THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

TWENTY-EIGHTH MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY THREE 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the Adam’s Mark, St. Louis, Missouri, on February 

9, 2005. 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

February 9, 2005 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 13 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. LEW WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING 13 

MS. CORI HOMER, NIOSH

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. LEW WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

STATUS REPORT ON SITE PROFILE MODIFICATIONS 

AND SCHEDULE 38 

MR. JUDSON KENOYER, ORAU 

STATUS OF SC&A TASK ORDERS AND COSTS 85 

DR. LEW WADE, NIOSH 

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT 109 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 147 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND 

The following transcript contains quoted material. 

Such material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

4 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D.

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

MEMBERSHIP 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H.

Director 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 

Professor of Medicine 

Nashville, Tennessee 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 
5 

GIBSON, Michael H.

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Salem, New Hampshire 

MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D.

Director 

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund

Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I.

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington 

OWENS, Charles Leon

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-550 

Paducah, Kentucky 

PRESLEY, Robert W.

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 
 

 

6 

AGENDA SPEAKERS 

(in order of appearance) 

Mr. Judson Kenoyer, ORAU 

Dr. Lew Wade, NIOSH 

STAFF/VENDORS 

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
7 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

AHIRA, KEN

ALEXANDER, OLIVE M.

ALEXANDER, TERRY

ALLEN, GEORGE

AMANN, DEBORAH

AMENELL, ROBERTA, IAAP

ANBLE, JOHN, KTVI

ANDERSON, KATHLEEN, IAAP

ARRO, MICHAEL R.

BAFARO, MARILYN, NIOSH

BASCHERT, BETTY J.

BEATTY, EVERETT RAY, SR., FERNALD ATOMIC COUNCIL

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

BELL, R. THOMAS, SC&A

BERRY, CHARLENE

BEST, CHARLINE

BEST, RAYMOND

BIEST, JOAN

BLANKENSHIP, CINDY

BLUE, GEORGE

BOELHAUF, LINDA

BOGNAN, JOHN

BOYD, JAMES

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH

BRALASKI, RITA

BRAND, ANSTICE, CDC

BRINGER, GLORIA

BROCK, DENISE, UNWW

BROWN, DENNIS

BROWN, THOMAS, BSCAG

BRYANT, DOROTHY

BULGER, HAROLD

CALLAWAY MOOCH, FERNALD ATOMIC COUNCIL

CAMPBELL, MARTHA JANE, IAAP

CAVALESKY, SHIRLEY

CHISHOLM, MILLIE

COFFELT, EVELYN

CONRAD, JAMES

COOK, FRANKLIN

COTTER, GARY 
8 

COTTER, WILLIAM D.

COVALESKY, SHIRLEY

CROCK, JAMIE

CURTISS, JOANN & RICK

DANIEL, GWEN

DAVIS, JANETTE

DAVIS, RICKY, KTVI

DEEP, HEIDI, NIOSH

DEICHMAN, MATT, WBII-TV

DETHERAGE, DEBBIE

DILLARD, HOMER & HALENE

DOCKENDORFF, ALVIN, IAAP

DOLAN, JACQUELINE E.

DOLAN, WILLIAM E.

DORNFELD, DEBBIE, JIM TALENT

DOWNING, MARILYN, IAAP

DOWNS, DEB

DREY, KAY

DUDLEY, MARTIN

DURSO, HARRY, FAMILY

EATON, CLARISSA, UNWW

ECHEMENDIA, AIDA

EHLMANN, PAT, UNWW

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH

ERTZ, MARILYN, IAAP

ESPY, RICHARD

FAGAS, JANE

FANTER, DALE

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FRAZIER, JOE

FRISCHMAN, BILL

FULKERSON, ROBERT

GARNER, DON

GENERI, MARY

GILLARD, LORRAINE A.

GRAER, RON

GRAHAM, MAYOR, CITY OF O’FALLON

GREEN, JAMES

GREUBLATT, B., UPI

HABBIG, JOHN K.

HAERER, BERNELL

HALLMARK, SHELBY, LABOR

HANNEKEN, BETTY, IAAP 
9 

HARDIN, JOYCE, IAAP

HARGIS, JOHN

HARRIS, WALTER

HARRISON, KATHY

HARRISON, LINDA L., IAAP

HARRISON, RUSSELL, IAAP

HART, ALISON, SENATOR HARKIN

HAWKINS, BRENDA

HEADRICK, WILLIAM

HEISTER, MELANIE, NCRP

HENNITS, DOROTHY

HERBERT, NICHOLE, NIOSH

HERTZ, DOROTHY

HILL, BRYAN L., IAAP

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOELSCHER, LAUREL, IAAP

HOELSCHER, RUTH, IAAP

HOLLAND, MARTIN

HOLTMEYER-MAUNE, JERRINE

HODGES, CARRIE

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

HORGAN, TOM, SEN. BOND

HUMPHREY, JOYCE

IRWIN, SUE

IVERSON, SI

JACKSON, BETTYE

JOHNSON, MARY L.

JOHNSON, PAT

JONES, VIRGINIA L.

JORDAN, LAJUANNA

KATZ, TED, NIOSH

KELLER, LILLIAN A.

KELLISON, JAMES

KELLY, PATRICK, SC&A

KENOYER, JUDSON, ORAU

KIEDING, SYLVIA

KIENLEN, BONNIE, IAAP

KIMPAN, KATE, DOE

KLOTZ, STEVE, KTRS

KOENEMAN, BARB, UNWW

KOENEMAN, RAYETTA

KOENEMAN, TANYA, UNWW

KORDING, GLENN 
10 

KORDING, SHARON

KOTSCH, JEFFREY L., DOL

KRAICHELY, MARY, UNWW

KUNTZ, LORI, IAAP

LACKEY, MELBA

LAMBKIN, DON, UNWW

LAVERY, KEVIN M., KWMU

LEA, JEFF, KMOV

LEACH, BOB

LEAHMANN, SHIRLEY

LED, PAUL

LITTLE, JAMES

LYNCH, CINDY

LYNCH, HELEN

MACK, HUY, POST DISPATCH

MANNING, JIM

MANSFIELD, LAURIE, DES MOINES REGISTER

MASSMANN, MERRELL

MASSMANN, VERNON

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCINTYRE, JOAN

MCKEEL, DAN, MD, WASHINGTON UNIV.

MCKEEL, VIRGINIA, VILLAGE IMAGE NEWS

MCNUTT, ROBERT

MESSALA, DAVE & JAN

MIKLOVIC, DAN

MILLER, RELADA L., NIOSH

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP

MITAS, JIM, CONGRESSMAN AKIN

MOLENHOUR, ROBERT

MOUSER, TERRI, UNITED NUCLEAR

MURPHY, DAN P.

MUSCKE, EDWARD C.

NAES, NORVILLE

NESVET, JEFF, DOL

NETON, JIM, NIOSH

NOVAK, JUSTINE

NUGENT, MARY, US GAO

O’HARE, FRANK W.

OJEDA, THERESA, KMOV

PATTON, JACK

PHEGLEY, RAYMOND, AIRPORT

PIPER, WILLIAM 
11 

PORTER, DIANE, NIOSH

PRESLEY, LOUISE S.

PRIEST, CHRISTINE

RACH, CHARLES L.

RAMSPOTT, CHRISTINE

RAMSPOTT, JOHN

REECE, DOYLE, AIRPORT

REMPE, VIRGIL J.

RETKONSKI, RICHARD

REUSS, ANN

RIDENHOWER, DONALD D.

RIDENHOWER, LINDA

RINDALL, TINA, UNITED NUCLEAR

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR/BCTD

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A

RODE, BETTY

ROSENTHAL, JAMES

ROTH, CHARLES L.

ROTHROCK, AMY

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH

RYAN, FRAN

SACKS-LONG, DONNA J.

SALTER, JIM, AIRPORT

SCHESLER, ELAINE

SCHNEIDER, CLARENCE

SCHNEIDER, MARILYN, UNWW

SCHRUMM, RUTH

SCOGGINS, FRANCES

SCOTT, SYLVIA

SEMARADI, ANDREW

SHANEHEN, JUDY

SHAW, SHIRLEY

SHELTON, MR. AND MRS. JAMES L., IAAP

SMIDDY, BARBARA A.

SOMRATY, ANDY, AIRPORT

SOMRATY, CATHY, AIRPORT

SOVAR, RICH AND EVELYN

SPICKETT, DAVID

SPICKETT, EVELYN

STEFFEN, CAROLE

STEGER, RON

STEGER, RONI

STEINKAMP, JUDIE 
12 

STEMPFLEY, DAN, NIOSH

STEWART, LEONARD, IAAP

STRAUTHER, LEE

STRONG, JANE

STROPES, FLO

STROUSSNER, DONALD A.

STUCKENSCHNEIDER, DOLORES

STUDT, ARLENE

SUERMANN, ZELDA

SULLIVAN, MICHELLE, WBII-TV

SWABODA, JAY, ST. LOUIS LABOR TRIBUNE

TASCHLOR, JOHN

TAULBEE, TOM, NIOSH

TEAGUE, CARLOTTA, NCRP

TENFORDE, THOMAS S., NCRP

THORNHILL, CHARLENE

THORNHILL, GEORGE

TINDALL, FRANKLIN

TINDALL, TINA

TOOHEY, R.E., ORAU

TURCIC, PETE, DOL

UNDERWOOD, LEWIS, NIOSH

VACEK, PENNY, SENATOR GRASSLEY

VERHOFF, GWENDOLYN

VOGNER, JOHN

WALKER, ED AND JOYCE, BSCAG

WATSON, DAVID P., JR.

WHITE, WALTER, JR.

WIESEHAUS, JOHN J.

WILBURN-YOCHIEM, LYNDA ANN, IAAP

WILEY, EFFIE M.

WINDISCH, ANTHONY, IAAP

WING, JENNY, SENATOR HARKIN

WISE, GEORGE

WOLFF, TOM

WOOD, MYRLL, IAAP

WOODS, JANET

YAKOS, CHARLES

YERINGTON, LASCA

YOUNG, OBIE D., MCW

ZAK ROSEMARY 

ZIEMER, MARILYN

ZIMMERMAN, SUE, CONGRESSMAN JIM LEACH 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

P R O C E E D I N G S

 (8:15 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

 DR. ZIEMER: I'll ask the meeting come to 

order. Please be assembled, Board, and we will 

begin our final day of our St. Louis meeting 

here. Again, welcome, everyone. A reminder 

again to register your attendance at the 

registration table in the hallway. And again a 

reminder that there are many handouts at the 

table in the rear, if you've not already 

availed yourselves of those. 

ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING 

We have some housekeeping issues that we need 

to address first, and I guess we'll let Cori 

start, if she's here. Otherwise, Lew, you can 

begin. 

 DR. WADE: Well, we can get -- would someone 

please get Cori to come? I'd like to make a 

couple of comments to the Board, though, I -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Here comes Cori. 

 DR. WADE: I do feel I owe you a bit of an 

explanation on one of the agenda items, and it 

was raised by Senator Bond's person yesterday. 

What we tried to do in each of the SEC 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

discussions were -- following the statement by 

NIOSH, the presentation of findings, and then 

statements by the petitioners -- we tried to 

make some time available for public comment if 

someone from the public felt they had a comment 

that was particularly important for the Board 

to hear before the Board did its deliberations. 

We've done that with Iowa, as well. 

Obviously it gets very difficult, with the snow 

forecast, to shut people up and I thought the 

Chairman did a wonderful job. But we did want 

to create this opportunity for people to speak 

to the Board before the Board deliberated. And 

-- and again, while it's difficult to control 

that, it is certainly a construct that I think 

is worth -- worth pursuing, although I 

apologize for the fact that it -- we spent some 

time at that. I do think there was time for 

the Board to do its deliberations. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Lew. 

 DR. WADE: Jim? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: Could I just make a suggestion 

that perhaps if we have another situation where 

we're reviewing a petition here that we try to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

schedule the evening session and the public 

comment period relevant to that site either the 

night before or the day before. That way then 

we're -- when we're actually dealing with the 

petition, we can go right into that and -- and 

at the same time it gives people an opportunity 

to speak. And we could even preface the public 

comment period with, you know, a short 

presentation from NIOSH about the -- the 

petition and their evaluation of it. 

 DR. WADE: I think that's a wonderful 

suggestion. This time we were boxed by Henry's 

availability and the -- and the fact that we 

had announced the public comment period, but I 

-- we'll take that suggestion to heart. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Cori? 

MS. HOMER: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead. 

MS. HOMER: Not much this morning other than to 

please submit your time, broken down by 

subcommittee, workgroup, preparation time, to 

Lew for his approval and return to me so that 

we can submit your request for salary 

reimbursement. 

Also wanted to go over your availability 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

calendar for the quarterly meetings with you. 

We're already past February -- the February 

meeting, and for the May quarterly meeting, the 

only day in May available is the 31st. So we 

could schedule our quarterly meeting the 31st, 

1st and 2nd of June -- 31st of May through the 

2nd of June. The only time available after 

that might be the last week of June. 

If we were to go into April, we would have time 

-- there's not much time available in April, 

either. We only have two days that are 

completely free at any one time, and I think 

only two portions of the month that are like 

that. 

So I'm going to suggest that we schedule the 

next quarterly meeting for the 31st of May, the 

1st of June and the 2nd of June. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you've heard Cori's 

suggestion. Give us feedback. Clearly there's 

a two -- actually it's a -- it's closer to a 

three and a half month span from now, which is 

a fairly lengthy time period. You said April 

is pretty much out in terms of schedules, 

overlap of conflicts? 

MS. HOMER: Yeah, we -- we do have --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

 MR. PRESLEY: Is it our -- our schedule in 

April? 

MS. HOMER: The schedule in April -- the only 

two days -- we have two days open, the 26th and 

the 27th, the 12th and the 13th -- possibly the 

11th, possibly, so those are the days -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe, Cori, you have 

everyone's schedule that -- 

MS. HOMER: Well, I'm missing three schedules, 

but --

 DR. ZIEMER: Based on what you have, those -- 

MS. HOMER: Based on what I have available, 

this --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- are the available dates -- 

MS. HOMER: -- is what I have. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- at the moment. 

 MS. MUNN: I was one of the people who said I 

couldn't do the 28th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Use your mike, Wanda, please. 

MS. HOMER: Yes, that's correct. 

 MS. MUNN: If I'm the only person who shows the 

28th as being covered, I can -- I can rearrange 

that. 

MS. HOMER: Rearrange that? Okay, so we can 

also set aside the 26th through the 28th? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of April? 

MS. HOMER: Of April, yes. 

 DR. WADE: Earlier is better, I think. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have some issues coming that we 

probably -- we're -- we're considering roughly 

30 days before we have the materials that were 

requested by the Board yesterday. That takes 

us into mid-March. And then some time to 

review those, probably a subcommittee meeting 

in there, as well. But perhaps late April 

would be desirable. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Give us those dates again. 

MS. HOMER: 26th, 27th and 28th. Do we want to 

consider at this point some potential 

subcommittee meeting dates? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It would be good to have something 

held in -- in reserve. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: Well, let's close on the one issue 

so --

MS. HOMER: Yes, definitely. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

 DR. ZIEMER: Twenty-sixth through 28th of 

April? 

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Do we know where? 

MS. HOMER: I have no location identified. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Do we need to go back to 

Washington? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, I believe we do. 

 MR. PRESLEY: We've been asked to come back to 

Washington. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The Board had given Cori a number 

of locations and I think we had last time 

indicated that we would give her flexibility to 

select based on hotel availability. 

MS. HOMER: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: Do we know anything about the SEC 

petition evaluations and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: What might be coming up? 

 DR. MELIUS: What might be coming up, and that 

may bear on our choice of location. 

 DR. WADE: Right. I mean let us consider that 

based upon what we do today, obviously. 

 DR. MELIUS: Both today, as well as -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Larry perhaps --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

 DR. MELIUS: -- forthcoming --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- can enlighten us. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The petition that I'm aware of 

that has just recently qualified is one for Y12 early years, and so we're looking into that. 

We're starting our evaluation of that and it'd 

be my hope and goal that we could present that 

evaluation report at your next full Board 

meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So perhaps Oak Ridge would be an 

option there. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Would you prefer that be my 

first choice or my second? 

 DR. WADE: Let's just make a list of choices, 

then we can decide. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, let's... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable with Board 

members? So we're setting aside the 26th 

through the 28th for the next meeting. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Possible sites would be Oak Ridge 

and Washington. Thank you. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Because of -- because of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

high Congressional interest in this right now, 

I think it's kind of important that we try to 

make it back to Washington as soon as possible. 

MS. HOMER: I'll check into what our options 

are for availability. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Moving on to August for our 

next quarterly meeting, August we have a little 

bit more flexibility for meeting dates. It 

appears as though Dr. DeHart would be 

unavailable the entire month is what I have for 

you. 

 DR. DEHART: For what date? 

 MS. MUNN: The whole month. 

MS. HOMER: The entire month of August, but the 

week of the 8th is open; 23rd, 24th and 25th is 

open; 17th, 18th and 19th is open. 

 DR. WADE: You're talking now August? 

MS. HOMER: August, yes. 

 DR. WADE: But if we look at -- we're going to 

meet in April --

MS. HOMER: I'm setting up quarterly meetings 

right now. 

 DR. WADE: Right, so -- so a quarter from April 

would take us to July. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

MS. HOMER: We had set up these dates at the 

last meeting -- or the months -- but we can go 

back to July if you'd like. 

 DR. ZIEMER: If we -- if we meet in April, then 

again we would -- we would be -- 

MS. HOMER: Want to go to --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- almost three and a half to four 

months --

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- span, so we might look late -- 

mid to late July, as well -- 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and see what's available. 

MS. HOMER: All right. For July we have 

available July 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th, and 

that's about it. 

 MR. PRESLEY: That's a holiday week. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's go a little later. Is that 

it in July? 

MS. HOMER: The week of the 18th we only have 

one person who's unable to attend. 

 DR. WADE: Does that person know who they are? 

MS. HOMER: Yes, Wanda should know. 

 MS. MUNN: I'm really booked that week. 

 DR. WADE: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

 DR. MELIUS: I'm out that week, as well. 

MS. HOMER: Are you? Okay. 

 MR. PRESLEY: How about the last week of July? 

MS. HOMER: Let's see, Dr. Andrade is not 

available on the 25th. Dr. Melius is not 

available on the 27th through the 31st. That 

doesn't leave us much. I think that leaves us 

the 26th or, if you choose to go ahead and meet 

without folks... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Early August is -- the earliest is 

what? 

MS. HOMER: The earliest is -- we could meet 

the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, but Dr. DeHart would not 

be available the entire month. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is -- Dr. DeHart is out throughout 

August, is that correct? So that's, in a 

sense, a moot point if we're in August I guess, 

yeah. 

MS. HOMER: Yes. 

 MS. MUNN: But -- but if we bit the bullet for 

the 4th of July week, we could do Wednesday, 

Thursday, Friday, the 6th, 7th and 8th? 

MS. HOMER: We could, or the 5th, 6th and 7th. 

Well, you would end up traveling on the 4th, 

though. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

DR. ROESSLER: The Health Physics Society 

annual meeting starts on the 10th. I would 

think that would impact some NIOSH people, in 

addition to myself --

MS. HOMER: It might, yes. 

DR. ROESSLER: -- and maybe Paul. It would be 

a little difficult to -- to -- 

MS. HOMER: What city is the Health Physics 

Society --

 MS. MUNN: Where's the meeting? 

MS. HOMER: -- meeting in? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Spokane. 

MS. HOMER: Spokane? Oh, okay. 

 MS. MUNN: Oh, good, you can come to Richland, 

hey. 

 DR. WADE: Again, I think earlier is better. 

That's just my --

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: -- my view. 

MS. HOMER: Do we want to go ahead and work on 

the 6th, 7th and 8th? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

MS. HOMER: That would allow folks to still get 

to the health physics meeting. 

 MR. PRESLEY: I can't be there. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm okay on that. 

MS. HOMER: I'm sorry, Bob? 

 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

DR. ROESSLER: I don't like it, but -- 

 MR. PRESLEY: Holiday weekend. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sixth is probably better than the 

5th, though. Right? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: With apologies. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

MS. HOMER: Do you want to proceed with a 

location --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: -- or do you want to leave it? 

 DR. ZIEMER: That may depend on what we do at 

the previous meeting. 

MS. HOMER: Previous meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh. Okay, July -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: For example, if we're in Oak 

Ridge, then we may want to get back to 

Washington or vice -- and it may also depend on 

what the activities with the SEC petitions, as 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

well. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Just -- just look at the 

baseball schedule, Cori. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. Now could we look a 

minute, Cori, and maybe subcommittee -- this -- 

this does not need to be the full subcommittee. 

This -- we simply need to have four or five 

individuals available to do this subcommittee 

work. Between now and the April meeting, and 

allowing the 30 days and maybe a little bit of 

slack, toward the end of March, perhaps -- and 

I'm assuming this would be in Cincinnati. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Well, the week of the 21st 

Dr. Melius isn't available on the 21st nor the 

24th. Dr. Anderson is unavailable the 22nd and 

23rd. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in essence, we simply need 

to identify four or five people to serve. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, are we -- are we -- I'm 

still confused on the subcommittee. I thought 

we had five individuals, but anyone could 

attend that was on the entire listing. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But the understanding was that at 

a given meeting, for example -- let's say you 

couldn't be there --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- then someone else --

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- anyone on the Board can serve. 

 DR. MELIUS: But --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- but for continuity, we should 

try --

 DR. ZIEMER: For continuity we would try the 

27 

initial five --

 DR. MELIUS: Five, yeah, which I'm not one of, 

so --

 DR. ZIEMER: And those --

MS. HOMER: No? Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Those initial five were, I 

believe, Griffon, Andrade -- Mike, you -- Mike 

MS. HOMER: 

 DR. MELIUS: 

 MR. GRIFFON: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 MR. GRIFFON: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

MS. HOMER: 

 MR. GRIFFON: 

Mike and Dr. Anderson -- 

Anderson, right. 

Henry. 

Henry and Ziemer. 

Right. 

Those were the five. 

Uh-huh. 

Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

MS. HOMER: How about --

 DR. ZIEMER: Can we -- it probably would not be 

too difficult for us to determine, off line, 

who's avail-- which of those are available and 

then find a fill-in so that -- 'cause we don't 

have Henry here right now to -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or Tony. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- determine his availability, but 

can we just identify the -- tentatively the 

week and then --

MS. HOMER: Okay. Well, there would be the 

week of the 21st or the 28th. Which would be 

your preference? 

DR. ROESSLER: Easter's the 27th in case that -

- anybody needs to know. It's early. 

MS. HOMER: Oh, thanks, Gen. 

 DR. ZIEMER: My preference would be the week of 

the 21st, the front end of that week. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm just curious if we need two 

subcommittees -- meetings in between this time 

before -- the next scheduled date for the full 

meeting is April 26th. Am I right about that? 

I'm flipping through my calendar. Did we just 

select April 26th for the full Board? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean we have --

 DR. ZIEMER: This would be roughly a month 

earlier. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- we have the 20 case review 

stuff to wrap up. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: We have Bethlehem Steel, we have 

Mallinckrodt site profile review. Do we need 

to schedule -- can we do that all in one -- I -

- maybe one two-day session or something. Is 

that what you're --

 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me we should try to be 

efficient on this, if we're together and get it 

done, but --

 MR. GRIFFON: And then the idea is that if, for 

whatever reason, our -- our time lines slip, 

we'd still have a chance between that meeting 

time and the Board to -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- set up an improvised 

workgroup. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it -- then March 21st is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

fine. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sometime the week of the 21st 

we'll catch a couple of days. Let's see, Mike, 

are you okay that -- Mike's okay. Mark and Gen 

was okay. I'm okay. You're okay, I'm okay. 

Who's -- who was -- who was the other person -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Henry and Tony. 

 DR. MELIUS: Henry and Tony. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Tony, neither of which are 

here, and Rich is available as an alternate, 

any -- and Roy is available as an alternate, so 

we'll have a couple of alternates on standby. 

MS. HOMER: Well, I can do a poll once I get 

back into the office. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, thank you. 

MS. HOMER: I'll just do an electronic poll. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's very helpful. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. And that would be in 

Cincinnati. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And we're just holding that week 

for now, is that what -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh. Would you care to go 

further into the year for the quarterly 

meetings, or would you prefer to hold off for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

now until we have a better idea of what our 

schedule looks like, or what is coming -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think most have given Cori their 

schedule for the year. Of course, the further 

out you go there, the more open the dates tend 

to be, and if you want to block in early, it's 

probably a good idea to do that. Do you -- do 

you wish to block in --

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It would probably be a September 

time frame, something like that. 

MS. HOMER: October? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

MS. HOMER: From July. 

 DR. WADE: One other -- I mean I'd like to come 

to the next meeting as a DFO and lay out for 

you sort of the year in advance of -- of what 

likely is to come up in terms of different 

actions. And I think once we sort of start 

that process, I think we might be in a better 

position to --

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: -- to schedule consistent with that, 

so --

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you suggesting it would be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

32 

helpful to wait then, or -- 

 DR. WADE: Given that we have two locked in, 

and I would take on the responsibility of 

briefing the Board next time on sort of a year 

in advance perspective, and then I think we 

could do better selection of our meeting dates. 

 DR. MELIUS: And could we then update -- get 

Cori updated calendars and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MS. HOMER: Yes, that would be very helpful. 

Thank you. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- maybe even -- I mean even if 

you sort of look at the schedule and want to 

try to set up something, you know, by e-mail or 

whatever, that's fine, I -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause other dates are going to 

fill up later in the year -- 

 MS. MUNN: They sure are. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- between now and then. 

 MS. MUNN: My September schedule is going to 

fill up fast. 

 DR. WADE: Well, let's -- let's pick a 

September date now, but I'll still look through 

 DR. ZIEMER: Or October, perhaps. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

MS. HOMER: October? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Because we're July --

MS. HOMER: October would be a little -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- August, September, October -- 

MS. HOMER: -- closer to a quarterly -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Probably October. 

MS. HOMER: September is fairly booked. 

October, the week of the 3rd and the 17th -- 

 MS. MUNN: Let's take the 3rd. 

MS. HOMER: -- look very good, so --

 DR. ZIEMER: July, August -- probably -- 

 DR. WADE: The week of the 17th? 

MR. ESPINOSA: The week of the 3rd would be a 

lot better for me. 

 DR. WADE: It would? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any other preferences between 

those two weeks? 

 MR. GRIFFON: The week of the 3rd I prefer. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The week of the 3rd? 

MS. HOMER: The week of the 3rd? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So at the moment -- 

MS. HOMER: I'm setting it aside. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- allow -- allowing three days, 

we need a little flexibility one way or the 

other, so kind of hold -- pencil in the week, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

is what --

MS. HOMER: That's what I'll do. 

 DR. WADE: The beginning of the week -- 

MS. HOMER: No? 

 DR. WADE: -- certainly is better for me. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Critical NIOSH staff won't be 

here that week. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry to say the week of the 

3rd -- October the 3rd? 

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh. 

MR. ESPINOSA: And your point is? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, NIOSH staff is not available 

that week. That certainly impacts on us. 

MS. HOMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: What's our second option? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Our second option was -- 

MS. HOMER: Week of the 17th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- week of the 10th. 

MS. HOMER: Week of --

 DR. ZIEMER: What -- oh. 

MS. HOMER: -- the 17th, actually. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The 17th. What was the first 

option, the 3rd or the 10th week? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

MS. HOMER: Third. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Third? Third and the other is the 

17th? 

MS. HOMER: Seventeenth. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Seventeenth okay? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Nothing in late September? I 

don't know, I just feel these -- I -- I know we 

said quarterly, I just feel these are getting a 

little far apart. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, again, we still may need to 

continue subcommittee -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- activities in between. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I know that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think that's going to be fairly 

regular. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MS. HOMER: Well, if we -- just for your 

consideration, we do have some time in late 

September open, the 27th, 28th and 29th. 

 MS. MUNN: I'd prefer that, personally. 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) That's bad 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, we will have met July 

6th --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

MS. HOMER: July 6th, 7th and 8th -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Sixth, 7th, 8th. 

MS. HOMER: -- possibly, was that it? 

 DR. MELIUS: Let's leave this --

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, early part of July. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Late September, that's almost 

three months so that's probably doable. What -

- what is that week again? 

MS. HOMER: 

available. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 MR. GRIFFON: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

MS. HOMER: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

MS. HOMER: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

Cori? 

MS. HOMER: 

Twenty-seventh through the 30th is 

That's --

Sounds good. 

-- okay? 

Okay. 

Okay. Thank you very much, Cori. 

Thank you. 

Do you have other items for us, 

I do not, just time and schedule. 

I will be continuing to try to reach Dr. 

Anderson. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Now we -- we're going 

to continue then with the agenda as we have it 

before us. First --

MS. HOMER: Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

Larry's reminded me of something that probably 

needs to be checked into. If y'all could check 

into your direct deposit and make sure that you 

are receiving your pay and your travel, we are 

changing payroll systems from CDC to HHS and 

want you to be aware of that. There could be 

problems. I've already talked to a couple of 

members that are having some tax issues based 

on those changes because the -- their state 

does not -- it does not take out taxes 'cause 

there are no taxes in their state. If you're 

having any difficulty whatsoever, please let me 

know. 

Now just to let you know, the most recent 

salary reimbursement should reach your bank 

account tomorrow -- or I'm sorry, Friday -- 

Thursday night, Friday morning. If you have 

not received that, please let me know on 

Monday. 

 DR. MELIUS: That's for the December meeting? 

MS. HOMER: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

MS. HOMER: There was a delay, and I have heard 

from some of you, but to let all of you know. 

There was -- it was submitted on time, just -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

it hasn't quite made it to your account. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

STATUS REPORT ON SITE PROFILE MODIFICATIONS
 

AND SCHEDULE
 

We'll have a status report on site profile 

modifications and schedule. Judson Kenoyer 

from ORAU. 

 MR. KENOYER: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, and good 

morning, Board, and all other attendees to this 

meeting today. And I want to thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to give you an update 

on the site profiles, and also to talk about 

mechanisms that we've incorporated to -- to get 

information back into the site profiles as we 

update them. 

Before I get into the meat of my presentation, 

let me just give you a very brief review of the 

site profile development process. I believe it 

was in October of 2002 that this contract was 

awarded, and I -- I am part of the ORAU team. 

I'm employed by Dade Moeller and Associates as 

part of that team. I -- one of my first jobs 

was to start the effort of developing the site 

profiles, and we had to prioritize them. 

The first -- the first set -- step in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

prioritization was to identify the sites that 

had the most claims. We figured that would be 

the best first step, so early on we worked on 

Savannah River, we worked on Hanford, and I 

believe we worked on the Nevada Test Site. 

Six months into the project we realized that 

the pace at which we were working would not be 

adequate to meet the needs of this project, so 

it was decided to accelerate it, and accelerate 

it we did. I put together 14 or 15 teams of 

approximately six FTEs, six full-time 

equivalent employees, and made assignments for 

our higher priority sites again, mainly based 

on large number of claims. 

And we also started the effort on AWE sites. 

Smaller teams, smaller number of claims, but we 

also realized that it was important to get that 

started, too. I believe Bethlehem Steel was 

the first AWE site that we -- that we focused 

on. 

As we were developing the site profiles, we 

worked very closely with what I'll call task 

five, the dose reconstructors, the people that 

were going to use these site profiles to help 

them do the job that they had to do. Of course 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

they use the site profiles if they don't have 

dosimetry data. We try to fill the gaps the 

best we can, and we needed to know from them 

what they -- what they needed. 

Now of course you have to realize that their 

process was changing during -- during the same 

time. They hadn't done dose reconstructions 

yet, so their process evolved. As their 

process evolved, our process evolved. 

We decided for the larger -- larger site 

profiles we'd actually have six different 

sections, and these were mainly for the DOE 

sites. We'd have the introduction, and we had 

the five technical sections, one on site 

description, second one on the occupational 

medical exposures or the X-rays, third one on 

the environmental -- the occupational 

environmental doses, then one on internal 

dosimetry, one on external dosimetry. 

Now the AWE site profiles cover the same basic 

information, but they're -- they're -- it's 

covered in one volume. Most of those are -- 

are smaller in volume. 

I said we started out with 14 or 15 teams. At 

this time, after we're two years into the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

project, we're actually down to about ten. 

After the first round of site profiles we 

eliminated some of the teams that weren't -- 

weren't doing the job that we needed. I'm not 

saying they were doing a bad job, but many 

times it's difficult to stop a researcher from 

researching. And we realized that in order to 

make progress on this, in order to -- to get to 

the point where we can compensate claimants, 

you have to stop the research at some point. 

You're always gathering data. Wanda Munn made 

a very good point yesterday in terms of the 

fact, and so did Denise, the fact that you will 

-- we will continue to find more information. 

These are dynamic type -- type documents, but 

at some point you have to stop and you have to 

start processing claims, and that's what -- and 

that's what we did. 

As you -- as we go out on these data capture 

efforts, though, you can open a box and you -- 

you don't know what you're going to find in 

that box. You might have a finding aid that -- 

that tells you what you -- you think you're 

going to find, but until you start going 

through the material, you -- you just don't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

know. It could be from any site, it could be 

mis-filed, you don't know who filed the 

information to start off. They might not -- 

you know, they certainly weren't filing it 

thinking of a compensation program. They were 

just filing it because they were records that 

needed to be filed. 

The one major surprise that we ran into through 

this whole process, to me, was in the data 

capture process in trying to retrieve 

information, and the length of time it took to 

retrieve that information from the sites, 

especially -- and I mentioned it yesterday in 

one of my responses at the microphone. It is 

when -- it is the amount of unclassified 

information that's been mixed with classified 

information and the time it takes to -- 

basically you have to review all the 

documentation and then separate it, and then 

get it declassified. And that's probably our 

biggest -- our biggest obstacle. 

Okay. Let's look at the site profiles that we 

have completed to date, and I believe this adds 

up to 19. It's a mix of DOE and AWE sites. We 

have Fernald, Hanford, Idaho, Iowa, K-25, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

Mallinckrodt, Mound, the Nevada Test Site, 

Argonne National Lab West, Paducah, Portsmouth, 

Rocky Flats, Savannah River, X-10, Y-12 -- 

those are the DOE sites. AWE includes 

Aliquippa Forge, Bethlehem Steel, Blockson 

Chemical and Huntington Pilot Plant. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Judson, let me interrupt a moment. 

Would you define for the assembly the word 

"completed" as you use it here, 'cause everyone 

knows, for example, Mallinckrodt's under 

revision and so on. 

 MR. KENOYER: You -- you introduced almost my 

next sentence. I was going to classify these 

as Rev. 0's. Rev. 0 -- that's -- as I said 

before, at some point in time we had to decide 

if we had enough information together that 

could be given to OCAS/NIOSH to review and pass 

on to the dose reconstructors so they could 

start processing claims. It's a -- it's a 

dynamic system. These -- these site profiles 

will never be completed-completed. I mean we 

will always be finding more information. 

They're -- they're -- in many cases we had gaps 

identified. We -- we have the Rev. 0's 

approved so they could start being used by the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

dose -- dose reconstructors. At the same time 

the team was still intact. They were -- they 

were moving ahead trying to solve those gaps, 

or fill those gaps. 

 Perfect example would -- would be with Hanford. 

We -- we got Rev. 0 approved so that we could 

process some claims, knowing that there's a big 

hole with regard to neutron information. It 

wasn't quite ready. But what we do is look at 

the number of claims that can be processed 

versus the length of time it's going to take to 

fill a certain gap. If it's months and months 

and months or let's say three months, we would 

probably get that document approved and then 

start using it. 

 Yes, sir? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't mean to interrupt, but 

this is a follow-up onto what Paul asked. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think it would be useful -- I 

mean we went through this process with 

Mallinckrodt. I -- I -- if I interpret this 

correctly, the first Mallinckrodt version of 

the site profile really was out there to allow 

for processing of claims that were likely to be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

45 

compensable, so you didn't want to delay -- 

 MR. KENOYER: That is -- that --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- the compensable claims -- 

 MR. KENOYER: That enters into --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I appreciate that. 

However, I think in our function in auditing 

site profiles, it would be nice to know that 

'cause I think we might have sort of spun our 

wheels a little bit with our audit contractor 

auditing a -- a site profile that clearly was 

not complete. 

 MR. KENOYER: Sure. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So when you say complete, I -- I 

-- I wish we had some other sort of categories 

here. Are there other profiles that fit into 

that situation where they're basically out 

there for -- mainly to -- to start processing 

likely compensable claims and you're working on 

 MR. KENOYER: Well --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- filling them out --

 MR. KENOYER: -- in fact, most of --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- completely. 

 MR. KENOYER: -- most of them are like that, 

because if they -- if they're non-compensable, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

we -- we may very well be using a very 

conservative values or high maximizing type 

exposures, giving -- assuming very high 

exposures, and even with those high exposures, 

the claims would -- would not be compensated. 

So those --

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but there's nothing 

in the document that says that. 

 MR. KENOYER: No. 

 DR. MELIUS: And that's... 

 MR. KENOYER: These -- I actually consider a 

site profile to be the documents that I've been 

talking about plus procedures, other Technical 

Information Bulletins that can use -- that can 

be used in a generalized situation, and other 

programs maybe to estimate doses on site -- 

I'll call them executable programs. That 

really makes up the site profile package, so 

there is nothing really in the -- in the 

document itself that says this is -- this has 

been written and provided for -- for cases 

where -- strictly for compensation. 

 Jim Neton has a comment. 

DR. NETON: I'd just like to comment -- clarify 

a little bit on that. There are some documents 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

that do state the limitations up front as to 

what -- what is not included in there. And 

this of course comes to our original statements 

early on that really the proof of the -- of the 

use of the site profile is in looking at the 

dose reconstruction itself. You know, did -- 

if the dose reconstruction only used certain 

portions and those portions were relevant and 

we could complete a dose reconstruction, then 

we believe that's -- that's appropriate. So 

even Weldon Springs, to a certain -- or 

Mallinckrodt, to a certain extent, was not 

really issued just to award cases, but there 

are some -- some situations of claimants with 

very limited exposure, short duration, 

potential for internal very small that we could 

process using that profile. So it really was 

not issued with the full intent that would only 

be compensable cases, but Mark, you're right, 

that -- the majority of those were issued that 

way. 

 MR. KENOYER: Thank you, Dr. Neton. This next 

slide shows current DOE site profiles under 

development, when in fact many of these are 

this close -- this close -- to being approved. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

They're -- they're somewhere in -- either in 

comment resolution phase or -- or formal 

review. These are DOE sites, so I have the 

site listed, plus our -- the ORAU team's due 

date to OCAS, and then there's a 60-day 

implementation phase after that. And that 

phase may include comment resolutions and/or 

working with the task five dose reconstructors 

to have them -- I'll call digest the 

information that's in the TBD. It's hard for -

- there's so much technical information in the 

-- in the site profile that you -- it -- you 

can't just hand it over to them. They'll get 

lost. We don't -- a dose reconstructor cannot 

spend a lot of time going through all -- a 

very -- very large document like that. We've 

tried to summarize the information in tables so 

they can just go to those tables, but they also 

generate tools, computer -- computerized tools 

that they can just input the information that -

- that they need to and come out with the 

answers that they need. 

I've listed Pantex -- now Pantex is actually on 

hold right now because it's waiting for the 

Iowa site profile to be rewritten. Iowa was a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

predecessor to -- to Pantex, so changes that 

are going to be made in that site profile -- 

and it'll be discussed later today -- may very 

well impact Pantex. And we -- we met that -- 

we actually met the original due date to OCAS. 

Another one that may be involved -- or impacted 

by that would be the Clarksville facility, 

similar type processes. 

LANL is due to OCAS the end of March. We'll 

have no problems with making that. Same thing 

with Kansas City. In fact, these dates may 

seem a long time in the future. I have had a 

set of teams that are actually -- many of them 

are working on their second set of site 

profiles. They will turn in their -- their 

site profiles before these dates, but there's a 

GAO report a number of months ago. We were 

told that we are to establish dates that we 

will not exceed, and we will not exceed these. 

But the -- my site profile teams also have the 

instruction to get the site profiles done as 

quickly as possible. And I've asked them what 

resources do they need, and I'm trying to get 

them those resources. 

Weldon Spring is in review process right now. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

It has a due date of April -- April 30th. 

Lawrence Livermore, PNNL, Pinellas -- Pinellas 

is almost done today. It's -- many of these 

have to go through ADC* reviews. I think five 

-- four of the five sections that need to go 

through that review for Pinellas have gone 

through that and now they're in a formal review 

with the dose reconstructors before it goes to 

OCAS. 

Argonne National Lab East, Sandia, ETEC and 

Electro Metallurgical are -- are also on the -- 

on the list to be done this year. 

And the last few sites, Simonds Saw and Steel, 

Linde Ceramics and Air Products, Bridgeport 

Brass, Superior Steel, Chapman Valve -- those 

have all been submitted to OCAS on time. We --

in fact we just -- we resubmitted Chapman Valve 

after -- after responding to NIOSH's comments 

just this week. Simonds Saw and Steel and 

Linde Ceramics are still in comment resolution, 

working on some very specific coworker data 

that we needed that we wanted to make sure was 

accurate. NUMEC -- the Apollo site -- and 

Hooker Electrochemical are also up for -- for 

June of this year. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

A lot of work is still being done. We've done 

a lot of work, but there is a lot of work still 

to be done. The first 15 sites that we chose 

cover approximately 80 percent of the claims 

that have been submitted. Now we're fooling 

ourselves if we think these site profiles are 

going to be able to address all those claims 

because there's certain -- certain situations 

that we have to use conservative type 

estimates, and -- and we've talked about the 

coworker data, that's going along with this, 

too. Where we don't have measurements or 

bioassay data for claimants, we're coming up 

with methods to -- to estimate what they could 

have been exposed to. Okay? 

A few more that are still on the list -- W.R. 

Grace, Allied Chemical, General Atomics -- 

actually I believe Combustion Engineering was 

taken off our high priority list, but we're 

still gathering information -- Westinghouse 

Nuclear Fuels Division and Dupont Deepwater 

Works. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) You said 

combustion... 

 MR. KENOYER: Off the -- off the high priority 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

list. I believe -- we're getting -- for the 

AWE sites we're getting down to a fairly few 

number of claims. I mean I believe that one's 

30. Later this year, or after these profiles 

are complete, task three will not go away. 

This -- this dose reconstruction research will 

not go away. We will be in a transition mode 

where -- and we've already started it in some 

ways, working side by side with the dose 

reconstructors in like sub-teams and helping 

them find -- find the information they need. 

So there's going to be a lot of work still to 

be done. 

Okay. The other focus of this talk has to do 

with how we are modifying these site profiles 

with regard to additional information that's 

coming in. So I came up with six different 

sources for these modifications and these are -

- these are sources that have sort of evolved 

over the last two years as we've worked on this 

project. We -- and I'll go through each one of 

these and give you some examples of how we -- 

of what site profiles we've changed and how the 

processes have changed. 

The first one is receiving information from the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

NIOSH web site and from the field. The second 

is from our worker outreach program, and I'll 

spend some time on that. I think that's been 

successful. I wish we would have started a 

little sooner, but it -- it started when it 

did. 

 Dose reconstruction comments, these are -- I'm 

going to talk about dose re-- the comments from 

dose reconstructors after they've actually 

started to use these site profiles, and also 

comments that we've received from the claimants 

on their DR report, so two different aspects of 

that. 

 We receive input from the -- from CATIs, from 

the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews. We 

also receive information from the site profile 

team members who've, as they've been working on 

these site profiles they've identified gaps 

that need to be -- need to be filled in the 

future. And also a good source has been the 

SC&A comments. 

Okay, the first -- the first major area, the 

NIOSH web site and from the field. One of the 

first site profiles that was published was the 

Bethlehem Steel. Almost as soon as it hit the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

streets we got the feedback that we had not 

included the ingestion pathway, and -- and so 

we started to work on that right away. Not 

that that was a high contributor to dose, but 

it was a pathway that we left out of that first 

-- that first version. 

I am receiving notes from NIOSH staff through 

e-mails or phone calls very regularly, and the 

examples that -- where we've received 

information, just received some on the Nevada 

Test Site Pluto shot and other site information 

came in from a claimant through -- through 

NIOSH. 

General counsel, we receive comments from them. 

We receive comments from the Department of 

Labor. Most of those are -- are general and 

apply to more than one site, so if we make 

changes -- we've set up a system -- we don't 

have to produce a Rev. -- a whole entire 

revision on a document, we can have a page 

change notice, so we can -- we can do that 

fairly easily. 

We receive comments from the regional offices 

that we've incorporated, and then the last five 

are specific examples where we received 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

additional information from the claimant that 

have either come in through the NIOSH docket or 

-- or through their PHAs. Harshaw site 

information came in from a claimant. 

Additional Nevada Test Site information; one of 

the claimants provided additional information 

on tritium and -- at Hanford in their drinking 

water. Pinellas site information came directly 

in from a claimant through NIOSH. And very 

generally, a large number of comments came in 

from the claimants in terms of the difficulty 

in reading and interpreting their letter that 

they received back in terms of whether or not 

they were compensated or not, and we've helped 

develop a draft executive summary -- a draft 

template to go with -- with the letters that go 

to the claimants to help explain that -- make 

it a little more clear to them what -- what the 

information is. 

The worker outreach program is actually only 

about a year old, and like I said, I wish we 

would have started this sooner. This is sort 

of a lesson learned, but it took a year pretty 

much to develop the whole site profile 

development process. We realized we needed 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

information from the workers. The system 

wasn't established yet on how to do that. The 

first set of contacts with the workers were 

with the site profiles that we had already 

completed. Okay? They weren't -- some of them 

were -- and when I say completed, I mean Rev. 

0's. We got the Rev. 0's out on the street -- 

depends -- it depends on what site we are 

interacting with. Some sites -- and we've 

started to do this with the -- with the second 

round of -- second round of sites, is to 

contact them as -- right after we've put a team 

together and -- and to go out to the site and 

ask for information. 

Some sites have more information and will -- 

and understand the process. Other sites just 

say why are you talking to me now? Come back 

when you have something for us to evaluate. 

And it's sort of a mix, and so you don't know 

that until you really -- you really go to the 

site and talk to the people, and most of these 

are labor representatives that we -- that we 

interface with, different groups on-site. I 

think as of a couple of weeks ago we had made 

13 site visits, actually had like 18 or 19 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

meetings, so -- and it's been valuable. 

And sometime -- when -- when they -- when the -

- when the site reps have information up front, 

that only helps us to develop the information 

that goes into the site profile. They may have 

a medical surveillance program and have a 

database that we can then gain access to, tell 

us about hazard eval-- hazard identifications 

on site. And for-- the former workers program 

has been valuable for some sites, but not every 

site has that, so we've -- 

We've used -- to document comments, and 

actually we've gone through -- Bill Murray of 

my staff leads this effort, and he -- he worked 

for ATSDR, the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, for a number of years. They 

used a database called Top Hat, and we have -- 

we have started to use that. He and his 

helpers have put together over 2,000 comments 

to date. They've taken -- they've gone through 

the minutes of all these Advisory Board 

meetings and gone through and identified and 

categorized different comments there. They've 

gone through all the site profile meetings that 

we've had on sites and documented the comments 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

that we've received there. They put it into 

this database and then, depending on -- for 

what -- each site that those -- the comments 

are specific to, they distribute it to the site 

profile team leaders, and then they evaluate 

whether or not it's important enough to help -- 

to help build their case or to perhaps change 

the site profile. And we've had some cases 

that are -- some are listed here, so I think 

this has been very -- a very valuable program. 

 Specific examples of where we've incorporated 

comments from -- that we've received through 

the worker outreach program, the Hanford 

document, we received very thorough comments 

from PACE. Probably the most important was 

some specific comments on incidents that we had 

not included in the site profile. 

We decided early on not to include -- I'll call 

it lower level incidents. As those -- those of 

you -- you know, we realize that things happen 

on site, and we don't -- we try to focus on the 

major incidents. We figured -- lot of 

information -- if a person was involved in an 

incident, that information would be included in 

the CATI, in the -- in the interview with that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

person. 

 The Idaho site description and other comments, 

the comments are being incorporated that have 

just come in. That's -- that meeting was just 

about two months ago. We received a large 

number of comments when a group of people went 

to the Iowa site and talked to past workers, 

and we've -- we've also talked about the -- 

about the Savannah River Site construction 

worker -- construction worker chapter. That is 

in process. A few days ago Dr. -- or Larry 

Elliott talked about the RFP that's out on the 

street. We're trying to set up an effort to 

work with them, but I've also started a little 

subtask associated with that looking at the HR 

data that we received from the Savannah River 

Site where we can isolate data on -- on 

construction workers. That'll be part of that 

effort, too. 

 Okay, dose reconstruction comments. One aspect 

of that, as I said, is the formal comments from 

the dose reconstructions after we've given them 

a certain version of a site profile and they 

are -- they gladly provide comments back to us 

in terms of how useful it is or -- or things 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

that need to be changed. And five examples 

that I came up with that. One, after we 

produced the Hanford document they needed some 

more -- more specialized information on X-ray 

techniques. Savannah River document has been 

changed to include more -- or different 

information on internal dosimetry issues and 

the use of photofluorography. In fact, we're 

adding information on photofluorography to as 

many site profiles as we can as we come -- come 

across it. 

 The gaseous diffusion plants -- K-25, Paducah 

and Portsmouth -- those documents were pretty 

much reviewed by NIOSH and task five at the 

same time. We put together a subgroup of 

people to identi-- mainly to make those 

documents more consistent so we would -- we -- 

we did address the issues in the same way. 

The Y-12 site profile has been changed based on 

the -- the identified need for internal and 

external dosimetry issues. And the INEEL 

document, X-ray and internal dosimetry, so we -

- we have tried to work side by side with the 

people that are using these documents. And 

some of them are -- a lot of these people are 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

located all over the United States, but the key 

group of people of my team are located in 

Cincinnati and we can work side by side. 

We also receive comments on the DR reports from 

the claimants, and those can get back to us 

through the OCAS-1 forms and also in the 

closeout interviews, in terms of what 

additional information may -- may be available. 

CATI comments, Computer Assisted Telephone 

Interviews. This has been a very successful 

program within this whole project where each -- 

each claimant has gone through an interview and 

-- and you can see a number of examples that 

we've even incorporated changes in site 

profiles -- ingestion of foodstuffs at Savannah 

River, a number of comments were -- and these 

were identified by the interviewers that a 

number of claimants had identified the fact 

that they had been eating -- we call it nuts 

and berries on the Savannah River Site. On the 

slide it says foodstuffs, but we've estimated 

the level of internal dose that could be 

contributed to ingestion of those. 

Someone provided a very good map of Nevada Test 

Site shots and that -- that's going to be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

incorporated into the next revision of the NTS 

document. 

The Fernald site description and exposure 

routes, information on that was provided by a 

claimant in an interview. 

Contact for the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels 

Division was communicated to us through this 

process, and just leads on -- on additional 

resources. We get reports basically dropped on 

our doorstep from -- from claimants, and many 

of -- many -- many times they're identified 

through the -- through the CATI. 

 Just recently, and the second bullet here, is 

site export tool has been developed, and this 

is through our IT group. And they -- and I -- 

I have just tried it recently. It has just 

been put onto my computer in Cincinnati, and 

it's going to be made available to the site 

team leaders where they can basically do a 

search on the entire database of all the 

comments that have been made in the Computer 

Assisted Telephone Interviews and they can pick 

up -- they can identify the sites, they can 

have multiple sites if they need it, but if 

they're focused on one site -- let's say for an 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

example, film badges, and it'll -- it will come 

up with all of the comments that have been made 

by the claimants in the interviews, and so they 

can isolate on those, very -- very useful tool. 

Can save a lot of time because it takes time to 

-- to read all -- all of those interviews. So 

we're also trying to work with -- this would be 

task four within this project. 

Okay, my next to last slide talks about how the 

team leader or team members have identified 

needs of site profiles and how we can -- how 

we've modified those. Site profiles have gone 

through a revision or page change notice based 

on -- it says team leaders but really it should 

be team members' identification of areas 

needing expansion. Remember, I told you the 

Rev. 0's don't include all the information that 

the finalized documents may, but as they're 

writing it they'll identify areas like Savannah 

River, Hanford, Y-12, I think those changes 

have already been made, and X-10 and Rocky 

Flats are -- are in the process of being made. 

Rocky Flats we're waiting for the neutron 

report to come out of DOE headquarters, and 

that will -- that will address concerns we have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

there. 

My last slide talks about the importance of the 

SC&A input to site profiles. And examples are 

on the screen right now. Changes in the 

Hanford document, SC&A did a very thorough 

evaluation of the Hanford site profile, came up 

with pages of questions and comments. We put 

them in direct interaction with the main 

authors and -- and based on their comments, we 

are -- we're making changes in those documents 

to address the more -- what we consider to be 

the more important issues, include the use of 

thorium and also neptunium 237. 

The Bethlehem Steel document, Dr. Neton talked 

yesterday about that, and I just listed one 

area. Remember he talked about lognormal 

distributions versus triangular, but there were 

a number of other items. Those came directly 

from the SC&A reviews. And also the 

Mallinckrodt document, we talked about that 

yesterday. 

I wish I could say that -- well, actually I 

will say it's been a positive interaction with 

Sanford Cohen & Associates. We -- we 

appreciate the work that they are doing and I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

think it will make these documents better. It 

does -- it does impact some of -- some of my 

resources, because they interact with some of 

the key people that are working on the dose 

reconstruction research. And I have a saying 

that I pass onto the site profile team leaders 

-- once you're a team leader for a site, you're 

always a team leader for that site. 

So they may be on to their next assignment, but 

when questions or comments come back in, 

they're the most knowledgeable to -- to answer 

those questions. So it takes -- it does take 

additional time. It may or may not have an 

impact on deliverables later in the year. I 

hope it doesn't have a major one. I think it -

- the number of hours that task three staff 

have interacted with SC&A staff has actually 

probably been less than I had projected for the 

last -- for the last quarter, but it -- it does 

have an impact, a real one, so -- that's the 

end of my presentation. I'd be glad to -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Judson. Now 

-- yes, let's open the floor for some 

questions. Gen Roessler. 

DR. ROESSLER: Judson, obviously after Rev. 1 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

you're getting a lot of input from various 

sources. I'm wondering, how do you determine, 

as you make changes, whether they're 

significant enough to affect the claims that 

are in process or claims that have already been 

processed? And if -- this mike isn't too good. 

If they are significant and you think it could, 

or somebody thinks it could affect the claim, 

then --

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

DR. ROESSLER: -- then what's the procedure? 

 MR. KENOYER: We would go -- we would go back 

and look -- look at things that have al-- that 

have already been processed, and if it -- if it 

would make them compensable, they would be 

given their money. 

 Dr. Neton? 

DR. NETON: Just to expand on that a little 

bit, we have a formal process, it's called -- 

we would issue what's known in our parlance as 

a program evaluation report, a PER. We have an 

acronym for everything. In that report we 

would detail the change that was made to the 

profile and an evaluation summary of all the 

cases that we believe would potentially have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

been affected. 

For example, at Bethlehem Steel when we added 

the ingestion model, we knew the amount of 

incremental dose was going to be not that 

great, so we took all claims that were at 40 

percent and higher and re-ran them using the 

new model and determined that there were -- 

none of those claims were going to be -- the 

compensation decision would change, so we're 

pretty comfortable that all the other ones that 

were less than 40 would not change, as well. 

And that's documented and maintained as a 

controlled document within our system. And 

we'll do that with every -- we've done that 

with every single modification to a profile 

thus far. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Richard, then --

MR. ESPINOSA: Dr. Melius was first. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm sorry. Jim, you're well 

hidden there. Dr. Melius, and then -- then 

Rich and then Leon. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have several comments. First of 

all, I -- just the fact what we said earlier, 

it would be useful I think to have a sort of a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

-- a preface to the site profiles or something 

on your web site, some -- that would indicate 

to those that are interested sort of what the 

status is, what the plans are, what's going on. 

I think such a document would have been useful 

to have for this meeting for the people 

interested in where -- what's happening with 

Mallinckrodt and with Weldon Springs and so 

forth 'cause -- 'cause it -- there's confusion 

and some of us went to Buffalo about a month 

ago and -- for a meeting up there about the 

Bethlehem site and there really is a lot of -- 

even people very involved in the process, it's 

hard to keep track of what's going on and what 

-- what's changing and so forth. And I think 

also the more that you can reflect that you're 

taking into account people's comments, or at 

least recording them in some way -- for a long 

while when we'd look at the site profile page 

there were very few comments, even -- even 

though we knew that there had been a meeting 

with worker representatives and so forth. But 

the more we can make that transparent, I think 

the better. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay, I appreciate that. Would 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

you -- would you settle for a quarterly update? 

 DR. MELIUS: Whatever -- whatever's 

appropriate. I don't --

 MR. KENOYER: Compared to what you have now, 

that would be a step forward. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but some way that 

indicates what the plans are, and I know you're 

reluctant to put out schedules sometimes of -- 

of trying to predict when things will happen -- 

 MR. KENOYER: I can --

 DR. MELIUS: -- but -- but I think it's useful 

for people to know, and maybe you won't make 

all the deadlines, but it's still -- at least 

give some estimate as to when -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Many -- many times when we are 

interacting with the sites, we have an 

estimated date, but it really -- we don't know 

the exact dates we're going to go until about a 

month beforehand. It's really up to the site 

and when they can bring their people together. 

 DR. MELIUS: And a second comment follows up 

actually on your last slide and some of the 

things we talked about yesterday. I've 

actually found that the SC&A review process is 

-- has been very helpful. It really does serve 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

as a peer review of -- of these technical 

documents. And again, not faulting NIOSH or 

the contractor involved, but I just think 

having another set of outside experts take a 

look at these does provide useful information, 

certainly early on. Now maybe some of the 

later documents won't -- won't be as helpful 

because a lot of the issues will be addressed. 

 MR. KENOYER: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: But I -- I think some way of 

really institutionalizing that would be 

helpful. Now whether it's through us, through 

our contractor -- you know, through the Board -

-

 MR. KENOYER: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- reviewing, but -- or whether 

it's through some other mechanism, but -- but I 

-- I just think it really provides a lot of 

both useful information and -- and comments and 

-- for potential change in these site profiles, 

as well as some credibility, I mean -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- to -- to the -- to the process 

'cause these are so critical to the individual 

dose reconstructions and it's very difficult 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

for people to understand what's going on, the 

technical details, and knowing that an outside 

independent group has reviewed it I think is -- 

is very useful and --

 MR. KENOYER: I think we -- you know, we've 

gone through about three rounds of interactions 

with them on -- on different documents, and the 

last round in preparation for this meeting, in 

fact, with Advisory Board members present, I 

think turned out to be very useful. 

 DR. MELIUS: So I think whether it's -- I don't 

know whether we need to -- what we need to do 

with our contractor or how we want to work 

this, but -- but I think really getting on a 

schedule for peer reviewing a large number of 

these would -- would be -- be helpful to what's 

going on. 

Finally, I think -- and this also came out of 

the Buffalo meeting but also some of the other 

comments, is there needs to be some point where 

there's sort of closure on some of these 

issues. We have all these comments that are 

sort of out there and when we were up in 

Buffalo the representatives of the constituents 

up there were just very confused and very 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

difficult 'cause they kept adding -- providing 

comments, providing comments, and not seeing 

what was coming out of it, and it just seems 

that the process is never-ending. So they 

don't know sort of when is the process 

complete. And if there's -- be some sort of 

schedule that we're going to incorporate these 

comments, incorporate the peer review, 

incorporate what else we've learned on some 

sort of a schedule and then this will be the 

document we use for a period of time -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- and then move forward, I -- I 

think would be very helpful on -- on these 

sites where you -- where you, again, are doing 

a good job of reaching out and trying to get 

information, but there's got to be some way of 

bringing it to -- to closure and providing some 

certainty for people as to yeah, this is what 

we're going to use as the basis for our -- our 

dose reconstructions. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. I appreciate that comment. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's also not always clear, I 

think, to folks who have had input as to 

whether or not their input has been considered 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

or not considered. I think it's related to 

what Jim's saying. I was there at Buffalo, as 

well, and even if -- even if it turns out that 

the comment has been considered and somehow 

incorporated, it's not always obvious to 

people. And I'm not sure how you make that 

evident, but it's something to consider. 

 MR. KENOYER: Well, we -- well, we have -- I 

know with regard to the PACE comments from -- 

on the Hanford document, we -- we have formally 

responded to those, sent them back through 

NIOSH and then expect that communication to go 

back to the labor reps, so... 

 DR. MELIUS: Either a formal response or 

informal response, but some sort of a response 

or some sort of an indication on the web site 

or something that yeah, this has been 

considered or this will be considered when we, 

you know, get a revised -- or when we get 

further information or whatever I think would 

be -- be helpful that -- 'cause I -- at least, 

again, the experience at Buffalo and other 

places has been I think that people feel that 

you're -- you are going to be addressing their 

comments, fine. It's just that they don't see 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

that and they just keep saying well, I'll have 

to tell them another ten times and -- 

 MR. KENOYER: I gotcha. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- or become very frustrated and 

it's hard. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. I understand. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's see, who was -- 

Richard, I think you were next. 

MR. ESPINOSA: I'm just kind of wondering what 

efforts have been made on developing site 

profiles for construction workers at these 

different areas and sites. 

 MR. KENOYER: The first -- the first -- and I 

talked about it just a little bit, we're -- and 

-- and I believe Jim Neton mentioned it the 

other day, or -- or Larry Elliott -- talked 

about interfacing with a group of people 

representing the construction workers at 

Savannah River and Hanford. And many of the 

issues that are going to be brought out from 

the -- from those interactions are going to be 

-- we're going to be able to expand that to -- 

to other -- other sites. 

One of the first steps, and it's in the RFP 

that's gone out, talks about identifying 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

specific radiation risks that construction 

workers have that are different than the 

general site population, and estimating what 

addition-- perhaps what additional doses or 

some sort of correction factor or increased 

value that -- that could be administered to 

their -- to their claims, based on different 

tasks. It might be -- outside working might be 

increased particulate intake due to physical 

work with contaminated soils, or it could be 

the fact that a mix of people -- a team have, 

you know, had to go into the site to work on 

in-plant sources or whatever. We'll -- we'll 

come up with that with -- you know, with direct 

input from -- from construction workers. We've 

had -- we have had a meeting at Savannah River 

and -- for some initial discussions, but we'll 

go back and we'll continue to work with them. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Different trades incorporate 

different risks, different -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

MR. ESPINOSA: -- hazards. Is that going to be 

based on different tasks? 

 MR. KENOYER: They -- we -- we had a mix of 

trades at -- at the one meeting -- the one -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

was more or less information meeting at -- at 

Savannah River, and we will be discussing that, 

too. In fact, a general statement. After we 

talked about that, even -- the representatives 

from the different trades came up with -- came 

up with a thought that, you know, on the 

average, it -- over -- over a person's career, 

for the most part, one tra-- one -- one trade, 

compared to another, had the same probability 

of getting a higher level exposure, 'cause 

there's so many different tasks that they would 

have to do, I think the only -- the only trade 

that -- that they identified as a possibility 

of having a lower exposure were the Teamsters, 

the truck drivers. The people -- if they went 

into the plant, there's so -- or facility, 

there's so many different sources over time 

that we may very well just come up with one -- 

one increased factor, so -- but we'll look at 

that again. We'll get other input from other -

- other construction workers and other trades. 

That's just one site. 

MR. ESPINOSA: I'd encourage that the same 

process be done with Los Alamos, as well. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

DR. ROESSLER: Rich --

 DR. ZIEMER: Leon? 

DR. ROESSLER: -- we can never hear you. Use 

your mike. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, she was having trouble 

hearing. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Oh, sorry. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Leon? 

MR. OWENS: Justin (sic), as you -- as you do 

your outreach at the different sites -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

MR. OWENS: -- is there a validation and 

verification process from the standpoint of -- 

of worker advocates or the workers themselves 

that might present new findings, documents that 

may not have previously been viewed? What 

process is in place to view those documents and 

ensure their validity prior to making revisions 

to the site profile for that particular site? 

 MR. KENOYER: Well, first of all -- first of 

all, we'll -- you know, we -- we're after any 

information they can provide, and hopefully 

it'll be a -- in a published report or a peerreviewed report. Many of the site reports 

aren't -- do not go through that, so you know, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

it -- we haven't gone through a thorough 

validation process of that information. We 

haven't really received that much information 

from -- from the sites in terms of from the -- 

from the labor reps. We have received 

information from claimants that -- you know, 

they may have -- they may have reports in their 

files, or -- or friends or coworkers of 

claimants where we've gotten official reports, 

and -- and tho-- if they're peer-reviewed, it's 

pretty much accepted. But we haven't gone 

through a thorough evaluation or validation of 

let's say raw data that's come up. It's almost 

like any of the data we come up with. I mean 

if we find that information in a box somewhere 

in the middle of Kansas, you -- it's almost 

what -- what -- you get what you -- you get 

what you get, and you look for consistency. 

You can compare it to what you already have. 

If it -- if it's a much higher level, we would 

go through another step in terms of trying to 

validate it, perhaps with some other workers 

that were on site at the same time. You know, 

if they could -- if they could -- they could 

say that yes, that's -- that is indeed the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

situation as it was, but -- very difficult. 

MR. OWENS: I just have a follow-up. I think 

that there's a concern, and I'm aware of a 

meeting -- outreach meeting tomorrow in 

Paducah, Kentucky --

 MR. KENOYER: Uh-huh. 

MR. OWENS: -- and the concern is that the 

reliance on some of the Department of Energy 

records -- as we know, it's shoddy, at best -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Uh-huh. 

MR. OWENS: -- but I believe that there's some 

workers who do have information that is very 

valuable, and I did not know that if this 

information is presented, if -- if there would 

be the team that actually worked on the 

profile, if they would then go back in and -- 

and do another review. 

 MR. KENOYER: They could -- they -- they would 

very well compare it to what they've already 

looked at. But many times we -- we get -- we 

get verbal stories, and that -- you know, that 

helps us understand the workplace situation, 

but we really would like --

DR. ANDERSON: (Via telephone) Yes? 

 MR. KENOYER: -- dat-- the hard data -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

DR. ANDERSON: I can't hear whoever's talking 

very well. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Henry's -- is -- Henry Anderson is 

on the line. Henry, we'll try to -- Judson, 

speak into the mike so Henry can hear you 

there. 

DR. ANDERSON: One half of the room I've been 

hearing, but I was able to hear the 

presentation pretty well, but not... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Go ahead, Judson. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. Well, I basically was 

saying that we -- there has not been a thorough 

evaluation of each and every -- every dataset, 

but we haven't received that much hard data 

from our interactions with the site -- the site 

personnel. A lot of it has been stories, and 

we -- we've documented those. We understand 

those. But we ask for written -- you know, 

written comments or -- or written information. 

It's much more valuable. 

 DR. WADE: Henry, can you hear me? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. How long will you 

be available this morning? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on just a minute, Robert -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

DR. ANDERSON: Another 45 minutes. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're just clarifying Henry's 

availability time here this morning. 

 MR. KENOYER: Any other questions or comments? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. PRESLEY: I would caution you -- you 

mentioned Teamsters. 

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: From experience, our Teamsters in 

Oak Ridge, you had Teamsters that drove heavy 

equipment and you also had Teamsters that drove 

the trucks that delivered the material and 

everything else throughout the plant. Those 

people were in the buildings -- process 

buildings as much as the rest of us were. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 

 MR. PRESLEY: And a lot of times they were in 

the -- some of the worst areas because of where 

they've had to pick the material up and 

actually take it and put it on the forklifts, 

put it on the trucks theirself (sic). 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 

 MR. PRESLEY: That's one point on Teamsters. 

 MR. KENOYER: I'll note that. Thank you very 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

much. The comment that I stated was 

specifically with the people -- the trade 

workers that we talked to at Savannah River, 

but we -- we look at -- and each site would be 

different. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I -- I just had a 

follow-up on -- on Leon. Your response to 

Leon's question --

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- sparked a question in my mind. 

 MR. KENOYER: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: You -- you said that hopefully 

the data that you get from people is -- is in 

the form of peer-reviewed reports or published 

reports --

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- which I appreciate. The 

question I have is in -- in doing these site 

profiles, I wonder to what extent ORAU teams 

have been able to validate or verify some 

summary type reports or database data from the 

sites against raw records, because this has 

been one of the concerns from the inception -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- of this program is that we're 

not just here to redo work that's already sort 

of been done --

 MR. KENOYER: Sure. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- in previous reports by DOE. 

In fact, there's a lot of concern about the 

previous DOE reports, so I think -- 

 MR. KENOYER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- to some extent you -- your job 

is to validate, verify against raw records, and 

I wonder to what extent to the site profiles 

take that into account. 

 MR. KENOYER: The first -- the first round of 

site profiles basically took data as we found 

it, and verified it as we could. We realize 

the importance of looking at the validity of 

the data. I mean we can tell if it -- you 

know, comparing it to other site data, whether 

it's out of line or if it's high, if it's low. 

More recently we -- you know, we continue to 

dig deeper as we interface with people on the 

site. Again, remember a comment I made -- 

seems like it was about an hour ago, probably 

only 45 minutes, that sometimes you have to 

make a decision, do you have enough information 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

and is it -- is it good enough. And it might 

be a mix of DOE data. It might -- or -- or it 

could also include just information that we got 

from the site and pulled -- pulled together. 

We have an ongoing activity at Los Alamos. 

We're trying to pull together bioassay data, in 

vivo and in vitro data, where we have been able 

to go back to log books and we're going through 

a V and V of a fairly large percentage of that 

data. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Judson. We 

might want to come back to you a little later. 

The Chair would like to take advantage of the 

fact that Henry Anderson is able to be with us 

for a while this morning. And with the Board's 

permission, we'll proceed to begin some of our 

work session in order to allow Henry the chance 

to participate. 

 MR. KENOYER: Thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So thank you very much. 

(Whereupon, discussion of the Mallinckrodt SEC 

Petition ensued. This is contained in a 

separate volume.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: We -- I think we will move on to 

one other item that we have before lunch, and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

that is update and status of our contractor's 

task orders. Lew, are you prepared to 

summarize that for us this morning? 

STATUS OF SC&A TASK ORDERS AND COSTS

 DR. WADE: Take a deep breath and we'll move on 

to this item now. 

What I'd like to do is address it by going 

through three categories of items. I'd like to 

start by making an overall statement as to my 

views of the contract, its role and its 

performance. I'd then like to talk about the 

status of individual tasks and give you a 

report on that. I'd like to talk about overall 

funding of the contract and give you an 

overview of that. 

And then I'd like to raise two outstanding 

issues that I think I'd like to hear the Board 

comment upon. As we continue building our 

relationship with -- with the contractor, those 

issues are exactly where we draw the line in 

terms of discussions on clarification of fact 

between NIOSH and the contractor. I think it's 

important that we hear from the Board on that. 

And then I'd like to hear from the Board as to 

how they would like us to proceed with the task 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

three report. That's a report that we now have 

in hand. Task three deals with the 

contractor's review of NIOSH procedures. 

So that's the outline of the comments that I 

would like to make for you. 

Let me begin with my general comments, and let 

me start by saying that NIOSH holds as a core 

value the independent and transparent peer 

review of its work. Dr. Melius spoke to that 

very eloquently this morning. 

NIOSH holds that as a -- as a core value, and 

we see this review contract very much 

reinforcing that value. We applaud the 

elements of peer review that the contractor 

brings to NIOSH work, be it in terms of 

individual dose reconstructions or site 

profiles. And I think that's terribly 

important. 

I think if we pause at this moment in time and 

look at what the contract has brought about, I 

think we see many positive additions. I think 

the quality of the work in this area has been 

enhanced by the work of the Board and its 

contractor. I only need to point to some of 

the comments made this morning by the ORAU 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

representative, as well as the very positive 

evolution of the Bethlehem site profile and how 

that's been enhanced by the work of the 

contractor. So I think we can begin to look at 

a positive track record and a significant 

contribution that has been made by the 

contractor. 

Thirdly, I'd like to speak to the flexibility 

and professionalism that has been shown by the 

contractor, particularly John Mauro, and the 

leadership on that contract. I think since our 

last Board meeting particularly they've 

demonstrated the highest levels of flexibility 

and professionalism in the way they go about 

the conduct of their work. And I think that 

behavior reinforces my -- my previous two 

points. I think that behavior has allowed for 

improvements to be made in the conduct of all 

of our work, and I think it goes to this value 

of independent and transparent peer review. So 

I personally thank the contractor for its work 

and I thank the Board for engaging that 

contractor. 

Let me move on to my second point, which is the 

overall status of tasks on the contract. If 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

you remember, there are four. The first task 

deals with site profile review. Based upon 

your recommendations the last time, we have 

moved money into the contract to cover the 

first of those eight reviews. Let me reserve 

the right to speak a little bit more to that in 

a minute when I talk about overall funding. 

But as you know, Bethlehem and Mallinckrodt are 

on our plate right now. The contractor is very 

close to completing its site profile reviews on 

Savannah River and Hanford. Next in the queue 

comes Nevada and INEL, and then last, the two 

that require the Q clearances, are Rocky Flats 

and Y-12. So again, there is money in the 

contract to -- to proceed on eight of those 

site profiles. 

With regard to task two, that is the issue of 

case tracking software, it's a relatively small 

task but the contract is adequately funded with 

an adequate time frame for the contractor not 

only to complete its initial work, but to do 

the follow-up work necessary there. 

With regard to task three, the review of NIOSH 

procedures, we have, I hope, now approved a mod 

to the contract that extends the performance 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

period on that to the end of January. NIOSH 

did and the Board did receive the contractor's 

product on that in mid-January. You have it in 

your possession. It was my decision not to 

include that discussion on this agenda, for 

obvious reasons that there was not time for the 

Board to review it and there were many more 

pressing items, as evidenced by this morning 

and I think this afternoon's discussion. But 

that was my decision. But there is money in 

the contract to -- to complete that task, and 

hopefully we've modified the period of 

performance. 

And then lastly to task four, which is the 

review of the individual dose reconstructions. 

We have money in the contract to cover those 

first 62. Those are the 20, the 20, the 20 and 

the two blinds. There is money in the contract 

to do that. 

Overall, those tasks amount to about $2 

million. Remember, we have a $3 million cap in 

the current cap on the contract. 

What I need to go to immediately, though, after 

saying that is that by the work of this Board 

we have extended not the scope of the contract 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

but the degree of work that falls to the 

contractor in -- in accomplishing each of those 

tasks. It is my considered opinion that we 

will be able to fund the work that we have 

asked the contractor to do on that scope that 

I've just defined -- that is the eight site 

profiles, completion of task two and three and 

the 62 dose reconstructions -- within the $3 

million. I spoke to Dr. Mauro this morning and 

he is prepared, at our next meeting, to be able 

to make a much more complete report to us as to 

the cost that the contractor has legitimately 

incurred in undertaking not an increase in 

scope, but the tasks with more breadth than we 

had originally defined. 

I think you know what I mean. We're asking the 

contractor to go through repeated iterations 

and expanded reviews of new revs of documents. 

All that is within the scope, but it will take 

money. I do believe that there's money in the 

contract to cover all of that. How much of 

that free board between the $2 million and the 

$3 million that will be expended to do that 

remains to be seen. And I, along with you, 

look forward to Dr. Mauro's report at the next 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

meeting as to his finances. 

 Again, though, the contractor has done what we 

have asked, and there is no question that NIOSH 

has instructed the contractor to undertake that 

work and we will certainly pay for that work. 

There was also an ongoing discussion between 

the contractor and the contract officer -- 

that's David Staudt, who you met last time -- 

on the introduction of a project management 

task. Again, I look forward -- hopefully -- to 

a report by -- by Dr. Mauro on that issue when 

the Board next meets. 

So that's my view of -- of the issues of 

overall funding. Again, of the $3 million 

available, I think there is more than enough to 

complete the work that I've identified to you, 

within the new breadth that we've brought to 

the tasks. Again, we'll know just how much 

free board is left after we hear from Dr. Mauro 

at the next meeting. 

Then to the two remaining issues, there are 

many references I could make to the fact that 

the Board has asked the contractor to interact 

with NIOSH on clarifying issues of fact. I 

refer you to the minutes of the last Board 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

meeting when you were discussing the Bethlehem 

site profile and how we would evolve toward the 

continuation of that, and I quote, With no 

further discussion, a motion that the Board 

receives the report as the findings of SC&A and 

asks that both NIOSH and SC&A respond to each 

other's views of the report. 

We have put in motion a discussion that takes 

place between NIOSH and the contractor. In our 

-- in your six-step process that goes to the 

individual dose reconstructions, the second 

point is that SC&A and NIOSH resolve and 

clarify issues in the report where there appear 

to be factual disagreement on the facts of the 

case or cases. 

What we've done is we've caused there to be a 

dialogue. And the way we've responded to this 

-- on the guidance of the Chair and in 

deliberations with the leadership at SC&A -- is 

that if there ever is an interaction between 

NIOSH and the contractor that goes clearly 

beyond clarifying issues of fact, we will try 

and do that at either a working group meeting 

or a subcommittee meeting of the Board, minutes 

and transcript will be taken. If there is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

simply discussion to clarify fact, then we have 

asked Dr. Mauro to provide us -- that is the 

Board -- with minutes of those discussions so 

there will be a record of what was discussed. 

And my question to the Board is, is that the 

way you would like us to proceed? 

Again, on issues clearly of clarification of 

fact, Dr. Mauro will provide minutes of those 

discussions. Anything that goes beyond that, 

we will commit to do that at either a working 

group meeting or a subcommittee meeting of the 

Board. I await your advice on that, either now 

or at a working group session that will -- will 

happen tomorrow. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Does that complete your 

report then, Lew? 

 DR. WADE: I have one more issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't you address that issue 

and then we can have a few minutes to... 

 DR. WADE: The second issue that I bring to the 

Board is the task three report. You have it in 

your possession. I would like some guidance as 

how you would like us to proceed. I don't 

think it would be very difficult to modify the 

six-step process to deal with that report and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

to have that engendered prior to the next Board 

meeting, but I would like to hear from the 

Board on that. And that, sir, concludes my 

report. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. The task three report 

actually was delivered to us a couple of weeks 

ago -- I forget exactly when. Everyone has 

that. That's a deliverable. And the issue 

would be whether or not we should, as a matter 

of course, simply ask that NIOSH have a chance 

to review that and respond, and then see if 

there are factual errors and so on. Should we 

go through the iteration or -- or not, I think 

is the -- in essence the question Lew is 

asking. 

The other issues, with respect to how the 

interactions occur, what Lew has described is 

what is being done, and I think you're looking 

for, in essence, full Board endorsement of that 

process where for straightforward, factual 

checks, that a record be kept by our contractor 

and provided to us. Where the interactions are 

more detailed, such as working out differences 

on those scientific issues, that that be done 

in the form of either a working group or a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

subcommittee meeting, with a transcript record 

being kept and in many cases these would be 

open meetings, as much as possible. That is 

subcommittee format. 

 DR. WADE: Correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So those are --

 DR. WADE: Dr. Melius. 

 DR. ZIEMER: One has to do with the 

interactions, the other with that particular 

document. Dr. Melius, please. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, I don't know where you want 

to start. I've got several comments, but the 

one on task three, I -- I suspect that going 

through the six-step process approv-- I don't 

know if NIOSH has had a chance to look at the 

review -- not that you've had anything else to 

do recently, but I think in general we'd say 

yes, if it's a short meeting, fine. If it --

there -- requires longer discussions, that's 

fine, also, but I think we should -- at least 

in principle -- say let's go ahead and -- and 

do that for task three. And then --

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me hear from other Board 

members on this so we can get a quick 

consensus, then we'll come back to you, Jim. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

96 

 Yes, Leon, then Wanda. 

MR. OWENS: I would like for NIOSH to have an 

opportunity to review the task three report and 

then respond in kind. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So you concur with the process 

that --

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Jim just described. Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Yes, and yes. The working group 

seemed to operate very well in this function 

earlier. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You are essentially endorsing both 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- processes. Okay. And Rich, 

did you have a comment? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, I was in attendance at the 

meeting on January 18th and I thought it went 

real well and I'd like to see it continue to go 

forward. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, so you're speaking in -

- relative to the interactions. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Can we -- can we come to consensus 

on the task three, specifically? Any -- anyone 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

that feels that the task three should be 

handled differently than what's been described 

as to ask NIOSH to review it? I don't think 

the urgency is there as we have on some of 

these other issues, so we'd ask them to do that 

in a timely fashion as they're able, and to 

move forward with it, and then the opportunity 

for the interactions, if necessary, between the 

two. Is that agreeable? There appears to be 

no objections and so we'll take that as the 

consensus of the Board, Lew, on that issue. 

How about the interactions? Wanda has 

confirmed her support of that interaction 

model. Rich has. Leon, would you like to 

speak to that? 

MR. OWENS: In regard to the communications 

between the contractor and I guess the Chair, I 

just had a question in regard to the Board's 

availability of any information that might be 

e-mailed or passed back and forth. I would 

like to -- would like to ensure that -- that 

the Board members have an opportunity to view 

those communications. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? 

 DR. MELIUS: I would both agree with Leon's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

statement now, or request, and also concur with 

this interaction process outlined by Lew. I 

think it's going well. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I agree with Leon's 

request, also, and I support the process. I 

think we should maybe just keep an eye on that 

process, as a Board and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: It may need to be modified, but -- 

yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and modify -- I mean if we 

find that the minutes involve scope further -- 

that we feel was beyond factual -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- checks that might have 

involved the public, you know, but should have 

been on transcript and with our presence, we 

might want to let the contractor know that for 

future endeavors -- 'cause there's a fine line 

there, I think of where -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you. So noted. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? Lew, I think 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

it's fairly clear that the Board is comfortable 

with the process as it's emerged and that we 

encourage that it be continued. 

I'd like to find out -- did Henry just come 

back on line, or --

 MR. PRESLEY: Henry? 

 MS. MUNN: I don't think so. 

 MR. PRESLEY: We've got the line open where if 

he gets a chance he can call in. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Thank you. I wasn't 

sure whether he came on line. We were -- we 

trying to reconnect with him once he gets to 

the airport. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have two other issues if -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead, Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- you want. One is back to this 

issue of the SEC evaluation reviews, and we -- 

we've discussed this before and I don't think 

ever been able to resolve it and part of the 

problem was we had never seen an evaluation. 

Now we have. We have two of them. And I for 

one certainly found that the -- having a review 

of the Mallinckrodt site profile was very 

helpful -- do that and I'm not sure that an 

additional review of the evaluation by SC&A 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

would have added something to that. It may or 

may not have, but I would be concerned going -- 

as we have with the situation with the Iowa 

petition, a situation where we go in where this 

-- we do not have a review of the site profile 

and any input from our contractor. And I would 

ask that we start to take steps to develop a 

proposal -- a new task for -- for SC&A that 

would involve the review of the evaluation 

reports from NIOSH for the -- for the SEC. 

think it's sort of timely because we are going 

to have sort of a scoping review on our -- our 

contract at the -- at the next meeting that if 

we, in parallel to that, could either have a 

workgroup or through our subcommittee develop a 

task and -- for -- for discussion by the Board, 

and then we can make a decision whether we want 

to add a task or not. We've been split on this 

before, but I -- I think if we -- now that 

we've seen some evaluation reports, if we had 

an outline we could make a determination as to 

whether that would be helpful or not. 

 DR. WADE: Right. In the existing contract, 

under (c)(3), contract tasks, item (c), review 

of SEC petitions, it states the contractor 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

shall be available to assist the Advisory Board 

in reviewing SEC petition determinations. The 

contractor may be requested to assist in some 

or all of the SEC petition reviews. 

 New paragraph. The contractor shall review all 

relevant methodologies and/or procedures 

employed by NIOSH, evaluating and processing 

the SEC petition consistent with the statute 

and NIOSH regulations. So I have the language 

there I need if it's the Board's wish to 

initiate a task, and I can do that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. We've not had a specific 

task on this. And of course to date have 

relied on their work on the site profiles as 

the supporting material. 

 DR. MELIUS: But I'm afraid we're going to get 

-- given that -- some of the timing of this, 

we're going to reach a situation, which already 

-- since we already have, that -- where we're 

not going to have a site profile review and be 

confronted with an evaluation petition and an 

evaluation report, and so it's -- there may be 

some way of doing a more focused review that 

would -- might -- might be helpful and useful 

to the process, and I think some people need to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

102 

think in -- about that and work on that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask for other comments on 

that so we can get kind of a sense of the Board 

on this issue. I think it's very important. 

Roy, did you wish to comment on -- 

 DR. DEHART: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Others? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mark. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I would certainly speak in 

support of that. I was going to raise the same 

question, and I've raised it before. Right? I 

think it's clear by the nature of the petition 

that we -- we've got a lot to digest, a lot of 

technical information to digest, and -- and we 

could certainly -- and I agree, it was helpful 

in this case that we had a site profile review 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- but we may not. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Yes, Leon. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I would agree with 

that, too. I think it was very beneficial to 

have the contractor do the review and then 

provide the information. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's certainly clear that the work 

of the contractor's been helpful to us in -- in 

that process. Do we need to take any action at 

this time, or is something -- if we do need to 

take action, can that be put in place fairly 

rapidly on tasking? 

 DR. WADE: Yes, but I would, if it's the 

Board's wish, begin to do the work necessary to 

see that that can happen very quickly. That 

would be to work with the contracting officer 

in developing a task, but I mean I await the 

instruction of the Board on that. 

 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You're making a motion, Robert, 

that we ask Lew to begin work on a potential 

task order --

 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- that might be put in place at 

some later date? We don't need to define it 

now, but perhaps have it ready to act on at 

some point? 

 MR. GRIFFON: As described in section (c)(3) of 

the original task contract, yeah. 

DR. ROESSLER: I second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Is there discussion 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

on that? 

 DR. MELIUS: Perhaps that could be ready for 

the subcommittee meeting that's -- 

 DR. WADE: Indeed yes, it can. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- coming up? 

 DR. ZIEMER: As a preliminary review -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think that falls within 

the scope of the subcommittee, so -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Whatever the subcommittee does, it 

would come back to the Board -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Exactly, but that would give -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- as a recommendation in any 

event, so --

 DR. MELIUS: -- sort of an interim... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Then we can vote on this motion. 

The action before us then is to ask Lew to 

proceed to develop a potential task order that 

would deal with this issue. 

All who favor that motion, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

Opposed? Did Henry come on the line in the 

meantime? Henry, are you there? Okay. We 

don't really need Henry's vote on that 

particular thing since it was pretty clear-cut, 

but --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

Okay. And Jim, did you have an additional 

item? 

 DR. MELIUS: I have one -- one final issue. 

That's the -- I believe our contractor sent us 

a letter dated February 1st regarding continued 

difficulties with access to the information 

necessary for the site profile review for 

Savannah River, and I'd like to get an update -

-

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, very good. I believe --

 DR. MELIUS: -- since this is an ongoing 

problem. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- this is a letter that Joe 

Fitzgerald sent. And Joe, the Board members 

are aware of your letter. I do -- I did -- and 

I know that you are working closely with NIOSH 

to resolve those access issues, and part of the 

problem of course is the DOE itself. DOE, on 

rare occasions, is a problem. However, I -- I 

know that earlier in the meeting a DOE 

representative was here, but I don't know if 

she is still here. But I did have an 

opportunity to raise this issue with her and 

she gave -- this was Dr. Michaels' former 

assistant, actually, and --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

 MR. FITZGERALD: (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think, Joe, you -- you're 

well --

 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and she gave me assurance 

personally that she would do her best to try to 

help resolve these issues. I'm hopeful that we 

don't have to use the method of going through 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services and 

back through the Secretary of Energy and a 

long, delayed process, but that we can, you 

know, get at this issue right where it's 

occurring. So can -- Joe, can you give -- 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, let me -- let me -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- us an update on that? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- comment on that. First, I 

certainly appreciate the work that Stu 

Hinnefeld's been doing trying to track this 

down, but I think part of the problem, and I 

have talked to Kate Kempen*. Now she is --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's the woman who's now I 

think responsible --

 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and she --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- at DOE. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- she took Tom Rollow's place 
1 -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- but she was coming back off 

the Hill on an assignment, so we had a 

transition question at DOE. And for Savannah 

River in particular it's one of these issues 

where you just need all the help you can get. 

So in a sense I think -- I feel reassured that 

Kate is in that position. I've talked to her. 

She's on top of this with Stu. And I think to 

some extent there was a lot of different things 

to parse out that were requested and I think 

we've resolved that issue to our satisfaction, 

but it's been a challenge. And I think this 

sort of points out -- we will have issues at 

certain sites and it is really helpful to have 

DOE also take up the responsibility, and what I 

heard was certainly Kate Kempen's going to 

really handle that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Joe, and please keep us 

apprised. We'll try to do our best to pry 

things loose as we're able to. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: By the way, the context of 

this issue is one where Savannah River, as you 

noted, is drawing near in terms of development 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

of the final report on that to the Board, and a 

concern was having this block of information 

just not accessible. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: So there was a sense of 

urgency to really resolve this issue quickly, 

and I think it's being resolved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. We need to 

recess for lunch. I want to remind the Board 

and others that we have another petition that's 

going to come before us this afternoon, the 

Iowa petition. We'll have an opportunity to 

hear NIOSH's report. We want to hear from the 

petitioners at 1:30, so I want to keep on 

schedule, and that means you're going to have 

to push your lunch and make sure you're back 

here at 1:00. 

 Yes, Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I just wanted to ask one thing 

before lunch. Can we consider a subcommittee 

schedule or -- or agenda? I mean I'm -- I'm 

writing down right now -- this subcommittee 

meeting coming up I could see covering 

Bethlehem Steel, Mallinckrodt, the 20-case 

review final report and task three. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and we have a Board working 

session this afternoon, so -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so I can bring that up? 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah, I think we need to allow 

people time to grab their lunch so we can get -

- get to the petitions on schedule, so let's -- 

let's recess till 1:00 o'clock and then return. 

 (Whereupon a recess was taken from 12:00 p.m. 

to 1:05 p.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: We'll reconvene for our afternoon 

session. 

(Whereupon, discussion of the IAAP SEC Petition 

ensued and is contained in a separate volume.) 

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
 

DR. ZIEMER: As we begin the public comment 

session -–and it's -- it's possible that all 

members of the public were not here during all 

the deliberations in the past three days -- I 

might reiterate what has already occurred, just 

for your benefit. 

Yesterday -- well, the last three days in 

particular the Board has dealt with two 

petitions, two SEC petitions, and I simply 

address those, that in the case of Mallinckrodt 

the Board is recommending SEC status for the -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

110 

the portion of the Mallinckrodt petitioners 

from '42 through '45 and '45 through '48, 

having combined those into one group; and also 

that the Board indicated that it is reserving 

judgment with respect to the workers during the 

'49 to '57 time period, and that it's the 

intent of the Board to make a final 

determination on that cohort at the next 

meeting. 

In the case of the Iowa petition, the Board has 

-- is recommending that the -- the period from 

March '49 to '74 be designated as a part of the 

Special Exposure Cohort; that the portion from 

June '47 through May '48 not be included since 

there was no radiological material on site at 

that time; and that action on the May '48 

through March '49 portion be deferred until 

NIOSH has a chance to complete their analysis 

of that portion. 

So those are the actions that have been taken. 

We have a number of --

 DR. WADE: You have a gentleman who -- he said 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we'll come to you just 

shortly, sir. The official time period for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

public comment is -- is -- was published as 

being from 5:15. I am hope-- I hope I am safe 

in assuming that the public is willing to start 

a little early so that you can go home early, 

and certainly those who are here and available 

to make their comments, we'll be glad to hear 

from them at this time. Sir, you have the 

floor. 

MR. WINDISCH: Okay. My name is Anthony 

Windisch. I testified earlier as a worker at 

Mallinckrodt. Now I testify as a certified 

computing professional and subject matter 

expert. I got my start working with computers 

at Mallinckrodt in 1962. I wrote computer 

programs to process IBM punch cards and produce 

radiation exposure reports. I have analyzed 

this latest report about the 1975 status of 

health records. Throughout the report Mont 

Mason questions the credibility of this 

information, and appeals for uniformity of 

method, format, recording and storage of health 

information. 

I guess I must explain because most of us today 

are used to our personal computers, or even 

laptops, that can do wonderful things. In 1962 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

and the period when these records were 

concocted, IBM punch cards were the only method 

for storing information and producing 

information. This punch card was a column -- 

80-column card that could include 80 bits of 

information. On these cards -- for example, at 

Mallinckrodt we used a plant number of five 

positions. We didn't use a Social Security 

number of nine positions because that would 

have taken up too much information and we would 

not have gotten -- been able to get a name on 

it. Okay? 

This report tells us that every plant had 

different IBM formats. While we at 

Mallinckrodt used 5-position plant number, some 

plants used Social Security number of nine 

positions, that left 71 positions for 

information. Others used even name. And with 

these different formats -- I don't remember 

what the Mallinckrodt format was. I can't tell 

you whether the radiation exposure was in 

column 79 and 80 or in 29 and 30 or how many 

positions identified the radiation. Also with 

-- with plant number, even if you had a name on 

the card with plant number, at Mallinckrodt one 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

of my carpool buddies, Richard McNutt, R. 

McNutt, he died of leukemia some years ago. At 

the same time, his brother Robert McNutt was 

working at Mallinckrodt. Now if that 

information, which is contained in a number of 

boxes of IBM cards, having miscellaneous 

formats, and was considered to be faulty data 

at best in 1975, now 40 years later that mess 

of information has degenerated into a pound or 

a mound of garbage. And there's an old adage 

(sic) from day one with computers, GI/GO -- 

garbage in, garbage out. 

I don't care what NIOS (sic) can do or will do 

with this information, but it's garbage. No 

one today knows how to interpret that 

information. And a computer can't interpret it 

by itself. Believe me, as good as computers 

are, they need a computer analyst and a 

specialist who knows how and when those cards 

were generated back in '75 to be able to 

reconstruct those records, which Mont Mason 

says were questionable at best. 

And I don't know how many people are left from 

that era, and I think it's a shame that NIOS 

(sic) would bring up this report in order to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

stop the petition by our Senator Bond. It's 

ridiculous. This should be a report which says 

hey, guys, we got no other recourse. We got to 

accord cohort status to the whole group. 

Thank you for your attention and my time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Anthony, for that. I'm 

going back here now and picking up a few others 

who may have been overlooked, in case they are 

here. Is Sharon Cordon or Cording -- Corde? 

She -- Denise, I have you still on the list. 

Were you wanting -- were you wanting to address 

the assembly? 

MS. BROCK: Denise Brock, for the record -- and 

I'm still afraid I'm going to cough again 

because of my bronchitis. I just -- I know not 

everybody's here, but I just wanted to again 

thank the Board and everybody for coming to St. 

Louis. I thank you for listening to me and to 

all of my wonderful workers and claimants. 

You've been amazing. I know that you have been 

given a huge task, and I thank Tony for what he 

just said. 

 The only thing I'd like to add to that is we 

don't even know, on those punch cards, if there 

is dose -- dose data. I'm not even sure 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

there's a machine that can read that, so I hope 

that the Board will take that into 

consideration and maybe when there's a closer 

look at that information that I just got that 

it will show just how little it would actually 

help with dose reconstruction. 

 The other thing I might like to say would be to 

obviously Senator Bond and Senator Harkin and 

Grassley and all the staff, thank you to all of 

them, too, for their hard work, and for all of 

the people that have shown up. 

And I know that there were some comments made 

during public comment time during the three 

days that did not seem relevant to Special 

Exposure Cohort. But you have to understand 

that many workers within these areas have been 

at different sites. We have Illinois workers 

that are here. We have people with the new 

legislation that may be affected with residual 

radiation, so I know that there were some 

people here speaking of that. And sometimes 

people are very nervous when they get up and 

talk and don't think to bring that up. So just 

for your own knowledge, some of the people that 

were talking were referencing to those things, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

the residual rad, the possible additional years 

that would cover some of these areas, and I 

hope that that would happen. 

 The other thing I wanted just to state was Dr. 

McKeel had made a comment -- I don't know if it 

was yesterday or the day before, but I thought 

it was -- was eloquent and it's a question that 

I have, plus a statement. NIOSH -- some people 

from NIOSH had came in maybe about a week ago 

or so, very nice, just wonderful guys -- Mark 

Lewis is just great. We had worked for 

probably a couple of weeks or more trying to 

get together site experts for the Weldon Spring 

area, and I think that that's a wonderful thing 

to do prior to a site profile being completed 

because these workers are the absolute wealth 

of information, the ones that are living. And 

I'm just a bit curious why those aren't 

publicized meetings. It seems to be such a 

secret. I have to pick out a few, and maybe 

many people are missed. And the 

subcontractors, the painters, the iron workers, 

the electricians, the truck drivers -- my 

goodness, they were all affected, as well, and 

I think it all needs to be documented 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

professionally so that when NIOSH does do dose 

reconstructions, or ORAU, that they're able to 

take a good close look at what everybody was 

exposed to in their working conditions. And I 

still think the best way to do that is to talk 

to these living workers. And I don't know if 

you can answer why those aren't publicized or 

if there's not professional documentation of 

that if that would not help with these site 

profiles. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Good point, and I 

suspect that it's not the intent to keep them a 

secret, and maybe they've not been publicized 

well. Are these -- are we talking about the -- 

the data capture groups or -- I'm not sure 

which groups those are. Larry, can you 

enlighten us at all or... 

 MR. ELLIOTT: These are worker input meetings, 

worker outreach, and so we target populations. 

We have found in that experience that it's 

better to talk to small groups than to have a 

town hall type meeting. And so our direction 

to those folks have been to identify people 

that can bring information to bear on a site 

profile, and if they need to make multiple 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

trips to do that, they do so. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

MS. BROCK: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

MS. BROCK: I apologize, I had forgotten to 

mention SC&A. Just for the record, I would 

like to mention how spectacular I think they 

were with the workers. They did come in and I 

videotaped -- I know I was told that that 

wasn't really supposed to be done, but some of 

the workers stood up and just basically 

demanded that I videotape that and I was able 

to do that, which is good because it documents 

these workers, because as we all know, they can 

die within days or a week, and so you have that 

on record -- or I do. And SC&A were so 

wonderful with listening to these workers, and 

what we have noticed is that when you get a 

group of workers together like that, they 

trigger each other's memories. And I just 

would like to state that they did a wonderful 

job and we've had wonderful feedback from the 

workers from that meeting, and would like to 

see that continue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- Paul? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mark. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Just a -- a -- an observation and 

maybe -- may be a consideration for NIOSH on 

the worker outreach meetings. I -- I -- was --

had the opportunity to attend a public meeting 

at Chapman Valve in Massachusetts, and it -- it 

was more of a presentation and a town hall 

style meeting. I think the -- the net effect 

of that was that, out of the larger meeting, 

they identified some key workers and people 

that were interested to have that smaller 

meeting. So there may be -- it might be a good 

way to approach it to have an initial outreach 

town hall style meeting and then tar-- you 

know, and that -- 'cause sometimes they'll -- 

they'll identify people you wouldn't have 

thought of as site experts. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Thank you for those 

suggestions. 

Let me check now on some of these others. 

Doyle Reese? Is Doyle still here? George B-hu-e, is it Bhu-e, Bhue? Denise Brown? I think 

these are all Mallinckrodt people. 

 MR. BLUE: (Off microphone) That's Blue. I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

don't want to make a comment now. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Thank you. 

MR. BROWN: Yeah, my name is Dennis Brown -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dennis. 

MR. BROWN: -- and I worked at Mallinckrodt 

Destrehan Street, and in December I received a 

letter from the Department of Health and -- 

Services about my dose reconstruction, and they 

referred to it -- they assumed a hypothetical 

intake. And also it says they used the Fernald 

site to do the dose reconstruction, which I 

totally disagree with. I've never been there 

and there's no way that they could do a dose 

reconstruction for me when I've never been 

there. And also they referred to my job 

classification as a janitor, which I was not. 

I was a operator, chemical operator. And then 

I received another letter January 4 of this 

year and then also another one January 31, 

which was last week, stating that my claim had 

-- they recommended denial of my claim. And 

they want -- they sent a form in for me to sign 

to agree to waive any objections. But my 

question is, why do they use the Fernald site 

to do all of this dose reconstruction? And my 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

father also worked at the Destrehan site. He 

has passed away. And a lot of times he was my 

lead man, you know, on the job. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Neton is -- are you 

approaching the mike or -- I wasn't sure 

whether you were going to answer -- some of the 

NIOSH staff people can answer the specific 

question on your case, I think, and if you get 

together with Dr. Neton he will be able to 

explain that to you. 

MR. BROWN: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. BROWN: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Patty Supinsky? Is 

Patty here? Yes, did you wish to address the 

group? No. Thank you. 

I have learned over the past couple of days 

that a number of people who thought they were 

registering ended up signing the public comment 

sheet and didn't realize it, so I'm not -- I'm 

-- it's not my intent to spring this on people 

and say okay, you're speaking, when they didn't 

intend to -- and also had to -- and it was not 

your intent, either. 

 How about Lee Strother? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

MR. STROTHER: (Off microphone) No comment 

at... 

 DR. ZIEMER: No comment, Lee? Okay. Louise --

Louise? Is this -- this is Louise. Are you --

did you ask to sign up to speak, Louise? 

 MS. MCKEEL: (Off microphone) I guess 

(unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: Use the mike. 

 MS. MCKEEL: (Off microphone) Oh, 

(unintelligible) 

For the record, I'm Louise McKeel. I think 

most people have seen me up there videotaping 

this. I wasn't sure whether to say anything. 

A lot has gone on here. But I -- I do want to 

say a couple of things. I've rarely videotaped 

sessions within the last I guess about six 

years I've been doing these things where 

there's been such uniformity of testimony. 

Almost always there is some few people who get 

up and -- and say no, no, no, this was really a 

basically good thing that was going on and they 

were an exception, everything's wrong, but this 

has been an extremely uniform set of testimony 

of suffering, of death, of hardship, turmoil, 

financial loss. I mean the -- the only things 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

that really happen to human beings that are 

negative, and it's all happened right here. 

But anyway, that's from a camera viewpoint. 

I think I had another couple of things. Well, 

this is going to be fuzzy, but I've listened to 

some fuzzy things here, too. I'm unclear about 

the total amount of damages that are forecast 

in case every claimant was paid. And I guess 

on my scratchings in the car and late at night, 

stuff like that, I came up with a 

$3,000,900,000. But is it a well-known fact 

how much we're talking about here if each 

claimant that's either anticipated or that has 

already made a claim, about how much money 

would that be? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't personally know the answer 

to that. There may be some who are familiar 

with -- the U.S. Treasury has set aside funds, 

the Congress has set aside funds for this. My 

understanding is the fund that is set aside is 

replenish able by Congress. I -- I've not 

personally seen figures on what it would -- 

what it might total. I don't know if any of 

the agencies -- and Mr. Miller is moving toward 

the mike, which suggests he might have a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

figure. 

 MR. MILLER: Subtitle -- subtitle B as in boy, 

which would be the radiation/beryllium side of 

the -- of the claims, Con-- CBO scored it at 

about $1.7 billion dollars over ten years. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That was just that one -- 

 MR. MILLER: That's just for Subtitle B. That 

was just for radiation and beryllium, and 

includes the $50,000 supplement for the RECA 

plus-up that goes from $100,000 to $150,000. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so --

 MR. MILLER: So that was the scoring, and then 

under Subtitle E, which was just recently 

enacted, the estimate was about $1.1 billion, 

which included making RECA mandatory spending. 

About $900 million was for the nuclear workers, 

and then the rest was for RECA, so those -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: It sounds like combined it's over 

$2 billion. Is that correct, Richard, from 

what your understanding, $2.5 billion, in that 

range? 

 MR. MILLER: Yeah, I think about $2.8 billion 

total has been the score for over ten years. 

 MS. MCKEEL: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

 MS. MCKEEL: Well, the humble way that I 

figured it was at $150,000 cap for about 22 -- 

2,600 workers -- 2,600 workers -- no, I'm 

saying that wrong, it's 26,000 workers. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thousand would be --

 MS. MCKEEL: And I'd just kind of like some of 

the people here to -- to understand how that 

number might be derived, just the parameters 

here. A biased remark might be I think that 

might be a bargain, considering some of the 

things that might be coming forth in discovery 

if there's ever any discovery of the 16 (sic) 

boxes and so forth. 

Let me see if I had any other comments. Yeah, 

I guess I've been preoccupied with filing and 

just titling different concepts that we all 

have, and when I talk -- when we hear about the 

dose reconstructions, it's certainly the big 

topic here. A term that I just invented would 

be selective reconstruction. It seems to me 

that that has to do with transparency, and 

probably most of the people on the Board know 

exactly what I'm talking about, but I think 

perhaps some of the visitors might not 

understand that. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

But what -- as a reporter and somebody who's 

trying to sift through the facts here 

independently, I guess it's possible that 

what's in the boxes that haven't been looked at 

yet -- which I'm going to say is incredible to 

me, personally -- there could be -- or maybe I 

can leave this as a question, but you can be 

sure that I'll be personally looking into this. 

Isn't there a possibility that what's in the 

boxes, the reason that it's classified is it 

would pertain to whether so many people were -- 

well, actually I guess whether the United 

States government was vulnerable to paying this 

-- these -- such rewards (sic) as this or not. 

I just leave it at that. 

One other thing, I could say that this is the 

most colossal mistake I've ever seen in losing 

records. I mean how could this not be the most 

egregious way in which to lose records where 

there's been so much death and so forth that's 

come of that. And in that, you'd think that -- 

well, there's not any apology. Everybody kind 

of accepts that oops, you know -- oops, I think 

is what it is. Oops, we lost it. I still 

can't tolerate that across so many different 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

sites, so many different situations, that all 

that data seems to be lost. I can't get over 

that, and that everyone's fairly tolerant of 

that. 

 But let's just say that that was an oops. 

Today there is a separate issue about depleted 

uranium. It's another news story for me, where 

I do believe that accurate records aren't being 

kept today. And I just wonder if we don't 

need, you know, Congressional investigation on 

behalf of the citizens of this country who 

serve in wars and who help with the wartime 

efforts to tell the workers what they're 

getting into. I'll leave it at that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Betty Jackson, is 

Betty here and would she like to address the 

group? Effie Wiley? Let's see, did I call for 

Doyle Reese? Well, Charlotte -- 

 MS. BRADENSTEINER: (Off microphone) 

Bradensteiner. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, if I have the right 

Charlotte. 

 MS. BRADENSTEINER: (Off microphone) Yes, it's 

Bradensteiner. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That is it, that's why I'm having 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

trouble with it. Thank you, Charlotte. 

 MS. BRADENSTEINER: Hi. Thank you guys for 

everything, but I just want to say my husband 

worked at Mallinckrodt Chemical and he died a 

year ago this past January. And I know for a 

fact that he was exposed to something horrible. 

I never will forget right before Mallinckrodt 

closed he came home with a nosebleed that was 

absolutely unbelievable. We took him to three 

different hospitals and they packed him and 

they did everything, and it would not stop that 

nosebleed. But he died of -- he started with 

prostate cancer, and then it went to the 

bladder cancer, and then from bladder it went 

to bone, and from bone it went to everything, 

so he was -- I know that he was definitely -- 

died because of those things. 

Denise, would you like to say something? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

MS. BROCK: I think, for the record, Charlotte 

wanted me to state that her husband had filed 

that claim quite some time before he passed 

away, and just for the record, he was actually 

at dose reconstruction awaiting his dose when 

he gave me a call and found out that he was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

terminal. He was getting ready to go in 

hospice, and asked me to please help his wife 

because he knew he wasn't going to make it, and 

I made that promise to him. 

He called me a few days after that, laughing. 

He sounded really happy and I said oh, my God, 

Charlie, are you feeling that much better? He 

was actually drinking a shake, I remember that. 

And he said yeah, he said I just got the 

funniest letter, and he was so tickled with it, 

and it was a letter from the Department of 

Labor stating that he had checked the wrong box 

on his original claim form, and he just got the 

biggest kick out of that. He said I marked 

uranium instead of DOE, and said you know, I'm 

never going to see this and can you do 

something. And I called the Department of 

Labor and they were amazing, they were 

absolutely wonderful. Told me to type the 

letter and have Charlie sign it, so I -- I did. 

I typed the letter. 

I then called Richard Toohey, who was just 

amazing, and he said oh, Denise, yes, 

absolutely I will push that phone interview up 

for you -- because it had been sitting there 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

for quite some time. And on a Tuesday, right 

after I typed it, I took the letter to Charlie. 

We were able to get his signature, but he was 

in very bad shape. I kissed him goodbye. The 

next day I believe it was he had gotten a call 

for his phone interview. By that time he had 

slipped into a coma. Fifteen minutes later, 

after they called for his phone interview, 

Charlie passed away. And I hope this doesn't 

embarrass you, but since that time Charlotte 

has lost her house. This goes on and on and 

on. And just for the record, I don't care 

what's in boxes. This has gone on long enough 

because this is what happens. 

 MS. BRADENSTEINER: (Off microphone) Thank you. 

Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for sharing with us. 

Also -- I do have one item I need to read into 

the record. This was from Ed Walker. Ed was -

- Ed was here the first two days of the 

meeting. He drove here from Buffalo. He's one 

of the Bethlehem Steel people. He -- he had 

wanted to speak last night, but he sort of 

waived that speaking part so that the local 

folks could speak, but he left this note. I'll 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

read his note. 

It says (reading) From the Bethlehem Steel 

Group, we want to rebut page 5, the last 

paragraph. 

This is of the NIOSH document on Bethlehem 

Steel, and I've already -- I'll pass this along 

to Jim Neton. 

(Reading) We believe it was taken out of 

context. We will e-mail the rebuttal formally, 

but we do want it to be on the record today. 

And that's from Ed Walker from Bethlehem Steel, 

and Jim Neton, we'll pass this on to you. 

Don Lambkin, is Don still here? Marilyn 

Schneider? Charles Yakos or Barbara Smiddy? 

 MS. SMIDDY: (Off microphone) Present. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Barbara. 

 MS. SMIDDY: (Off microphone) Yes, sir. When I 

came in this afternoon I told the young lady I 

had an envelope for NIOSH and one for -- 

addressed to -- well, I guess I should give it 

to the Chair -- to ABRWH, Advisory Board of 

Radioactive and Worker Health. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Sure, we'll take those. 

 MS. SMIDDY: (Off microphone) It's nice to see 

you again. I was here in October of 2003 and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

you listened to my story. 

 (On microphone) My father, Albert R. Smiddy -- 

I don't belong to Mallinckrodt. He didn't 

belong to Mallinckrodt, but he worked at Weldon 

Springs from 1943 to '47. He actually worked 

there before I was born. 

And he went from making $10 a week and driving 

from Merrimac and Dewey in south St. Lewis to 

$100 a week during the second World War. 

Well, the notice came on television -- I'm 

going to make it short because most of it is in 

that envelope that I gave you. The notice came 

on television. I'm sitting there having a cup 

of coffee. I'm retired from Monsanto. I spent 

31 years as a number cruncher for a chemical 

company and God blessed me. When I lost my dad 

at 20, Monsanto picked me up. And I'm sitting 

there having a cup of coffee and the news said 

there are only 12 survivors showed up at the 

Adam’s Mark in July of 2001, 12 survivors from 

Weldon Springs. I thought well, I guess so. 

My dad was born in 1908. The year 2001 they'd 

be 93. If they're alive they'd be non compos 

mentis, more than likely. 

Okay. So they gave a telephone number and I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

called it, and I get this guy on the phone and 

he says how did you get this number? And I 

said it was on the TV. So that proceeded me 

along this very, very crooked, windey road that 

started in September of 2001 with the EEOIC 

until I guess October of 2003 when you all were 

here. It took that long for me to find out, 

through all of my communications, that it did 

not include the folks at Weldon Springs, the 

Army ammunition DNT, TNT, small arms people, 

that Mr. Gephart* -- excuse me, Senator Gephart 

set in action, and I want to go on Federal 

record right now that he did not include -- it 

was strictly all Mallinckrodt people. That --

what looks like a concentration camp out there, 

I've got copies and pictures of what that place 

looked like in the '40's -- was not included in 

Senator Gephart's legislation of 2000/2001. 

It's strictly Mallinckrodt. 

Now over my -- over my little journey -- until 

last spring I attended one of Denise's -- she's 

included me in the mailing, and I attended one 

of her meetings out in St. Charles, and the 

young lady from Mr. Talent's office was there, 

and they had various representatives from Kit 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

Bond's office, and I truly expected -- my 

nickname's Blabbara. I truly expected to get 

up and say something, but Denise asked me to 

join the table at the end of the meetings, and 

actually two people came up to me that worked 

out there the same time my father worked out 

there. 

And my father died in '65. I graduated from 

high school in '62 -- '65. He worked from '43 

to '47. In '57 he came up with a lesion on his 

shoulder that was cancerous. And I listened to 

a lady earlier -- she's gone, the one that had 

the sister that died so young with the two 

babies. Back in the '60's we were not so -- 

what is the word I'm searching for -- 

sophisticated in record-keeping. Being a 

number cruncher for 31 years, I can appreciate 

that gentleman talking about the keypunch 

because I went to school in Grand and Lyndale* 

and keypunched records at night school when I 

first got my job at Monsanto. 

I guess my biggest thing right now, I know I 

don't belong here. I have letters. I've sent 

e-mails to the President. I've received 

correspondence back. His personal 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

representative has told me to address the 

Department of Defense. Well, I sent this 

package to a Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Ray. 

He's a very gracious person. I sat -- Xeroxed 

everything I had, practically, in May of last 

year. Within three weeks -- he is the adjutant 

of litigation for the Department of the Army. 

Well, he bounced the ball back to me, and in 

your package there's a copy of his letter 

stating that if I -- basically I need to get 

these officials to go to bat for us. 

Now I find that I'm a little perplexed, because 

you've got the Iowa Ammunition -- unless it's 

their Senator or their political people that 

are going to bat for them. I don't have that, 

and I don't feel like I even got that with 

Senator Gephart, definitely. And I can't -- I 

don't think I can expect it from Kit Bond 

'cause I think his plate's a little full, 

although I'd like to put just another piece on 

his plate. 

 Last December I had gotten ahold -- well, when 

I was here in October of '003, you had another 

gentleman here, white-haired -- not you, 

another gentleman, and when I told him about 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

this -- my dad's story about going out to 

Weldon Springs, driving 50 miles one way -- you 

know, 50 years ago, the roads -- we didn't have 

Highway 70 and we didn't have 270 or 40 -- we 

might have had 40. I said I thought those 

people really deserved -- and their survivors -

- to be reimbursed. I lost my dad when I was 

20, and I'm 60 now. I started this crusade in 

what, in 2001. I even marked on one of these 

that you've got in that envelope, if I don't 

get it by the time I hit my box, it's going to 

the -- it's going to the Humane Society, 'cause 

that's about the truest friend you've actually 

got. Okay? 

 Well, this gentleman -- he looked at me and he 

says well, you know, the people from the '40's, 

they didn't handle the hot stuff. And if he 

was here today, I was going to tell him hey, 

tune me out, because I've had a lot of fun with 

this story. He said they didn't handle the hot 

stuff that the people from the '50's and the 

Mallinckrodt people, the nuclear people, 

handled. And I looked at that gentleman and I 

said you know what, do you remember Hiroshima? 

He had as much gray hair as I do, and I figured 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

he's working with the same history book that I 

worked with. So there's --

This Lieutenant Colonel Ray in his letter 

intimated to get my political push behind me. 

Okay? Well, I'm pushing. And I want to know 

who I can push, because you guys have done a 

great job. I've watched you. What I couldn't 

cover, my family -- my brother, the only person 

I've got left -- and my -- whoever knows that 

I've been spending 10 and 12-hour days working 

with him since I retired from Monsanto. They 

know what my quest is. They've been keeping me 

abreast of the articles and the great things 

you're doing for the Mallinckrodt people. 

But you know, I'd invested almost three years 

to find out hey, you've got to keep your nose 

pressed against the glass, and I don't like 

that. Because these people from the '40's, 

those are the silent warriors. Those are the 

folks that helped keep our -- you know, our 

freedom, just like you all did. And it's great 

that they have you to fight for them. Right 

now, I'm a lioness roaring by herself. Okay? 

And thank you for helping them. Okay? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Well, Tom Horgan is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

still here from Senator -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, from the Senator's staff and 

Tom, pleased to hear from you again. 

 MR. HORGAN: First of all, I just want to say 

it's been a long three days and -- it's been a 

long three days and I want to say a special 

thanks to the Advisory Board, every member. 

You sat through long hours of technical 

presentations, testimony, heart-wrenching 

stories and have laid a lot of complex issues 

at you and you deserve a good round of 

applause. And all I can say is, you know, this 

is not their full-time jobs, you know. They 

have to do this and it takes a lot of time and 

effort and you deserve to be commended. And I 

also want to say on behalf of Senator Bond, I 

wholeheartedly thank you for recognizing the 

plight of the older Mallinckrodt workers who 

worked from '42 to '48. And by including them 

in the special cohort you have brought longawaited justice to some patriotic Cold Warriors 

who made heroic and costly sacrifices in 

helping keep America safe, and I think you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

deserve to be commended for that and I know 

that a lot of these claimants are grateful. 

Now we still have the issue surrounding '49 to 

'57. Senator Bond's wishes on that are -- or 

certainly he believes everybody should be 

included, and when we get this handle on the 

new information in the boxes and the new letter 

that appears to actually to, you know, maybe 

strengthen the case for a cohort, but I'll 

leave that to the experts. But I just want to 

say thanks so much for coming into St. Louis 

and taking time. And I also want to say thanks 

to NIOSH, particularly Dr. Howard, Director of 

NIOSH, and Diane, Deputy Director, for coming 

in and watching this process carefully and make 

-- you know, trying to provide input into how 

to best proceed with these tough issues. Thank 

Lew Wade, the Designated Federal Official and 

Anstice Brand from Congressional Affairs. I 

hope you all have a safe trip back and -- and 

God bless you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Tom, for those kind 

words. 

 I actually have a couple more names here I want 

to make sure I haven't overlooked. Jane Stoyer 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

-- looks like S-t-o-n-- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) It's Stalker. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) But I don't 

have any questions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Jane. How about 

Brian Hill? Brian Hill -- Brian, please. 

 MR. HILL: My name's Brian Hill and I'm from 

Burlington, Iowa and I'm here on behalf of my 

mother, who wasn't able to attend. Our father 

worked at the Iowa Ordnance Plant from 1967 to 

1969 as an electrician, and his dosage 

reconstruction was denied. This will maybe 

give Mom hope for something in the future. He 

passed away of leukemia in April of 2003, and 

we're -- we thank you for your action you've 

taken today and look forward to see what 

happens in the future. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Gina Carlson? 

Gina still here? Okay. As I look back over 

the list I'm seeing Dr. McKeel's name. Did I 

overlook you, sir? Yes. 

 DR. MCKEEL: I'll try to make it brief, but I 

did have a couple of comments to make about the 

Mallinckrodt petition. I have had a chance to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

look over this letter that we got today and I 

do have a comment, which is that I hope that in 

your assessment of this letter, the very first 

thing you'll do is to verify that it's actually 

from and written by Mont Mason. 

And I'd just like to point out for the record, 

it is not signed by Mont Mason. It's signed 

for him. And the way I look at it, there is 

typing. It's clearly quite different from the 

date at the end of the letter, which is in 

darker type and said 9/2/75, and it looks to me 

like that date was added sometime -- at a 

different time, let's put it that way. 

I actually got a chance to talk to Dr. Mancuso 

before he died, about a year before that, and I 

do know more about his story, and I do know the 

events surrounding his 1972 letter that was 

used in the petition. And I know that he took, 

in addition to that, some extraordinary steps 

to protect the Mallinckrodt data because he was 

afraid that it not only would be destroyed by 

the Department of Energy, but he was worried 

about that data. So I think it's a precious 

commodity and it needs to be interpreted 

correctly. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

I do agree with Tom Horgan. I think this -- 

and previous commenters. I think this letter 

actually supports and should enhance your 

doubts about the credibility of that data, just 

from a scientific computing point of view that 

it was hard to match up names with Social 

Security numbers and so forth. So even if 

there's data right now in NIOSH, there needs to 

be some serious validity checking of that data. 

The other thing I'd like to comment on is -- 

you know, everybody has apologized from NIOSH 

about the boxes of data and about Rev. 1 not 

being ready, but I guess from my point of view, 

Rev. 00 was ready in October of 2003. It's 

been 15 months to work on that document. It is 

very clear that at the January the 18th meeting 

everybody there was quite concerned about what 

was in those boxes and about Rev. 1. And Janet 

Westbrook, who's the lady who wrote the site 

profile for Weldon Spring, or a lot of it, she 

was very concerned about what was in those 

boxes. And she asked, with some urgency, to 

please let her know what was in those boxes. 

 And it's absolutely appalling to me, given the 

knowledge that this was the first SEC that you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

all would have to make a decision about -- 

tough job, but this was a precedent-setting 

SEC. It seems amazing to me that in the time 

between that January 18th meeting -- and the 

boxes were known about before that -- and in 

the two months since NIOSH got this letter, and 

then the imperative to have Rev. 1 ready by the 

time of this meeting, it just seems to me that 

everybody's been done a mis-service (sic) by 

not having those documents here ready -- and 

done you, the Board, a disservice. 

Now it has to be postponed. There could be no 

action taken until late April on the '49 to '57 

cohort, and the same thing repeated again for 

the Iowa application. One part of that, the 

evaluation of class two, wasn't even ready. 

So I don't know, I would say in the future one 

of the Board's decisions to consider might be 

that every document -- and in thinking about 

what Wanda Munn had to say, maybe it'd be 

better to just insist that you have a complete 

set of documentation upon which to make a 

decision. And just like any dataset in any 

research study, there's got to be a point where 

you say this is it; we're going to make a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

144 

decision. And I think that everybody, all 

interests, would be better served. I think 

that Denise Brock and the petitioners were not 

well served by this process. I think they were 

at a decided, distinct disadvantage in this -- 

in this process. 

So I'm extremely happy about the Board's 

decision about the earlier workers, very happy 

about the Iowa decision, not very happy about 

having it put off again for several months 

when, with some increased sense of urgency, 

those documents should have either been here 

today ready to be considered -- or yesterday -- 

or this petition should have been considered at 

the next Board meeting when everything was 

ready. Just my comment. 

So I thank y'all a lot for your hard work. 

Nobody gets paid very much for this, and we all 

appreciate what you've done. Thanks. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. This now concludes our 

public comment period. I do thank all of you, 

particularly those who stayed throughout the 

sessions and perhaps who have a final -- 

 MR. MILLER: I don't -- I don't want the final 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

 DR. ZIEMER: Richard, you always -- do you want 

to have the last word? 

 MR. MILLER: No, I don't want the last word. 

Dr. Ziemer, I just wanted to ask if it would be 

possible to get on the record, since this has 

been an 18-month standing issue, has there been 

any resolution to the question of whether radon 

dose and what kind of radon dose will be 

counted in Blockson Chemical? In other words, 

has that whole Blockson Chemical policy ever 

been resolved? And if there's anyone from 

NIOSH that can answer that, if not -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: My understanding, it's still 

ongoing and -- maybe Jim Neton will give you a 

partial answer at the moment. 

DR. NETON: I can give a partial answer, at 

least. The radon dose issue has been resolved 

and we are working on a model to include radon 

dose from the radium that was present in the 

facility from the manufacture of uranium from 

the phosphate ore. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Again, thank 

you, everyone, for participating in the 

session. I now declare the meeting adjourned. 

Good night. Drive safely. 
1 

2 

3 

146 

 (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.) 
147 

C E R T I F I C A T E OF COURT REPORTER
 

STATE OF GEORGIA
 

COUNTY OF FULTON
 

I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court
 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the
 

above and foregoing on the day of February 9,
 

2005; and it is a true and accurate transcript
 

of the testimony captioned herein.
 

I further certify that I am neither kin
 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor
 

have any interest in the cause named herein.
 

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the
 

2nd day of March, 2005.
 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER";; 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-210'