if we can, you know, have a meeting 

14 and get some movement here. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

16 Hinnefeld again from OCAS. I think, Mike, 

17 that we should be able to stay on that April 

18 meeting. I mean, the Santa Susana portion of 

19 the work. Although there is some commonality 

20 of resources working on these sites. I would 

21 think we should be able to stay on schedule 

22 for the date we indicated earlier, we could 
337

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 support a Santa Susana meeting.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay and, Mike, 

3 our Board call is scheduled at the end of 

4 March so we will have an update from them, 

5 from NIOSH, on the petition by then, before 

6 your April meeting. But as Wanda suggests, we 

7 can also talk about the Work Group involvement 

8 a little bit more on Thursday when we do the 

9 Work Group updates. Okay.

10 I would also--for the petitioner, 

11 Mr. Larson, I think we will--NIOSH will keep 

12 in contact with you and we will keep you up to 

13 date on, involved in activity and may have 

14 more questions and need more information from 

15 you. So we appreciate your efforts today. 

16 Okay.

17 Public comment period. 

18 MR. KATZ: Before we start public 

19 comment, I just want to correct something for 

20 the record. I should not be making little 

21 slip-ups but sleep deprivation. When we 

22 recorded the vote for Lawrence Livermore, I 
338

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 used the term for Dr. Poston that he 

2 abstained, but he recused. Of course he had 

3 actually left the table. So we had 15 Board 

4 Members who voted in favor and there was one 

5 recusal. But I want to correct that for the 

6 record.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

8 Public comment period. I 

9 apologize to those that have been waiting.

10 The first person we have--yes?

11 MR. KATZ: Before we start, let me 

12 just explain the ground rules with respect to 

13 redaction policy, as we do always before we 

14 start these public comment sessions.

15 That is just for you to know, you 

16 who will comment, that there's a complete 

17 transcript being made, verbatim transcript, so 

18 your comments will be included in their 

19 entirety in the transcript which goes up on 

20 the Web and is available to the public.

21 So everything you say about 

22 yourself, personally, and so on, will be 
339

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 there. But if you discuss other third 

2 parties, information about third parties 

3 that's personal, will be redacted. So you 

4 just need to know that. And the full 

5 explanation of this policy of the room, for 

6 those of you in the room, and for those of you 

7 on the phone call, it's on the OCAS website, 

8 in the Board section on OCAS website.

9 So that's it. I just want to let 

10 you know that.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I need to 

12 let you know two more things. One is that 

13 there is a 10-minute limit on any comments and 

14 secondly, we go in the order that people 

15 signed up and so I will call people and in the 

16 order that we have here.

17 And we have, I believe six or 

18 seven people signed up, depending on how we 

19 interpret the sign-up sheet.

20 And I don't know--the first person 

21 I have on my list is Bonnie Klea, and I don't 

22 know if that's--
340

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 MS. KLEA: I just wanted to say 

2 thank you again. I'm so excited on behalf of 

3 all the Santa Susana workers and hope you have 

4 a lovely time here in southern California. 

5 Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks. 

7 Okay. We're having a little trouble with the 

8 second name, even with three pair of eyes. 

9 We're not sure if it's a George Anno or --

10 MR. ANNO: Anno.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anno. Okay.

12 MR. ANNO: Okay. Once again, I'm 

13 George Anno. A-N-N-O.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

15 MR. ANNO: And I'm going to--yes--

16 I'm going to try to talk about my--like I'm a 

17 petitioner, and I got kind of booted out of 

18 the SEC because I had testicular cancer, and I 

19 don't understand why that's not included on 

20 there. It's probably because BEIR VII doesn't 

21 quite give it the treatment that ovarian does.

22 So that's okay. I'm going to go 
341

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 back and talk about my experience at Atomics 

2 International, and Santa Susana, the lab.

3 I'm going to do it quickly and I'm 

4 not going to take you down memory lane. Here 

5 we go. I was at--I was employed by Atomics 

6 International from 1957 to 1959, and I did 

7 work at both the Canoga facility and also 

8 Santa Susana. I guess that's Area IV. When I 

9 first petitioned here, I made a list of the 

10 things that I did, and I thought it was--I 

11 made, sort of make it very comprehensive, so 

12 somebody that's doing dose reconstruction, or 

13 whatever. I've done dose reconstruction 

14 myself, so I know what, I know what they're 

15 going through, what you'll have to go through.

16 Okay. First of all, let me cover, 

17 first, my--well, apparently NIOSH doesn't 

18 realize, or somehow this didn't come through, 

19 that I was not employed by SSFL. Of course 

20 I'm not. I was employed by Atomics 

21 International but I took the bus up, oh, maybe 

22 one to two-and-a-half days, or something like 
342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, alternatively, every week.

2 Sometimes I drove up from Pacific 

3 Palisades in Santa Monica area. But what I 

4 want to say is I did write down all the--it 

5 says describe the work and duties you did. 

6 Okay. Basically, I did radiation engineering, 

7 health physics, that sort of thing. Now I was 

8 at the sodium reactor facility experiment 

9 quite a bit, did a lot of monitoring there, 

10 did smearing, did monitoring clothes, 

11 monitoring areas, all that sort a thing.

12 And I also did--I'll just give an 

13 example. The fuel elements, when they change 

14 them, there's a guide on the end and it's 

15 stainless steel and that damn thing really 

16 gets hot. So they told me, okay, George, 

17 you've got to design a shielding cast for this 

18 because we're going to dump it in the ocean. 

19 I was going to, it turns out.

20 So anyways, those are the kind a 

21 things that I did there. I was exposed to 

22 radiation here and there and that kind a 
343

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 thing, beta-gamma, probably not much neutron. 

2 I can't say that because I think they did a 

3 pretty good, damn good deal shielding the SRE. 

4 The next thing I did is I visited 

5 the kinetic water boiler reactor, the cube, 

6 quite frequently, monitoring around, making 

7 sure things were okay there, and there wasn't 

8 spraying radiation around, or leaks, et 

9 cetera. The other category was I was at the 

10 SNAP environmental test facility. In fact, I 

11 wrote the hazards report for that and did a 

12 lot of calculations of what happens if the 

13 stuff goes to the valley? What happens if the 

14 wind's in this direction? What happens if you 

15 have inversions, et cetera? That's the kind 

16 of stuff I was doing.

17 Now I also did a lot of radiation 

18 shielding for all the wastes that they were 

19 gathering up, and what I did is--what we did 

20 was we put those in 55-gallon drums, put a 

21 lumen in the drum, pack whatever you need to 

22 pack around it, sometimes lead but mostly 
344

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 concrete, iron concrete, that sort a thing.

2 So I did a lot of monitoring on 

3 the outside of these drums. And then we took 

4 them to Port Hueneme in trucks and we took 

5 UCLA's and a lot of other people's stuff there 

6 too, because we put them on a barge, an ocean7 going tug, and on the other side of San 

8 Nicolas Island, which is 1,000 fathoms down, 

9 we dumped it. Can't do that anymore.

10 So I supervised that kind a thing 

11 quite a bit, and then at Canoga, there was 

12 uranyl sulphate loading criticality experiment 

13 that I participated in. And it was enriched, 

14 I think, uranyl sulphate. So everybody was 

15 kind of--we were in a fish bowl, basically, 

16 and everybody was watching us--you know. So 

17 we stayed there for quite a while, you know, 

18 and just poured it, watched it, plotted it, 

19 report it, watched it, you know. So I don't--

20 I'm pretty sure I had a film badge. I don't 

21 know if I had a neutron badge on. But that's 

22 the kind of thing that I was doing at these 
345

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 two facilities, at the SSFL and also at 

2 Canoga.

3 So I just want to make sure that 

4 whoever does dose reconstruction has some kind 

5 of a concept, some kind of a gestalt of what I 

6 did, because they will need that.

7 I've done these dose 

8 reconstructions for accidents, for the AEC, 

9 earlier in my life. But at the time it was 

10 the AEC and so forth. So anyways, I wanted to 

11 try to make sure that this propagates through 

12 to whoever is going to do dose reconstruction, 

13 because I do understand that the film badges 

14 and the monitoring ain't no good. I mean, 

15 there's not much reliability here. So what's 

16 the alternative?

17 You've got to do some modeling. 

18 You've got to do some reasonable assumptions. 

19 You've got to, you know, do something that's 

20 reasonable, one over r squared--whatever you 

21 do.

22 And I just want to make sure that 
346

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 those things propagate to whoever is going to 

2 do the dose reconstruction, because when I 

3 went in and visited the NIOSH people that's 

4 been represented this morning, it wasn't clear 

5 that this information was even propagated 

6 through different people to NIOSH, and so 

7 forth.

8 So I'm trying to make this real 

9 simple and try to say that I have--the data 

10 that I have--of course I was there, you know, 

11 what is it? Fifty-two or three years ago. So, 

12 you know, the old gray matter gets a little 

13 bit solid.

14 But that's what I can try to 

15 supply, and I have, and I'd like to see that 

16 propagate through. But now, when you ask me 

17 things about, well, how long did you do this? 

18 How long did you do -- how the hell am I 

19 going to remember that, and count the minutes 

20 up, and even the hours? You know, I know I 

21 went up there during the day, and I was up 

22 there for about six hours and went back home. 
347

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 You know, that sort a thing.

2 So this is only some guidance, 

3 that I realize that some guy doing dose 

4 reconstruction that does not have the 

5 experimental records, the data, so to speak, 

6 will have to make estimates on, and they'll 

7 have to do--they'll have to do the causality, 

8 probably, calculations. I've done those too.

9 Now the other thing is I don't 

10 quite understand why testicular cancer was not 

11 included in the ovarian. Somebody who is a 

12 radiobiologist maybe can tell me this. 

13 They're both haploid cells. So, you know, 

14 it's a reasonable thing to do that, but it was 

15 not included on the SEC list. Anyways.

16 I'm not going to bore you with any 

17 more. That's it.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

19 very much, Mr. Anno.

20 MR. ANNO: Sure.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Our next person 

22 is Al Frowiss. Appreciate your patience, Mr. 
348

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 Frowiss.

2 MR. FROWISS: Thank you. I'll 

3 make my comments very brief. A lot of what I 

4 was going to say has been said eloquently, but 

5 I do claims. I've done several hundred of 

6 them: SEC claims, mostly. And recently, a few 

7 months ago, I started focusing on Santa Susana 

8 Area IV because the SEC was approved. And I 

9 have 30 or 40 claims, and I'm discovering a 

10 real rat's nest in terms of records.

11 It's not my experience with other 

12 SEC facilities, but it's certainly here, the 

13 corporate verifier doesn't have very good 

14 records. And a lot of the--from a claimant's 

15 perspective, and I represent a bunch of them, 

16 will get responses from Boeing through 

17 Department of Labor, that says Santa Susana 

18 facility unknown area.

19 Or Canoga, period. Not Canoga, 

20 Vanowen, but just Canoga. And so in many 

21 aspects of this kind of work, I see the term, 

22 claimant-favorable decisions are made.
349

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 In the case of Santa Susana, the 

2 technical bulletin that deals with that, 

3 Technical Bulletin 9-14--I realize that's a 

4 Labor issue rather than your board issue--but 

5 it's very specific, and it says the claim 

6 examiner has to find that they were in Area 

7 IV, period.

8 Or as in other SEC facilities, it 

9 says that the claim examiner has the latitude 

10 to decide, you know, based--that if it's not 

11 identified exactly where he was, that they can 

12 assume that he was in a SEC area. So there's 

13 a disparity between things like Hanford, where 

14 Bulletin 8-33 describes how to deal with 

15 operational support personnel, for example, 

16 like firemen, nurses, maintenance people, et 

17 cetera. There's no such language in the 

18 bulletins describing Santa Susana Area IV.

19 So the claims examiners in Seattle 

20 tell me that their hands are tied on Area IV 

21 claims, unless they're precise, you know, in 

22 the corporate verification.
350

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So there's a problem that maybe 

2 you can mention to Department of Labor. On 

3 the Canoga thing, the only thing I could add 

4 beyond Mr. Larson's comments, is that I've 

5 been told by some of my claimants that the 

6 library existed in the Vanowen Building, and 

7 all the--all the people went into the library.

8 So whether they were Rocketdyne 

9 employees, or anything else. So there's--the 

10 tight security that was discussed by NIOSH 

11 doesn't--didn't apparently seem to exist. 

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Mr. 

14 Frowiss. Mr. Larson, you're next on the list 

15 but I believe you've already--

16 MR. LARSON: Yes. I agree with 

17 him. I forgot that. They had a great 

18 library. There was none at Rocketdyne at that 

19 time.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Marcia 

21 Oney Moak?

22 MS. ONEY MOAK: I am going to 
351

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 decline.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Fine. Okay. 

3 Carl Schwering?

4 MR. SCHWERING: Mine's short. My 

5 name is Carl. I want to thank you all for 

6 your efforts and work on our behalf, and I'm a 

7 former employee of all of them, and facilities 

8 at -- I worked at De Soto, Santa Susana, 

9 Vanowen facility, and however, I have been 

10 diagnosed with colon cancer, lung disease and 

11 am waiting for some other claims to be taken 

12 into consideration. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

14 you.

15 Do we have anybody on the phone 

16 that --

17 MR. SHETRONE: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you please 

19 identify yourself for public comment?

20 MR. SHETRONE: Yes. This is Harry 

21 Shetrone. I'd like to speak, if I could.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
352

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 MR. SHETRONE: Hello?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, go ahead.

3 MR. SHETRONE: My father died on 

4 the operating table with cancer of the 

5 esophagus, and we've been -- I've been helping 

6 my stepmother with the claim. It was so 

7 frustrating with the missing information. He 

8 went to work for North American Aviation in 

9 1950 -- 48. Worked for 26 years. He was 36 

10 when he started in 62. The first seven years, 

11 he -- his vocation was no more specific than 

12 Santa Susana Field Laboratory, area unknown. 

13 Unfortunately, missing the first--

14 didn't cover the ultimate 28 months where they 

15 did record him working in Area IV. He was in 

16 maintenance and construction and had been a 

17 supervisor and lead man. So he worked, 

18 really, all over the area. 

19 But I think your work has resolved 

20 the problem, I hope, and I want to thank the 

21 scientists and the researchers for continuing 

22 to research, investigate and evaluate the 
353

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 risks to the employees of Santa Susana Field 

2 Laboratory. We appreciate your work. Thank 

3 you so much.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mr. 

6 Shetrone. Would you just, would you mind just 

7 spelling your last name for us.

8 MR. SHETRONE: S-H-E-T-R-O-N-E.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you very much. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 MR. SHETRONE: You're welcome. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else on 

13 the phone wish to speak?

14 MS. NASH: Yes, I do.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Please identify 

16 yourself.

17 MS. NASH: My name is Vivian Nash 

18 and my husband worked for Rocketdyne/Canoga, 

19 from 1956 through 62. He died in 1963 from 

20 Hodgkin's disease, and what I want to know is 

21 why not Hodgkin's is on the list of those 

22 cancers that are acceptable and that's what I 
354

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 wanted to ask.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, the list 

3 is what's prescribed in the legislation we're 

4 working from. So it was put together when the 

5 legislation was passed several years ago. But 

6 that's how, why it's limited.

7 MS. NASH: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is there anybody 

9 else on the phone that would like to speak?

10 MS. CLERICUZIO: I would.

11 MS. PULTE: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

13 MS. CLERICUZIO: Who's going to go 

14 first?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I can't pick 

16 over the phone, so --

17 MS. PULTE: Go ahead.

18 MS. CLERICUZIO: All right. How 

19 about me? My name is Karen Clericuzio and I'm 

20 representing [identifying information 

21 redacted] who worked in Area IV at Santa 

22 Susana. I want to thank the Board very much 
355

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 for passing the Special Exposure Cohort, and I 

2 also want to thank Bonnie Klea for 

3 representing us so very well for so very long 

4 and I'm done.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

6 you. And the other person who wanted to 

7 speak?

8 MS. PULTE: Yes. My name is Janie 

9 Pulte and I, too, just wanted to thank all you 

10 people for all of the work that you have done 

11 in getting things going here and hopefully 

12 it'll clear up a lot for us. And also I'd 

13 like to thank Bonnie. She's been helping me, 

14 as well. My husband worked on the hill from 

15 54 to 84, and he passed away in 02 from 

16 leukemia, and so it's been a hard road. And 

17 I'll be glad to see this all come to closure. 

18 But again, thank you so much for all your 

19 work.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

21 you. Anybody else on the phone that would 

22 like to make --
356

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 MS. NASH: This is Vivian Nash 

2 again. I just wanted to thank Bonnie Klea for 

3 all her hard work for us. I do appreciate it.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

5 you. Anybody else?

6 MR. FUNK: Yes. This is John Funk 

7 in Las Vegas.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could you--John 

9 Funk? Okay. I thought I recognized the 

10 voice. Go ahead, Mr. Funk.

11 MR. FUNK: Yes. This may not be 

12 an issue for the Board, but then again it may 

13 be. The Part E, any inheritance of it to the 

14 spouse and the children, is not on parity with 

15 Part B. Is there anything going to be done 

16 about this, because as you know, you know, 

17 it's been like eight years we've been going 

18 through this process, and probably one third 

19 of our people have passed away. Now in all 

20 fairness, I think that the Part E should be 

21 comparable to the Part B.

22 And I don't know where we go with 
357

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 this, but I'd kind of like to see somebody 

2 look into the possibility of getting the Part 

3 E on parity with the Part B as far as the 

4 inheritance is concerned.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I believe, Mr. 

6 Funk, that that's also a legislative issue, 

7 when they did the amendments that changed the 

8 program from DOE to DOL, may even have been 

9 preexisting in the original legislation, but 

10 it does not have the same benefits available 

11 for survivors as they do in Part B, so it's a 

12 legislative issue. I know Congress has talked 

13 about holding hearings on the legislation at 

14 some point, and so maybe it's something that 

15 would be considered in that context.

16 MR. FUNK: Okay. There was one 

17 other issue. I believe I might have--I'm not 

18 sure what I heard--but Dr. Wade--hasn't he 

19 asked for a review of the past 10 years, of 

20 what's taken place on the dose 

21 reconstructions? And he asked for input from 

22 the outside, too, from the claimants, as well.
358

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 MR. FUNK: Is that correct? 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's correct. 

4 And they set up a place on the website for 

5 doing that, and we'll be doing outreach also. 

6 That review is just getting underway, just 

7 announced, and it will be going on for the 

8 next several months. But there will be 

9 opportunity for your input and for others.

10 MR. FUNK: Okay. I'd like to 

11 participate in that if I could because I can 

12 sum it all up in one word and that was 

13 outreach.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. That is 

15 one of the components of the review, one of 

16 the five areas that they're going to be 

17 following up on. Thank you.

18 MR. FUNK: That's all for me, 

19 then.

20 Anybody else on the phone that 

21 would like to make public comment?

22 MS. CARR: I would like to.
359

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Please 

2 identify yourself.

3 MS. CARR: My name is Wendy Carr 

4 and I'm talking on behalf of my father, Vern 

5 Bergett, who was a fireman for 44 years. He 

6 started with Atomics International and then 

7 continued all the way through to Boeing. And 

8 I'm just frustrated that it's taken this long 

9 to get any kind of compensation at all for my 

10 mom.

11 There's so many gray areas that I 

12 don't understand. You know, he didn't work a 

13 full year at Santa Susana so he can't get 

14 compensated there. Although I have--you know, 

15 we've got letters of commendation for him 

16 putting our uranium fires at Canoga in 67, but 

17 on his employment it shows that he worked at 

18 De Soto. So I mean the firemen worked -- they 

19 traveled everywhere.

20 So, for me, there's just so many 

21 gray areas, that how do you base where his 

22 employment was? These are the men who were 
360

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 actually disposing of these chemicals. You 

2 know, they had them do it at night. They had 

3 to do it at night, so that the clouds couldn't 

4 be seen. It just seems frustrating that, you 

5 know, these men were the ones that were 

6 handling the chemicals the most, you know, and 

7 asked to dispose of them without so much as 

8 even a mask or an apron.

9 My husband wears more than that to 

10 kill the bugs at our house. You know, it 

11 seems like the firemen have kind of just been 

12 left by the wayside. They don't fall into any 

13 particular category.

14 Is there something we can do to 

15 look into that or--

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is one of 

17 the--I can't speak to a particular case, but 

18 it is one of the issues that was raised at our 

19 board meeting earlier today and about people 

20 in those kinds of groups that may or may not 

21 be covered--as easily identified as belonging 

22 to a particular facility or something working 
361

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 there. I would also add that people working 

2 at more than one facility, that the amount of 

3 time does accumulate, and--

4 MS. CARR: Well, I spoke to my mom 

5 today and she said he started in 59 at Santa 

6 Susana but they have him down working there 

7 six months and then De Soto--she said they 

8 often called him in to go to Santa Susana, you 

9 know, for a week here, or a week there, but 

10 there's--you know, there's no documentation. 

11 So, you know, it kind a feels like they're 

12 kind a screwed. You know, my dad died of 

13 glioblastoma, a rare form of brain cancer, in 

14 2003.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is one of 

16 the issues, general issues, that we wanted to 

17 bring to the attention and will be covered in 

18 our communications on this site. So it may be 

19 helpful.

20 MS. CARR: So you're looking into 

21 it?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
362

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 MS. CARR: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

3 MS. CARR: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

5 have--

6 MS. NASH: I have one more 

7 question. This is Vivian Nash again. What 

8 can we do to change the legislation? Where 

9 can we go? Who do we write to?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're laughing a 

11 little bit here because that's not really 

12 something we can comment directly on. We're 

13 an advisory board that's involved in the 

14 implementation of the legislation. I think 

15 through a more general political process would 

16 have to be involved. Sorry, we are not really 

17 in a position to comment on that.

18 MS. NASH: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bonnie has a 

20 comment.

21 MS. KLEA: I would just like to say 

22 that Wendy's father, who was a fireman, will 
363

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 be compensated as soon as we get the De Soto 

2 petition finished, because he was six months 

3 there and six months on the hill. Also, I'd 

4 like to tell you a quick little story about 

5 [identifying information redacted].

6 I met [identifying information 

7 redacted] last summer. Her husband died of 

8 leukemia at a young age, left her with three 

9 babies. She had to move back to Utah to have 

10 her family help her take care of the children 

11 and raise them.

12 She called me last week, sobbing. 

13 She was just crying her heart out and she 

14 said she just got a phone call from the 

15 Department of Labor and they wanted her bank 

16 account number; she was going to get paid and 

17 so I'm assuming she was under the first Class. 

18 So that's what we're here for and that's what 

19 we need to focus on. And for [identifying 

20 information redacted], thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

22 else in the audience that would like to make 
364

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 public comments that might not have had an 

2 opportunity to sign up, or--

3 MS. SHETRONE: Yes. I would like 

4 to comment or ask a question.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

6 MS. SHETRONE: My name is Mary 

7 Shetrone.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

9 MS. SHETRONE: Hello?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we're here. 

11 Go ahead.

12 MS. SHETRONE: Okay. My husband 

13 died of cancer and from working at Rockwell 

14 quite a few years and I'm now 91 years old. 

15 He's gone and I keep getting letters saying 

16 that they aren't going to do anything about 

17 it.

18 What do I do now? Is there any 

19 alternative that I can go to?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What letters have 

21 you been getting? Has a claim been filed or--

22 MS. SHETRONE: From the Department 
365

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 of Labor.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If you can give 

3 us some contact information, we'll get 

4 somebody from NIOSH or the Department of Labor 

5 to call you individually and follow up. We're 

6 having trouble understanding the situation 

7 and--

8 MS. KLEA: Mary's one of mine and 

9 she'll be paid as soon as this passes.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

11 MS. KLEA: So I told her son, 

12 who's Harry Shetrone, he called in earlier, I 

13 said give it 30 days. It's in Congress and 

14 then just wait for that phone call. So for 

15 Mary, thank you for your vote today.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

17 MS. SHETRONE: I appreciate all of 

18 your work. You've done a great job and I do 

19 appreciate it and I hope that this may help 

20 all of us. Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Our best 

22 to you, also. Any other comments or questions?
366

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (No response.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, we will 

3 close--

4 MR. WALKER: Yes. I'd like to 

5 make a statement.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

7 MR. WALKER: My name is Floyd 

8 Walker. My [identifying information 

9 redacted], [identifying information redacted], 

10 worked on the hill during the time of the 

11 meltdown, and luckily, so far he hasn't had 

12 any cancer. He has a lot of breathing 

13 problems and stuff. He's also filed a claim 

14 and hasn't been paid off or anything. He 

15 knows exactly which way the wind was blowing 

16 the day that it happened and it was blowing 

17 right toward the Canoga Park area. I worked 

18 at Rocketdyne from 1956 to 68. I worked in a 

19 machine shop there. I guess it's Building 1, 

20 right across from the Vanowen Building.

21 I contracted bladder cancer in 

22 1990, which was a bad situation. I had to 
367

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 have my bladder taken out--and the whole 

2 situation--which I wouldn't want nobody to go 

3 through. My [identifying information 

4 redacted] worked there also. He contracted 

5 bladder cancer. As you know, there was a lot 

6 of bladder cancer around the area. Now that 

7 we've found out, it's real high and the rates 

8 around the Rocketdyne and Canoga Park area, 

9 and probably also the hill.

10 My [identifying information 

11 redacted] had a [identifying information 

12 redacted]--also [identifying information 

13 redacted] were high around there also. 

14 There's paperwork on that. But birth defects, 

15 and there's ten kids in our family, and I had 

16 a boy with birth defects and we both worked 

17 there through the covered years.

18 I filed a claim and he didn't, So 

19 far, I haven't been paid off. I've been 

20 turned down a couple different times.

21 I didn't work in the Vanowen 

22 Building. I was in and out of the Vanowen 
368

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 Building and I don't know they specify and 

2 they talked about so much inside the Vanowen 

3 Building. I understand that there's possibly4 -that there was some kind a nuclear accident 

5 in the Vanowen Building and if you get nuclear 

6 stuff, it goes all through the air.

7 So what they've done--there, for a 

8 while there, they was just covering the 

9 Vanowen Building and all of a sudden, they 

10 covered the whole facility, which is kind a 

11 strange to me. And I can't figure that part 

12 out. I thought--I'm just like the other 

13 fellow that got up and spoke for quite a while 

14 there. He talked about how the whole thing 

15 should be covered, not just one part of it.

16 And I guess that's my statement 

17 that I want to make, that it's definitely too 

18 damn hard to get paid off. I don't know why 

19 they won't pay people off that got sick 

20 working there. There's no other bladder 

21 cancer in our family at all. Me and my 

22 [identifying information redacted] both worked 
369

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 there. We both got bladder cancer. Out of 

2 ten of us kids, we both had kids with birth 

3 defects.

4 Why can't I get paid? You know. 

5 that's my question. That's my statement. 

6 Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, and 

8 that situation is under--

9 MR. WALKER: I also would like to 

10 thank Bonnie Klea for being an activist on 

11 this. I appreciate what you guys are doing. 

12 Try to get Canoga Park covered through NIOSH, 

13 because I think it definitely needs to be 

14 covered, because I do believe there's 

15 radioactivity there just as there was--the 

16 same as there was on the hill, if not more. 

17 Thank you for your patience and thank you for 

18 the meeting you have. I've been listening to 

19 the whole thing and it's really been good.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

21 Anybody else on the phone that has--would like 

22 to make public comments?
370

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (No response.) 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Hearing none, I 

3 think we'll close the public comment session 

4 today. We will be reconvening tomorrow morning 

5 at nine o'clock, I believe. Nine a.m.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter went off the record at 5:51 p.m.)