NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

69th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

MAY 20, 2010

+ + + + +

 The meeting convened at 8:15 a.m., 

Eastern Daylight Savings Time, in the Crowne 

Plaza Hotel, 300 3rd Street Niagara Falls, New 

York, 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

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 2

PRESENT(Cont'd):

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member*

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member*

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

ALLEN, DAVID, DCAS

ARRIGO, CHARLES J.

BLANDINO, PAULA

BEITER, DOROTHY

BEITER, GEORGE

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE, Linde Petitioner

BRADFORD, SHANNON, DCAS

BRANDINO, PAULA

BREWSTER, MARIE

BROCK, DENISE, DCAS*

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH Contractor

BURNS, RICHARD

CAPONE, JOANNE

CAPONE, MAY

CARBONI, ROBERT

COOK, ROGER, Bethlehem Steel Petitioner

CONEY, AUDREY

CRUZ, RUBEN, CDC

CYGANIK, MARY

DIMITROFF, CHESTER

DISTEFANO, FRANK 

DOLBOU, LOIS

DYSTER, PAUL, Mayor of Niagara Falls

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW, LANL Petitioner

FASCIANA, CHARLOTTE

FIGIEL, STANLEY

FISHER, HAROLD, St. Louis Airport Site

Petitioner*

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FRANCO, TINO, Bethlehem Steel Petitioner

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

FRATELLO, MELISSA, Senator Kirsten
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 3

Gillibrand's Office

GIANCARLO, DAVID

GRIESBAUM, ANN

GRUDZIEN, CHESTER

GRUDZIEN, EDWARD

GRUDZIEN, SHIRLEY

HARRIS, SUZANNE

HINNEFELD, STUART, DCAS

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

HUGHES, VERA

HUPKOWICZ, STANLEY

IDZIOR, MILDRED

JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE, Senator Tom Udall's 

Office

JAMES, ESTER L.

JOHNSON, KAREN, Weldon Spring Plant

 Petitioner*

KERN, CATHY

KERN, MARIA

KERRIGAN, ROBERT

KOCZAJA, HELEN

KOPACZ, MATTHEW

KOTSCH, JEFFREY, DOL

LACEY, MABLE

LENIHAN, KATHY, Congresswoman Louise

 Slaughter's Office

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LEWIS, MARK, ORAU Team

LICATA, CHARLES

LIN, JENNY, HHS

LIVINGSTON, CYNTHIA

MACRI, SUZANNE, Congresswoman Louise

 Slaughter's Office

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MATHER, JOANNE

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCARTHY, TIMOTHY

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

MILLARD, HARRY

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

MORINELLO, ELIZABETH

MOROG, WILMA
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 4

MORROCCO, ANITA

MORROCCO, LOU

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A

OWENS, JR., CAREY

PAGE, JOSEPH

PAVLIK, DIANE

PELOW, LYNN

PENKALSKI, ROBERTA

PINCHETTI, KATHLEEN, Blockson Chemical 

Petitioner*

PROCAKIEWICZ, JOE

PRESLEY, LOUISE

QUINTANA, GEORGE 

REALE, MARIANNA, Chapman Valve Petitioner*

RECCE, LORA

ROLFES, MARK, DCAS

ROZNIAK, LEO

ROZNIAK, MRS. LEO

RUIZ, HARRIET, LANL Petitioner

RUSSO, JACQUELINE

RUSSO, ROBERT

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

SEALY, SANDY

SPONG, MARIE

STRESING, KEN

SUIDA, ANNE

TASSEFF, THOMAS

TRIPLETT, TINA, Weldon Spring Plant

 Petitioner*

ULSH, BRANT, DCAS

VALERIO, LORETTA

VAN DALEY, JOYCE

VENTURA, MARGARET 

VENTURA, SAM

WADE, LEW, DCAS

WAGNER, DIANE

WALKER, JOYCE, Bethlehem Steel Petitioner

WARREN, KAY

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

WEBBER, BEVERLY

WEBBER, LEWIS, Bethlehem Steel Petitioner

WELKA, JOHN
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 5

WILLER, MAY

WILSON, FANNIE

ZABRON, RAYMOND

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 6

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

ITEM PAGE

Welcome.................................... 7 

SEC statement.............................. 9 

Weldon Spring............................. 49

Petitioner Comments....................... 92

Blockson SEC Petition.................... 107

Chapman Valve............................ 168

Bethlehem Steel.......................... 208

Mound Site............................... 311

Work Group reports....................... 322

Site Profile Reviews..................... 340

LANL Presentation........................ 383

Public Comment........................... 411

Adjournment.............................. 462
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 7

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

2 (8:30 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are going to 

4 get started here. Everyone needs to quickly 

5 digest here.

6 MR. KATZ: Good morning, and 

7 welcome, everybody, who is here in the room, 

8 as well as the folks on the line, the Advisory 

9 Board on Radiation Worker Health. It's our 

10 second day here in Niagara Falls, and we have 

11 a very full agenda today.

12 So, the first thing I'd like to 

13 do, on the line is -- check to see, I believe 

14 I heard Dr. Ziemer.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, Paul Ziemer on 

16 the line.

17 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Paul, and how 

18 about Dr. Richardson, are you with us all 

19 right?

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I am.

21 MR. KATZ: Great, so, we have then, 

22 a full Board attendance again today, and let 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 8

1 me just note, logistically, for people on the 

2 phone, please, mute your phones. If you don't 

3 have a mute button, *6 will mute your phone 

4 and then *6, hitting it again will unmute your 

5 phone, and please don't put the call on hold 

6 at any point, hang up and dial back in, if you 

7 need to leave the call for a while, and I 

8 think that's it. We're ready. Thanks.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Ted. 

10 Good morning. We will start our first item of 

11 business this morning. It's the St. Louis 

12 Airport Storage Site, SEC, and we'll hear 

13 first from LaVon Rutherford and then, from the 

14 petitioners, I believe. So, LaVon?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right, good 

16 morning, I'm LaVon Rutherford. I'm Special 

17 Exposure Cohort Health Physics team leader, 

18 and I'm going to present the St. Louis Airport 

19 Storage Site petition evaluation.

20 This petition was received on July 

21 22, 2009. The petitioner proposed a Class of 

22 all workers who worked in any area at -- and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 9

1 in any job capacity, from January 3, 1947 

2 through -- actually, this is incorrect, now, 

3 that I look at it. I should have noticed 

4 this, this morning.

5 Petitioner proposed Class was 

6 initially January 1946 through December 1966, 

7 which was the actual original designated 

8 facility covered period, and then the 1967 

9 through 2001 was the end of the residual 

10 period, and I'll get to that.

11 Petition qualified on September 

12 22, 2009. It qualified on the basis of a lack 

13 of monitoring.

14 Initially, as I said, the 

15 designated facility was 1946 through 1966. It 

16 was designated as Atomic Weapons Employer and 

17 had a residual period of 1967 through October 

18 2009.

19 However, during our evaluation, we 

20 uncovered information of the actual start 

21 period looked like it should have been 1947, 

22 and the end period should actually have been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 10

1 at a later date, closer to 1973.

2 We also uncovered information that 

3 supported that the site appeared to be owned 

4 by the AEC, which would have made that a DOE 

5 site.

6 So, in November 2009, we sent a 

7 letter to the Department of Energy and 

8 Department of Labor, with supporting 

9 information, indicating that -- questioning 

10 the facility designation.

11 In December 2009, the Department 

12 of Labor responded, in agreement with our 

13 recommendation and designated the facility as 

14 a DOE site from January 3, 1947 through 1973, 

15 and again, from 1984 through 1998. They did 

16 defer action on whether this site would be an 

17 AWE site for 1946. They deferred that to DOE, 

18 who has that responsibility.

19 In April 2009, the Department of 

20 Energy responded that there would be no AWE 

21 covered period for SLAPS.

22 So, the actual original period I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 11

1 had indicated -- and so, actually, I'll just 

2 go, the Class evaluated by NIOSH then is the 

3 January 3, 1947 through December 31, 1973, and 

4 again, from January 1, 1984 through December 

5 31, 1998. This is the entire covered period 

6 at SLAPS, and SLAPS is an acronym for --

7 instead of me saying St. Louis Airport Storage 

8 Site over and over again.

9 All right, a little background. 

10 Beginning in the 1940's in the Manhattan 

11 Engineering District, acquired 21.7 acres of 

12 site north of the St. Louis Airport. They 

13 acquired this land to use it to store resides, 

14 resulting for processing of uranium ores.

15 Most of the material that was 

16 stored at this site was residues generated at 

17 work from Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, during 

18 uranium processing from 1946 through 1953.

19 The residues remained at SLAPS 

20 until Mallinckrodt ceased production and then 

21 they were sold to a private company in 1966, 

22 and from 1966 through 1969, most of the stored 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 12

1 materials were removed from the site.

2 After removal of the site --

3 removal of the residues, the St. Louis Airport 

4 Authority removed all above ground structures 

5 and added one to three feet of clean fill dirt 

6 over the remaining buried materials. The city 

7 took possession of the property in 1973. The 

8 DOE was then authorized to re-acquire the site 

9 in 1984, where it was turned over and managed 

10 to -- by the FUSRAP program.

11 The site was transferred once 

12 again, it was transferred to the U.S. Army 

13 Corp of Engineers in 1998, and therefore, 

14 that's why the ended covered period is 1998.

15 A little picture of the SLAPS 

16 Site. If you actually -- you can see, the 

17 different types of materials are designated 

18 AM-10, AM-7. The drum storage shed right 

19 there is actually where most of the K-65 

20 material was stored, and that was actually --

21 it was only -- when I say a storage shed, it 

22 was actually only a covered area.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 13

1 You can also see, there was a 

2 legend at the top with different other types 

3 of material that are stored on the site.

4 Okay, where we look for 

5 information, again, most of these things, 

6 you've seen 100 times, are different places --

7 but we look at Site Profiles, taken from 

8 information bulletins. We interviewed former 

9 employees. We actually interviewed seven 

10 employees that were at the site in different 

11 periods, some during the early years at 

12 Mallinckrodt -- or at SLAPS, and some during 

13 the later years, during the remediation.

14 We looked at existing claim files, 

15 documentation provided by the petitioners, 

16 Site Research Database and then we did data 

17 captures.

18 Our data capture efforts, at the 

19 existing company, Cotter Corp, we went to 

20 Missouri Department of Natural Resources, DOE 

21 Germantown, Legacy Management, OSTI, NNSA, 

22 NARA, U.S. NRC, Washington State University, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 14

1 Southern Illinois University, which has 

2 provided us a number of documents on sites in 

3 Missouri and the Illinois area, DOE Opennet 

4 internet search, CEDR, various DOE locations, 

5 National Academies Press and the U.S. Army 

6 Corp of Engineers.

7 As you would expect, being that 

8 this is a storage site of residue, we do not 

9 have a large number of claims. We have three 

10 claims that's been submitted to NIOSH. Of 

11 those three claims, all three are in the Class 

12 evaluated. Two of the three are in the Class 

13 we recommend.

14 Dose reconstruction, completed 

15 two. We have one claim that has internal 

16 dosimetry, which is uranium bioassay and the 

17 other as external -- two have external film 

18 badge data.

19 A little bit about the source 

20 compounds, pitchblende raffinate AM-7 

21 designated, if you look back on the map, you 

22 can see it at designated AM-7. Residues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 15

1 resulting from the processing of pitchblende 

2 ores at Mallinckrodt. We can see we had a 

3 maximum inventory of 74,000 tons. These 

4 materials were received from 1946 through 

5 1955, and they were removed from 1966 through 

6 1967.

7 The African metals maintain 

8 ownership of the pitchblende residues because 

9 of the marketability of the metals in there. 

10 You had the nickel, cobalt, copper and the 

11 radium, and I was going to say one more thing 

12 on this. Oh, the pitchblende raffinates were 

13 high in thorium-230 concentration.

14 Colorado raffinates, these are 

15 domestic ores. Again, they're residues 

16 resulting from the processing of domestic ores 

17 at Mallinckrodt, maximum inventory of 32,500 

18 tons and materials received were from 1946 

19 through 1955. Materials were removed in 1966 

20 and 1967, again, high thorium-230 

21 concentration.

22 K-65 material, the radium-bearing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 16

1 residues, these residues were resulting from 

2 the processing of Belgium Congo ores, had 

3 maximum inventory at 1,757 tons, and materials 

4 were received from 1946 through 1948, and 

5 removed in 1948 and 1949, very high radium 

6 content.

7 Other source materials, they had 

8 barium sulfate cake, which also had a high 

9 radium content, C-liner slag, interim residue 

10 plant tailings, vitro residues, captured 

11 Japanese sands and scrap metal. 

12 Scrap metal was mostly empty 

13 drums. Actually, some of these drums were 

14 actually drums that were emptied -- that were 

15 -- the actual ore material brought into the 

16 site and after they dumped the ore material, 

17 they took those drums to SLAPS.

18 Potential radiation exposures 

19 during the Class period, we have internal 

20 exposures would be from airborne uranium and 

21 uranium progeny, however, the significant 

22 source of internal exposure would be from the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 17

1 uranium progeny, the thorium, the radium and 

2 the radon, since the uranium was processed out 

3 of most of this material.

4 External sources of exposure were 

5 photon exposure from radium-226, beta 

6 exposures from uranium and there was no 

7 significant neutron exposure.

8 I've broken up the personnel and 

9 area monitoring data into three separate 

10 periods because they're distinct periods of 

11 operation and up from 1947 up through the 1971 

12 period. No operations in 1971 to 1973 and 

13 then operations from 1984 to 1998, which were 

14 remediation.

15 You have 17 bioassay samples that 

16 were Mallinckrodt. The samples were all for 

17 uranium and over different periods. We have 

18 no bioassay samples for other isotopes.

19 Air monitoring data, we have some 

20 radon monitoring data in 1948 and 1949, as 

21 high as 515 picocuries per liter.

22 Internal monitoring data, in 1971 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 18

1 to 1973, this was an area when -- time period 

2 when there was no building stagnant 

3 operations, clean fill, no personnel 

4 monitoring data and no air monitoring data.

5 All right, 1984 through 1998, we 

6 had -- actually, this is a remediation period. 

7 There's urine samples. There's samples that 

8 were taken for the thorium-230, 232, 226 and 

9 228. Actually, the samples were analyzed for 

10 that.

11 We also have a study that actually 

12 identified the isotopic ratios during that 

13 time period.

14 Okay, external monitoring data, we 

15 have no external personal -- we have no 

16 external monitoring data that specifically 

17 identified as SLAPS. All the external 

18 monitoring data is Mallinckrodt workers that 

19 typically went back and forth. We do know 

20 that there was one, at least one worker, our 

21 petitioner, who stayed there all the time, and 

22 we have external monitoring data that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 19

1 indicates that there were time periods that 

2 they went to SLAPS.

3 Again, Mallinckrodt employees were 

4 monitored with film badges and we do have a 

5 reference from a 1949 reference that indicates 

6 the highest beta rating was 70 millirem per 

7 hour and the highest gamma reading was three 

8 to 10 millirem per hour.

9 The external monitoring data from 

10 November 3, 1971 through December 31, 1973, 

11 again, all buildings and source material were 

12 removed. There was some material that was 

13 left, and that material was covered with one 

14 to three feet of clean fill dirt.

15 We have no personnel external 

16 monitoring data. We do have a verification 

17 survey that was conducted, just after the fill 

18 dirt was placed on top of the site, the one to 

19 three feet, and it indicated there was no 

20 reading that exceeded one millirad per hour.

21 External monitoring data from 1984 

22 through 1998, during these years, as the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 20

1 remediation years, it included 

2 characterization remediation activities. 

3 Workers were issued TLDs for years 1985, 1987, 

4 1988 and 1990. We do not have all of the 

5 results. We have some of the results for that 

6 period.

7 We do have a summary report from 

8 1986 that estimates the exposure to be -- to 

9 the workers, to be less than 20 millirem per 

10 year.

11 We also have a baseline risk 

12 assessment that was conducted by Argonne 

13 National Lab, that models exposures as well.

14 So, our evaluation process, this 

15 is a two-prong test. Everyone has seen this. 

16 Is it feasible to estimate the levels of 

17 radiation dose of individual members of the 

18 Class with sufficient accuracy, and then is 

19 there reasonable likelihood that such 

20 radiation doses may have endangered the health 

21 of members of the Class?

22 We found during the first period, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 21

1 that the period of January 3, 1947 through 

2 November 2, 1971, that the available 

3 monitoring records, process description and 

4 source term data are not adequate to calculate 

5 the internal dose. The residues, particularly 

6 -- although we have maximum inventory numbers 

7 for the AM-7, the AM-10, the AM-10 in 

8 particular, was not characterized for all 

9 long-lived isotopes, uranium -- or the 

10 thorium, the radium and such. 

11 We also have no personal 

12 monitoring data and limited air sampling data. 

13 The air sampling data that we have is all 

14 radon data from 1948 and 1949. We have 

15 nothing for any other radionuclides.

16 We found that the available 

17 monitoring records, process description and 

18 source term data are adequate to complete dose 

19 reconstruction, with sufficient accuracy for 

20 the other two periods, which is the November 

21 3, 1971 through December 31, 1973, and from 

22 January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1998.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 22

1 During this period, the 1971 to 

2 1973, period, the only potential internal 

3 exposure would have been from radon. The site 

4 was covered with one to three feet of fill 

5 dirt. Radon exposures will be based on the 

6 radon levels calculated in the baseline risk 

7 assessment, which was completed by Argonne 

8 National Lab in November 1993. 

9 They are actually baseline values 

10 that were taken at .99 picocuries per liter. 

11 It was the highest reading that was found 

12 around the site.

13 The external exposures, we have a 

14 couple of different methods. The baseline 

15 risk assessment provides a bounding estimate 

16 of potential photon exposures. Since during 

17 this period, the site was covered with one to 

18 three feet of fill dirt, there would not have 

19 been any beta exposure.

20 We also know that the November 3, 

21 1971 survey, verification survey that was 

22 conducted, indicated that there was no reading 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 23

1 greater than one millirad per hour, that could 

2 be used as a bounding dose, one millirad per 

3 hour per 2,000 hours.

4 The 1984 through 1998 period, this 

5 was, remediation activities were going on. We 

6 had bioassay data. We also have a baseline 

7 risk assessment that actually does -- that I 

8 discussed, that could be used for non9 monitored employees.

10 External exposures, we have 

11 personal monitoring data, and we also have the 

12 baseline risk assessment, as well.

13 So, our feasibility summary is 

14 that from January 3, 1947 through November 2, 

15 1971, dose reconstruction is not feasible, due 

16 to internal exposures.

17 November 3, 1971 through December 

18 31, 1973, dose reconstruction is feasible, and 

19 again, the same for the 1984 through 1998 

20 period.

21 And this just is our 

22 recommendation for this period, that dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 24

1 reconstruction is not feasible and health 

2 isn't endangered, for the January 3, 1947 

3 through November 2, 1971, and for this period, 

4 since dose reconstruction is feasible, we do 

5 not have to look at health endangerment for 

6 the 1971 and 1973 and the 1984 to 1998 period, 

7 and then our recommended Class, I'm not going 

8 to read all of that. I think everyone can 

9 read it, but it's basically for the period of 

10 January 3, 1947 through November 2, 1971. 

11 That's it. Questions?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Board Members 

13 with questions for LaVon? I'll start off with 

14 one. Your last slide that -- 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Class Definition.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Class Definition, 

17 issue is, you have added work that -- 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: We need -- yes, we 

19 could have left off who worked in any area and 

20 in any job capacity, and did the same thing.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: You're absolutely 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 25

1 correct.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm trying to --

3 first time I've seen that, I think.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, you know, 

5 and I'll be honest with you, I'm missed it.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: I mean, it means 

8 the same thing, but we don't need it.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, the only 

12 problem is, I didn't know if it was to try to 

13 capture something special or -- 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, no, it was 

15 not.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And the group was 

17 unclear, or whatever, okay.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

20 Any other Board Members with questions? Yes, 

21 Brad?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: LaVon, how many --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 26

1 you were saying that you had samples. How 

2 many -- 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Radon samples?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, no, you were 

5 saying that for the employees, that you had --

6 that they had -- 

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Seventeen bioassay 

8 samples?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Seventeen bioassay 

10 samples.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, the 17 

12 bioassay samples were all for uranium and you 

13 know, it's not totally clear -- remember, most 

14 of these workers worked at Mallinckrodt and 

15 they would -- the way things worked is, they 

16 would process the material, drum up the 

17 residues. 

18 They drum up the residues, load 

19 them on the truck and then they would take 

20 out, you know, four to six workers out with 

21 them, to the site, and then they would take 

22 out and they would dump the residues into a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 27

1 pit and then, they also had another pit, they 

2 kept all the scrap metal in, from these drums 

3 or sometimes, they would actually reuse the 

4 drums and take them back.

5 The 17 bioassay samples, we can't 

6 be for sure that those bioassay samples are 

7 for activities that were conducted at SLAPS. 

8 We believe they may have been, just because of 

9 the indications in the records. Either way, 

10 they're only for uranium.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: And those 17 

12 samples were over how many years?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Nineteen-forty14 seven through -- let's see, it would have been 

15 1959/1960 period.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you were 

17 talking about the drumming and so forth, like 

18 that. Did they have area monitoring and stuff 

19 like that? Did they have area TLDs, because 

20 you were saying it was like, one MR.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: That was the later 

22 period. Again, we're recommending this Class 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 28

1 up to 1971, during the early period, when 

2 there was actually work going on at the site, 

3 and the one MR -- less than one millirad per 

4 hour was after they had removed the materials, 

5 the bulk residues, they had removed them and 

6 they placed one to three feet of clean fill 

7 dirt over top and then they took a 

8 verification survey on contact readings of one 

9 millirad per hour, was the -- or it was a 

10 verification survey verified that there was 

11 less than one millirad per hour over there.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, that's beyond 

13 when the product was there?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I'm sorry.

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: The product was 

17 gone --

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I misunderstood 

19 you, because I was going to say, I know that 

20 K-65 silo -- 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- it was a lot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 29

1 hotter.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, K-65 material 

3 would have been much higher than that.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

5 questions? Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Richardson?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

7 have one question. LaVon, you gave us the 

8 information on what claims have been processed 

9 so far, but can you remind us of the size of 

10 the workforce during those various periods?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Very small, 

12 exactly. In fact, I had indicated, we 

13 actually interviewed seven workers and four of 

14 those interviews, if I remember correctly, it 

15 was four, were for individuals that worked 

16 during the 50's period and you know, most of 

17 the workers -- most of the time, there was no 

18 one at the site.

19 There were indications, especially 

20 our petitioner, that the petitioner worked 

21 there, pretty much continuously. They were 

22 actually -- it looked like they were more of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 30

1 the site custodian for the site, and in fact, 

2 their verified employment with Department of 

3 Labor is only for SLAPS. They have no covered 

4 employment at Mallinckrodt.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you. That's 

6 getting to my point, and that is the following 

7 that -- this is a storage site, that employees 

8 would have been present at, somewhat 

9 intermittently, and it wasn't clear to me, how 

10 we deal with the 250 day issue in such a case.

11 Is it employment for 250 days or 

12 is it on site presence, and how is -- if 

13 that's the case, how is that verified?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, you know, 

15 and it's a good question, but the -- if you 

16 look at the three claims we have right now, 

17 the one claim actually has verified employment 

18 that -- for a number of years, three to four 

19 years at SLAPS, during the 50's period.

20 Another claim, and this one, we'll 

21 obviously have to ask the Department of Labor, 

22 has verified employment at SLAPS and verified 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 31

1 employment at Mallinckrodt during the same 

2 period.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, they're covered 

4 by a separate -- 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right, right. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- Class, in any 

7 event, yes.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: And early in this 

9 case, it doesn't matter because Mallinckrodt 

10 is also an SEC during that period.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, that's what 

12 I meant.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: The other -- the 

14 third claim we have is actually verified 

15 employment in the 1971 to 1973 period, and 

16 which is --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which is not part 

18 of this.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Which is not part 

20 of the recommended SEC, that's correct.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Richardson, 

22 do you have any questions?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 32

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, my 

2 questions are along the same lines as Dr. 

3 Ziemer's.

4 I was, you know, struck by the 

5 description that the worker population was 

6 "very mobile," specifically not residing in 

7 SLAPS for any length of time, but working on 

8 all properties.

9 But it was, that this is going to 

10 be a problem and then some of these are 

11 Mallinckrodt employees, some of these are 

12 people who are spending time there. Could it 

13 be employees of the City of St. Louis, but 

14 presumably, they're not covered here.

15 So, the expectation is that either 

16 the claimant is going to be able to document 

17 that they had an extended period of employment 

18 at SLAPS or that they were also simultaneously 

19 Mallinckrodt workers, is that right?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct. I 

21 would think that -- well, the only workers 

22 that -- based on all indications we have, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 33

1 only workers that worked on the site were 

2 Mallinckrodt workers and you know, besides the 

3 petitioner, was Mallinckrodt workers and the 

4 petitioner himself.

5 The truck drivers, there is 

6 question on the truck drivers, whether they 

7 were actually contracted or not. The truck --

8 because the Mallinckrodt workers, from the 

9 interviews that we took, the interviews, the 

10 Mallinckrodt workers indicated that they 

11 loaded the trucks up with the drum barrels, 

12 they rode with the truck, on the back of the 

13 truck. 

14 In fact, one of workers said, "We 

15 road right on the drums," and rode right out 

16 to the site, and then, "We dumped the barrels 

17 and either brought the barrels back or the 

18 barrels were put in -- stored on the site. 

19 The empty barrels were stored on the site."

20 One of the questions we asked was 

21 whether the trucks were contracted or not. It 

22 really doesn't matter in that -- the truck 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 34

1 drivers would still be covered under this 

2 program because it's a Department of Energy 

3 site. So, they would have been contracted. 

4 They would have been a contractor.

5 Now, the question though is, the 

6 250 days, how do you do a 250 days on a truck 

7 driver, going back and forth to the site? You 

8 know, I don't know.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry?

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: I just don't 

11 remember, what's the dates of the Mallinckrodt 

12 SEC?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Beginning of 

14 Mallinckrodt operations, which was July 1940 -

15 - basically, the beginning of the MED, pretty 

16 close.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: August 1942.

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: It's more the end 

20 date that I'm -- 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: And the end date 

22 is 1957, end of 1957.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 35

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, there's a 

2 period here -- 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, wait a 

4 minute, I'm trying to think because all this -

5 - I'm trying to remember this off the --

6 because we added a second little period onto 

7 Mallinckrodt, that took us up to 1959, I 

8 believe, or 1960?

9 Denise is trying to -- 

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I hear Denise.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: But in any case, 

13 there is a period here that doesn't overlap.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct, 

15 that's correct.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, we'd still 

17 have the 250 day issue.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: But during that 

19 period, you would expect that workers during 

20 that period would have actually been on site, 

21 because that's when the material was removed 

22 from the site.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 36

1 So, they would have been removing 

2 and -- and taking the material off, that 1966 

3 to 1969 period, I know.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, anymore 

5 questions? Thank you, LaVon, and we'd like to 

6 hear from the petitioners next. I don't know 

7 if the petitioner is on the line.

8 MR FISHER: Yes, my name is Harold 

9 David Fisher and I'm the brother of 

10 [identifying information redacted], who 

11 submitted the application for the SEC for 

12 SLAPS.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And you wish to 

14 make any comments now?

15 MR. FISHER: Well, I've just got 

16 four little points I'd like to make. 

17 Actually, I'm going to add one.

18 My father is one of the claimants 

19 and he worked at the site and only at the site 

20 for 32 months, from 1950 to 1953, and he not 

21 only worked at the site, he lived at the site. 

22 So, he was there 24 hours a day, for the five 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 37

1 days that he worked there.

2 But anyway, in reference to the 

3 SEC tracking number, SEC-00150, [identifying 

4 information redacted] petitioned for all SLAPS 

5 employees, and we concur with the NIOSH report 

6 dated April 12, 2010, which proposes SLAPS to 

7 be an SEC for qualifying employees.

8 This process has been daunting, 

9 starting in January 2002 -- or and still not 

10 ended, with claim establishment, followed by 

11 dose reconstruction, then final decision, and 

12 much of that, we had a difficult time 

13 understanding.

14 We do want to thank you, the 

15 Board, for this process, which has allowed for 

16 more complete evaluation of SLAPS and it's 

17 effects on the health of employees.

18 Lastly, we would like to express 

19 our gratitude and acknowledge the contribution 

20 and guidance of Ms. Denise Brock, which 

21 allowed us to take this step for all the 

22 employees of SLAPS. That's it, thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 38

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, very 

2 much. Do Board Members have any other 

3 questions or comments? If not -- yes, Brad?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: What about the --

5 now, was he a full-time guard or -- 

6 MR. FISHER: No, he was a 

7 construction supervisor, was his title. He 

8 ran bulldozers and cranes, moving and placing 

9 the material, and he maintained the equipment, 

10 and worked at the site and not only worked 

11 there, but he lived there.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: The reason I was 

13 wondering this, we were just looking at the 

14 paperwork on this and it says, "Equipment 

15 operators, full-time guard and also located at 

16 SLAPS from the 1946 to 1951, 1959 -- " 

17 MR. FISHER: Yes, my dad was there 

18 from early 1950 through 1953, about August or 

19 September.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, they kind of 

21 had a -- they had a mobile workforce, LaVon, 

22 actually, that came out there, but we had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 39

1 somebody out there all the time.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: This one person 

3 was the one person that was out there, all the 

4 time. Not all of the periods, was there 

5 someone out there all the time. 

6 There was a person, during the 

7 period that he was there, that he was out 

8 there all the time. We did have interviews 

9 with workers that, during some of the periods, 

10 there was no one out there. It was just a 

11 locked fence around it. They had key -- they 

12 would have a key to enter and they would come 

13 in and dump the materials.

14 The petitioner's father actually 

15 was moving a lot of the material around, the 

16 AM-7, the AM-10, after it was placed. 

17 What would happen is, if you read 

18 some of the documentation, because of the rain 

19 and so on, some of these piles, you would get 

20 run-off off these piles, and that run-off, in 

21 order to keep it contained within these areas, 

22 he would move the material back into these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 40

1 pitted areas.

2 So, he was an heavy equipment 

3 operator. He was a custodian. He was a one4 man-show, pretty much for the site right 

5 there.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie?

7 MEMBER BEACH: LaVon, just quick 

8 question, the guards, were they -- who were 

9 they employed by?

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, that's --

11 you know, there was no guard -- well, you get 

12 mixed information on this, okay.

13 One individual said there was a 

14 full-time guard. Another individual that we 

15 interviewed said, "No, there were no guards. 

16 It was a locked gate. You went to the area."

17 Based on the discussion that we 

18 did have, the security guards were hired by 

19 Mallinckrodt. So, you know, if there was a 

20 security guard there, it was a Mallinckrodt 

21 worker.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 41

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, LaVon, just 

2 to follow up on the -- I was trying to look 

3 quickly at the Argonne report here. 

4 But in 1971, when they removed all 

5 this material, where did it go?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: It was actually --

7 the material was bought by -- if I remember, 

8 by Latty Avenue & Company, and the material 

9 was transferred to Latty Avenue in the 1966 to 

10 1969 period.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: And they purchased 

12 it, based on, no nuclide information? They 

13 didn't do any kind of sampling ahead of time, 

14 at that point, to determine what they were 

15 getting?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we have no 

17 indication of that, at all. I mean, I'm sure 

18 that they were probably buying it for the 

19 thorium-230 content. I mean, they knew that 

20 the residue -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: They knew there 

22 was a lot there -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 42

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I mean -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- they didn't 

3 know exactly what.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- tons and tons, 

5 they were just trying to -- Mallinckrodt was -

6 - you know, it was actually -- you know, 

7 because operations had transferred from 

8 Mallinckrodt to Weldon Spring and Weldon 

9 Spring was the ones who authorized the actual 

10 transfer by buying of the material, AEC 

11 through Weldon Spring to Latty Avenue.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, but in that 

13 process of removing and -- there was not 

14 survey -- 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- no sampling, 

17 no, nothing that you could find, anyway?

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Nothing that we 

19 could find.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, and in the 

21 Argonne report, when you said they estimated 

22 the radon levels, was that modeled or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 43

1 measured? I couldn't find it.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, the 

3 model -- or the .99 picocuries per liter was 

4 measured. It was measured on the site -- 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's what I 

6 figured. Thank you.

7 MS. BROCK: LaVon, this is Denise. 

8 I've checked and it looks like that SEC went 

9 up to 1958, not 1962. The covered time frame 

10 was 1962, but the SEC, I believe, we added 

11 1958 to the already 1942 to 1957.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's right.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Because I just 

15 looked it up on the site, the website.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks, Denise.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, any other 

18 comments or questions? Now, do I hear a 

19 motion? Excuse me, Wanda, yes?

20 MEMBER MUNN: That's quite all 

21 right. Just waiting for the questions to be 

22 done.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 44

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I move that we 

3 recommend -- that we accept NIOSH's 

4 recommendation for a Class of SEC, for all 

5 employees in the Department of Energy, its 

6 predecessor agencies and their contractors or 

7 subcontractors, who worked at the St. Louis 

8 Airport Storage Site in St. Louis, Missouri 

9 from January 3, 1947 through November 2, 1971,

10 for a number of work days aggregating at least 

11 250, during either solely under this 

12 employment or in combination with work days 

13 for the parameters, established for one or 

14 more other Classes of employees in the Special 

15 Exposure Cohort.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I have a 

17 second for that?

18 MEMBER BEACH: I'll second it.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda, I would 

20 like you to consider a friendly amendment.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, sir.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But first, I will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 45

1 read it into the record. 

2 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

3 and Worker Health, the Board has evaluated SEC 

4 Petition 00150 concerning workers at the St. 

5 Louis Airport Storage Site in St. Louis, 

6 Missouri under statutory requirements 

7 established by EEOICPA, incorporated in 42 CFR 

8 83.13.

9 Board respectfully recommends a 

10 Special Exposure Cohort be accorded to all 

11 employees of the Department of Energy, DOE, 

12 its predecessor agencies and their contractors 

13 or subcontractors who worked in any area, in 

14 any job capacity at the St. Louis Airport 

15 Storage Site in St. Louis, Missouri from 

16 January 3, 1947 through November 2, 1971, for 

17 a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

18 work days, occurring either solely under this 

19 employment or in combination with work days 

20 within the parameters established for one or 

21 more other Classes of employees in the SEC.

22 The recommendation is based on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 46

1 following factors: St. Louis Airport Storage 

2 Site was used as a storage site for residues 

3 resulting from the processing of uranium ores. 

4 NIOSH found that there was insufficient 

5 monitoring data or information on radiological 

6 operations at this facility, in order to be 

7 able to complete accurate individual dose 

8 reconstructions for these workers during the 

9 time period in question. The Board concurs 

10 with this conclusion.

11 The Board has reviewed information 

12 which confirms that radiation exposures at the 

13 St. Louis Airport Storage Site in St. Louis, 

14 Missouri during the time period in question 

15 could have endangered the health members of 

16 this -- the health of members of this Class. 

17 The Board concurs with this conclusion.

18 Based on these considerations, 

discussions held at our May 19th and 21st 19 2010 

20 Advisory Board meeting in Niagara Falls, New 

21 York, the Board recommends that this Special 

22 Exposure Cohort Petition be granted.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 47

1 Enclosed is the documentation from 

2 the Board meeting where this Special Exposure 

3 Cohort Class was discussed. The documentation 

4 includes transcripts of the deliberations, 

5 copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

6 thereof and related materials. If any of 

7 these items are unavailable at this time, they 

8 will follow shortly. Will you accept that as 

9 a friendly amendment?

10 MEMBER MUNN: I accept that as an 

11 excellent contribution to the amendment.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, and we 

13 have a comment from the counsel.

14 MS. HOWELL: These are purely 

15 grammatical in nature.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

17 MS. HOWELL: First sentence? 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Passed.

19 MS. HOWELL: And then in the Class 

20 Definition, employees of the Department of 

21 Energy, its predecessor agencies and its 

22 contractors or subcontractors, instead of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 48

1 "their."

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

3 MS. HOWELL: Thanks.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

5 comments? If not, Ted, will you do roll call?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you. Okay, 

7 Dr. Lockey?

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

14 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 49

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

2 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: All in favor. No 

16 abstentions. No recusal's. The motion 

17 passes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, excellent. 

19 Thank you, everybody. Are the petitioners 

20 here for Weldon Spring, or are they on the 

21 phone? Do you know, Ted?

22 MR. KATZ: Let me check.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 50

1 MS. TRIPLETT: Yes, we are.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good. Now, 

3 it's just, we didn't want to start if you 

4 weren't. We had listed 9:15 a.m. We didn't 

5 want to start, unless you were here.

6 Then, we'll move onto Weldon 

7 Spring Plant, and of course, have our 

8 presentation from Mark Rolfes. Mark?

9 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

10 Ladies and gentlemen, Members of the Board, 

11 I'm Mark Rolfes. I'm here today to present 

12 the NIOSH findings of the Weldon Spring Plant, 

13 Special Exposure Cohort Petition Evaluation 

14 Report.

15 Land owned by the Department of 

16 the Army, Weldon Spring Ordnance Works was 

17 transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission in 

18 1955. Weldon Spring Chemical Plant 

19 construction began in 1956 and was completed 

20 in February of 1957.

21 The Atomic Energy Commission 

22 contracted with Mallinckrodt Chemical Company 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 51

1 to refine uranium at Weldon Spring Plant from 

2 June 1957 through December 1966. In 1967, the 

3 AEC returned the land to the Department of the 

4 Army.

5 The main operational activity at 

6 the Weldon Spring Plant was the conversion of 

7 natural uranium ore concentrate, yellow cake, 

8 to uranium metal. Ninety-eight percent of the 

9 nuclear material throughput at the Weldon 

10 Spring Plant was natural uranium.

11 The average annual uranium 

12 containing material process throughput at 

13 Weldon Spring was 12 million kilograms. 

14 A little bit about the process of 

15 producing uranium and refining uranium. 

16 Uranium ore concentrates were sampled, 

17 digested in nitric acid and the purified 

18 uranyl nitrate hexahydrate product was 

19 extracted. 

20 Uranyl nitrate solution was then 

21 thermally denitrated to uranium trioxide and 

22 heated in a furnace to form uranium dioxide. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 52

1 Hydrogen gas was reacted with uranium dioxide 

2 to produce uranium tetrafluoride. 

3 Uranium tetrafluoride was then 

4 mixed with magnesium chips and loaded into a 

5 refractory-lined reduction vessel, or bomb, 

6 and heated to produce uranium metal. Uranium 

7 metal was then extruded into rods and machined 

8 into cores for nuclear reactors.

9 Thorium processing campaigns began 

10 in November 1963. Natural thorium was 

11 received as a nitrate or as an oxide. Thorium 

12 nitrate tetrahydrate was thermally denitrated 

13 with steam to yield a low density oxide 

14 precipitate.

15 The oxide was then scooped into a 

16 tank, water and nitric acid were added to 

17 produce a sol. The sol was subsequently dried 

18 to form a ceramic gel, which could then be 

19 fired to yield thorium oxide.

20 Approximately 310,000 kilograms of 

21 natural thorium were processed per year during 

22 the years of 1964 through 1966.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 53

1 NIOSH received the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort Form B and 83.13 on April 29, 

3 2009. The petition was qualified for 

4 evaluation on September 11, 2009. 

5 Interrelated SEC petition was merged with the 

6 one received on April 29, 2009.

7 A Federal Register notice was 

8 published on September 22, 2009, then NIOSH 

9 issued its Evaluation Report on April 21, 

10 2010.

11 The proposed SEC Class; the 

12 petition was submitted to NIOSH on behalf of a 

13 Class of employees from the Weldon Spring 

14 Plant. The petitioners proposed Class 

15 Definition reads, "All employees of the 

16 Department of Energy, Department of Energy 

17 contractors or subcontractors, who worked in 

18 any area at the Weldon Spring Plant in Weldon 

19 Spring, Missouri, during the applicable 

20 covered operational period from January 1, 

21 1957 through December 31, 1966."

22 The Class evaluated by NIOSH was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 54

1 all employees of the Department of Energy, 

2 Department of Energy contractors or 

3 subcontractors who worked in any area at the 

4 Weldon Spring Plant in Weldon Spring, Missouri 

5 during the applicable covered operational 

6 period, from January 1, 1957 through December 

7 31, 1967.

8 The information available to NIOSH 

9 during the evaluation included personnel 

10 dosimetry records, urinalyses and in vivo 

11 records from the ORAU Center for Epidemiologic 

12 Research database, ORAU team Technical 

13 Information Bulletins, procedures and the 

14 Weldon Spring Plant Technical Basis Documents, 

15 Weldon Spring Plant health protection reviews, 

16 radiation safety operating procedures and 

17 airborne dust studies.

18 Furthermore, we had approximately 

19 950 documents in the NIOSH Site Research 

20 Database, which pertained to the Weldon Spring 

21 Plant.

22 NIOSH conducted interviews with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 55

1 former Weldon Spring Plant employees. We also 

2 have available to us, case files in the NIOSH 

3 OCAS Claims Tracking System, and also, the 

4 documentation provided to NIOSH by the 

5 petitioners.

6 As of March 12, 2010, in the NIOSH 

7 OCAS Claims Tracking System, we have received 

8 258 Weldon Spring Plant claims, which require 

9 a dose reconstruction from the Department of 

10 Labor.

11 Of those 258 claims that we have 

12 received from the Department of Labor, 244 

13 meet the Class Definition. Of those 244, 

14 NIOSH has completed 180 dose reconstructions.

15 NIOSH has internal dosimetry data 

16 for 207 of the 244 cases that meet the Class 

17 Definition, and has external dosimetry for 192 

18 of the 244.

19 The petition basis and concern 

20 submitted to NIOSH include concerns regarding 

21 radon exposures, thorium bioassay, recycled 

22 uranium, thorium disequilibrium, lost or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 56

1 missing records, accidents/incidents, ambient 

2 environmental exposures, contamination 

3 control, medical exposure and neutron dose. 

4 The first petition concern was 

5 that there were no measured air concentrations 

6 of radon were reported in the literature.

7 NIOSH looked into the materials 

8 that were processed at the Weldon Spring Plant 

9 and found that the uranium ores did not 

10 include the -- the uranium ores processed at 

11 the Weldon Spring Plant did not include 

12 unmilled materials that contained high amounts 

13 of radium. These were pre-processed ores that 

14 came from mills in the Western United States.

15 Based on the uranium throughput 

16 information, NIOSH estimated a maximum ambient 

17 radon exposure of .06 working level months per 

18 operational year. There was a petition 

19 concern that there was no quantitative in 

20 vitro bioassay for uranium -- excuse me, for 

21 thorium. 

22 NIOSH did confirm that there was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 57

1 no quantitative in vitro bioassay found for 

2 thorium-232 for the workers at Weldon Spring 

3 Plant. NIOSH will utilize daily weighted 

4 average thorium concentrations from air 

5 monitoring data to bound thorium exposures.

6 There was a petition concern that 

7 Weldon Spring received unknown amounts of 

8 recycled uranium after 1961. NIOSH 

9 investigated the receipts and processing of 

10 recycled uranium. To bound internal doses, 

11 NIOSH will apply the highest concentrations of 

12 transuranic contaminants for all uranium 

13 processed.

14 There was a petition concern about 

15 uncertainty in quantifying thorium-232 

16 exposures via in vivo measurements of 

17 thallium-208. NIOSH has access to 200 

18 qualitative in vivo measurements for 148 

19 Weldon Spring Plant employees, although these 

20 data have not been used to bound thorium dose 

21 for the evaluated Class.

22 There was a petition concern which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 58

1 recanted a concern by Mont Mason, regarding 

2 the possibility of lost medical records from 

3 the Weldon Spring Plant. NIOSH investigated 

4 the possibility of lost medical files and Mont 

5 Mason had indicated that the problem could 

6 have been a record filing error. So, he had 

7 all of the files sent to Oak Ridge, to resolve 

8 the discrepancy.

9 NIOSH also interviewed 

10 epidemiologist familiar with Mont Mason and 

11 the Weldon Spring Plant records. A letter 

12 from T.F. Mancuso to the Atomic Energy 

13 Commission specifically requested that the 

14 files referred to by Mont Mason not be 

15 destroyed. NIOSH found no actual indications 

16 that the records were lost or destroyed.

17 There was a petition concern that 

18 accidents may not have been documented 

19 sufficiently, or that the records might not be 

20 available. NIOSH thoroughly reviewed 

21 documentation and found no indication of 

22 significant accidents or incidents at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 59

1 Weldon Spring Plant. While several events 

2 were identified through document reviews and 

3 interviews with workers, there were no 

4 indications of exceptionally high radiation 

5 exposures or exposures that have not already 

6 been accounted for in the data available to 

7 NIOSH.

8 There was a petition concern about 

9 the lack of any thorium data and a belief that 

10 there was no basis to estimate thorium 

11 releases prior to 1967. There was also a 

12 concern that thorium was stored and used at 

13 Weldon Spring Plant in 1958.

14 In its evaluation, NIOSH found 

15 that the earliest thorium processing began in 

16 1963 at Weldon Spring Plant. There were no 

17 indications of prior of thorium processing 

18 discovered. NIOSH has daily weighted average 

19 concentration, air monitoring data, which 

20 encompassed the thorium operations.

21 There was a petition concern about 

22 the lack of atmospheric monitoring data for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 60

1 Weldon Spring Plant during operations. There 

2 was also concern over the use of Fernald 

3 environmental data. 

4 In its evaluation, NIOSH looked at 

5 the atmospheric monitoring data during the 

6 Weldon Spring operational period and realized 

7 it is limited, but sufficient to estimate 

8 intakes of radioactive airborne particulate 

9 and radon.

10 Employees with the highest 

11 potential for exposure at Weldon Spring Plant 

12 were monitored. The monitored workers 

13 exposures could be used to bound unmonitored 

14 workers exposures. This evaluation does not 

15 specifically rely upon Fernald data.

16 There was a petition concern about 

17 lack of routine personnel contamination 

18 monitoring, as well as a comprehensive 

19 bioassay program for all isotopes on site. It 

20 was this set of concerns that allowed NIOSH to 

21 qualify the SEC petition, and NIOSH denies 

22 this evaluation and responses to these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 61

1 concerns are encompassed in the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort petition Evaluation Report.

3 There was a petition concern about 

4 little information being available, regarding 

5 occupational medical x-ray procedures, 

6 equipment and examination frequency. NIOSH 

7 has not located specific policy guidance on 

8 occupational medical x-rays for the Weldon 

9 Spring Plant. 

10 However, occupational medical x11 ray doses can be assessed using default values 

12 of entrance kerma, available in TIB-0006 dose 

13 reconstruction from occupationally related x14 ray procedures.

15 There was a petition concern about 

16 the lack of documentation and detail related 

17 to neutron dose at Weldon Spring Plant. 

18 Neutron radiation produced via the alpha19 neutron reaction in uranium tetrafluoride, 

20 alpha-neutron reactions become more 

21 significant with increased uranium enrichment.

22 NIOSH found no possibility of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 62

1 significant neutron dose at the Weldon Spring 

2 Plant, given the level of uranium enrichment 

3 processed.

4 During the evaluation, NIOSH also 

5 looks for potential SEC issues as part of the 

6 review. NIOSH identified an issue that could 

7 be a potential SEC issue.

8 The issue was that feed material 

9 processed by Weldon Spring Plant was referred 

10 to as uranium ore by former workers and the 

11 concern is that uranium progeny in the 

12 pitchblende posed different exposure concerns 

13 than pre-processed ores.

14 NIOSH investigated the concern and 

15 found the use of the term "ore" to be 

16 inaccurate. Milling of uranium removes 

17 progeny radionuclides, such as uranium --

18 excuse me, such as radium. Weldon Spring did 

19 not process radium-bearing ores, but rather 

20 ore concentrates, which were pre-processed at 

21 mills in the Western United States.

22 A second potential SEC issue that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 63

1 was identified, NIOSH identified a single 

2 reference to Building 441 as a facility which 

3 was used to store uranium hexafluoride 

4 cylinders. 

5 NIOSH conducted former worker 

6 interviews to attempt to confirm the presence 

7 of uranium hexafluoride on site at Weldon 

8 Spring. Two former workers provided 

9 information that uranium hexafluoride was 

10 never processed nor stored at the Weldon 

11 Spring Plant, and it appears that the 

12 reference is erroneous.

13 Now, for a sample dose 

14 reconstruction, for a chemical operator who 

15 was employed in Building 101 and 103 at the 

16 Weldon Spring Plant from 1958 through 1966, 

17 the individual was a male born in 1929, 

18 diagnosed with cancer in 2010.

19 For skin cancer, the Probability 

20 of Causation and determination, the ethnicity 

21 of the individual was assumed to be White, 

22 Non-Hispanic.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 64

1 The individual was monitored for 

2 external exposures for all years and NIOSH was 

3 provided with annual exposure data for each 

4 year. The individual had a recorded photon 

5 dose of 3.737 rem, a recorded electron dose of 

6 13.655 rem.

7 NIOSH calculated a missed photon 

8 dose of 725 millirem, based upon the maximum 

9 number of possible non-positive dosimetry 

10 results. For an over-estimate, NIOSH would 

11 apply 100 percent 30 to 250 keV photon energy 

12 distribution. For uranium areas, a better 

13 estimate of the actual photon energies would 

14 be a 50/50 split between 30 to 250 keV photons 

15 in greater than 250 keV photons.

16 For a thorium work, the energy 

17 distribution would typically be about 25 

18 percent 30 to 250 keV photons and about 75 

19 percent greater than 250 keV photons. Neutron 

20 doses were not assigned in this assessment.

21 We take a look at the individuals 

22 bioassay data that we received from the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 65

1 Department of Energy. For this hypothetical 

2 individual, we had uranium and urine bioassay 

3 samples. He had submitted 59 total samples 

4 and 57 of those were greater than the minimum 

5 detectable amount of .008 milligrams per 

6 liter.

7 For the years prior to 1963, 

8 natural uranium was assumed and a specific 

9 activity of 683 picocuries per milligram was 

10 used in the dose reconstruction.

11 For years from 1963 forward, one 

12 percent enriched uranium was assumed and a 

13 specific activity of 973 picocuries per 

14 milligram was used. 

15 Recycled uranium was assumed 

16 beginning in 1961 and intakes of plutonium, 

17 neptunium and technetium were added to the 

18 uranium intakes. The chronic uranium intake 

19 was calculated to be 4,400 picocuries per day 

20 based on the individuals bioassay data.

21 From 1958 through 1966 for work in 

22 Building 101 and 103, the individual had a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 66

1 potential exposure to uranium, recycled 

2 uranium contaminants, uranium concentrate 

3 trace contaminants and thorium-232 for the 

4 years 1963 through 1966.

5 This slide shows the inhalation 

6 intakes in picocuries per day, as well as the 

7 basis for assigning those intakes. 

8 As you can see, the uranium intake 

9 of 4,400 picocuries per day is based upon 

10 urine data. The plutonium, neptunium-237 and 

11 technetium-99 are based upon recycled uranium 

12 fractions. We've assigned thorium-230 intakes 

13 and then, intakes about the radionuclides, 

14 including radium-226, lead-210, plutonium, 

15 radium and other isotopes of thorium from 

16 raffinate pit ratios.

17 For the years of 1963 through 

18 1966, the uranium intake was the same at 4,400 

19 picocuries per day based on the individuals 

20 urinalysis data. NIOSH also added in intakes 

21 of plutonium, neptunium and technetium from 

22 the recycled uranium fractions.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 67

1 Thorium-232 intakes were based 

2 upon daily weighted average concentration 

3 data. The maximum applicable daily weighted 

4 average value was selected based upon the work 

5 area and the year of employment. 

6 The arithmetic average was used 

7 with an assumed GSD of five, to calculate a 

8 median value. A log-normal distribution was 

9 applied with a GSD of five. Ingestion intakes 

10 were calculated based upon information from 

11 OCAS, TIB-0009.

12 On this slide, we show the median 

13 intake value of thorium, and this is also 

14 followed by a GSD of five. The thorium 

15 intakes are assigned equally to thorium-232, 

16 228 and radium-228. You can see the intakes 

17 for 1963 and picocuries per day are 

18 approximately 36 followed by 32, 19 and 16 

19 from inhalation. The ingestion intakes are 

20 all less than one picocurie per day.

21 This summarizes the results of the 

22 sample dose reconstruction. For the left-hand 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 68

1 column, we showed the target organs for the 

2 dose reconstruction and then, the next column 

3 is the internal dose in rem, followed by the 

4 external dose in rem, and then the Probability 

5 of Causation, which is a percentage.

6 For the first organ, the prostate 

7 an internal dose of 10.4 rem was assigned and 

8 an external dose of 5.4 rem. That created a 

9 Probability of Causation of 20.41 percent.

10 The internal dose to the skin was 

11 10 rem and the external dose to the skin was 

12 17.8, and because of difference in cancer 

13 models, the basal cell carcinoma, that level 

14 of dose created a Probability of Causation of 

15 40.02 percent, while for a squamous cell 

16 carcinoma, it generated a PoC of 8.16 percent.

17 The internal dose to the kidney 

18 was approximately 108 rem with an external 

19 dose of 4.6 rem. The Probability of Causation 

20 was 77.44 percent. The internal dose to the 

21 liver was 49 rem, with an external dose of 4.6 

22 rem and the PoC was 86.24 percent.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 69

1 The lung cancer, the internal dose 

2 for the lung was 2,380 millirem and the 

3 external dose was 4.4 rem, giving a 

4 Probability of Causation of 99.13 percent.

5 NIOSH evaluates the petition, 

6 using guidelines in 42 CFR 83.13 and submits a 

7 summary of findings in a petition Evaluation 

8 Report to the Board and to the petitioners. 

9 The Weldon Spring Plant SEC Evaluation Report 

10 was released to the public on May 4, 2010.

11 As part of the evaluation process, 

12 as you're all familiar with, the two-prong 

13 test established by EEOICPA, NIOSH must 

14 determine whether it is feasible to estimate 

15 the level of radiation doses of individual 

16 members of the Class with sufficient accuracy, 

17 and two, whether there is a reasonable 

18 likelihood that such radiation dose may have 

19 endanger the health of members of the Class.

20 NIOSH found that the available 

21 monitoring records, process descriptions and 

22 source term data are adequate to complete dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 70

1 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

2 the evaluated Class of employees. 

3 Therefore, under the law, the 

4 health endangerment determination is not 

5 required, and this final slide summarizes the 

6 feasibility findings for the Weldon Spring 

7 Plant SEC-00143 for the years of January 1, 

8 1957 through December 31, 1967, showing that 

9 the reconstruction is feasible for internal 

10 and external sources of radiation exposure at 

11 the Weldon Spring Plant. Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Mark. 

13 Do Board Members have questions for Mark? 

14 Yes, Wanda?

15 MEMBER MUNN: I just have a 

16 comment. I think the Agency should be 

17 applauded for such a thorough and careful 

18 review of this particular site. 

19 It had -- it involved a wide range 

20 of concerns, on the part of the claimant and 

21 others, and the manner in which those were 

22 addressed with such thoroughness is very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 71

1 helpful for Board Members, in evaluating what 

2 actually transpired at this site. So, thank 

3 you.

4 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Wanda.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Brad?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, your mention 

7 that 98 percent of that was natural uranium. 

8 What was the other two percent?

9 MR. ROLFES: The other two percent 

10 would have included recycled uranium and 

11 thorium.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, they were 

13 using -- it was -- part of it was the recycled 

14 part of the uranium?

15 MR. ROLFES: Also, I forgot to 

16 mention as well, the one percent enriched 

17 uranium, there was a small quantity of 

18 enriched uranium, which didn't come on site -- 

19 let's see here, I believe it was in 1963. Let 

20 me find the slide, to verify that.

21 Part of my sample dose 

22 reconstruction -- yes, one percent enriched 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 72

1 uranium was assumed from 1963 forward, and so, 

2 that would have been the exception -- that 

3 would have been part of the other two percent 

4 of the material that was processed.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, you were 

6 mentioning about the records that they -- that 

7 you found, documentation that they weren't 

8 supposed to be destroyed or so forth. So, 

9 you've never found those records or -- 

10 MR. ROLFES: Most of those are 

11 medical files, which normally, we wouldn't be 

12 interested in, unless it had some sort of 

13 radiologic data, some kind of dosimetry 

14 information.

15 I haven't looked at the records 

16 myself, but from what I recall, it was related 

17 to physical exams and blood tests and things 

18 that weren't directly relevant to dose 

19 reconstruction.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Now, you 

21 were using Fernald for surrogate data, is that 

22 -- I don't understand.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 73

1 MR. ROLFES: Previously, in the 

2 Weldon Spring TBD, I believe there is 

3 information discussing the in vivo counts that 

4 were done on the employees who were working 

5 with thorium from 1963 through 1966.

6 They had brought, I guess, a 

7 precursor to the Y-12 mobile in vivo unit, to 

8 Weldon Spring, to have approximately 148 

9 employees counted, and we've discussed that 

10 information in our Site Profile, but we felt 

11 that the measurements that were taken wouldn't 

12 be good for building, like a coworker model. 

13 So, we had defaulted to the 

14 information in the Fernald Site Profile, to 

15 assign thorium intakes for the years of 

16 operation where -- from 1963 through 1966 at 

17 Weldon Spring.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was just 

19 wondering that because I didn't think that we 

20 had come to a conclusion yet on Fernald. 

21 That's why I was wondering what we were using 

22 Fernald's data for on that, but that's -- that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 74

1 will be -- thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Mark, I 

3 believe.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just a couple of 

5 things. One thing that was intriguing me on 

6 your page four slide, they never dealt with 

7 uranium hexafluoride, did they?

8 MR. ROLFES: No, they did not. 

9 That was one of the things that -- 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because I think --

11 MR. ROLFES: -- that we did 

12 investigate too, to determine -- 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think page four 

14 should say, "Your hydrofluoric acid reacted 

15 with uranium oxide to get uranium 

16 tetrafluoride," but anyway, that's just a 

17 minor thing.

18 MR. ROLFES: Where are you?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: You'll find that, 

20 it's on page four -- is it page four on yours? 

21 Is that page four? Yes, that was it, the 

22 third bullet.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 75

1 MR. ROLFES: The third bullet?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hydrogen gas 

3 reacted, I think -- 

4 MR. ROLFES: Yes, hydrogen gas and 

5 HF.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that should 

7 be HF, right, hydrofluoric acid. Anyway, 

8 that's a minor thing.

9 I guess, I see the overlap, the 

10 similarities with Fernald are striking here. 

11 I think it actually -- you know, several of 

12 the same issues, I think, are going to come 

13 into play and I'm not sure if we're going to 

14 be able to tease them all out here at the 

15 Board level.

16 But the recycled uranium, I think 

17 you derived that from the DOE report.

18 MR. ROLFES: Yes, recycled uranium 

19 balanced.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: You didn't go back 

21 for the actual data itself. Did you just use 

22 the numbers provided by the DOE summary 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 76

1 report?

2 MR. ROLFES: That's correct, and 

we're using the 95th 3 percentile of the 

4 contaminant concentrate -- concentrations, and 

5 for plutonium, I believe, the value is 

6 approximately 6.3 parts per billion plutonium 

on uranium phases. That's the 95th 7 

8 percentile, and it's based on an unblended 

9 uranium trioxide PUREX source.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right, I 

11 mean, I know that's something that has come up 

12 on the Fernald meetings, that you know, we 

13 might want to pursue further, as far at the 

14 actual data itself, rather than the summary 

15 report from DOE.

16 But the other question is, and 

17 this is similar too -- the daily weighted 

18 averaging, do you know anything about that? I 

19 mean, was it area sampling? Was it breathing 

20 zone, and then we have the age-old problem 

21 with daily weighted averaging of being able to 

22 track the worker through their course of daily 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 77

1 work and placing them in a work -- you said, 

2 work area, combined with year.

3 That's a good model, as long as we 

4 can track the people.

5 MR. ROLFES: The daily weighted 

6 average reports do indeed contain information 

7 collected from the worker's breathing zone, as 

8 well as the general area, and furthermore, 

9 basically, these reports would track a worker 

10 at each station, during their eight hour work 

11 shift. They would follow them to do this 

12 operation, take a breathing zone sample, as 

13 well as a GA sample, and then, track the 

14 worker to the next operation or to lunch, 

15 even, and take, like, a general area air 

16 sample in the lunch room.

17 And so, they would come up with a 

18 time integrated air concentration for that 

19 employees' work day.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: But how are you 

21 going to -- I'm assuming they didn't monitor 

22 everyone all the time. So, you're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 78

1 have to match -- 

2 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- a claimant with 

4 a particular -- 

5 MR. ROLFES: That -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- job type, or 

7 I'm not sure how you're going to do it.

8 MR. ROLFES: For a best estimate, 

9 you would do that, but what we're planning on 

10 doing is using the highest daily weighted 

11 average concentration for each facility, for 

12 each year.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, so, there's 

14 some assumptions in there too, that I think we 

15 need to explore. But leave it for now. Thank 

16 you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Lemen?

18 MEMBER LEMEN: On one of the 

19 slides, you talked about two former workers 

20 providing information on the uranium 

21 hexafluoride, saying it was never processed. 

22 Can you tell me a little bit more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 79

1 about the two workers that you talked to, and 

2 what they did at the facility?

3 MR. ROLFES: I'd have to get back 

4 to you on that. They were two individuals, I 

5 believe, that would have had a -- would have 

6 known the materials that we were asking of.

7 I'd have to get back to you on the 

8 details of their job titles and background, et 

9 cetera.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I was just curious 

11 as to why you picked those two and what their 

12 jobs were. So, if you could get back to me, 

13 I'd appreciate it.

14 MR. ROLFES: Sure, I want to say 

15 that one of them might have been involved in 

16 like, process engineering, but I'll certainly 

17 get back to you on that.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil, then Mike.

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Do you know how 

21 often the workers gave urine samples and were 

22 there any fecal samples for ingestion?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 80

1 MR. ROLFES: To my knowledge, there 

2 were no fecal samples ever taken from Weldon 

3 Spring Plant employees, but urinalysis were 

4 taken as frequently as several times a day, 

5 through weekly samples.

6 Some employees may have only given 

7 an annual sample, for example, during the 

8 physical. It was a range of distributions of 

9 sample frequency, based upon the individual's 

10 exposure potential and job duties.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Several times a 

12 day?

13 MR. ROLFES: Yes, for an incident, 

14 for example, you know.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mike?

16 MEMBER GIBSON: Mark, what -- how 

17 many worker interviews did you do, roughly?

18 MR. ROLFES: I know about 10, but 

19 I'd have to get -- let me take a look. I 

20 might have it.

21 MEMBER GIBSON: I mean, it looks 

22 like at least nine references, based on C- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 81

1 MR. ROLFES: That's what I was 

2 going for. I was going to say about 10, but it 

3 was -- 

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Because it was all 

5 the way up A through I, I believe.

6 MR. ROLFES: Okay, thank you. So, 

7 then nine are documented here. There were 

8 likely earlier interviews that were conducted, 

9 as part of the Site Profile investigations, 

10 but specific to the SEC, as you said, is nine.

11 MEMBER GIBSON: Then in ER, I just 

12 glanced through it, it looks like that --

13 basically, only three of the workers, C, G and 

14 H, their knowledge of the site was referred to 

15 several times. Do you know what their job 

16 titles were?

17 MR. ROLFES: I suspect that they 

18 were probably the same ones that were 

19 interviewed, regarding the uranium 

20 hexafluoride. So, I can follow up with you on 

21 that.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 82

1 questions? Bill?

2 MEMBER FIELD: I had a question 

3 about the thorium bioassay.

4 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

5 MEMBER FIELD: That wasn't used for 

6 the bounding at all, is that right?

7 MR. ROLFES: No, it was not.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Okay, how does the 

9 highest bioassay compare to your bounded 

10 estimates?

11 MR. ROLFES: The way the bioassay 

12 data for the thorium-232 in vivo counts, they 

13 were using the thallium-208 peak-4 as a marker 

14 for thorium-232 exposures, and they had 

15 categorized individuals exposures as 

16 background, trace or, I think it was a lung 

17 burden, and it corresponded to bands of counts 

18 up to, I think -- don't quote me on this, but 

19 I think the lung burden number of counts was 

20 around 240.

21 The data that I recall, most of 

22 the counts were for trace or background. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 83

1 don't recall any full lung burdens being 

2 measured.

3 MEMBER FIELD: Okay, yes, my 

4 question was just for the highest bioassay 

5 result you found, how -- you know, how would 

6 that compare to the bounded estimate?

7 Obviously, was it within the 

8 bounded estimate?

9 MR. ROLFES: Well, we didn't 

10 calculate that. So, since it wasn't directly 

11 a quantitative measurement, it was more of a 

12 non-quantitative measurement, there's a lot of 

13 uncertainties regarding the age of the thorium 

14 materials processed and such.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I mean, 

16 that's something that, on Work Group levels, 

17 we've often looked at that for sort of 

18 validating, you know, even if you're not going 

19 to use these others, are they consistent with 

20 -- you know, so, good point.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Brad?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just have one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 84

1 more. Mark, this is kind of getting to me 

2 because we still haven't resolved Fernald's 

3 issues, and how would this affect, this one? 

4 If we're using this as data to --

5 and we haven't even settled Fernald's, as a 

6 matter of fact, that's why the action items 

7 that we've got a White Paper on right now, 

8 that we're disagreeing on, and I just -- I 

9 don't see how we can use this data to do 

10 another site, when we haven't even settled it.

11 MR. ROLFES: We are not currently 

12 using any data from Fernald under the SEC 

13 evaluation for Weldon Spring.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, 

15 Mark. Now, we'll like to hear from the 

16 petitioners. I don't know if they're on the 

17 line.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had a 

19 question.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm sorry, David 

21 and Paul, I apologize. I know I do it, at 

22 least once. Go ahead, David.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 85

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had two 

2 questions. The first one was, I was intrigued 

3 by the description of using Mancuso's data and 

4 the comparison of the completion or the level 

5 of completeness of the data that were key6 punched by Mancuso and the hard copy records 

7 and log books that you were able to find.

8 So, you have a series of tables in 

9 here, 7-1 to 7-3, maybe, in your report, where 

10 you find in some cases, that you were able to 

11 validate 60 percent or 40 percent of the data 

12 that was the CER database, other years, it 

13 gets up to 100 percent.

14 That was something new, I think 

15 for me, was previously, when I've had 

16 discussions with people involved in the 

17 compensation program, they've tended to view 

18 epidemiologic data as, not as the record of --

19 not as the source of information of record for 

20 kind of, construction of workers doses, that 

21 you would go back to original hard copy 

22 records, because information that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 86

1 collected for research purposes is not 

2 necessarily -- has a different pedigree, we're 

3 going to use their words, than maybe a dose of 

4 record that was maintained by a site. Could 

5 you talk about that?

6 MR. ROLFES: Well, this was done. 

7 We had sampled five percent of the available 

8 hard copy results and we didn't necessarily

9 collect the data from the CER database, but we 

10 used the data that we had collected from 

11 Department of Energy to compare to the data 

12 that was collected by ORAU and their CER 

13 database.

14 We did it as a cross-comparison to 

15 basically validate, to determine whether the 

16 records may or may not have been complete.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But my reading 

18 of the report, and maybe it's a 

19 misunderstanding, is that for some years, the 

20 majority of the information that you have on 

21 bioassay data for uranium is coming from the

22 ORAU CER database, is that wrong, that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 87

1 are some years where you haven't been able to 

2 locate the hard copy records?

3 MR. ROLFES: As far as gathering 

4 all of the bioassay data from one centralized 

5 source, keep in mind also, that when we 

6 receive a claim for a dose reconstruction at 

7 NIOSH, we receive a Department of Energy 

8 response, which contains bioassay data in it 

9 for the employee.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, so, what 

11 I -- so, this statement here, for example, 

12 that there were 2,900 urinalysis results in 

13 the CER database for 1965, NIOSH does not have 

14 hard copy records, results for 1965.

15 That's -- you're saying that none 

16 the less, a dose reconstruction for a worker 

17 is not going to be based on the CER database.

18 MR. ROLFES: Well, I guess I'll 

19 have to get back to you with additional 

20 information on that. I apologize, I don't 

21 have the answer.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 88

1 kind of the -- the kind of the conclusions 

2 here are that you can do dose reconstruction 

3 for these workers because you've identified a 

4 vast repository of information that allows you 

5 to have individual bioassay data for all these 

6 workers.

7 But the documentation here is 

8 describing that vast repository of information 

9 for many years, as solely being epidemiologic 

10 data files that are maintained by the Center 

11 for Epidemiologic Research of the DOE.

12 I mean, so, is there confirmation 

13 that there exists out there, some source of 

14 bioassay hard copy results that the DOE is 

15 going to provide to you, which are not just 

16 coming from Mancuso's research files?

17 MR. ROLFES: I'll have to get back 

18 to you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks. Dr. 

20 Ziemer, do you have any questions?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no 

22 questions.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 89

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and David, 

2 do you have anymore questions?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I had one 

4 other question.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The description 

7 of the process going on involves a whole 

8 series of kind of, steps of chemical 

9 conversion, right? It's starting out with 

10 yellow cake, and the bioassay results, again, 

11 are -- you have some information on the source 

12 material and some assumptions about possible 

13 contamination or levels of enrichment.

14 So, you've got some idea about the 

15 enrichment. You've got some idea about the 

16 bioassay, the excretion results in urine. 

17 One of the pieces of information 

18 that seems to me, maybe not here, is 

19 information on the chemical form of the 

20 uranium at -- for a given uptake -- intake.

21 And so, I was wondering if the 

22 solubility of the different uranium compounds 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 90

1 that are being produced through these 

2 different steps of this industrial process, 

3 they're going to -- it's going to vary across 

4 the process and whether that's going to affect 

5 the clearance from the lung, or the clearance 

6 and kind of, the retention time in the lung, 

7 and do you -- is there -- how is that 

8 information being incorporated in here, or is 

9 my assumption wrong about that?

10 MR. ROLFES: The chemical 

11 solubility’s of various uranium compounds are 

12 well known and when NIOSH completes a dose 

13 reconstruction, NIOSH would use the chemical 

14 solubility Class that was the most claimant 

15 favorable for the organ, the target organ and 

16 the dose reconstruction.

17 So, if it's a lung cancer case, we 

18 would use solubility Class S, which would 

19 result in the highest lung dose because of the 

20 residence time.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, okay, I 

22 mean, I know that the -- the coefficients are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 91

1 known. What the -- so, the answer is, you're 

2 just going to -- it's the same question as the 

3 questions about dose rate.

4 You actually -- it's actually 

5 often difficult to place a worker into a 

6 specific location. So, you're going to make 

7 an assumption that all of them have the 

8 longest lung retention time, for example, and 

9 deal with the question that way, about the 

10 compound that's being -- that was taken up.

11 MR. ROLFES: I'm not sure I 

12 followed the question, but basically, when 

13 NIOSH would complete a dose reconstruction, 

14 you're using uranium urinalysis, we would look 

15 at the data and determine -- you can determine 

16 what type of uranium an individual is exposed 

17 to, by looking at the excretion rate.

18 We would use the most claimant 

19 favorable solubility Class for the type of 

20 cancer the individual had.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 92

1 Let's hear from the petitioners now. I 

2 believe they're on the line.

3 MS. TRIPLETT: Hello, can you hear 

4 me?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think we 

6 can get a little bit more volume on it. Go 

7 ahead.

8 MS. TRIPLETT: We're trying to fix 

9 the phone. Hold on one second.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, yes, that's 

11 better.

12 MS. TRIPLETT: Can you hear me?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes, we can.

14 MS. TRIPLETT: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks.

16 MS. TRIPLETT: All right, good 

17 morning. My name is Tina Triplett and I'd 

18 like -- I actually prepared a statement that I 

19 would like to read into the record.

20 My father, Leroy Triplett, worked 

21 at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works Plant in 

22 Weldon Spring from 1959 to 1966. He performed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 93

1 work as a rigger, electrical maintenance and a 

2 chemical operator.

3 My father was diagnosed with colon 

4 cancer in 1999. He applied for compensation 

5 under the EEOICPA in October 2003. 

6 His dose reconstruction was 

7 completed by NIOSH on October 31, 2005, the 

8 day he died.

9 Watching my father deteriorate and 

10 say goodbye was the hardest thing that I and 

11 my family have ever had to do in our lives.

12 I promised my father that I would 

13 continue his fight for the sacrifice he made 

14 for the safety -- I'm also fighting for all of 

15 the Mallinckrodt workers at Weldon Spring Site 

16 who are just like him.

17 These workers were exposed to 

18 numerous and unaccountable amounts of 

19 different types of radiation. These workers 

20 were exposed without their knowledge of the 

21 hazards and without the appropriate 

22 monitoring.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 94

1 I've filed for a Special Exposure 

2 Cohort for the Mallinckrodt Weldon Spring 

3 Plant in late April 2009. In my petition, I 

4 addressed many important issues which promotes 

5 NIOSH's inability to accurately perform dose 

6 calculations with sufficient accuracy.

7 NIOSH makes several assumptions in 

8 their Evaluation Report, pertaining to 

9 photons, thorium and ambient exposures. 

10 Furthermore, there are numerous issues of 

11 NIOSH not considering SC&A findings.

12 Mallinckrodt employees at Weldon 

13 Spring were not monitored on a routine basis 

14 for every type of radionuclide that they were 

15 exposed to. I agree, there was some external 

16 monitoring for the Weldon Spring Site, but it 

17 was limited. Not everyone was monitored, 

18 including industrial workers who transferred 

19 from the downtown facility. Approximately 50 

20 percent of the Weldon Spring workers were not 

21 monitored.

22 In 1958, Mallinckrodt Works health 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 95

1 physics director Mont Mason commented that 

2 Weldon Spring's increase handling and 

3 processing of thorium would lead to an 

4 increase incident of cancers.

5 If thorium was not present at 

6 Weldon Spring as early as 1958, why would Mont 

7 Mason make this reference? 

8 A conference with Al Becher, a 

9 consultant for Mallinckrodt Chemical Works 

10 also indicated that exposures to thorium were 

11 more than realized at the Weldon Spring plant.

12 Another concern from the SEC 

13 petition was the lack of or the destruction of 

14 records, in particular the V-2151 shelf-list 

15 that Dr. Thomas Mancuso requested not be 

16 destroyed on September 12, 1972. Among the 

17 shelf-list were medical files for the Weldon 

18 Spring employees through 1966 and dust 

19 studies, which Mancuso could not find one 

20 complete set.

21 NIOSH just sees the letter from 

22 Mancuso means the records were safe from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 96

1 destruction. I lack confidence in their 

2 statements since this issue was already raised 

3 in the Mallinckrodt SEC petition.

4 These records have never been 

5 located because these documents were beyond 

6 scheduled destruction dates. If the documents 

7 had been located, I request that they be 

8 produced.

9 Furthermore, in an ERDA study by 

10 A. S. Becher, relevant data for radiation 

11 exposure and exposures and toxics, as well as 

12 identification of the exposed versus non13 exposed population at Mallinckrodt Chemical 

14 Works were incomplete.

15 In addition, a previous computer 

16 employee announced in a NIOSH project meeting 

17 from February 2, 2005 that all radiation 

18 records, including over-exposures, could not 

19 be located, which brings me to this point.

20 There's a lack of Weldon Spring 

21 worker testimony in the dose reconstruction 

22 process. Many workers have provided valuable 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 97

1 information about experiences at Weldon 

2 Spring, such as routine accidents, over3 exposures and restrictions and a lack of 

4 personal and egress monitoring.

5 However, this information is not 

6 sufficiently addressed by NIOSH. It appears 

7 that NIOSH is not able to dose incidents, 

8 therefore, they neglect to use this 

9 information. 

10 I included several affidavits and 

11 an SEC petition pertaining to my father's own 

12 work experience at Weldon Spring, including 

13 exposure reports and blank dust concentration 

14 readings, receiving thorium in his eye, 

15 explosion on the extrusion press and purposely 

16 dropping his badge in orange oxide to test the 

17 health and safety aspects.

18 My father had also stated that he 

19 had been blindfolded before and was taken to 

20 locations that he was never to discuss. My 

21 father confided in Denise Brock, who works for 

22 NIOSH, and she can also attest to these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 98

1 statements.

2 As previously noted in a prior 

3 Mallinckrodt SEC Cohort, there was severe data 

4 integrity issue. This will continue to be a 

5 massive concern for Weldon Spring, considering 

6 all operations and the company health and 

7 safety director transferred to that location.

8 Another interest is that NIOSH 

9 claims the plant was specifically designed to 

10 process uranium low concentrates produced 

11 elsewhere in the United States and Canada. 

12 NIOSH advises these materials were sent to the 

13 Weldon Spring plant for sampling.

14 However, according to the National 

15 Bureau of Standards from December 1965, 

16 sampling included concentrates from Belgium, 

17 South Africa, Australia and Portuguese 

18 producers.

19 These concentrates contain an 

20 assortment of impurities at varying amounts, 

21 including thorium. These impurities differed 

22 from mill to mill and from time to time at a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 99

1 given mill. Both foreign and domestic empire 

2 works continue until June 30, 1965.

3 I'm not a scientist or a health 

4 physicist. I am just one of many who have had 

5 a loved one taken too soon as a result from 

6 employment at Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, at 

7 Weldon Spring.

8 I recognize and appreciate the 

9 hard work by all parties involved in this 

10 process, but I would like to stress the 

11 importance of timeliness. This program's 

12 timeliness is so imperative for these cancer13 stricken workers. 

14 NIOSH has had ample time to prove 

15 their case, but the fact is, NIOSH has not 

16 been able to demonstrate dose reconstructions 

17 can be performed with sufficient accuracy and 

18 plausibility. 

19 I'm respectfully requesting the 

20 Board recognize the numerous deficiencies and 

21 grant a Special Exposure Cohort for the 

22 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works Weldon Spring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 100

1 Plant, 1957 to 1967. 

2 Thank you for your time.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

4 MR. KATZ: Tina, thank you for 

5 soldiering through your statement. We 

6 appreciate it. I would just ask -- this is 

7 Ted Katz with the Board, if you would speak to 

8 Denise about sending in your statement, that 

9 would be appreciated.

10 MS. TRIPLETT: Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do we have 

13 another petitioner that also wants to speak?

14 MS. JOHNSON: Hi, this is Karen 

15 Johnson. Can you hear me?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can.

17 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. I'm really 

18 probably going to keep mine pretty short, 

19 because I think Tina covered most of our 

20 concerns, and the Board as well, and I thank 

21 you for that.

22 Our biggest concerns are worker 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 101

1 testimonies really have not seem to have been 

2 acknowledged, especially in regard to 

3 incidents that workers have attested to, the 

4 fact that these incidents went unreported.

5 Therefore, we assume -- it would 

6 be reasonable to assume that also, their 

7 monitoring was not recorded. 

8 So, we would like that looked into 

9 a little further, and I apologize, we are all 

10 really -- we've both lost our fathers, you 

11 know.

12 I guess at this point, we really 

13 would like to -- because most of our petition 

14 was based on the SC&A review, we would really 

15 like to request that SC&A also review the 

16 evaluation, if that is at all possible, and I 

17 think that's pretty much all I have. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

19 Do any of the Board Members have questions 

20 for the petitioners at this point?

21 Okay, we need to then, I think, 

22 decide what to do with this -- in response to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 102

1 this petition. Our -- Evaluation Report. Our 

2 usual situation, where NIOSH has made a 

3 recommendation like this, is to really have 

4 further review, both by a Work Group and by 

5 SC&A.

6 So, if somebody wants to make a 

7 motion to that effect or discuss that.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: I will make that 

9 motion.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, well, Josie 

11 was first.

12 MEMBER BEACH: And I realize, we 

13 have a Site Profile Review report from NIOSH, 

14 I believe March of 2009. So, that's 

15 completed.

16 I'd like to make a motion that we 

17 set up a Work Group to look at the Site 

18 Profile and the Evaluation Report.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And have SC&A, of 

21 course, review the Evaluation Report.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do we have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 103

1 second to that?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Second.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

4 discussion on that?

5 Okay, we will do that. We will 

6 set up a Work Group on that and I think at 

7 this point, we should also task SC&A to -- 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do we have to vote 

9 on the motion?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we need to 

11 vote. I'm sorry, okay, jumping ahead here. 

12 We'll get the other vote too.

13 But let's go ahead. All in favor 

14 of setting up the Work Group and referring the 

15 -- having SC&A review the SEC Evaluation 

16 Report, say aye.

17 (Chorus of Ayes.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed? 

19 Abstain? Okay.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And your phone? 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David and Paul?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer, aye.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 104

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. 

2 Okay, yes, Andy?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just quick, where 

4 do we stand on the Fernald conclusion issue? I 

5 mean, it's kind of cascading here.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that's a 

7 good point. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess we'll get 

9 an update tomorrow on the Work Group. We're 

10 still in the Work Group process. It's Brad's 

11 Work Group.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: I will give a 

13 report on that. We've got some outstanding 

14 issues.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we have not 

16 come to completion on the Fernald SEC 

17 discussions yet, but there are a lot of 

18 similar issues.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good, and 

20 if you people can let me know, volunteers for 

21 the Work Group, Weldon Spring? Wanda? Phil?

22 Anybody else? I've got you down. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 105

1 Think about it, and let me know, and then 

2 Paul and David, if you could also let me know 

3 if you'd like to volunteer, I'll -- just send 

4 me an email. I think that would be fine, and 

5 then we'll make the appointment after the 

6 meeting of that, and get that out to 

7 everybody. Good.

8 MS. JOHNSON: Can I make one more 

9 comment? This is Karen Johnson, one of the 

10 petitioners.

11 It's really a question, when they 

12 go to Work Group, will petitioners be allowed 

13 to sit in on any of those teleconferences?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you will. 

15 Those meetings are by teleconference. You'll 

16 be allowed to sit in and will be notified of 

17 all the meetings and will be kept up to date 

18 on what's going on with that.

19 MS. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, good. Okay, 

21 we have one other item.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, so, just to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 106

1 clear, so that SC&A is tasked with reviewing 

2 that Evaluation Report as part of that motion?

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, that was 

4 part of the motion, correct.

5 MR. KATZ: Just for my being clear. 

6 Thank you. I realize that I have -- I 

7 omitted obtaining a vote from Wanda Munn, for 

8 the St. Louis Airport facility, and her knee 

9 didn't allow her to kick me this far across 

10 the table to remind me.

11 But so, let me just solicit her 

12 vote. I had -- all others had voted in favor. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Having made the 

14 motion, I'm reluctant to withdraw it. I 

15 therefore, vote yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you for that. I 

17 apologize for the oversight.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, we have a 

19 break scheduled. We're a little bit early, 

20 but let's take a break until 10:30 a.m.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 10:05 a.m. and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 107

1 resumed at 10:35 a.m.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, why don't 

3 we get started. We have -- the first item on 

4 the agenda is the Blockson Chemical SEC 

5 petition, which we've been discussing for a 

6 long time here.

7 We have -- I did just have a 

8 discussion with our legal counsel, and it 

9 probably -- we've not been sort of following 

10 Robert's Rules of Order very strictly, but we 

11 do have a motion that's tabled, and since we 

12 may try to reach some decision on the Blockson 

13 SEC petition today, it probably would be most 

14 proper if we started by, you know, a motion to 

15 remove that from the table.

16 So, I would entertain that motion, 

17 before we start discussion.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: So moved.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll second.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second, okay. 

22 All in favor?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 108

1 (Chorus of Ayes.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed? Okay, 

3 Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Richardson?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Aye.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Aye.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We 

7 couldn't tell if you ayed together there, from 

8 a distance here. 

9 Okay, discussion? I think where 

10 we are is the main issue on Blockson was the 

11 model, the radon model, and I think there were 

12 concerns. I think we've sort of reached the 

13 point that we had decided -- at least at the 

14 present time, that there was no sort of 

15 further work to be done on the model, or that 

16 could be done. 

17 There was issues, questions raised 

18 about validation, but those -- well, for 

19 whatever various reasons, those could not be 

20 pursued, and I think that's sort of where we 

21 left it.

22 I think -- again, for background 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 109

1 for those in the audience, we've wanted our 

2 new Members to be brought up to date on the 

3 situation with Blockson and all of the work 

4 and discussions that had gone on, which was a 

5 lot and was difficult, I think, to absorb and 

6 I think at our last meeting, there were a 

7 couple of questions about it. We wanted 

8 people to have a chance to -- particularly the 

9 new Members, to ask any questions, and I think 

10 we should sort of -- run out of the questions.

11 And I guess the question is, what 

12 we do to -- in terms of moving forward on 

13 this, and I think we want to try to resolve 

14 it, if we can, today. Maybe we can't. The 

15 Board has been essentially deadlocked on this 

16 for quite some time.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question, this is 

20 Ziemer.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: For clarity, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 110

1 need to indicate whether the motion is to 

2 approve an SEC Class or a motion to agree that 

3 dose reconstruction can be done.

4 I don't recall which motion was 

5 before us.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We'll read the 

7 motion to you.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

9 MS. HOWELL: I don't know if I have 

10 the exact wording, but I have some notes on 

11 it.

12 The motion that had been tabled 

13 repeatedly, or not removed from the table 

14 repeatedly, was actually made in June 26, 2008 

15 in our St. Louis meeting.

16 Ms. Munn moved to accept the NIOSH 

17 position on Blockson and thus deny the SEC 

18 Class. That was seconded by Dr. Roessler and 

19 the Board then voted to table the motion on 

20 that.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 111

1 that report has been provided to us in the 

2 information we have today. It should be on 

3 the website, however.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: I have no material at 

7 all in my Blockson file.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Is there -- am I -- 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, mine is 

11 empty too.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think 

13 everybody's is, and I looked at my memory 

14 stick here and there was nothing either, and I 

15 -- 

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: That's on the O: 

17 drive.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but on the 

19 website, there should be something, if that's 

20 helpful, and obviously, everyone is -- by 

21 email and we've exchanged voluminous 

22 documents, or at least a lot of documentation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 112

1 on this.

2 MR. KATZ: Right, there was a whole 

3 document history that was sent to everybody, 

4 including the new Members, to sort of bring 

5 everybody up to speed, remind people who have 

6 been with us for a long time, as well as to 

7 educate the new Board Members.

8 But that was not redistributed 

9 recently. That was distributed last -- you 

10 know, back, before February.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it was and at 

12 that time also, the brief presentation, which 

13 was the final Working Group presentation, was 

14 also repeated, for the sake of those who were 

15 present.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct, just 

17 that we don't have anything in front of us 

18 today. So, a little more confusing.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do we have --

21 fair enough, we have a motion that it's off 

22 the table to accept the NIOSH Evaluation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 113

1 Report. Is there a discussion on that? Maybe 

2 someone could sort of summarize the different 

3 viewpoints. Yes, Wanda, why don't you go 

4 first?

5 MEMBER MUNN: My apologies, for not 

6 bringing along the presentation again. I 

7 thought it would be redundant for us to go 

8 through the abbreviated comments that I made 

9 last time.

10 But as Chair of the Working Group, 

11 we worked with the Blockson material for a 

12 period of almost two years before we brought 

13 it to the Board.

14 It came to the Board because we 

15 had a split group. We had two members of the 

16 Working Group who did not wish to accept the 

17 NIOSH recommendation and two members of the 

18 Board who did.

19 We had gone item by item, through 

20 each of the questions that had been raised. 

21 There were seven question raised by the 

22 contractor during the review. We had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 114

1 addressed each of those satisfactorily.

2 A number of issues had arisen 

3 since, which have been under discussion and 

4 for the most part, were resolved. SC&A agreed 

5 that all of their concerns had been met.

6 The outstanding issue, as I 

7 recall, when last we left it with the Board, 

8 was some disagreement as to whether or not the 

9 radon loading that existed in that building 

10 could be adequately characterized.

11 It was the position of some of us, 

12 that in a large building with not particularly 

13 good insulation and a work crew who did not 

14 have assigned jobs, but who moved from one 

15 station to another inside that large building 

16 throughout the entire day -- throughout the 

17 entire shift, they seldom ran more than two 

18 shifts, and the work force did not consist of 

19 more than nine to 12 people at one time.

20 It was the position that some of 

21 us took, including me, that the distribution 

22 could easily be bounded and to the best of my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 115

1 knowledge, that's the outstanding issue at 

2 this time, whether or not it's feasible to 

3 assume that a reasonable bound could be made 

4 of the radon loading of that building.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, 

6 Wanda, for that summary. Somebody else want 

7 to comment on the model, or I guess -- I'm 

8 sorry, go ahead, Gen?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: As I recall, and 

10 I think we should remind Board Members, the 

11 radon model that's under discussion was one 

12 developed by SC&A and one that, after much 

13 discussion, NIOSH accepted and would use that 

14 model, and I just want to make sure I'm 

15 correct on that, but I think we should bring 

16 that out.

17 It was a model, in my view, a very 

18 scientific model with much room for 

19 uncertainty bounds and so on.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I just would 

21 correct that slightly, is that I think the 

22 approach was proposed by SC&A. The actual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 116

1 model that is under consideration and sort of 

2 the parameters of that model, actually, I'm 

3 not even sure they've been fully settled.

4 But it was a NIOSH -- we're going 

5 to turn back to NIOSH, to fill in. I think, 

6 is that a fair assessment of the way it -- it 

7 went back and forth so often -- 

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: What I remember, 

9 from a Work Group meeting, is that SC&A 

10 presented the model. I think the values of the 

11 parameters are the ones that we might need 

12 some clarification on.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct, yes, I 

14 think that was what I was trying to express 

15 under that. Other comments?

16 If not, I -- I mean, my concerns, 

17 which I've also said repeatedly here, is that 

18 we have a model that's been put in front of 

19 us, that is -- has never been validated and 

20 despite repeated, I think, requests or 

21 attempts to do the same from NIOSH, NIOSH has 

22 not been able to locate data or a situation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 117

1 where they could validate that specific model.

2 And so, we would be accepting a 

3 model that has not been validated and there 

4 continues to be, I think, significant 

5 uncertainties, at least in my mind, about the 

6 application of that model, if that's that type 

7 of model, without validation, is acceptable 

8 for doing dose -- individual dose 

9 reconstruction for radon at the Blockson Site. 

10 I do not oppose it.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

12 have a comment.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, let me -- go 

14 ahead, Paul.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm sorry, did I 

16 interrupt?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, that's okay, 

18 I was going to ask -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: In the process of 

20 unmuting you, I always lose a little bit.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I know, go ahead, 

22 Paul.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 118

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, on the issue 

2 of validation, we had questions along the line 

3 as to what it would mean to validate a model. 

4 Not all of us agree on what validation even 

5 means on some of these models.

6 But the model that was used, in 

7 terms of the approach, is not unlike the 

8 manner in which one would determine radon 

9 levels from a source term in a room or a 

10 closed sort of, big box with some amount of 

11 ventilation, which was specified.

12 My recollection is, the main issue 

13 was the rate of mixing and the extent to which 

14 one might have extremely non-uniform 

15 concentrations or concentration gradients 

16 through the facility, but keeping in mind that 

17 the release point was way at the top, and 

18 quite a ways away from workers. 

19 It certainly, in my mind, seemed 

20 reasonable, that the assumed mixing rates for 

21 this -- or assumed concentration, not assumed, 

22 but the calculated concentration in the work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 119

1 areas, were quite reasonable.

2 So, I mean, there's many models of 

3 this type used where one could argue, what 

4 does it mean to validate them. It certainly 

5 is a -- the approach uses quite a normal 

6 acceptable approach, and you know, I think 

7 even SC&A has sort of defended that approach, 

8 but they would need to speak for themselves.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Brad?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, also too, 

11 remember, we have the surrogate data issue 

12 too. We're using -- it was my understanding, 

13 we were using information from a Florida 

14 phosphate plant and also an Idaho phosphate 

15 plant.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think to be 

17 correct on that, the original proposal was to 

18 use the data from the Florida phosphate plants 

19 and that was one we rejected and NIOSH then --

20 NIOSH/SC&A came up with this alternative 

21 proposal.

22 I don't believe that the Idaho was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 120

1 being used and again, that's my memory of 

2 that. I think it was considered it could -- I 

3 think we had suggested, could there be -- was 

4 there adequate data from the Idaho plants or 

5 other, you know, sort of northern latitude 

6 plants, where they would be -- you know, might 

7 be closed facilities and much more similar to 

8 the Blockson than the Florida, which were 

9 mostly open-sided facilities and so forth. 

10 Just a further comment on Dr. 

11 Ziemer's comment. I keep hearing this 

12 statement that these are widely used models 

13 and if they're widely used models, it seems to 

14 me that then there should be available data to 

15 validate -- it should have been validated at 

16 some point in time, and I've actually had a 

17 fair amount of experience dealing with models 

18 attempting to estimate indoor air 

19 concentrations and materials, and they get

20 quite complicated quite quickly and difficult 

21 -- and are difficult to validate.

22 But if this is such a simple, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 121

1 straightforward model, then it would seem to 

2 me that there should be data out there that 

3 would validate or help us to validate, and I 

4 agree, validation is a continuum of those 

5 different approaches. It's not a single 

6 validation.

7 But it seems to me, there should 

8 have been then, data out there that would be 

9 helpful for doing that, whether it's from 

10 other industrial sites or other situations. 

11 Wanda?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Since Jim Neton was 

13 the person at NIOSH who followed this most 

14 closely, I thought it might not be out of 

15 order for me to repeat some of the comments 

16 that Jim made at the February meeting, at the 

17 time that we were discussing this. With your 

18 permission, I'll read it. It's not a long 

19 statement. We were discussing this precise 

20 issue.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And he said, I might 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 122

1 elaborate a little bit on what Wanda said, 

2 which is all correct, but the model that was 

3 developed was a probabilistic model, so we 

4 took actually SC&A, in conjunction with SC&A. 

5 It's sort of a long story.

6 But we've ended up with this 

7 probabilistic model that used the 

8 distributions of the various parameters that 

9 are relevant to the contribution of the 

10 variation of the concentration in the 

11 building.

12 The key parameters, as you 

13 indicated, were the ventilation rate of the 

14 building, the volume of the building, the 

15 input term of the ore itself and the release 

16 rate into the atmosphere.

17 The model allows for those. They 

18 have set distributions, put them out there. 

19 It allows for them to very independently and 

we've selected the 95th 20 percentile of the end 

21 result of the Monte Carlo calculation.

22 So, allowing all those parameters 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 123

1 to vary independently, you picked the highest 

2 value. I think we ended up with something on 

3 the order of 17 picocuries per liter.

4 The issue of the variation, the 

5 spacial variability within the building itself 

6 was the issue, the very issue that Mark has 

7 posed for a while now, and it's at least my 

8 opinion that the variation is in some ways 

9 handled by the allowance of those parameters 

10 in the probabilistic model to vary 

11 independently.

12 So, in other words, you would have 

13 a variation in locations, where maybe the 

14 ventilation rate would be lower than another 

15 location, that sort of thing.

16 So, in the emanation fraction as 

17 well. So, allowing those to vary 

18 independently, I think, somehow addresses 

19 that. This Polish study that we had, 

20 unfortunately, was not contemporaneous with 

21 the 50s. The issue we had is, as far as I can 

22 tell, there is virtually no radon monitoring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 124

1 data in phosphate plants from the 50s and even 

2 the 60s. The earliest data we have of the 

3 best data we have come from, was around the 

4 70s. 

5 But the Polish study, I think, and 

6 I forget which time frame, it was fairly 

7 recent, but they did the long-term track edge 

8 cups through building, I think in the winter 

9 time, when it was fairly locked up and looked 

10 at the variability and we didn't see that huge 

11 a variation through the building itself.

12 It was kind of a similar facility, 

13 similar production rates, that sort of thing. 

14 So, it ends up being a weight of the evidence 

15 argument. There is no good way that we could 

16 think of to model this sort of spacial 

17 variability in itself, and we feel picking the 

95th 18 percentile helps to account for some of 

19 the uncertainty that we observed.

 We ended up with a 95th 20 percentile. 

21 I think it's around 17 picocuries per liter 

22 for a source term, and that comes into the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 125

1 building at about 30 picocuries per gram 

2 radon.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

4 Henry?

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: My history 

6 doesn't go back quite as long as the others, 

7 but I do have the last meeting, and I have a 

8 couple of issues, one being, it is a model. 

9 As I understand it, there are no measurements 

10 that were made at the facility.

11 So, we're now trying to 

12 extrapolate from the source terms and the 

13 amount of ore and emissions from that, which -

14 - and you put a bound on that, and then you --

15 probabilistic modeling is basically, it just 

16 creates all the possible ranges. It doesn't 

17 tell you what necessarily is more realistic 

18 than the others.

19 What I was also concerned about at 

20 the last meeting, it sounded like -- or at 

21 least I heard, that there are other sites 

22 coming up, where NIOSH would intend to use 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 126

1 this model for radon because there are other 

2 similar or other circumstances where radon was 

3 not monitored, so, that what we're really also 

4 -- what my concern is, is if we say, well, you 

5 know, it doesn't matter much here, the 

6 exposure isn't that great from this, and so we 

7 approve it, then that basically validates 

8 without testing data, that this is a 

9 methodology that we go forward with it.

10 My understanding is, this has --

11 modeling of radon has not been used at any of 

12 the other sites, that if sites -- that if 

13 there was a radon issue, they measured it, and 

14 therefore, we could -- you could model where 

15 in the building, based on the measurements 

16 that were made in that building, and that's 

17 quite a different modeling exercise than I see 

18 this one.

19 So, my concern is it's a bit like 

20 a surrogate data, that probabilistic model is 

21 something that, you know, in epidemiology we 

22 use now, but that's quite different than using 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 127

1 that to say, this is our best estimate of what 

2 the exposures actually were and you can bound 

3 it, but again, what the probabilistic model 

4 does is you just change the exposure and the 

5 range parameters and it will change your 

6 output.

7 So, you know, it's just, what you 

8 put into it is what comes out of it. So, 

9 that's part of my concern here, is we -- it 

10 may not matter too much, as to whether it's 17 

11 or 25 or I think the earlier estimates, using 

12 the Florida was, you know, half that or 

13 something. 

14 So, I'm not sure, kind of 

15 negotiating what the 95 percent limit would 

16 be, really helps us too much on the issue and 

17 so that -- my major concern is, if we are so 

18 confident of this model, are we also then 

19 saying that it's appropriate to use in any 

20 large box, where there might be radon and we 

21 have ore being processed through and we just 

22 put in the parameters and go from there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 128

1 So, that's kind of where my 

2 concern is, is if this were a one-time unique 

3 set of circumstances, it would be quite 

4 different and now, if you do this model, than 

5 all exposures can be modeled and all you've 

6 got is a starting point from somewhere else. 

7 So, that's kind of my concern on this.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, 

9 Henry. Wanda, I believe, is next.

10 MEMBER MUNN: The source terms here 

11 are well known, and we have good records, with 

12 respect to what the volume was, materials that 

13 came in, the volume of materials that went 

14 out. We know what happened to the raffinate.

15 There is no reason to assume that 

16 the known emission rate of the materials that 

17 were handled is valid material.

18 I don't know whether there is 

19 anyone here from NIOSH and our contractor, who 

20 is -- who have anything to add or any comment 

21 to make at this point. But it's -- there is 

22 no point that we have -- that I'm aware of, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 129

1 that we have not addressed.

2 Henry's concern that this may be 

3 used as some sort of a gold standard does not 

4 seem to fit the paradigm that we have observed 

5 in the past, where for the most part, we take 

6 great pains to look at individual cases as 

7 best we can, and this is certainly no 

8 different than that.

9 There is no question that the 

10 weight of the evidence in the Blockson case 

11 very clearly shows us that we can do quite 

12 reasonable, quite accurate dose assessments 

13 for the people who work there. 

14 Is there anyone in the NIOSH group 

15 or -- Stu, do you have anything you can add at 

16 this juncture, or is John Mauro here?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, I don't 

18 have anything particular to add. I mean, the 

19 discussion here is sort of summarize the 

20 discussion that's gone on, during the course.

21 You know, the radium content in 

22 the feed, in the limestone -- or the rock, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 130

1 phosphate rock feed, was well known. That was 

2 characterized. The volume of the building is 

3 well known. Ventilation rate was, I believe, 

4 doubled, probabilistically, and there may have 

5 been some uncertainty on those other values 

6 and models as well.

7 But I mean, the discussion here 

8 has been the discussion. We have really 

9 nothing else to add.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, John, do 

12 you have anything to add?

13 DR. MAURO: In thinking about, if I 

14 had some data for this building, let's say, we 

15 had 10 or 20 radon measurements taken over a 

16 period of time, and I was to ask, would you 

17 take the distribution of those radon 

18 measurements? There may have been some grab 

samples taken, or the upper 95th 19 percentile, I 

20 would use the model.

21 There is the belief here that 

22 measurements are always better than models. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 131

1 There are times when measurements are better 

2 than models. There are times when models --

3 depending on what you're trying to achieve.

4 In this particular circumstance, 

5 and I wouldn't -- I would agree completely, I 

6 would never extend this to another site, until 

7 I was sure that the class of problem I was 

8 dealing with was very similar to the one we're 

9 dealing with.

10 There's some concern about Texas 

11 City. Certainly, that's a reasonable concern. 

12 Should this model be applied to Texas City? 

13 Well, for this particular 

14 facility, this particular approach, even if I 

15 had some data in that building, I would sooner 

16 trust the model as being the better way to 

17 capture the upper end of what might have 

18 occurred in this building.

19 So, and the model itself is the 

20 first principle model. The thing that has to 

21 be validated is, do we trust the distributions 

22 that were put in? Did we capture the range 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 132

1 properly, and there has been some disagreement 

2 between SC&A and NIOSH, regarding the air 

3 turnover rate.

4 The outcome of that was, we think 

5 that the upper bound is 35 picocuries per 

6 liter and NIOSH believes it should be 17. 

7 That's the extent of it. Other than that, I 

8 think we also have some measurements that were 

9 taken in the 1980s in this building, and we 

10 have measurements taken in other buildings 

11 which really don't adequately apply.

12 But one thing they do show is that 

13 17 or 35, certainly appears to bound for the 

14 data that we do have, even in light of its 

15 limitations. This number is an upper bound 

16 value that to assign to a person, as if you 

were being exposed to that level, 95th 17 

18 percentile level all the time. I consider that 

19 to be extremely conservative and upper bound.

20 So, I mean, I am trying to step

21 out of this, even though SC&A originally 

22 conceived of the idea. I stand before you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 133

1 saying that I believe that in this particular 

2 application, this is the most sensible way to 

3 approach this problem and if you're not going 

4 to use a model here, you really can't use a 

5 model anywhere.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, John.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'll remember you 

8 said that, because I guarantee you, it will --

9 that's not to -- you know, disparage your 

10 arguments, but never say never, right? Dr. 

11 Lemen?

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Having been one of 

13 the new members that brought this up and I 

14 guess, was a little bit responsible for 

15 tabling it last time, I think there are two 

16 issues here, and one issue is that we do have 

17 something that I haven't -- and I've looked 

18 through the data, seen any validation. I 

19 would support what Dr. Melius says about that. 

20 I would secondly want to echo what 

21 Dr. Anderson says. I, again, without sounding 

22 like a broken record, do not believe that when 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 134

1 we're dealing with a compensation program, and 

2 I'm an epidemiologist by training, so, I do 

3 believe in models. But I don't believe in 

4 them for a compensation program.

5 I have to say very strongly that 

6 we're not doing an experimental study here. 

7 We're dealing with people's lives, and we're 

8 dealing with the ability of compensating these 

9 people for exposures they've received.

10 So, I have to strongly urge, after 

11 looking at this, that we reject this and get 

12 this decided and take a vote and go forward 

13 and not come back to visit this idea of 

14 surrogate data and modeling again. I just 

15 don't think it's appropriate in this case. 

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Dr. 

18 Lemen. Dr. Lockey.

19 MEMBER LOCKEY: I think this -- we 

20 really have gone the extra steps to look at 

21 these particular exposures in a claimant22 friendly manner, and in relationship to radon, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 135

1 the end organs we're looking at are lung and 

2 hematological system, because those are the 

3 primary ones that would be affected.

4 Originally looked at the Florida 

5 data. I think it was seven or eight was the 

6 number and that's based on pretty good hard 

7 data, and then we weren't satisfied with that. 

8 We didn't think it was claimant-friendly 

9 enough, or we wanted to validate it. 

10 So, we went to our consultants and 

11 asked them to look at another way, and now, we 

12 have an upper boundary of 17, which is 

13 extremely claimant-friendly.

14 So, if we're worried about, are we 

15 being claimant-friendly here, in relationship 

16 to the end organs of interest, which in this 

17 case, are hematological system and the lung 

18 cancer, I think we're being extremely 

19 claimant-friendly and I think we covered the 

20 bases in relationship to our mandate in that 

21 area.

22 We do actually cover the bases, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 136

1 did you have lung cancer or you have a 

2 hematological based tumor, and you have this 

3 dose reconstruction applied with these 

4 parameters, you are going to get compensation.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Ziemer or Dr. 

6 Richardson?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, this is 

8 Ziemer. I just had one sort of comment related 

9 to Dr. Anderson's remarks and also Dr. Lemen, 

10 in terms of precedence setting.

11 I don't think the fact that we use 

12 -- if we were to use a model here or this 

13 particular model, that that automatically 

14 binds us forever for using that model or a 

15 particular model in future cases.

16 I think it's very important to 

17 recognize that each site and each situation is 

18 unique and one would have to determine that a 

19 particular model was appropriate to that site.

20 The fact that it had been used 

21 before or hadn't been used before, I don't 

22 think binds this Board to any particular 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 137

1 future position. It's quite true that we do 

2 look at precedence and we do want to be 

3 consistent. 

4 But the fact that a particular 

5 approach was used at a particular site does 

6 not bind us, in any way, in my mind, to doing 

7 that same approach at a different site, which 

8 will have its own particular parameters and 

9 own particular uniqueness.

10 Also, I should comment, and I 

11 understand Dr. Lemen's concerns about using 

12 both models and surrogate data, and I simply 

13 point out to you that, although that may be an 

14 objection, a personal objection that he has, 

15 and I respect that, none the less, this 

16 program allows for that approach and, by and 

17 large, that approach is used as Dr. Lockey has 

18 described, to provide a completely claimant19 favorable decision.

20 Compensation programs, in fact, in 

21 a sense, are based on making the right 

22 decision and they are not based on determining 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 138

1 the precise dose, but an approach which will 

2 give the claimant-favorable decision.

3 Obviously, one can argue that, for 

4 example, an SEC is the more claimant5 favorable, but it is not always, for some 

6 claimants.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

8 Dr. Richardson?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had one -- I 

10 had a question and I also had a, sort of, 

11 comment. But first, the question is sort of a 

12 point of clarification.

13 There was the issue raised of the 

14 use of surrogate data, and we've been focusing 

15 on the radon model and discussions about that.

16 My question had to do with how 

17 internal exposures from inhalation and 

18 ingestion of other radioactive dusts that 

19 might be produced during either the crushing 

20 of phosphate rock, the drying and loading of 

21 yellow cake, are those -- those aren't dealt 

22 with here in the radon model, and is there --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 139

1 is this where -- is there a surrogate data 

2 model that's being used that's drawing upon 

3 information from Idaho or another facility, to 

4 address those exposures?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can someone from 

6 NIOSH answer?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I want to make 

8 sure we're clear on this. For the part of the 

9 question that talked about loading the yellow 

10 cake, in other words, loading the uranium, and 

11 any of the other exposures that would have 

12 occurred in Building 55, which is where the 

13 uranium recovery operation occurred, the dose 

14 is reconstructed based on bioassay data that's 

15 available for some of the years that this 

16 plant operated.

17 There is the possibility that 

18 people were exposed to other, you know, more 

19 of a mixture of radioactive materials, outside 

20 of Building 55, during phosphate rock crushing 

21 and so on, and so, for that purpose, there is 

22 a surrogate model from an Idaho Falls, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 140

1 Idaho plant, that describe that situation and 

2 there's data from that site to use as an 

3 option.

4 Now, as a practical matter, a 

5 particular claimant, either worked in Building 

6 55 or outside 55, and so, the dose 

7 reconstruction each time is done with both 

8 considerations, which one for this particular 

9 exposure experience and this particular 

10 cancer, which one will be more favorable to 

11 the claimant, and that one is selected for 

12 that claimant, rather than having it 

13 prescribed.

14 As of -- I don't even know when 

15 this was, six months to a year ago, the last 

16 time I was briefed on this, every dose 

17 reconstruction done so far had used the 

18 Building 55 dose.

19 So, the surrogate model is 

20 available, if someone -- if that would give 

21 them a higher dose than the Building 55 dose, 

22 but up until that time the situation hadn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 141

1 arisen that that was more favorable, and so, 

2 Building 55 was used for each one.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then you also 

4 had a comment, David, if that answers your 

5 question.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think that 

7 answers my question. You're saying that you 

8 don't have the ability to place somebody in 

9 Building 55, and so, when a claimant comes in, 

10 you run them as though they were in Building 

11 55 and as though they were not in Building 55?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We know the names 

13 of some people in Building 55, because we have 

14 their bioassay samples. But we do not believe 

15 we have a comprehensive list of the people who 

16 were in Building 55, and the covered facility 

17 is Blockson Chemical. The covered facility is 

18 not just Building 55.

19 So, they are all eligible claims, 

20 and yes, so we treat them -- we run them both 

21 ways, you know, we don't know if they were in 

22 55 or if they were outside, and so, we do them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 142

1 both ways and then provide the particular dose 

2 reconstruction that's more favorable to them.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And maybe for a 

4 follow-up clarification, if this would help, 

5 John Mauro, in the review of the Blockson SEC, 

6 did you look at the surrogate data issue and 

7 what was the timing of that? It may have been 

8 well before we had surrogate data criteria for 

9 the Board. I don't -- 

10 DR. MAURO: In the strictest sense, 

11 the model is -- I never thought of that as a 

12 surrogate data issue. The model -- surrogate 

13 data issue has always been, we have 

14 measurements taken over here, and we want to 

15 assume that they -- 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, no, no.

17 DR. MAURO: So, what we really 

18 have, the only aspect of this that's surrogate 

19 is the parameter values we use, for example, 

20 the air turnover rate that was used in the 

21 model is data, it comes from data from other 

22 facilities where they measured air turnover 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 143

1 rate.

2 So, in a way, this would be a type 

3 two application of a surrogate model. So, 

4 that's the degree to which this particular 

5 approach uses surrogate data.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Excuse me, I'm 

7 drawing a distinction between the model 

8 proposed for radon and the methodology used to 

9 derive doses from inhalation and ingestion of 

10 radioactive dusts during other activities, 

11 crushing or loading -- 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The ore crushing, 

13 so the -- so, the use of the Idaho data -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, I thought you 

15 were referring to the inhalation of the 

16 uranium from the 55 gallon drum. I have to 

17 say, I don't recall the scenario for the dust.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, that was my 

19 only question, okay. David, you had an 

20 additional comment?

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, the other 

22 comment had to do with -- in principle, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 144

1 deriving a model that's -- I think it's very 

2 nice what's been done in deriving kind of the 

3 model for radon exposures, and I can -- in a 

4 sense, I can -- I accept it and I believe it's 

5 claimant-friendly and I can see that we could 

6 move forward with it.

7 I have two, I guess, modest, kind 

8 of reservations about it. One is, is that 

9 it's certainly claimant-friendly on average 

10 and it's probably, in the vast preponderance 

11 of cases, it's claimant-friendly and it may be 

12 that the uncertainty bound that have been 

13 placed on these parameters, when they're 

14 convoluted over C- through this Monte Carlo 

process, allows there to be that the 95th 15 

16 percentile actually is claimant-friendly for 

17 everybody.

18 That's the sort of question 

though, is there somebody who is in the 97th 19 

20 percentile, who is -- you know, we've actually 

21 been not friendly to?

22 So, there is a possibility that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 145

1 although we're on average in the vast majority

2 of cases, we're claimant-friendly, the absence 

3 of individualized information means that 

4 models are performing best in -- for 

5 characterizing exposures for most people, and 

6 yet, they're not giving us good predictions 

7 for individuals. That's one thing to keep in 

8 mind.

9 The other one is that, is there --

10 when we end up with situations with so much 

11 uncertainty, we can still produce models and 

12 MCMC modeling is very appealing, that you can 

13 kind of start to layer in all these 

14 uncertainties, and you have a framework for 

15 dealing with them.

16 But, in that case, we can always 

17 produce models that are going to be 

18 exceptionally friendly for people, but does it 

19 meet the kind of the goal of, can we derive 

20 plausible doses for individuals, and in this 

21 case, lots of these dose estimates, I think 

22 we'd all agree, are not plausible, kind of in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 146

1 the sense that they're not very plausible 

2 estimates of what the exposure to radon was 

3 for most of the workers here.

4 There are probably over-estimates, 

5 is what we -- as they've been characterized. 

6 They're extremely claimant-friendly, and in 

7 that situation, are we suppose to say, well, 

8 we've settled upon a model that we believe is 

9 extremely claimant-friendly, or are we 

10 supposed to say, this is one of these 

11 situations where this is why we have an SEC, 

12 because in order to derive dose estimates for 

13 the vast majority of these people, we have to 

14 use a model which is actually giving 

15 implausibly high exposures for some of these 

16 people.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, thank you. 

18 I mean, I think with this or any other -- many 

19 of our surrogate data approaches, other 

20 approaches, I mean, that is the basic sort of 

21 tension is, do you capture people that, 

22 because of their work or type of work they did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 147

1 or work assignments had, would be at the 

2 higher end of the distribution, are those 

3 adequately addressed and then, in assuring 

4 that they are, what's happening to everybody 

5 else?

6 Are you going -- are you 

7 implausible, in terms of your dose estimates 

8 for the average worker or other workers in the 

9 facility, and when you're doing something 

10 based on a building, where people have many 

11 different work assignments, either you have to 

12 assume, sort of, they're rotating -- I mean, 

13 it's just -- it is difficult and it's hard to 

14 reach the right parameters for doing so, and 

15 it's an issue Mark has brought up earlier 

16 also, into that.

17 Okay, I believe Bill Field would 

18 be next.

19 MEMBER FIELD: I had a -- I guess, 

20 just a clarification, that I wanted to check 

21 with, and then maybe some questions.

22 With the clarification, when we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 148

1 voting whether or not to approve or not 

2 approve this, are we also voting on the 

3 distributions?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not necessarily. 

5 NIOSH has been hedging, I don't know if 

6 that's a fair statement. Stu, you may want to 

7 comment, but on the -- on what will be the 

8 parameters in the model, that would be -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm not here 

10 to specify what will be the parameters of the 

11 model. I mean, the -- as I understand it, 

12 now, I can be corrected, maybe by counsel or 

13 by Ted, but the motion was about the SEC, 

14 whether to add the SEC, and that has to do 

15 with the feasibility of the dose, not the 

16 quantity of the dose.

17 So, if, in fact, the question is 

18 about the parameters of the model and where is 

19 it going to come out, what's the number going 

20 to be, I don't think that's a relevant 

21 question to this vote. That would be my 

22 judgment.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 149

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it would be 

2 a -- commonly, we so call it a Site Profile 

3 issue.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be a 

5 Site Profile issue.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, it would be 

7 addressed sort of as a Site Profile and we 

8 would have a -- say, if we voted for an SEC or 

9 part of an SEC, and so forth, there are sort 

10 of left over issues that are Site Profile 

11 issues, involved individual dose 

12 reconstruction and like with Portsmouth 

13 Paducah, we're now sort of going back and, you 

14 know, evaluating those Site Profile issues, to 

15 that.

16 And it may turn out that, you know 

17 -- 

18 I can't think of any examples, but there 

19 probably are, with the 8314s, where as we were 

20 going through those Site Profile issues, that 

21 we find new SECs or where we can't -- it's 

22 complicated.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 150

1 MEMBER FIELD: Right, and I guess 

2 it is complicated. There's a lot of factors, 

3 input factors going into this and it's very 

4 hard to reconstruct historic exposures, as we 

5 all know.

6 But part of, I think, the 

7 questions that have come up, regarding 

8 validation, I look at validation as something 

9 that you would like to do, if you're deriving 

10 a central estimate or what your best estimate 

11 would be.

12 And whether or not you have the 

13 information, then to bound it, is sort of a 

14 different question to me, and the bounding, 

15 really depends in part on what the 

16 distributions are. That's why I bring that 

17 question up.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I guess my 

19 comment is the validation, to me, also should 

20 -- for the purposes we're using these models, 

21 also needs to capture the distributions in 

22 some way.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 151

1 MEMBER FIELD: Well, yes, I'm not 

2 sure, and the whole question, we could talk at 

3 length, about what validation means. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MEMBER FIELD: But I guess, what 

6 you -- regardless of what it's called, what 

7 you want to get is a reasonable estimate of 

8 what someone was exposed to, and because there 

9 is so much uncertainty in the input 

10 parameters, it's almost like -- I have a 

11 tendency to want to see this be as claimant12 favorable as possible, even though it's not 

13 supposed to depend on quantity of exposure, 

14 but whether or not it can be bounded, that it 

15 seems like there's a gray area in there, to 

16 me, and it may not be -- it may not be obvious 

17 to other people -- 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MEMBER FIELD: -- like my 

20 questions are, but it would be helpful just to 

21 know that if we're missing, we're not -- by 

22 the bounds, we're not missing it by much, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 152

1 at all.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that's a 

3 fair assessment. I just add one more thing, 

4 sort of, the Board procedure is that we do in 

5 evaluating an SEC one of the things we've done 

6 -- NIOSH often doesn't have everything 

7 complete at the time they're doing an SEC 

8 Evaluation Report.

9 But we've sort of said that, well, 

10 if they're going to say that they can 

11 reconstruct dose, then sort of show me, 

12 demonstrate it.

13 So, you'll see in the reports and 

14 in the presentations, on say, an 83.13, where 

15 they will say they can -- they don't -- I 

16 believe it's in this one, though it's been a 

17 while since I've looked at Blockson, the end 

18 of the report -- they will demonstrate they'll 

19 do some, you know, dose reconstructions, you 

20 know, based on, sort of the common -- they're 

21 not actual individuals, but they will go 

22 through that process.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 153

1 So, at least we have some 

2 demonstration that they can do that and we at 

3 least feel generally comfortable that with 

4 what they're proposing now -- I mean, things 

5 change, as you go along. You find things 

6 later, but that's been the process.

7 MEMBER FIELD: Can I just follow up 

8 with one question?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

10 MEMBER FIELD: And it's sort of a 

11 question that goes back to source term and how 

12 much we know about the source term.

13 In one of the documents, it says, 

14 the greatest uncertainty involves the fraction 

15 of radon and involves some sulfuric acid, and 

16 I'm just wondering, how -- do we have it well 

17 documented, what the quantity of radium is 

18 that goes through the process in this 

19 facility? That's well documented?

20 DR. MAURO: You bring up a very 

21 good point. The throughput, the mass 

22 throughput of the ore and its content is well 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 154

1 understood.

2 The point you're making is, okay 

3 fine, you've got this bulk material moving 

4 through the system. You're hitting it with 

5 sulfuric acid. You're digesting it and the 

6 sense is that if -- that's where the radon is 

7 going to leave.

8 Okay, now, we ran some diffusion 

9 models. We said, okay, now, we've got this 

10 soup. Okay, everything is dissolved, open 

11 ended tanks on the second floor, and the 

12 question is, well, that's where the radon is 

13 going to come off.

14 What fraction of the radon in the 

15 soup is going to become airborne, and the 

16 answer is, we don't know.

17 So, we ran some diffusion 

18 calculations, straight diffusion, not vector 

19 transport, just -- and we ran it and it turns 

20 out, less than one percent would come off 

21 through diffusion.

22 So, we said, well, that would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 155

1 the lower end of what would come off. What 

2 would be the upper end? The upper end would 

3 be 100 percent, and we said, but -- we said is 

4 -- and then, we got into the discussion with 

5 NIOSH, okay, is that a good upper end? 

6 But that's an enormous 

7 uncertainty. We're going from zero to one.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Right, right.

9 DR. MAURO: So, where we ended up 

10 on that particular -- so, we're talking 

11 distribution now, not modeling, important. 

12 You see, in effect -- the discussion we're 

13 having right now says, look, well, we'll 

14 accept the idea you could run a box model, but 

15 you better be right about the distributions, 

16 okay.

17 Well, it turns out, we ended up 

18 with going with 70 percent of the fraction of 

19 the radon that's in the soup becomes airborne, 

20 and that came out of a very interesting place. 

21 We have lots of data on when 

22 people withdraw groundwater into their shower, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 156

1 okay, they measure the radon in the 

2 groundwater. The water comes out, taking a 

3 shower, the water is collected, okay. It 

4 turns out that -- which is a very -- it's a 

5 way to really -- if you want to get the radon 

6 out of the water and into the air, that's a 

7 good way to do it. You know, you sort of 

8 spray it, you know, and you really -- 

9 So, what we found was, the highest 

10 fraction that came out was 70 percent. So, we 

11 said, even on the very turbulent conditions 

12 with a lot of vector transport in the soup, we 

13 don't think more than 70 percent of the radon 

14 would come out, and there was where we picked 

15 our upper bound.

16 So, our input to the distribution 

17 on that parameter went from zero to .7 and --

18 to capture the full range, and we made it a 

19 uniform distribution.

20 So, that's how we dealt with that 

21 uncertainty, but that is a very important 

22 uncertainty. It's a large one, where you pick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 157

1 it.

2 The reality is, we don't know, it 

3 could be much lower than that, so, that's why 

4 we're feeling pretty confident that, that 

5 number of -- well, our number is 34 picocuries 

6 per liter, is very claimant-favorable and I 

7 agree with you, to the point where, is it 

8 plausible, you know, I mean, it's up there.

9 MEMBER FIELD: Right, right. Just 

10 one last question.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

12 MEMBER FIELD: I guess I have some 

13 concerns about using water and acid as equal 

14 medium for carrying radon, as far the 

15 solubility coefficients. I think they differ.

16 So, I think if you were taking a 

17 shower with acid, you may have a higher 

18 emanation than 70 percent

19 DR. MAURO: You know, you're saying 

20 then, let's go zero to one, the spread.

21 MEMBER FIELD: I am.

22 DR. MAURO: And I'm okay with -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 158

1 mean, see, it's not the model anymore, it's 

2 the parameters, and that becomes a Site 

3 Profile issue.

4 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I disagree 

6 with that point, John. I think you actually 

7 have to show that the parameters you're using 

8 for the model have some basis in reality. I 

9 mean, you can't just -- 

10 DR. MAURO: I have to say, I mean, 

11 my whole world is models. As a health 

12 physicist, modeling things all the time.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 DR. MAURO: And I can see why it 

15 would be disturbing to try to solve lots of 

16 classes of problems, simply throwing a bigger 

17 distribution.

18 So, you know, before, maybe I got 

19 a little carried away. You know, if you can't 

20 do 

21 it here, you can't do it anywhere. I 

22 shouldn't have said that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 159

1 But nevertheless, I think that the 

2 -- the idea of a box model as a way of coming 

3 at this problem is not a bad idea, and the 

4 real tough part is that have you captured the 

5 range of parameters going to the model in a 

6 way that seems to be appropriate, or is it 

7 just too easy, you know, just too easy to 

8 throw a bigger distribution at it to make sure 

9 we're okay. I respect that problem.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. I 

11 also hope we don't have a bunch of SC&A people 

12 taking showers in sulfuric acid to derive a 

13 parameter. I think that's a little bit above 

14 and beyond. Okay, Mike?

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Just a comment and 

16 a question. There's been some comment that 

17 modeling and surrogate data is allowed in The 

18 Act, which, you know, I guess I don't dispute, 

19 but The Act also is based on this whole 

20 process of being timely to the claimants, and 

21 I think this process has been anything but 

22 timely for the claimants of Blockson.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 160

1 So, my question is, if we, 

2 procedurally, if we vote on this, the motion 

3 that's on the table, and we vote it down, what 

4 are our options today?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, if we vote 

6 it down, then I assume, then the next step 

7 would be to develop a Class Definition and 

8 supporting information for -- to vote it up, I 

9 guess, you know, so to speak, the SEC. 

10 So, we would have to craft that, 

11 whether we could do that at this meeting or at 

12 a later point, I'm not sure. Sort of one step 

13 at a time.

14 So, I think the motion on the 

15 table is to accept, and that's the first one 

16 we need to deal with. I mean, alternatively, 

17 we could re-table the motion. 

18 However, given the timeliness 

19 issue, and the -- this may come out of the 

20 vote, also, I mean, we could decide that we --

21 based on the vote, or if we can't -- if it's a 

22 tie vote, for example, we might want to have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 161

1 further information.

2 But I think because of the 

3 timeliness issue, it does behoove us to be 

4 specific about what further steps we expect, 

5 in follow up that would -- they need to be 

6 steps that would, I think, help us to resolve, 

7 you know, need to resolve in a timely fashion, 

8 this particular SEC petition.

9 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, would it be -

10 - if this is voted down, would we be within 

11 our rights to make a motion that if it does 

12 indeed pass, draft a letter to the Secretary 

13 saying, we disagreed with NIOSH's assessment 

14 and we recommend a pass?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think we 

16 would make a -- turn that into a positive 

17 message, but I think we have to craft a 

18 motion, but it also has to include a Class 

19 Definition. We don't have a Class Definition. 

20 I mean, we have the one from the 

21 petition and we could vote that. I think we 

22 then have to be sure that what we're proposing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 162

1 justifies that Class Definition. I think that 

2 would be the -- as I said, that's something we 

3 may be able to do here. I just don't want to 

4 jump ahead procedurally, and then we've had 

5 this motion in front of us.

6 And I'm hoping that we're edging 

7 towards a vote on the motion, and I -- 

8 MS. PINCHETTI: This is Kathy 

9 Pinchetti. I'm the petitioner for the SEC. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

11 MS. PINCHETT: I don't know if this 

12 an appropriate -- 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, this a good 

14 time, because we are about to finish up our 

15 Board discussion on this, so before we take a 

16 vote -- so we would like to hear from you.

17 MS. PINCHETT: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

19 MS. PINCHETT: It's okay to talk 

20 now?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right now, yes.

22 MS. PINCHETT: Okay, I just wanted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 163

1 to say that my dad worked at Blockson for 44 

2 years, and on behalf of all the coworkers, 

3 that's why I submitted this.

4 There have been references to the 

5 -- things like people only working single 

6 shifts and that is absolutely not true. I 

7 think the other workers and the family members 

8 can attest to that, that you had a certain 

9 job, and my dad's job was filter operator, and 

10 if your relief person that was trained to do 

11 that same job did not show up, then you worked 

12 a double, and it was more common than not, for 

13 him to be working double shifts.

14 So, he was in Building 55 and I'm 

15 kind of losing track of which building we're 

16 talking about. I don't think there's even any 

17 dimensions of Building 40.

18 So, we keep going back and forth 

19 and it seems like the discussion is very 

20 circular and it seems that the new members 

21 are, you know, able to see the forest despite 

22 the trees, and can see that there is really no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 164

1 information to base this on, it's all 

2 estimates and assumptions and I think the 

3 whole purpose of submitting the SEC was that 

4 anyone that worked at Blockson would be 

5 covered, and now it's kind of like we're 

6 trying to estimate how much they were exposed 

7 to.

8 It's pretty obvious that there's 

9 been a lot of dust for radiation. My dad was 

10 in the hospital for a month, with radiation 

11 poisoning, while he was working on this 

12 project, and ended up staying there and 

13 surviving and was there for 44 years and I 

14 submitted this petition four years ago and 

15 we're no closer to a decision now than we were 

16 when it was first submitted.

17 And there's no more information 

18 that's going to become available and to this 

19 estimate and plug it into a textbook model, 

20 it's -- I don't know what the purpose of all 

21 that is.

22 So, I guess in sum, I just want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 165

1 ask that the Board accept the SEC petition on 

2 behalf of Blockson.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. So, 

4 we have a motion on the table to accept the 

5 NIOSH SEC Evaluation Report, which would, in 

6 essence, turn down the petition. Are you 

7 ready to vote on it? So, Dr. Ziemer, Dr. 

8 Richardson, any further -- I don't want to -- 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no further 

10 questions. This is Ziemer.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, David?

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't have 

13 any other questions at this point, no.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

15 Okay, Ted, yes. Don't skip --

16 MR. KATZ: I'll try to do this 

17 right this time, and get everybody in one go.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, basically, 

19 the proposed Class Definition was that --

20 actually, who had -- somebody had written it 

21 out. Emily, read that.

22 MR. KATZ: The motion.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 166

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The motion.

2 MR. KATZ: The motion, she didn't 

3 have it verbatim, but the motion on the table 

4 -- 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is basically to 

6 accept the NIOSH SEC Evaluation Report, which 

7 says that they can conduct dose 

8 reconstructions, is to turn down the petition.

9 MR. KATZ: Is everybody clear? 

10 Okay, so, let's just run this alphabetically 

11 so I don't skip anybody. Dr. Anderson?

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.

13 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

14 MEMBER BEACH: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

18 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

20 MEMBER GIBSON: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 167

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

2 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

4 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

7 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

12 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, so, let me just be 

22 accurate on the numbers here. So, there are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 168

1 seven yes's, which means there are nine no's, 

2 which means the motion fails.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, so, what I 

4 would propose as the next step is that we come 

5 back to this after lunch. Over lunch, I will 

6 work to develop a motion and a Class 

7 Definition. I will talk to the NIOSH counsel 

8 and see if we can come up with something that 

9 we can approve after lunch, or later in the 

10 meeting, today, or even tomorrow morning, but 

11 preferably, I think today, and we will go from 

12 there. Is that satisfactory with everybody? 

13 Okay, thank you.

14 Moving on to Chapman Valve. 

15 Again, I don't believe we have any information 

16 -- no motion, we have no motion here and 

17 again, there is -- I don't think there's any 

18 information on our drives, our O: drive or 

19 anything related to that.

20 So, I guess we start with any 

21 discussion or if anybody wants to make a 

22 motion on Chapman. Yes, Dr. Poston?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 169

1 MEMBER POSTON: I think, isn't the 

2 motion on the table? The motion was to accept 

3 the recommendations of NIOSH.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, yes, I don't 

5 believe that's -- 

6 MEMBER POSTON: And that was 

7 tabled?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What?

9 MEMBER POSTON: That was tabled?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, don't think 

11 it -- 

12 MR. KATZ: No, I think the record 

13 is -- there was some discussion of a motion, 

14 but there actually never was a formal motion, 

15 or at least -- 

16 MEMBER POSTON: Then can we make a 

17 motion?

18 MR. KATZ: There is not one 

19 currently.

20 MEMBER POSTON: You did not make a 

21 motion?

22 MEMBER BEACH: It was so long ago, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 170

1 I can't remember.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MS. HOWELL: Let me get to the 

4 right place. I think the most recent action 

5 regarding Chapman Valve, there had been a 

6 motion. I believe the motion was to accept 

7 the NIOSH report, and then, that motion was 

8 tabled and then the motion failed. 

9 So, there is no motion on the 

10 table at this time, is what I believe had 

11 happened.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: The motion to 

13 table failed?

14 MS. HOWELL: No, I'm sorry -- 

15 MEMBER POSTON: The motion was 

16 tabled and the motion to remove it was a tie 

17 vote.

18 MS. HOWELL: Right, in a tie vote, 

19 failed.

20 MEMBER POSTON: It didn't fail.

21 MS. HOWELL: Okay, Doctor -- 

22 MEMBER POSTON: It moved forward. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 171

1 It didn't fail.

2 MS. HOWELL: Dr. Poston moved to 

3 accept the NIOSH recommendation on Chapman 

4 Valve, thus denying the Class. The Board vote 

5 on the motion was a tied vote.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

7 MS. HOWELL: So it failed and there 

8 is no motion on the table. A tie vote fails, 

9 but it doesn't mean that it -- it doesn't mean 

10 that people voted against. It just means it's 

11 gone. So, a new motion would be in order, 

12 either way.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Does anybody want 

14 to make a motion, or comment, or discuss? 

15 Yes, Bill?

16 MEMBER FIELD: I had a question. I 

17 think I asked this last time we had a 

18 conference call.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

20 MEMBER FIELD: But one of the 

21 unique aspects of this site was this one 

22 finding of the one sample, is that correct? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 172

1 There was -- 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

3 MEMBER FIELD: Is there any 

4 recollection, not knowing the history of this 

5 site, that any workers reported working with 

6 enrichment materials at this site, any self7 reported information?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark? 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, SC&A brought 

10 this up in their report. John, maybe you can 

11 speak to this, the interview with -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes they were, Arjun 

13 and myself, John, were at the worker meeting 

14 and the answer is no, the only information we 

15 have, that they recall these large manifolds 

16 came in and went out and there -- 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: There was no 

18 direct information, right.

19 DR. MAURO: They seem to remember 

20 certain kinds of devices that came in and then 

21 were transported to this other facility, 

22 called Dean Street, and that was the only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 173

1 thing that's -- that we came away with, so, 

2 maybe that's the reason, because if a manifold 

3 that was being used for enriching uranium was 

4 being refurbished -- and this was, you know, 

5 something that we just thought about, that 

6 might be one reason why there might, during 

7 the transshipment, have some quantity of 

8 enriched uranium left behind.

9 But that would not have been 

10 related to the activity covered, for the 

11 covered period. But then again, when we went 

12 in -- we, NIOSH, went into the literature, to 

13 see if there was any evidence that such 

14 transshipments occurred, that came in from 

15 let's say Oak Ridge, and went to Dean Street, 

16 no.

17 As a matter of fact, my 

18 recollection and please, anyone who has a 

19 better recollection -- 

20 MEMBER POSTON: One of the women 

21 testified or told us that she remembered 

22 typing the shipping orders and so forth, for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 174

1 these manifolds. But as John says, we were 

2 never able to find any data that indicated, or 

3 any copies of those shipping orders at all.

4 Mr. Chairman, you mentioned 

5 Robert's Rules of Order, therefore, I'd like 

6 to make a motion, so that we can discuss this.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine. 

8 That's why I left it open. So, go ahead.

9 MEMBER POSTON: I would like to 

10 move that we accept the NIOSH evaluation.

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: Second.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. Now, 

13 discussion, Brad? 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: NIOSH, just 

15 lately, made the comment that in researching 

16 data for one of the other sites, they came up 

17 with new information on Chapman Valve, but 

18 they -- the only thing that I've heard on it 

19 is that it has not changed their stance on it. 

20 But I haven't heard what they've 

21 found, with Chapman Valve. See, this is one 

22 of the questions that I've always had on this, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 175

1 is that there has been a lot of information 

2 and just -- you know, we've had people tell us 

3 about this, but they haven't been able to find 

4 any of the documentation or so forth like 

5 that, and I guess I have a little bit of a 

6 problem with it, because the paper trails are 

7 never always that good.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Stu, and 

9 then I believe somebody from SC&A, I think I 

10 know what Stu is going to talk about.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, well, this 

12 visit was made last Thursday, in order to try 

13 to see these, and what we found was a finding 

14 that said -- that associated Chapman Valve 

15 with one box at a storage facility in 

16 Maryland.

17 So, we went Thursday, this was a -

18 - it was identified as a classified 

19 collection. The things we saw turned out not 

20 to be classified, but they were inter-mixed 

21 with classified material, and they were 

22 essentially -- as I understand it, they were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 176

1 materials, you know, accountability numbers, 

2 you know, this is how much uranium we got, 

3 this is how much uranium we sent, pertains to 

4 that 1948 period that we know about, that is 

5 the activity that we knew -- that we have the 

6 detailed knowledge about.

7 So, that's it. Joe Fitzgerald is 

8 actually there. Mark Rolfes was actually 

9 there. They might be able to give a better 

10 characterization.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Mark or Joe, 

12 do you have anything to add? Joe?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think that 

14 covered it pretty well. Actually, it was in 

15 the context of what John was saying, John 

16 Poston was saying earlier. We wanted to focus 

17 on any possibility of those shipments and 

18 focus on the sites that might have been 

19 shipping, and the records turned out to be, as 

20 Stu was saying, administrative, you know, 

21 property management.

22 I mean, it was -- you know, it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 177

1 specific to Chapman, but nothing that would 

2 probably shed light on this.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wouldn't shed 

4 light one way or the other, I guess is -- 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right, I 

6 mean, there was some expectation there might 

7 be some information that would give you some 

8 hint or some clue to this, but not at this 

9 time.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay, thank 

11 you, Joe. Okay, so, we were -- I mean, they -

12 - as we mentioned earlier, NIOSH had expedited 

13 the visit there, to get Chapman, once these 

14 were -- became aware of this information and 

15 we were hoping it would help to resolve, but 

16 it hasn't, and I think the other information, 

17 just to refresh people's memory, and again, 

18 Stu or somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, 

19 but that the initial -- also we, at one point, 

20 thought that maybe there was Defense 

21 Department Nuclear Navy operations worked on 

22 at this facility and -- but we're unable to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 178

1 locate records and any sort of further --

2 through a computerized database, and if I 

3 recall right, there may be paper records 

4 someplace, but this would be a large 

5 undertaking to do -- wasn't sure that there 

6 was access for this.

7 And so, it was decided not to move 

8 forward on that, and so, we're left with this 

9 sample that we can't explain. Yes, Brad, then 

10 Wanda.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: This has been part 

12 of the problem, and I guess, maybe it's wrong, 

13 or whatever. I got back to what I do right 

14 now, and we had a FUSRAP report that came out 

15 of there and they said that it was not 

16 uncommon, going into these sites, to be able 

17 to find higher than expected contents because 

18 a lot of these sites interacted with one 

19 another.

20 And we basically had two samples, 

21 one enriched and one not, and we're 

22 disregarding this one sample, and this is my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 179

1 frustration because I personally know that in 

2 my process, the only documentation of fuel 

3 that I have from other sites is just on my 

4 criticality sheets. I have no record of it 

5 because it's not my fuel. It belongs to 

6 somebody else, and this is -- we've taken and 

7 we've cut Dean Street out, because we couldn't 

8 find the information on Dean Street, and John, 

9 isn't that right, didn't we cut Dean Street 

10 out separate from Chapman?

11 MEMBER POSTON: After the 

12 interviews that Arjun and John and I conducted 

13 on site, Dean Street was added.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: It was added.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Because we were not 

16 aware of Dean Street at all.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

18 MEMBER POSTON: And then when they 

19 started looking for records, and correct me, 

20 John, if I'm -- if I understand, they found no 

21 records, and so, we couldn't proceed if the 

22 Dean Street was incorporated with the other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 180

1 facility, and so, we requested that that be 

2 removed.

3 So, it wasn't there initially, 

4 when we did our interviews. We found out that 

5 there was a second facility, which was added, 

6 but then when we looked for some way to 

7 understand what went on at Dean Street, we had 

8 no success at all. So, we asked that -- the 

9 Working Group asked that it be removed from 

10 our consideration and we focused on the 

11 original facility.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can I just ask 

13 for a clarification, because -- but Dean 

14 Street is part of the facility definition?

15 MEMBER POSTON: It was not.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not, then it was 

17 added?

18 MEMBER POSTON: Then it was added 

19 and then we requested that it be removed, so 

20 that we could focus on the initial definition.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But removed from 

22 your consideration, but it is still part of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 181

1 the facility definition?

2 MEMBER POSTON: I don't know the 

3 answer.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That was -- 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Correct.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can someone -- 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought that we 

8 brought it in. I didn't remember removing it, 

9 and this is -- 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think -- 

11 MEMBER POSTON: We did.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, in response 

13 to your question, Dean Street is considered 

14 part of Chapman Valve.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: So, if someone 

17 worked at Dean Street, that's considered 

18 covered employment.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, that's -- 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just -- we've

21 got too many unanswered questions, bottom 

22 line, is what it comes down to, and I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 182

1 think that we can really, in my personal 

2 opinion, really do justice for that.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Brad. 

4 John, you had further?

5 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I thought it 

6 would be appropriate -- I'm sorry, Wanda.

7 MEMBER MUNN: No, go ahead.

8 MEMBER POSTON: I thought it would 

9 be appropriate to go back and recall what the 

10 Work Group did, just for -- to make everyone 

11 aware.

12 There is no question that on the -

13 - in terms of the reconstruction of external 

14 dose, for the facility, we have the -- NIOSH 

15 has all the film badge data. 

16 So, the question of external doses 

17 is moot, as far as I'm concerned. They have 

18 the information.

19 The internal dose is a horse of a 

20 different variety, as my advisor used to say, 

21 because we have a limited number of air 

22 sampling results in the facility and so, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 183

1 approach that was taken by NIOSH was to take 

2 the highest concentration -- and again, John, 

3 if I'm misstating this, please, let me know,

4 this has been a long time -- taking the 

5 highest concentration that existed in the 

6 facility and assume that it was there eight 

7 hours a day, for the entire covered period.

8 Now, the covered period is a year 

9 and a half, but the actual activity in the 

10 facility was less than that. So, we have two 

11 over-arching assumptions. One, that the 

12 maximum concentration existed in the facility 

13 over the entire covered period, which it C- we 

14 -- you know, think it does not, and the fact 

15 that the activity in the facility was much 

16 shorter than the covered period.

17 So, under those assumptions, the 

18 Work Group concluded that if NIOSH calculated 

19 a Probability of Causation and it was less 

20 than 50 percent, it would never -- there were 

21 no situations in which it could be greater 

22 than 50 percent, and that's the reason we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 184

1 voted to accept the NIOSH recommendation. Jim 

2 is frowning.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I didn't 

4 understand that last part.

5 MEMBER POSTON: Say it again?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I didn't 

7 understand the last part, how -- 

8 MEMBER POSTON: Well, the period in 

9 which the folks were exposed was shorter than 

10 the year and a half.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

12 MEMBER POSTON: We assumed that 

13 they were exposed for a year and a half at the 

14 maximum concentration, eight hours a day, five 

15 days a week. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, I 

17 understand now.

18 MEMBER POSTON: And the logic is, 

19 if the PoC is not greater than 50 percent, 

20 under those assumptions, it would never be 

21 greater than 50 percent.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, I thought 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 185

1 you assume that up front, that's why -- 

2 MEMBER POSTON: No.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- I 

4 misunderstood.

5 MEMBER POSTON: Now, we do have the 

6 problem that Brad brought up, of the two 

7 samples, one which was not enriched, the 

8 second one, which was slightly enriched, 

9 somewhere in the order, as I recall, around 

10 two percent.

11 NIOSH, Jim Neton, did get in touch 

12 with the FUSRAP people at Oak Ridge, talked to 

13 the folks that made the measurements. They 

14 were relatively certain that they -- that that 

15 was a correct value.

16 When we asked them, how did they 

17 make the measurements, what techniques, and so 

18 forth, they really didn't have a firm answer. 

19 The folks -- the leader of the group was 

20 still at Oak Ridge, but some of the other 

21 folks were not there to help explain.

22 So, we do have those two samples. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 186

1 We thought, because there was an indication 

2 later, that some of the activities at Chapman 

3 Valve outside of the covered period, were 

4 conducted under the Department of Defense. I 

5 believe Jim Neton also -- or somebody in NIOSH 

6 requested any documents from, I believe from 

7 the Navy. There was a Navy activity.

8 We got no response from the Navy, 

9 in terms of what activities were going on at 

10 Chapman Valve and so, that -- we basically got 

11 stonewalled. We have no idea if there was 

12 slightly enriched uranium. We really don't 

13 know where that sample came from.

14 John, and Arjun and I, actually 

15 postulated that it may have come from Oak 

16 Ridge, with those manifolds, but again, we 

17 couldn't find records that the manifolds were 

18 either shipped in or shipped out.

19 So, we don't even -- except for 

20 the testimony of this woman who was very lucid 

21 and clear about it, we have no indication that 

22 the manifolds actually exist. I don't know. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 187

1 So, that's another one of the things. But -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree with that 

3 account pretty much fully, except for one part 

4 of it. I think, and NIOSH can correct me if 

5 I'm wrong, but I think the model is based on 

6 urinalysis, not on air sampling. But 

7 otherwise, it's all -- it was based on like 

8 the highest urinalysis valve and the intakes

9 were calculated from that.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Okay, I -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There was actually 

12 a fire there and there was bioassay taken 

13 after the fire, and so, the highest sample 

14 from that is taken for the acute exposure 

15 associated with the fire.

16 And then, the highest sample, not 

17 associated with the fire, is used for the 

18 chronic exposure for everybody for the whole 

19 time.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Thank you, Mark, I 

21 stand corrected.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's been a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 188

1 while. Thank you for that summary.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only other 

3 thing I would say is that it was my -- my 

4 memory is, from the interview, Jim Neton did 

5 interview the individuals who did the surveys 

6 and I thought he had indicated that he wasn't 

7 sure of the particular method, but at that 

8 time, they would have definitely used alpha 

9 spec or mass spec.

10 So, that was part of his reasoning 

11 on why it was a real number, it wasn't likely 

12 to have -- you know, just be attributed to 

13 error.

14 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, it was an 

15 either/or situation.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MEMBER POSTON: He didn't remember.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right.

19 MEMBER POSTON: So, it could have 

20 been this or it could have been that.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 189

1 Wanda?

2 MEMBER MUNN: One of the most 

3 valuable summaries that we have, of what goes 

4 on with these case reviews is NIOSH 

5 presentations that are made to us, where their 

6 recommendation occurs.

7 In this plethora of electronic 

8 data that's available to us, can we not pull 

9 up, for our own review, the presentation 

10 slides that were the NIOSH presentation to the 

11 Board?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't believe 

13 that information is archived on the website. 

14 So -- 

15 MEMBER MUNN: That's really 

16 unfortunate.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's on the O: 

18 drive.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's on the O: 

20 drive? 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Somebody wants to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 190

1 -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm pretty sure. 

3 I see the Evaluation Report. I'm looking for 

4 the slide.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I did know 

6 that -- 

7 MEMBER MUNN: I looked for the 

8 slide and couldn't find it.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I agree 

10 with you in general, Wanda. I think that we 

11 need to make sure, next time we bring up 

12 something from our past, that we need to have 

13 some reference material readily available, and 

14 I'll work with Ted and NIOSH, to make sure 

15 that that is available to us, when we're 

16 having these type of discussions and sort of 

17 reconsidering or reviewing something that 

18 we've done in the past, where it's not on the 

19 website or not directly accessible, or easily 

20 accessible on the O: drive, we should make it 

21 more readily available.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Those visuals are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 191

1 sometimes much easier to get to the meat of 

2 the matter, than reading the written material 

3 that comes out in the document.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, go ahead. I 

6 was -- Gen had a comment, then I was going to 

7 do you and David.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, go ahead, 

9 Gen.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Mine is short. 

11 Just a comment on Dr. Poston's wording. The 

12 sample that we have under discussion, he said 

13 was enriched. I don't think we have 

14 confirmation that that's true. I think the 

15 interpretation was that it was probably 

16 enriched, and that's why the questions were 

17 asked about the methodology for looking at the 

18 sample.

19 I think there are all kinds of 

20 other possibilities. So, I think maybe a 

21 change in wording would be -- I'm not quite 

22 sure what it is, but we're not certain it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 192

1 enriched.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Likely was 

3 enriched, I guess, yes, likely was, or 

4 something.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: One 

6 interpretation.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul? 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: My memory is also a 

9 little fuzzy, but -- and maybe this was asked 

10 in the past some time. But what would be the 

11 implication of the dose reconstruction if 

12 NIOSH assumed that that low enrichment uranium 

13 instead of the natural uranium?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, 

15 theoretically, you could adjust the dose 

16 upward, but the problem with that though is 

17 that we -- it's pretty clear from the 

18 information we have, that they used natural 

19 uranium.

20 The work we know about at Chapman 

21 Valve used natural uranium and they made these 

22 slugs. That's the work we know about, and so, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 193

1 it would be a little incongruous, I think, to 

2 say because of this two percent sample, we're 

3 now going to do doses as if this were enriched 

4 uranium, based on the bioassay data we have. 

5 I think that would be a little inconsistent.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I suppose the only 

7 other implication is, there was something else 

8 going on that's not accounted for, and I think 

9 we also had the discussion because of the 

10 detail to which enriched uranium was tracked, 

11 not only now, but then, that the likelihood of 

12 there being any significant operation 

13 involving U-235, that -- went undiscovered in 

14 the process of record review, is very 

15 unlikely.

16 I think we all concluded that at 

17 best it was a contamination brought in, 

18 perhaps in the shipping of the manifolds or 

19 something like that, for which there might 

20 have been some small area of a loading dock 

21 contaminated. I believe the sample was on a 

22 loading dock, was it not?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 194

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, near a 

2 loading dock. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Can I just offer 

4 something?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Our position on 

7 this has -- I think we've been pretty 

8 consistent in expressing this all along.

9 The work that we know about, 

10 despite all our research it's still the only 

11 work we know about, is the manufacture of 

12 those natural uranium slugs, and we believe we 

13 have a method for reconstructing the dose for 

14 that natural uranium work.

15 The existence of a two percent 

16 sample, if it in fact, is a two percent 

17 sample, is more -- if you're going to 

18 interpret that in any way, it would have -- I 

19 would think it would have to be, there must 

20 have been other work at that site, that we 

21 don't yet know about.

22 And so, I don't know, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 195

1 if, in fact, that work occurred and if, in 

2 fact, we can learn enough about that work to 

3 even make a judgment about whether doses 

4 should be reconstructed, in other words, was 

5 it AEC work, or make a judgment about, is it 

6 feasible to reconstruct those doses, if we 

7 don't learn anything more than, oh, yes, they 

8 did have two percent uranium, then maybe we 

9 don't have enough.

10 But that would all -- that's 

11 essentially a different -- it's essentially a 

12 different Class. You know, what we know about 

13 is the work, the natural uranium work, that's 

14 what we believe we can reconstruct, and if 

15 there is information that comes to bear or if 

16 there is information that says there was other 

17 activity there that involved two percent 

18 uranium, then we would have to go back and 

19 reconsider when that work occurred and what it 

20 would mean.

21 I just -- I don't see how a two 

22 percent sample ties to the abundant knowledge 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 196

1 we have, how it refutes the abundant knowledge 

2 we have, that this work in 1948 and 1949, 

3 which is all we're talking about, was natural 

4 uranium. I'm sorry, I wanted to say it.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, correct me 

6 if I'm wrong on this, but I think the other 

7 information we have, which again, none of it 

8 is definitive, but from what I've heard, is 

9 one, there is -- we do have this testimony 

10 from this one person about the manifolds. 

11 Maybe a different time period, it's not clear.

12 And secondly, there is -- I 

13 believe Mark quoted at the last meeting, which 

14 was something new to me, but there was -- at 

15 least new to my recall, was about some 

16 references in some of the DOE documents to 

17 other work that might have gone on at that 

18 facility, that it wasn't -- maybe I'm off -- 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only thing I 

20 do remember that they did do some Naval work, 

21 but as far -- what we couldn't determine was 

22 if there was any -- if they did any Naval
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 197

1 nuclear work.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, it was 

4 Naval valve work.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, valve -- 

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Unrelated to this 

7 -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: They also did valve 

9 work for AEC. If I'm not mistaken, the 

10 manifold -- the woman who testified about the 

11 manifold, testified that was during the war, 

12 isn't that true?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: So, that would have 

15 been different timing.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, yes, that 

17 was what I recall. But I would just say in

18 general, there are a number of these older 

19 sites that we've dealt with recently, where we 

20 just did not have adequate information on --

21 we knew there were some operations there. We 

22 just didn't have adequate information to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 198

1 able to characterize those in any way, and 

2 we've -- you know, basically made those fairly 

3 wide open SECs, based on ignorance of 

4 operations.

5 I mean, we knew there were some 

6 there, but we weren't able to characterize 

7 them in some way, and those were a continuum 

8 and it's difficult and I guess the questions 

9 are, how are we being consistent in 

10 approaching?

11 I don't think we've ever had a 

12 situation where we've had an anomalous sample 

13 that -- from a site, that has caused as much 

14 confusion, and I also -- Dr. Ziemer's 

15 question, this may be my ignorance also, but 

16 given what we've learned recently about -- or 

17 difficulties we've had with Rochester and this 

18 latest round of 50 boxes, I'm far from 

19 convinced that every time we find records --

20 you know, look for records, that we've found 

21 them on operations, and certainly, some of 

22 these older sites are poorly documented.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 199

1 So, may not quite have -- quite as 

2 much faith, as you do, Dr. Ziemer, that we 

3 would have found the records on unenriched 

4 uranium at a site. But that's just my 

5 judgment. 

6 So, we have a motion. David 

7 Richardson, have you -- I didn't ask you if 

8 you had questions or comments.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't think I 

10 have questions.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

14 comments from Board Members? If not, I think 

15 we need to proceed to a vote. 

16 I think this is similar to the 

17 Blockson situation. We have a motion to 

18 accept the NIOSH SEC evaluation, and if we 

19 reject that, then given the time frame and so 

20 forth, I do think it behooves us that -- to 

21 make a -- you know, have a step -- a way to go 

22 forward, beyond this, and whether it be a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 200

1 motion the other way or whatever, I think we 

2 need to -- 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is there anyone 

4 from the petition here?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's what I 

6 wanted to -- I'm waiting for Ted to -- Ted was 

7 looking for Bill Field. Is there a petitioner 

8 that -- Ted, do you know, for this?

9 MR. KATZ: There are two 

10 petitioners.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are the 

12 petitioners on the line for the Chapman?

13 MS. REALE: Yes, I am, Marianna 

14 Reale.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, hi, there. 

16 Do you have anything you'd like -- any 

17 statement you'd like to make?

18 MS. REALE: I'm just saying that 

19 this thing has been dragged out for more than 

20 10 years and it seems as though everyone is so 

21 against it. It's very unfair to all these 

22 people.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 201

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

2 Okay. Is there another petitioner, somebody 

3 else on the line, that would -- from Chapman? 

4 Okay, why don't we proceed with a 

5 vote then? The vote would be to accept the 

6 NIOSH Evaluation Report and to turn down the 

7 SEC petition.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Go backwards.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm going to flip 

10 the direction of the roll call. Keep it 

11 simple. Dr. Ziemer?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

22 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 202

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: No.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

12 MEMBER GIBSON: No.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

14 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

18 MEMBER BEACH: No.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Excuse me?

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 203

1 MR. KATZ: Thank you. That's 

2 correct, it's a tie, eight. So, the motion 

3 fails.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Given the time 

5 period and that it's close to lunch, what I 

6 think we should do is, we'll break for lunch. 

7 We'll come back at the beginning of the 

8 afternoon session. We will have a short 

9 discussion on thinking about steps forward, 

10 what we should do next, how do we resolve this 

11 issue with Chapman, and so, if you can at 

12 least think about that over lunch time.

13 And we will break and we will --

14 please, try to be back here by 1:30 p.m. We 

15 do have a petition. We will have petitioners 

16 and others present for the discussion of 

17 Bethlehem.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 12:15 p.m. and 

20 resumed at 1:40 p.m.)

21 MR. KATZ: Can I check on the 

22 lines? Dr. Ziemer and Dr. Richardson, are you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 204

1 with us?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, Ziemer here.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hello, yes, 

4 David is here.

5 MR. KATZ: Great, thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A couple of 

7 updates before we start discussion on 

8 Bethlehem.

9 One is on the Mound Site that we 

10 discussed yesterday, where we had issues with 

11 the Class Definition for that, I believe we 

12 will see a proposal later today, for a Class 

13 Definition that we hope will be more 

14 satisfactory for that site.

15 And so we should see that in 

16 writing, so, we'll discuss that during our 

17 Board working time, which should start a 

18 little after three or so this afternoon.

19 On the Chapman Site, which we 

20 discussed this morning, we were -- continue to 

21 be in deadlock. After that discussion, I did 

22 have further discussions with NIOSH and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 205

1 think there are two follow up items that can

2 be pursued on that, in terms of additional 

3 information.

4 One is, we do have the 70 boxes of 

5 materials that were found recently, or 

6 whatever the number is, I'm not sure. 

7 Although they've looked at those that were 

8 labeled Chapman, there are some other -- many 

9 other boxes they have not gone through yet, 

10 some of which are some of the related sites 

11 and so forth, that may shed some information 

12 on what went on at Chapman Valve.

13 Secondly, they will also look back 

14 into the Nuclear Navy question. Again, the 

15 clarification was that they had done sort of a 

16 computerized record search, but they will go 

17 back to the Navy and the Defense Department 

18 and see if there's information available and 

19 we'll pursue the issue of doing a manual 

20 search of those records also, so that we would 

21 have additional information to work with, one 

22 way or the other. We'll see on that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 206

1 So, that will be something. 

2 Hopefully, that will be done in a timely 

3 fashion and we can pursue it.

4 On the Blockson Site, what I think 

5 would be the best path forward is that we need 

6 to -- we need to have resolution to vote on 

7 for that, presumably that would need a new 

8 Class Definition because we are -- I think at 

9 least in principle, basing our -- a finding of 

10 the SEC on the radon issue, in that one 

11 building, and so, we need to craft a Class 

12 Definition that not only encompasses where 

13 dose cannot be reconstructed, or also, 

14 encompass -- be a workable Class Definition 

15 and that's just going to take some time.

16 So, my proposal would be that we 

17 not take any further action on that, but for 

18 the agenda for our next conference call, that 

19 there be -- that we would have that site on 

20 the agenda, Blockson Site, and that there 

21 would be a proposal in writing ahead of time, 

22 to everybody, for us to be able to vote on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 207

1 that, and I think that would be the best way 

2 to go forward on that.

3 So, if that's agreeable with 

4 everybody, I don't think we need to take any 

5 action, but just as a point of information, 

6 going forward.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer here. 

10 I agree with that, moving forward. I did want 

11 to raise a concern or ask that NIOSH 

12 specifically address this, and that would be, 

13 because in essence, what we're seeing here is 

14 that if the vote remains the same, it would be 

15 a recommendation for an SEC, and the question 

16 is going to arise for those who don't meet the 

17 250 day issue, or who do not have one of the 

18 specified cancers.

19 In the case of the partial dose 

20 reconstruction, that we usually look at, as a 

21 -- for those who are in those categories, what 

22 NIOSH will do to assign radon exposure for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 208

1 those individuals, since we have in essence, 

2 taken the position that the radon model is not 

3 usable.

4 So, I would hope that what's in 

5 their definition of Class, that they at least 

6 make us aware of what will be done on the 

7 partial dose reconstruction.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I agree with 

9 Paul, and that was what I was thinking, it 

10 was, we would take our time on this and -- a 

11 little bit more time and come back, to be able 

12 to address that, as well as the specific Class 

13 Definition for Blockson.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, all right. 

16 Okay, let's move on. We have the Bethlehem 

17 Steel SEC petition and we will first hear from 

18 NIOSH, from Sam Glover, who will make a 

19 presentation, then we will later hear from 

20 SC&A and we'll also hear from the petitioners. 

21 So, Sam, go ahead.

22 MR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 209

1 Can everybody hear me okay? Okay, I'm Sam 

2 Glover. I'm here to, as was asked earlier by 

3 the Board, this is actually a re-presentation 

4 of what we discussed about two years. So, 

5 this will give you guys an opportunity to 

6 refresh what we presented and the facts around 

7 our presentation.

8 So, I came to work about six years 

9 ago at NIOSH, in January 2005, and Jim Neton 

10 says, Sam, I've got a job for you. My very 

11 first day, I started on Bethlehem Steel. So, 

12 I find myself six years later, we're still 

13 working at it. We were right in the middle of 

14 a Technical Basis Document review at the time. 

15 The first one for the Board was 

16 the first place we dose reconstruction for and 

17 so, there's a lot of first's here. So, we'll 

18 begin with that.

19 The petition for Bethlehem Steel 

20 was received March 13, 2006. It qualified for 

21 evaluation on August 29, 2006. 

22 A Federal Register notice was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 210

1 posted September 7, 2006 and the Evaluation 

2 Report was issued in February 21, 2007.

3 The ER was presented, as you can 

4 see, July 2007 at the Board meeting, and the 

5 petition was referred to the Board -- by the 

6 Board to the Surrogate Data Group -- Data Work 

7 Group.

8 So, to be specific, NIOSH 

9 evaluated the following Class of people, all 

10 Atomic Weapons Employer personnel at the 

11 Bethlehem Steel Corporation who were monitored 

12 or should have been monitored for exposure to 

13 uranium during uranium-rolling activities at 

14 the Bethlehem Steel Lackawanna, New York 

15 facility from January 1, 1949 through December 

16 31, 1952.

17 Bethlehem Steel is a large steel 

18 manufacturer -- was a large steel 

19 manufacturing facility located in Lackawanna, 

20 New York. Bethlehem Steel Corporation 

21 purchased the facility in 1922. 

22 By the end of World War II, there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 211

1 were over 20,000 employees at Lackawanna. It 

2 was state of art, continuous rolling mill 

3 added in 1947, known as the ten-inch bar mill.

4 This is a photo of -- Mr. Ed 

5 Walker provided this to us. We have others, 

6 but this kind of gives you a feel for the size 

7 of this continuous rolling mill, that was 

8 later added -- similar facility was added in 

9 Fernald.

10 So, a bit of background. The EC 

11 contracted with Bethlehem Steel to improve 

12 rolling pass schedules on a continuous rolling 

13 mill. The goals of the Bethlehem Steel 

14 rolling program were to finish rolling up rods 

15 that were rough rolled at Simonds Saw and 

16 Steel or Aliquippa Forge, evaluate the effect 

17 of lead and salt bath heating on products and 

18 process quality, heat treating of rods and 

19 billets rolled or to be rolled at other 

20 facilities, which in some cases, also included 

21 grinding as part of this preparation.

22 For the rolling period, I want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 212

1 briefly discuss, it was originally established 

2 by the Department of Labor, in 1949-1950. 

3 As NIOSH began its research, we 

4 obtained documents which showed the rolling 

5 occurred in 1951 and 1952 and upon review, the 

6 Department of Labor added that, and so the 

7 covered period became 1949 through 1952.

8 Initial designation was based on a 

9 letter in the late 1970s which stated that in 

10 around 1949 through 1950, Bethlehem Steel 

11 rolled uranium. Worker interviews also stated 

12 that there were 1949-1950 rollings.

13 Numerous additional reports had 

14 been collected related to this early rolling 

15 period and a portion of these documents, 

16 approximately seven, most strongly speak to 

17 these operations, which were provided to the 

18 Department of Labor for their information.

19 The Department of Labor has chosen 

20 not to change the covered period. These 

21 documents are also available to the Board and 

22 the Director of NIOSH or the Secretary of HHS. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 213

1 These are available -- we have those 

2 available on a secure flash drive. These 

3 include export-controlled information, and so, 

4 they are available for your review.

5 Included in these reports is a 

6 letter to the FBI in 1952 which discusses in 

7 great detail background and operations of this 

8 experimental rolling program which, it is 

9 stated, began in 1951.

10 It also includes a detailed New 

11 York operations office report, which describes 

12 the science of Fernald and very specifically, 

13 addresses the experimental rolling program.

14 Experimental rolling number one 

15 remains the earliest documented rolling at 

16 Bethlehem Steel on April 26th and 27th of 

17 1951.

18 Letters by the previous Director, 

19 Larry Elliott, describe that while it is 

20 likely, during the 1949 and 1950 time frame, 

21 that no rolling occurred at Bethlehem Steel, 

22 NIOSH continues to use a claimant-favorable 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 214

1 approach and include the very high exposures 

2 derived from Simonds Saw and Steel.

3 It continues to be the position of 

4 the Division of Compensation Analysis and 

5 Support that we can reconstruct dose for the 

6 entire period. So, with that, I'll continue 

7 through this.

8 You'll see, these are the 

9 documented rollings that we have at Bethlehem 

10 Steel. You see on April 26th and 27th, 1951 

11 is listed as experiment number one. Twenty12 six billets were rolled on that day in a lead 

13 and salt bath.

14 You can see where we have air 

15 data. This provides our background for the 

16 facility. The last known rolling was October 

17 19, 1952, which was a production rolling, in 

18 which 60 tons was rolled in a salt bath.

19 Sources of information, the Site 

20 Profile documents, the basis of developing an 

21 exposure matrix. This was a heavily reviewed 

22 document by the Board, which was Technical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 215

1 Basis number three. We had initial document 

2 in this, which was the revision, which was 

3 issued July 27, 2006.

4 We also had a Technical Basis, and 

5 as I said, the previous Technical Basis number 

6 one, which was the original document.

7 We have the Site Profile for 

8 Simonds Saw and Steel, which as you guys have 

9 done a great deal of surrogate data review, 

10 associated with the early years for Bethlehem 

11 Steel, the earliest data we have is 1951, and 

12 we use Simonds Saw and Steel to do the review 

13 for 1949 and 1950.

14 We also use Technical Information 

15 Bulletins, including occupational x-rays, in 

16 estimating the maximum plausible dose to what 

17 was an Atomic Weapons Employer facility, also 

18 known as OTIB-0004.

19 We held several outreach meetings, 

20 including May 4, 2004, July 1, 2004, January 

21 12, 2005 and June 26, 2006. There were also 

22 numerous personal interviews, including those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 216

1 with [identifying information redacted], Ed 

2 Walker. These were telephone interviews, but 

3 obviously, Mr. Walker was heavily involved 

4 with the Board process for several years, as 

5 we reviewed the TBD.

6 Site Research Database, when I 

7 presented this in 2007, it contained 141 

8 documents. We actually have more than that 

9 now, so there are -- that could actually be 

10 updated.

11 These contain historical 

12 background process information, trip reports, 

13 air sample data, FUSRAP reports and residual 

14 contamination surveys. 

15 We have documentation and 

16 affidavits submitted by petitioners, including 

17 the Wayne Range letter, which was originally 

18 used to set the 1949 and 1950 time frame. 

19 This is a 1970s -- late 1970s document, 

20 produced by the Department of Energy and 69 

21 affidavits.

22 The radiological operations, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 217

1 uranium billets were prepared by Mallinckrodt. 

2 They were rough-rolled at Simonds Saw and 

3 Steel or Aliquippa Forge. They were shipped 

4 to Lackawanna on freight cars for finish 

5 rolling and, based on numerous documents, work 

6 involved only the ten-inch bar mill.

7 Rollings typically occurred on the 

8 weekend, as documented in many references, 

9 because of the production needs of the mill 

10 during the week. Documents and interviews 

11 report strict accountability practices 

12 regarding the collection of scale, residues, 

13 fines and cropped ends. Tonawanda sub-office 

14 reports of November 1951 detail 13 bundles of 

15 cobbled rods and four drums of scrap was 

16 transferred from Lackawanna to Lake Ontario 

17 Ordnance Works.

18 No bioassay or external dosimetry 

19 data are available for Bethlehem Steel 

20 operations. In 1951 and 1952, the Health and 

21 Safety Laboratory, known as HASL, and later 

22 National Lead, conducted air and surface 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 218

1 radioactivity monitoring during various 

2 rolling activities.

3 Data evaluated with data collected 

4 at Simonds Saw and Steel for rollings 

5 conducted in 1949 and 1950. We used Simonds 

6 Saw and Steel as surrogate data.

7 Simonds Saw and Steel, obviously 

8 were very close to Lockport, a large supplier 

9 of rolled uranium rods for Hanford. They were 

10 the big Atomic Weapons Employer roller. They 

11 rolled well over one-million tons of uranium.

12 NIOSH used the October 1948 air 

13 sample data to supplement the Bethlehem Steel 

14 evaluation. October 27, 1948 was before any 

15 health improvements which were suggested by 

16 HASL had been implemented.

17 Uranium was not coded with lead or 

18 salt at this time frame. It was heated in an 

19 air-heated furnace, which maximized the amount 

20 of oxidation produced on the rolls. 

21 So, when they began using a lead 

22 bath, it reduced that oxidation by at least a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 219

1 factor of two, and I have documents -- there's 

2 numerous documents that talk about that.

3 Samples collected during the 

4 periods of highest concentrations were also of 

5 extremely short duration. These weren't 10-

6 minute samples. They were one-minute samples, 

7 collected only during the peak operation. 

8 They maximized the exposure potential that 

9 could have occurred.

10 The highest exposed worker, 

11 estimated by HASL, was exposed to 190 MAC. 

12 This is at Simonds Saw and Steel, 190 times 

13 the maximum permissible level for the maximum 

14 acceptable concentration. One MAC is equal to 

15 70 dpm, or 50 micrograms of uranium, natural 

16 uranium.

17 So, just to give you a feel, this 

18 is the distribution of air data that was 

19 observed on that day. The upper tail, at 95th 

20 percentile, which is equal to 553 times the 

21 maximum permissible level, is what was used as 

22 a surrogate for Bethlehem Steel. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 220

1 This would be the highest rolling 

2 data, the guy who would have been at the 

3 rolls, the rolling operator for Simonds Saw 

4 and Steel. This is over twice what HASL 

5 estimated the highest exposed person that 

6 Simonds Saw could have received on a daily 

7 weighted average.

8 Data was collected at Bethlehem 

9 Steel during 1951 and 1952 rollings. Data 

10 consists of 204 measurements by HASL. Salt 

11 and lead bath coatings were used at various 

12 times. As I said, the lead bath was used to 

13 help reduce oxidation. It did not cause a 

14 problem when it went to the Hanford reactors.

15 The salt bath was being tested 

16 also to help reduce this oxidation problem. A 

17 fraction of breathing zone samples, not as 

18 large at Simonds Saw and Steel, they were 

19 looking for source term generation, and so, in 

20 our Technical Basis Document review, along 

21 with the Advisory Board, it was determined 

22 that we would supplement the general air 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 221

1 samples by using a multiplier on the general 

2 air to make more breathing zone samples, to 

3 weight the upper distribution higher.

4 The actual air monitoring data 

5 from Bethlehem Steel consists of -- and this 

6 is broken up into two time frames. You see in 

7 the beginning, we have 225 MAC and 70 MAC of -

8 - this is 15,000 dpm per meter cubed in the 

9 earliest time frame, and then, they began only 

10 to roll in salt baths, and when they did that, 

11 when they quit doing lead baths in -- around 

12 November of 1951, the air data dropped 

13 precipitously and the highest data point 

14 became the grinding operation.

15 It was no longer the rolling mill, 

16 but at the grinding ops, we had a measurement 

17 there, and that was the highest data point, 

18 and so, instead of using the distribution, we 

19 chose to use the very highest value that was 

20 measured during that time frame.

21 So, a summary evaluation for 

22 Bethlehem Steel, in 1949 and 1950, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 222

1 building is a ten-inch bar mill. Although no 

2 documentation or records have been found to 

3 substantiate that rolling operations were 

4 actually performed, it is assumed to have been 

5 performed. We've been claimant-favorable to 

6 assume that it's contained -- that it was 

7 performed.

8 Simonds Saw and Steel was used as 

9 a surrogate with no protective coating or 

10 ventilation methods applied. This includes 

11 Simonds Saw and Steel rough rolling 

12 activities, not just finished rolling. The 

13 rough rolling activities is when the highest 

14 airborne agent -- was generated, as it knocked 

15 that oxide off the rods.

16 The plant population, all workers, 

17 were assumed to be affected. We did not try 

18 to put people in the ten-inch bar mill. 

19 Everyone was given the highest -- the 95th 

20 percentile value of the maximum dose, 

21 potential data set, with a cobble cutting dose 

22 model added for suspected cobble cutters.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 223

1 In January 1951 through September 

2 1951, also the ten-inch bar mill, lead and 

3 salt bath technologies were utilized. General 

4 air sample monitoring was mainly performed. 

5 We used a breathing zone general area ratio 

6 from Simonds Saw and Steel, which was applied 

7 to Bethlehem Steel to provide more high data, 

8 and we used again -- workers are assumed to be 

9 affected by the 95th percentile of the value 

10 of the maximum dose set, with also a cobble 

11 cutting dose model affected for suspected 

12 cobble cutters, as determined by the 

13 Department of Labor, who holds that under 

14 their auspices of -- that that person would be 

15 determined by them, who cobble cutters are.

16 September of 1951 through 1952 --

17 through the end of 1952, that's December 31, 

18 1952, salt technology -- salt bath technology 

19 was fully employed, significantly reducing the 

20 airborne uranium levels. This was documented 

21 in numerous reports. Hence, grinding 

22 operations became the task with maximum dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 224

1 potential. All workers assumed to be affected 

2 by grinding airborne levels with cobble 

3 cutting dose adding more for the suspected 

4 cobble cutters. 

5 This became more important during 

6 this time frame, if you were expected to be a 

7 cobble cutter, because the dose -- the air 

8 concentration was down to 70, the cobble 

9 cutting is a higher level.

10 Specifically to cobble cutters, 

11 cobbled uranium are bars that bend or could 

12 not pass through the rolling operation. It 

13 was evaluated -- the frequency was evaluated 

14 of cobbling based on the written reports and 

15 documented rollings. Worker interviews 

16 assisted in determining the location and 

17 nature of the cutting operations, and also, we 

18 found in Fernald reports that they did torch19 cut uranium during cobbles with the mill.

20 When Fernald operated the rolling 

21 mill, we also found supporting evidence that 

22 they did torch-cut there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 225

1 Tonawanda reports clearly show 

2 receipt of both drums of residue and bundles 

3 of cobbled rods from Bethlehem Steel as part 

4 of the scrap program.

5 Cobble cutters, again, these 

6 cobbles, based on interviews with workers, 

7 were taken off line using crane and necessary 

8 cutting to allow the rolling to continue. 

9 Cobbles were cut up by one employee. 

10 We evaluated both the intake rate, 

11 time required and particle size during cutting 

12 operations, for the exposure analysis from 

13 1948 to 1952. We're assuming that two hours 

14 per rolling day, 600 MAC air and using .5 

15 micron particle size. Eight hours per day is 

16 70 MAC with five microns of particle size.

17 Ingestion, employees ate and drank 

18 in the area. It was assumed that they --

19 during rolling and in between rolling periods. 

20 Air concentration data used to determine the 

21 surface loading and a dilution model was used 

22 between the rollings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 226

1 So, obviously, they were rolling a 

2 tremendous amount of steel in addition to this 

3 rolling operation conducted on the weekends.

4 So, inhalation and ingestion, 

5 during the periods of residual contamination, 

6 survey data from both Simonds Saw and Steel 

7 and Bethlehem Steel was used. Rolling data 

8 used to determine rolling day surface 

9 contamination values and general area samples 

10 were used to determine non-rolling-day data.

11 Residual period specifically 

12 designated to ensure that activities in the 

13 basement are included. Area required 

14 occasional clean-up. Worker interviews 

15 indicate intermittent occupancy. Source term 

16 data was used to bound the exposure during 

17 operations. Steel and uranium will mix to 

18 dilute the source term.

19 External sources of exposure, the 

20 uranium dose was evaluated and determined it 

21 has an extremely, extremely small component of 

22 the dose. Direct contact with uranium is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 227

1 driver, shallow and deep dose. There's also 

2 residual contamination. We also included the 

3 reuse of contaminated clothing and 

4 occupational medical dose.

5 Triangular distribution was used 

6 for the evaluation of shallow dose from beta 

7 particles. The minimum worker was one meter 

8 from uranium source for one hour, versus --

9 per 10-hour shift. That gives you 90 millirem 

10 per rolling day. The mode was determined to 

11 be a survey data from Simonds Saw and Steel. 

12 The highest value measured during those shifts 

13 was 15 millirad per hour for an entire 10-hour 

14 shift. This provides you 150 millirem per 

15 rolling day, and the maximum of this 

16 triangular distribution, six hours at one foot 

17 from an extended uranium source, and that 

18 would be 150 millirad per hour, four hours, 

19 one meter from the source, which would give 

20 you 1,260 millirem per rolling day.

21 Each of these multiplied by the 

22 number of rolling days, and the deep dose was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 228

1 also evaluated as a triangular distribution.

2 Residual contamination for the 

3 external dose, we used Simonds Saw and Steel, 

4 contamination as bounding. We used a 1.25 

5 times 10 to the seventh dpm per meters squared 

6 at all times on the surfaces for four years, 

7 even though they documented that they cleaned 

8 up after the rollings.

9 The annual dose from contaminated 

10 surfaces is provided here, skin at 1.7, bone 

11 .01, and all other organs .005. Obviously, 

12 skin dose, because of the shallow dose, is 

13 very high, even contaminated surfaces.

14 Contaminated clothing, we assume 

15 that it was wore for two weeks after rollings, 

16 based on worker interviews. We used dose rate 

17 data from Mallinckrodt Chemical Company as 

18 bounding, because of the type of radionuclides 

19 and the work that they did. This assigned 1.5 

20 millirem per hour to the skin, 10 hours a day, 

21 which results in 1.8 rem per year shallow 

22 dose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 229

1 Occupational medical dose, we have 

2 no evidence to show that the AEC required 

3 occupational medical x-rays at Bethlehem 

4 Steel. We assume pre-employment and periodic 

5 annual x-rays in keeping with AEC practices, 

6 at larger facilities.

7 The Evaluation Report, NIOSH 

8 evaluates the petition using the guidelines of 

9 42 CFR 83.13 and submits as summary finding of 

10 petition Evaluation Report. NIOSH issued this 

11 on February 21, 2007.

12 NIOSH found that the available 

13 monitoring records, process descriptions and 

14 source term data are adequate to complete dose 

15 reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for 

16 the proposed Class of employees, health 

17 endangerment determination not required.

18 In summary, we find that dose 

19 reconstruction is feasible for internal dose 

20 of uranium, external dose and beta-gamma and 

21 occupational medical x-rays. Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 230

1 Sam? Well, I'll have one, then. To start off 

2 with, the -- if my recollection is correct, 

3 and this goes back to the early days of the 

4 program, that there were, for the earlier time 

5 period, the 1949-1950 time period, there were 

6 worker interviews, where the workers had 

7 reported rollings during that time period. I 

8 believe that was the basis for the initial 

9 assumptions on that. Do you recall that?

10 MR. GLOVER: The worker interviews 

11 did suggest that there was 1949 and 1950 

12 rollings. The initial Department of Labor 

13 designation was because of the Range letter.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

15 MR. GLOVER: Yes, sir.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and the 

17 facility designation was starting in 1949, 

18 correct?

19 MR. GLOVER: That's correct.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes, just 

21 get that clear. Other questions? Can't take 

22 questions from the audience now, this is --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 231

1 yes, Bill?

2 MEMBER FIELD: Just had a quick 

3 question. In your records or any reports, did 

4 you see any evidence of radiographic sources, 

5 x-rays, metal at all?

6 MR. GLOVER: No, sir.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Other questions? 

8 The Board? Dr. Ziemer or Dr. Richardson? 

9 For those of you in the audience, we have two 

10 Board Members that are calling in from --

11 because they were unable to be here today, but 

12 they are on a conference call.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no questions 

14 at this time.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Dr. 

16 Richardson?

17 DR. RICHARDSON: I don't have any 

18 questions.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

20 DR. RICHARDSON: No, I don't have 

21 any.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 232

1 go back. Next, we'll like to hear from SC&A.

2 DR. MAURO: Good afternoon. My 

3 name is John Mauro. I work for Sanford, Cohen 

4 & Associates, and like Sam, the very first 

5 project that the Board -- we work for the 

6 Board -- the Board asked us to independently 

7 evaluate the work being done by NIOSH on 

8 Bethlehem Steel and that was the first project 

9 we worked on also.

10 A great deal of work was done for 

11 quite a bit of time and in fact, the paradigm, 

12 the approach that you just heard on how to 

13 reconstruct doses reflects a very long, 

14 protracted series of discussions that took 

15 place between the Board, this contractor, 

16 SC&A, NIOSH, related to -- initially, there 

17 was some initial drafts of how they were going 

18 to approach the problem. We had certain 

19 concerns and, over the years, we got to the 

20 point where we resolved those concerns, and at 

21 the end of this long process, SC&A had -- came 

22 to its technical conclusions that the approach 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 233

1 that you just heard is claimant-favorable and 

2 will place a plausible upper bound on both 

3 the internal and external exposures.

4 Now, by the way, that was a review 

5 of the Site Profile. SC&A has not reviewed 

6 the Evaluation Report, but we are very 

7 familiar with the Site Profile and the 

8 protocol that you just heard.

9 One of the things that SC&A was 

10 asked to do, relatively recently, was to say, 

11 okay, as we all know, embedded in this process 

12 is the use of what we call surrogate data. 

13 This means that Bethlehem Steel had data on 

14 air samples, but it wasn't a complete set of 

15 data. It was quite a bit of data, mainly air 

16 sampling data, and there were time periods 

17 when there wasn't any data.

18 And the way -- and this was not 

19 uncommon, what we do is, we -- what NIOSH does 

20 and what health physicists do is they try to 

21 find the way to come up with a way to fill in 

22 the gaps, in a way that is reasonable, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 234

1 claimant-favorable and in fact, the Board and 

2 its Working Group have come up with criteria. 

3 They're very concerned that, 

4 listen, if you have to resort to surrogate 

5 data, namely, go get some data from another 

6 site and use it at this site. You've got to 

7 do it very carefully, because you have to make 

8 sure that there's parity and it's done fairly.

9 So, we were asked, recently, to 

10 look at that question and compare the --

11 basically, the use of surrogate data. So, I 

12 won't go back into any of the details here. 

13 The factual information presented to you, we 

14 completely agree, that's exactly what is being 

15 done and from the point of a view of a dose 

16 reconstruction, our finding is that that 

17 certainly places an upper bound on the 

18 exposures.

19 The question then is, does it meet 

20 the acceptance criteria that the Board has 

21 developed in draft form, as being appropriate. 

22 You know, because you have to be careful when 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 235

1 you're going to use data, and as you heard, 

2 data was used from Simonds Saw, airborne 

3 sampling data, and other data, which I'll 

4 explain briefly, to apply -- to sort of fill 

5 in some of the holes at Bethlehem Steel, and 

6 the question is, was that appropriate. Does 

7 it work well?

8 The way I'm going to -- and I'll 

9 do this briefly. I don't have any slides. 

10 It's good to think about the first place where 

11 surrogate data is used. There's three places, 

12 described in three places -- is 1949 to 1950.

13 This was a time period where the 

14 evidence that there was some rolling, uranium 

15 rolling going on, basically, from interviews 

16 of workers, and as Sam has explained to you, 

17 they really can't find very much evidence that 

18 there was rolling, but based on those 

19 interviews, we're going to presume there was 

20 some rolling.

21 All right, so, now, you have the 

22 presumption of rolling and the question was, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 236

1 okay, let's presume there was some rolling. 

2 How much rolling? 

3 The presumption was made that I 

4 believe there were 13 rollings that took 

5 place, which in our opinion, probably not a 

6 bad presumption, because we know that the 

7 rollings that took place in let's say, 1951 

8 and 1952, there were seven to ten, to 12 

9 rollings that took place on weekends, and of 

10 course, during the weekdays, as I'm sure you 

11 all know, is when the steel was moved.

12 So, making that assumption that, 

13 okay, though we don't have any evidence that 

14 there was any rolling, we're going to assume 

15 uranium was rolled in 1949 to 1950, and so, 

16 that's the first thing. We'll assume it 

17 occurs. We'll assume there was about -- I 

18 think it was 13 rollings, and we're going to 

19 say, well, what are we going to do for the 

20 dust loading. We've got to come up with some 

21 number.

22 Well, they didn't have any numbers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 237

1 for Bethlehem Steel. So, they said, well, 

2 let's go to over to Simonds Saw and let's grab 

3 their data, and that big question, is using 

4 the Simonds Saw data appropriate to apply to 

5 Bethlehem Steel, if there was some rolling?

6 And the way you answer that 

7 question is, well, we have to be sure that 

8 that data is claimant-favorable, that it's 

9 sort of going to be reasonable, and is there 

10 any reason to believe -- you ask yourself the 

11 question, is that -- if you measure dust at 

12 Simonds Saw in 1949, and you have the 

13 concentrations of dust, and let's -- and 

14 you're saying, well, we'll assume that that 

15 same concentration happened in Bethlehem 

16 Steel, is that a reasonable thing to do.

17 So, the first thing we did is 

18 asked ourselves, and I think -- and NIOSH did 

19 too, they said, well, what were the 

20 differences in the operations that might be 

21 important.

22 Well, one of the big differences 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 238

1 is, Simonds Saw was a relatively small plant, 

2 had two mills, maybe 100 feet wide, or 100 

3 feet long, but Bethlehem Steel was big. In 

4 fact, it was state of that art, maybe 100 to 

5 200 feet wide, 1,000 feet long. I think they 

6 had six or seven rolling stations. So that 

7 changes the complexion, changes the physical 

8 setting.

9 Now, and you say to yourself, 

10 well, what does that mean. Well, another 

11 thing that was important, rolling of uranium 

12 took place every day at Simonds Saw, only took 

13 place on weekends. Okay, so, there was a 

14 difference, and one would expect there might 

15 be some differences in the ventilation system, 

16 where the workers worked, how they worked.

17 Another thing that's important is, 

18 since they rolled uranium all the time at 

19 Simonds Saw, they could have -- they build up 

20 a lot of uranium on the floor and you're 

21 walking around and you're kicking up dust.

22 But at Simonds Saw -- I'm sorry, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 239

1 at Bethlehem Steel, they rolled on the 

2 weekends. So, what did you have on the floor? 

3 Well, what you had is a combination of iron 

4 filings, or whatever that comes off, and 

5 uranium sort of mixed in there from the 

6 weekend work.

7 So, these are some of the 

8 differences, in general. Also, what -- since 

9 Simonds Saw was a smaller plant and was sort 

10 of more primitive -- didn't have the level of 

11 sophistication -- I understand that Bethlehem 

12 Steel was state of the art at the time, was as 

13 good as they come.

14 Well, what happened is, when you 

15 were using the -- at Simonds Saw, they'd roll, 

16 as I understand it -- they go through the 10- 

17 or 16-inch roll and they would somehow 

18 manually go through it again, and they would 

19 drag the rolled steel -- uranium, and it would 

20 scrape along the grating, generate sparks, 

21 generate airborne activity, while the steel --

22 Another difference was, that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 240

1 important, at Bethlehem Steel, it was a 

2 continuous rolling operation, sort of like --

3 as I understand it, it went right through the 

4 rolling. So, there was a little less of that 

5 kind of handling.

6 So, okay, now, you start to get a 

7 sense of the differences and you say -- and 

8 this is where the judgment comes in, you see.

9 Well, if I've got all of this air 

10 sampling data, and they do have a lot of good 

11 air sampling data from Simonds Saw, and I have 

12 nothing for 1949 and for Bethlehem Steel, know 

13 what we're going to do? This is what -- the 

14 decision that was made. They said, what we're 

15 going to do is, we'll take all that data from 

16 Simonds Saw and we're going to find out the 

17 highest values they got. They call it the 

18 95th percentile value. It turns out, it's 553 

19 MAC, the maximum air concentration, and they 

20 said, we're going to assume that that 

21 concentration occurred in 1949 in Bethlehem 

22 Steel.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 241

1 Now, as best I can tell, and you 

2 know, you folks know this better than I do, 

3 you know, is it likely that the dust loading 

4 in a place like Simonds Saw for that year, was 

5 higher than the dust loading at Bethlehem 

6 Steel?

7 It looks like it probably was. It 

8 was a more primitive operation, and by 

9 assigning the upper 95th percentile from 

10 Simonds Saw, you're probably placing -- you're 

11 probably certainly conservative when you apply 

12 that to Bethlehem Steel.

13 But ah, here is the hooker. Part 

14 of the criteria of when you do that is, it's 

15 got to be plausible. So, and this is where 

16 judgment comes in and here is where the Board 

17 is probably going to have a lot of discussion.

18 I, for one, believe by assigning 

19 553 MAC to 1949 to the breathing zone that the 

20 people in Bethlehem Steel experienced, that's 

21 claimant-favorable. It's a high number, it's 

22 a big number. It's going to give a very large 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 242

1 dose.

2 But then again, this is one of the 

3 criteria for when you use surrogate data. You 

4 have to be plausible. It has to be realistic. 

5 It can't be some crazy, off-the-charts 

6 number, and there is where the judgment comes 

7 in. It's almost like, you've got to be high 

8 enough that you're sure that every worker that 

9 worked at Bethlehem Steel in 1949 who might 

10 have been involved in a rolling, that we're 

11 going to assign a number that's going to be 

12 high for them. We're not going to 

13 underestimate his dose.

14 But you don't want to make it so 

15 high, that it's unrealistic. You've got to 

16 find that place, and there is where the 

17 judgment comes in.

18 So, that's surrogate issue number 

19 one, that in my opinion, is the judgment call 

20 that has to be made, whether that was 

21 appropriate or not, and this is something that 

22 we don't -- we did not come to a conclusion on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 243

1 this. We are just trying as best we can to 

2 present the facts as we understand them to all 

3 concerned, including you. You know, whether 

4 it -- does that seem to make sense?

5 Let's go to the second place, 

6 where they used surrogate data. Now, it turns 

7 out that the air sampling data that was 

8 collected at Bethlehem Steel in 1951 and 1952, 

9 they -- now, think of it like this. There's 

10 two ways you can collect air sampling data.

11 You could have a little sample, 

12 and it's right where you're breathing zone is 

13 or you could have a general air sampling 

14 that's sitting up here, pulling in air 

15 samples. Better data is over here, because 

16 it's all -- it's very well known that there 

17 could be a ten-fold difference between the 

18 concentration of the uranium in the air when 

19 you have an air sample breathing zone, and the 

20 concentration that's sitting up here, in some 

21 air sampler.

22 One of the concerns we had was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 244

1 that, when you look at the Bethlehem Steel 

2 data, they have an awful lot of general air 

3 samples, not that much breathing zone samples.

4 So, if you're going to use the air 

5 sampling data for Bethlehem Steel to 

6 reconstruct inhalation, you've got to take 

7 into consideration that there -- you know, 

8 maybe you don't have enough breathing zone 

9 data. In fact, that was one of our 

10 criticisms.

11 So, what was done is, it turns 

12 out, they had a lot of good breathing zone 

13 samples and they would -- stay with me on this 

14 one, I have an estimate of how much people 

15 might have breathed it, based on the breathing 

16 zone data. I could also make an estimate 

17 based on the general air sample, and we found 

18 out that there was a big difference in which 

19 one you would use.

20 It turns out that there's about an 

21 eight-fold difference, nine-fold difference, 

22 depending on what you use. So, we felt that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 245

1 if you're going to use the Bethlehem Steel 

2 dust loading data, based on the air sampling 

3 data they had, you had to adjust it up, 

4 because there wasn't enough breathing zone 

5 data, and the adjustment factor was based on 

6 knowledge of the relationship between the 

7 breathing zone concentrations and the general 

8 air concentrations observed at Simonds Saw.

9 So, in a way, we're using 

10 surrogate data, right? We're saying, oh, 

11 okay, we have some really good data at Simonds 

12 Saw, to understand the difference between 

13 breathing zone and general air samples. Based 

14 on our understanding, we're going to use that 

15 as an adjustment factor, so that we could sort 

16 of kick up, and they did.

17 If they used -- it turns out, for 

18 the time period in 1951, if you were to use 

19 just the Bethlehem Steel data, just the way it 

20 came off the presses, you would have went with 

21 87 MAC. But because of our concerns, that you 

22 got -- you know, you don't have enough good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 246

1 breathing zone sample. Let's go ahead -- they 

2 kicked it up to 225.

3 So, that was one way to adjust the 

4 breathing zone to try to be as claimant5 favorable as you can or as appropriate as you 

6 can.

7 So, surrogate data, right, we use 

8 the Simonds Saw adjustment factor in that 

9 experience there. You can make a judgment for 

10 yourself, whether or not you think that's a 

11 reasonable thing.

12 Finally, the last one, and I'll be 

13 done, we heard about cobble cutting. Well, it 

14 turns out, by 1952, they got really good at 

15 rolling uranium. They used a salt bath. So, 

16 the amount of dust that was being generated 

17 really came down. In fact, it turns out, as 

18 you heard, it got all the way down to 70 MAC. 

19 It's still high, by the way, but it's much 

20 better than the 553 we had, you know.

21 But then we said, well, wait a 

22 minute, there were other things going on that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 247

1 might have -- that now, maybe are more 

2 important, and one of them is cobble cutting. 

3 Some of you may be familiar with what that 

4 means.

5 But what they did is, they take an 

6 acetylene torch and some of these rollings, 

7 they had to cut them, and it turns out, when 

8 you do that, you generate dust, and what 

9 happened is -- so, what happened was, they 

10 decided, okay, for the cobble cutters, we're 

11 going to assume that when they were cutting 

12 the cobbles, with the acetylene torch, we're 

13 going to assume, let's say, it took three or 

14 four minutes, maybe 10 times a day they had to 

15 do it. I don't know, you guys might be more 

16 familiar with it than I am about it.

17 When they did that, we're going to 

18 assume the guy that was doing that was exposed 

19 to 600 MAC for that time period, and so, but 

20 here is the third place where surrogate data 

21 is used. There's no basis for that. Your 

22 basis is, if you go into the literature on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 248

1 amount of dust that people are exposed to in 

2 the worst possible environments, it really 

3 doesn't get much worse than 600 MAC.

4 So, in a way, they broke one of 

5 the rules of surrogate data. They really 

6 didn't have a good basis for it. They picked 

7 a number that was basically, an upper bound. 

8 You know, I don't think anybody would argue, 

9 you know, 600 MAC is a nasty, big number. 

10 We're going to just use that as an upper bound 

11 for the people who were doing the cobble 

12 cutting.

13 But according to the criteria, as 

14 set forth by the Board, you know, you've got 

15 to do it better than that. You know, it's got 

16 to be -- you've got to somehow -- because we 

17 don't have any data, from any facility, of 

18 what kind of dust do you generate when you cut 

19 uranium with an acetylene torch. We don't 

20 have any data.

21 So, not having that data puts you 

22 in just a situation where you don't really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 249

1 meet the Board's criteria, because you've got 

2 to have a basis for it. 

3 But one thing to say, there's no 

4 doubt in my mind that throwing 600 MAC at it 

5 is certainly in upper bound, and there is 

6 another judgment call, is that okay. In fact, 

7 it may be unreasonably high. 

8 So, those are the three places 

9 where surrogate data were used, when they do 

10 what you just heard, and a judgment has to be 

11 made by everyone concerned whether or not it's 

12 fair to the workers. Is it claimant13 favorable? Is it -- you know, or is it 

14 something that just isn't right, and this is 

15 something that we leave with the Board and 

16 yourselves, to get a -- make a judgment of 

17 whether or not it's the right thing to do. 

18 That's my story.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, John. 

20 Questions from the Board Members for John? 

21 Yes, Bill?

22 MEMBER FIELD: Could you just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 250

1 discuss the impact of particle size and all 

2 these calculations, or what's assumed?

3 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I didn't 

4 hear you.

5 MEMBER FIELD: The impact of 

6 particle size?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, particle -- yes, 

8 the particle size, they generally -- what 

9 happens is, ICRP recommends, whenever you're 

10 doing inhalation studies, assume 5 micron 

11 AMAD, and that's like your default value, and 

12 it's generally accepted.

13 There's a lot of literature that 

14 that sort of plays as an upper-bound. But 

15 they didn't do that when they got to the 

16 cobbles. 

17 When the got to the cobbles, they 

18 said, "But we know that when you're cutting 

19 cobbles, you're not generating particles. 

20 You're generating fumes," which is melted 

21 metal becoming vaporized, and the fumes are 

22 much smaller, they're sub-particle sized.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 251

1 So, yes, NIOSH did two things. 

2 They assumed 5 micron AMAD for the regular 

3 dust and they assumed .5 micron AMAD for the 

4 cobble part. So, in my mind, that isn't bad.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Other 

6 questions? Yes, Dr. Lemen?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: John, given your 

8 report, what is the bottom line that you 

9 recommend to the Board?

10 DR. MAURO: What do I think? 

11 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, what do you 

12 recommend?

13 DR. MAURO: I think that if you use 

14 the methods described previously, you would 

15 certainly place an upper-bound on the 

16 exposures that any worker could have possibly 

17 received, while they were working at Bethlehem 

18 Steel.

19 Whether or not that meets the 

20 plausibility requirement, because I do believe 

21 that some of those concentrations are at such 

22 a high level, that maybe they're too high, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 252

1 this is where -- but I do believe that these 

2 assumptions will -- see, when we first started 

3 this, and we got to the point where we agree 

4 with that size profile, because we felt 

5 strongly, "Yes, you're going to place an 

6 upper-bound with those assumptions."

7 But now, a different question was 

8 posed most recently, it is plausible, and all 

9 I can say is that, some of those numbers are 

10 pretty high. Whether or not you would 

11 consider them plausible or not, that's where I 

12 stop and I -- because that's very much a 

13 judgment call, and you've got to -- that's 

14 made by the Board.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I guess that's where 

16 I have a problem. I heard you use the term 

17 "judgment call" several times.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: I heard you use the 

20 term "ten-fold difference."

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: I heard you use the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 253

1 term "eight-fold difference." I heard you use 

2 "assume" a lot of times, and I heard you use 

3 the term "broke rules of the surrogate data."

4 It seems to me, like you're 

5 recommending to the Board, we don't accept it.

6 DR. MAURO: I didn't say that.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, you said those 

8 words.

9 DR. MAURO: I did say those words, 

10 but maybe I shouldn't have said those words.

11 What I'm saying is, if you're 

12 going to compare the use of surrogate data 

13 against the criteria, and there are places 

14 where it did not meet those criteria -- now, 

15 these are draft criteria. It's not written in 

16 stone.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, yes, and I 

18 think they're now -- 

19 DR. MAURO: But they're reasonable 

20 criteria -- 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: They're now a bit 

22 more final, and I think to be fair to John, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 254

1 don't ask our contractor to recommend 

2 decisions for us. They are a technical 

3 contractor and they provide a technical 

4 review, based on the criteria, the 

5 regulations, the program, the methods and so 

6 forth.

7 There is a report here that 

8 actually discusses a lot. This is the --

9 dated May 2010, use of surrogate data for dose 

10 reconstruction at Bethlehem Steel, revision 

11 one, that actually reviews a lot of this 

12 information in more detail and also, I would 

13 point out the part of -- one part that I found 

14 particularly useful on page 10 and 11, is sort 

15 of a good comparison between the Bethlehem 

16 mill and the Simonds Saw, in terms of the 

17 characteristics of those operations.

18 And one of our criteria are, you 

19 know, workplace plausibility, are the 

20 workplaces, from which these are derived, 

21 appropriate -- you know, are they comparable 

22 and so, that we can have -- you know, feel a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 255

1 level of comfort in using data from one, 

2 applying them to another site. Phil?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, just one 

4 question, do you know if they -- when they're 

5 cutting the cobbles, if they had any kind of 

6 PPE available to them, at all?

7 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I didn't 

8 hear you.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For the cobble 

10 cutting, was there personal protective 

11 equipment used?

12 DR. MAURO: Not that I know of, and 

13 in the calculations, no credit was taken for 

14 it, and so, if there was some type of --

15 whether, you know -- if you're doing a torch 

16 cutting, I would say though, torch cutting, 

17 you know, you have this face mask to protect 

18 you from the sparks, protect your eyes. 

19 But I don't know whether or not 

20 you would consider it some type of -- 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Some type of 

22 shield.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 256

1 DR. MAURO: A shield, a shield, as 

2 opposed to like, a respiratory protection. It 

3 could come up anyway. So -- 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: My guess is, if you're 

6 dealing with -- if you're cutting, you have a 

7 shield, but the air still -- the vapor still, 

8 could find its way underneath the shield.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Ziemer or Dr. 

10 Richardson, do you have questions for Dr. 

11 Mauro?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: My questions have 

13 all been answered previously.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

15 David?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: One question

17 about cobble cutting. In addition to the 

18 assumption, which you're pointing out about 

19 the levels of air exposure, air concentrations 

20 when they're doing cutting, there are 

21 assumptions about the amount of time per day 

22 that somebody does that and there is some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 257

1 uncertainty about who is actually that work, 

2 is that right?

3 I mean, there is -- it's kind of 

4 been punted back to the Department of Labor, 

5 to say that somebody is a cobble cutter and 

6 not that there maybe -- 

7 PARTICIPANT: Yes, I had a 

8 question. Are you assuming that you're 

9 comfortable?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Excuse me, is 

11 someone else on the phone?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think we're 

13 having a different conversation there. So, go 

14 on, David.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But just to 

16 help me clarify, because some of the 

17 information going into the -- what we've been 

18 focusing on, on the air concentration 

19 information, right now is surrogate data, but 

20 layered on top of this, there is information 

21 about the amount of time that somebody 

22 performs the task and who is actually doing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 258

1 that task, is that right? All of those things 

2 are unknown.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, certainly, the 

4 amount of time -- and I recall, when I was 

5 reviewing that work, certain information was 

6 gathered by NIOSH, to try to get a reasonable 

7 estimate of how many cobbles had to be cut, 

8 for each time you went through a rolling 

9 operation, and they came up with some 

10 estimate.

11 I have to say right now, I can't 

12 really say whether or not that was -- you 

13 know, as claimant favorable as it could be. 

14 So, but certainly, that's part of the question 

15 and also, who -- you know, who are you going 

16 to give this to, is certainly -- and how are 

17 you going to determine that, is certainly a 

18 question that has to be answered, when you're 

19 doing dose reconstructions.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Paul.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: At our Surrogate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 259

1 Data Work Group meeting, I asked Dr. Neton 

2 about the cobble cutters and he indicated to 

3 me that they had identified cobble cutters and 

4 they actually assign a different dose to them.

5 Perhaps, one of the NIOSH people 

6 could confirm this, but I had forgotten that, 

7 because I had assumed that everyone at 

8 Bethlehem was being assigned the same dose.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I actually 

10 have that mistake and assumption. That's what 

11 I think, Jim was responding to, and I think 

12 Sam Glover actually, also mentioned it during 

13 his presentation.

14 I think -- I don't think we really 

15 know how well Department of Labor is able to 

16 do that, since -- but -- since these people 

17 would, right now, be referred to the program 

18 for dose reconstruction, to the NIOSH program, 

19 then I assume NIOSH would be doing it as part 

20 of their review and in gathering information.

21 I don't know, Sam, if you have 

22 anything to add on that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 260

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, all right, 

2 then.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sam?

4 MR. GLOVER: We use that when a 

5 person is identified. I would repeat the 

6 worker testimony, that the guy who cut up 

7 cobbles, it was pulled off to the side and 

8 there was a guy that he identified himself as 

9 the guy who cut up cobbles for Bethlehem 

10 Steel. He would have been the guy who would 

11 have taken care of that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

13 MR. GLOVER: So, it's fairly 

14 limited.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay, 

16 thanks. Anymore -- any further questions for 

17 John? If not, we would like to hear from the 

18 petitioners. You'll have a chance to speak. 

19 Ms. Walker, it's the petitioners 

20 that need to speak. So, we need to start with 

21 the petitioners and --

22 I'll just point out, people in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 261

1 audience, it's not a full public comment 

2 period. There will be a full public comment 

3 period later this afternoon, starting around 

4 six, is it? Six o'clock.

5 But we do allow the petitioners to 

6 speak during this time period, and they're 

7 designating people. 

8 MS. WALKER: First of all, I'd like 

9 to thank the Advisory Board and NIOSH for 

10 having the meeting here in Niagara Falls. 

11 Thank you very much.

12 Over the last 10 years, I've seen 

13 and heard the frustrations of the claimants. 

14 These claimants, I feel, have endured their 

15 share of heartache, losing their husbands, 

16 fathers, brothers and sons. For what? To 

17 help their Government, unbeknownst to them, 

18 working with uranium that was kept secret for 

19 over 50 years.

20 When the government finally 

21 announced they were going to compensate the 

22 workers who worked during the years 1949
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 262

1 through 1952, they all had to do was proved 

2 they worked at Bethlehem Steel for at least 

3 250 days, and contracted cancer, and they 

4 would receive their reward in three months. 

5 That's when the nightmare began.

6 Many of the facilities have little 

7 information or lost records, or no information 

8 at all. Bethlehem Steel was one such 

9 facility. It was a state of the art facility 

10 and the only one at that time.

11 It also employed between 22,000 to 

12 26,000 workers. Minimum, if any, monitoring 

13 was done. They didn't know the Ed Walker that 

14 I knew. He was just an ordinary guy from a 

15 small town. 

16 Ed had graduated from high school 

17 in 1951 and went to work at Bethlehem from 

18 1951 to 1954, as an apprentice brick layer.

19 I didn't know Ed at the time, but 

20 through the years, he would talk about how 

21 dirty the place was. They had to blow the 

22 reddish-orange dust off their sandwiches. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 263

1 There was dust particles in their coffee and 

2 dust all over the water coolers.

3 Ed started researching, after he 

4 was denied, and found extensive laws and 

5 discrepancies in the program. Ed and I 

6 started attending their meetings. We also 

7 engaged the help of all of our Senators, 

8 Congressmen, Congresswomen, the news and TV 

9 media's, for their help, and we were very well 

10 accepted.

11 I would like to quote from Ed's 

12 Special Exposure Cohort petition in 206. I 

13 think it summarizes much of the work that he 

14 has done.

15 His quote was, "During the entire 

16 continuous rolling period, the workers were 

17 unaware that material being processed was 

18 uranium. The Federal Government kept all work 

19 secret for 50 years. Government records, 

20 documented, show that the Government had 

21 removed or destroyed all of the records for 

22 the period 1949 through 1952."
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 264

1 "During this period, none of the 

2 workers were never monitored. No dosimetry 

3 badges were worn. No protective gear, gloves, 

4 boots, coats, masks or glove boxes were ever 

5 used."

6 Based on total lack of information 

7 in exposures at Bethlehem Steel, I would 

8 respectfully ask this Board committee to right 

9 the wrong that was done to my husband and all 

10 the workers who were exposed to the deadly 

11 radiation at Bethlehem Steel.

12 For the seven years that Ed 

13 survived doing research, there wasn't a day 

14 gone by that he didn't put his heart and soul 

15 into this program. Thank you.

16 (Applause.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, and we 

18 have somebody else from the petitioners that 

19 wanted to -- 

20 MR. FRANCO: Yes, I'm Tino Franco. 

21 I'm also from the Bethlehem Steel Action Group 

22 and representing also, fellow family members 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 265

1 that were a part of working there at Bethlehem 

2 Steel.

3 Basically, I'm going to be a 

4 little bit repetitive, but this is a sentiment 

5 that we have been experiencing and this has 

6 been, as Joyce just declared, so, I won't be 

7 too repetitive.

8 But I want to go back to what 

9 Senator Clinton, then Senator Clinton shared, 

10 with you all, on June 15, 2006, and I'm then 

11 I'm going to intersperse on a personal note.

12 Senator Clinton testified before 

13 the Advisory Board to recommend approval of a 

14 Special Cohort petition and received 

15 compensation under the EEOICP, without going 

16 through the case-by-case radiation dose 

17 estimates.

18 Senator Clinton stated, "Bethlehem 

19 Steel nuclear workers and their families have 

20 not received the compensation they deserve. I 

21 urge the Advisory Board to act swiftly, to 

22 bring justice and closure to these Cold War 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 266

1 heroes."

2 "The dose reconstruction process 

3 has been time consuming, controversial, 

4 particularly at facilities like Bethlehem 

5 Steel, where workers did not wear individual 

6 radiation monitors, there was minimal 

7 monitoring of surrounding atmosphere for 

8 radiation."

9 She also added that she would like 

10 for us to be added, at that point, to the 

11 Special Cohort which means, employees do not 

12 have to go through a dose reconstruction 

13 process.

14 Instead, if an employee has an 

15 eligible cancer and worked at the facility 

16 when weapons work was performed, their cancer 

17 was presumed to have been caused by workplace 

18 exposure and the employees' claim was paid, as 

19 Joyce just noted.

20 Senator Clinton then also stated, 

21 "These workers were essential to our Cold War 

22 effort. These workers literally built our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 267

1 nuclear arsenal in the decades after World War 

2 II and helped us eventually to win the Cold 

3 War in the late 40's and early 50's. The 

4 government contracted with Bethlehem Steel, 

5 which is in Buffalo, to roll uranium at their 

6 plant.

7 But the workers were never told 

8 what they were working with. They were not 

9 provided with safety equipment to shield them 

10 from radiation. They were not monitored to 

11 determine how much radiation they were being 

12 exposed to. Uranium dust was thick in the 

13 air. They breathed it. They coated their 

14 hands with it. They would sit in areas on the 

15 plant to eat lunch and put their lunch down, 

16 and uranium dust would be on their sandwiches. 

17 They ingested it. It covered them 

18 completely.

19 As you are all aware, the original 

20 Site Profile was developed without even a 

21 visit, to the Bethlehem Steel plant, and so, 

22 she states, "I became even more convinced that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 268

1 reconstructing doses for Bethlehem Steel 

2 workers is an impossible task." 

3 It shouldn't be surprising, after 

4 all, we're talking about work that occurred in 

5 secret over 50 years ago and before modern 

6 radiation monitoring and safety practices had 

7 been developed, and as a result, the inability 

8 to estimate a Bethlehem Steel worker dose is 

9 not a failure. It simply can't be done.

10 The real failure would be if we 

11 don't recognize a Special Cohort that will 

12 give them the recognition and the justice they 

13 deserve.

14 When Congress passed a law in 

15 2000, it recognized that reconstructing doses 

16 would be impossible in many cases, and that's 

17 why the Special Cohort process was included in 

18 the law. The statute is very clear, though.

19 It says that if the government 

20 doesn't have the information to reconstruct 

21 doses, then workers should be given the 

22 benefit of the doubt and their claims should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 269

1 be paid, even more precisely, it provides for 

2 Classes of workers to be added to a Special 

3 Cohort if it's not feasible to estimate the 

4 radiation doses with sufficient accuracy, and 

5 that is where the reasonable doubt --

6 likelihood that the radiation dose clearly 

7 could have endangered their health.

8 Now, I don't think we could have a 

9 clearer case in the Bethlehem Steel, where not 

10 a single worker wore a radiation badge, where 

11 the workers rolled uranium, where many of them 

12 contracted related cancers.

13 You, the Board, have received 

14 numerous letters from others, Senator Schumer, 

15 Gillibrand, Representatives Higgins, Slaughter 

16 and Chris Lee, appealing on our behalf.

17 So, today, we are appealing to 

18 you, to help us bring this process to a 

19 conclusion. It has been now 10 years since 

20 Congress passed the law. There are not many 

21 workers left from that era. Many now have 

22 died from this exposure related -- from these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 270

1 exposure related cancers, in many cases, 

2 tragically, with extreme suffering.

3 They and their families have had 

4 to endure. Many of these workers were World 

5 War II Veterans, yes, even heroes there too. 

6 Just in my family alone, my dad a Marine, my 

7 father-in-law in the Navy, three uncles in the 

8 Army, all made it through the War, thank you, 

9 Lord, safely, then they came home to be 

10 reunited with their families and all they 

11 wanted to do was to provide to their families.

12 So, innocently and unexpectedly, 

13 but faithfully, they went to work every day, 

14 only to be deliberately exposed to radiation 

15 and not warned or protected and certainly, not 

16 told.

17 Ladies and gentlemen, that is 

18 unconscionable. Innocent victims, and still, 

19 the tragedy continues, as the shameful debate 

20 and huge disrespect for them continues, what 

21 they and we, their family members, from 

22 Bethlehem Steel Action Group has phased is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 271

1 this, delay, deny and hope they die, responds 

2 for 10 years.

3 Today, we say, acknowledge the 

4 wrong's to these workers. Amend your past 

5 practices. Bring closure for them and for us, 

6 their families. That is what these pioneer 

7 workers deserve, dignity and justice and 

8 honor, and then the only decision that really 

9 can be made, okay, is the admission to place 

10 them all into the Special Cohort group. In 

11 fact, we, the family, members of the Bethlehem 

12 Steel Action Group, trust that this Board will 

13 finally resolve this shameful blot of 

14 embarrassment on the workers and their 

15 families, and on behalf of them all, we thank 

16 you ahead of time, for your favorable 

17 decision. Thank you.

18 (Applause.)

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Someone else 

20 speaking on behalf of the petitioners?

21 MR. COOK: Hi, I'm Roger Cook, the 

22 Director of the Western New York Council and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 272

1 Occupational Safety and Health, and Joyce 

2 asked that I speak in support of the SEC 

3 cohort petition that was submitted by Ed 

4 Walker, on behalf of the Bethlehem Steel 

5 Action Group, and I guess it's appropriate I 

6 should do that, because I was with Ed while we 

7 were preparing that petition.

8 Much of what I have to say repeats 

9 what was said, so, I'll be quick. I think 

10 within two minutes, I can do this.

11 I first became involved with Ed 

12 Walker and the Bethlehem Steel Action Group in 

13 2004. Ed explained to me that the Energy 

14 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

15 Program of 2000 was suppose to compensate 

16 workers who had been exposed to radiation 

17 during the Cold War, during the periods 1948 

18 through 1952.

19 He noted, he put his claim in in 

20 2001 and then 10 months later, he got a 

21 letter, indicating that there would be a Site 

22 Profile conducted at the Bethlehem Steel Site, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 273

1 which would be the basis for dose 

2 reconstruction for the claimants.

3 He then noted that in 2003, 

4 claimants were being denied compensation and 

5 he did not understand the basis for their 

6 denials, and this was what concerned him. He 

7 said, "None of the workers who were exposed to 

8 radiation while the uranium was being cut and 

9 rolled had been contacted for information, for 

10 the Site Profile," and he suspected that NIOSH 

11 and DOL were using partial or faulty 

12 information, and I have to say that my 

13 organization, the Council of Occupational 

14 Safety and Health, takes very seriously, 

15 information that we get from workers, because 

16 usually, when we find industrial diseases and 

17 so forth, it's been after the fact.

18 It's not because of the scientists 

19 or the reconstructionist who put together the 

20 very formal protocols, actually of discovery. 

21 It's usually because we discover the diseases 

22 in the workers. That's basically the way that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 274

1 we do a lot of industrial medicine in this 

2 country.

3 Ed and I contacted Richard Miller 

4 at the Government Accountability Project and 

5 he agreed that the workers should have been 

6 contacted and interviewed, and agreed to come 

7 to Buffalo for a meeting.

8 Subsequently, Richard, Dr. Melius 

9 and others, I believe from NIOSH and SC&A, 

10 attended a public meeting and met with former 

11 workers, most of whom gave detailed accounts 

12 of working conditions at the facility, that 

13 NIOSH apparently had no knowledge of.

14 They really scoffed at the --

15 something that was in the report that said 

16 that the operations were cleaned up relatively 

17 quickly after they were conducted.

18 They spoke of the dust that was in 

19 the rafters, the dust that was on the floors, 

20 the dust that was all over the workplace.

21 The key question that Ed and 

22 others raised was, how can you evaluate claims 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 275

1 with having knowledge of what the operations 

2 and conditions at the plant were?

3 Further, the workers noted that 

4 none of them had been informed that they were 

5 rolling or handling radioactive material 

6 during the 1949 to 1952 period, that the 

7 material could have deleterious health 

8 effects, that they should be wearing 

9 protective equipment, that they should be 

10 wearing dosimeters, that they should have 

11 regular health evaluations.

12 Finally, as of June 7th -- as the 

13 June 7, 1976 letter from Wayne Range to David 

14 Anderson makes clear, after interviewing 

15 workers, "I do not understand why Mr. Glover 

16 omitted to say that that was -- those were the 

17 guys who said the operations were really going 

18 on in 1949 through 1951, that these operations 

19 at the Blooming Mill and the continuous mill, 

20 there were virtually no records of operations 

21 or exposures during that period."

22 Following those meetings, Ed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 276

1 continued to uncover information that NIOSH 

2 had failed to emphasis or apparently, was not 

3 aware of, conditions of the salt bath, the 

4 Blooming Mill operations, the cutting of 

5 cobbles, the cutting of billets, the dust that 

6 was generated by that, the cutting of uranium 

7 scrap and the dust, the tons of uranium that 

8 Ed believes, was unaccounted for, the 

9 conditions in the long sub-basement underneath 

10 the rolling bed, where workers repaired 

11 motors, cleaned up waste and were exposed to 

12 dust and to fumes from burning grease on the 

13 motors.

14 The proximity of other workers to 

15 the grinding operations, the fact that 

16 according to one of the claimants, 

17 [identifying information redacted] --

18 [identifying information redacted], 

19 [identifying information redacted] -- you 

20 couldn't, down in that sub-basement, see 

21 further than 15 feet in front of you because 

22 of the dust.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 277

1 As we know, the absence of

2 operations and exposure data at Bethlehem led 

3 NIOSH to use surrogate data from Simonds Saw 

4 and Steel, a method which Richard Miller 

5 stated, is not permitted under the law, a 

6 position which was affirmed by former Senator 

7 Clinton, Senator Schumer, Congressional Rep 

8 Slaughter, Higgins and Lee, and former 

9 Representative Reynolds.

10 Again, during this time, Ed Walker 

11 continued to devote much of his time to 

12 uncovering information that demonstrated 

13 significant differences in the two facilities, 

14 differences whose significance were 

15 consistently dismissed by the Director of OCAS 

16 at NIOSH, as were the observations of Marvin 

17 Resnikoff, PhD, who found serious flaws in 

18 NIOSH's methodology.

19 So, that was then. Sadly, Ed 

20 passed away, without hearing the words of our 

21 current President Obama, who stated that, "I 

22 will assure that the benefits under the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 278

1 Energy Employee Occupational Illness 

2 Compensation Act of 2000 will be provided in a 

3 timely and equitable manner. The delays and 

4 foot-dragging over the past several years is 

5 simply inexcusable."

6 While the President says he will 

7 support ongoing -- will support going the 

8 legislative route, if necessary, I believe 

9 that all members of the Bethlehem Steel Act --

10 Bethlehem Steel Action Group have hung in 

11 there, and would agree that if this Board --

12 if the Board would act now and address the 

13 inexcusable foot-dragging by agreeing, one, 

14 that the surrogate data from other -- another 

15 facility is inappropriate and dose 

16 reconstruction should not be based on this 

17 methodology.

18 Two, the Bethlehem Steel workers 

19 should be placed in Special Exposure Cohort, 

20 as the law provides, in the absence of any or 

21 insufficient data. Three, something like the 

22 criteria stated in the Ed Walker Memorial Act 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 279

1 should be applied to all former workers who 

2 exposure records may be incomplete or where 

3 lack -- of lacking proper documentation, and 

4 they should be compensated if, one, they 

5 worked at the facility for an aggregate of at 

6 least 250 years during the 1949 through 1952 

7 period, I'm not personally -- 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Two-hundred-fifty 

9 days.

10 MR. COOK: I'm sorry, days. What 

11 did I say, years? 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Years.

13 MR. COOK: Days, it seems like 

14 years, it does seem like years. Two, that 

15 fewer than 50 percent of the total number of 

16 workers were individually monitored on a 

17 regular basis for exposure to 

18 internal/external ionizing radiation. Three, 

19 the individual internal exposure records for 

20 radiation are non-existent or are not 

21 available, or to the extent that a portion of 

22 individual internal or external records are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 280

1 available for that period, from such facility, 

2 the exposure to radiation at such facility 

3 could not be reliably determined for greater 

4 than two-thirds of the workers.

5 Finally, I would ask this Board to 

6 move with dispatch -- with the dispatch the 

7 President's words imply. The former workers 

8 and their families have been extremely 

9 patient. Hopes have been raised and dashed. 

10 The time is now to do the right thing, to 

11 compensate these Cold War heroes and their 

12 families. Thank you.

13 (Applause.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Roger. 

15 Anyone else to speak on behalf of the 

16 petitioners? 

17 MS. MACRI: Yes, hi, I'm Suzanne 

18 Macri. I'm a staffer for Congresswomen Louise 

19 Slaughter.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

21 MS. MACRI: I want to thank all of 

22 you. The reason the Congresswoman sent me, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 281

1 was here yesterday too, I'm her case worker. 

2 I work strictly with the atomic workers. I've 

3 done it for six years. 

4 This morning, there was an 

5 obituary in the paper. One of the people I've 

6 worked with for six years passed away. He was 

7 refused four times. He passed away from 

8 cancer the other night. Like I said, I worked 

9 closely with him.

10 I can stand here and tell you 

11 about numerous cases that I've handled over 

12 the years. I'll only go over three that I've 

13 covered, the last two weeks.

14 One woman, her father was 

15 diagnosed at 49 percent. He was refused. 

16 Another woman, her husband had bladder cancer 

17 and lung cancer, and she happened to state in 

18 her letter to the Department of Labor and 

19 NIOSH, that his skin was falling off his 

20 bones. 

21 They sent a letter back from her -

22 - to her, that I have, saying, it was eczema.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 282

1 Another gentleman, just another 

2 one, worked at Hooker. He wrote and said that 

3 he had left to go to Niagara Falls Fire 

4 Department and shortly after that he was 

5 diagnosed with two cancers. 

6 They wrote back and said they had 

7 no record of the Niagara Falls Fire Department 

8 working out of Hooker. Again, he tried to 

9 explain, no, they never worked out of Hooker. 

10 I left to go work for the Niagara Falls Fire 

11 Department. Again, they wrote back, no record 

12 of Niagara Falls Fire Department working out 

13 of Hooker. 

14 We had to write a letter. I had to 

15 call. Finally, they understood. That's just 

16 many mistakes. I have over 400 cases, and out 

17 of 400 cases that I've personally handled, 

18 trying to get compensation, only five in the 

19 last six years, have been compensated. 

20 I just really, really want to 

21 thank you and find it in your heart -- I don't 

22 know who or what we have to do to convince the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 283

1 Department of Labor and NIOSH that these 

2 people need to be compensated.

3 I've already lost seven of the 

4 constituents that work with our office and 

5 their widows, and I don't know what else to 

6 say. But thank you and please, listen from 

7 your heart. Some of this data that you read 

8 for dose reconstruction, I don't even 

9 understand it and what one worker may be able 

10 to tolerate and not develop cancer, that might 

11 not be true for someone else. But I want to 

12 thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

14 Anyone else on behalf of the petitioners? 

15 Yes, sir?

16 MR. WEBBER: My name is Lew Webber. 

17 I'm the President of Shore Chapter 46. 

18 That's the Bethlehem Steel Chapter. I'm 

19 representing the people of our Chapter, which 

20 is over 1,000 people that work at the plant.

21 Now, there is not that many 

22 members that are affected by this disease, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 284

1 we have a large amount. I am not one of the 

2 affected members. I'd like [identifying 

3 information redacted] to stand up. 

4 [identifying information redacted]

5 was a crane operator from the time he was 

6 [identifying information redacted] years old, 

7 worked for 40 -- he's number five on this list 

8 that I passed out. He worked from 1948 --

9 let's see, 1942 until 1983. 

10 He has [identifying information 

11 redacted], both the [identifying information 

12 redacted] and [identifying information 

13 redacted] have been removed completely. He 

14 has less than four inches of [identifying 

15 information redacted]. He has partial 

16 [identifying information redacted]. 

17 [identifying information redacted] has been 

18 removed, due to [identifying information 

19 redacted]. [identifying information redacted]

20 hasn't eaten yet today, because if he did, he 

21 couldn't come here.

22 He has to be home when he eats, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 285

1 because he has to take care of it. He has a 

2 [identifying information redacted], but it 

3 won't hold, due to the fact he doesn't have no 

4 room for expansion. Most people that have a 

5 [identifying information redacted] have a 

6 [identifying information redacted] that is 

7 large enough that they could eat a small meal. 

8 But unfortunately, he cannot. 

9 Now, he has endured this for 23 

10 years. His bills per week, the portion he 

11 pays, is over $30. They're actually $90, but 

12 the insurance covers part of it. But $30 a 

13 week comes out of his pocket. For the last 23 

14 years, he had paid all these expenses, and I 

15 really -- we have probably, some other people 

16 involved.

17 I did this little survey, just to 

18 show that we had seven people with colon 

19 cancer, two people with skin cancer, three 

20 with lung cancer, three with stomach cancer, 

21 two with esophagus cancer, three with pancreas 

22 and liver. Between the years of 1984 and 1990, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 286

1 ten of these were diagnosed, which kind of 

2 shows that the people got sick about the same 

3 time.

4 Also, what might be interesting 

5 is, [identifying information redacted] was a 

6 crane operator in the bar mill. We had 16 

7 crane operators work during the time frame --

8 during that time of these projects. Not all 

9 of them handled uranium, probably, but 

10 [identifying information redacted] is the last 

11 one alive. The rest have all passed on.

12 So, I just appeal to you, this has 

13 to do mostly with common sense, that these 

14 people are sick, need help and I'd like to see 

15 that done, if this Board can see fit, to help 

16 us with this exposure cohort, and thank you 

17 very much for all the Politicians. Senator 

18 Kirsten Gillibrand has written letters, 

19 Senator Schumer's office and Assemblyman Brian 

20 Higgins, and also, we appealed to President 

21 Obama to meet with him last week. We were 

22 turned down. He was too busy. He has had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 287

1 letters from us and answered them. 

2 So, thank you very much for all 

3 your concerns. We really appreciate it, and 

4 thank you for coming here.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Yes, 

6 sir?

7 PARTICIPANT: I am going to be very 

8 brief, to address the greatest sin of mankind 

9 is injustice. I'm suffering from Parkinson's 

10 disease. I have friends who are suffering 

11 from other diseases. I have no control over 

12 this.

13 There are people, and I recommend 

14 to the future our country, to have an autopsy, 

15 so that you can establish some kind of a track 

16 record, on behalf of the medical profession. 

17 Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Okay, 

19 I think we as a Board need to now consider 

20 this, and so, if you can be patient with us 

21 for a little bit and let us do that.

22 Unless there are other people on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 288

1 behalf of the petitioners, but -- okay, be 

2 brief, because we need to be able to -- yes, 

3 thank you.

4 PARTICIPANT: I don't represent 

5 anybody other than my father who deceased in 

6 1988 due to kidney cancer. He worked in the 

7 ten-inch bar mill. His dose reconstruction 

8 came back at 49.87 and I've been denied four 

9 times.

10 Every time I go, we go to a 

11 meeting, we have a denial. I get the 

12 transcript back, I think somebody else was at 

13 this meeting. I've had transcripts where 

14 they've given us wrong data on what my 

15 father's disease was. 

16 The Department of Labor tells me 

17 they don't know, they've lost our birth 

18 certificates. This is -- it's horrendous, 

19 what you're putting the families through and 

20 then this gentleman here sits here with an air 

21 concentration, do they really have air 

22 concentration samples at Bethlehem Steel? Do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 289

1 they know who the cobblers were, because when 

2 I asked, when we first opened this and said, 

3 do you know what my father did, they had no 

4 idea.

5 We, then found out he worked in 

6 the ten-inch bar mill. That still wasn't good 

7 enough. I don't know what to say. I've been 

8 fighting this. We have four hearings. They 

9 won't budge from 49.87. He died in 1988, of 

10 what they told me was a superficial cancer. 

11 Well, I don't know, but kidney 

12 cancer does not seem superficial. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. We'll 

14 let two more people speak, this gentleman with 

15 the green shirt, and then, you've been patient 

16 over there. You'll be next, if you want to 

17 get up by the mic, so, we'll -- 

18 PARTICIPANT: Mr. Chairman and 

19 Honorable Board, I had a speech here prepared, 

20 but I'm not going to even go through it, 

21 because after hearing all of this, I just want 

22 to quick, briefly let you know.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 290

1 My father worked in the plant from 

2 1937 and through these years we're talking 

3 about. In all those years, he was a sander 

4 there and when these billets, or whatever they 

5 were, rods, came off, he used to sand these 

6 things and he used to tell me about it.

7 I just wanted to let you know 

8 that, you know, he had a high case that -- of 

9 a bunch of rems that the NIOSH had discovered, 

10 but it didn't go anywhere.

11 But my problem with this is, with 

12 -- now, the Nuclear Regulatory Board won't let 

13 you have any more than .5 percent through --

14 you know, dosage at one time. How much is 

15 left in the steel plant now? It's been there 

16 forever.

17 I mean, does it just evaporate? 

18 Did the radiation that these guys went through 

19 quit? This has all got to be building up 

20 somewhere, that all these people that are 

21 dying through thing, and my dad died from a 

22 very rare case of cancer. How can it be? It 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 291

1 just doesn't go that way.

2 But I'm just trying to say that 

3 this place was never cleaned up. It was dirty 

4 and filthy and these guys had to pay the 

5 price. Thank you very much for your time.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, and 

7 sir, you -- I'm sorry, I don't have a name.

8 PARTICIPANT: Can I just ask a 

9 question?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

11 PARTICIPANT: Does this just 

12 pertain to the people that worked for 

13 Bethlehem, because I worked on construction, 

14 and I was there for over 25 years, in and out 

15 of buildings, and I was subjected to a lot of 

16 silica dust. That's the question.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, the -- and 

18 the answer to that is, for this site, the way 

19 the law is written, it's an AWE site and only 

20 people working for Bethlehem Steel, the main 

21 contractor, are included. 

22 So, for this particular type of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 292

1 site, contract workers, other sub-contract 

2 workers, the construction workers and so 

3 forth, are usually are not included. That's 

4 the way the law is written.

5 PARTICIPANT: Yes, but nobody told 

6 us that you were subjected to silica dust.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I understand.

8 PARTICIPANT: And that turns into 

9 cancer.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I 

11 understand, but I'm just telling what's in the 

12 law. I can't -- you know -- 

13 PARTICIPANT: All right, thank you 

14 very much.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's the way it 

16 is. Okay, okay, for the Board Members, do we 

17 have any further questions or comments? If 

18 not, I'll -- why don't I move forward?

19 When the Work Group met, we did --

20 we discussed the report from SC&A, the one on 

21 the application of surrogate data. 

22 Just, for those of you that are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 293

1 newer Board Members, to remind you, at the 

2 time that we had considered -- first dealt 

3 with the site and made recommendations and did 

4 our review, was before there were SEC 

5 regulations.

6 So, the times I was up here and 

7 others, talking to people from Bethlehem and 

8 the original evaluation, there were no SEC 

9 regulations or any possibility for people to 

10 apply for that. 

11 So, at a subsequent point in time 

12 is when they -- people from the Bethlehem

13 Action Group applied for the SEC.

14 So, that's some of the reason for 

15 the delay. It's also why we have to 

16 reconsider, because the time we were first 

17 reviewing this issue, John Mauro referred to 

18 it, we were reviewing it as a Site Profile, 

19 without the possibility of considering an SEC.

20 When we discussed in the Work 

21 Group, we -- last week, we discussed mainly 

22 about the surrogate data issue and I thought 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 294

1 that the report from SC&A was very useful and 

2 I think John has characterized it correctly, 

3 while many of the assumptions were claimant4 favorable, I personally really question the 

5 plausibility of applying data from the Simonds 

6 Saw Site to the Bethlehem site, and going back 

7 in time, particularly the early years, where 

8 there's almost nothing, you know -- we know 

9 the -- we have information that there were 

10 rollings, but from the worker interviews, but 

11 we have very little information to sort of 

12 anchor any sort of estimate from and even in 

13 the later years, there's very little data.

14 So, I'm going to propose as a 

15 motion, that we approve a work Class, in 

16 addition to the SEC, that would be all Atomic 

17 Employers -- Weapons Employer personnel at the 

18 Bethlehem Steel Corporation who were monitored 

19 -- who worked at the Bethlehem Steel 

20 Corporation from January 1, 1949 through

21 December 31, 1952.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: I will second that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 295

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, we have a 

2 second from -- we'll get it open for 

3 discussion. Other people? Comments or --

4 yes?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'll speak in 

6 support of the motion. I think a nice summary 

7 that all of the members on the Board might 

8 reflect on is -- was made by John Mauro's 

9 presentation, that the three, sort of, 

10 surrogate factors that were involved in this, 

11 and I think one part of the presentation that 

12 John made that was very important, in my 

13 consideration of this anyway, is the cobble 

14 cutters.

15 I mean, you know, and I agree with 

16 John's recollection of this, is that you know, 

17 there wasn't any data and basically, they 

18 pulled a high number, and you know, it begs 

19 the question of, do you really know what was 

20 going on at Bethlehem Steel or are we just 

21 increasing the number, to sort of say, you 

22 know, look, we're assigning a very high dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 296

1 I think there is -- that's a very different 

2 question.

3 So, on -- from the sufficient4 accuracy standpoint, I have a lot of trouble 

5 with the proposed methods for dose 

6 reconstruction.

7 Another -- and I mean, just the 

8 differences in the facilities, I think, you 

9 know, one factor -- I'm not sure on this, but 

10 the sub-floor, and I do remember Ed Walker 

11 making the -- very strong arguments on the 

12 sub-basement work that was done and the 

13 conditions in the sub-basement, and I'm not 

14 sure that translates to Simonds Saw. I don't 

15 know if there was a similar situation.

16 The final point that I have been 

17 thinking about is the -- this correction 

18 factor for breathing zone versus general area 

19 air sampling, and again, we use Simonds Saw. 

20 I'm not sure if we cross-walked or if we are 

21 able to cross-walk, you know, the relevance of 

22 using that correction factor in Bethlehem 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 297

1 Steel.

2 In other words, were the general 

3 area air samplers at a similar distance in 

4 Simonds Saw from the operation as they were, 

5 you know, general area air samplers to 

6 breathing zone versus the Bethlehem Steel 

7 facility.

8 I'm not sure that you can 

9 translate those directly and to just apply a 

10 correction factor, again, just to get a higher 

11 number and maybe convince us that, look, this 

12 is a very high dose, I'm not sure that meets 

13 the threshold of sufficient accuracy that 

14 we're required to look at.

15 So, those are my points for 

16 supporting the motion.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Mark. 

18 Other comments? No, this is really for Board 

19 discussion right now, thank you. Yes, Phil 

20 and then -- 

21 MEMBER FIELD: I was just 

22 wondering, did the Work Group have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 298

1 recommendation?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, we did not 

3 make a recommendation. We didn't, sort of, 

4 get the point. We had literally just received 

5 the report from the SC&A the day before the 

6 meeting, and I don't believe people have had a 

7 chance. 

8 We got a presentation on and we 

9 had discussion, but we did not make the 

10 specific recommendation yet.

11 Bethlehem Steel. The surrogate 

12 data -- to refresh your memory, procedurally, 

13 the -- Bethlehem Steel SEC evaluation had been 

14 referred to the surrogate data Work Group.

15 When we originally had that, we 

16 had deadlocked on the -- as I recall, we had 

17 deadlocked on the evaluation recommendation 

18 and we at that point, referred it to the 

19 surrogate data Work Group for review. That 

20 was one of the two sites that were referred to 

21 the surrogate data Work Group, that and the 

22 Texas City Site.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 299

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: The question is, is 

2 the Work Group going to meet again to review 

3 SC&A's report.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not if we take 

5 action here today. Dr. Lemen?

6 MEMBER LEMEN: I would just like to 

7 speak in support again and reiterate what I 

8 said the last -- yesterday and today, that I 

9 think this is a really good example of how 

10 surrogate data should not be used and we need 

11 to really concentrate.

12 If we don't have the data, let's 

13 not try and invent it, and I would recommend, 

14 the Board --

15 (Applause.)

16 MEMBER LEMEN: And I'd like to 

17 support your motion, just on the record. 

18 That's all.

19 (Applause.)

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: First, I'd like 

21 to fully support your motion but there is some 

22 -- one area of a health concern here, which I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 300

1 know is not actually the Board's area, but the 

2 workers and the potential for the lead 

3 poisoning they had, after they were in the raw 

4 mill after the lead baths, I think maybe 

5 that's an area that CDC could possibly look 

6 into or maybe the State.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I don't know 

8 if it were -- I guess, to some extent, it 

9 relates to Part E, but it's also a bigger -- I 

10 mean, there's other -- we heard discussions 

11 last night, which are known to cause cancer 

12 among steel workers. 

13 So, there's a number of hazards at 

14 these sites. Another gentleman pointed out, 

15 the silica exposure, which is also -- you 

16 know, more than just related to these 

17 particular rollings there. 

18 Wanda, then I want -- go ahead, 

19 Wanda.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I am hesitant to even 

21 say anything, because I know this is an 

22 unpopular position, and I have such strong 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 301

1 feelings of empathy for the workers and their 

2 families.

3 Cancer is a dreadful disease and 

4 it's horrible for all of us. It's -- however, 

5 from a factual point of view, it's very 

6 difficult to see that a fairness issue exists 

7 when a blanket granting is made to such a 

8 large group of people, knowing that there is 

9 no real supporting evidence of excess cancers 

10 in the population.

11 The working situations are very 

12 difficult, I know, and the issue of the amount 

13 of exposure is one which we've discussed 

14 endlessly, and as Mark and others have pointed 

15 out, is truly problematical, with respect to 

16 getting to real accuracy.

17 But to lead people to believe that 

18 they have all been harmed by work that they 

19 have done, when only some of them have been 

20 harmed is a difficult thing to accept as a 

21 fairness issue.

22 I will probably abstain from this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 302

1 vote, because it cannot in my mind be truly 

2 substantiated on the facts. 

3 I understand Dr. Lemen's position 

4 and I have nothing but sympathy for the people 

5 who are here and who have spoken already on 

6 behalf, but I think it does need to be said, 

7 that SECs in many ways are not fair. They are 

8 unfair because many people who are being 

9 compensated are receiving the same kind of 

10 largesse from their fellow tax payers, as 

11 their fellows -- as their fellows -- 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Please, let this 

13 -- 

14 MEMBER MUNN: -- as their fellows 

15 -- as -- 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, it's not 

17 public comment period. It's time for the 

18 Board. People can express their opinions.

19 MEMBER MUNN: As their fellows 

20 were, who actually were harmed, and it's --

21 this is a precedent which has, I know, been 

22 looming for a quite long time and probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 303

1 will occur again. 

2 But it's in many ways, good to at 

3 least have it over and thanks for the 

4 opportunity for expressing one opinion that's 

5 slightly different.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Dr. 

7 Ziemer, Dr. Richardson, do you have comments? 

8 If not, I will -- if there are no further 

9 questions or -- Paul, David, I -- okay.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Dr. Ziemer was 

11 speaking.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we couldn't 

13 hear him then.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Dr. Ziemer, 

15 could you take your mute off?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. Am 

17 I off?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You're on now, 

19 Paul. Thanks.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, I had a 

21 couple of comments, if I might.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 304

1 certainly may.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: One is, I did want 

3 to point out that the Work Group, although we 

4 heard the SC&A evaluation, we did not adopt it 

5 or approve it nor did NIOSH have an 

6 opportunity to respond to it.

7 I do understand the comments John 

8 Mauro made and I personally agree with the 

9 points that he made.

10 The net effect, though, is to say 

11 that the doses assigned at Bethlehem Steel are 

12 implausibly high, as I understood the 

13 implausibility part.

14 Now, one reason why that is 

15 interesting is because if they are implausibly 

16 high and we look at the dose reconstruction 

17 that were done there, and I think most of the 

18 cases were reconstructed, I don't have the 

19 exact figures before me, but I believe that 

20 virtually every lung cancer has been 

21 compensated. I say virtually, there may have 

22 been a couple of exceptions to that and most 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 305

1 of the denials were other types of cancers.

2 Now, I personally believe that 

3 there are a lot of health effects at Bethlehem 

4 Steel that are due to things like chemicals 

5 and other dusts. There's a whole mix of 

6 things, some of which can be associated with 

7 uranium exposure, some of which are probably 

8 associated with a lot of other things.

9 There's no denial, the health 

10 effects are there. In my mind, the Special 

11 Exposure Cohort approach puts the, I'll call 

12 it blame, for the effects all on the uranium 

13 exposures and ignores everything else. 

14 Unfortunately, our laws don't provide too well 

15 for compensation through other routes.

16 But the other part of it is, is 

17 simply to point out, and I've worked all my 

18 career with all kinds of radionuclides, and of 

19 those, natural uranium would be considered 

20 about the lowest in radiotoxicity of all the 

21 nuclides that we work with. In fact, its 

22 chemical effects are worse than its 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 306

1 radiological effect, and even in the uranium 

2 miners, we see essentially lung cancers. 

3 Other cancers due to uranium exposures are 

4 extremely, extremely rare.

5 So, in my mind, in a certain 

6 sense, the NIOSH approach, although 

7 implausibly high, has a certain fairness built 

8 into it, in terms of the compensation of the 

9 workers there at Bethlehem Steel, and in fact, 

10 I believe, if you look at the record, the 

11 compensation rates have been, I would guess, 

12 more generous than virtually any other site in 

13 this country.

14 Now, that in itself does not say 

15 that makes it correct. But I think we should 

16 recognize that the NIOSH approach has, in a 

17 sense, tried to be ultra extremely fair, to 

18 the point of being implausibly fair.

19 So, that's my point, and it's one 

20 reason why I believe that the bounding 

21 approach that NIOSH has done, does provide a 

22 fair compensation decision. I say a fair 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 307

1 compensation decision, because in my mind, 

2 from the radiological point of view, it is 

3 probably implausibly high.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Paul. 

5 I would point out, just my interpretation on 

6 the SC&A report is, I mean, the basis for 

7 looking at this is -- with the surrogate data 

8 criteria, is we really can't tell if it's 

9 implausibly high or low.

10 The basic -- it's the question of 

11 the comparison between the -- 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I believe 

13 John -- 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no, and if 

15 you let me finish, I was saying, in this case, 

16 it certainly pointed out, at least in some of 

17 the instances, it may be interpreted as 

18 implausibly high.

19 But the real basis for our 

20 decision on surrogate data is, you cannot make 

21 -- is the implausibility of the comparison --

22 in the basis of the comparison.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 308

1 David Richardson, do you have 

2 comments?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I think I'm 

4 going to hold my comments.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, David. 

8 Okay, if -- no further questions or comments, 

9 then I think we will have a vote, or have a 

10 motion. I made a motion. Do we have a 

11 second? Yes?

12 The motion is to grant the SEC for 

13 all Atomic Weapons Employer personnel at 

14 Bethlehem Steel Corporation working there --

15 who worked in uranium rolling activities at 

16 Bethlehem Steel, Lackawanna, New York 

17 facility, from January 1, 1949 through 

18 December 31, 1952.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, and I am going to 

20 try to mix this up a little bit, so that we're 

21 not stuck in a rut.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 309

1 MR. KATZ: I'm going to go ahead 

2 this way, but I'll get everybody. Dr. 

3 Roessler?

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: No.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

6 MR. PRESLEY: I'm going to vote 

7 yes, with a whole lot of reservation. Sam, 

8 you've done a lot of good and I've got 

9 somebody working in this area. I've got some 

10 reservations.

11 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Abstain.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

16 ACTING CHAIR: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

18 MEMBER GIBSON: Strongly support 

19 the motion, yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 310

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? Wait, I'm 

5 repeating. Dr. Field, I'm sorry.

6 MEMBER FIELD: The process seems 

7 kind of expedited, and I can understand why 

8 you want to expedite it, with everyone here. 

9 But as a new member, I don't feel able to make 

10 a vote, so I'm going to abstain.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, Dr. Lemen?

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Strongly support the 

13 motion.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

17 MEMBER POSTON: No.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 311

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you. I 

3 thought I should mix this up. So, let me just 

4 -- okay, so, we have one, two, three -- we 

5 have four nays. We have two abstentions, that 

6 makes six, that means we have 10 yeses, let me 

7 make sure, and we have 10 yays, so, the motion 

8 passes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, the motion 

10 carries, 10 to four.

11 (Applause.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we'd like to 

13 thank you for coming today, for your patience 

14 with this process. Certainly, our sympathy to 

15 your families. I know, Ms. Walker, and others 

16 that have been -- many others have lost family 

17 members and we're glad we're able to get this 

18 accomplished today. Thank you.

19 We'll take a break for 20 minutes 

20 and then reconvene.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 3:29 p.m. and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 312

1 resumed at 3:58 p.m.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, why don't 

3 we get started again and there are a few 

4 people missing, but they are -- one of them is 

5 -- two of them are conflicted on the first 

6 issue.

7 The first issue I'd like to deal 

8 with is the Mound, and I think Mike, if you'd 

9 step in the audience for a second.

10 MR. KATZ: And do we have -- Dr. 

11 Ziemer and Richardson, are you back with us?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have a Class 

13 Definition issue. 

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I'm here.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Great. Dr. Ziemer, you 

17 too? Dr. Ziemer, did you just unmute to say 

18 you're with us?

19 (No response.)

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Ziemer? 

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer, are you with 

22 us now?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 313

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let's just go 

2 ahead.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we can 

5 collect that. The issue came up yesterday, 

6 with Mound, about Class Definition issue and 

7 we had -- I think we all have some concerns 

8 about it, and we have a proposal that the --

9 worked on with counsel, and then we have a 

10 suggested change to that.

11 So, I will read the -- the one 

12 that's proposed, which is, all employees of 

13 the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

14 agencies and their contractors and 

15 subcontractors who one -- who had -- who were 

16 -- number one, who were monitored for tritium 

17 exposure and worked at the Mound Plant in 

18 Miamisburg, Ohio from March 1, 1959 through 

19 March 5, 1980, for a number of work days 

20 aggregating at least 250 work days occurring 

21 either solely under this employment or in 

22 combination with work days within the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 314

1 parameters established for one or more other 

2 Classes of employees in the Special Exposure 

3 Cohort, or two, worked in the R and/or SW 

4 buildings, of the Mound Plant in Miamisburg, 

5 Ohio from March 1, 1959 through March 5, 1980, 

6 for a number of work days aggregating at least 

7 250 work days occurring either solely under 

8 this employment or in combination with work 

9 days within the parameters established for one 

10 or more other Classes of employees in the 

11 Special Exposure Cohort.

12 So, that's the proposed. We 

13 figured that -- the second part, worked in the 

14 R and/or SW building, helps to sort of capture 

15 the people that --

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: That weren't 

17 monitored.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Monitored, 

19 correct. So, the one change, which people 

20 from the Work Group, Josie, had -- others had 

21 suggested, were concerned about, were 

22 monitored for tritium exposure, how that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 315

1 be interpreted and are proposing that we 

2 change that from, you know, who were monitored 

3 for tritium exposure, to who had at least one 

4 tritium bioassay sample, and worked at the 

5 Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio from that time 

6 period.

7 So, is that -- the counsel is just 

8 hearing that, I think, for the first time. 

9 So, and you're sitting way in the back there. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: She asked for a 

11 repeat.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it's --

13 okay, one had -- who -- number one, had at 

14 least one tritium bioassay sample, and worked 

15 at the Mound. I think the issue is, sort of 

16 this interpretation of monitored. You know, 

17 it's like the same issue we've got with 

18 monitored or should have been monitored.

19 This makes it more explicit, so, 

20 at least there is -- sort of a working 

21 definition for that, that's explicit by what 

22 we meant.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 316

1 Okay, thanks for that. So, I 

2 think we've -- 

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: So moved.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So moved, thank 

5 you, took the words out of my mouth. Do I 

6 have a second to the so-moved?

7 (A chorus of seconds.)

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Brad, give 

9 Brad credit and all in favor? Do I need to do 

10 that?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question, sorry.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sorry, Dr. 

13 Ziemer.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I didn't get 

15 the full wording there. What was the second 

16 point: had at least one tritium bioassay and?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And worked -- 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: And worked?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: At the Mound 

20 Plant from March 1959 -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I got that 

22 part, but what -- the building part?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 317

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And the number 

2 two, worked in the R and/or SW buildings at 

3 the Mound Plant from, blah, blah, blah.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was it one tritium 

5 bioassay and worked, or worked?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And worked.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And worked?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You had to work 

9 at the Mound Plant from that time period -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- and you had 

12 to have at least one tritium bioassay sample.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then having -- 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then, number 

15 -- or, number two, you worked -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what I was 

17 asking on the or part, is that or worked?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Or worked. Now, 

19 you could have done both, but -- 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, that's where 

21 the and/or comes from?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, to qualify, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 318

1 it's really one or the other. So, this is an 

2 or.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Does that require 

4 then for -- the -- the Department of Labor to 

5 first establish the bioassay and then confirm 

6 the working in the building or the -- 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no -- 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: If they have the 

9 bioassay sample, they don't have to take 

10 another step, right?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, the 

12 qualification is either of those criteria. 

13 The first criteria is had -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- at least one 

16 tritium bioassay sample and worked at the 

17 Mound Plant in Miamisburg from March 1, 1959 

18 through 1980, then for a number of -- blah, 

19 blah, blah, and then the second way that they 

20 can qualify, or worked in the R and/or SW 

21 buildings at the Mound Plant from, blah, blah, 

22 blah, for a number of work days, 250, et 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 319

1 cetera.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it is a 

4 little -- it's different, put it that way.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, my question 

6 on the and part, if it's a double requirement, 

7 what was mentioned yesterday, that -- by Stu, 

8 I think, was that it does pick up some people 

9 in a different building, the tritium assay --

10 bioassay picks up a few people who had no 

11 connection with that building. 

12 I wondered if the and part, if 

13 this a double requirement, does that eliminate 

14 them --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- or the or part 

17 leaves them in, I guess.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think there's 

20 still some ambiguity there.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There definitely 

22 is, and I think that, if we'd been able to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 320

1 have -- work -- count on or rely on just the 

2 criteria of working in the building or 

3 something, it would be better. But we don't 

4 believe there are records for everyone who 

5 worked in the building. 

6 But there may be some people that 

7 can show that they worked in the building and 

8 may not -- 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: May not have the 

10 tritium -- 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- may not have 

12 the tritium bioassay, tritium monitoring.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And so forth, so, 

15 but you know, we are -- I hate to use the word 

16 surrogate -- sort of a surrogate, definitely. 

17 We're trying to capture the group, the 

18 individuals who were exposed as best we can 

19 do, we believe, based on the information. 

20 Okay, Wanda?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Would it be 

22 clarifying to use the word either?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 321

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, who either 

2 one, yes, that's fine. So, we'll modify that 

3 either, either, colon, the punctuation mark, 

4 not the word. Okay, so, Ted?

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you, okay.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: With those 

7 friendly amendments.

8 MR. KATZ: With those friendly 

9 amendments. Dr. Anderson?

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 322

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

2 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? You might 

12 be muted, Dr. Ziemer.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I vote yes.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay, so, all 

17 voting voted in favor. That's 13 in favor. 

18 Three individuals, Mr. Gibson, Dr. -- 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mr. Griffon.

20 MR. KATZ: -- Mr. Griffon -- 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Lockey.

22 MR. KATZ: -- and Dr. Lockey are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 323

1 recused.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

3 So, the recused can rejoin us at the table.

4 The next order of business, we 

5 will start some of the Work Group reports and 

6 this is to -- we're going to start with ones 

7 that will assist us in terms of SC&A casting 

8 issues.

9 I will point out that I need to 

10 leave at 4:30. I have a graduation to attend 

11 on the West Coast and I need to catch an 

12 airplane and so it's not because of anything 

13 Ted said to me or anybody else's action on the 

14 Board. Previous engagement.

15 So, I will be sort of sneaking 

16 out. I am going to turn the Chairmanship over 

17 to Mark Griffon for the remainder of this 

18 afternoon and tomorrow morning.

19 So, the first -- I understand --

20 if I understand correctly, the Work Group that 

21 is -- report that is critical to our tasking 

22 of SC&A is the Procedures Work Group, and so, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 324

1 Wanda.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I hope all of you 

3 recall the fairly lengthy report I gave on our 

4 telephone conference during our last meeting, 

5 when I tried to bring you up to date with 

6 respect to what the Subcommittee had been 

7 doing.

8 We are continuing to deal with the 

9 standard workload that we have but the most 

10 pressing items that we've had facing us in 

11 recent months has been the issue of the PERs, 

12 how we will address them and how we will move 

13 forward on them.

14 We've been trying to work very 

15 closely with SC&A to get the information that 

16 we need assimilated and to get the process 

17 established so that we can move forward in a 

18 timely manner with these things.

19 I'm going to work on the 

20 assumption that all of you have -- you should 

21 have, somewhere in your files, the protocol to 

22 review NIOSH's Program Evaluation Reports that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 325

1 was prepared by SC&A in December 2009. It was 

2 sent to all of you and it was their 

3 presentation to us with respect to their view 

4 of how we should proceed in this manner.

5 The Subcommittee finds this to be 

6 an acceptable document. There is -- are a 

7 number of attachments. The attachments might 

8 change from time to time.

9 You should have also received from 

10 John Mauro or Kathy Behling, a most -- the 

11 most recent update of the PERs that are 

12 available for us to choose to deal with.

13 As I hope you recall, we had 

14 indicated earlier that we would attempt to 

15 select some of these PERs and -- so that SC&A 

16 could get started on them. We have been --

17 some of us have been working on a document, 

18 which is integral to this proposal, namely a 

19 two-page wrap-up description of what happens 

20 at the end of the PER review process. That 

21 will become an archival document so that, in 

22 perpetuity, whoever wants to identify what any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 326

1 PER was about and what was done with it, can 

2 pull up this quick two-pager and take a look 

3 at it.

4 Several of us on the Subcommittee 

5 have had numerous exchanges. Originally, it 

6 had been my plan to attempt to have a 

7 teleconference meeting about this. But it 

8 seems to be more efficient at this juncture 

9 for the three of us who are involved, 

10 primarily Dr. Lemen, Dr. Ziemer and myself, in 

11 word-smithing this document.

12 I'm very concerned about it 

13 because I want to make sure -- I understand 

14 that it's going to be used primarily as a 

15 template. It's a straw man that John and 

16 company put together for us and we've changed 

17 it significantly from its original format and 

18 its original content. We want to try to get 

19 it right.

20 So, we're not going to present 

21 that to you today. We're still playing with 

22 that. We -- with any luck at all, we'll have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 327

1 that very nicely put together and as polished 

2 as we can get it, when the Subcommittee meets 

next on June 8th 3 . 

4 It appears to me that what we need 

5 to do today, if at all possible, if there's 

6 concern about SC&A being held off any longer 

7 with respect to the choice of PERs to be 

8 reviewing next, we have the list that they've 

9 put before us of the PERs that are available 

10 that they have assessed from a number of 

11 criteria with, in their view, the most 

12 important at the top and the least important, 

13 depending upon how you weigh the assessment 

14 values, at the bottom.

15 So, if there is -- I'd like to 

16 make sure that no one on the Subcommittee has 

17 any additional comment to make before I 

18 suggest that we take a look at the list of 

19 PERs and see if it is the desire of the Board 

20 to make a selection, so SC&A can move forward 

21 with their preferred task of getting on with 

22 this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 328

1 MR. KATZ: So, let address a 

2 procedural matter, then, related to this, 

3 because like Site Profiles, tasking these 

4 conflict of interest matters, and some of 

5 these are site-specific, and for the site6 specific ones, those who have a conflict, just 

7 let me remind you, and I can do that as we go 

8 through these, too, but if you have a conflict 

9 for that site, you shouldn't be speaking. You 

10 can stay at the table, but shouldn't be 

11 speaking to the issue, and of course, you 

12 wouldn't vote on that one either.

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: You may have to 

14 remind us.

15 MR. KATZ: And I'm happy to remind 

16 you. That's easy to do. I have it all 

17 organized here by PER. 

18 The other thing I would just note 

19 is, in discussing this with John Mauro 

20 yesterday, he thought that a ballpark of 

21 around five would probably be at a limit of 

22 how many PERs to deal with at a time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 329

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That sounds 

3 reasonable. I was thinking in terms of three, 

4 but if five is possible on their schedule, 

5 then I see no reason why not.

6 I believe everyone should have 

7 that on their email.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you want to --

9 why don't we start with the three, so, to 

10 talk, discuss, then we can add through the 

11 next two.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine. Let me 

13 make very sure that there is no one on the 

14 Subcommittee who wants to speak to any of this 

15 before we start moving through the PERs.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, well, I 

17 guess, first, are there any questions for 

18 Wanda about the Subcommittee and what she's 

19 reported on?

20 Okay, Dr. Ziemer or Dr. 

21 Richardson?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no comment.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 330

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, David. 

4 Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Let me just remind then, 

6 Members, for these -- just for the top what? 

7 For the top four or five, where the recusals 

8 are -- so, for Hanford, we have recusals of 

9 Ms. Beach and Ms. Munn.

10 The next one that we would have 

11 recusals is for the INL and that would be Mr. 

12 Clawson, and then for PER 18, that's the 

13 fourth of these listed in priority order, we 

14 would have Dr. Poston and Mr. Schofield, just 

15 -- 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Wait, that's not the 

17 same order I had. The order I have, 

attachment one, updated May 17th 18 , has the 

19 construction trades prior to INL.

20 MR. KATZ: There are no conflicts. 

21 That's why I didn't mention any conflicts, 

22 because there's no one conflicted for that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 331

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that makes it 

2 easier then. I thought you said that was 

3 number four, all right.

4 MR. KATZ: No, the fourth is LANL, 

5 L-A-N-L.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Appreciate it.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, the first is 

8 INL, Construction.

9 MEMBER MUNN: No, the first is -- 

10 MR. KATZ: The first is Hanford.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Hanford?

12 MR. KATZ: That's the highest 

13 priority one.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

15 MEMBER MUNN: And I can't speak to 

16 that, but I could -- 

17 MR. KATZ: So, do we want to just 

18 go down the list and -- 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess that's --

20 MR. KATZ: -- just begin the 

21 discussion? 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 332

1 MR. KATZ: So, why don't we just --

2 for Hanford, is there any discussion before we 

3 take a vote?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, actually, I 

5 don't think we need to go through that, as 

6 long the -- that's -- unless there is 

7 disagreement.

8 So, all in favor of Hanford, say 

9 aye.

10 (A chorus of ayes.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed?

12 (No response.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and Dr. 

14 Richardson, Dr. Ziemer, do you -- 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: I think we need to do 

18 this by voice vote. 

19 MS. HOWELL: I'm sorry, because of 

20 the conflict of interest -- 

21 MR. KATZ: Because of recusals -- 

22 MS. HOWELL: -- recusals, we need 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 333

1 to go voice votes.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, I'll just do 

4 this very quickly. Dr. -- we're talking about 

5 PER-29, Hanford. Dr. Anderson?

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

10 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

22 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 334

1 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

2 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Great, the next -- we 

12 don't -- we can do by voice vote, because 

13 there is no recusals. That's the construction 

14 trades.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, proceed.

16 MR. KATZ: So, all in favor, say 

17 aye.

18 (A chorus of ayes.)

19 MR. KATZ: Any opposed?

20 (No response.)

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, the next one is 

22 PER-17 INL, and for that, we have Mr. Clawson 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 335

1 recused. So, I'll run down the vote. Dr. 

2 Anderson?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

7 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

9 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

21 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 336

1 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson? Dr. 

3 Richardson?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Thanks. Dr. Roessler?

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: That's three. Do you --

12 do we want to go to five?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do we want to go 

14 to five?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay. So, the next 

16 -- 

17 MEMBER MUNN: What's the difference 

18 if you do four?

19 MR. KATZ: The next is PER-18. 

20 That's LANL.

21 MEMBER MUNN: May I ask John, if he 

22 really feels five is -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 337

1 MR. KATZ: John, would you like to 

2 confirm, is five a manageable number or are 

3 you concerned?

4 DR. MAURO: No, five is -- three, 

5 five, we can handle five.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, we can do it.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Fine with me.

10 DR. MAURO: Well, I'm here, there's 

11 something I'd like to remind everyone of and I 

12 think it might have slipped through the 

13 cracks.

14 When we do a PER, you know, we've

15 already done three of them, the last thing in 

16 the PER is doing some real cases to see if, in 

17 fact, it implemented the change and those 

18 cases and the way in which it was suppose to 

19 work is that I believe, Wanda and Mark, you 

20 were going to sort of collaborate and say 

21 which cases you'd like to review. 

22 So, right now, we're sort of not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 338

1 finished with the one on lymphatic tissue, the 

2 one on high-fired plutonium and Blockson. 

3 Those are three PERs that we completed, 

4 delivered, but the last chapter isn't there, 

5 which is three, four, five, six cases, to see 

6 if, in fact, they did it the way they were 

7 supposed to do it.

8 So, that's something that has to 

9 be worked into the process, and so, maybe you 

10 want to just bear that in mind, that somewhere 

11 along the line, we're going to have to pick 

12 cases to do, so, we could do this -- finish 

13 this job.

14 We can start it, but we can't 

15 finish it without your help.

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct, and I 

18 didn't mention that because that was a part of 

19 the protocol that I had assumed everyone had 

20 read.

21 MR. KATZ: So, for LANL, we have 

22 two recusals, Dr. Poston and Mr. Schofield. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 339

1 Dr. Anderson?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

8 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

16 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

22 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 340

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson? 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: And finally, the fifth, 

8 PER-8, that's lung model. There are no 

9 recusals, so, we could do a voice vote. All 

10 in favor, say aye.

11 (A chorus of ayes.)

12 MR. KATZ: Any opposed, say nay.

13 (No response.)

14 MR. KATZ: It passes, all in favor. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, Mark, I'm 

16 going to now turn the meeting over to you.

17 Just so you know that I'm a nice 

18 person, I left Mark with letters written for 

19 LANL and the other two sites for tomorrow.

20 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, now 

21 that Jim is gone.

22 MR. KATZ: So, Mark, we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 341

1 additional SC&A tasking to do, which is Site 

2 Profile reviews.

3 There are a number of Site 

4 Profiles that haven't been reviewed yet and I 

5 have a list of the names of those.

6 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Do we have a 

7 sense from -- how many are we going for? Do 

8 we have a sense from SC&A on how many Site 

9 Profiles?

10 MR. KATZ: And John can speak to 

11 these. The Site Profiles that are possible 

12 for review are Simonds Saw, Stanford Linear 

13 Accelerator -- 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Ted?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Do we also have a 

17 list of them or should we be writing these 

18 down?

19 MR. KATZ: I would write them down. 

20 I don't know whether you have a list off the 

21 top of my head or not.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Simonds Saw?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 342

1 MR. KATZ: Simonds Saw, Stanford 

2 Linear Accelerator, Pacific Proving Grounds, 

3 Superior Steel, TVA and Allied Chemical 

4 Corporation and just to note, Dr. Melius and I 

5 had some interactions with John previously on 

6 Site Profiles that hadn't been reviewed and 

7 there was only one other Site Profile that --

8 but that Site Profile is currently under for 

9 renovation by DCAS. So, it didn't make sense 

10 to even consider that one, since we don't have 

11 a current version ready for review.

12 But so, John, do you want to speak 

13 to these Site Profiles?

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would -- the 

15 first three and -- but I have to also mention 

16 that during the discussion of TBD-6001 the 

17 other day, and that there will be a meeting of 

18 that Work Group.

19 There are four or five Site 

20 Profiles that are under those. So, what I'm 

21 getting at is, they're small. They're all 

22 relatively easy to do. So, we probably want 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 343

1 to limit these to three, so that we could do 

2 these three and we could also take care of the 

3 small group that goes with TBD-6001, and now, 

4 I'm operating on the premise that the group 

5 that falls under TBD-6001, that's going to be 

6 handled under the 6001 Work Group, along with 

7 -- you know, that's all part and parcel of an 

8 integrated process.

9 These others, though, I'm 

10 presuming will be under a separate Work Group, 

11 the ones we're about to identify now.

12 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I would 

13 think that would be the case, yes.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay, so, I would 

15 say three would be plenty.

16 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, 

17 anybody out of that list, does anybody have 

18 any -- I mean, I look at it and I see, Simonds 

19 Saw seems to be one that stands out for me as 

20 needing something.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Why?

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: What? Why?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 344

1 MEMBER MUNN: Isn't that done now?

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I don't 

3 think Simon Saw is done, no. 

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: The data was 

5 used, but not -- 

6 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, the 

7 data was used, right, right. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: I guess my question 

9 is, what's the point?

10 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Well -- 

11 MEMBER BEACH: It's current in the 

12 evaluation process.

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Is it in the 

14 evaluation process also?

15 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

16 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, if 

17 it's in -- it's in the ER review, is that 

18 correct?

19 MEMBER BEACH: I'm just looking 

20 ahead at the SEC petitions for tomorrow's -- 

21 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: To help out a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 345

1 bit, it's been our experience, when there is 

2 an SEC that's undergoing, in the process, 

3 where Simonds Saw is, it's been approved -- 

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: -- and it's in the 

6 process. What we found has been beneficial is 

7 if we can get our Site Profile review out 

8 quickly, into the hands of NIOSH as quickly as 

9 we possibly can, it might help and they'll 

10 have at least some perspective, as we see -- 

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Your 

12 concerns earlier on -- 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, earlier, right, 

14 because we did that on Brookhaven. Now, I 

15 don't -- I know that that seemed to go very 

16 well. I don't know the degree to which our 

17 work -- but we did get it -- our Site Profile 

18 review on Brookhaven into the hands of NIOSH

19 before the Brookhaven ER came out, and that 

20 seems to be a way of doing things which makes 

21 it -- things go a little more smoothly.

22 So, that's why I think C- that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 346

1 why I felt Simonds Saw was important, because 

2 it's in the queue. So, yes.

3 Now, the other two are not. The 

4 other two would just be Site Profile Reviews, 

5 and then I do not believe are in the queue for 

6 Site Profile -- for SECs.

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, my 

8 sense is, you have to look at it either way. 

9 If you're doing the evaluation review for the 

10 SEC, you're going to ultimately look at the 

11 model used in the Site Profile, so why not 

12 start it now, is sort of what I would justify 

13 looking at that one. John agrees. I don't 

14 know if anyone else agrees. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and to 

16 clarify, that's due in July.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, right, 

18 right. But you know, we can look at any 

19 others that stand out to Members.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Stanford Accelerator 

21 would be interesting just from a technical 

22 standpoint, but whether or not it has -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 347

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Justifies a 

2 full review, yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I don't know.

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Do we have 

5 any sense of a number of -- this is a question 

6 for Stu or support group, the numbers of 

7 claims for each of these sites? I expect not 

8 by Stu's reaction.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I'm sorry, I 

10 don't. I don't have that with me. I might be 

11 able to find out relatively soon. But I don't 

12 have it, if you want to know on this. 

13 I don't think we have very many 

14 from Stanford, but I'll check.

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And yes, 

16 because my sense is that Pacific Proving 

17 Ground and the Stanford Linear Accelerator are 

18 kind of different, you know, things that we 

19 haven't looked at before, certainly. But are 

20 -- is it -- does it justify a full SC&A 

21 review? I'm not sure. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 348

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, Paul.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer here. 

3 I just wanted to remind the Board that before 

4 each Board meeting, Nancy Adams sends out a 

5 document which summarizes the Board tracking 

6 on all of the sites and the one that she sent 

7 out this past week, you should have gotten in 

8 your email, that lists all the Site Profiles 

9 and those that are under review or when 

10 they've been reviewed, the dates. That may be 

11 also helpful to you.

12 I note, for example, I see that 

13 Pacific Northwest Labs, which I believe is 

14 Battelle -- 

15 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- shows up as not 

17 having a Site Profile Review. Is that 

18 correct, John Mauro?

19 DR. MAURO: No, we were recently 

20 authorized to do Pacific -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, that's been 

22 authorized?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 349

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: That's been 

3 authorized, okay.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, so, we have that 

5 in the -- we're working on it.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: It doesn't show up 

7 on the current list as having been authorized. 

8 What about West Valley?

9 DR. MAURO: West -- yes, West 

10 Valley has been authorized. PNL has been 

11 authorized, yes.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So, I guess 

13 those dates are -- those dates don't show up 

14 on the current chart that went through me 

15 here.

16 DR. MAURO: Joe just reminded me, 

17 though we have PNL, it's going to be a very 

18 easy one because it's basically part and 

19 parcel to Hanford.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Understood.

21 DR. MAURO: They're connected very 

22 closely.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 350

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: So, our plan was to 

3 deliver something, but we don't see that as 

4 being, you know -- it's really a sub-set of 

5 Hanford.

6 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And can 

7 someone just describe -- Superior Steel, I 

8 know we've had a couple cases come before the 

9 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee, but can you 

10 quickly -- someone just quickly go over what 

11 they did at Superior Steel, so we have a sense 

12 of -- I can't remember if they did rolling 

13 operations or if they did -- okay, or Allied 

14 Chemical. It might be good just to know a 

15 little bit of background on these, that -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Allied Chemical, I 

17 think, I know that's the one in Metropolis.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: How about Kansas 

19 City Plant?

20 MEMBER GLOVER: Allied Chemical --

21 this is Stu.

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Hold on, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 351

1 Paul, one second. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Allied Chemical, 

4 I'm pretty sure is the conversion plant in 

5 Metropolis, Illinois that it -- it's a fairly 

6 large scale uranium chemical conversion --

7 conversion plant.

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, 

9 right, okay. So, that may be interesting. I 

10 mean, I'm almost thinking, does it make sense 

11 to -- well, I don't know. We haven't really 

12 done this before, but if Simonds Saw and 

13 Superior Steel -- you know, if they're similar 

14 operations, we might want to have one Work 

15 Group look at both, although Simonds Saw is an 

16 SEC. So, I'm not sure that makes sense. But 

17 -- 

18 MEMBER BEACH: What about TVA, any 

19 information on that?

20 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, TVA, 

21 any -- we might have to -- you know, we have 

22 more working time tomorrow. I guess, what I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 352

1 proposing is, we got this list from Ted. 

2 Maybe we should take tonight to think about 

3 it, on our own, and if NIOSH can come back and 

4 maybe give us some numbers on -- the number of 

5 claimants and a little description of what 

6 went on at each one of these sites, so, we can 

7 have a sense of what we're looking at 

8 assigning, because I agree with Wanda. I 

9 imagine there's a fair number of claimants at 

10 most of these sites, but it would be good to 

11 see some data before we just start assigning 

12 SC&A to do these.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, and you could look 

14 on the website, at the TBDs for these.

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, we 

16 could all do a little more -- 

17 MR. KATZ: To familiarize 

18 yourselves with them.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: We can all 

20 do a little of our own homework, but also --

21 you know, I'm sure everyone is pretty tired 

22 from a long day of meetings, but I propose, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 353

1 it's okay, maybe we can just put this off for 

2 our working time tomorrow. Is that okay with 

3 everybody?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: All right. 

6 So, we have the -- the ideas are out there. 

7 Are there any others that we haven't -- I 

8 heard Paul say Kansas City.

9 DR. MAURO: We have Kansas City. 

10 We're working on it now.

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: John, did --

12 Paul, did you hear that?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

14 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

15 MEMBER MUNN: TVA is another 

16 phosphate.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Hold on, Stu 

18 has another comment.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Stu, again. 

20 Superior Steel manufactured uranium strip and 

21 rolled uranium slabs for Savannah River. The 

22 period was like, 1952 to 1957.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 354

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: So, that's Superior 

3 Steel. I'm working on getting the number of 

4 claims for these five sites.

5 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: All right, 

6 well, we can -- 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have it -- 

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: We'll take 

9 it up tomorrow, so, you got a little -- yes, 

10 all right. Okay, what's next?

11 MR. KATZ: I think I have an item 

12 here, that, really, Jim wanted to discuss, so, 

13 we can't do that.

14 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: So, then the next is 

16 really to begin the Subcommittee and Work 

17 Group reports.

18 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: All right, 

19 and I can say, we'll do the -- start the Work 

20 Group updates and if we don't finish all of 

21 them, we have time tomorrow.

22 I can say for the Dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 355

1 Reconstruction Subcommittee, which often 

2 starts this process off, I didn't get the 

3 report out yet. I was trying to email it 

4 before Jim left, but I'm going to -- right 

5 after this meeting ends, I'm going to send 

6 everyone an email with this follow-up on the 

7 first 100 cases report, from the Dose 

8 Reconstruction Subcommittee.

9 I apologize for not getting it out 

10 sooner, but at least, you know, we can -- I 

11 can describe it tomorrow and at least, go 

12 through it and then you'll have it. I don't

13 expect any action on it. But, you know, I'll 

14 give a better update on that tomorrow.

15 But then maybe we can start with 

16 the Dose Reconstruction -- or the Procedures 

17 Subcommittee, sorry.

18 MR. KATZ: Wanda, do you want to 

19 report on Procedures today?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Didn't I just do 

21 that?

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Is there any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 356

1 more --

2 MR. KATZ: Well, you did the PER. 

3 Do you have other items -- 

4 MEMBER MUNN: No, I don't.

5 MR. KATZ: -- with respect to the 

6 Procedures Subcommittee report.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I did the whole 

8 thing.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, very good.

10 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, you 

11 gave your regular -- 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I just did.

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, that 

14 was a quick one.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there was 

16 nothing to add over what I reported at our 

17 last meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

19 MEMBER MUNN: At the 

20 teleconference.

21 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: That's 

22 great.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 357

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then let me go 

2 to the next one. Obviously, I'm going to skip 

3 the Work Groups for which we've already 

4 addressed them today.

5 So, the first -- 

6 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Hold on one 

7 second. John?

8 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt, 

9 but I just wanted to check. Wanda, I know one 

10 of the challenges we've had with the 

11 procedures was the software that we'd been 

12 using. I'm not -- I saw some email 

13 correspondence. I've been out of the office. 

14 Has that been fixed because, you know, when 

15 we move through the process, we -- it really 

16 expedites the process if we -- if it's -- if 

17 we could -- I don't know where it is now.

18 MEMBER MUNN: We have to have the 

19 process. The last information that I saw was 

20 from Steve Marschke and he -- what the message 

21 said was, I've checked it out and it works for 

22 me today. Stu?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 358

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the -- as far 

2 as I know, that data -- well, that data has 

3 all been added to the application that we 

4 wrote, that's actually available -- it's now -

5 - it's made for all the Work Groups now. 

6 I mean, this is made to hold 

7 findings for all the work of all the Work 

8 Groups, and there are ways to pull it up, so 

9 that it looks very much like the product we 

10 had before, though we're -- I think we're 

11 going to go through that at the next 

12 Subcommittee meeting.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I had hoped that you 

14 would do that at the -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we're planning 

16 to have our IT folks there and go through a 

17 tutorial on the next Subcommittee meeting, so, 

18 people can understand. It's -- I think it's 

19 available there by now. It's called the 

20 document control tracking application, DCTA, 

21 on our staff tools page.

22 So, you go to our staff tools 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 359

1 page, you can open it up, but it's not very 

2 intuitive on how to get to these particular 

3 Procedures findings.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I had assumed that 

5 we'd all need training, but since Steve was 

6 comfortable with it, I figured if Steve could 

7 get on, we'd find out our -- 

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And I think 

9 some people will need training on how to get 

10 to staff tools, but that's really -- 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's true.

12 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: But we'll 

13 have to go through that, yes.

14 DR. MAURO: One last dimension to 

15 that, why it's important is the two-pagers.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: You see, basically, 

18 there are 103 procedures that we've reviewed 

19 over the last five years. Out of those, we 

20 have determined that about 55, we've finished, 

21 we're done, and we want two-pagers on all of 

22 them, but the only way to write those two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 360

1 pages, is to be able to go into the database 

2 and retrieve the history of how we got there, 

3 how did we -- 

4 In other words, whatever the 

5 procedure was, there was a series of meetings 

6 and how we closed out every issue, it's all in 

7 that database and it's going to be very 

8 difficult to write those two-pagers and --

9 unless that's working.

10 MR. KATZ: Thanks, John.

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, that 

12 will be -- 

13 MR. KATZ: I think, actually, the 

14 DCAS folks are planning to do a little bit of 

15 training of the front end of the Subcommittee 

16 meeting in a week and a half, so, that 

17 everybody is abreast of how to work that new 

18 data system.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And I should 

20 say, it comes just in time, because I was 

21 ready to make a motion to go back to the old 

22 matrix system, but anyway. So, I actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 361

1 prefer that.

2 MR. KATZ: So, let's see the -- 

3 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: But that's 

4 another story. So, let's go through the Work 

5 Groups, yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Let's proceed with 

7 Fernald, Mr. Clawson.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, we just had a 

9 Fernald Work Group here just last month. 

10 We've got several issues that are starting to 

11 come in. They're starting to flow back.

12 I just noticed that I got from 

13 SC&A an issue on the thorium and so forth. 

14 We're proceeding on -- we haven't got a work -

15 - another Work Group meeting at this time. 

16 As soon as I get more of the data 

17 or a date of when we can expect it, we'll set 

18 up another Work Group.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Do you know 

20 if you have any outstanding action items? Is 

21 that -- did you say there were outstanding -- 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, we've still 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 362

1 got some outstanding.

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Some 

3 outstanding, for NIOSH? For SC&A? For both?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: For NIOSH and kind 

5 of a little bit of both. I think John's about 

6 got all of his, that we're going to sit down 

7 with.

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, all 

9 right, that's good.

10 MR. KATZ: Any questions? Okay, 

11 thank you. Hanford is Dr. Melius, who is, of 

12 course, gone, but does Dr. Poston or Mr. 

13 Schofield, Dr. Ziemer, someone want to report 

14 for the Hanford?

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I don't 

16 think there's been any report to give, right.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, I don't -- yes, 

18 right.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: INL is next. That's Mr. 

21 Schofield.

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 363

1 have scheduled Work Group meetings in June or 

2 July.

3 MR. KATZ: Lawrence Berkeley is Dr. 

4 Ziemer.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Lawrence Berkeley 

6 Work Group has just been formed this past 

7 week. We've not yet met.

8 MR. KATZ: Right, thank you, and 

9 Linde reported yesterday morning, and then we 

10 have LANL, Mr. Griffon.

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, Los 

12 Alamos, we did have a Work Group meeting just 

13 a little while ago in Cincinnati, a couple of 

14 weeks ago, I think. It kind of runs together.

15 And we made some -- it was our 

16 initial meeting on the latest -- the later 

17 years' SEC petition and so, we made some 

18 initial headway, but we have quite a bit of 

19 work to do on that and we'll -- we have some 

20 LANL folks here today, so we're going to get 

21 some comments on the change in the old SEC 

22 petition language, and also, I assume on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 364

1 new petition.

2 So, we're moving on on that, but 

3 we haven't scheduled another meeting yet, but 

4 we did start the Work Group working on that.

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Any 

6 questions? Then we have Mound, Ms. Beach.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Mound does have a 

8 list of action items out. At this time, I 

9 don't have them right in front of me, but we 

10 are going to be scheduling a meeting at the 

11 end of June, first of July time frame, to 

12 address the final issues for Mound.

13 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Josie. 

14 Pantex, Mr. Clawson.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, we finally 

16 had our first Work Group meeting. We've got 

17 several outstanding issues. We were able to 

18 take the matrix and combine several of the 

19 issues into one.

20 At this time, SC&A is at Pantex. 

21 We did get our documentation, our interviews, 

22 and they're wrapping those things up.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 365

1 We've also got a tour coming up. 

2 It's probably going to be the later time frame 

3 of July. We're still trying to hammer out the 

4 exact buildings and so forth like that. But 

5 we are finally making headway there.

6 MR. KATZ: Any questions? Thank 

7 you, Brad. Pinellas, Mr. Schofield.

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Nothing yet. 

9 They don't expect anything until at least 

10 August.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you, and Piqua, 

12 Dr. Poston.

13 MEMBER POSTON: We're scheduling a 

14 meeting, sending out an email to try to get 

15 that scheduled in June or early July.

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John. Rocky 

17 Flats, Mr. Griffon.

18 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Rocky Flats 

19 has no update at this point, except to -- you 

20 know, my comment to the Department of Labor on 

21 clarifying on the implementation of the Class, 

22 but no update from the Work Group.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 366

1 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Santa 

2 Susana, Mr. Gibson.

3 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, we had a --

4 were finally able to have a Work Group meeting 

April 20th 5 in Cincinnati. We went back 

6 through the matrix and some of the open 

7 issues.

8 There were some that were 

9 resolved. There are some that were identified 

10 that's going to take some additional time for 

11 DCAS to respond to, and so we look forward to 

12 that. 

13 We'll hopefully have another 

14 meeting in a couple of months.

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mike. SRS, 

16 Savannah River Site, Mr. Griffon.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: We also had 

18 a Work Group meeting a couple of weeks ago on 

19 Savannah River. I believe this was the first 

20 meeting of the Work Group to address the SEC.

21 We had had a Work Group a while 

22 back on the Site Profile issues, but now it is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 367

1 looking at the SEC issues.

2 Again, several actions were 

3 identified for NIOSH and SC&A, I believe, and 

4 we weren't ready to schedule another meeting 

5 yet, but we will, hopefully in probably two to 

6 three month time frame.

7 MR. KATZ: Any questions? Thank 

8 you, Mark. Then we have the -- there's the 

9 SEC Work Group and Dr. Melius gave an update, 

10 really yesterday for that. I think that 

11 covers that, unless any Members have anything 

12 more to add to what Jim discussed yesterday.

13 Very good. Then we have TBD-6000, 

14 Dr. Ziemer.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Our Work Group met 

on May 12th 16 . Our main focus -- well, we're 

17 still working on closing out the TBD-6000 

18 itself, but our main focus is on Appendix BB, 

19 which is the General Steel Industries Site 

20 Profile and the General Steel Industries SEC 

21 petition, and in that connection, the 

22 petitioner, [identifying information 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 368

1 redacted], had been able, through the FOIA 

2 process, to identify a large number of 

3 documents that were held by the Nuclear 

4 Regulatory Commission.

5 Those documents have been made 

6 available, actually, on a website by the NRC, 

7 so they're available to the Work Group. NIOSH 

8 also had those documents available and in the 

9 meantime, had done their review of those 

10 documents to determine the impact of those on 

11 their dose reconstruction process, source term 

12 information and related matters. 

13 And at our meeting, NIOSH 

14 presented their sort of critique of those 

15 documents. Well, I shouldn't call it a 

16 critique, but their evaluation of those 

17 documents, in terms of how that would impact, 

18 how they would do dose reconstruction for the 

19 General Steel Industry Site.

20 Also, at that time, since we had 

21 just received that information from NIOSH, our 

22 contractor, SC&A, had not had an opportunity 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 369

1 to official review that, and they also 

2 received a pretty detailed critique from the 

3 petition on the NIOSH review, which we are --

4 ourselves and the Board had an opportunity to 

5 critique in any detail.

6 But we did also receive from the 

7 petitioner a request that we task SC&A to 

8 review all of those NRC provided documents, 

9 and so, in connection with the tasking issue, 

10 I want to present my view of what should be 

11 tasked, and I say it's my view because at the 

12 time of our Work Group meeting, we had not had 

13 a chance to go through [identifying 

14 information redacted]'s comments in full 

15 detail, that is, his critique of the NIOSH 

16 comments.

17 And I wanted the Work Group 

18 members to have a chance to do that, before we 

19 did any tasking and we agreed to postpone the 

20 tasking until the full Board meeting, in any 

21 event.

22 What the request from the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 370

1 petitioner was, was that we task our 

2 contractor to evaluate the documents from the 

3 NRC. I'm not sure I'm using the correct word, 

4 when I say evaluate. But we need to review 

5 those and my personal point of view is, that's 

6 the agency's job, NIOSH, and they have 

7 reviewed those.

8 I believe that our contractors 

9 job, if we wish to task them, is to critique 

10 what NIOSH has done, and so, I'm proposing 

11 that our -- that we task SC&A to critique the 

12 NIOSH White Paper, which is basically what was 

13 presented, a White Paper that relates to that 

14 set of documents, which covered -- includes 

15 NRC licenses, NRC inspections, states --

16 material from the state agencies, a wealth of 

17 material about the sources used, the 

18 inspection reports from the NRC and so on. 

19 So, a vast amount of material.

20 My suggestion is that we task SC&A 

21 to critique how NIOSH says it will use those 

22 documents, recognizing that by doing so, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 371

1 probably will be necessary for SC&A to review 

2 the documents themselves.

3 But I think our task is to ask 

4 SC&A whether their view is that NIOSH is 

5 correctly making use of those documents for 

6 dose reconstruction, particularly vis-a-vis 

7 the petition itself, as well as it may pertain 

8 to the Site Profile, which also includes 

9 source term information.

10 But that is a recommendation from 

11 me, not from the full Work Group, but to task 

12 SC&A to critique the White Paper, which I 

13 believe in doing so, will cause them to, by 

14 necessity, to have to review those documents. 

15 But the focus should be how NIOSH 

16 is proposing to use those documents. Perhaps, 

17 other Members of the Work Group can comment or 

18 agree or disagree with that.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, Paul, 

20 Mark Griffon, and as a member of the Work 

21 Group, I agree with that, that NIOSH should 

22 really -- and they did, you know, do the first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 372

1 review of the actual data, but really, SC&A is 

2 probably going to get out the -- you know, the 

3 end result anyway, by reviewing NIOSH's 

4 position. They'll probably have to look back 

5 at the data to -- 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they clearly 

7 will have to.

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm just saying, in 

10 principle, we've tasked SC&A to critique the 

11 technical work done by NIOSH.

12 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, I'm 

13 agreeing with you. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: So, yes, 

16 yes.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, that's what I 

18 would propose, if the other members of the 

19 Work Group agree, we can -- let me make that 

20 as a motion then and we can act on.

21 I move that we task SC&A to do 

22 what I've just described.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 373

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Is there a 

2 second?

3 MEMBER BEACH: I'll second it.

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Second from 

5 Josie. Is there any -- 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: And Josie is a 

7 member of that group, as well.

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Is there any 

9 discussion on that? All in favor of that 

10 motion, aye?

11 ALL: Aye.

12 MR. KATZ: It's just the Work 

13 Group, really, that -- 

14 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, I 

15 thought it was -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no, I'm asking 

17 -- this is a motion for the Board.

18 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: That's what 

19 I was asking you, if it will -- if the Board 

20 had the task or if the Work Group had the 

21 task.

22 MR. KATZ: The Work Group.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 374

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, all 

2 right. Okay, well, that passes on the Board 

3 and the Work Group. So, it's fully tasked to 

4 SC&A, to do that. Paul, was there another 

5 item that you had?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I simply point 

7 out to the Board, or to the full Board, I 

8 believe that within the last day, perhaps, 

9 early this week, [identifying information 

10 redacted] did provide to all the Board 

11 Members, some information relating to this 

12 site, which he wished to share with all the 

13 Board Members.

14 It may be that he will comment on 

15 that and there's a public comment period, but 

16 I did want to make you aware of that document.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, thank 

18 you. 

19 MR. KATZ: Paul, I would just add 

20 one other thing to this discussion, is, I 

21 received, and I believe I distributed it, but 

22 I'm somewhat uncertain, the Bliss -- the TBD-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 375

1 6000 Work Group also briefly discussed Bliss & 

2 Laughlin, which is -- 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes, let me 

4 mention that.

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Bliss & 

7 Laughlin that was done by SC&A was still at 

8 the DOE. So, we don't have that matrix yet, 

9 to review. So, we were not able to do 

10 anything specifically on Bliss & Laughlin at 

11 the meeting.

12 Perhaps John Mauro can update us 

13 on that, but I believe that was still at the 

14 DOE, at the time that we met.

15 DR. MAURO: I believe so.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: We did not have the 

17 matrix from SC&A.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Paul. I just 

19 -- the petitioner is anxious to see that work 

20 go forward on that petition as well. So, I 

21 just thought I'd give that credit, because 

22 we've heard from the petitioner after the Work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 376

1 Group meeting.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, thank you.

3 MR. KATZ: All right, thanks. TBD4 6000, one Work Group has just been 

5 established, as well. Dr. Anderson is the 

6 Chair.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: And I now know 

8 where the documents are, if I can find the 

9 documents on the O: drive.

10 But yes, I think we're basically 

11 waiting for NIOSH to organize our first -- or 

12 put the material together, and I think, aren't 

13 you also reviewing 6001?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: They're already is 

15 a 6001 matrix.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, okay.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Anderson.

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay, so, there 

19 is.

20 DR. MAURO: There is a TBD-6001 

21 matrix with the issues laid out. I don't know 

22 if NIOSH has yet responded -- commented on any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 377

1 of those. I don't recall.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I think 

3 that's what I was told we're waiting for.

4 DR. MAURO: And the other important 

5 aspect is -- in fact, this was a new concept. 

6 There are four or five exposure matrices 

7 dealing with specific sites that are 

8 appendices to TBD-6000.

9 Now, as I understand it, we will 

10 review those. We have already reviewed one of 

11 them, the metallurgical lab. We're going to 

12 review Hooker and then, there's a couple of 

13 others.

14 These are not big deals. These 

15 are relatively modest documents. So, the idea 

16 being, and we haven't done this before, is 

17 that when we engage TBD-6000, we will 

18 simultaneously engage the other four and in 

19 one fell-swoop, knock off a lot of exposure 

20 matrix's, the sites. We should create some 

21 efficiencies, I think, and I think it's a good 

22 idea.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 378

1 MR. KATZ: That's TBD-6001, 

2 actually -- 

3 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: So, you're 

4 waiting on progress, before you schedule a 

5 meeting, right?

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: But also, there are 

9 three SEC petitions assigned to that -- 

10 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. KATZ: -- Work Group. All 

12 right, good. So, next is surrogate data, 

13 which -- 

14 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I'm sorry, 

15 maybe I should clarify. John, you're 

16 reviewing the SEC petitions are part of your 

17 review, and that will roll all into the 

18 committee together, right? Not just the 

19 matrix?

20 DR. MAURO: No, I have to say, the 

21 only one that I'm aware of that's an SEC in 

22 that group is Hooker.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 379

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Hooker?

2 DR. MAURO: And the others, I don't 

3 -- I'm not sure. 

4 MR. KATZ: I can't recount them 

5 right now, but there are three.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

7 MR. KATZ: I think, I believe there 

8 are three, yes. Electro Met is one. That's 

9 one, and there's a third --

10 DR. MAURO: Well, we've already 

11 completed our review of Electro Met. You have 

12 that report.

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: But not the 

14 Evaluation Report, or is there a NIOSH 

15 Evaluation Report for Electro Met, for the 

16 SEC? MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: I think we -- 

18 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: So, have you 

19 completed your review of that?

20 DR. MAURO: I think it's done. I 

21 think the Evaluation Reports, profile review--

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 380

1 DR. MAURO: -- petition review, 

2 the whole nine yards has been delivered. So, 

3 that's sitting there, waiting to be engaged by 

4 the TBD-6001 Work Group.

5 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John. Then 

7 we have surrogate data reported already, and 

8 then we have last, but not least, worker 

9 outreach, Mr. Gibson.

10 MEMBER GIBSON: We had a meeting 

March 19th 11 in Cincinnati and I believe the 

12 Board Members should have, some time last 

13 week, received a spreadsheet sent out by Ted, 

14 that shows worker comments and how they're 

15 being tracked.

16 The Work Group wanted to send it 

17 out to the Board and give you a few days to 

18 look at it. That's all we'd like to 

19 recommend, is a tool to track worker comments 

20 and get your feelings on that, number one.

21 And then, also, during the 

22 meeting, we tasked SC&A to look at how we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 381

1 could -- how they thought we could best 

2 implement objective number three. They did 

3 respond, with a short two-page of their 

4 recommendations. Unfortunately, I have some 

5 email problems, so, I wasn't able to talk to 

6 some of the Work Group members, to see if they 

7 agree with it, before we bring that to the 

8 Board, but maybe we can do that tomorrow.

9 MR. KATZ: Well, that actually -- I 

10 mean, the Work Group can work through those, 

11 because the Work Group can task -- 

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: It's really, for just 

14 the Work Group to consider -- consider the 

15 proposal and make recommendations to SC&A, as 

16 to the scope.

17 MEMBER GIBSON: Okay, so, I guess 

18 the only issue then is, did everyone get the 

19 spreadsheet and is there any thoughts on that?

20 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I have to 

21 say, I didn't have a chance to review it yet. 

22 So, I don't know if others have. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 382

1 MEMBER MUNN: I just saw it.

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: You saw it. 

3 We may be able to take this up tomorrow, if 

4 people have time to look at it tonight, adding 

5 onto our homework, but you know. All right, 

6 we have -- 

7 MR. KATZ: Do you want to discuss 

8 that tomorrow?

9 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Very good.

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Let's try to 

12 do that.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, that gets us 

14 through our Work Groups, unless -- oh, Josie?

15 MEMBER BEACH: I don't know if you 

16 mentioned Brookhaven. Brookhaven is one of my 

17 -- 

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Did you skip it?

20 MR. KATZ: I did skip Brookhaven, 

21 because -- 

22 MEMBER BEACH: This will be very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 383

1 brief, because I don't have too much to 

2 report.

3 We do have the Site Profile and we 

4 have been -- the Evaluation Report from SC&A 

5 has been delivered. So, I will be setting up 

6 a Work Group meeting in the next month, 

7 probably to coincide with my Mound Work Group 

8 meeting.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Josie. I 

10 knew we discussed the SEC, and so, I was 

11 thinking, is this still active, but yes, thank 

12 you. That concludes the Work Group.

13 So, now, we have, actually, some 

14 time. LANL begins at 5:15 p.m. So, we 

15 actually have time for a short break, before 

16 LANL.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, why 

18 don't we take a short break, but this is time 

19 sensitive, since we have this published at 

20 5:15 p.m. We'll stick to that time.

21 MR. KATZ: So, 10 minutes.

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Ten minute 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 384

1 break, yes.

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

3 matter went off the record at 5:00 p.m. and 

4 resumed at 5:15 p.m.)

5 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, let's 

6 start up. We have really one more agenda item 

7 and then we're going to have public comment, 

8 and we may be able to do a few public comments 

9 before the 6:00 p.m. time frame, but we'll 

10 certainly stay on until after six, to cover if 

11 people are still here or on the phone, that 

12 want to make public comment.

13 We do have to be here at six at 

14 least for a little while, because it's 

15 published that way.

16 The next item on the agenda is the 

17 LANL. It's 83.14 amendment to a petition, I 

18 believe, and Stu Hinnefeld is going to give us 

19 an update on that, and then we have time for 

20 the petitioners to weigh in on that, as well.

21 Stu, are you ready to -- Stu is 

22 getting ready to do this presentation. Just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 385

1 bear with us for one minute. We're setting up 

2 the computer here.

3 Okay, Stu is ready to present. 

4 Stu, I'll turn it over to you.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, I am ready. I 

6 think the agenda actually has Greg Macievic 

7 giving this presentation and I decided, you 

8 know, it's not terribly cost effective to 

9 travel Greg up here for a half-hour agenda 

10 item, and I was confident in that decision, 

11 knowing that Dr. Neton was going to make the 

12 presentation.

13 So now Dr. Neton couldn't make the 

14 trip, and so, here I am.

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Third 

16 string.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, no good deed 

18 goes unpunished. Third string and no good 

19 deed goes unpunished.

20 Okay, I'm here to present the 

21 Evaluation Report for SEC-170. This is a 

22 petition that was submitted by a claimant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 386

1 whose dose reconstruction we could not 

2 complete, due to insufficient information. 

3 So, it's an 83.14 petition.

4 The claimant was employed in Los 

5 Alamos National Laboratory and our 

6 determination is that we're unable to complete 

7 a dose reconstruction for the claimant and 

8 that's the qualified basis for the petition.

9 So, they submitted the petition 

10 relatively short time ago. We qualified it on 

April 23rd 11 , and since the petition process in 

12 these instances, follows -- you know, comes 

13 after our decision that it's not feasible to 

14 do dose reconstruction, the evaluation process 

15 is essentially done before the petition comes 

16 in. So, we're able to provide it today.

17 Just a little short recap of the 

18 work that was done at Los Alamos. We all know 

19 it's one of the large weapons labs and they've 

20 done a variety of work over the course of the 

21 years. There is a list of some of them from -

22 - that we've talked about before, at other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 387

1 presentations.

2 And the full description of that -

3 - of the Los Alamos radiological history is 

4 found in the -- our Evaluation Report SEC5 00051. 

6 I think I should probably say at 

7 this point that the Evaluation Report we're 

8 presenting today is essentially a 

9 modification, or a slight modification to the 

10 Evaluation Report we presented earlier on 

11 these years, from 1943 up through 1975, and in 

12 that Evaluation Report, we started with the 

13 criteria on the people who were monitored, or 

14 should have been monitored.

15 We then, after some discussions, 

16 decided to throw in -- to list specific 

17 technical areas, because this is about the 

18 time when the issues with that phrase 

19 monitored or should have been monitored and 

20 the administration of Classes, about the time 

21 that came up, and so, I can remember at one of 

22 our meetings, I don't even remember where or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 388

1 when, but I think I was peripherally involved 

2 in the discussions, of trying to derived at --

3 a complete listing of technical areas, that we 

4 should be in there to cover people who were 

5 monitored, or should have been monitored.

6 And so, there were some technical 

7 areas listed, associated with that Evaluation 

8 Report, and it turns out, now, we want to make 

9 a slight amendment to that Evaluation Report 

10 from 1943 through 1975.

11 So, the previous Class was -- is 

12 listed here. It's employees, contractors and 

13 subcontractors who were monitored or should 

14 have been monitored, while working in 

15 operational technical areas with a history of 

16 radioactive material used at the Los Alamos 

17 National Laboratory for 250 days, and there is 

18 a period of March 1943 through December 1945.

19 The dose reconstructions that 

20 we're doing for -- or the information 

21 available for those reconstructions at Los 

22 Alamos include external radiation, based on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 389

1 the routine monitoring. 

2 We can't necessarily identify 

3 source terms in detail for all the 

4 radionuclides that were used because Los 

5 Alamos used so many radionuclides and in so 

6 many different applications.

7 The environmental monitoring 

8 information is not particularly good at Los 

9 Alamos before 1970, or for one instance, in 

10 1965 for external environmental, and we've 

11 actually -- we've received some claims for 

12 dose reconstruction, you know, since the 

13 enactment of the Class associated with SEC 

14 Petition 00051.

15 We've received some claims for 

16 dose reconstruction that we looked at and 

17 said, well, gee, we can't do the dose 

18 reconstruction for this claim, and therefore, 

19 our conclusion was, it should have been 

20 included in the Class.

21 The issue we have here is that 

22 work assignment location at Los Alamos is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 390

1 a definitive indicator of a person's various 

2 work locations. I mean, they could be 

3 assigned to a specific technical area and work 

4 in others, and we don't really have a record 

5 system that shows movement among technical 

6 areas. So, you can't really exclude people 

7 from certain technical areas or place them in 

8 certain technical areas at particular times, 

9 based on the record we have.

10 So, we concluded then that, you 

11 know, this technical area designation that we 

12 tried last time isn't a good descriptor of the 

13 people who could have been exposed or might 

14 have been exposed, and so, our -- so, we felt 

15 like the previous Class Definition and 

16 therefore, the previous SEC Class was not 

17 entirely complete.

18 So, here is -- we're saying here 

19 that, you know, based on the information 

20 available, we can't really eliminate workers 

21 from -- specific workers from the potential 

22 exposure scenario.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 391

1 In terms of health endangerment, 

2 when we determine that we cannot provide a 

3 sufficiently accurate dose reconstruction for 

4 a Class, we always conclude that there is some 

5 evidence of worker -- of health endangerment.

6 We found -- we did not find 

7 evidence that workers were involved in a 

8 sudden discrete event that was not reported 

9 and investigated. We know that there were 

10 criticality event accidents at Los Alamos, but 

11 we don't know that that would have -- those 

12 criticality accidents affected the members of 

13 those Classes, and so, we are going with the 

14 chronic exposure criteria, essentially a two15 prong -- or you have essentially two options 

16 in the findings, and so, we're going with the 

17 chronic exposure 250 day criteria.

18 Our finding, our recommendation, 

19 feasibility recommendation, is that's it not 

20 feasible to do dose reconstruction at times we 

21 break this into the various categories of 

22 dose. The key infeasibility here is in --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 392

1 reconstruct all the internal doses. 

2 We're not -- you know, we don't 

3 feel we have a way to reconstruct convincing 

4 internal doses for this period, and our 

5 proposed Class Definition that we're 

6 presenting today is, all employees of the 

7 Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies 

8 and their contractors and subcontractors, who 

9 worked at Los Alamos from March 15, 1943 

10 through December 31, 1975, which is the same 

11 period.

12 So, we've just gone from monitored 

13 or should have been monitored and who worked 

14 in designated technical areas, et cetera, to 

15 just all employees, and that again, is to 

16 remedy the situation where we received claims 

17 for dose reconstruction, that we still don't 

18 feel we can reconstruct.

19 And we have a very brief one, it's 

20 strictly that modification, and that's the end 

21 of my presentation.

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thanks, Stu. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 393

1 Any questions from the Board for Stu?

2 MR. KATZ: Before we go to 

3 questions, just let me note for the record 

4 that two members, Dr. Poston and Mr. Schofield 

5 have recused themselves from this session.

6 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Any 

7 questions from the Board, for Stu? I have 

8 one, I can start it off, or you can start it 

9 off.

10 I noted -- I think what I heard 

11 you say was that you identified a claim, in 

12 which you couldn't place the worker in some of 

13 these buildings and therefore -- and I just 

14 wonder if you -- I think this gets back to 

15 what -- something Jim was asking about 

16 yesterday, the process of sort of going from 

17 the building, specific to the all workers, and 

18 if it was -- if this claim was an anomaly or 

19 if you kind of looked and saw a pattern here 

20 that was going to be a problem going forward.

21 In other words, this was happening 

22 in quite a few claims and -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 394

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It has not happened 

2 a lot. I want to say, we have a handful of 

3 claims that people -- 

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, you do 

5 have a handful of claims?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not one.

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

9 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, go 

10 ahead, Wanda.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Stu, I just, 

12 truthfully, haven't read through the SEC and 

13 probably should, to answer my own question. 

14 But this is such an enormous time period, and 

15 when I saw that you had essentially limited or 

16 certainly, inadequate monitoring data, prior 

17 to 1970, you said?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Environmental data 

19 is not particularly good. I mean, there's not 

20 particularly a very large amount of 

21 environmental monitoring data, between --

22 before 1970 for -- I think it's 1970 for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 395

1 internal, you know, for airborne radionuclides 

2 and 1965 for external exposure. I think they 

3 put out some environmental dosimeters around 

4 1965.

5 And so, one aspect of the dose for 

6 someone who would not be monitored would be, 

7 what would be the way they've been exposed to, 

8 from being on the property, which depends 

9 upon, essentially, environmental -- so, that's 

10 environmental. 

11 That's not the key element for the 

12 dose reconstruction -- or for the 

13 infeasibility. The infeasibility is the 

14 inability to tell for a specific individual 

15 that this person was not exposed in one of the 

16 technical areas where radioactive materials 

17 were used. That's the basis for the 

18 Evaluation Report. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: All right, there was 

20 real concern in my mind about that much of a 

21 lack of monitoring data for such a long period 

22 of time. But that's all right. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 396

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, if -

2 - to summarize, the only change, right, was 

3 the Class Definition, really?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: All we changed was 

5 the Class Definition from -- 

6 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Nothing else 

7 changed from the review -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, 

9 monitored or should be monitored to all 

10 employees, that's the only change.

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, so, 

12 we approve the full period -- you know, 1943 

13 to 1975 for those technical areas.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: It was just 

16 NIOSH determining that there were -- 

17 MEMBER GLOVER: Yes.

18 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: -- problems 

19 with that Class Definition.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, this -- like 

21 I said, this definition was written as 

22 monitored or should have been monitored, about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 397

1 the time that issue surfaced with the 

2 difficulty of administering those Classes, and 

3 how that can sometimes put a burden on the 

4 claimant, and you know, place Labor in the 

5 position of having to look for some sort of 

6 evidence along those lines, and so, that's why 

7 we try to get away from that now.

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And go 

9 ahead.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Any idea of how 

11 many additional workers are now -- would now 

12 be eligible, not cases, but I mean, how many 

13 unmonitored people were there employed, during 

14 those years?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We wouldn't really 

16 know that. We wouldn't really know how many 

17 people potentially would fall into this. 

18 You know, we'd have to know quite 

19 a lot about each one, you know, each 

20 individual who was going to claim, to kind of 

21 make a judgment about whether they'd fall into 

22 this or not.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 398

1 So, but right now, we have -- I 

2 think it's just a handful. We have eight. 

3 Right now, we have eight claims that would be 

4 affected, but no, we don't have any way to 

5 know how many people could ultimately fall 

6 into this.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: How many people 

8 were employed there, during that period of 

9 time, I mean, because it's basically anybody 

10 who worked there a year.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I bet our friends 

12 from Los Alamos could tell better than me, of 

13 how many people might have been employed 

14 there.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark?

16 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, go 

17 ahead, Paul.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

19 am trying to understand. This is a fairly big 

20 campus, I'll call it a campus, a lot of 

21 facilities there, some of which, indeed, are 

22 not technical.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 399

1 I don't know what it was -- you 

2 know, the full layout in 1975, but maybe you 

3 can expand on that, but they certainly had 

4 areas like -- at least at the present time, 

5 they have buildings that are sort of set aside 

6 for offices and dining halls and so on, that 

7 have nothing to do with any work, and does 

8 this mean that we're including anyone that --

9 anywhere on that site, because we can't 

10 exclude them from having gone to technical 

11 areas? Is that what we're saying?

12 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Let Stu 

13 speak to that, but I guess that's the essence 

14 of it, yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's what 

16 we're saying.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And I think 

18 that's why we're asking questions here, is to 

19 better justify that -- opening up that far, 

20 you know, so -- I think Bomber had a response 

21 to that.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I do have one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 400

1 thing -- a couple of things to say.

2 If you actually look at it, there 

3 were very -- I mean, the site is broken up 

4 into technical areas completely and there were 

5 very few technical areas that were left out of 

6 our original definition.

7 So, it's not as broad a change as 

8 you would expect, okay. It's really -- I 

9 mean, we had one technical area that was

10 smack-dab in the middle of about -- you know, 

11 smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of other 

12 technical areas, so, we excluded this 

13 technical area, because it was actually, if I 

14 remember correctly, a place where it was 

15 security guards or someone would -- that was 

16 their starting point, basically. It's where 

17 they came in, there was no radioactive 

18 material there. But they -- then they moved 

19 throughout the site.

20 Well, we excluded that building 

21 because there was no radioactive material 

22 there, all right, but it also sat right smack-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 401

1 dab in the middle of the other technical areas 

2 that were included, and so, even though -- I 

3 mean, the workers traversed through technical 

4 areas. They dispersed out to other technical 

5 areas, and this was one of the issues we came 

6 up with.

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Were there 

8 other particular types of workers, where you -

9 - I mean, security guard seems like one of the 

10 troubling ones. Was it maintenance? Was it -

11 - yes, so, we've heard these kinds of 

12 situations before.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was there anything 

14 that wasn't called a technical area, like 

15 loader fleet, that's off in the different -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don't believe 

17 so, Paul.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, everything is 

19 in a technical area anyway.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Everything is in 

21 something that -- something called a technical 

22 area.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 402

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MEMBER PRESLEY: Everything out 

3 there starts with TA, technical area.

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, 

5 right. So, and based on the fact that you've 

6 only identified eight that fall into this 

7 category, out of how many claims are you 

8 dealing with right now?

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Originally, I 

10 think there were 1,153 claims, is that 

11 correct, Leroy, 1,153 claims, and we had 

12 roughly 400-something that were active, and 

13 those include the post-1975 time period, and 

14 we've only come up with eight right now, out 

15 of that.

16 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And how many 

17 currently qualified for the SEC definition? 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'd have to -- I'm 

19 not sure.

20 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: It's in the 

21 -- I mean -- 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Hundreds, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 403

1 hundreds.

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Hundreds?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, yes.

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: So, we're 

5 talking eight out of hundreds?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Eight 

8 additional ones, so, I guess you can make an 

9 argument that it's not likely to -- like you 

10 said, it's not expanding the Class as much as 

11 we might think.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 

14 Any other questions from the Board, or on the 

15 phone? Paul or David? 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: No further 

17 questions from me.

18 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I 

19 think we might be ready to make a motion on 

20 this.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: There might be --

22 is the petitioner for this participating? The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 404

1 petitioner would be on the phone, if she's 

2 participating.

3 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes, I'm 

4 sorry, yes. Is the petitioner for this 83.14 

5 for LANL on the phone?

6 (No response.)

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: No? But I 

8 know there are a couple of people here in the 

9 audience that would like to speak to the 

10 petition, so, I'll let -- I'm sorry about 

11 that, I almost forgot. Didn't see you over 

12 there.

13 MS. RUIZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair and 

14 Members of the Committee. My name is Harriet 

15 Ruiz and that's spelled R-U-I-Z, and I'm the 

16 original petitioner for the SEC-00051. It 

17 became law in 2007.

18 I would like to thank NIOSH for 

19 bringing this to our attention. My original 

20 intent was to cover all employees that worked 

21 in Los Alamos, simply because even some in the 

22 administration buildings, were contaminated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 405

1 because of what was done up there and what 

2 they were exposed to.

3 So, that's all I have to say, 

4 except to welcome all the new members on the 

5 Advisory Committee. I haven't spoken to you 

6 guys since Denver, I believe. So, welcome and 

7 thank you very much.

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, thank 

9 you.

10 MS. RUIZ: And thank you, NIOSH, I 

11 appreciate all your concern for the claimants. 

12 That's really important to me. Thanks.

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you, 

14 Harriet, and thank you for making the long 

15 trip to come see us again. Is there someone 

16 else going to -- yes?

17 MS. VALERIO: Good afternoon. My 

18 name is Loretta Valerio and I'm the Director 

19 of the Office of Nuclear Workers Advocacy in 

20 New Mexico.

21 As an advocate, I've been involved 

22 with LANL claims where employment records were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 406

1 specified group designations rather than 

2 technical areas where the employee actually 

3 performed his or her work.

4 While researching some of these 

5 records, for many of these records, I found 

6 that both the employment and the monitoring 

7 records were either inconsistent or were just 

8 totally absent, and I'd like to take just a 

9 second to thank the Board and NIOSH, for 

10 considering expanding the SEC to include all 

11 LANL workers between the years of 1943 and 

12 1975. Thank you.

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you. 

14 Okay, and is the petitioner on the phone? 

15 I'll ask again.

16 (No response.)

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Is there any 

18 further Board discussion or -- we're ready to 

19 take a motion, I believe. Anybody want to 

20 make a motion on this, Bob?

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: I'll make a motion 

22 that we accept this change.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 407

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'll second it.

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Second by 

3 Brad, okay, any discussion -- so, the motion 

4 is to accept NIOSH's modified language, Class 

5 Definition, to be all workers for LANL, period 

6 1943 through 1975, and is there any discussion 

7 on the -- 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Procedural 

9 question.

10 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Sure, Paul.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Does this require 

12 an actual sort of new SEC Class or is it 

13 simply a modification? In other words, does 

14 this go to the Secretary and the -- 

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: It is a 

16 separate -- yes, it was brought forward as a 

17 separate 83.14. So, I believe it does require 

18 -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

20 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: -- a 

21 letter, yes, yes. Thank you for -- I defer to 

22 you on the procedural questions.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 408

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I believe 

2 then it would go to the Secretary as a 

3 recommendation -- 

4 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- for -- although 

6 it's not a new Class, it's an expansion. But 

7 thank you. In essence, it would replace the 

8 previous one.

9 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: That's 

10 correct.

11 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

12 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay, 

13 is there any discussion on the Board or Paul 

14 or David, any comments on the motion?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: No comment.

16 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: If there's 

17 no comments, I -- 

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't think 

19 from me, no.

20 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: If there's 

21 no comments, I guess we're ready for a vote. 

22 We'll do a roll call vote, Ted.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 409

1 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Dr. 

2 Anderson?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

9 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

11 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

13 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 410

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: So, all in favor, one 

7 member, Dr. Melius, is absent, so, I'll have 

8 to collect his vote, subsequently, and there 

9 are two members who have recused, and that 

10 would be Dr. Poston and Mr. Schofield. So, 

11 the motion passes.

12 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, thank 

13 you, and we'll have to draft up a letter, and 

14 I'm not sure who is going to do that because 

15 Melius isn't here. But we -- I think he left 

16 -- yes, we're not sure what he left, but we'll 

17 find it, yes.

18 Okay, anyway, that ends our agenda 

19 for today. We have a couple items for our 

20 working session tomorrow morning, but what I 

21 was going to do is, if it's okay with Members, 

22 we just had a break and there are a few people 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 411

1 here that have been waiting, actually very 

2 patiently, the last couple of days, and since 

3 we just did LANL, I thought it might be okay 

4 to start our public comment session.

5 We certainly have to stay after 

6 6:00 p.m. because we advertised it that way. 

7 But I guess I would ask the LANL folks, maybe 

8 to start us off, because we were just talking 

9 about that site, and I think that makes a lot 

10 of sense, if they -- so, this is our public 

11 comment session, starting a little early, and 

12 we'll also check the sign-in sheet, and maybe 

13 I can ask Ted to just give the rules on public 

14 comments.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll do that, 

16 before you start.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: And 

18 redaction for the -- 

19 MR. KATZ: Which is, thank you, 

20 Mark. As most of you are aware, there is a 

21 transcript, a verbatim transcript for the full 

22 Board meeting, including the public comment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 412

1 sessions.

2 So, for members of the public, 

3 what you say during the public comment session 

4 will be transcribed fully, will end up in the 

5 transcript for this Board meeting on the 

6 website, the NIOSH website. If you provide 

7 your name, that will be included, any personal 

8 information you provide about yourself, that 

9 will be included in the transcript.

10 But if you discuss third parties, 

11 other persons in your comments, their names 

12 and other identifying information about those 

13 third parties will be redacted and if you'd 

14 like to see the full policy on redaction on 

15 comments for transcripts, it should be out 

16 there on the table and it's also available 

17 online, on the NIOSH website with the agenda 

18 for this meeting. Thank you.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, yes, I 

20 think we're ready to start. Andrew has some 

21 slides, I think, that he's going to start 

22 with, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 413

1 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Well, I'd like 

2 to thank Chairman Griffon and Members of the 

3 Board for allowing me to speak today on behalf 

4 of Senator Udall. This is Tom Udall out of 

5 New Mexico, as opposed to Mark Udall.

6 My name is Michele Jacquez-Ortiz 

7 and I have worked for Senator Udall since he 

8 was elected to Congress nearly 12 years ago, 

9 and for those of you on the Board who have 

10 joined more recently, Senator Udall's 

11 constituency contains many DOE contractor 

12 facilities, the largest of which is LANL.

13 Senator Udall, along with his New 

14 Mexico colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman, 

15 hosted the first public hearings in New Mexico 

16 on this issue and worked to ensure that our 

17 constituents would be covered as part of the 

18 compensation program.

19 When the Senator's Office was 

20 notified of NIOSH's decision to propose an 

21 83.14 petition to broaden the LANL SEC Class, 

22 so it covers all claimants through 1975, he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 414

1 was delighted.

2 As some of you might recall, those 

3 of you who were present for the May 2007 

4 meeting in Denver, in which Harriet Ruiz's SEC 

5 was considered, the claimants put forth a 

6 strong effort to pass an SEC that was not tied 

7 to specific technical areas. They knew that 

8 this detailed information was not available.

9 Still, the fact that NIOSH 

10 approved this decision is very significant and 

11 something that deserves a big thank you from 

12 Senator Udall on behalf of his constituents 

13 that will benefit.

14 The Senator's office had a couple 

15 of questions for the record, that we'd like to 

16 pose, related to the 83.14. The first of 

17 which is, of those eight claimants, is it just 

18 eight claimants that will be affected by this 

19 changed in the expanded SEC Class? So, that's 

20 actually a question for NIOSH and -- 

21 MR. KATZ: Do you want -- I mean, I 

22 think I can respond for the program, in this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 415

1 respect.

2 I mean, I believe I'm correct to 

3 say, I mean, it's eight claimants that have 

4 been identified at this point, but that's not 

5 to say that there wouldn't be other claimants 

6 in the future who would also be affected.

7 So, that's not the -- the total 

8 number, it's just the number that are in the 

9 system currently.

10 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Okay, that's 

11 helpful. Thank you. Will the cases be 

12 reopened, is the second question, and this is 

13 -- it's just procedural, but will the cases be 

14 reopened? Will all of their previous 

15 information remain intact or will they need to 

16 reapply, of those that are affected?

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: You can go 

18 ahead, Stu. Go ahead.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: There will be no 

20 need to reapply. The process goes 

21 automatically. The claimant doesn't have to 

22 do anything.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 416

1 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Okay, perfect, 

2 thank you, and then on a separate note, the 

3 Senator's office is monitoring issues 

4 surrounding the bioassay database recently 

5 developed for post-1975 LANL claimants, as 

6 well as the use of surrogate data.

7 We've listened closely to 

8 questions and concerns about these issues 

9 posed by the Board and share some of those 

10 concerns. We applaud the Advisory Board's 

11 decision yesterday to adopt criteria where 

12 surrogate data is concerned.

13 I think it's important to say 

14 thank you and to give kudos to those involved 

15 with the program when good decisions are made. 

16 Moreover, it's important to say thank you to 

17 each of you on the Advisory Board for the 

18 hundreds of hours that you spend on these 

19 petitions, often invisibly. Thank you for 

20 allowing me to speak today on behalf of 

21 Senator Udall and for your work to ensure

22 fairness and compassion in your decisions that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 417

1 affect so many of these courageous Cold War 

2 veterans.

3 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you, 

4 Michele, and I think Andrew has some comments.

5 MR. EVASKOVICH: Good afternoon, 

6 ladies and gentlemen. My name is Andrew 

7 Evaskovich. I'm the petitioner for SEC-00109 

8 for Los Alamos National Laboratories Support 

9 Service Workers.

10 What I'm going to be discussing 

11 today is the pre-assessment screening for Los 

12 Alamos National Laboratory. This report was a 

13 joint study prepared by Department of Energy, 

14 the New Mexico Environment Department, the 

15 Department of the Interior, and the U.S. 

16 Forest Service, I believe, and several pueblos 

17 that surround Los Alamos National Laboratory, 

18 and it addresses environmental pollution, or 

19 the -- and the possibility of injury to the 

20 environment.

21 It's a pre-assessment in order to 

22 determine whether or not there should be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 418

1 reparations for those -- for any damages to 

2 the environment.

3 If you'll recall the last time I 

4 spoke to you, I talked to you, part of the 

5 presentation included opera and explosions, 

6 so, we're going to do something a little 

7 different today.

8 We're going to discuss 

9 prospecting. The reason why I mentioned 

10 prospecting is because people have inquired to 

11 me about my research efforts, and basically I 

12 felt like it was panning for gold. That's why 

13 this screen is titled this because I sifted 

14 through a large amount of reports and I 

15 usually ended up with small, little nuggets. 

16 Either sometimes I would find a really big fat 

17 one, concerning, say, neptunium and TA-55 that 

18 wasn't monitored, or smaller nuggets, you 

19 know, and basically, I gathered a bunch of 

20 nuggets together to prepare my SEC petition, 

21 and I did pull some nuggets out of this 

22 report, which I have provided to the Board as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 419

1 well, and NIOSH.

2 This is an overview of the Los 

3 Alamos National Laboratory. This will give 

4 you a review of the laboratory since we 

5 haven't discussed this in a year, and I notice 

6 there was some -- a lack of clarity -- or a 

7 lack of understanding about this new petition 

8 that was approved.

9 As you can see here, we have 

10 canyons. The Valles Caldera here, which is a 

11 large volcano that exploded and created the 

12 mesa, and you have the large canyons that run 

13 down and you can see the work areas here, 

14 particularly here is LANSCE, with the lagoons 

15 at LANSCE.

16 These are the surrounding areas of 

17 the laboratory, which is part of the concern 

18 of the report, Bandelier National Monument, 

19 Santa Fe National Forest, you have some BLM 

20 land for Department of Interior, San Ildefonso 

21 Pueblo, Santa Clara Pueblo.

22 The pre-assessment screen is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 420

1 document that represents only a preliminary 

2 step in natural resource damage assessment 

3 process, and this is just to determine whether 

4 they should go forward to find out exactly 

5 what the extent of the damage was.

6 A lot of the data was developed 

7 from the RACER database, which is funded by 

8 the Department of Energy. It was -- and it's 

9 a very large collection of data. That's the 

10 location of the data. I'm sure a lot of it 

11 has been used in order to develop the Site 

12 Profile information. It's publically 

13 accessible and it's also -- New Mexico 

14 Environment Department data as well.

15 The RACER database currently 

16 contains nearly six million data records, most 

17 of which have been validated as confirming to 

18 accepted standards of scientific data 

19 collection and analysis, but not all of them 

20 have, which is an important point.

21 The PAS represents the first phase 

22 of a natural resource damages assessment for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 421

1 LANL Site and all other areas, within which 

2 natural resources may have been injured by the 

3 storage of oil or release of hazardous 

4 substances, including radionuclides.

5 The radionuclides, metals, and HE 

6 may have been released into the environment 

7 during the various steps of the design, 

8 experimentation, manufacture, or detonation of 

9 experimental weapons, and each of these 

10 operations was dispersed geographically 

11 throughout LANL, in which this refers to the 

12 83.14 because it was spread out all over the 

13 laboratory.

14 Non-key facilities have been 

15 responsible for generating hazardous and 

16 radiological waste. So it wasn't just 

17 concentrated into certain key areas, and there 

18 is some data here that references that. The 

19 15 key facilities represent 90 percent of the 

20 data or radioactive liquid waste and solid 

21 waste, but this was according to the 1999 

22 site-wide environmental impact statement.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 422

1 But in 2004, non-key facilities 

2 were responsible for 87 percent of low level 

3 radioactive waste, 30 percent of mixed level 

4 radioactive waste, 54 percent of transuranic 

5 waste volumes generated by all LANL 

6 facilities, and this is quoted from the 2008 

7 site-wide environmental impact statement.

8 The major contributors to 

9 environmental impact of operating LANL waste 

10 water discharges and radioactive emissions are 

11 -- the historic discharges in the Mortandad 

12 Canyon have resulted in above background 

13 residual radionuclide concentrations, 

14 americium, plutonium, strontium-90, and 

15 cesium-137.

16 Plutonium deposits have been 

17 detected along Rio Grande between Otowi and 

18 Cochiti Lake, and the principle contributors

19 to air emissions have been and continue to be 

20 the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center and high 

21 explosives testing activities, and LANSCE and 

22 the high explosive testing activities, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 423

1 think, are key to what I've talked about in my 

2 petition, and it's interesting to talk about 

3 the canyons because this also references the 

4 addition of opening all technical areas 

5 because I have addressed this concern before 

6 before the Board in 2008, when the Board met 

7 in Tampa.

8 That was one of the concerns that 

9 I addressed, was contamination into the buffer 

10 areas and the potential for exposure to those 

11 -- to the radionuclides in those areas.

12 The effluent discharges to canyons 

13 of LANL resulted in contamination of surface 

14 water and sediment in canyons. Some 

15 contaminants tend to absorb to the sediment 

16 particles, which either remain in the canyons 

17 or are transported downstream to the Rio 

18 Grande.

19 Jemez Mountains have experienced a 

20 series of wild land fires. I've made these an 

21 issue in my petition as well. They've had the 

22 water fire in 1954, La Mesa fire in 1977, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 424

1 burned onto LANL land. I didn't address that 

2 one because I didn't have a lot of information 

3 on it, but I think it needs to be looked at 

4 because it did burn into TA-16, TA-49, and TA5 37, which did have radioactive materials.

6 The Dome fire, the Oso fire, and 

7 the Cerro Grande fire, which was a very large 

8 fire also, and it affected the environment. 

9 This is a photograph of the Cerro Grande fire. 

10 You can see the extent of the burning that's 

11 happening there. You can actually see that it 

12 is burning on LANL property, and, again, this 

13 is a satellite view that I presented before of 

14 the extent of the fire at Los Alamos.

15 This is important because the loss 

16 of ground cover and vegetation resulting from 

17 the fire combined with below average 

18 precipitation over several years may have 

19 increased the resuspension of contaminants in 

20 the air. So I think this report reflects on 

21 issues that I have addressed concerning 

22 contamination or exposure pathways.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 425

1 To discuss the air contamination, 

2 discharges of hazardous and radiological 

3 contaminants that have occurred as part of 

4 operations at LANL, releases that include 

5 stack emissions, point -- which are point 

6 source, fugitive emissions, which are non7 point sources, and from detonation and burning 

8 of explosives, and the firing sites where the 

9 explosives are detonated, I feel, are a key 

10 issue because they did test with radionuclides 

11 at those areas.

12 Approximately 1,000 curies of 

13 radioactive air emissions occur annually from 

14 off gassing at inactive facilities. Soil 

15 contamination, spills, releases, deposits of 

16 contaminants released into the air, 

17 radionuclides, metals such as lead and 

18 beryllium, improper disposal of hazardous 

19 materials have resulted in widespread onsite 

20 contamination of soils. So I think this 

21 supports the 83.14 because it discusses the 

22 whole site, and basically, the disposition or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 426

1 the -- when they -- in the early years, they 

2 had what they called the kick-and-roll program 

3 to get rid of radionuclides. They backed up 

4 in the truck, kicked the barrels out, and then 

5 they left, and that occurred on the site 

6 before they actually established material 

7 disposal areas.

8 Surface water and sediment 

9 contamination, radionuclide metals, 

10 contaminants and fluids were historically 

11 discharged directly or indirectly into the 

12 environment, and in addition, historical 

13 spills and leaks have led and continue to lead 

14 to contamination of sediment and surface 

15 water, and this plays into the widespread 

16 problems and the issue of the sediments in the 

17 canyons.

18 This leads to groundwater 

19 contamination, and this occurs through the 

20 infiltration of hazardous substance from 

21 surface water and soils, and they are 

22 currently trying -- evaluating their program 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 427

1 to see if it is effective in determining what 

2 types of materials are actually getting into 

3 the groundwater, which is a big issue in New 

4 Mexico, especially, because of the limited 

5 water resource. We don't have anything near 

6 as large as Niagara in New Mexico. Some 

7 examples of the contamination are tritium, 

8 plutonium-239 and 240, americium-241, and 

9 strontium-90.

10 Potential release sites are a very 

11 big issue. The MDAs, which are material 

12 disposal areas where radioactive or hazardous 

13 constituents have been disposed of, generally 

14 by burial within soil or underlying tuff. 

15 There are two MDAs, U and V, which they do not 

16 even know what is in them. They have not even 

17 classified the materials that went into those 

18 areas. So before they can even begin clean 

19 up, they're going to have to try to figure out 

20 what's in those, in order to safely do it.

21 Firing sites where radioactive or 

22 hazardous constituents have been explosively 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 428

1 disperse, outfalls, where soils, sediments and 

2 water bodies or aquifers have been 

3 contaminated with radioactive or hazardous 

4 constituents contained or discharged 

5 effluents, and other areas of possible 

6 surface, sub-surface, or groundwater 

7 contamination. These are what are considered 

8 potential release sites, and there are a very 

9 large number of them on Los Alamos, and I 

10 discuss these as well in my petition.

11 What does this lead to? 

12 Contamination of birds and mammals. Birds and 

13 mammals are exposed to contaminants of concern 

14 through consumption of contaminated prey, 

15 incidental ingestion of contaminated soils, 

16 sediment, and/or water, and via contact with 

17 radioactive material.

18 Some further examples, gophers at 

19 LANL-G had tritium concentrations of 9.1 rad 

20 per day. Rock squirrels near radioactive 

21 waste lagoon at TA-53, which is the LANSCE 

22 facility, had a significantly higher tritium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 429

1 concentration, and mean concentrations of 

2 radionuclides in small mammal carcasses were 

3 found to be significantly higher at a site in 

4 Mortandad Canyon, relative to background 

5 concentration.

6 This leads us to the canary in the 

7 coal mine. Canaries are especially sensitive 

8 to methane and carbon monoxide, which made 

9 them ideal for detecting any dangerous gas 

10 build-ups. As long as the canary in the coal 

11 mine was kept singing, the miners knew the air 

12 supply was safe. A dead canary in a coal mine 

13 signaled an immediate evacuation, and this 

14 refers, or leads to this, basically, my 

15 opinion.

16 Injuries to wildlife at LANL, so 

17 the potential for harm to humans, in these 

18 source terms and exposure pathways need a 

19 better evaluation, which I believe the LANL 

20 Working Group and NIOSH and SC&A are doing at 

21 this point.

22 I had to add this information 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 430

1 because of discussions that have occurred here 

2 at the Board concerning surrogate data, and 

3 this petition or my petition has resulted in 

4 something new, which is substitute data.

5 As you know, surrogate data is the 

6 use of exposure data from one site for 

7 individual dose reconstruction for workers at 

8 another site. Substitute data is use of 

9 exposure data for one material at a site for 

10 another material at the same site, and so far, 

11 I believe only LANL has this issue, but I do 

12 believe that there do need to be some 

13 guidelines, and I'm going to request today 

14 that the Board develop some type of criteria 

15 for this.

16 As they had was surrogate data 

17 because this is something new. I'm not sure 

18 if it's going to apply to other sites or just 

19 LANL, but I think it is a big issue that needs 

20 to be addressed, and I think that has been 

21 demonstrated today -- yesterday, with the 

22 issues that have been presented to the Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 431

1 and dealt with by the Board.

2 So I guess the question is have 

3 the nuggets that I've gathered, do they weigh 

4 enough to support adding a Class to this 

5 Special Exposure Cohort, and I'm hoping that 

6 as you do your work, you do as I did, and when 

7 you find these nuggets, you do find some 

8 enjoyment in the fact that you did find them, 

9 and I thank you for your service and thanks 

10 for listening to me today.

11 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you, 

12 Andrew, and thanks to all the folks from New 

13 Mexico. We appreciate you coming out and 

14 giving us comments on LANL.

15 I will say one thing on the 

16 substitute data. I think this did come up in 

17 the Work Group meeting on LANL, and 

18 specifically, the use was sort of using 

19 cesium-137, which was measured to -- as a 

20 substitute for other either fission product 

21 exposures or actinide exposures, and also, I 

22 believe it was plutonium as a substitute for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 432

1 other transuranic exposures.

2 So -- and Jim Neton was careful to 

3 pose this as sort of a substitute model, not 

4 surrogate model, and so I think it -- I think 

5 we do need to maybe think of this as an entire 

6 Board and maybe consider if this is happening 

7 at other sites and if we need to sort of 

8 understand it better from a policy standpoint, 

9 as the entire Board.

10 MR. KATZ: Andrew, just let me ask, 

11 if you would save your presentation either to 

12 the NIOSH computer or email it to us, either 

13 way.

14 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, it's saved on 

15 the laptop there.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you.

17 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, I'm 

18 going to continue with public comments. It's 

19 just about -- it is after six now, so, 

20 continue on the public comments.

21 I have a listing here, but I 

22 believe some folks may have left. They signed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 433

1 up earlier and may have left. But I'll go 

2 through the listing. If you didn't sign the 

3 list, I'll certainly open it up to anyone that 

4 has joined us in the last few minutes, will be 

5 welcome to speak.

6 So just to go down the list, I 

7 have Joyce Walker on here, but I believe -- I 

8 don't believe she came back.

9 Okay, next I have Tino Franco, and 

10 I apologize if I'm mispronouncing names. Tino 

11 Franco? 

12 How about [identifying information 

13 redacted]? And then let's see, Paul Dyster, 

14 Paul? You can use either microphone, wherever 

15 you're comfortable. 

16 MR. DYSTER: My name is Paul 

17 Dyster. I'm Mayor of the City of Niagara 

18 Falls. I'd like to welcome you here and, you 

19 know, hope that you enjoy your stay and those 

20 that have traveled to this hearing from far 

21 away places, I hope you enjoy your stay here 

22 in Niagara Falls. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 434

1 It's a wonderful place to come for 

2 a visit at this time of year. It's also, 

3 unfortunately, a place that has a history that 

4 makes it very germane to the issue that is 

5 being addressed in this hearing, and I tried 

6 to stick around for the public comment period 

7 yesterday when my remarks might have been 

8 somewhat more germane to the cases that were 

9 being discussed, but I had another engagement. 

10 But I thought it was important to come back 

11 this evening.

12 The City of Niagara Falls has been 

13 on record regarding the issue of atomic worker 

14 compensation since the year 2001, and in 2001, 

15 the City Council, of which I was then a 

16 member, unanimously passed a resolution 

17 relative to the Energy Employees Occupational 

18 Illness Compensation Program Act that was 

19 followed by another unanimous Council 

20 resolution in 2002.

21 The interest, of course, that we 

22 have in this issue is that a variety of
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 435

1 facilities, including Electro Metallurgical 

2 Company, Hooker Electrochemical, and Titanium 

3 Alloys Manufacturing are facilities that were 

4 actually located in Niagara Falls, but city 

5 residents also worked at the Lake Ontario 

6 Ordnance Works, Simonds Saw and Steel, Ashland 

7 Oil, Linde Ceramics and other facilities in 

8 nearby communities, and as you've, no doubt, 

9 heard, many of these workers, hundreds of 

10 workers, at these facilities handled high 

11 levels of radioactive materials with little or 

12 no protective gear or other precautions, 

13 sometimes with little knowledge, at the time, 

14 of what it was that they were doing. All they 

15 knew was that -- you know, they were going to 

16 work in the morning, and they felt as though 

17 they were doing something that was 

18 contributing to the national security, and 

19 they thought that that was important.

20 The reason that we were passing 

21 resolutions back in 2001 and 2002 was that, of 

22 course, you know, during that time period, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 436

1 efforts were taken to try to provide some 

2 compensation to workers in similar 

3 circumstances. In October of 2000, the Energy 

4 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

5 Program Act was passed, and there was a very 

6 high level of expectation in the community at 

7 that time that finally justice was going to be 

8 done in the cases of these workers.

9 But what we found subsequently was 

10 that in order to qualify for compensation, 

11 employees or their survivors had to provide 

12 such a detailed employment history that -- and 

13 various other evidence of their past 

14 employment and trying to document their 

15 exposure, that it became very, very difficult 

16 for many of those involved to do so, and in 

17 local government, we began receiving numerous 

18 complaints about the difficulty of simply 

19 going through the process. This was even 

20 before the initial round of results, which in 

21 far more cases than the public expected, 

22 resulted in the denial of claims. Why did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 437

1 this happen?

2 Well, I think it happened in part, 

3 from no fault of the workers that were 

4 employed at these industries, as a result of 

5 the record keeping or lack of it, that was 

6 being done at facilities that participated in 

7 the activities in question, many of which, of 

8 course, were privately owned and where records 

9 might not have been kept with the same 

10 diligence as at government facilities, and as 

11 a result of the loss of industry in subsequent 

12 years, many of those facilities either moved 

13 overseas or were shut down, again, at no fault 

14 of the workers, but complicating their task, 

15 when they tried to reconstruct records.

16 So you had a situation where in 

17 many cases, even the best case of due 

18 diligence on the part of the worker, may have 

19 turned up very scanty records. There was even 

20 one -- a worse situation that occurred here, 

21 and I say this not because I think we're 

22 likely to be able to hold criminally culpable
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 438

1 any of the individuals that were involved, 

2 but, you know, we had other environmental 

3 tragedies in this community, for example, the 

4 Love Canal situation.

5 In the immediate aftermath of Love 

6 Canal, there were widespread reports within 

7 the community of shredding of documents at 

8 local chemical companies, any non-essential 

9 files were essentially being destroyed because 

10 they were concerned to avoid future 

11 liabilities.

12 So besides simply records that may 

13 never have been kept, records that may have 

14 been lost through the closing of facilities or 

15 otherwise through the passage of time, I think 

16 there's a lot of evidence to suggest that in 

17 this region, at least, there was willful 

18 destruction of records that might have 

19 documented later claims.

20 To try to ask the individual who, 

21 without fault, you know, worked in an industry 

22 and then sought compensation for damage to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 439

1 their health and well being that they suffered 

2 as a result, to try to ask them to overcome 

3 this mountain of difficulties, in order to 

4 access compensation, you know, we didn't feel 

5 in 2001 and 2002, we don't feel today, was 

6 fair.

7 It's probably something that 

8 you've heard numerous times, with result to 

9 the claims of atomic workers. It's been 

10 attributed variously to the Magna Carta, 

11 William Penn, Gladstone, but I think it's very 

12 applicable, you know, that justice delayed is 

13 justice denied.

14 And I wanted to conclude, when 

15 these difficulties arose back some years ago, 

16 we sought assistance from our federal 

17 representatives, and two of them that were at 

18 that time and remain to this day very active 

19 in assisting the victims in attempting to 

20 achieve compensation, Senator Charles Schumer 

21 and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and back 

22 in December of 2002, Senator Schumer held a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 440

1 rally of sorts out in front of an industry on 

2 Buffalo Avenue. One of the individuals who 

3 spoke was a fellow by the name of Ernest 

4 Frank, who was then 80 years of age. He was a 

5 former iron worker who was seeking a 

6 settlement. He had worked at various 

7 industries that were involved in the nuclear 

8 weapons program back during the 1940s and 

9 1950s, and at that time he said, "Trying to 

10 get the money has been a long drawn out 

11 process. Most of the people I worked with are 

12 gone. Will I live long enough to see it? I 

13 don't know."

14 Standing at his side was Senator 

15 Schumer. Senator Schumer said, "We're going 

16 to fight for you and for the others that are 

17 in a similar position," and Senator Schumer, 

18 to his credit, did help to lead that fight at 

19 that time.

20 The next time that we held a press 

21 conference, it was with Congresswoman 

22 Slaughter. That was in March 2003, and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 441

1 attended that press conference as well. I was 

2 coming from the wake of Ernest Frank. He had 

3 died that day, as it turns out, ironically.

4 His son, Chip, has been active in 

5 this fight for many, many years. He kept 

6 alive his father's memory through the 

7 subsequent years. He now himself has passed 

8 away, and I felt that it was a burden upon me, 

9 as Mayor of the City of Niagara Falls, to 

10 attach a human face to the issue that you're 

11 facing.

12 I believe that Senator Schumer is 

13 still on the case. I think that the proposals 

14 he has made for trying to overcome this 

15 impasse represent a way forward. I think the 

16 opportunity to pursue an administrative 

17 solution to this question is the most positive 

18 avenue currently available, and I would like 

19 to say that Senator Schumer, now Senator 

20 Gillibrand, who has joined the fight, and 

21 Congresswoman Slaughter, have the full support 

22 of the City of Niagara Falls and its residents 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 442

1 in their efforts to achieve just compensation 

2 for atomic workers who have been victimized, 

3 through no fault of their own, by a very 

4 difficult set of circumstances. 

5 I thank you for the opportunity to 

6 speak.

7 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you 

8 for the comments, and we are happy to be here 

9 to hear from you and directly from so many 

10 that worked at these facilities. 

11 The next person I have is Lewis 

12 Webber. Again, some folks may have left from 

13 being here earlier. [identifying information 

14 redacted]? No? [identifying information 

15 redacted]? [identifying information 

16 redacted]? I believe that was earlier. 

17 [identifying information redacted]? Cathy 

18 Kern? Most of those ones I've read off were 

19 Bethlehem Steel, and we did have a vote on 

20 Bethlehem Steel earlier, and I think they left 

21 after that vote.

22 MS. KERN: Good evening, ladies and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 443

1 gentlemen, and thank you for giving me this 

2 opportunity to speak. My name is Cathy Kern, 

3 and I worked at Praxair, formerly known as 

4 Linde, for 31 years, from March 26, 1968 to 

5 June 30, 1999, when I accepted a buy-out to 

6 leave. I also worked in Building 14, which 

7 you heard about yesterday, from 1970 to 1974, 

8 which today, no longer exists due to 

9 contamination.

10 As far as the slides yesterday, it 

11 said Linde was in Tonawanda. The name is 

12 different today, since Linde decided to spin 

13 off from Union Carbide and became known as 

14 Praxair, but the site is still there.

15 I was here yesterday, and I heard 

16 the most gut-wrenching accounts of claims 

17 being denied. I gave this much thought last 

18 night. I felt I needed to come back today and 

19 provide not only support but additional 

20 information that you may or may not know. I 

21 have not filed a claim, as I am not ill yet, 

22 and I hope to not be. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 444

1 As an employee, for the first 25 

2 years, it was required that you got a yearly 

3 physical by the company, at the company's 

4 location. All employees, whether they were 

5 salaried or hourly, were given the same 

6 physical, which included chest X-rays, EKG, 

7 blood work, and urinalysis.

8 At the age of 47, I went to a 

9 cardiologist who informed me I had a heart 

10 murmur. When I told him I had an EKG every 

11 year and was never told this, he shrugged his 

12 shoulders and said, "Not everyone that 

13 performs and EKG can read them."

14 I often wondered what results, if 

15 anything out of the ordinary, was told to 

16 employees. We had two full-time nurses and a 

17 medical doctor on staff that was there every 

18 day. Employees were medically monitored, as 

19 well as treated for on the job injuries.

20 Once the factory closed, however, 

21 all salaried employees' physicals stopped. I 

22 often wondered, where are all these medical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 445

1 records that were supposedly kept on file?

2 Also, when you are an employee, 

3 your employee records do not say what building 

4 you worked in, just your title and length of 

5 time in a particular department. The Linde 

6 property, I believe, is 111 acres, and I don't 

7 even know how many buildings. They were all 

8 numbered. Could have been 40, 50.

9 We moved departments on a regular 

10 basis from buildings to buildings due to the 

11 many reorganizations that took place. We went 

12 from buildings to buildings for meetings. I 

13 moved 12 times to 14 different buildings. 

14 There was a constant movement of 

15 people and a constant renovation of these 

16 buildings, and you often wonder, with all this 

17 renovation, what was disturbed? What was 

18 brought to the surface?

19 When I was in Building 14 from 

20 1970 to 1974, I was told to get a security 

21 clearance. Why? We didn't have any 

22 government contracts. That was a research 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 446

1 building with offices, labs, and high bay. 

2 However, I went and got my 

3 security clearance because that's what I was 

4 told to do. However, years later, in another 

5 engineering department, we were doing work 

6 with Oak Ridge, yet no one was told to get a 

7 security clearance. This is -- that just is 

8 something that's a big question mark with me.

9 In the late 1970s, the Linde 

10 Tonawanda Site underwent a massive expansion 

11 which included two wings in the front with the 

12 center area being the main entrance that was 

13 open three stories that included library, 

14 cafeteria, conference rooms.

15 The first floor was half in the 

16 ground. Some people called those garden 

17 apartments. So when you sat at your desk, eye 

18 level was the grass. 

19 Within the first five years of 

20 occupancy, eight people on the first floor of 

21 Building 100 North, where I was, developed 

22 cancer and died. The youngest, 39, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 447

1 oldest, mid-50s. 

2 This concerned me, so I went over 

3 to the dispensary and asked the nurse about 

4 it. You know, her response was, "Oh, Cathy, 

5 you're getting at that age when you're 

6 noticing people are dying." I hardly thought 

7 so.

8 She then made a statement that 

9 sounded like a tape recording. She said, "The 

10 number of cancer cases here is no greater than 

11 any other company in Western New York." This 

12 made me sound like -- that's what she was told 

13 to say.

14 At the same time, I decided to put 

15 a radon detector in my office since I worked 

16 half in the ground. It was not conspicuous, 

17 but it was there. Well, somebody saw it, 

18 blabbed all over that I had one.

19 One day, a person came into my 

20 office and said to get rid of it and to 

21 remember that Karen Silkwood was murdered. 

22 Though they laughed walking out of my office, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 448

1 I didn't. I took it as a threat, and I got rid 

2 of the radon detector.

3 Now, also, as an employee, I was 

4 required to be inoculated with both tetanus 

5 and typhoid shots. I did not travel. When I 

6 asked why typhoid, I was told because I work 

7 in close proximity to employees that are 

8 working on various projects with nasty stuff, 

9 and I'm also handling papers that had been 

10 brought back from foreign countries. I could 

11 also be exposed to foreign nasty stuff.

12 This is just like our skilled 

13 craftsmen in the factory, who go home with 

14 their work clothes that have to be cleaned. 

15 Their families could also be exposed to 

16 contaminants. Yes, a lot of the workers took 

17 showers, changed their clothes before going 

18 home, but these same work clothes had to be 

19 cleaned, yet these families weren't inoculated 

20 against nasty stuff and contaminants.

21 I was also told, "Do not discuss 

22 or ask questions about the low level radiation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 449

1 issues." Everyone knew how I felt, and I just 

2 wanted answers, but I was told, there are no 

3 problems at the site. It is safe.

4 Yet on a regular basis, I watched 

5 men in what I used to call the white zoot 

6 suits, head to toe, going down into wells all 

7 over the property that are being monitored, 

8 and there was one right at the main entrance, 

9 where you walked in.

10 If it is safe, why are they there? 

11 If Building 14 was so safe, why was it torn 

12 down? It is my understanding that today, one13 third of the buildings on the Linde Site have 

14 been dismantled and hauled away.

15 In early 2000, I attended a public 

16 meeting regarding remediation of the Linde 

17 Site. I wrote a letter to the Army Corp of 

18 Engineers, basically to prove I worked there 

19 and the dates, since I had been -- it has been 

20 known that employee records do disappear. 

21 I then gave my thoughts about the 

22 property, especially Buildings 14, which I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 450

1 worked in, and the tunnels that ran from 

2 Building 14 to Building 27. The letter was 

3 not threatening. It was just facts. It was 

4 questions. I even did a correlation with 

5 Agent Orange and Love Canal.

6 Five months after I sent this 

7 letter, I was at a social function sponsored 

8 by Linde retirees, and the then site manager, 

9 ripped up one side of me and down the other, 

10 demanding to know why I wrote a letter to the 

11 Army Corp of Engineers. When he started 

12 reciting phrases I used, I knew he got a copy.

13 All I said to him was, "Freedom of 

14 speech." Unbeknownst to me, some people said 

15 my letter created problems, and I have no 

16 evidence of that. Building 14 was 

17 subsequently torn down and, I believe, shipped 

18 out west for burial, and the tunnels closed 

19 and new ones installed.

20 What people do not know, and for 

21 those of you that may be saying, "How do we 

22 get records," there was a policy for all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 451

1 divisions of Union Carbide, which Linde was 

2 one, Mining and Metals, the others, and I 

3 forget the names of the others, all records 

4 and closed project files were to be sent to a 

5 large warehouse in Vermont.

6 We were able to retrieve these 

7 documents, as needed, on a quick turnaround 

8 time. I don't know who the person is at 

9 Praxair Tonawanda, but there has to be a 

10 person that can help get records from Vermont, 

11 maybe the safety department. I knew who used 

12 to do it, but I don't know if that person is 

13 here today. I also don't know what the 

14 medical department did with the records.

15 I am here today, not for me, but 

16 to provide information for all the workers 

17 from the companies that are trying to get 

18 their claims satisfied. I am here to support 

19 all workers I know and all workers I do not 

20 know.

21 Why does the government spend 

22 trillions of dollars on an unpopular war, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 452

1 turn their backs on workers? They're doing 

2 the same thing to our returning veterans. All 

3 these workers have paid into government 

4 agencies, whether it be workmen's comp, 

5 disability, Social Security, but yet, when it 

6 comes time to collect what is due, they are 

7 denied.

8 These workers and their families 

9 should not have spent years filing claims. 

10 This ordeal faced by the families, I feel, is 

11 cruel and inhumane. It's a travesty. They 

12 have been victims twice, and three times, and 

13 four times during denial process. If you were 

14 to put a dollar value on the man hours 

15 expended in denying these claims, it would far 

16 exceed, probably by a factor of two, the 

17 amount of money these families are due.

18 Let's get that word, that awful 

19 word, cover-up, removed from the dialogs of 

20 the past many years and please, pay these 

21 people now. Thank you.

22 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 453

1 Cathy, for your comments. I have Joseph Page 

2 is next on my list. Joseph?

3 MR. PAGE: Thank you. I want to 

4 thank you for allowing me to speak at this 

5 open forum, and I'm actually here for two 

6 reasons.

7 One is my father worked at Hooker 

8 Chemical from 1941 until 1968 and his untimely 

9 death at 43 years old. He died of cancer, 

10 multiple myeloma, which is one of the 

11 compensation cancers. 

12 He left a family of eight and a 

13 young bride. I filed a claim on my mother's 

14 behalf and was denied. I was able to get all 

15 his medical records and his work history 

16 records but, again, no proof of radiation, but 

17 he was there from 1941 to 1968. His claim 

18 denied.

19 Well, unfortunately, I also work 

20 at -- not unfortunately that I work, but I'm 

21 also at Occidental Chemical, formerly Hooker 

Chemical, and I just passed my 39th 22 year 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 454

1 there.

2 In the year 2007, I was diagnosed 

3 with thyroid cancer, which is rare in men, and 

4 the type of cancer I had, number one cause, 

5 radiation. I was asked by both my doctor and 

6 the surgeon if I was ever exposed to 

7 radiation, and at the time, I said, no, until 

8 later, I was to find out that residual 

9 radiation was on site at Hooker Chemical into 

10 the year 1977. 

11 My claim also denied, and all I'm 

12 asking now is to re-evaluate both my father 

13 and my compensation claims and give fair 

14 evaluation to them. 

15 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you, 

16 and we have an SEC review under way for 

17 Hooker, but also, if you have specific 

18 questions on your claim or your father's, 

19 there are NIOSH staff in the back of the room 

20 that might be -- right over to the side, that 

21 you might be able to follow up with after the 

22 meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 455

1 MR. PAGE: Thank you.

2 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Sure. The 

3 next person is Harry Millard.

4 MR. MILLARD: Thank you. I started 

5 working at Simonds Saw and Steel in 1959, 

6 February, and I had 25 years over there, until 

7 it closed.

8 About two years ago, they wrapped 

9 the plant up and in certain areas over there, 

10 that are still, you know, showing radioactive 

11 waste and stuff, but -- and of those four 

12 buildings, I've worked in all of them, for 

13 five years, and I've got prostate cancer.

14 My question is, and I don't like 

15 it, is why is not prostate cancer on that 

16 list? There are 22 other cancers, and 

17 prostate cancer is not there, and I'm still 

18 having trouble with bladder, bowel infections, 

19 that stuff, and I -- you can't tell me that 

20 unless somebody can definitely prove that it 

21 wasn't caused by that, over there, for --

22 because I worked the swing grinders over there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 456

1 for almost three years and ground steel that, 

2 they never told us what it was, and I never --

3 you know, you just went in, you did your day's 

4 work, you got out.

5 The 16 inch, there's four areas, 

6 10 inch, 16 swing grinders and the old mill 

7 shop, and I used to pull a lot of doubles on 

8 the 16 inch because that's where the money 

9 was, if you wanted to, you know, get a good 

10 paycheck.

11 And I've worked almost three years 

12 on the swing grinders, and I also worked in 

13 the old mill shop, where the old hammer was, 

14 and they built right over that thing, they put 

15 a pickle house over there. If they would dig 

16 that floor up, I hate to tell you the amount 

17 of readings they'd get.

18 Okay, I'd like to thank you people 

19 for hearing me out, but it's a shame that the 

20 prostate cancer is not on there, and I just 

21 want to -- and I hope somebody can do 

22 something about it. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 457

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Thank you, 

2 yes, and the actual list, you're right, it 

3 isn't on the list of cancers, and it's sort 

4 out of the Board's purview to weigh in on 

5 that, but you are eligible to file a claim and 

6 -- 

7 MR. MILLARD: I've been denied 

8 twice.

9 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

10 MR. MILLARD: And I -- you know, I 

11 got seven guys that worked on the swing 

12 grinders and if it is a coincidence, it might 

13 get done -- all of us got prostate cancer.

14 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Just to be clear, that 

16 list is established by Congress and is in 

17 statute. So it's not something the Board 

18 could affect.

19 MR. MILLARD: Well, thanks for 

20 hearing me out.

21 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Appreciate 

22 your comments, yes, and that's all I have on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 458

1 the list, but I've seen some other people come 

2 in, so I'm going to ask in the room, if anyone 

3 that wants an opportunity to make some public 

4 comments, please, step forward and identify 

5 yourself at the microphone. Anyone want to 

6 make public comments?

7 MR. KATZ: I also -- 

8 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I was going 

9 to ask on the phone, if there is anyone on the 

10 phone line that wants to make public comments 

11 at this time, we could have those heard. 

12 Anyone on the phone line?

13 Last chance for the room, anyone 

14 want to make a public comment or statement? 

15 If there's no more, Ted might have something 

16 else to close.

17 MR. KATZ: Mark, I have actually a 

18 couple of comments.

19 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, yes.

20 MR. KATZ: People gave me notes 

21 that they asked that I read into the record, 

22 for -- who couldn't be here this evening.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 459

1 So I'm not going to give the name 

2 in these cases because neither of these people 

3 authorized me to give their name, but here is 

4 the first statement, from up here in Angola, 

5 New York.

6 "NIOSH is asking claimants for 

7 medical information that is impossible to 

8 obtain if your family member died in 1963. 

9 This is considered age discrimination. The 

10 employee job location automatically put them 

11 in direct contact with cancer causing agents. 

12 This is truly difficult to resurrect. This 

13 is truly difficult to resurrect all the health 

14 records. The claimants should be given 

15 consideration for direct exposure."

16 The second statement I have, it 

17 says, "My husband, Edward M." and I can't make 

18 out the last name, "worked in several 

19 departments of the Bethlehem Steel and passed 

20 away from cancer of the lung. I was wondering 

21 why he is not entitled to receive any benefits 

22 from Bethlehem Steel. He worked for South 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 460

1 Buffalo Railway, which was a subsidiary of the 

2 steel plant, during the years of 1947 to 

3 1953."

4 Thank you, that's it.

5 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, and if 

6 there is anyone -- one more time, anyone else 

7 in the room, public comments? Like to make a 

8 statement?

9 MR. OWENS: Sure. 

10 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: If you could 

11 just give us your name, for the court 

12 recorder. 

13 MR. OWENS: My name is Carey 

14 Owens, Jr. I worked at Bethlehem Steel 

15 starting in -- I started in `46, but I had to 

16 go back in the Service because I was already 

17 in the Reserves, and I came back in `53, and I 

18 worked in the lab carrying samples from 

19 different various parts of the plant, and one 

20 thing I remember, in the lab, they had some 

21 kind of pipes or something like that, that 

22 they used.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 461

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: I'm sorry, 

2 in the back of the room, if you could -- we're 

3 picking you up up here pretty loud. Sorry, go 

4 ahead.

5 MR. OWENS: They had some kind of 

6 pipes, they called them rods, that they'd use 

7 to some kind of atomic construction or what8 not, and in and out of this lab I would pass 

9 these particular items, and it was very 

10 curious to me, but no one ever explained what 

11 they were about.

12 But I worked there for 29 years 

13 and I took my pension and went on the TRW 

14 training period, and from that, I went into 

15 the locksmith business, where I wound up at 

16 the atomic plant in West Valley, and during 

17 this particular time, replacing locks and 

18 making locks, what-not.

19 Some of my equipment that I used, 

20 they wouldn't allow me to take it out of the 

21 plant because it -- these little Geiger kind 

22 of things would pick up whatever it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 462

1 picking up.

2 So I did that for two and a half 

3 years. But I had been following this 

4 Bethlehem Steel thing, and I've taken tests 

5 here and there, and they seem to always come 

6 up negative. So I was wondering if there is 

7 any change in the implements of -- that we may 

8 be able to get some benefits.

9 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, thank 

10 you for your comments and we -- yes, we 

11 actually had a vote earlier today on Bethlehem 

12 Steel, and the Board is recommending adding a 

13 Class, a Special Exposure Cohort Class for `47 

14 to `52, is that right?

15 MR. KATZ: Forty-nine.

16 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Forty-nine 

17 to `52, I'm sorry, 1949 to `52. But anyway, 

18 are there any further comments in the room?

19 Okay, if there's no more public 

20 comments, I think we're adjourned for tonight. 

21 We start at 8:30 tomorrow?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, we do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 463

1 ACTING CHAIR GRIFFON: Eight-thirty 

2 tomorrow, bright and early, guys, 8:15 a.m., 

3 oh, yes, I've got to welcome people. 

4 MR. KATZ: Thank you everybody, 

5 very much and thank you, Paul and David, for 

6 sticking this out.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 6:35 p.m.)

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18