This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

94th MEETING

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 16, 2013

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 8:30 

a.m., Mountain Daylight Time, in the 

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Denver -

Westminster, 8773 Yates Drive, Westminster, 

Colorado, James M. Melius, Chairman, 

presiding.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*

MARK GRIFFON, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member*

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

ADKINS, NILA

BARRIE, TERRIE

BOHAN, DENNIS

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

CARROLL, STEPHANIE

DOBROVOLNY, MICHELLE

DONGARRA, TOMMY

FOLKENROTH, MONTE

FROWISS, AL*

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

HANSON, DOUG

HARDEN, JERRY

HARVILL, ROBERT

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH

JERISON, DEB

KROL, JOHN

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

McKEEL, DAN*

MONTEZ, PETER

NESHEIM, JANET

NETON, JIM, DCAS

PADILLA, JUDY

REIS, LAURA SCHULTZ

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, NIOSH

SCHREINER, DAVID

VLIEGER, FAYE

VOWELLS, VERONICA

WEAVER, JACK

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

Call to Order and Welcome 9

 James M. Melius 9, 11

 Chairman

 Ted Katz 9

 Designated Federal Official

NIOSH Program Update 12

 Stuart Hinnefeld

 NIOSH

 Questions and Answers 42

Sufficient Accuracy/Coworker 54

Dose Modeling

 James M. Melius 54, 60, 75

 Chairman

 and

 SEC Work Group Chair

 James Neton 57, 72

 NIOSH

 Questions and Comments 77

Sandia National Laboratory - Livermore 100

(Livermore, CA), SEC Petition (83.14)

(PV)

 Sam Glover 100

 NIOSH

 Petitioner (Not Participating)

 Questions and Comments 117

 Vote to Accept 126
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

SEC Petitions Status Update 132

 LaVon Rutherford

 NIOSH

 Questions and Comments 136

Board Work Session 142

 July Public Comments 143

 Meeting Dates 147

 Work Group Reports 156

 Dose Reconstruction Review 156

 David Kotelchuck

 Procedures 159

 Wanda Munn

 Santa Susana 161

 Phillip Schofield

 Brookhaven 162

 Josie Beach

 Fernald 162

 Brad Clawson

 Hanford 162

 James Melius

 Idaho 165

 Phillip Schofield

 Gaseous Diffusion 167

 Phillip Schofield
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED) 6

Board Work Session (Continued)

 Work Group Reports (Continued)

 Lawrence Berkeley 169

 Paul Ziemer

 LANL 170

 Mark Griffon

 Nevada Test Site 172

 Brad Clawson

 Oak Ridge 173

 Genevieve Roessler

 Pantex 175

 Brad Clawson

 Pinellas 175

 Phil Schofield

 Sandia 177

 Richard Lemen

 Savannah River 177

 Mark Griffon

 Scientific Issues 180

 David Richardson

 TBD 6000 184

 Paul Ziemer

 6001 186

 Henry Anderson

 Weldon Spring 186, 190

 Richard Lemen
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Board Work Session (Continued)

 Work Group Reports (Continued)

 Worker Outreach 187

 Josie Beach

 Mound 188

 Josie Beach

Rocky Flats Plant SEC Petition 192

Evaluation (PV)

 LaVon Rutherford 194

 NIOSH

 Questions and Comments 236

 Mark Griffon 240

 Work Group Chair

 Terrie Barrie 245

 Petitioner

 Questions and Comments 251

 Letter from the Colorado 251

 Congressional Delegation

 Ted Katz

 Board Deliberation 254

 Motion 255

 Questions and Comments 258

 Vote to Accept 254
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Public Comment 262

 Instructions for Public Comment 262

 Period

 Ted Katz

 Charles Padilla 263

 (Read into the record by

 Ted Katz)

 Judy Padilla 270

 John Krol 271

 Nila Adkins 275

 Peter Montez 281

 Jerry Harden 287

 Jack Weaver 289

 Laura Schultz Reis 293

 Faye Vlieger 296

 Deb Jerison 304

 Stephanie Carroll 309

 Dan McKeel 316

 Al Frowiss 325
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 8:30 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning, 

4 everybody. Welcome to the 94th meeting of 

5 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

6 Health. We are in Westminster, Colorado.

7 And I will let Ted do the 

8 preliminaries.

9 MR. KATZ: All right. Thank you.

10 Welcome, everybody. Welcome to 

11 whoever might be here from Rocky Flats site, 

12 too, and on the line from the public.

13 The agenda for the meeting and 

14 all the materials for the meeting's 

15 presentations are both on the back table in 

16 the room. And for those of you on the phone,

17 they are on the NIOSH website under the DCAS 

18 portion of the NIOSH website, under the 

19 Board, under today's meeting. So, all of 

20 those materials will be listed there.

21 Also, the presentations will be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11 1 webcast by LiveMeeting, and the LiveMeeting 

2 link is on the agenda. So, you can follow 

3 along as people present.

4 There is a public comment session 

5 today. One public comment session for this 

6 meeting is today from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. We 

7 will take people in the room first and then 

8 on the line.

9 And let me ask everyone who is on 

10 the line to please mute your phone, so that 

11 we don't have that messing up the audio for 

12 the other people listening on the phone as 

13 well as in the room. And if you don't have a

14 mute button, press *6 to mute your phone and 

15 *6 again to take your phone off of mute. 

16 But, please, everybody who is listening 

17 should mute their phone.

18 Okay, then, let's just do the 

19 roll call.

20 A couple of things to say to 

21 Board Members. As far as your microphones, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12 1 please speak into your microphones. We will 

2 check with the other Board Members to see 

3 that they can hear well. Your microphones 

4 are all on unless you hold down the button, 

5 and you have to hold it down the whole time 

6 to keep it muted; otherwise, it is on. So, 

7 all your microphones are live unless you're 

8 holding down the button.

9 Roll call, let's just go 

10 alphabetically. I'll address conflict of 

11 interest. We only have one session here with

12 any conflict of interest anyway.

13 (Roll call.)

14 It's a full slate. We're doing 

15 well.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Just 

17 ahead of time, planning a little bit of 

18 scheduling here, as you may notice and may 

19 already know, Department of Energy and 

20 Department of Labor representatives are not 

21 here to present today because of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13 1 government shutdown. So, we will not be 

2 hearing from them today.

3 So, my plan was to first do the 

4 NIOSH program update, then do the sufficient 

5 accuracy coworker session. Then, we will 

6 probably take a break until 11:00, when the 

7 Sandia presentation starts, because we may 

8 have a petitioner on the line for that. We 

9 need to stick to the schedule on that.

10 So, is that satisfactory with 

11 everybody? Okay. Good.

12 Okay. So, we will start with the 

13 NIOSH program update, Stu Hinnefeld.

14 Good morning, Stu.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Good morning, Dr. 

16 Melius and thank you. I'm trying to stall, 

17 take as much time as possible. We have a 

18 little time available on the agenda.

19 Since we are projecting the 

20 slides on LiveMeeting, that will help out a 

21 little bit with that because LiveMeeting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14 1 isn't as responsive as just showing the 

2 slides from the computer.

3 So, thanks, everybody, for 

4 coming. I am going to say that Ted and I 

5 were rather pleasantly surprised when we got 

6 the okay to have the meeting earlier this 

7 week. I think it reflects, first of all, 

8 Ted's ability to explain the importance of 

9 the meeting in our request to have the 

10 meeting up the chain and recognition of the 

11 importance of the work of the Committee and 

12 the things that we want to accomplish while 

13 we are here this week.

14 And as I said, LiveMeeting will 

15 help us out, speeding things up -- or slowing

16 things down.

17 Okay. I usually start with a 

18 little program news on the presentation. I 

19 put on impacts from the budget and funding 

20 situation because I thought people might be 

21 interested. Maybe I overestimate people's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15 1 interest in this because of my particular 

2 situation as a federal employee, but I 

3 thought people might be interested in how the

4 current budget and funding, the government 

5 shutdown or partial government shutdown 

6 situation is affecting us, and even why can 

7 we be here.

8 The reason we can be here is 

9 that, unlike much of the government, the 

10 money for the EEOICPA program for us is 

11 awarded, is appropriated until expended, 

12 which means it does not have to be spent in 

13 the fiscal year for which it is appropriated.

14 Much of the government is funded by an 

15 annual appropriation, which means the 

16 appropriation is for fiscal year 2013 and it 

17 must be spent in 2013. So, programs that are

18 funded by an annual appropriation, the second

19 category, have no appropriation and have no 

20 money for the period of time we are in. 

21 Since NIOSH's -- the EEOICPA money is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16 1 appropriated until expended, if we don't 

2 spend all of our money in a fiscal year, it 

3 is available to us in the days after the end 

4 of that fiscal year.

5 And that is what we are doing. 

6 We are operating on what we call carryover 

7 money from the previous fiscal year. And 

8 that allows the DCAS Division to continue to 

9 operate as it has and it allows us to have 

10 this meeting. So, that it is the situation 

11 that it is in. We really try not to have 

12 carryover money at the end of the year. We 

13 try to use our money as quickly as we can. 

14 This year there were some administrative 

15 issues, partly associated with the 

16 sequestration law, partly some other things, 

17 that prevented us from spending as much as we

18 wanted. And so, we had enough carryover 

19 money to keep us going this far, and for a 

20 little bit longer yet. So, that is why we 

21 happen to be here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17 1 You will notice, though, some 

2 effects of the government shutdown on the 

3 meeting. As Dr. Melius alluded to, our 

4 Department of Energy and Department of Labor 

5 counterparts are not here. Our Office of 

6 General Counsel is not here. Our Office of 

7 General Counsel, just like much of CDC and a 

8 very large percentage of NIOSH, has been 

9 furloughed. And so, they are not available 

10 to provide legal advice to us or to travel to

11 the meeting.

12 The categories of employees under 

13 this furlough situation are exempted 

14 employees. That applies to us, DCAS. Yes, 

15 it is employees who have a source of funding 

16 that can keep their program going. There are

17 furloughed employees, which is applied to --

18 by my estimate, about 80 percent of NIOSH has

19 been furloughed. That means those people are

20 sent home and are not receiving paychecks.

21 And then, there is a category of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18 1 employees called excepted, which are 

2 employees for whom there is no money, but 

3 their work is essential to keep things going;

4 first of all, to shut things down in an 

5 orderly fashion, and then, to start things up

6 when things start back up. Those people are 

7 called excepted, and they are working without

8 pay.

9 And in NIOSH, there is also a 

10 category of individuals who are commissioned 

11 officers in the Public Health Service, and 

12 they are also working ostensibly without pay,

13 but they get paid on a monthly basis. So, 

14 they haven't missed a paycheck yet. The 

15 furloughed and excepted people have had an 

16 abbreviated paycheck and are moving toward 

17 missing an entire paycheck because the second

18 pay period ends this Friday.

19 So, that is the grand scheme of 

20 the situation and how things are affected. 

21 Let's see if I have covered everything I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19 1 wanted to cover.

2 A couple of other impacts, you 

3 know, on our program because of this: while 

4 we do have some funds, some carryover funds, 

5 we are holding onto those to the extent we 

6 can. And so, other than this trip, we have 

7 cancelled all of our travel for the next 

8 couple of weeks or up through now. We had a 

9 trip planned this week where a federal 

10 employee was going to accompany our 

11 contractor to the Kansas City plant. We 

12 cancelled the federal employee out of that, 

13 although our contractor has a little more 

14 leeway to spend the money. They know how 

15 much money they have, and they had planned to

16 do that work.

17 And we had planned a data-capture 

18 and plant tour at Sandia National Lab for 

19 next week that was strictly federal 

20 employees, including, I believe, a Board 

21 Member. And that has been cancelled also. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20 1 Those cancellations were due to our funding 

2 situation and the fact that none of our FY13 

3 funding that we have carried over was 

4 allocated to those trips.

5 So, that's the effect of our 

6 budget cuts. Now there appears that there 

7 could very well be some effect on our 

8 operations by the restriction and the partial

9 shutdown of our counterpart agencies, the 

10 Department of Labor and the Department of 

11 Energy.

12 The Department of Labor, I'm not 

13 real clear what their status is. We know 

14 that our counterparts are working. I am not 

15 sure if they are exempt, if they have a 

16 source of funding, or if they are excepted 

17 and are working without pay. They have been 

18 instructed to only work on certain types of 

19 their responsibilities. And we know that 

20 they can move claims forward, but I think 

21 they are very limited on doing other kinds of
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21 1 activities. And so, they weren't permitted 

2 to come here.

3 It has been a little difficult to 

4 find out exactly what is going on on their 

5 side because, when I called and asked, I got 

6 a phone message that says, "Leave a message,"

7 you know, "We can work on some things, but 

8 not others. Leave a message, and if it's one

9 of the things we can work on, I'll call you 

10 back." And they didn't call me back. So, I 

11 don't know what the situation exactly is at 

12 the Department of Labor. That was Jeff 

13 Kotsch's phone that I called.

14 The Department of Labor, they 

15 will speak to me -- or the Department of 

16 Energy, I mean, will speak to me. They are 

17 actually not entirely clear on what their 

18 situation. They have heard varying dates on 

19 how long their carryover money will last. 

20 They are working on carryover money. They 

21 know that. I am talking about my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22 1 counterparts.

2 They have heard varying accounts 

3 of how long the carryover will last, and they

4 were rather surprised last week when one of 

5 the programs working in headquarters received

6 furlough notices, when kind of the word --

7 there seems to be this unofficial word going 

8 around the building -- was that everybody was

9 okay for longer than that. So, they don't 

10 know exactly what their fate is going 

11 forward, but they are working on carryover 

12 money.

13 And the operation is going to 

14 affect a number of the sites, apparently, 

15 very soon, where we go and try to gather 

16 information from. Again, my counterparts in 

17 the Department of Energy had really no 

18 particular intel on each site, on how sites 

19 were being affected. I asked them about 

20 press accounts that we have seen about 

21 various sites being affected this week and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23 1 next, and they said, "Well, those dates 

2 probably came from the Press Office." That 

3 is the DOE Press Office. So, they are 

4 probably good. But my counterparts didn't 

5 have any additional information on that.

6 There was a press account 

7 yesterday that said some furlough notices 

8 would start going, could start going to 

9 Hanford employees today, and then, the 

10 effective date I believe I have from Hanford 

11 from an earlier press account was, I think, 

12 either Friday or Monday; they would have to 

13 be shut down by that date.

14 Y-12, the press account I saw was 

15 from nature.com. It was the science blog of 

16 nature.com. Y-12's date was October 17th. 

17 Los Alamos was October 18th; Sandia, the 

18 21st; Hanford, the 21st, and Oak Ridge 

19 National Lab was in a little better shape. 

20 They could go into November, some unspecified

21 date in November.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24 1 These sites now, Savannah River 

2 was not mentioned in any of the press 

3 accounts. But, through our contacts with 

4 Savannah River, our understanding is that 

5 they are actually being affected this week, 

6 that they are curtailing operations, 

7 curtailing their EEOICPA operations to only 

8 responding to claim, you know, exposure 

9 history requests and verification for the 

10 Department of Labor, you know, the 

11 verification of the information they supply 

12 to the Department of Labor. So, they are not

13 supporting our work.

14 And because of that and the 

15 withdrawal from or reducing that level, I 

16 believe those activities will probably stop 

17 if things aren't settled here in the next day

18 or so.

19 But, because they have withdrawn 

20 to only dealing with claims, Savannah River 

21 has cancelled a planned data-capture trip 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25 1 down there for the week of November 4th.

2 So, it is affecting how we can 

3 accomplish things and how quickly we can 

4 accomplish things. And so, we are working 

5 with the terms of the shutdown as best we 

6 can, and we will continue to do that as we go

7 forward.

8 Okay. I can try to answer any 

9 questions if anybody has any, but I don't 

10 know just a whole lot more than what I just 

11 said.

12 Okay. I always comment on 

13 personnel actions when I am here. I think I 

14 may have mentioned this last time, and I know

15 I mentioned it on the phone call. I was 

16 going to introduce DeKeely Hartsfield to 

17 everybody here. DeKeely Hartsfield is an 

18 employee of NIOSH who is a lawyer, has not 

19 been working in the Office of General 

20 Counsel, but has been detailed to the Office 

21 of General Counsel for the coming year 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26 1 because Jenny Lin, our normal counsel, has 

2 been detailed to an active-duty assignment. 

3 She is in the Air Force Reserve. She has 

4 been detailed to an active-duty assignment 

5 that was supposed to start October 9th.

6 Now Jenny was furloughed by OGC 

7 before October 9th, and I have not heard from

8 Jenny to know whether she actually started 

9 her active-duty tour on the 9th or not.

10 So, at any rate, DeKeely is going 

11 to serve in Jenny's role. DeKeely, though, 

12 has to work under the supervision of a senior

13 attorney in the Office of General Counsel for

14 the time being, since she has not been in the

15 Office of General Counsel until just the last

16 couple of weeks. So, she has to work under 

17 the supervision of a more senior attorney in 

18 the Office of General Counsel, and they are 

19 furloughed. So, there is no one there to 

20 give her advice. And so, she also is 

21 furloughed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27 1 I couldn't make this stuff up.

2 Until recently, we have been 

3 continuing some joint -- or outreach 

4 activities to the claimant community. We 

5 participated in a Joint Outreach Task Group 

6 meeting in Northern California. This was 

7 back in early September. That was for the 

8 Livermore site and Berkeley. One of the 

9 meetings was in Livermore and another was in 

10 -- I forget the name of the town, but it was 

11 closer to Berkeley.

12 These were put on by the Joint 

13 Outreach Task Group, which is a kind of 

14 collaborative effort among us, DOE, and DOL. 

15 DOE's former workers' monitoring program, in

16 addition to their EEOICPA staff, play a role 

17 in that. And it is to make these programs 

18 better known to the folks out there.

19 Also, right at the end of 

20 September, our outreach contractor, ATL, put 

21 on another of their dose reconstruction and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28 1 SEC workshops in Cincinnati, where we bring 

2 labor representatives and advocates, other 

3 interested people, into Cincinnati and we 

4 have a two-day workshop.

5 Much of the instruction is given 

6 by DCAS staff, although ATL does some of the 

7 instruction as well, to kind of help improve 

8 these people's familiarity with the program, 

9 hoping that they will be resources, then, for

10 the workforces that they represent and that 

11 they advocate for, and, also, that they will 

12 feel more comfortable on contacting us and in

13 contacting Denise Brock, for instance, 

14 knowing where to go to ask questions. And 

15 they can kind of know us as people as opposed

16 to an anonymous email address. We thought 

17 that they would be encouraged to ask us 

18 questions more.

19 We got a bunch of nice reviews. 

20 You know, there is a Class Evaluation form 

21 that ATL uses at the end. Most of the people
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29 1 were very complimentary of the class. So, we

2 hope we reached some people there and have 

3 provided them as resources to their 

4 communities.

5 And then, one final topic, I 

6 believe, on my program news has to do with 

7 the change in the Pacific Northwest National 

8 Laboratory facility description. And this 

9 came up, this happened about the time of the 

10 last phone call meeting, but I didn't discuss

11 it then.

12 And I am really wondering what is 

13 going on with my slides.

14 The original covered period for 

15 the PNNL facility description in the Federal 

16 Register and on the DOE website was that it 

17 started in 1965 and ran to the present. PNNL

18 is Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

19 That appears to be, actually, the 

20 time that Battelle Memorial Institute started

21 running the laboratory operations for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30 1 Hanford. Part of this was based on the

2 research of what we were doing out there when

3 we were trying to sort out PNNL and Hanford, 

4 and I think part of it was based on research 

5 that DOE was doing anyway and looking into.

6 What that research indicated was 

7 that, from 1965 until 2004, the PNNL 

8 activities that were conducted were actually 

9 on the Hanford part of what was considered 

10 the Hanford reservation. So, there wasn't a 

11 separate facility for PNNL until about 2005, 

12 when they did, actually, either receive title

13 to some of the property that used to be 

14 Hanford or, for whatever reason, they now 

15 have property that is now theirs. It is no 

16 longer part of the Hanford reservation.

17 And because of that, then, the 

18 Department of Energy and the Department of 

19 Labor agreed to revise the site descriptions 

20 for both Hanford and PNNL. You know, the 

21 Hanford description was revised to indicate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31 1 that the lab, the PNNL laboratory, operated 

2 on Hanford from 1965 through 2004.

3 And then, fortunately, our dose 

4 reconstruction guidance for PNNL has been up 

5 until now using the Hanford guidance. And 

6 so, we had been treating PNNL claims as if 

7 they were Hanford claims anyway. And so, 

8 what we had been doing is consistent with 

9 this new redesignation.

10 From my conversations with the 

11 Department of Labor, my understanding is they

12 had been administering the Hanford SEC in the

13 same fashion, that PNNL workers who were 

14 working on the Hanford site during the period

15 of the Hanford SEC were, in fact, being 

16 placed in the Hanford SEC. And so, if they 

17 would send us one that we thought was in for 

18 dose reconstruction, we would ask them, "Hey,

19 this doesn't look like one we can do because 

20 this person was working at Hanford during 

21 this period."
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32 1 So, fortunately, I think that the 

2 redesignation just kind of removed a little 

3 bit of the confusion factor in how things 

4 were arranged, but it didn't cause a change 

5 in how we were doing dose reconstruction, and

6 I don't think it caused Labor any heartburn 

7 in what they were doing.

8 Because I remember when this 

9 topic first came up, the Department of Labor 

10 people were a little against it. They said, 

11 "Are you going to tell me that PNNL employees

12 shouldn't be in Hanford, because we have been

13 putting them in the Hanford SEC." And we 

14 said, "Well, no, actually, what we are 

15 telling you is they really should be in the 

16 Hanford SEC prior to 2004." So, of course, 

17 the Hanford SEC only goes through `83, but 

18 I'm getting my dates confused a little bit 

19 here.

20 So, it seems to be a 

21 recordkeeping issue, and it didn't actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33 1 have any practical effect on claims as they 

2 are being processed.

3 Well, none of my shortcut keys 

4 seem to be working on advancing slides.

5 Now we are going to have the 

6 statistical portion. I won't go through here

7 and read all the numbers. I did, since I 

8 knew I would have some time, I did look 

9 through old numbers from the last 

10 presentation to see how they had changed.

11 The total number of cases has 

12 increased by about 600 since the last report 

13 that I gave, and it was three months ago. 

14 So, that is almost exactly 200 a month. The 

15 change is something like 611. So, we are 

16 staying very close to our historical from the

17 last several years input of 200 new claims a 

18 month.

19 Cases that have been returned to 

20 DOL, the 38,000 is up by about 1400. Cases 

21 at NIOSH for dose reconstruction is up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34 1 somewhat from about 1,413, and the 

2 administrative closed cases is up by about a 

3 dozen. So, that is the change since the last

4 report I made on those items.

5 On the next slide, like I said, 

6 there were 1,413 cases at NIOSH. The number 

7 of cases of the initial dose reconstructions,

8 the second bullet down there, is up about, it

9 looks like it is up eight from the last 

10 report. So, a few additional ones there.

11 The number in the dose 

12 reconstruction process is up by about 30 from

13 the last term. And, of course, the ones 

14 awaiting development are up somewhat, too.

15 Oh, about 130 additional cases 

16 have been submitted since the last report 

17 with PoCs of greater than 50 percent. The 

18 percentages remain about the same. Somewhere

19 around 30 percent of the cases are 

20 compensable that we do through dose 

21 reconstruction. So, that number has been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35 1 pretty steady. It is down a little bit from 

2 a few years ago. It is in the low thirties 

3 now. It is down to about 30 or even dipping 

4 a little below 30.

5 We attribute that to the larger 

6 number of SECs that are in place now and more

7 cases being paid through the SEC process and 

8 don't come over to us for dose 

9 reconstruction. And the SEC cancers include 

10 the ones that are most likely compensated by 

11 dose reconstruction.

12 This is our chart of submittals 

13 versus production, updated for another 

14 quarter from last time. It looks pretty much

15 the same as last time. You can see we have 

16 been pretty steadily around -- these are 

17 quarterly numbers. So, the input stays 

18 around 600 pretty steadily for the past 

19 several years, actually.

20 And going through status, the 

21 first 5,000 claims, there are some small 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36 1 adjustments here. These cases that are being

2 in the dose reconstruction process down 

3 there, the claims at NIOSH, these are cases, 

4 in the first 5,000 these are cases that are 

5 reworks or have been reinstated within the 

6 past year. Reinstated within the past year 

7 would be cases that were pulled for some 

8 reason or have come back to us for some 

9 reason within the past year. The reworks are

10 cases where usually the claimant gets an 

11 additional cancer. And so, the case is sent 

12 to us for rework. That is usually why we get

13 a rework.

14 The same is true for the first 

15 10,000 cases. You have the same kinds of 

16 categories. The initial cases that would 

17 come in were cases that were CLL cases. You 

18 know, the fact that we are doing the initial 

19 dose reconstruction on those is these were 

20 CLL cases that DOL erroneously referred to us

21 originally. At the beginning of the program,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37 1 there were a number of cases that were CLL 

2 cancers only. CLL wasn't covered at the 

3 time, but it took DOL a little while to pick 

4 up on that. So, they referred us a number of

5 CLL cases early on that they then pulled, and

6 then, these have been recently reinstated 

7 with the rule change. And so, we are working

8 through that.

9 The CLL process involves sort of 

10 a site-by-site revision of the site dose 

11 reconstruction tools, and the CLL model is a 

12 fairly complicated calculational model. So, 

13 it takes a while to build the modules into 

14 those tools that will accommodate the CLL 

15 dose reconstruction process. And so, we are 

16 working through that.

17 We have gotten through most of 

18 the sites. We are down to the cases now 

19 where any particular change is going to only 

20 address a handful, you know, maybe two or 

21 three or five CLL cases. And so, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38 1 progress in terms of wrapping up the end, the

2 tail of the CLL cases, is somewhat slower 

3 than when we had the original body, when we 

4 could pick a large site and, by getting a CLL

5 tool in place for that site, you could move a

6 lot of cases into the doable category. All 

7 those big chunks have been moved. So, now we

8 are down to moving the small chunks. But, 

9 unfortunately, the amount of work needed to 

10 build that module into the tool doesn't go 

11 down much just because you have fewer claims.

12 So, the end of the tail as a usual takes 

13 more effort and kind of drags out a little 

14 bit.

15 DOE's response to exposure 

16 requests, it is a little unfortunate that 

17 they are not here to take credit for this. 

18 This shows considerable improvement since the

19 last report. The last report, the number of 

20 outstanding requests was 373. So, they are 

21 down by 150 on the total number of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39 1 outstanding claim requests, and the 

2 outstanding requests greater than 60 days at 

3 the last report was 73. So, they are down by

4 30 in that category. So, it shows a marked 

5 improvement.

6 And I think it is based on some 

7 real emphasis from DOE headquarters to the 

8 DOE sites, and then a couple of DOE sites 

9 that have been kind of recalcitrant, have 

10 been kind of slow responders and had the 

11 backlog, both of the old ones and large 

12 numbers, working through those claims. So, 

13 it is attention by a couple of sites that 

14 really I think is the big improvement in 

15 that. Most of the sites have continued to 

16 click along pretty steadily and provide 

17 pretty good response.

18 It could very well also be some 

19 improvement in terms of the total outstanding

20 requests by the use of electronic data 

21 transfer, a process that DOE has built to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40 1 facilitate the secure movement of electronic 

2 records between DOE facilities and us and 

3 between DOE facilities and the DOL district 

4 offices and DOL headquarters.

5 That system, which is called SERT 

6 for Secure Electronic Records Transfer 

7 system, has been in place. And rather than 

8 now getting a paper report, paper exposure 

9 history, or a CD with electronic exposure 

10 history on it, electronic history is just 

11 loaded onto a computer on their end. That 

12 computer talks to our computer, and then, we 

13 can download those records.

14 The system has a tracking system. 

15 So, it keeps track of requests that are 

16 outstanding and responses, replies that come 

17 back. So, it has really improved the process

18 of response. I think that probably has to do

19 with that decrease in the number of 

20 outstanding requests as well.

21 Now, of course, no good deed goes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41 1 unpunished. And because of that, there was 

2 some ramification on a couple of our 

3 employees because of a cybersecurity issue at

4 DOE. This occurred earlier in the year. 

5 Some of you may have heard about this. Some 

6 of you may have gotten a letter about this. 

7 I don't know. It depends on whether you ever

8 worked with DOE headquarters.

9 There was a hacking into the DOE 

10 essentially personnel system. The hackers 

11 got in through -- I don't know how things 

12 work, but they hacked in through a public13 facing website of DOE, not the EEOICPA 

14 website, but a different one.

15 And so, because of that, personal 

16 information for a large number of DOE 

17 employees was compromised. And the 

18 authorized users on this SERT system had to 

19 provide certain personal information to DOE 

20 to be authorized to use their system. 

21 Essentially, it authorizes them as users on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42 1 the computers, the DOE computer system, 

2 because the SERT runs on a DOE computer 

3 system.

4 Because of that, the personal 

5 information of this -- you know, there were 

6 like three NIOSH employees who had access. 

7 Their information was compromised, and I 

8 would remember about somewhere between eight 

9 and a dozen DOL employees were in the same 

10 situation. So, that caused a bit of a flap.

11 That same cybersecurity issue at 

12 DOE has led to some intermittent issues with 

13 the DOE's EEOICPA public-facing website and 

14 the find facilities website. So, if you have

15 been trying to use those websites in the past

16 few months, you may have encountered times 

17 when they were not available because, there 

18 again, they have kind of been up. They were 

19 down for a while, and then, they were put 

20 back up, but there have still been some 

21 intermittent usage issues there, as they are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43 1 trying that. As I understand it, they are 

2 moving it to new hardware to improve its 

3 security.

4 So, because of the security issue 

5 with the DOE website and the intermittent 

6 availability -- excuse me. I guess my time 

7 is about up.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You've got two 

9 hours, so.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I am going 

11 to have to do something besides talk. I 

12 don't have any idea what that would be.

13 Because of the intermittent 

14 availability of the DOE find facility 

15 website, we have placed a PDF version of the 

16 information on the website. You know, DOE 

17 provided that to us, and we have placed it on

18 our website with a link. You know, you can 

19 go to our website. I think it is maybe under

20 the covered facilities button and there would

21 be a link to a PDF that shows the information
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44 1 on covered facilities. I believe it is 

2 searchable, OCR. So, you can bring it up as 

3 a PDF file, search it for the site you're 

4 interested in, and you can see the 

5 information on the DOE covered facilities 

6 website from that PDF file.

7 Like I said, we checked a week or 

8 so ago, and we got on the website just fine. 

9 We checked a couple of days later; we 

10 couldn't get on. So, they are still having 

11 some intermittent things going on there, I 

12 think because of they're moving hardware, as 

13 I understand it. So, that is another issue 

14 that we ran into this summer.

15 The rest of the statistics I 

16 guess I had better not talk about since I 

17 can't talk anymore. That is very small 

18 change. I think Bomber will give additional 

19 information about the SECs later on anyway.

20 And I think that is all I have 

21 here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45 1 I can't go that way. So, I 

2 wonder if this going to work. I am afraid 

3 that will close me all the way out of 

4 LiveMeeting.

5 I don't have anything else to 

6 talk about. So, if anybody has any 

7 questions, I will be glad to answer them.

8 I am just trying to figure out 

9 the hardware. I knew we would be in trouble 

10 when I started being tech support at these 

11 meetings.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I thought that 

13 was LaVon on that.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: He'll get it 

15 after this week, that's for sure.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now we've got 

17 music.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I hope no one is 

19 expecting me to dance.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Does 

21 anybody have questions for Stu before he does
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46 1 more damage to the computer?

2 (No response.)

3 I do. I have raised this issue. 

4 I would like to get input from other Board 

5 Members on it.

6 I am a little concerned about the 

7 PNNL facility designation that is sort of 

8 being done, that is sort of being added to 

9 the SEC without ever being reviewed by the 

10 Board. And it is not a situation we have 

11 necessarily encountered before. We have 

12 encountered where years have been added to a 

13 facility designation, additional years. 

14 Usually, that is after we have taken action 

15 and comes back. When it is in the process, 

16 we do it all as one.

17 But in this case we have a site 

18 that has sort of been folded into another 

19 site. We originally took action on that site

20 under its old designation, Hanford. 

21 Suddenly, there's a whole bunch of new 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47 1 employees that come in. And while I suspect 

2 that the steps that have been taken to 

3 essentially just fold them into the Hanford 

4 SECs, and so forth, is appropriate, I don't 

5 think this has ever been reviewed by the 

6 Board or the Work Group.

7 I raised this issue earlier and 

8 didn't know if someone would -- trying to 

9 interest somebody into going back into the 

10 transcripts or earlier records and reports 

11 and seeing what we had determined there.

12 But somehow it seems to me we are 

13 skipping a step here. Our attorney isn't 

14 here, and our attorney wasn't involved when I

15 raised this issue before. And I guess I 

16 would like to get some feedback on it. Then 

17 I also have a suggestion.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes, I know 

19 we really didn't, I don't think we talked 

20 about it very much. But much of the work 

21 that was the basis for the Class was, in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48 1 fact, done by PNNL. We know the work that 

2 was the basis for the most recent extension 

3 of the Class through `83 was, in fact, PNNL 

4 work on the Hanford reservation.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, from that 

7 standpoint, that gives us a sense of comfort 

8 that what we have done conforms with the 

9 evidence in front of us.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Now I don't know 

12 that that was explicitly described. I can't 

13 remember the transcripts. We would have to 

14 go back and look. Sam did a lot of this 

15 research. So, I am looking to Sam.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and there 

17 are earlier Work Groups, earlier SEC Class 

18 designations where I think it was maybe less 

19 evident. I recall it during the more recent 

20 extension of the Class, but not earlier. But

21 earlier was also a long time ago, and I'm not
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49 1 sure I remember --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- everything 

4 we talked about. And we always knew it was 

5 sort of up in the air as to how PNNL would be

6 handled.

7 But I don't know if Dr. Ziemer or 

8 others have comments.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

10 recall myself. I was going to ask if LaVon 

11 Rutherford or one of the other staff members 

12 may remember whether the Evaluation Report 

13 for the SEC explicitly included the PNNL 

14 component. Does anyone recall?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think we 

16 didn't include the language because the 

17 facilities, the PNNL facilities, up until 

18 2004, are on Hanford. So, the error in our 

19 minds all along has been that there was a 

20 site designated that was considered separate 

21 from Hanford until 2004, which really wasn't.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50 1 And so, all the work that was being done 

2 during these SEC periods was on the Hanford 

3 site. And so, even though we thought there 

4 was, there was not really another site in 

5 existence out there at the time.

6 So, when we add the Hanford 

7 Class, and the Hanford Class was essentially 

8 added for the full site because of difficulty

9 in placing people in particularly the 100, 

10 200, and 300 areas essentially with that. 

11 So, it became an all worker Class.

12 It seems that anyone who happened 

13 to work for PNNL during that time, they were 

14 working on the Hanford reservation; the same 

15 thing could apply to them that would apply to

16 other Hanford employees.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but I 

18 think we have to be careful to separate out 

19 what is a Class Definition and what 

20 considerations go into that in terms of what 

21 is the basic findings that justify the Class.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51 1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, the 

3 placement issue is usually a Class Definition

4 issue. It may not be because it may also be 

5 part of the original designation. But, as I 

6 recall in Hanford, it was mostly a placement 

7 issue once there was a finding that doses can

8 be reconstructed, then we can't figure out 

9 who that would apply to.

10 And again, I am fairly confident 

11 that this is justified. I am just concerned 

12 that we, as a Board, and in your reports this

13 has never been specifically considered. Now,

14 again, I could be wrong. My memory could be 

15 -- it could have been -- PNNL could have been

16 added in, but a sentence or two in some of 

17 the reports that I don't recall.

18 Jim?

19 DR. NETON: I think Stu might 

20 have said this, but I think the easiest way, 

21 in my mind, to look at this is PNNL was a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52 1 contractor working on the Hanford facility. 

2 So, they are covered in the Class Definition.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, but are 

4 they?

5 DR. NETON: They are.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but did we 

7 at the time consider them? I mean, after the

8 fact, you know --

9 DR. NETON: But, I mean, the 

10 Class Definition I am sure says like 

11 contractors, subcontractors, and such. I 

12 don't think it specifically called out PNNL 

13 as a contractor, but that's what they were. 

14 So, by definition, they would be covered in 

15 that facility definition.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But was the 

17 Board aware of that at the time? You don't 

18 want a post-hoc designation.

19 Yes, Paul?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, perhaps one 

21 of the issues was that that area that we had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53 1 been calling PNNL, we didn't consider that to

2 be part of the Hanford site at the time. 

3 That would be sort of the technical issue.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, right.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we 

6 thought the boundaries were other than they 

7 are. So, it wouldn't be clear at that point 

8 whether those who were actually PNNL people 

9 had full access to what we were calling the 

10 Hanford site. I suspect they were. I think 

11 their badges allowed them access. But I 

12 guess your question is, was that considered 

13 and is it clear that this boundary change 

14 doesn't somehow alter what our consideration 

15 was.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. You 

17 know, was there independent monitoring? Was 

18 there something else that we never 

19 considered? Now maybe there wasn't. I am 

20 not saying there was, but it seems to me that

21 we need to have at least some record of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54 1 having reviewed that issue.

2 And my suggestion was going to be 

3 that someone look into this and, then, we 

4 have a Hanford Work Group. We have a meeting

5 coming up sometime in the next few months. 

6 What happens with the government reopening 

7 and people getting out to the site, and a 

8 whole bunch of administrative issues? But we

9 talk about it in detail then when NIOSH has 

10 more time to look into this and just clarify 

11 this.

12 I'm trying not to make a lot more 

13 work for you, but I think there ought to be 

14 at least some due diligence on this issue.

15 Stu? And if you want to look 

16 into it a little bit and come back, we can 

17 talk about it later and have more time and 

18 support it.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the 

20 Hanford Work Group probably is the right 

21 place for the discussion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And I think that 

3 we can do some research in the meantime about

4 the bases for those earlier classes. We know

5 the latest extension; that was Battelle.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Battelle was 

8 certainly involved in the work.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That was the 

11 reason for the latest extension of 383. We 

12 can go back to the earlier periods and see 

13 what we think about that as well.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And 

15 again, we can decide as a Board, but if we 

16 have some record of that it was reviewed in 

17 some way, because this is an unusual 

18 circumstance. I think we would be okay, but 

19 I just worry about somebody coming back later

20 and saying, "Why was this added? What was 

21 the basis for it?", and so forth.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56 1 Yes, Brad?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Being involved, 

3 I was up there with Sam and everything else 

4 on this. My issue, being on the Hanford Work

5 Group, my issue was a different one. It was 

6 how are they going to, with PNNL, how are 

7 they going to differ it? Because for so long

8 they were all combined together, especially 

9 the 300 areas and everything else.

10 When we went on our tour, it 

11 became a little bit more clear to me, and I 

12 do think that NIOSH needs to sit down with 

13 the Work Group. But in 2004 was when they 

14 separated all of their monitoring from the 

15 Site Profile. Also in the 300 area is when 

16 they totally took it over.

17 But, before that, they had shared 

18 services. They had Hanford people and 

19 everything else. But, in 2004 -- actually, 

20 it was a little bit sooner than that -- but 

21 that is where the 2004 came from, was mainly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57 1 from the dosimetry, and so forth.

2 But it made sense to me after 

3 going on the tour and understanding how the 

4 separation happened. But, you're right, it 

5 would probably be good to bring it to the 

6 Work Group and make sure that we're onboard 

7 with where it was at.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess I just 

9 get a little concerned when the basis is, 

10 well, DOL has been doing it this way. That 

11 is not a finding by NIOSH or the Board on 

12 this. I think we need to be more permanent.

13 Anybody else have comments?

14 (No response.)

15 I'm not trying to make a lot of 

16 work, but I think we ought to do some due 

17 diligence.

18 Any other questions for Stu?

19 (No response.)

20 Okay. I was going to entitle 

21 this "The Two Jims," you know, like the Four 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58 1 Irish Tenors, and so forth. But we had a 

2 little tryout this morning, and the two Jims 

3 flunked. So, we will spare you that part of 

4 the presentation.

5 This is a continuation of 

6 discussions at our last meeting where we 

7 talked about sufficient accuracy. That sort 

8 of led into the issue of coworker dose 

9 modeling going on. And so, at that meeting 

10 we said we would have a follow-up Work Group 

11 meeting of the SEC Evaluation Work Group, 

12 which we had a real-live meeting in 

13 Cincinnati the end of the fiscal year, where 

14 a group of us got together.

15 It included representatives from 

16 SC&A; ORAU; Tom LaBone, a statistician who 

17 has been very involved in some of the 

18 coworker modeling issues; Jim Neton; Stu; Tim

19 Taulbee. I forget the whole group. I know 

20 LaVon wasn't there because we couldn't find 

21 him in the office that day, but went looking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59 1 for him, but others were.

2 We had pretty much an all-day 

3 meeting to discuss coworker issues and try to

4 sort of figure out a path forward. It was a 

5 very in some ways informal meeting, and just 

6 basically trying to work out what we could 

7 do, what might be done, and how do we deal 

8 with this issue.

9 At that point, a lot of the focus 

10 was on some SRS coworker modeling and an SC&A

11 review of that and a NIOSH response to that. 

12 I will spare you a lot of the details. I 

13 will talk to you a little bit about some of 

14 the issues, but I think it is not -- while it

15 was a good meeting, I'm not sure repeating it

16 all will be all that helpful to us.

17 This is from our last 

18 presentation I did in essentially our 

19 previous Work Group meeting, where we had 

20 talked about sufficient accuracy and where 

21 the issue of evaluating the coworker models. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60 1 And particularly the focus, the time has 

2 been on coworker models and the whole 

3 stratification issue of how do we deal with 

4 different groups of employees within a 

5 facility. Do we use just one set of sampling

6 data for them? Are these groups different in

7 some way? How do we determine that they are 

8 different? I will go into more detail on 

9 that. So, that had been the focus.

10 Just sort of going back a little 

11 bit, I think one of the things that became 

12 clear to us as we went through this is we 

13 really had never done, as NIOSH and DCAS and 

14 the Board was sort of stepping back and 

15 looking at the overall coworker issue, 

16 because there's lots of other issues that 

17 they come up with with coworkers.

18 We were focusing on the 

19 stratification, which was important. A lot 

20 of this was construction versus production 

21 workers. But there's lots of other issues 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61 1 there that need to be addressed in some ways,

2 and so forth, because we have lots of 

3 coworker models out there. It is not clear 

4 to what extent they are all the same and 

5 follow sort of the same pattern, the same set

6 of rules. And then, how do we evaluate them 

7 as a Board or how does NIOSH evaluate them?

8 So, part of this -- and this is a 

9 slide I stole from Jim Neton. His full 

10 presentation at that meeting is on the 

11 information that has been handed out for this

12 meeting. So, you have the full presentation.

13 There are a couple of slides that I borrowed

14 from him. And since I borrowed from him, I 

15 also told him he could explain them. His 

16 explanation, they puzzled me when I looked at

17 the presentation, but his explanation of them

18 was very helpful to our deliberation.

19 So, I'll let go Jim go.

20 DR. NETON: Okay. Thank you, Dr. 

21 Melius.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62 1 This should look familiar. I 

2 presented this slide and the next slide at 

3 the last meeting. But I started off our 

4 meeting with these couple of slides, and it 

5 sparked some pretty vigorous discussion, I 

6 would say. I think we didn't get past these 

7 two slides for the first hour of the meeting,

8 which I was surprised at.

9 But, nonetheless, this is an 

10 example of the bioassay distribution that we 

11 would have for a single year. We would take 

12 all the urinalysis data, for example, and 

13 rank them from highest to lowest as a 

14 cumulative probability plot, and you end up 

15 with this sort of standardized normal plot 

16 where zero on the X-axis would be the median 

17 value, the geometric mean of the 

18 distribution. And one standard deviation up,

19 the arrow at 1.0, would be the 84th 

20 percentile of the distribution.

21 This is what we have proposed to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63 1 say is the excretion for that year for that 

2 facility for that coworker model set. Now 

3 the whole stratification issue has revolved 

4 around, does that particular dataset that 

5 includes all employees, is that 

6 representative of subsets of the population, 

7 different strata? The examples that we deal 

8 with most often are construction workers, 

9 trades workers, those sort of folks, who the 

10 value at zero may be higher and the GSD may 

11 be larger. So, you may be biasing these 

12 folks' results on the low side.

13 But this is just the first part 

14 of doing a coworker model. This is getting 

15 the urinary excretion, representative urinary

16 excretion for that particular year. But if 

17 we go to the next slide, I was trying to 

18 focus on the fact that this is really the 

19 crux of the issue. When you take each one of

20 the data points on that graph that you see, 

21 which represents one year, the geometric 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64 1 mean, that zero point for one particular 

2 bioassay distribution.

3 So, we would take, for example --

4 I think there's 11 years of those blue dots 

5 -- and fit those dots over an 11-year period 

6 to a chronic exposure model. Well, you can 

7 see that there's a lot of variability in 

8 those blue dots. So, that model in itself 

9 has a lot of variability associated with it 

10 that is not considered.

11 So, to narrowly focus just on 

12 that bioassay distribution, I think we sort 

13 of miss the big picture. You need to focus 

14 more, in my opinion, on the chronic exposure 

15 model fit. And that is where we ended up 

16 discussing -- and I think Dr. Melius will 

17 talk a little bit later about maybe we have 

18 been too narrowly focused on some of these 

19 very high-level statistics, and we need to do

20 something more practical to decide when that 

21 chronic intake function is different for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65 1 these different groups. And we will talk 

2 maybe a little bit more later about where we 

3 are heading in that direction.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and I 

5 think what is also important here is that, in

6 developing these coworker models, they are 

7 developed from a sampling of these bioassay 

8 results, which then adds -- I mean, it is not

9 on everybody that is in the entire cohort 

10 that is being monitored, which introduces 

11 another set of considerations in terms of 

12 statistical sampling, and so forth.

13 So, I don't think it has been 

14 wrong for NIOSH to be focusing on some of 

15 these statistical issues and do that, because

16 they are important. I think there are some 

17 limitations to it. But there are also other 

18 issues.

19 And I think, as we have 

20 discovered when we talk about sufficient 

21 accuracy, when we talk about surrogate data, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66 1 and so forth, in the past. A lot of it comes

2 down to what are the characteristics at a 

3 particular site, what information do we have 

4 at a site, what monitoring has been done, and

5 so forth. And often, that is more important 

6 than sort of the more general statistical or 

7 other evaluation one might do at a site or 

8 how one approaches a particular issue of 

9 whether or not one can do dose 

10 reconstruction.

11 So, we need to get sort of a mix 

12 of that and doing it. By focusing on 

13 stratification, we essentially took and we 

14 focused on the most difficult part of, I 

15 think, this issue, which is stratification 

16 and what are very complicated sets of 

17 bioassay data from a sample of workers, and 

18 all sorts of other issues up on top of that.

19 And that is probably the most 

20 complicated issue we are going to encounter 

21 in looking at this. There are many other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67 1 issues that may sort of overwhelm or even 

2 obviate what needs to be done in terms of the

3 statistical.

4 I think we are also sort of 

5 handicapping our statistical analysis in 

6 terms of what sort of guidance we were giving

7 to them in terms of what we thought was 

8 important or not.

9 Okay. So, these issues actually 

10 took from an SC&A review of sort of sampling 

11 the SC&A 70-page report, or whatever it was 

12 that Arjun and Harry put together, and so 

13 forth, on this. But, to give you some idea 

14 of some of the issues that came up in their 

15 review, and I guess, again, I highlight what 

16 it is as sort of potential issues because 

17 they aren't sort of general issues that apply

18 to everything. Depending, I think, on the 

19 circumstance, and so forth, they are 

20 important or unimportant issues.

21 I think one of the things we sort 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68 1 of found, and why I think the meeting we had 

2 was very helpful, was that often there were, 

3 SC&A and ORAU, sort of different assumptions 

4 about what or thinking of different 

5 applications of a particular group of 

6 statistics in thinking about this problem or 

7 evaluating what -- for example, SC&A 

8 evaluating what ORAU was doing, and so forth.

9 They very often agreed more than you would 

10 get from that report.

11 Those reports I believe have also 

12 been distributed in, again, a longer set of 

13 slides from SC&A, which actually we skipped 

14 most of during our meeting. So, we have 

15 that.

16 But, again, I think these are 

17 mostly pretty obvious issues, when you think 

18 about it, sort of its representativeness, 

19 completeness of the data, what were the 

20 sampling protocols for the different groups. 

21 Again, it is applying stratification.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69 1 They coin this term "OPOS," which 

2 I think it stands for One Person/One Sample, 

3 but it is really one person/one value for 

4 that group of samples, and so forth, which we

5 spent a fair amount of time discussing. But,

6 essentially, you would have a series of 

7 bioassay results on an individual. You are 

8 taking the mean of that distribution or that 

9 set of values, and using that to apply to the

10 value for that one person for that particular

11 time period or exposure.

12 And for those of you who are 

13 familiar with statistics, that raises all 

14 sorts of statistical issues because you are 

15 essentially ignoring some variability. But 

16 in the case of bioassay results, you have a 

17 very complicated set of sort of biological 

18 issues on top of that. So, it is not simply 

19 just taking a series of multiple samples, you

20 know, testing one person multiple times at 

21 the same time. It is over a period of time 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70 1 with metabolism and distribution of that 

2 material in the body; also, factoring into 

3 what the values are at different times.

4 There are issues about confidence 

5 levels and small sample sizes. What is the 

6 power of your statistics to be able to 

7 determine if you are comparing the 

8 distribution from one group of workers, say, 

9 construction workers, to the larger group of,

10 say, production workers, well, do you have an

11 adequate sample size or adequate power in 

12 your statistics to make those distinctions?

13 The NIOSH/ORAU report was 

14 suggesting a sample of 30, what they refer to

15 as "the rule of 30." Once we understood that

16 the rule of 30 was sort of a guideline, not 

17 an absolute value, didn't have any 

18 particular, say, power by itself, I think it 

19 helped us in terms of looking at this.

20 But it is just to say that there 

21 are lots of issues that come up, get fairly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71 1 complicated fairly quickly, and that there 

2 are not easy answers to.

3 So, we did what all groups do 

4 when they meet, or all committees do. We 

5 punted. So, we said we need more review; we 

6 need more meetings, more work done in order 

7 to address this issue. And then, did also 

8 what all good Committees or Work Groups do. 

9 We farmed out all those issues for work for 

10 other people to do first.

11 So, our next steps on this were 

12 that SC&A will do a review of the One 

13 Person/One Sample issue, and sort of, again, 

14 not a tremendously detailed report, but one 

15 just to list sort of all the issues, because 

16 some of those issues that come up in other 

17 settings in terms of review with other 

18 coworker models that were being applied, 

19 particularly at the Savannah River Site. So,

20 we thought it would be helpful to have sort 

21 of some discussion of the general issues with
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72 1 that, rather than just focusing on the issue 

2 with stratification, and so forth.

3 Okay. DCAS agreed to prepare an 

4 outline of the factors for evaluating 

5 coworker datasets, a much more general sort 

6 of outline, set of factors, rather than 

7 focusing on just the stratification issues.

8 As I mentioned earlier, we really 

9 don't have sort of a general set of 

10 guidelines for developing and/or evaluating 

11 coworker datasets. So, again, we found this 

12 helpful in looking at the sufficient accuracy

13 issue. Let's start with an outline, make 

14 sure everyone agrees on what the major issues

15 are, and then, we can flesh out that outline,

16 again, I think with the idea that we would 

17 come up with a set of guidelines for the 

18 evaluation and development of coworker 

19 datasets. When is that appropriate? What 

20 are some of the pitfalls? What are some of 

21 the issues that ought to be addressed in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73 1 looking at it?

2 Again, I don't think these will 

3 be strict criteria, at least not in many 

4 cases, but a more general ability to give us 

5 some tools and a pattern to follow, for the 

6 Board to follow and SC&A, when we are 

7 reviewing these, but also to be kept in mind 

8 when NIOSH is developing these coworker 

9 models.

10 Probably the trickiest part of 

11 what we are proposing was -- and we weren't 

12 even sure what to call it because there is a 

13 slippery slope here. And one of the problems

14 that we were having in, well, Tom LaBone was 

15 having in sort of developing the statistics 

16 for looking at stratification as well as for 

17 us evaluating it is, what level of difference

18 are we trying to detect? If you have two 

19 distributions, two groups of workers, sort of

20 different distributions, we want to know how 

21 fine a difference we want to try to achieve 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74 1 with our statistics in terms of telling 

2 they're apart.

3 You know, if it is a very small 

4 difference we are trying to detect, one needs

5 very large sample sizes for doing that, and 

6 what the variance, and so forth, of those 

7 different distributions are becomes very 

8 important.

9 If one is only trying to look for 

10 very large differences between the groups, 

11 then those considerations, that sample size 

12 gets smaller. You don't need as large, 

13 powerful set of statistics to be able to do 

14 that.

15 And clearly, any sort of 

16 resolution on the way we were approaching it,

17 without sort of knowing what level of 

18 difference you were trying to detect or 

19 evaluate with your statistical testing was 

20 very futile for the statisticians.

21 Certainly, if we are going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75 1 look at the stratification issue, I think we 

2 need to give everyone some guidance on how we

3 are trying to look at that. Now, in this 

4 particular case, the differences we might be 

5 trying to detect, what are some of the 

6 implications in terms of looking at 

7 Probability of Causation?

8 So, what we asked DCAS to do was 

9 to look at claims data, to look at -- again, 

10 trying to develop a benchmark or what might 

11 be called an action level that we would use 

12 for these statistical comparisons. What is a

13 meaningful difference that would have some 

14 effect on dose reconstruction?

15 Again, it wouldn't necessarily be 

16 sort of directly tied to health impact. If 

17 you remember when we started out, or at least

18 some of us remember when we started out with 

19 this Board and with NIOSH in developing the 

20 regulations, and so forth, we wrestled with 

21 this issue of what's health endangerment? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76 1 Well, we are not trying to get health 

2 endangerment, but more in an empirical way 

3 what would be a level that we would be trying

4 to detect that would be meaningful in terms 

5 of the difference between two distributions 

6 here.

7 So, again, going back to what we 

8 talked about in terms of sufficient accuracy,

9 I think we know in, for example, the residual

10 period where exposures tend to be very low, 

11 we tend not to be as diligent in terms of 

12 trying to figure out what different groups of

13 workers might have been exposed to, or 

14 whatever. We know these exposures are low 

15 and it doesn't make sense to go into a lot of

16 detail on that.

17 But we really need to have 

18 something for the statisticians to use if we 

19 are going to be able to have any meaningful 

20 use of statistics in terms of doing these 

21 determinations.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77 1 When I was looking at the 

2 original SC&A and ORAU reports on this issue,

3 I mean, every time I would go through, I 

4 could think of examples where I would agree 

5 with SC&A or agree with ORAU and disagree, 

6 because it really depends on the 

7 circumstances you are looking at. How much 

8 sampling data is available to look at, and so

9 forth? So, if we are going to use the 

10 statistics, we need a more powerful way of 

11 doing that.

12 So, since that meeting, Jim has 

13 come up with a proposed benchmark and got 

14 comments back from the Work Group. And I 

15 will let him explain that. That has been 

16 handed out to you. It was a work-in-progress

17 at the time I put these slides together late 

18 last week. So, I wasn't sure if whether we 

19 would actually include it or not.

20 But go ahead, Jim.

21 DR. NETON: Okay. Thank you, Dr.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78 1 Melius. That was a very good introduction 

2 into what we are trying to accomplish here.

3 So, you see on the slide that we 

4 propose to use the claimant data. We have 

5 over 40,000 claims, and we have done dose 

6 reconstructions on most of them. So, we have

7 a good database of information from which to 

8 make a decision what incremental dose will 

9 result in a change in the PoC value and, more

10 specifically, a change in the PoC value from 

11 non-compensable to compensable. You know, 

12 how much leeway is there in these claims?

13 Well, we went through and looked 

14 at all the claims we have processed thus far.

15 And interestingly, there were only 167 

16 claims out of 40,000 that had a Probability 

17 of Causation between 45 and 50 percent. 

18 Well, had a single cancer with a Probability

19 of Causation between 45 and 50 percent. That

20 surprised me.

21 And we proposed to only look at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79 1 claims between 45 and 50 because we were 

2 going to originally just take 100-millirem 

3 dose and add it to each of those cases of 

4 single cancers and see what happens. You 

5 know, where does that take the PoC value? 

6 Does it move all of them over 50 percent? 

7 Maybe one? Maybe none? Who knows?

8 And so, we can do some pretty 

9 detailed statistical testing when we run 

10 through all these cases. It is going to be 

11 an interesting process to go through.

12 We are going to, of course, run 

13 these like we do -- any case over 45 percent 

14 is automatically run 10,000 iterations of 

15 Monte Carlo 30 times. So, it is going to 

16 take a lot of computer horsepower. We will 

17 run these at night to sample these, and then,

18 we will compare the distributions of the PoC 

19 values.

20 But this will at least give us a 

21 start as to what is a benchmark. It doesn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80 1 mean that is the end of it, but we are going 

2 to start with 100 millirem and we are going 

3 to try to maximize the effects on PoC by 

4 adding the dose. And we are going to start 

5 with using external because that is the 

6 simplest place to deal with. We are going to

7 add a constant external dose, probably at the

8 beginning of employment, which will maximize 

9 the effect on PoC, except for leukemias we 

10 have got to modify a little bit because there

11 is a different latency adjustment for 

12 leukemias.

13 But, nonetheless, that is what we 

14 are going to do. And hopefully, we will be 

15 able to report out to the Working Group and 

16 the Board the results not too far off.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Thanks, 

18 Jim.

19 And so, Jim has already done this 

20 bullet, looking at external dose coworker 

21 models. What we, then, decide is, when we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81 1 get this developed, and so forth, we will 

2 then turn our focus back, first, to the 

3 external dose coworker models because these 

4 are much simpler to look at. They don't have

5 the complications of bioassay. They have 

6 lots of data, usually big sample sizes, and 

7 so forth, at least bigger than often usually 

8 for a lot of the bioassay data.

9 And I think we can sort of look 

10 at these both from how the statistical 

11 comparisons will be done, the stratification 

12 issue, as well as some of the other sort of 

13 more general guideline issues that DCAS is 

14 working on in terms of outline.

15 And then, if we can feel we are 

16 successful with that issue and that is 

17 helpful, then we will go back and look at 

18 internal dose models and come up from there.

19 So, that is sort of where we 

20 stand now. I have one more slide I want to 

21 show you, not that this is even relevant to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82 1 what we are talking about. It was a slide I 

2 stole, I think from DCAS, was it?

3 This is just the prettiest 

4 statistical testing I have seen or depiction 

5 of statistical testing. I wish I had had 

6 this back when I was taking statistics a long

7 time ago because it would have kept me much 

8 more interested. Whether they are galaxies, 

9 and so forth, but the black dots in or the 

10 black dots out, that's your statistical test.

11 I have no idea. I am sure I learned about 

12 the Monte Carlo Permutation Test many, many 

13 years ago, but probably very quickly and not 

14 in much detail. Again, if I had had these 

15 kind of computer graphics, who knows? I 

16 might have ended up a statistician.

17 So, I thought I would share that. 

18 I gave DCAS the prize for the prettiest 

19 slide that we have seen. I thought we should

20 share it with the whole Board.

21 So, on that, let me end. I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83 1 know if other Work Group Members have 

2 comments they would like to make about what 

3 went on.

4 Well, first, the Work Group 

5 Members. So, Gen or -- Paul couldn't be 

6 there at the meeting. I want to give them 

7 time to weigh-in. Then, we will do Wanda and

8 others.

9 Go ahead, Gen.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: First of all, I 

11 think you did a very good job of summarizing 

12 a very complicated subject and meeting. And 

13 I like your -- that OPOS thing is a little 

14 bit confusing when you first hear it because 

15 we are used to thinking of a sample as one 

16 bioassay contribution, or whatever. So, 

17 calling it One Person/One Value is good.

18 I think it was good, and I think 

19 we are looking forward to seeing what happens

20 with this first step that Jim is doing.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, right, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84 1 right. Yes.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Jim Neton.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. The 

4 OPOS, I should add, was probably about a two5 hour conversation/discussion during our 

6 meeting. So, it is summarizing-down.

7 Paul, Josie, anybody else have a 

8 comment? Paul, do you want to say anything?

9 Gen did make me promise to try to 

10 summarize the meeting and send a note to 

11 Paul, and thanked me greatly when I agreed to

12 do it.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, actually, 

14 the transcript of the meeting I think has 

15 been distributed to everyone.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I just want 

18 you to know, Dr. Melius, that I have read the

19 transcript. So, I feel like I attended the 

20 meeting.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85 1 Good.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: It was, actually, 

3 rather tedious.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I like the 

6 proposal that Jim made, and I have told Jim 

7 this. This is a very interesting approach to

8 trying to figure out what incremental dose 

9 will kick things up to another level.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: You know, whether 

12 it is 100 millirem or 500, or whatever it 

13 might be, but this will be a very interesting

14 exercise, and I am looking forward to the 

15 outcome of that.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

17 you, Paul. Thank you for wading through that

18 transcript. You are braver than I have been.

19 But, again, I was at the meeting, so I have 

20 an excuse.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have already 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86 1 made corrections in it. I should have given 

2 them to you, so you can certify it.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda?

4 MEMBER MUNN: I'm glad somebody 

5 read through that transcript. I started and 

6 got about maybe 1/10th, 1/20th of the way 

7 through and thought I can't handle all of 

8 this. I will just have to talk about it 

9 instead of reading it.

10 And I am delighted to know that 

11 you consider a Monte Carlo Permutation Test 

12 photograph as being the nicest piece of art 

13 you have seen in a while. I don't know where

14 you find your art, but it is expressive; 

15 there is no question about that.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: As applied to 

17 any of our meetings, I should say.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I am really pleased 

19 to see this happening, and I am very pleased 

20 to see 1 millirem as being the base place to 

21 start. Pardon me. A hundred millirem.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87 1 But it is a shame that we didn't 

2 do this precise thing eight years ago. This 

3 is the question that I recall having brought 

4 to the Board many times: why are we spending

5 so much time looking at this particular 

6 aspect of exposure in some site when nobody 

7 has identified this as being significant to 

8 the end result?

9 And better late than never, I am 

10 glad to see it happening, and it is going to 

11 be an interesting study. Thanks for the good

12 report.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

14 you. Others?

15 I will say I have a son who 

16 teaches art history, and I see lots of other 

17 art. I have got to correct that for the 

18 record. I'll be in trouble.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps you should 

20 show him this.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88 1 Okay. Dave?

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, Dave 

3 Kotelchuck.

4 First, I agree it was very 

5 helpful, the presentation was very helpful. 

6 I am not clear whether part of this is the 

7 discussion we've been having and part of this

8 is that I have been learning as we go along, 

9 so that I could see much more, I could 

10 understand your presentation this time much 

11 better than last time, even though on the 

12 whole the presentation and the PowerPoints 

13 were the same.

14 But I have a question. Could 

15 someone explain to me how the progress on the

16 coworker data, which is very good, how --

17 (Cell phone rings.)

18 Of all things, I cannot believe 

19 it. How often do I get a cell phone call in 

20 the middle of a meeting?

21 You will pardon me. Let me go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89 1 ahead with my question.

2 Could someone please explain to 

3 me how the progress we are making on the 

4 coworker data will help us understand how to 

5 distinguish between strata? That seems like 

6 a separate question. How will the coworker 

7 data progress help us with respect to 

8 distinguishing between different strata and 

9 assessing the differences between strata?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, if you go 

11 through all the reports that have been 

12 developed as part of this, Tom LaBone at ORAU

13 did a fairly-detailed report proposing both a

14 parametric and a non-parametric statistical 

15 testing for distinguishing whether 

16 stratification was appropriate or 

17 inappropriate in a particular dataset.

18 SC&A raised some very legitimate 

19 concerns about that. But I think what we 

20 came down to is, without knowing what 

21 difference between the strata we were trying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90 1 to detect, what was a meaningful difference, 

2 we could not come to any agreement on what 

3 was the appropriate set of statistical 

4 testing that one would use.

5 Now it is much more complicated 

6 than that in other ways because there are 

7 other considerations, One Person/One Value or

8 One Sample, but that was how this evolved.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

10 helpful. That clarifies it for me anyway.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And so, 

12 then, it ties back to what is sufficient 

13 accuracy? Do we need stratification or not. 

14 We have wrestled with this for a long time. 

15 We learn as we go along.

16 I mean, the statistic that Jim 

17 Neton gave us, that of all the -- what? --

18 40,000 dose reconstructions, there's 145, 

19 between 45 and 50 for a single cancer. So, I

20 mean, we are dealing with sort of very finite

21 numbers of examples.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91 1 And you get into different sites. 

2 And so, there's lots of complications with 

3 this. We, as a Board and NIOSH, we sort of 

4 learned as we go along, trying to figure out 

5 what is important, what is not important, and

6 how do we evaluate it.

7 Dr. Lemen?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: I have a question. 

9 On the presentation where we talk about the 

10 One Person/One Value, and you say or the 

11 slide, not your slide but Jim's slide that is

12 in the presentation we got, says that they 

13 use the maximum-possible mean. And then, he 

14 gives there examples.

15 My question is, even if you use 

16 the maximum-possible mean, doesn't that 

17 shortchange some individuals because, when 

18 you use a mean, there is always going to be 

19 higher numbers, putting some people at a 

20 higher risk than the mean would represent? 

21 Am I making myself clear? Do you understand 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92 1 what I am saying?

2 DR. NETON: I think I understand 

3 what you are saying, but it comes down to the

4 biology behind it. What we are trying to 

5 accomplish using the mean value -- let's put 

6 the maximum-possible mean aside for right now

7 -- but the mean value is really an attempt to

8 be, and I hate to use this word but it is 

9 probably the best word, a surrogate for the 

10 intake that the person experienced in that 

11 particular year.

12 So, if you have multiple bioassay 

13 samples throughout the year, and you average 

14 those, you will essentially end up with the 

15 average urinary excretion of that person 

16 throughout the year. You know, if you took 

17 the maximum possible value that the person 

18 excreted in that year, you are going to bias 

19 his excretion very high.

20 The maximum-possible mean is a 

21 construct to account for censored data, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93 1 essentially. If you have data that are 

2 reported as less than five or less than two 

3 or zero, then you really don't know what the 

4 value is, and we have proposed to use the 

5 five. We use the value as it was. If it was

6 less than five, we use five; less than ten, 

7 we use ten. And that would be claimant8 favorable in that sense because, then, we 

9 would maximize the average urinary excretion 

10 value for that person for the year.

11 I'm not sure I answered your 

12 question, but that's --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I have to think 

14 about a little bit.

15 DR. NETON: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, another 

17 way of thinking about it is -- this is my 30-

18 year-ago statistics -- but is that, normally,

19 you are concerned about this multiple sample 

20 issue because you are looking at a single 

21 value; you are testing a person multiple 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94 1 times. You know, your blood pressure many 

2 times or blood sugar, or whatever, or some 

3 other parameter like that. And you are 

4 making some assumption that those are all 

5 independent samples, right.

6 In this case, in the case of the 

7 bioassay data, it is more complicated because

8 they are taken over a period of time, and 

9 there is a time variable in terms of how that

10 material is metabolized in the body and 

11 reflected in whatever bioassay you are doing.

12 I mean, the old adage would be 

13 that, if you had multiple samples from any 

14 individual, there is a variability of that 

15 and you would be ignoring that variability, 

16 and that's why you don't do it. And there's 

17 a number of statistical tests that you can do

18 that take into account that variability in 

19 looking at the overall group.

20 In this case, it is more 

21 complicated by the body's metabolism and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95 1 time variable that is in there. Actually, 

2 the two examples I gave, blood pressure and 

3 blood sugar, also have a diurnal variation 

4 and other factors that affect them over time,

5 too. So, there is some difference there.

6 What the right way of doing it 

7 is, I don't think we, as a Work Group, have 

8 really determined it. But, if we don't do 

9 that approach, I think there's some 

10 significant limitations to making any 

11 comparison. So, I think we have to look at 

12 it seriously. And I think there are probably

13 many cases where we can, because those aren't

14 going to make huge differences.

15 It is not that we are ignoring a 

16 high value by taking the mean. We are trying

17 to have one sample, one number that 

18 represents that distribution, which is 

19 probably fair in the sense that distribution 

20 isn't made up of a bunch of independent 

21 samples.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96 1 Now there is also a testing 

2 variability. We can go into lots of levels 

3 of details for that.

4 So, I don't know if that helps.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: It helps and also 

6 explains to me that you must have listened to

7 Saul Rosenberg better than I did when we took

8 statistics.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Well, I 

10 had some reminders recently from sitting 

11 through -- we had some statistical lessons 

12 from our last Work Group meeting from the 

13 statisticians.

14 Welcome, Arjun.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Thank you. I 

16 appreciate it.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

18 have questions?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I do.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: And this is very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97 1 good, and I understand where it is at, but 

2 doesn't this still come down to the 

3 information that is originally put into it? 

4 Doesn't put more emphasis now of justifying 

5 the records that we do find? I mean, that 

6 they are actually credible.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, yes. No, 

8 the other, you know, how representative they 

9 are, what the sampling or evaluation was, was

10 it just everybody that was exposed, just 

11 those highly exposed, I mean, there are all 

12 sorts of those practical issues. You know, 

13 who was tested, and so forth? What happened 

14 to the source terms over time? All those 

15 issues are still there and may very well 

16 outweigh the statistical considerations.

17 However, there are situations 

18 where this has come up, and we have had 

19 discussion. Now, an example, in Fernald, 

20 basically, we did the -- your computer went 

21 crazy again. Sorry.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98 1 In Fernald, it sort of came down 

2 to some practical considerations in terms of 

3 how the sampling was done or what wasn't done

4 for construction versus production workers.

5 So, there is no doubt that is 

6 going to be sort of the outline that DCAS is 

7 developing, will be that whole list of 

8 practical issues. But, again, I still think 

9 we need to look at these statistical issues 

10 and address them to the extent that we can.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Lemen? And 

13 then, Dr. Anderson.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: I had one more 

15 question, and I don't know if this is the 

16 appropriate time to ask it or not. But in 

17 your presentation you talked about, or I 

18 guess Jim talked about the difference between

19 occupational duties such as a construction 

20 worker versus an operator. I am still 

21 confused about how you adjust for that. If 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99 1 you have all of your datasets from, say, the 

2 construction worker versus, you know, a much 

3 smaller dataset from the operators, how do 

4 you adjust for that or do you adjust for 

5 that?

6 DR. NETON: Well, that is sort of 

7 the crux of the issue. I mean, Report 53 

8 that we are evaluating right now was an 

9 attempt to do that. Very often, we don't 

10 have that ability, but at certain sites like 

11 Savannah River you have a lot of data, and 

12 that is when we proposed this Monte Carlo 

13 Permutation Test and this non-parametric test

14 to sort of tease that out.

15 What happened, though, was then 

16 we ended up with statistical tests with 

17 confidence intervals. And we said, well, we 

18 tested a few and we said, well, we see no 

19 significant difference.

20 Well, then, what happened was, 

21 well, wait a minute. You would have to have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100 1 a huge difference to see any statistically2 significant difference. So, where do you 

3 take that?

4 And so, this is where we ended up 

5 with what we called, at least in my mind, 

6 sort of a practical difference, practical 

7 significance, practical difference. And that

8 will, hopefully, answer some of these 

9 questions about how different do they have to

10 be in order for you to start making 

11 stratification.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: So, you think the 

13 Monte Carlo method actually adjusts for that?

14 DR. NETON: The Monte Carlo 

15 method is a test, a statistical test, to 

16 determine if you can see a statistical 

17 difference between two populations.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Right.

19 DR. NETON: But the problem is, 

20 as you probably are going to say, some of the

21 samples are very different sizes. You don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101 1 have very good statistical power, and that 

2 essentially was --

3 MEMBER LEMEN: That is my 

4 concern.

5 DR. NETON: Yes, that was the 

6 discussion topic of our meeting primarily --

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

8 DR. NETON: -- was to try to 

9 figure out what do you do then.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, and you don't 

11 have a solution to that?

12 DR. NETON: No, we don't.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

14 DR. NETON: If the answer is you 

15 have to have a factor-of-five difference in 

16 the geometric mean to say there's a 

17 statistical difference, what does that mean, 

18 you know? I mean, all you can say is I can't

19 see a difference. Well, it would have to be 

20 huge.

21 So, now we can go back and at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102 1 least maybe with some of these analyses or 

2 Probability of Causation say, well, how much 

3 dose difference do you need to have, and 

4 then, start maybe trying to figure that out 

5 from that perspective.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and I 

8 think if you go back to the ORAU, the 0053 

9 Report, the SC&A review, the CliffsNotes on 

10 those which are the presentations that Jim 

11 did, and SC&A had at our last meeting, if you

12 don't want to read the whole report, but I 

13 think they sort of explain what the intent is

14 and how it is being applied, and some of the 

15 potential shortcomings. We are giving you 

16 the real cramming before the final exam, you 

17 know, five minutes before the exam, a summary

18 of all this.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: So, you are saying 

20 we have to come up with a solution in the 

21 exam?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Well, it 

2 all comes back to the Board. So, one way or 

3 the other, we are going to have to make these

4 determinations.

5 And coworker models are very 

6 important in this program. We have not 

7 really wrestled with them, and thought about 

8 them a lot. We do them one at a time and 

9 accept them, and, generally, sometimes reject

10 them. And I think that has major 

11 implications because they are a fundamental 

12 part of individual dose reconstruction.

13 Really it is important and we 

14 need to spend time and effort doing that. 

15 And I think that is what we are proposing to 

16 do.

17 Henry?

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, do we have 

19 a sense of in what proportion of the dose 

20 reconstructions has a coworker model been 

21 applied on the current set of cases?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104 1 DR. NETON: I can't tell you 

2 exactly. I can tell you that there has been 

3 at least a dozen coworker models, both 

4 external and internal --

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

6 DR. NETON: -- prepared at some 

7 of the larger sites.

8 Now, subsequent to those coworker 

9 models being issued, many of those sites have

10 become SEC sites. So, that somewhat negates 

11 the importance of those coworker models, but 

12 they still would be used for the non13 presumptive cancers.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, my 

15 second question was going to be, if you don't

16 accept a coworker model at a site, would 

17 that, if it is part of an SEC petition, would

18 that be sufficient to say --

19 DR. NETON: Oh, yes. We have 

20 added a site. I think Nevada Test Site is a 

21 good example where --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105 1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Well, 

2 that is the only one I remember.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, well, that is 

4 the only one that comes to mind right now.

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, okay.

6 DR. NETON: But that was a case 

7 where they didn't have, as far as we could 

8 determine, a routine monitoring program 

9 before a certain date. It was incident10 driven, which we had decided was not useful 

11 for developing a chronic coworker model.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

13 DR. NETON: That was one of the 

14 bases for that site being added.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Thanks.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But maybe a 

17 better way, my response to you was to say 

18 that they affect a large number of claims --

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- more than 

21 sites. But they are the bigger sites where 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106 1 there is more data and there is more ability 

2 to put these together.

3 Okay. Any other questions, 

4 comments?

5 (No response.)

6 Arjun, you were late. So, we 

7 have gone through. That's okay.

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry about that.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, we were 

10 early, actually.

11 So, okay, why don't we, then, 

12 take a break until 11 o'clock and we will be 

13 back here? And by that time, Jim will have 

14 -- excuse me -- it is Stu's turn, right? Stu

15 will fix the computer.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 matter went off the record at 10:08 a.m. and 

18 resumed at 11:02 a.m.)

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We are now 

20 reconvening this meeting of the Board.

21 And our first subject is an SEC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107 1 petition, Sandia National Laboratory, the 

2 Livermore Branch, whatever you call it. So, 

3 Sam Glover from DCAS will be presenting.

4 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. 

5 Melius.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Time out a 

7 second.

8 DR. GLOVER: We will go ahead and 

9 let everybody get comfortable.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes, 

11 that's good.

12 DR. GLOVER: Okay. So, we are 

13 here today to talk about Sandia National 

14 Laboratories-Livermore. I think this is a 

15 very similar set of circumstances to what you

16 heard previously about Sandia National Labs17 Albuquerque. Many of the records, practices,

18 and similar activities, we are going to see a

19 very similar history and outcome.

20 So, with that said, let's talk a 

21 little bit about Sandia. It is a little bit 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108 1 of background.

2 NIOSH determined that we were 

3 unable to complete dose reconstruction for a 

4 worker Class due to lack of sufficient 

5 dosimetry-related information at Sandia 

6 National Laboratories-Livermore, SNL-L. And 

7 on August 14th, we notified a claimant and 

8 provided a copy of the Special Exposure 

9 Cohort Petition or information.

10 They, then, obviously, sent that 

11 back on August 22nd, and we are proceeding 

12 with an 83.14. We issued an Evaluation 

13 Report on October the 7th.

14 All right. So, the evaluated 

15 Class is the Department of Energy, its 

16 predecessor agencies, and/or contractors and 

17 subcontractors who worked at any area of 

18 Sandia National Laboratories-Livermore in 

19 Livermore, California, and the date was 

20 October 1, 1957 through December 31st, 1994.

21 A little more background. So, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109 1 early in 1956, Sandia National Laboratories2 Albuquerque, established a Livermore branch 

3 to provide direct support to the Lawrence 

4 Livermore National Lab, and they were 

5 originally located on the Livermore site.

6 At the end of 1956, they decided 

7 that they needed to make plans for a much 

8 larger support effort. And so, they wanted a

9 site adjacent to Livermore which would employ

10 around a thousand workers. And so, they 

11 began to develop a site. And by October 

12 1957, the facility opened.

13 In 1958, the facility had 

14 employed 800 workers, and they were working 

15 to develop the W38 warhead for the Titan I 

16 and Atlas missiles.

17 Today it consists of about 70 

18 buildings on 410 acres adjacent to Livermore.

19 And the typical number of workers is around 

20 1,000 to 1,100 over the timeframe. It has 

21 been continuously operated by the Sandia 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110 1 Corporation.

2 Just a quick map of the facility. 

3 Immediately to the north, that is East 

4 Avenue. Right across that, you would be on 

5 the Livermore site.

6 So, the primary mission of Sandia 

7 National Lab-Livermore, included the 

8 engineering or weaponization of the nuclear 

9 physics package designed by Livermore, 

10 Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and 

11 principally, the production of parts and 

12 final weapons was accomplished at other 

13 facilities.

14 And so, what does it mean? 

15 Weaponization gets thrown out there. So, I 

16 threw a few bullets in here to kind of 

17 explain what that means.

18 It is to design and test the non19 nuclear components of a nuclear weapon 

20 package. In their terms, they ensure that 

21 the other 95 percent of the weapons parts 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111 1 work perfectly at every point of contact with

2 the delivery systems.

3 I think recently there was a 

4 discussion at North Carolina that there may 

5 have been a failure, that they had a failure 

6 of the system, and all these failsafes worked

7 to prevent that weapon from going off. So, 

8 we should thank Sandia for making sure that 

9 those things work properly.

10 Weaponization includes the 

11 arming, fusing, and firing systems, the 

12 neutron generators, gas transfer systems, and

13 surety systems.

14 SNL-Livermore support for the 

15 Livermore National Lab later expanded to 

16 include effects of test analyses and 

17 telemetry for the Lawrence Livermore National

18 Lab sites, tests, and from 1959 to the early 

19 1970s, they participated in the evaluation of

20 the Plowshare Program of nuclear detonations.

21 We are going to walk through some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112 1 of the facilities. And some of the core 

2 missions included the weapons facilities 

3 complex, where they test/repair neutron 

4 detectors, wet machining of uranium, 

5 radiography of weapons components, ion beam 

6 analysis of materials, tritium storage 

7 studies and similar type analyses, micro- and

8 nanotechnologies laboratory where they 

9 conducted radiography, centrifuge and 

10 explosive test facilities.

11 There is the former Tritium 

12 Research Laboratory, now known as the 

13 Chemical and Radiological Detection Lab, an 

14 explosive environmental test complex, where 

15 they looked at the environmental testing of 

16 mock-up weapons and components, and 

17 additional classified activities involving 

18 thorium and highly-enriched uranium.

19 The proximity of Lawrence 

20 Livermore National Lab to SNL-Livermore 

21 allowed workers to essentially what was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113 1 termed "wheel test devices across the 

2 street". So, it provided a lot of 

3 flexibility and ability to interact directly 

4 with the Lawrence Livermore National 

5 Laboratory.

6 So, we are now at some of the 

7 standard source of available information. We

8 have been doing this for over six years, 

9 looking at Livermore, Sandia National Lab10 Livermore as well as Sandia National Lab11 Albuquerque, because, as you will see, the 

12 records and how things have been done, they 

13 are tied pretty much directly together.

14 So, Oak Ridge, the associated 

15 universities, you know, we obviously have the

16 Technical Basis Documents for the Sandia 

17 National Lab site, the TIBs and Procedures. 

18 We conducted a number of interviews of former

19 workers or former employees as well as the 

20 SC&A, they also conducted interviews.

21 We looked at existing claimant 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114 1 files, the NIOSH Site Research Database where

2 we have more than 1,000 documents. We had 

3 certainly many data captures to the Sandia 

4 National Lab-Livermore. And because the 

5 records are also stored at Albuquerque, we 

6 also went to the Albuquerque site.

7 We captured records wherever 

8 across the DOE complex, so not just at those 

9 facilities, but as we found other related 

10 records across the complex, we got those, and

11 looked at DOE OpenNet, as well as other 

12 similar sources.

13 Just a little bit on the previous 

14 dose reconstructions. We have 132 cases 

15 submitted for dose reconstruction, 15 of 

16 those completed with a Probability of 

17 Causation above 50 percent and 100 at less 

18 than 50 percent. We have 123 of those with 

19 employment during the period being evaluated,

20 105 dose reconstructions completed during 

21 that period, and 25 of those we found 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115 1 internal dosimetry and 112 with external.

2 So, health physics was the 

3 responsibility of Sandia National Lab4 Livermore until about this 1989-to-1994 

5 timeframe. And it is timeframe because at 

6 that point they began -- it was an 

7 implementation that took some time to happen.

8 So, they didn't all of a sudden just assume 

9 control. It took several years for that 

10 implementation to happen.

11 NIOSH located minimal 

12 documentation of the practices and 

13 requirements during the evaluation period. 

14 In general, very little information regarding

15 the programs are available.

16 The location of records and the 

17 complexity of that relationship also plays 

18 into this. Documentation was kept at Sandia 

19 National Lab-Livermore, and we have seen 

20 records transferred to the Albuquerque 

21 facilities, I'll use the term ad hoc, over 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116 1 the past few decades. They are not really 

2 described. We don't know when the records --

3 we find records at Albuquerque. We find some

4 records at Livermore. They have no real 

5 record of those transfers and how they have 

6 happened. They will find records, even 

7 within the last few months, and those were 

8 transferred and there's no documentation 

9 about that, either. So, as I said, ad hoc is

10 the term that I have used.

11 I wouldn't say that it is a broad 

12 spectrum of external. I would just say it is

13 perhaps as a Hanford or a facility, a big 

14 production site, but they certainly have a 

15 lot of different things going on, a lot of 

16 different source terms. There was certainly 

17 radiography, X-ray diffraction materials 

18 characterization. They did certainly work 

19 with thorium and uranium, both depleted as 

20 well other enrichments. They had neutron 

21 exposures from radiography sources and tests,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117 1 repair and research of neutron and X-ray 

2 detectors, and they had also exposure while 

3 working the storage and packaging of waste 

4 materials.

5 We have missed -- unfortunately, 

6 the slide caption should be "Potential 

7 internal radiological exposures." Materials 

8 and activities included depleted uranium and 

9 alloys from machining. And these often were 

10 surrogates for the test devices that were 

11 fabricated onsite, and they did approximately

12 50 to 100 specimens per month, which is why 

13 they, instead of just relying on Y-12 or a 

14 different facility, they did that onsite. 

15 They also had highly-enriched uranium, 

16 thorium, preparation of samples for tests. 

17 And the TRL had gram quantities of tritium 

18 during this period when it was an active 

19 facility.

20 A lot of this comes down to 

21 records. And I want to say our people at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118 1 Sandia National Lab-Albuquerque really are 

2 trying to do a good job. They have had a lot

3 of difficulty trying to do their job, which 

4 is to provide information. They are one of 

5 the facilities that is often shown to be 

6 behind on providing records for claims. And 

7 it is really not an effort that they are not 

8 trying very hard; it is just that the records

9 are not in a searchable mode. And so, I have

10 watched them try to do this where a guy 

11 remembers 10 names, and he, then, looks 

12 through 100,000 pages of stuff, remembering 

13 10 names, and extracts these records. It is 

14 not simple. It is a very difficult process.

15 And just the history of how the 

16 site and the practices evolved. These 

17 practices, as I said, it is very similar to 

18 what Sandia-Albuquerque had, because they 

19 have rolled over those records down to there,

20 and they have lost the concepts of where and 

21 how much they have transferred. And they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119 1 didn't run the facilities at the time. So, 

2 those people are no longer there.

3 So, to speak to the slide, some 

4 health physics records have been transferred 

5 from Sandia National Labs-Livermore down to 

6 what I will call the mountains in California.

7 Others have been transferred to Albuquerque.

8 Others still stay onsite. And the fractions

9 of those is sort of unknown.

10 They provide very little to no 

11 information in selecting records for review. 

12 Until 1992 or 1994, there was, essentially, 

13 not a records management practice that you 

14 could have a description and, then, be able 

15 to pull records back.

16 Available records are stored in 

17 both California and New Mexico. Little or no

18 documentation of the transfers.

19 So, the availability of data 

20 remains a significant concern for the Sandia 

21 sites, also at Sandia-Albuquerque. And you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120 1 will remember that in November of 2009 we 

2 notified DOE about incomplete case responses 

3 for both Sandia sites, particularly with 

4 regards to internal dosimetry. Previously, 

5 we have actually gotten cases that only had 

6 data that started in 1989. They responded, 

7 then, to try to fix that, but we still found 

8 additional data that we picked up in our data

9 captures that they weren't providing. We 

10 certainly had no idea what fraction of that 

11 may have represented the total decision. We 

12 have captured records in boxes, sometimes not

13 just expecting to find that kind of 

14 information in that box.

15 January of 2010, we again 

16 requested SNL records of open cases. The 

17 backlog of cases at the site shows the 

18 difficulty faced by the site to obtain these 

19 records. DOE and Sandia National Lab 

20 continue its efforts to improve the record 

21 searches and requests for claimant-monitoring
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121 1 data. They are working very hard. They are 

2 volunteering their time, coming on the 

3 weekends to try to make up the backlog. But 

4 it is a very difficult operation.

5 NIOSH continues to provide 

6 feedback to both Sandia National Lab7 Livermore and DOE and Sandia National Lab8 Albuquerque about the availability of the 

9 complete monitoring record. And we have 

10 provided all the records that we have 

11 captured to try to help them understand their

12 record set.

13 Unlike many DOE facilities, the 

14 Sandia National Laboratory did not report the

15 number of bioassay samples analyzed. So, we 

16 don't know what our target is. We don't know

17 what the total value should be.

18 Based on interviews, it is just 

19 thought to be relatively-small. We have 

20 certainly obtained copies of some of the 

21 bioassay records as part of our data capture 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122 1 and claim requests. However, as with Sandia 

2 National Lab-Albuquerque, it is clear that 

3 Sandia is not able to produce all the 

4 records, nor are they sure how much should be

5 there.

6 For external, we continue to 

7 identify numerous cases where the data was 

8 not provided by the site, similar to 

9 internal. We have provided, as I said, all 

10 the copies of data that were retrieved. 

11 However, we conclude that we have not 

12 captured all the data, and we also understand

13 that the source term doesn't overcome the 

14 loss of personal monitoring data. We don't 

15 have that as well because those were lost to 

16 the record storage practices. So, we are 

17 unable to come to grips with all the source 

18 terms and what they may be and all the 

19 practices that have been undergone over the 

20 life of the site.

21 So, for dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123 1 feasibility, we conclude that we cannot bound

2 internal or external doses from October 1, 

3 1957 through December 31st, 1994 due to the 

4 lack of the availability of monitoring data, 

5 process information, and monitoring program 

6 information, are insufficient to support 

7 estimation of the potential internal or 

8 external exposures to radiation and 

9 radioactive materials.

10 Lack of internal monitoring 

11 program documentation and source term 

12 information data for the evaluated period. 

13 The availability of records suggests that 

14 only some workers participated in an internal

15 dosimetry bioassay program, while other 

16 workers participated only in an external 

17 dosimetry program. Even if additional 

18 records become available, NIOSH does not feel

19 it can establish a bounding approach.

20 Our recommended Class: all 

21 employees of the Department of Energy, its 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124 1 predecessor agencies, and their contractors 

2 and subcontractors who worked in any area at 

3 the Sandia National Laboratories-Livermore in

4 Livermore, California from October 1, 1957 

5 through December 31st, 1994, for a number of 

6 workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays 

7 occurring either solely under this employment

8 or in combination with workdays within the 

9 parameters established for one or more other 

10 classes of employees, including the Special 

11 Exposure Cohort.

12 Recommendation for non-SEC 

13 claims: Although NIOSH found it is not 

14 possible to reconstruct radiation doses for 

15 the proposes Classes, NIOSH intends to use 

16 any internal and external monitoring data 

17 that may become available for an individual 

18 claim and that can be interpreted using 

19 existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes 

20 and procedures.

21 NIOSH finds that it is likely 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125 1 feasible to reconstruct occupational/medical 

2 dose for Sandia National Laboratories3 Livermore, with the caveat that that only 

4 goes through 1989 because at that point they 

5 moved the X-ray to offsite. And, of course, 

6 at that point, they are not covered.

7 Therefore, dose reconstruction 

8 for individual employees of Sandia National 

9 Lab-Livermore during the period from October 

10 1, 1957 through December 31st, 1994, but who 

11 did not qualify for inclusion in the SEC may 

12 perform using these data as appropriate.

13 And this just summarizes our 

14 reconstruction feasibility during the 

15 timeframe with only occupational/medical 

16 X-rays being considered feasible.

17 Dr. Melius?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions? 

19 Wanda?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Sam.

21 It sounds absolutely chaotic in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126 1 terms of records. And it is such a shame 

2 that such an advanced laboratory doesn't have

3 the records we're looking for.

4 I assume from implication that 

5 there are no health physics records as we 

6 consider them, that is, records in a bulk 

7 where you can sit down and see what was done 

8 in a year's time with respect to monitoring.

9 Is the monitoring that is done in 

10 individual claims, I mean in individual 

11 personnel files? Or how did they, of the 

12 information you have been able to pull 

13 together, how did you find it? Were they in 

14 individual files or is it just simply not 

15 there?

16 DR. GLOVER: It is in many 

17 places. We found pieces. They have a health

18 physics server that has pieces of 

19 information. There is some stuff that they 

20 have on the shelf that they have not 

21 transferred to Albuquerque. It is very hard 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127 1 to get your hands around what is the 

2 totality. We will find stuff in boxes where 

3 we had no idea there was information that was

4 supposed to be in there. So, we just don't 

5 have a good grasp of it.

6 And as you know, different groups 

7 had different responsibilities of industrial 

8 hygiene --

9 MEMBER MUNN: I understand.

10 DR. GLOVER: -- and then, it 

11 became health physics. It has always been a 

12 very small group up there. Right now, I 

13 think there's only two people who are 

14 permanently staffed at the Sandia National 

15 Lab-Livermore.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Do they have decent 

17 personnel files? No?

18 DR. GLOVER: The units are broken 

19 up and how they chose to report is very hard,

20 again. They don't just have a nice unit file

21 that says this is that person's record. They
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128 1 have to go back to this bulk report, and they

2 find things. It is a very difficult job for 

3 them.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 DR. GLOVER: They really have 

6 their hands full trying to do their work.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you for 

8 trying it, anyway.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sam, I noticed 

11 that, of the 132 claims that have been 

12 processed, most of them are from this 

13 proposed SEC period. Is it correct, then, to

14 conclude that, although these dose 

15 reconstructions were done, we now are 

16 recognizing that we had insufficient 

17 information to actually do them properly?

18 This 83.14 case suggests that 

19 these other ones that have already been done,

20 which I think will fall into the SEC, must 

21 not have been in some way complete. Am I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129 1 understanding that correctly?

2 DR. GLOVER: That is correct. We 

3 have had claims where we had no data. And 

4 then, they didn't provide anything for 

5 internal. And then, based on our results of 

6 finding some of the information for internal,

7 found out, well, this guy was uranium 

8 bioassayed and his missed dose would change 

9 the compensation decision.

10 So, that is why we have to go 

11 down to try to do our best due diligence. Is

12 this information, as Wanda said, is it 

13 available? Have we missed something? Work 

14 with the site to try to put it together.

15 We have understood that we have 

16 been challenged. There is no coworker model 

17 because we don't have the group of data to 

18 work from. And so, we can't really have an 

19 internal/external model to try to file in any

20 of the gaps. And so, this is what basically 

21 we are seeing, is we have a deficiency even 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130 1 on the other cases that we have done.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Sam, I 

5 thought I had read that you had some air 

6 sample data. Is that helpful in any way 

7 or --

8 DR. GLOVER: Well, we will look 

9 at it. In the Tiger Team efforts, they were 

10 not calibrated, and there is very little 

11 information about how the type of samples, 

12 where would it have been. Again, a lot of 

13 times there were incident-driven aspects to 

14 some of their program, and they set up 

15 temporary evaluations.

16 And so, while we certainly don't 

17 want to throw anything away that might be 

18 even useful for future dose reconstructions, 

19 we don't think, if we even found that 

20 information, it would change our decision.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Others?

2 (No response.)

3 I would just add the report, I 

4 thought, did a good job of sort of capturing 

5 the breadth and complexity of the operations 

6 at the facility. And I think there is some 

7 estimate, if I understand, I think it is 

8 Table 4.3, some estimates of the sort of 

9 percentage exposed.

10 I mean, you know, again, based 

11 from I think the health physics personnel 

12 there or other personal sources, but it is a 

13 very complicated site. So, I can see where 

14 you can start doing dose reconstruction and 

15 you think you have all the information. And 

16 then, you start peeling away. And without 

17 either good personnel records or good 

18 monitoring records that you think are 

19 complete, I can see where you would start 

20 doing dose reconstruction, and then, you 

21 would find out more about the site. It is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132 1 complicated.

2 And again, I think we have to 

3 always remember that the personnel, the 

4 health physics personnel, may very well have 

5 been protecting people. It is just the 

6 health physics program is not set up 

7 necessarily for dose reconstruction purposes 

8 "X" years later. And the limited personnel, 

9 and so forth, and the nature of some of these

10 operations, I don't think it is surprising 

11 that we find ourselves in this situation.

12 And it is particularly, I think, 

13 what we found with some of the other 

14 laboratories where, because of the complexity

15 of the operations there and changes over 

16 time, records may not be as complete as we 

17 would like for purposes of dose 

18 reconstruction. I think that, to me, is 

19 always key. It is not to sort of focus back 

20 on were they protecting people. They may 

21 very well have been doing a very good job of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133 1 that. But it does not mean that these 

2 records are, then, good enough for dose 

3 reconstruction and going back in time.

4 Any other comments or questions 

5 from anybody?

6 (No response.)

7 I don't believe that the 

8 petitioner wishes to make any comments. It 

9 is an 83.14.

10 Yes, thank you.

11 Dave Richardson or Bill Field, do 

12 you have any comments?

13 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. No 

14 comment.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Dave?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, no.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

18 you.

19 Okay. If not, might I hear a 

20 motion from the Board?

21 MEMBER BEACH: I will make a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134 1 motion that we accept NIOSH's recommendation.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second it.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad, will you 

4 yield your second to Wanda?

5 No. No, sorry, it has been 

6 recorded. I have been ruled out of order 

7 here. Any further discussion?

8 (No response.)

9 So, we have a motion to accept 

10 NIOSH's recommendation that a Class be added 

11 to the Special Exposure Cohort for all 

12 employees at Sandia National Laboratories13 Livermore, October 1, 1957 through December 

14 31st, 1994.

15 So, Ted, do you want to do the 

16 roll call?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, Jim.

18 And just before I get started 

19 with the roll call, let's me just clarify 

20 there was a question as to whether Phil has a

21 conflict here. He does not have a conflict. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135 1 His son works at a different Livermore site.

2 So, let's run through the -- I am 

3 just going to do this alphabetically, 

4 beginning with Anderson.

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Beach?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Clawson?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Field?

11 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Griffon?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Kotelchuck?

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Lemen?

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Lockey?

19 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Melius?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136 1 MR. KATZ: Munn?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Poston?

4 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Richardson? David?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Roessler?

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Schofield?

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Valerio?

12 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: And it's unanimous. 

16 The motion passes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

18 We continue a little bit ahead of schedule, 

19 but we have a pretty long work period this 

20 afternoon.

21 So, one change in schedule for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137 1 tomorrow, we have a few Board Members that 

2 have to do smart-card errands, I guess we 

3 call it.

4 And so, we are going to move up 

5 the DuPont Deepwater Works. Do you think you

6 can handle it, Henry?

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: I think I can 

8 handle it.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And sort 

10 of switch that in and do the procedures 

11 review after that. But the DuPont, General 

12 Steel, and Deepwater we need; we have 

13 potential votes on. And so, I think we will 

14 try to do them first tomorrow. And so, we 

15 will make that change.

16 I will again remind you, to 

17 facilitate our Board work time later today, 

18 we have a set of public comments people 

19 should go through. And then, before you do 

20 your Work Group reports, if you could please 

21 review both the DCAS and the SC&A report 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138 1 scheduling that has been given to everybody, 

2 so you can comment on making sure that, in 

3 terms of scheduling Work Group meetings or if

4 you have questions about when reports are 

5 really due or why they are late or not 

6 timely, or whatever, you will be able to 

7 raise that at the time. And hopefully, it 

8 will help facilitate some of our later 

9 schedule.

10 Ted, do you have anything more?

11 MR. KATZ: No.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, why 

13 don't we take our lunch break and return here

14 at 1:30? And we will have an exciting 

15 presentation from LaVon Rutherford.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 matter went off the record for lunch at 11:31

18 a.m. and resumed at 1:34 p.m.)

19

20

21

22
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139 1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 1:34 p.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We are 

4 going to reconvene this meeting of the Board.

5 And let me turn it over to Ted 

6 for the administrative.

7 MR. KATZ: Bill, I'm just 

8 checking to see, Bill Field, are you on the 

9 line?

10 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I am.

11 MR. KATZ: Great.

12 And I believe Dr. Richardson has 

13 a conflict right now. So, he won't be on for

14 this session.

15 And, well, I don't see anybody 

16 really yet from locally to make an 

17 announcement, but we have a public comment 

18 session from 5:00 to 6:00, and there is a 

19 signup chart out front, outside the meeting, 

20 for folks to register, if they want to make 

21 public comments later. I'll repeat this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140 1 later in this session.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and we 

3 will start out with an exciting presentation 

4 from LaVon Rutherford, SEC petition status 

5 update.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Do I get three 

7 seconds per slide on this one, too?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, yes.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. I'm 

10 going to give the status of our upcoming SEC 

11 petitions. And we do this presentation, as 

12 everyone knows, for most of you anyway, we do

13 this presentation every Board meeting, to 

14 give the Advisory Board an update on where 

15 existing petitions, you know, where we are in

16 evaluation and qualification, what petitions 

17 kind of prepare the Board for upcoming Work 

18 Group meetings and Advisory Board meetings.

19 As of October 9th, we have up to 

20 215 petitions received. We have one petition

21 in the qualification process. We have 131 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141 1 petitions that are qualified, as you can see,

2 and then, 83 petitions that did not qualify. 

3 We have eight petition evaluations that are 

4 with the Board in various phases.

5 A number of those -- and you will 

6 see in my next slide -- a number of those 

7 have had some action by the Board. We have 

8 six sites that have had some kind of action 

9 taken on them, the petition evaluation: 

10 Hanford, Los Alamos National Lab, Savannah 

11 River Site, Nuclear Metals, Inc., Joslyn, and

12 Oak Ridge National Lab. All those have had 

13 action taken, but they are currently still 

14 with the Work Groups for additional review. 

15 Some of these sites, the Work Group is 

16 actually waiting on NIOSH to complete some 

17 additional work and review and some White 

18 Papers to allow them to move forward on 

19 these.

20 We have two petitions that are 

21 with the Advisory Board for their initial 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142 1 action. That is the Rocky Flats Plant 

2 Revised Evaluation Report, which will be 

3 discussed later today, and then, the Sandia4 Livermore, which Sam just presented, and the 

5 Board has taken action on that.

6 We have potential SECs on our 

7 plate that are basically being held up for a 

8 claim to move the petitions forward. These 

9 are 83.14s. We have Sandia National Lab10 Albuquerque. This is the 1945 through 1948 

11 period. This was the old LANL Z Division, 

12 which was actually encompassed into Sandia 

13 National Lab. Again, these are sites that we

14 could move forward with an 83.14, but we 

15 don't have a Class -- or don't have a claim.

16 General Atomics, that was one of 

17 our original SECs that had listed a number of

18 buildings that would be individuals that 

19 worked in those buildings. Over time we 

20 recognized that that Class Definition wasn't 

21 appropriate, and we have looked at modifying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143 1 that. However, the Department of Labor has 

2 pretty much treated that, all claims that 

3 come in, they are pretty much treating that 

4 Class as all employees as it is. So, we 

5 haven't received a claim for that one.

6 Dayton Project, Monsanto, that 

7 was modifying based on a change in the 

8 facility designation. It went from an AWE to

9 a DOE site.

10 And we are also looking at adding 

11 an additional nine-month period. There is an

12 open period that was covered under the AWE 

13 that is not covered now that we look to add 

14 under the 83.14. However, again, we don't 

15 have a litmus claim for that site as well.

16 Current petitions. We have a 

17 Linde Air Products. I want to make sure you 

18 know this is Linde Air Products; it is not 

19 Linde Ceramics. It is in the Buffalo area. 

20 And this actual site, we have a petition for 

21 this site from 1945 to 1947. All indications
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144 1 at this time are that they did not work with 

2 any radioactive material at the site. So, it

3 doesn't like this one will qualify.

4 And then, we have the Kansas City 

5 Plant, which the evaluation is in process at 

6 this time. We are quickly approaching the

7 180 days, and we did send out a notification 

8 to the Advisory Board that we would not make 

9 the 180 days for this site. And that is due 

10 to some additional data captures that were 

11 driven from classified interviews that we 

12 conducted recently. These classified 

13 interviews brought up some things that we 

14 could do some specific searches for and 

15 identified a number of documents. We have 

16 actually individuals from our contractor who 

17 are at the site right now reviewing those 

18 documents.

19 We do plan to get the Evaluation 

20 Report out in December, in time for the 

21 January Advisory Board meeting in Kansas 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145 1 City. However, I do want to say that I don't

2 know exactly what is going to happen with 

3 resources, based on the shutdown, and so on. 

4 But our goal is to make the January Advisory

5 Board meeting for this one.

6 And that's about it.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions for 

8 LaVon?

9 (No response.)

10 Come on, we can't let him get off 

11 here without a question or two.

12 So, Kansas City --

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- your note 

15 didn't mention the federal budget thing --

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- but still 

18 raised some doubts --

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- about 

21 whether you will finish in time. We were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146 1 talking earlier about we have a Work Group 

2 meeting to sort of schedule, and so forth.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: My concern is 

4 not only the budget, but we are identifying 

5 records in October. A number of these 

6 documents may be classified documents in the 

7 review. And getting these documents reviewed

8 and either released or sent to Germantown, or

9 wherever, you know, I am kind of concerned 

10 because that is not in my hands as much as it

11 is -- or our hands at NIOSH -- as much as it 

12 is in the people at Kansas City. And so, 

13 that concerns me.

14 And then, reviewing those 

15 documents and getting the information, and 

16 all of that, input it into an Evaluation 

17 Report as we move through the holiday periods

18 in November and December, that concerns me. 

19 So, I wanted to put it out just --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no. Yes, 

21 I'm not being critical.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147 1 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I am just 

3 trying to understand --

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- because we 

6 have both the Work Group meeting and we also 

7 have a Board meeting scheduled in Kansas 

8 City.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: In sort of 

11 terms of contingency planning, is it going to

12 make sense to have that Board meeting if we 

13 don't have an SEC Evaluation Report ready? 

14 Or it can cut both ways. It may be useful to

15 get input, but at the same time we are not 

16 going to, may not know what we are going to 

17 need input on. I mean, that is the tricky 

18 part with it, and so forth.

19 I can't remember the exact dates 

20 of the Board meeting.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: It is pretty 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148 1 late January, I believe.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Of January?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: January.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes, and 

5 do that. So, we have a Board call beginning 

6 December. Will that give us enough time to 

7 -- I think NIOSH will know more.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we will 

9 definitely have a pretty strong --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- idea on 

12 whether we are going to make it or not.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. 

14 Because I think that's right, and I think we 

15 can still sort of be planning, tentatively 

16 planning a Work Group meeting sometime after 

17 the first of the year, you know, the middle 

18 of January or something, to get ready for the

19 Board meeting. Because I think it is 

20 important that the Work Group have looked at 

21 it, and so forth.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149 1 We can decide that and we can 

2 decide whether we need to do any preliminary 

3 tasking of SC&A, but SC&A has done a Site 

4 Profile review, is that correct, for Kansas 

5 City? Or is there some --

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, the Site 

7 Profile review is essentially done.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: It is to go to 

10 DOE, however, and given the situation, we 

11 don't know how long that will take.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: There is a little 

14 bit of cleanup and typesetting that needs to 

15 be done, but in a couple of days it will go 

16 to DOE.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, we 

18 will know that; we will know the status of 

19 that by December, too. At least SC&A will be

20 familiar with the site for the Work Group 

21 meeting.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150 1 Josie, do you want to add 

2 anything? You were asking about this before.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was just 

4 wondering if we could task SC&A to review the

5 Evaluation Report or we have to wait until it

6 comes out.

7 MR. KATZ: It's fine. I mean, we 

8 will task it when it comes out.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, let's see 

11 what it recommends also.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. 

14 Any other questions for LaVon?

15 (No response.)

16 No? We get another chance later, 

17 LaVon.

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, work 

20 time. And I need to get ready for work time 

21 here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151 1 Do we want to start with meeting 

2 schedules while everyone is here? You're 

3 struggling with --

4 MR. KATZ: I just want to sort 

5 out everything that we're doing first.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, 

7 Board comments. We have, I believe, two 

8 files that have been sent to everybody that 

9 were public comments from the July meeting. 

10 And they are sort of strangely organized this

11 time.

12 One says "Board PCB," which is 

13 public comments, something or other, July, 

14 and then, another one that says "Board CP -

15 Ted to Board". Those I think are the two.

16 MR. KATZ: That's a referral. 

17 So, those are specific comments that were 

18 referred to either a Work Group or in this 

19 case to you.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is there 

21 another set?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152 1 MR. KATZ: Then, there's a full 

2 set, right.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Which is named?

4 MR. KATZ: I don't have the file 

5 in front of me, so I don't know what it was 

6 named, but it was two documents, like usual, 

7 a summary document and a scratch sheet.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Then maybe I 

9 don't have those.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Board PCP?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

12 MR. KATZ: In my email to you 

13 all, those two files are the files we are 

14 working from.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: That's what I 

16 have.

17 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: So, what do we do?

19 MR. KATZ: Those are the ones we 

20 go through.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And what are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153 1 they named again?

2 MEMBER LEMEN: The first one, 

3 there is Board PCP.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. 

5 That's what I was referring to, yes.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: 7/16/2013. And

7 then, the second one is the report, PCP, July

8 16-17, 2013. The second has the spreadsheet,

9 the Excel spreadsheet.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I never 

11 got either. I don't have either of those 

12 two.

13 We'll put this off, then, until 

14 tomorrow, and I can have time on that. I 

15 replied to what Ted said was going to be on 

16 the drive.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: 10/11 is the 

18 date.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, they should be in 

20 the drive somewhere.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Isn't that it?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, it is not 

2 that something he was describing. I thought 

3 it was it, too.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's it. 

5 That's it.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's what I'm 

7 referring to, and it's called "Board PCB July

8 Comments". And Ted was telling me there's 

9 another one.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other one 

11 says, "Ted to the Board".

12 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's just a 

15 specific one. That's what I'm saying. That 

16 "Ted to Board" is not comprehensive. It is 

17 one item.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, which is 

19 the other one, yes. That's where I started.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: The one you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155 1 talking about entitled, "Public Comments -

2 July 16th-17th, 2013".

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and that 

4 goes through No. 13.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, it goes 

6 through 13. And then, the next comment is 14

7 by Joan Stewart. At least that is the one I 

8 have. And that is 14, 15, and 16.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: And then, Mark 

11 Nelson, 17, 18, 19. No, 17 only.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That is the one on 

13 the Excel sheet.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: No, that is 

15 actually not the Excel sheet. That is the 

16 other one.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, I see.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: There is a 

19 duplication on the Excel sheet of what is on 

20 the other one.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I see it. Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think 

2 we will wait until we get this organized 

3 because I think I'm missing something.

4 Okay. Are you ready for the 

5 dates?

6 MR. KATZ: Sure.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: So, dates coming up, 

9 this is for meeting dates we are talking 

10 about right now.

11 We have scheduled a December 9 

12 teleconference as our next meeting. That is 

13 a problem now for Dr. Melius. So, we want to

14 try to reschedule that, perhaps for later in 

15 the week, if that works. And I think the 

16 12th and the 13th work for you or 11th, 12th,

17 13th, Jim?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: The 11th, starting at 

20 the 11th?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157 1 MR. KATZ: So, for example, the 

2 11th, that's Wednesday. Does that work for 

3 others? It is a teleconference. So, we are 

4 just talking about from 11:00 --

5 MEMBER LEMEN: The 12th works for 

6 me --

7 MR. KATZ: The 12th.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: -- but not the 

9 11th.

10 MR. KATZ: Does the 12th work for 

11 others?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 MEMBER FIELD: Ted, it doesn't 

14 work for me, but the following week would.

15 MR. KATZ: The 12th does not work 

16 for you, Bill?

17 MEMBER FIELD: The 11th and the 

18 13th don't.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's look 

20 at --

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: The 17th or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158 1 18th?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, these are all 

3 fine with me. Does the 17th or 18th work for

4 others, the 17th, say? Okay. Let's do the 

5 17th then, 11:00 a.m.

6 Oh, wait, wait.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: I can't at 

8 11:00. I've got openings. We could do an 

9 hour later.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, those don't work 

11 for him.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: The 18th, the 

13 whole morning is free for me.

14 MR. KATZ: The 18th is good?

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, for the 

16 whole morning, yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. The 17th, how 

18 about at noon instead of --

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: How about the 

20 17th at 10:00?

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, earlier in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159 1 morning?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: No.

3 MR. KATZ: Are you talking about 

4 Eastern Time?

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: How about 12:00 

6 Eastern? Noon?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. That's fine. 

8 Let's see how Jim's schedule is.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: December 17th.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: December 17th

11 at noon?

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Noon Eastern.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is fine.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's do 

15 that, the 17th, noon. Okay. That's a 

16 teleconference.

17 And then, as Jim I think 

18 mentioned earlier, we have our Board meeting 

19 on the 28th and 29th in Kansas City, January 

20 28th and 29th.

21 The next meeting scheduled is the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160 1 teleconference on March 19th, 11:00 a.m.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: There's nothing in 

3 February?

4 MR. KATZ: No.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'll call you 

6 in February, Dick.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Please.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: It's the 19th.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: At 11:00, 

11 right?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 And then, we have a meeting 

14 scheduled April 29th and 30th, location to be

15 determined.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: That's the EIS 

17 Conference.

18 MR. KATZ: The 29th and 30th, we 

19 scheduled for a Board meeting. Is that what 

20 you're saying, there's a problem?

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, there is a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161 1 problem. I mean, that's the CDC EIS 

2 Conference.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes. And why does 

4 that matter?

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Because I have 

6 to be there.

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Thank you.

8 Okay. So, Andy has a conflict 

9 for the 29th and 30th.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Where would it 

11 be? If it's in Atlanta, I could come over.

12 MR. KATZ: Well, it would 

13 possibly be in Augusta. Augusta is what we 

14 talked about.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Oh, yes, I 

16 could --

17 MR. KATZ: That would be good?

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: I can just hop 

19 right over there on a bus.

20 MR. KATZ: So, that would be 

21 efficient?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162 1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, we're good 

3 for that. Augusta, Georgia. If we can get 

4 enough done with Savannah River Site, that 

5 would be good.

6 So, are we penciling-in Augusta 

7 now?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Right. The 29th and 

10 30th of April.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Actually, Andy, 

12 you can kidnap your EIS candidate and bring 

13 him to Augusta.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That way, no 

16 one else would be able to recruit him or her.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: No, he has got 

18 a presentation.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: He is already 

21 recruited.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. What 

2 day is his presentation?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: I don't know 

4 yet.

5 MR. KATZ: We can work on that 

6 scheduling with CDC. Okay.

7 So, then, for scheduling, the 

8 next dates out we need is we need a 

9 teleconference meeting around the week of 

10 June 18th or June 25th.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'll call you 

12 in Maine, Dick, though, so you're not out of 

13 touch.

14 MR. KATZ: So, if you want to 

15 look at your calendars for June?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Either is good.

17 MR. KATZ: June 18th being the 

18 Wednesday.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: The 18th is good. 

21 The 25th is not good for me.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164 1 MR. KATZ: The 18th is good for 

2 others? Okay, so June 18th it is for a 

3 teleconference at 11:00.

4 And then, a meeting around the 

5 week of July 28th or August 4th or August 

6 11th, those weeks.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: What about the 

8 28th and 29th of July?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: How about the 

10 29th and 30th?

11 MR. KATZ: Is that good for 

12 others, the 29th and 30th of July?

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Bill, on the phone?

15 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, that's good.

16 MR. KATZ: The 29th and 30th, 

17 July.

18 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: That's actually a good 

20 time to go down, too.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I know. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165 1 That's what I said.

2 MR. KATZ: July 29 and 30, okay, 

3 and I'll pencil in Amchitka.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: We don't have a 

5 location then, right?

6 MR. KATZ: No.

7 Okay. Well, that was incredibly 

8 easy. All right. We are done with 

9 scheduling.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Should I 

11 pencil-in Amchitka?

12 MR. KATZ: Go ahead. Just have 

13 an eraser when it comes to it.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The plane in 

15 will seat 20, the plane out will seat 10.

16 MR. KATZ: The bears get the 

17 rest.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The bears, yes.

19 Okay. Work Groups and 

20 Subcommittees, I am going to go based on the 

21 website. And, Dave Kotelchuck, you are up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166 1 first on Dose Reconstruction Review 

2 Subcommittee --

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- if you're 

5 prepared.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I would like 

7 to come next because I have to find the date 

8 of our meeting. But, look, we are coming 

9 along well.

10 We have finished all but two in 

11 set 9. Sets 10 through 13, we have finished 

12 the Rocky Flats, LANL, which is to say the 

13 large sites, and we are beginning to do, we 

14 will do next time Portsmouth and Paducah. We

15 have also closed Fernald. So, we are moving 

16 along well.

17 If one of my colleagues would 

18 remind me of the date of our next scheduled 

19 meeting? I believe we have one. And it will

20 take just a moment and I will find it.

21 But good progress.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167 1 MR. KATZ: It's November 20th.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: November 

3 20th. Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And how are you 

5 doing on the in-depth reviews? Or maybe it 

6 is how is SC&A doing?

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

8 we completed two more of the blind reviews.

9 Which gives us a total of 10. 

10 But we are not moving ahead too rapidly on 

11 those. Frankly, we have been putting our 

12 focus on getting those sets 10 through 13, 

13 which have been hanging around for a long 

14 time, done.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But we will 

17 come back to it soon.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I would 

19 just urge you to do that soon, soon or 

20 sooner, because those have been out there. 

21 That whole issue has been out there a long 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168 1 time, like over 10 years.

2 And so, what do we gain from 

3 different types of reviews, and so forth? 

4 And it comes up in terms of some of our 

5 contract considerations and time and 

6 resource, and so forth.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: So noted.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay.

9 Anybody else with questions on 

10 that?

11 (No response.)

12 Okay. Wanda, in addition to your 

13 presentation tomorrow.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I have been 

15 told that my reports to you are sort of dull 

16 because they have a tendency to focus on the 

17 statistics of what we have done and what we

18 haven't done, and that it would be nice if I 

19 provided a little more detail about exactly 

20 what we're doing. So, I wrote myself a note,

21 and I get to read my note to you, hopefully, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169 1 giving you an idea of the breadth of material

2 that we are dealing with in Procedures.

3 I will mention some of the 

4 information which you already have seen in 

5 SC&A's report because, obviously, a great 

6 deal of the work that we do relies entirely 

7 on what SC&A is doing. And so, this will be 

8 a slight duplication. I'll try to keep it

9 brief.

10 Our last meeting was on July 18th 

11 in Idaho Falls. We met immediately following

12 the meeting that we had there.

13 All findings on two of the items 

14 that we have on our agenda have now been 

15 closed or are in abeyance. And that is PROC16 44 -- that's a Special Exposure Cohort -- and

17 OTIB-55, the conversion from NCRP Report 38, 

18 Neutron Quality, to ICRP Publication 60, 

19 Radiation Weighting Factors for IREP Energy 

20 Ranges.

21 We now only have three, or maybe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170 1 four, OTIBs in our process that are moving 

2 along.

3 The last few meetings, we have 

4 been giving some special attention to PERs. 

5 The Program Evaluation Reviews, several have 

6 been assigned already and are working on 

7 them. The others are in the pipeline and 

8 coming down that line. SC&A I believe has a 

9 total of a little over 20 that have been 

10 suggested and that have been approved. They 

11 are working on a little over half of those 

12 right now, I think. So that we have them in 

13 various stages of process.

14 They include the Reduction Pilot 

15 TBDs, that is, revised TBDs, for the 

16 Reduction Pilot Plant, for the Huntington 

17 Pilot Plant, or Savannah River, Y-12, 

18 Blockson, Ames, Hooker, Mallinckrodt, K-25, 

19 along with some applicable TIB revisions.

20 The PERs that we are tracking 

21 already, even though some of us are not in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171 1 hand yet, include PER-8, which is the IREP 

2 Modification Effects on the Lung Cancer Risk 

3 Model, PER-14, Construction Trade Workers, 

4 PER-4, Photofluorography at Pinellas, and 

5 PER-12. That is the Highly-Insoluble 

6 Plutonium PER.

7 Others are relating to 

8 misinterpreted dosimetry records, the effect 

9 of adding ingestion intakes to some cases, 

10 and errors in surrogate organ assignment and 

11 misinterpreted application of some of the 

12 external dose factors. Those are topics that

13 are covered in the findings that we are 

14 dealing with at one stage or another.

15 Right now, the total findings on 

16 our Board Review System worksheet shows a 

17 total of 643. Of those, 531 have been 

18 resolved, and that is a tally of 82.7 percent

19 of all that we have had before us.

20 We have recently had an

21 overarching issue about rotational geometry 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172 1 transferred to us from Dose Reconstruction, 

2 and we will be dealing with that, at least 

3 putting it on the agenda for our next 

4 meeting.

5 Our next meeting was scheduled 

6 for November 7th.

7 And that's all I have.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

9 you. That's not all you have. You have more

10 tomorrow, but all you have for now.

11 MEMBER MUNN: That's all I have 

12 for this moment.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This moment.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I'll give you a 

15 break for the afternoon.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Fair 

17 enough, Wanda.

18 Any questions for Wanda?

19 (No response.)

20 We will move on to Work Groups. 

21 Santa Susana, Phil.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173 1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. The 

2 Internal and External Coworker Studies are 

3 currently sitting in NIOSH's review. When 

4 those are done, we will schedule a Work Group

5 meeting.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I think 

7 there was some, yes, scheduling -- I saw 

8 those documents as being on the schedule. 

9 So, yes, good.

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

12 Brookhaven, do we have anything left to do on

13 Brookhaven?

14 MEMBER BEACH: For Brookhaven, we 

15 have no new actions at this time, other than 

16 reviewing the TBD when it is issued.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

18 Fernald?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, we just 

20 finished with the SEC. We've got several 

21 Site Profile issues that we have got to take 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174 1 care of. That is in the process. And we 

2 have got quite a few Site Profiles, and we 

3 are still pushing through with that.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Hanford, my 

5 Work Group, I'm the Work Group Chair.

6 As usual, Arjun disappears when 

7 -- oh, there he is. You were hidden. You 

8 were hiding behind Joe. I couldn't see you. 

9 Thank you, Joe.

10 I actually thought they were 

11 playing some sort of computer game.

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: We are almost 

13 done with Hanford. I have a memorandum from 

14 Joe in my inbox, which I will attend to on 

15 Monday. And so, you should get something --

16 well, there will be a DOE review. So, again,

17 it will be an update on the memorandum that 

18 we sent you in April --

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- covering the 

21 site visit and the document reviews. And you
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175 1 will get an update from us.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then, the 

3 plan would be to do a Work Group, probably a 

4 Work Group call, to go through that new 

5 update. It is a matrix update of what are 

6 issues that are --

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- left. And 

9 then, to sort of prioritize and decide what 

10 needs to be done.

11 So, for those of you who are on 

12 the Work Group, expect us to schedule that 

13 first as soon as we get the report from --

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, just as a 

15 point of information, you know, we made a 

16 document request, and that was a long 

17 process. And then, toward the tail-end of 

18 that, the site said that they would look for 

19 more documents for us. And then, we had very

20 recently kind of an extensive list of box 

21 titles, basically. And so, we are not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176 1 proposing to deal with that right now. We 

2 will just save it. It is there.

3 And we basically have completed 

4 the issues that we had wanted to complete.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, and 

6 Paul just reminded me; the Work Group would 

7 also involve the PNNL issue. And before you 

8 were here this morning, Arjun, I raised the 

9 issue that I wanted NIOSH to be prepared to 

10 discuss with the Work Group the issue about 

11 sort of folding PNNL and Hanford together, 

12 and how that might affect some of the earlier

13 SECs. So, nothing to task for SC&A at this 

14 time, but it would be part of our next Work 

15 Group meeting.

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, because we 

17 are only covering to 1990 in this.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I can 

19 explain in more detail later.

20 Any questions on Hanford?

21 (No response.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177 1 Idaho, Phil.

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. Idaho, 

3 we have got four White Papers outstanding 

4 that are, hopefully, going to be completed in

5 October. And then, there is a coworker model

6 that is being developed, and that date has 

7 not been set yet. Once these White Papers 

8 are issued, then we will schedule a Work 

9 Group meeting. I am not confident of the 

10 October deadline.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, Stu or 

12 somebody or LaVon?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, right now, 

14 those White Papers are in review, internal 

15 review. I can't say whether our comments or 

16 findings will push it out beyond that. But 

17 this is -- what is the date today? -- the 

18 16th. It will be pretty tight to get it by 

19 the end of the month. But it is coming up 

20 very quickly.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, Halloween 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178 1 at midnight I'll go onto my CDC computer and 

2 look.

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I really 

4 wasn't blaming you guys.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

6 Idaho is probably the biggest site that is 

7 outstanding in terms of really getting into. 

8 So, I would urge you to work hard on this, 

9 not that you don't work hard, yes, yes.

10 Gaseous Diffusion Work Group, you 

11 again, Phil.

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. The 

13 real outstanding issue is the neutron-to14 photon ratio for Portsmouth and K-25. 

15 Paducah is closed out. So, we don't have any

16 matrix issues left there. Once that is 

17 settled, then I think we can do a 

18 teleconference and close it out.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, are you 

20 waiting on a report from NIOSH or SC&A?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: NIOSH.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: NIOSH? Okay.

2 Stu?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can offer 

4 a little bit on that. We have identified 

5 some documents in the holdings of the USEC, 

6 United States Enrichment Corporation, who 

7 took over portions of the plants that we 

8 think are relevant to helping us determine 

9 neutron-to-photon ratios in a plant. And 

10 this has led to a rather difficult 

11 negotiation with USEC that our Office of 

12 General Counsel is doing. And we have made a

13 lot of progress in that negotiation. We 

14 think we will be able to get documents from 

15 the USEC relatively quickly.

16 It is down now to essentially a 

17 non-disclosure agreement that they want us to

18 deal with that we had worked out once. And 

19 then, they discovered, hey, some of this 

20 stuff may be OUO. And so, they wanted to 

21 modify it to deal with that as well, even 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180 1 though we deal with OUO material all the 

2 time.

3 So, that's where it is at. It is 

4 kind of the end stages of our talk with USEC.

5 We have identified from their finding aids 

6 the things we want, the records we want. And

7 so, we are pretty far down the path with 

8 them. It is just a matter of finishing up 

9 that agreement.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

11 Stu, on that.

12 Kansas City I think we have 

13 covered.

14 Lawrence Berkeley.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: On Lawrence 

16 Berkeley, I was able to get a report this 

17 past week from Lara Hughes, who is the lead 

18 for NIOSH on this particular site. And let 

19 me just relay what she has given to me on 

20 that.

21 She indicated that, since the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181 1 first Work Group meeting, which was last 

2 year, NIOSH has received four additional 

3 White Papers from SC&A and is reviewing 

4 those, and is still preparing responses to 

5 the issues that were identified by SC&A.

6 And in addition, NIOSH is working 

7 on addressing some tasks that were outlined 

8 in the issues matrix, such as data adequacy 

9 and completeness. And they are still 

10 evaluating that.

11 And she goes on to say that, in 

12 the past year, they have completed additional

13 data captures from Lawrence Berkeley to

14 obtain more information on the bioassay 

15 program and on site operations.

16 Currently, the NIOSH White 

17 Papers, the responses are in draft form, 

18 pending some resolutions of internal 

19 technical issues. And I believe on the NIOSH

20 schedule, I think she indicated the end of 

21 October she hoped to have those reviews 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182 1 finished. Once we get those, we will 

2 schedule a Work Group meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Does 

4 that date sound right, LaVon or Jim?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can double6 check that. It is on the other schedule.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I got the 

8 Work Group schedule, actually, up, and it 

9 says estimated completion date December.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, December? 

11 Okay.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: December.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I knew it was the 

14 end of something, but --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. 

16 LANL.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: LANL is in the 

18 post-1995 focus, and NIOSH is working to get 

19 some information on the dosimetry program 

20 from 1995 onward. They had a response. I 

21 got an email from NIOSH saying they recently 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183 1 had a response from the site to some 

2 questions that they asked about the dosimetry

3 program. They are reviewing the responses, 

4 putting that data together. They are also 

5 asking some follow-up questions on some of 

6 the exotics and other radionuclides that we 

7 have been interested in.

8 And so, I think it is still in 

9 NIOSH's hands. Once they review this stuff, 

10 they will, then, produce something for SC&A 

11 to review. And no plans for a Work Group 

12 until we have further progress on this, but 

13 we will keep you updated.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

15 Mound, I think we will 

16 procrastinate until tomorrow morning. I need

17 to talk to Josie --

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- and SC&A 

20 about what are next steps will be. So, let's

21 talk --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184 1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- and then, we 

3 will put it on the schedule for tomorrow.

4 Nevada Test Site.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: SC&A has got the 

6 completed matrix. The only thing that we 

7 really need to do is sit down as a Work Group

8 now and start going through the Site Profile 

9 issues to finish Nevada Test Site up. We 

10 will have to schedule that.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You're going to 

12 start working on the schedule while you are 

13 here?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sure. If they 

15 could tell me if they are going to be able to

16 support it, we can do it.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Give us a new 

18 excuse now.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: What's that?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It gives us a 

21 new excuse, right?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185 1 Okay. Oak Ridge, Gen.

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: We're one of 

3 the Work Groups that is waiting for action 

4 from NIOSH. And I will report to you that 

5 Tim Taulbee -- I am using the speaker. Can I

6 not be heard?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, go ahead. 

8 Go ahead. Go ahead, Gen.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. Tim 

10 Taulbee is the NIOSH lead. As you may 

11 recall, he gave the Petition Evaluation 

12 Report for Oak Ridge last September in 

13 Denver.

14 We have one set of subjects left 

15 to do, and that has to do with the 254 exotic

16 radionuclides that were produced at ORNL. Of

17 that number, according to Tim, they have 

18 found a bioassay method for all but 18 of 

19 these radionuclides.

20 The last part of this is a bit 

21 challenging, but they do have an electronic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186 1 database in which they have found some 

2 bioassay codes listed as 000. And they are 

3 following through on that, and they are 

4 looking to see in this database if the rest 

5 of these radionuclides are under this coding.

6 And he gives some more detail on that, which

7 I won't go through.

8 But to investigate this further, 

9 NIOSH has requested all of these 000 bioassay

10 cards, and there are about 1200 of these, 

11 from ORNL. And so, they are working on that.

12 He goes into a little detail 

13 about the government shutdown and what that 

14 might mean. And so, we won't speculate on 

15 that.

16 He says he wishes he could give a 

17 date when the ER addendum will be ready, but 

18 he really can't at this time, due to the 

19 complexity of looking this all up, and the 

20 government shutdown, and how that has 

21 affected things.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187 1 He said he was hoping to be able 

2 to present this to the Work Group in January,

3 but that is kind of in jeopardy right now. 

4 So, that is as far as we can go at this 

5 point.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, keep 

7 holding his feet to the fire.

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 Pantex, I think we are complete 

11 on that. Did we leave anything --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes, Joe 

13 has started into the Site Profile matrix 

14 update that we have got. We have got one 

15 outstanding issue --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, as I 

17 thought.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- that needs to 

19 be responded to from NIOSH. And that is on 

20 the neutron issue. And they were working on 

21 that one.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Pinellas, Phil.

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: NIOSH is 

3 currently working on addressing some comments

4 by SC&A on the tritide approach, which is 

5 going to be based, it looks like, mostly off 

6 of the approach they used at Mound. But that

7 hasn't been set yet. And given the criteria 

8 they are working under, that may be delayed a

9 little bit longer.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sandia?

11 Jim, did you want to add 

12 something there? You started to get up or --

13 DR. NETON: I just maybe have a 

14 little more information on the Pinellas 

15 situation. We are actually just waiting to 

16 interview a couple more people on the 

17 approach to handle the tritides at Pinellas. 

18 It was because one of the procedures that 

19 they published at the site, and apparently 

20 used, at least we think they used for a 

21 while, indicated that the swipes were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189 1 filtered, which would filter out the 

2 tritides. So, the Mound approach might not 

3 be useful there.

4 We want to flesh that out a 

5 little more. We have already interviewed one

6 HP. He gave us the name of a couple more 

7 people. Once we finish those interviews, we 

8 will be able to resolve this. I believe it 

9 is the last outstanding issue.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, Jim.

11 Sandia. Sandia.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: I think you heard 

13 the report this morning. There is nothing 

14 more.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Nothing more? 

16 Okay. Thanks. I didn't want to ignore you; 

17 that's all.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, you startled 

19 me.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's 

21 alphabetical, sort of, and repetitive, since 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190 1 for some reason I have each of the Paducah, 

2 K-25 listed repeatedly. So, I almost called 

3 three times.

4 Savannah River.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: In alphabetical 

6 order.

7 Yes, there has been a fair amount 

8 of activity on Savannah River, including some

9 site visit work. And I know Brad was there 

10 as representing the Work Group.

11 In addition to what they were 

12 looking for, I think they found some, NIOSH 

13 found some information that at least raises 

14 some questions on the coworker model. They 

15 found additional -- or they found that some 

16 contractor and subcontractor data was stored 

17 in a separate location. There is a question 

18 whether that data is in the overall database.

19 So, that is requiring quite a bit of further

20 assessment by NIOSH. And I think they have 

21 contacted Knut Ringen, I think, to talk about
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191 1 some of the contractors and identify some of 

2 that information.

3 So, that is sort of an ongoing 

4 thing which could have an effect. We just 

5 don't know. So, they are running that down.

6 In addition, there are some 

7 outstanding findings and White Papers that 

8 are on the table for the Work Group to 

9 consider, especially around neptunium and 

10 thorium and internal dose reconstruction 

11 questions for those. I think I am going to 

12 work with Tim also to sort of try to set up a

13 Work Group meeting to keep things moving 

14 along, hopefully, by the end of this calendar

15 year. 

16 I think we should continue to 

17 work on the outstanding issues that SC&A has 

18 on the table, in addition, in parallel with 

19 that field work that is going on.

20 So, that is sort of an update, 

21 but I hope to convene our Work Group meeting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192 1 by the end of the year.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, and 

3 my understanding of the additional sets of 

4 records, and so forth, is that would be a 

5 fairly monumental or significant task to 

6 undertake. And so, it is sort of a question 

7 of, is it warranted or not? But I think 

8 having a Work Group meeting to sort of air 

9 some of these issues would be helpful. So, 

10 we will do that.

11 I am familiar with some of the 

12 reports that came up because they deal with 

13 some of the coworker models, and they raise, 

14 some of the SC&A reviews raise some pretty 

15 serious issues about those models. So, I 

16 think it would be worth spending some time on

17 it. So, thanks, Mark.

18 David Richardson, I don't know if 

19 you're on the line yet. Scientific Issues 

20 Work Group.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: We have been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193 1 inactive for a very long time, sort of 

2 stalled waiting for a report from NIOSH on 

3 peer review.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I guess 

5 my question would be, because no fault of 

6 your own you have been stalled, are there 

7 other issues that you should be considering 

8 or would want to start considering while 

9 waiting?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I have 

11 been puzzling over that for a while, whether 

12 it makes sense to go in more than one 

13 direction at once. And part of the reality, 

14 I guess, is that there is not a fire burning 

15 under us, like a strong constituency pushing 

16 on any of these scientific issues. So, we 

17 have some luxury of time.

18 But we could start something else 

19 up if this report is not coming. I have 

20 thought it was coming for quite a while.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I know, it's in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194 1 the mail.

2 Can we have an update on the 

3 report itself?

4 DR. NETON: Yes. We passed on --

5 remember the last time I reported that we 

6 requested seven, reviewed some seven subject 

7 matter experts. We ended up getting six, and

8 I decided not to wait for the seventh review.

9 It didn't seem to be coming very quickly.

10 So, some time ago, three or four 

11 weeks ago or more, we passed those review 

12 comments over to SENES, and they are working 

13 on addressing each and every comment that 

14 they received on this.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you have a 

16 --

17 DR. NETON: I don't have a 

18 timeline for when they are going to complete 

19 that, though, at this time.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: When you said you 

21 passed them over, who did you say?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195 1 DR. NETON: SENES. Actually, 

2 they changed their name now. They are no 

3 longer SENES, Oak Ridge, Incorporated. It is

4 Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis or 

5 something like that. I have forgotten --

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, okay.

7 DR. NETON: -- their latest name.

8 But, yes, SENES was our 

9 contractor that does the risk modeling for 

10 us.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes.

12 DR. NETON: But I have not gotten 

13 an expected completion date on their comment 

14 reviews.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I mean, 

16 my recollection -- and someone can correct me

17 if I'm wrong -- but I think we had sort of a 

18 number of prioritized issues for that group. 

19 I think that it may make sense to start 

20 working some of these issues in parallel.

21 Yes, there may not be a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196 1 constituency other than the constituency in 

2 this room that wants to sort of push some of 

3 these issues. But I think they are important

4 and there were some priority issues.

5 So, Dave, I would urge you to 

6 talk to other Work Group Members and to 

7 NIOSH, and sort of figure out what may make 

8 sense to do. And it may be worthwhile just 

9 doing a short Work Group call to talk about 

10 priorities and, also, what is reasonable in 

11 terms of resources, and so forth.

12 But I think it is also important, 

13 you know, to figure out what next year's 

14 budget is, and so forth, I think it is 

15 important to get some of these things, sort 

16 of what is going to be a priority to get done

17 and get those on the table for next year.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I agree.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. 

20 Okay. Thank you very much.

21 The SEC Evaluation we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197 1 already talked about.

2 The TBD 6000 we will be hearing 

3 from later, but go ahead.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes, we are 

5 scheduled to discuss General Steel Industries

6 tomorrow. But I also wanted to report on 

7 Simonds Saw, which is under our purview, and 

8 I will do that very briefly.

9 On Simonds Saw, we had seven 

10 findings from SC&A that were being addressed 

11 by NIOSH. Five of those the Work Group has 

12 already dealt with and have pretty well taken

13 care of.

14 Finding 6, the NIOSH response was 

15 delivered to the Work Group on September 

16 30th, and we have not yet addressed that.

17 Finding 7, NIOSH is still -- let 

18 me first say Finding 6 has to do with 

19 external dose during the residual period. 

20 Finding 7 has to do with internal dose during

21 the residual period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198 1 The Finding 7 response, NIOSH is 

2 still working on that. And I just made the 

3 decision, because the Work Group met 

4 recently, and we are focusing currently 

5 primarily on General Steel, and I thought it 

6 would be best to wait until the Finding 7 

7 response was ready, and then, we will deal 

8 with both external and internal for the 

9 residual period as soon as that finding is 

10 completed or that response is completed.

11 And again, I don't recall -- I 

12 did look at the schedule -- and I don't 

13 recall when that was expected to be 

14 completed, but I think it is fairly soon. I 

15 just don't recall the date. And I don't 

16 think it is critical right now, but we will 

17 schedule that discussion as soon as we get 

18 that last piece of information.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

20 you. Thank you, Paul.

21 Henry, any additional on 6001 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199 1 other than tomorrow?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: No. Tomorrow's 

3 presentation is our last activity. We do 

4 have, it sounds like, some other sites that 

5 are going to be coming to us to look at.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, yes.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: But we haven't 

8 received --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Especially now 

10 that you have admitted this is your last 

11 activity.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Right. We are 

13 anxious to start something else.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. 

15 Thank you. We appreciate that.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Weldon Spring, 

18 Dr. Lemen.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: There is nothing 

20 new on it.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are there any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200 1 reports, waiting on reports or anything?

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Not at this time 

3 that I am aware of.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Worker 

5 Outreach, Josie.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Worker Outreach is 

7 kind of on the back burner right now. We are

8 waiting for NIOSH's review, the draft review 

9 for LANL. We are still on the schedule; 

10 however, no date has been given for that.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can somebody 

12 help me with a date? I saw LaVon run for the

13 door.

14 Worker Outreach.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: What is the 

16 question?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I didn't have 

18 a question, so much as we are on the 

19 schedule, but there is no date associated 

20 with the review, to SC&A's draft review for 

21 LANL, worker evaluations.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's an 

2 oxymoron. How can you be on the schedule 

3 without a date?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Well, let me tell 

5 you.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: They are working 

7 on a schedule for that right now, if you see 

8 that scheduling review.

9 And part of that is due to the 

10 fact that ORAU was running out of money and 

11 couldn't really task anything at this point.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

13 And stay up there, since you're 

14 up there, because Mound has fallen off the 

15 schedule, although I do know there is some 

16 outgoing Site Profile issues, which we are 

17 going to talk about some more tomorrow. But,

18 since you are keeper of the schedule --

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Do you want me 

20 to put Mound back on?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Well, yes, we do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202 1 have some Site Profile issues that he worked 

2 on.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: See, I think Jim 

4 Neton, since he was in charge of that, he 

5 had --

6 DR. NETON: I could speak to 

7 that. The remaining Site Profile issue that 

8 I am holding up right now is the 

9 neutron/photon ratio calculation. We have 

10 gone back, and I have had some problems with 

11 the technical approach, frankly. And we sent

12 it back to the drawing board twice now. It 

13 is due back for our review, I think, in early

14 November sometime, maybe mid-November. And I

15 think it will be satisfactory this time.

16 I went back and actually looked 

17 at the original MESH database and tried to 

18 figure out what was causing some of these 

19 pretty erratic values that were being 

20 generated. And it had to do, without getting

21 too technical, with some of the extreme ends 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203 1 of the distribution. So, I expect that to be

2 out the door in November, I think.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks. 

4 Thanks, Jim. Thanks for taking 

5 responsibility as well as resolving it.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Can we go back to 

7 Weldon Spring for a second?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I'm about 

9 to. Go ahead.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Because I need to 

11 ask NIOSH what's going on, because nothing 

12 has happened.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: LaVon?

14 MEMBER LEMEN: It is kind of in 

15 limbo.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, LaVon runs 

17 to the door?

18 MEMBER LEMEN: LaVon, what's 

19 going on? LaVon, what are you doing with 

20 Weldon Spring?

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm trying to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204 1 help my boss with the media out there, I 

2 guess.

3 But what was the question?

4 MEMBER LEMEN: What is the latest 

5 status with you all on Weldon Spring, because

6 it is kind of in limbo as far as the --

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, it is 

8 actually not a DOL issue. It is actually an 

9 issue with -- it was sent to HHS for 

10 administrative review, and it is still under 

11 administrative review at this time.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes. I thought, 

13 as far as the Board was concerned, we had no 

14 other work on it, right?

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have no other 

16 actions at this time.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We won't call 

19 you back until you're outside. Okay.

20 So, that finishes up our Work 

21 Groups. So, what we will have left -- and I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205 1 think it will probably take some time, so I 

2 would rather do that tomorrow -- will be the 

3 public comment period, which are those two 

4 files. There are actually two Word files 

5 that have some embedded spreadsheets in them.

6 So, they are a little bit confusing in terms

7 of how we refer to them. But we will have 

8 those to deal with.

9 We will have the possible SEC 

10 letters to go through. And then, we have 

11 Mound to finish up, I think. And I think 

12 that's it for tomorrow, but we will do that.

13 So, why don't we take a break 

14 now? And we will reconvene exactly at three 

15 o'clock sharp for the Rocky Flats discussion.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 matter went off the record at 2:37 p.m. and 

18 resumed at 3:00 p.m.)

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Just to 

20 give everybody a sense of the schedule coming

21 up, first, we will have a presentation from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206 1 NIOSH on their Revised Evaluation Report or 

2 Revision 1 of the report.

3 That will be followed by a report 

4 from the Work Group Chair, and there will be 

5 sort of questions from the Board possibly for

6 both of those presentations.

7 We will, then, also hear from the 

8 petitioner about this.

9 Then, we also have a letter we 

10 need to read into the record for the meeting 

11 from the Colorado congressional delegation.

12 And then, we will have the Board 

13 deliberation on the recommendation from NIOSH

14 that is in their Revised Evaluation Report. 

15 So, there is that.

16 And then, we will be opening up 

17 for a public comment period, do that. If you

18 want to make public comments, we ask you to 

19 sign up out at the desk out in the hallway 

20 outside here, so you get on the list, because

21 we tend to follow that list in the order that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207 1 people signed up, though we will give 

2 precedence to people that are commenting on 

3 the Rocky Flats. And then, we will do 

4 others, and so forth, and do that.

5 And we will talk a little bit 

6 more later on, after we have gone through 

7 some of these deliberations, about what would

8 be particularly helpful in terms of 

9 information or public comments we receive.

10 So, we will start with LaVon 

11 Rutherford will give his presentation.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. 

13 Thank you, Dr. Melius.

14 I'm LaVon Rutherford. I'm the 

15 Special Exposure Cohort Health Physics Team 

16 Leader for NIOSH, and I am going to discuss 

17 our revision to the Rocky Flats Plant 

18 Evaluation Report.

19 A little background: we issued 

20 our Rev 0 of this report. It was issued on 

21 September 5th of last year. Many of you will
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208 1 remember we actually presented that 

2 Evaluation Report on September 18th in 

3 Denver.

4 Our initial recommendation was to 

5 not add a Class. That evaluation was based 

6 solely on tritium exposures for periods of 

7 1952 through, basically, 2005.

8 The Advisory Board concluded 

9 follow-up work would be required. They 

10 turned the actual Evaluation Report over to 

11 the Work Group and SC&A to do some additional

12 work, as well as NIOSH.

13 Okay. Since the Evaluation 

14 Report presentation, we have conducted a 

15 variety of follow-up efforts that identified 

16 additional issues. Those additional issues 

17 have been discussed somewhat during Work 

18 Group meetings throughout the year, February 

19 20th, July 8th, and September 12th.

20 Based on some of those issues, we 

21 felt that a revision to the Evaluation Report
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209 1 was necessary. So, we revised the Evaluation

2 Report to incorporate those new findings.

3 On September 30th, we issued or 

4 sent the Revised Evaluation Report to the 

5 Advisory Board. And October 4th, after it

6 cleared agency review, it was sent to the 

7 petitioners.

8 The follow-up efforts, really, we 

9 did a number of things. We did additional 

10 data captures, both classified and 

11 unclassified. The classified data captures 

12 provided us a lot of good information. Those

13 data captures were at Los Alamos National 

14 Lab, OSTI, EMCBC, the Department of Energy 

15 Legacy Management, and we also had secure 

16 discussions, secure interviews and other 

17 interviews, about 19.

18 The secure interviews provided a 

19 lot of good information that allowed us to do

20 additional data capture research. We took 

21 the interview information and, from that, we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210 1 could actually do specific searches for data 

2 and information.

3 We also did additional dose 

4 reconstruction modeling.

5 The main issues that were 

6 identified during the post-evaluation were we

7 had follow-on efforts or follow-on evaluation

8 required on the tritium issues. We also had 

9 the petitioner provided a document that 

10 indicated a potential data falsification or 

11 data invalidation. We also had identified 

12 that there was work going on with U-233 and 

13 thorium strikes, neptunium, and other thorium

14 activities. I will discuss those in a little

15 more detail, why we got into those during the

16 post-evaluation.

17 The issues that resulted in the 

18 Evaluation Report revision, normally, what we

19 would do would be issue White Papers if it 

20 basically supported our initial 

21 recommendation. However, in this case we had
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211 1 three issues that we felt that ultimately 

2 would change our recommendation to the 

3 Advisory Board.

4 U-233/thorium strikes, we had 

5 classified interviews indicating that the 

6 number of strikes were greater than 

7 previously evaluated under SEC-0030. We also

8 had in Hanford infeasibility associated with 

9 U-233 that we felt like we needed to look and

10 do some comparisons to those.

11 Neptunium, it was not clearly 

12 evaluated under SEC-0030. And also, again, 

13 Hanford, we had a Class we added up to 1983 

14 at Hanford that the isotopes that drove that 

15 infeasibility were U-233, neptunium, and 

16 thorium. So, we were looking at those 

17 activities over the same time period.

18 And then, other thorium 

19 activities: classified review indicated 

20 there may have been additional work with 

21 thorium not previously evaluated.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212 1 Okay. So, tritium. Our follow2 up efforts on tritium, we were basically 

3 looking, can we come up with a better dose 

4 reconstruction approach than the bounding 

5 1973 incident that we were using of 700 

6 millirem over all times? So, we did 

7 additional research associated with coming up

8 with that information.

9 We issued a White Paper on June 

10 25th. We concluded in that White Paper this 

11 same thing that we concluded previously, that

12 dose reconstruction associated with tritium 

13 was feasible.

14 We provided that White Paper to 

15 the Work Group on June 26th and the 

16 petitioner on July 3rd, after a completed ADC

17 review. And we presented that to the Work 

18 Group and the petitioners on July 8th during 

19 the Work Group meeting.

20 During that discussion, the Work 

21 Group and the petitioner had very little time
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213 1 to review that. So, there were some 

2 preliminary follow-on questions that were 

3 provided by SC&A, but the actual detailed 

4 review completed by SC&A was not done at that

5 time.

6 The Work Group and SC&A did 

7 discuss that paper further, and SC&A provided

8 findings or comments on that at the September

9 12th Work Group meeting.

10 A little background, tritium11 related operations: tritium-contaminated 

12 materials from returned units was a potential

13 exposure point. That was actually identified

14 during the initial evaluation. However, 

15 during the follow-on efforts, we got during 

16 our classified interviews and research, we 

17 had a little more information. I will get 

18 into that.

19 Neutron generator targets, they 

20 contained tritium. However, we concluded 

21 that they were non-exposure potential because
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214 1 of the sealed units, and maintenance was done

2 by factory-authorized reps.

3 And we also had the potential 

4 production of tritium from various 

5 radioactive materials present onsite. 

6 However, we determined that this was not a 

7 significant source of exposure.

8 From our additional data captures 

9 and interviews, we identified and confirmed 

10 potential for tritium exposure from 

11 contaminated shipping containers. This was 

12 not originally seen in our Rev 0 evaluation. 

13 Actually, one of our classified interviews 

14 brought this up, and when we did additional 

15 research on the actual contaminated shipping 

16 containers, we actually found documents that 

17 supported that.

18 We also supported our previous 

19 findings that all known incidents involving a

20 tritium release were below the release levels

21 from the 1973 incident, and we did not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215 1 identify any other sources of tritium 

2 exposure that were not previously evaluated 

3 other than shipping containers.

4 Tritium time periods evaluated. 

5 I have a correction here. It says, "from 

6 1959 through 1972". That actually should be 

7 "1957". The first units were returned in, or

8 they set up, they had the potential to 

9 receive returned units in 1957. So, 1957 

10 through 1972.

11 The ChemRisk Report does identify 

12 the potential for tritium exposure all the 

13 way back to the beginning of operations in 

14 1952. However, based on what we were seeing 

15 in 1957 on the returned units, that is when 

16 the greatest potential started.

17 Also, during 1973, that was 

18 another period, and that is when the actual 

19 incident occurred, and post-1973. So, we 

20 have broken it down into three periods of 

21 potential exposure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216 1 Actually, we will just call this 

2 the pre-1973 period. Based on interviews and

3 document reviews, NIOSH believes that the 

4 most likely chronic exposure scenario was 

5 from opening and working with shipping 

6 containers that contained units returned from

7 other sites. So, they were initially opened,

8 and then, they actually opened -- the inner9 containers were opened again. And so, you 

10 had a potential exposure scenario from that.

11 As you may recall, we have very 

12 little tritium monitoring data prior to 1973.

13 And so, we do not have any good incident 

14 information from a release. However, we do 

15 have an incident August 30th of 1974, shortly

16 after the 1973 incident, where 1.5 curies of 

17 tritium was released from a shipping 

18 container.

19 We felt that this 1974 incident 

20 would be a good incident to use. The 

21 background levels prior to the incident being
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217 1 measured were basically dosimetrically2 insignificant. There was no residual from 

3 the 1973 incident that would actually cut 

4 down on the exposure scenario.

5 The quantity released was 

6 probably more typical of a release from a 

7 shipping container, and the tritium was 

8 released in the workplace environment and not

9 in a glove box. So, we felt like this was 

10 more typically what they would have seen just

11 opening a shipping container with returned 

12 units.

13 Also, the release involved 

14 elemental tritium and not tritium oxide, and 

15 the incident occurred close enough to the 

16 1973 incident that workplace controls were 

17 likely similar to prior to 1973. That is a 

18 question with SC&A right now, and we are 

19 working through that issue with SC&A.

20 SC&A questions whether the 1974 

21 incident is truly a good incident for this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218 1 bounding scenario, mainly because the 1974 

2 incident, there is a letter that apparently 

3 occurred prior to the 1974 incident that 

4 drove additional controls from sites, and 

5 that would have possibly limited that 

6 exposure from that incident, which would 

7 prevent it from being a good incident to use,

8 as well as this returned unit was from 

9 Battelle, where most of the returned units 

10 that they were receiving were from Pantex. 

11 So, that is under question. We are working 

12 with that right now.

13 Monitoring data from the 1974 

14 incident. Air samples from June through 

15 September of 1973. So, they were monitoring 

16 continuously at this time. Average 

17 concentration you can see, 5,343 to plus or 

18 minus 4,519 picocuries per meters cubed.

19 The concentration on August 30th 

20 jumped up to 37,676,000. And then, we had 

21 bioassay samples indicating a high result of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219 1 32,000 picocuries per liter. Then, we have 

2 work area smears, over 200.

3 So, the dose assessment from the 

4 1974 incident, we basically took the largest 

5 reported urine sample of 32,000 picocuries 

6 per liter. We used IMBA, and the resulting 

7 dose from that was less than 1 millirem. It 

8 was about .15 millirem. If we assume one 

9 incident per day for 250 days per year, this 

10 results in 37.5 millirem per year. So, we 

11 basically assume this occurs every day, every

12 workday for the average worker over the year 

13 and all the way back through that period. 

14 So, we have used the 37.5 millirem per year. 

15 All unmonitored workers for tritium will be 

16 assigned 37.5 millirem for all years prior to

17 1973.

18 The 1973 incident, so our annual 

19 dose that we would assign for 1973 is based 

20 on the 1973 incident. The incident occurred 

21 from April 9th through April 25th, when a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220 1 shipment of scrap plutonium from Lawrence 

2 Livermore was processed at Rocky Flats. The 

3 incident was not immediately identified. So,

4 individual monitoring did not begin until 

5 September. So, you had a lengthy period of 

6 April to September before it was recognized 

7 and monitoring occurred.

8 Approximately 250 people were 

9 bioassayed for tritium. Initially, 19 were 

10 identified with elevated tritium. Upon 

11 recheck, five were above the 10,000 picocurie

12 per liter action level.

13 And this information is mostly 

14 the same from Rev 0. However, we did refine 

15 our analysis a little bit.

16 The five cases exceeding 10,000 

17 picocuries per liter were reviewed from the 

18 Final Incident Report. All cases were 

19 modeled. This is stuff that we did. All 

20 cases were modeled to determine the best fit 

21 for the urine data, which they would be given
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221 1 the most likely dose.

2 The highest that we got was 84 

3 millirem from Case H. This was an individual

4 that we only had one bioassay sample. So, 

5 that limited our ability to actually model 

6 the actual exposures. So, we had to do a 

7 worst-case intake on the first day of the 

8 event. And that did come up with 84 millirem

9 versus the 700 that we had previously 

10 identified. So, from 1974, for all 

11 unmonitored workers who were not monitored 

12 for tritium, that is, they would be assigned 

13 the 84 millirem.

14 A coworker analysis was performed 

15 using 1974 and 1975 tritium bioassay data. 

16 We had 38 individuals with tritium data in 

17 1974 and 37 in 1975. Because tritium was 

18 only present as a potential contaminant, 

19 groups of individuals were not placed on 

20 routine bioassay for tritium. However, they 

21 felt that the most likely individuals that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222 1 would receive tritium exposure would be those

2 who were being exposed to plutonium who were 

3 on the plutonium urine sampling program. So,

4 one-tenth of the urine samples collected 

5 before plutonium were analyzed for tritium. 

6 Also, these samples, when they had 

7 indications of possible incident or whatever,

8 they would do additional sampling at that 

9 time.

10 So, our dose assessment for 1974 

11 and 1975, it was assumed each worker had 

12 potential for exposure throughout the year. 

13 The 95th percentile was used because only 

14 one-tenth of the population was sampled. 

15 That coworker study resulted in a dose of 

16 zero millirem for everyone. So, that period 

17 of 1974 to 1975, that coworker analysis 

18 showed up, basically, from the bioassay 

19 samples, that there would be no exposure. 

20 And so, we assumed for the post-1974 period

21 that the unmonitored workers would be given 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223 1 the same zero millirem for that period for 

2 tritium, because we did have some data after 

3 1974 and 1975, and it was consistent with 

4 that 1974 and 1975 data.

5 Okay. Thorium. In SEC-0030, our 

6 position was that documents supported the 

7 thorium quantities present at Rocky Flats 

8 were not in high enough quantities to 

9 contribute significantly to internal dose 

10 potential.

11 As stated in NIOSH's original 

12 SEC-0030 evaluation, thorium was used onsite 

13 and in quantities small enough that effluents

14 were not routinely analyzed. Thorium 

15 quantities varied from as little as none to 

16 as much as 238 kilograms in a given month.

17 Thorium was used in a variety of 

18 processes, including fabrication of metal 

19 parts from natural thorium or thorium alloys;

20 use of oxide as a mold-coating compound; 

21 numerous analytical procedures and in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224 1 research and development, and as a substitute

2 for uranium/plutonium components in research 

3 and development. These last two were not 

4 really processes involving thorium, but the 

5 removal of thorium-228 from U-233, and then 

6 the magnesium thorium alloy. This was 

7 brought up by the petitioner as a potential 

8 concern at Rocky Flats. It was actually 

9 discussed as a potential item all the way 

10 back in the Dow SEC period or discussions. 

11 The magnesium thorium alloy work is not 

12 addressed in this evaluation. However, we 

13 are continuing to work that issue.

14 Most of the work associated with 

15 thorium during the SEC-0030 evaluation was 

16 focused on specific activities that occurred 

17 in the 1960s. If you go back and you look at

18 that information, you will see that virtually

19 all the discussion was focused on 1960-66, in

20 that time period. However, we know -- and I 

21 don't want to jump the gun, actually. I will
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225 1 get into that.

2 Based on interviews and document 

3 reviews, NIOSH decided to reevaluate the 

4 thorium issue. During our review, documents 

5 supported that activities involving thorium 

6 occurred as far back as 1952. It was already

7 previously identified in the ChemRisk Report 

8 that thorium was onsite as far back as 1952.

9 We also went back, we did 

10 additional research. We had some inventory 

11 information that supported that inventories 

12 were onsite as far back as 1952, and 

13 inventories were maintained all the way up to

14 1971.

15 And you could see from the 

16 monthly progress reports that we reviewed --

17 and some of these were only recently gathered

18 over the last year or so -- that they had a 

19 concern of potential personnel exposure all 

20 the way back at 1954, where they were looking

21 at monitoring approaches for thorium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226 1 Changing inventories in these 

2 early years supported that work with thorium 

3 was occurring during this period. So, you 

4 had some inventory information, actually, 

5 monthly inventory information, that those 

6 inventories were going up and down, that 

7 indicated there were activities that were 

8 occurring. However, those activities were 

9 not well-defined.

10 So, activity and process 

11 involving thorium were not well documented in

12 the early years, nor was the throughput. And

13 throughput becomes a theme with not only 

14 thorium, but neptunium as well. You can 

15 identify inventory numbers on a monthly 

16 basis, but those inventory numbers, unless 

17 you see the inputs and the outputs over a 

18 given time period, the inventory numbers are 

19 only a snapshot in time. It doesn't address 

20 what is actually a throughput during that 

21 period. And I will give you an example of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227 1 that later on in the discussion.

2 Based on NIOSH's review of the 

3 NMMS database, no significant inventories of 

4 thorium existed at Rocky Flats after 1971. 

5 Documents do indicate that thorium solutions 

6 existed up through 1974.

7 Rocky Flats Plant personnel 

8 monitoring approach for thorium. They were 

9 developing a thorium monitoring approach 

10 through the 1950s and the 1960s. And there 

11 was no clear routine monitoring program for 

12 thorium at Rocky Flats. We have personal and

13 area air samples from 1960 and it says, but 

14 no activity results. What this means is we 

15 actually had a logbook that identifies where 

16 they took thorium air samples, and it 

17 indicates thorium, the volume, and it 

18 indicates the time.

19 However, there are no activity 

20 concentrations that are given with it. There

21 are no activity numbers, that we could come 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228 1 up with anything from that. So, we have that

2 in a 1960 report. We have two bioassay 

3 samples in 1966, and we have a couple of 

4 sporadic air samples through that period as 

5 well.

6 We also went back and looked at 

7 SEC-0030, and we were reviewing our use of 

8 the surrogate data in the thorium ingot 

9 operation in 1960. Those that will remember,

10 this approach, we went through a number of 

11 different approaches for this thorium ingot 

12 operation. And ultimately, because SC&A did 

13 not feel NUREG-1400, nor did we really, was a

14 good approach, we looked at using surrogate 

15 data. This surrogate data was vetted in 

16 2007, before the criteria was established for

17 surrogate data under IG-004, which was 

18 established in 2008.

19 What we did, we went back and we 

20 looked at that data that we used. And that 

21 data was from a study conducted at the Albany
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229 1 Research Center. This was a one-time

2 operation that was conducted under 

3 experimental laboratory conditions.

4 So, it was controlled conditions 

5 which we would typically not use under a 

6 surrogate data. What we try to use under 

7 surrogate data is the same types of 

8 operations and something of a production 

9 standpoint or similar. And in this 

10 situation, we did not. So, we didn't feel 

11 that that was a good approach.

12 So, our feasibility determination 

13 associated with thorium was activities 

14 involving thorium in the 1950s and early 

15 1960s were not well-defined. They lacked 

16 sufficient personnel and area monitoring, and

17 surrogate data used does not meet the 

18 criteria for IG-004.

19 Therefore, we find it is not 

20 feasible to reconstruct thorium exposures 

21 from 1952 through 1966. We do intend to use 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230 1 any relevant internal monitoring data that 

2 may become available for individual claims.

3 All right. The next item is 

4 U-233 thorium strikes. Okay. Exposure 

5 during U-233 thorium strikes was originally 

6 evaluated under the SEC-0030 evaluation, 

7 reopened under SEC-0192 after indications 

8 that this may have occurred more than the two

9 times previously identified. If you 

10 remember, 1965 and 1967 were the two times 

11 that were identified as thorium strikes, and 

12 we evaluated those under SEC-0030.

13 U-233 was being evaluated for its 

14 use in the weapons program. However, the 

15 problem was U-233 was a contaminant of U-232.

16 U-232's progeny posed a significant external

17 exposure hazard, which required these thorium

18 strikes. The thorium strikes would remove 

19 the thorium-228 and its progeny to reduce the

20 external hazard, and then, the U-233 could be

21 processed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231 1 SEC-0030 assumed a U-233 exposure 

2 was covered with uranium bioassay. I will 

3 discuss that further. So, basically, under 

4 SEC-0030, they said, well, you know what? 

5 We've got plenty of uranium bioassay. We can

6 cover U-233 with that. We won't deal with 

7 that. We don't have to deal with that so 

8 much.

9 During the deliberation of 

10 SEC-0030, the bounding thorium dose was based

11 on air sampling taken during the strike in 

12 1965. This strike was considered bounding 

13 because it had the highest concentration of 

14 U-232 of the two strikes. The 1965 period, 

15 the uranium-232 concentration was 50 ppm, 

16 which was higher than the 1964, which was 

17 down in the 40s, and in the post-period after

18 1965. And our approach was no credit was 

19 taken for ventilation hoods or time limits.

20 The reason we revisited this was 

21 mainly during our discussions, during the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232 1 classified interviews, it became apparent 

2 that there was a good chance that there were 

3 additional strikes beyond the two that were 

4 previously evaluated and, ultimately, 

5 supported in other documents. So, the 

6 question came up, since there were more 

7 strikes than the two evaluated, were these 

8 additional strikes still bounded by the 1965 

9 exposure analysis.

10 Other questions came up based on 

11 the recent addition of Class at Hanford based

12 on inability to reconstruct doses to U-233. 

13 And our questions were: were the activities 

14 similar at Rocky Flats and Hanford, were the 

15 material quantities similar, how much 

16 monitoring data do we have in comparison?

17 So, we still believe that the 

18 1965 strike is still bounding for thorium. 

19 And I will get into this a little more. 

20 Because most documents indicate that U-233 

21 was to be processed or shipped offsite prior 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233 1 to the 90-day period to prevent the hazard 

2 ingrowth and, therefore, a strike would not 

3 be required.

4 So, basically, after the early 

5 operations, they learned that, okay, we get 

6 it in, we get it processed within a period of

7 time. A thorium strike is not required.

8 Documents indicate the 

9 concentration of U-232 did not exceed 8 ppm 

10 after 1965. So, in 1965, we had the higher 

11 concentration, 50 ppm. After that period, 

12 they did not have any beyond the 8 ppm. So, 

13 that still supports our 1965 bounding.

14 The problem we get into is with 

15 these additional strikes, and we also had a 

16 question. The air sampling that was used 

17 under SEC-0030, after further review, it 

18 appeared that air sampling was actually taken

19 after the thorium strike, which would have 

20 been associated more with U-233 operations.

21 We went back. We reviewed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234 1 logbooks. We did interviews. And even 

2 though some interviews supported that they 

3 were correct, the documentation and all the 

4 other information supported that it was not 

5 correct.

6 So, we ultimately went back to 

7 the site, or went back to the Denver Records 

8 Center, since the site doesn't exist, and we 

9 requested additional air sampling data for 

10 that period. We did get additional air 

11 sampling for that 1965 period.

12 The questions still around this 

13 are, if we know that there are more than the 

14 one or two strikes that were previously 

15 identified, how often do we assume a strike 

16 occurred? Who all do we apply this strike 

17 to? And it becomes very difficult.

18 The other end of this 

19 U-233/thorium strike issue is the U-233 

20 itself. The quantities of U-233 onsite at 

21 Rocky Flats varied from 1964 to the end of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235 1 operations in 1983.

2 Estimates available -- these are 

3 unclassified estimates, by the way --

4 estimates available indicate quantities could

5 have been from 1 kilogram to 150 kilograms 

6 from 1965 through 1983. The highest 

7 quantities existed from `65 to `68.

8 We have bioassay data -- uranium 

9 exists and a uranium coworker model exists 

10 for the period of concern. So, again, under 

11 SEC-0030, we think that the uranium bioassay 

12 and coworker model could be used in some 

13 manner to support our U-233 exposures.

14 So, our initial idea was to give 

15 a corrected uranium dose to all workers with 

16 uranium bioassay. Our assumption was based 

17 on -- we assumed that all workers who worked 

18 on U-233 activities would have a uranium 

19 bioassay. The difficulty in proving that is,

20 can you go back and determine who was working

21 on the U-233 operations?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236 1 One good thing we had was we had 

2 a logbook from an individual that identified 

3 46 individuals in `65 or `66 -- I can't 

4 remember for sure -- that were working 

5 specifically with neptunium at that time. I 

6 know that some people think that the 

7 neptunium work was small-scale, but there 

8 were 46 individuals working on this in `65-

9 `66.

10 And we decided, of those 46 

11 individuals, let's go back and let's look and

12 see if we have claims in NOCTS of those 

13 individuals. And if we do, let's look and 

14 see if they have uranium bioassay. If they 

15 have uranium bioassay, that will give us at 

16 least one step towards validating that 

17 individuals that were working with U-233 had 

18 uranium bioassay.

19 And of the 18 claimants, 17 had 

20 uranium bioassay. That is a pretty good 

21 number, 17 out of 18. There is one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237 1 individual that did not have bioassay, 

2 uranium bioassay, and we could not come up 

3 with a good reason why. This individual was 

4 -- well, I'll just say -- I don't want to get

5 into Privacy Act information. But there is 

6 no good reason why this individual wouldn't 

7 have had bioassay. And we couldn't come up 

8 with one.

9 So, ultimately, we have no way of 

10 validating that workers that were working 

11 with U-233 had uranium bioassay. That was 

12 one difficulty we had. 

13 We could not identify all workers 

14 who had worked with U-233 through the years 

15 of operations. We have a list of workers in 

16 the 1965-66 -- like I said, I can't remember 

17 -- of 46 workers. However, remember, U-233 

18 operations were 1964 up through 1983.

19 So, if we used the uranium 

20 coworker, we would have to assume all workers

21 could have been exposed and a correction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238 1 factor for exposures to U-233 and U-232 

2 applied. And recognize that factor could 

3 vary significantly -- if the uranium bioassay

4 -- because we had uranium bioassay that was 

5 both mass-based and we had activity-based.

6 Now, mass-based activity would 

7 significantly -- if we assumed the U-233, 

8 would really drive up the actual intake 

9 values. Also, U-233-specific activity is 

10 approximately 140 times of U-235. So, it's a

11 very high specific activity, something closer

12 along the lines with plutonium.

13 Because of that, the operations 

14 would be handled differently. Therefore, in 

15 our opinion, that did not support that using 

16 uranium bioassay operations would be 

17 indicative of what you would see from U-233 

18 operations.

19 Our personal and area monitoring, 

20 we have no U-233-specific bioassay data. We 

21 have no thorium-228-specific data. We do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239 1 have one set of U-233-specific air samples in

2 1965, and those were actually the ones that 

3 were previously identified as potential 

4 thorium samples. And we do have a uranium 

5 coworker, but cannot use that.

6 Therefore, based on that, our 

7 feasibility findings -- or NIOSH finds it is 

8 not feasible to completely reconstruct 

9 internal U-233, U-232, thorium-228 radiation 

10 doses from the period of 1964 through 1983.

11 And I want to point out again --

12 I said this earlier -- that this is roughly 

13 the same period that we added at Hanford for 

14 virtually the exact same items. We do intend

15 to use any related internal monitoring data 

16 that may become available for individual 

17 claims.

18 Okay. Neptunium. Our general 

19 conclusion under SEC-0030 was neptunium was 

20 used in small quantities for research-type 

21 work and had limited exposure potential 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240 1 compared to uranium and thorium. The 

2 determination was made to re-explore this 

3 exposure situation based on interviews and 

4 our recent determination associated with 

5 neptunium at Hanford.

6 Records indicate that neptunium 

7 was processed at Rocky Flats as early as 1962

8 and inventories existed up until 1988. 

9 Neptunium was processed to produce pure 

10 neptunium oxide, metal, and metal alloys. 

11 Processes employed included dissolution, 

12 anion exchange, precipitation, filtration, 

13 calcination, conversion to fluoride, and 

14 reduction to metal. So, it was basically a 

15 metal fabrication process.

16 Fabrication steps, such as 

17 casting and rolling, were performed to 

18 produce metal shapes and foils. Neptunium 

19 was also recovered from residual materials, 

20 including sand, slag, crucibles, casting 

21 skulls, and alloys. The residues were not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241 1 only from Rocky Flats operations. These were

2 received from Lawrence Livermore and other 

3 sites.

4 Based on documents and 

5 inventories, it appears most work with 

6 neptunium was completed by the end of 1983.

7 Annual site inventories were 

8 typically maintained around 1 kilogram. And 

9 I put "does not address throughput." If you 

10 look at Figure 5.1 in our Evaluation Report 

11 -- and I couldn't put this in here because, 

12 one, I think I was going to get killed if I 

13 added another slide, and, two, it's such a 

14 big table.

15 But if you look at that table, 

16 that Figure 5.1, if you look at June of 1966,

17 June of 1966 shows an inventory of roughly 1

18 kilogram. We have two years where we have 

19 some quarterly inventories. So, June of 1966

20 has roughly 1 kilogram. It goes to September

21 of 1966, drops to zero kilograms. It goes to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242 1 December of 1966, jumps up to 1.4 kilograms. 

2 So, over a nine-month period, your 

3 inventories changed 2.4 kilograms.

4 So, saying that inventories were 

5 maintained around 1 kilogram is to basically 

6 say that, if you had a store and your store 

7 was going to maintain a certain amount of a 

8 product, when an inventory of that could drop

9 down, you would try to drive that inventory 

10 back up to maintain a certain inventory. It 

11 does not address the throughput used during 

12 that time period.

13 Am I getting my point across on 

14 that one?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just keep 

16 going.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: I look and I see 

18 some inquisitive minds, and I'm just 

19 wondering if I am getting my point across.

20 I want to point out that Rocky 

21 Flats was providing neptunium -- and that is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243 1 in the Evaluation Report -- to Savannah 

2 River, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge National

3 Lab, and I believe one other site as well.

4 So, batches involving neptunium 

5 typically did not exceed 300 grams. 

6 Buildings having neptunium inventories 

7 included -- and there is a list -- if you 

8 look at that, roughly, nine, I believe, nine 

9 buildings.

10 Neptunium exposure documents 

11 indicate some early work was conducted in 

12 open hoods, but most work was performed with 

13 glove boxes. Based on our review, neptunium 

14 exposure potential existed at virtually every

15 processing step, including extraction and 

16 purification, hydrofluorination, reduction to

17 metal, alloying, casting, and rolling.

18 Personal monitoring data. There 

19 are only two bioassay samples for neptunium. 

20 They were taken in 1966. One was below a 

21 significant level, and the other was .9 dpm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244 1 for 24 hours. Ultimately, a whole body count

2 was taken on that individual and there was no

3 exposure detected. Gross alpha bioassay 

4 samples existed up until 1970.

5 Workplace monitoring data. We 

6 have found no workplace monitoring data that 

7 is specific to neptunium.

8 Our initial thought was, okay, we 

9 have this exposure potential with neptunium, 

10 and we have identified that the inventories, 

11 that there was a potential for exposure for 

12 the work or the different activities that 

13 were being performed. Can we use the gross 

14 alpha samples as an indicator for neptunium? 

15 Basically, we know that they were doing 

16 gross alpha during the early years at Rocky 

17 Flats, up until the early `70s. Can we take 

18 that gross alpha sample, since you would 

19 think gross alpha would include neptunium as 

20 well as an alpha-emitter, and, ultimately, 

21 can we come up with a factor to bound our 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245 1 neptunium exposures?

2 Well, the immediate question that 

3 came up was, okay, what kind of initial 

4 things were done with the samples that could 

5 potentially affect our ability for that gross

6 alpha sample to include neptunium? So, we 

7 interviewed two former Rocky Flats Plant 

8 employees involved. These individuals, one 

9 was in charge of the bioassay laboratory. 

10 Both of these individuals were heavily 

11 involved in the actual operations -- or the 

12 radiological -- the bioassay program at Rocky

13 Flats.

14 We interviewed these two 

15 individuals, and we asked them, using the 

16 gross alpha samples, based on your procedures

17 for doing the bioassay analysis, would you 

18 see the neptunium in those samples? The 

19 interviews indicated it would be 

20 questionable, based on the chemistry, whether

21 you would see the neptunium in the sample. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246 1 This was kind of the feeling we had 

2 internally, but we weren't for sure.

3 Interviews indicated that the 

4 intent of the coprecipitation process used 

5 after 1961 for gross alpha analysis was to 

6 focus the analysis on specific radionuclides,

7 typically uranium and possibly plutonium. 

8 One individual interviewed indicated that 

9 prior to 1961, that the entire sample was 

10 ashed and, ultimately, you would then see the

11 neptunium in there. However, after 1961, 

12 just due to the cost and time spent in doing 

13 that, and the number of samples that were 

14 required to be processed, they went to this 

15 alternative method.

16 So, our feasibility determination 

17 is little to no personal or area monitoring 

18 data. We do have gross alpha samples, but it

19 is not a viable means for estimating 

20 neptunium exposure. And there were too many 

21 different types of activities, including wet 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247 1 and dry process, to develop an exposure 

2 model. You go through every one of the 

3 different metal production processes as well 

4 as -- then you throw in -- you get residual -

5 - you get residues that are sent to the site 

6 from Savannah River, Lawrence Livermore, that

7 are residues from different processes that 

8 they are retrieving the neptunium from. And 

9 for you to actually review the neptunium 

10 processing report, they talk about the number

11 of different methods that they used in 

12 recovering the neptunium from those residues.

13 So, based on these varying different 

14 activities, a source term model did not seem 

15 appropriate.

16 The quantities and activities 

17 associated with neptunium at Rocky Flats are 

18 similar to Hanford during the same time 

19 period. As I mentioned, when we went out to 

20 Hanford recently, in August, to look at the 

21 classified database, or classified documents,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248 1 and looked at inventories, these inventories 

2 are very similar for the exact same time 

3 period. And the activities are similar.

4 Based on this, NIOSH has 

5 concluded dose reconstruction is not feasible

6 for neptunium exposures for the 1962 through 

7 1983 period. 

8 Why stop at 1983? As I 

9 mentioned, the inventories existed up until 

10 1988. Based on our review, we see very 

11 little to no work occurred with neptunium 

12 after 1983. Inventories, as I mentioned, are

13 not a good indicator, but inventories that we

14 do have are relatively constant. They 

15 fluctuate by a few grams.

16 An 1981 document indicates that 

17 early work was done in open hoods, but later 

18 alpha containment was used. We have no 

19 indication of when the exact date of when 

20 additional containments were used, but we 

21 know, by 1981, based on this document, that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249 1 it does appear that most things were in 

2 containment.

3 In vitro bioassay techniques 

4 improved by 1981. In vivo techniques 

5 improved by 1976. So, therefore, we feel 

6 like ending in 1983 is a good time period. 

7 We will continue to evaluate the 1984 to 1988

8 period.

9 A little reminder on our current 

10 SEC Classes: there are two SEC Classes, but, 

11 in all reality, you could say they are one. 

12 It's April 1st, 1952, up through December 31 

13 of 1966 for all individuals that were 

14 potentially exposed or monitored or should 

15 have been monitored for neutron exposures at 

16 Rocky Flats.

17 Our feasibility determination, we 

18 find that internal dose cannot be estimated 

19 with sufficient accuracy from April 1 of 1952

20 through December 31 of 1983. We do intend to

21 use any related internal monitoring data that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250 1 may become available for individual claims, 

2 and we will continue to evaluate the 

3 potential neptunium exposures for the 1984 to

4 `88 period.

5 Our summary slide is we still 

6 feel tritium is reconstructable for the 

7 period, but we do not feel that thorium is 

8 reconstructable from 1952 through 1966. 

9 Uranium, U-233, `64 to `83, and neptunium, 

10 1962 to `83.

11 We did not address external 

12 exposures. External exposures were addressed

13 under SEC-0030. And during our initial 

14 qualification and evaluation, we did not see 

15 any indication. And, actually, from Rev 0 

16 when we did our post-evaluation, we did not 

17 see any reason to go back and look at the 

18 external exposure scenarios.

19 So, our recommended Class is all 

20 employees at Department of Energy, its 

21 predecessor agencies, and their contractors 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251 1 and subcontractors who worked at the Rocky 

2 Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado, from April 

3 1, 1952 through December 31 of 1983 for a 

4 number of workdays aggregating at least 250 

5 days, occurring either solely under this 

6 employment or in combination with workdays 

7 within parameters established for one or more

8 other Class of employees included in the SEC.

9 Remaining issues. There are 

10 still remaining issues that we are working 

11 with SC&A and the Work Group on.

12 As I mentioned, the data 

13 falsification question. We have put together

14 an initial White Paper. It was reviewed. 

15 That White Paper was reviewed. There is 

16 still a classified interview that we are 

17 trying to set up. This interview came out of

18 the last Board meeting, actually, and we have

19 been working to get that individual's 

20 clearance reinstated and that interview set 

21 up. And it's probably going to be held up a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252 1 little bit further, based on recent events. 

2 But we are working to get that classified 

3 interview set up.

4 And then we are just going to 

5 continue to evaluate the 1984 through `88 

6 period for neptunium exposure. And we will 

7 evaluate the use and exposure potential for 

8 magnesium thorium alloy at Rocky Flats. 

9 Again, this issue was brought up by the 

10 petitioner, and we are going to look at that.

11 We are not sure if that use was done during 

12 the period that we are recommending the SEC 

13 or not, but we will figure it out.

14 And we've got to resolve open 

15 questions with SC&A and the Work Group 

16 concerning tritium. And that's it.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

18 you, LaVon. Questions for LaVon? Paul?

19 No, this is -- sorry, it's not

20 public comment period. It's only for the 

21 Board Members. I'm sorry.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253 1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you, LaVon. 

2 That was a very good presentation.

3 I have a question the tritium 

4 exposure. I am a little puzzled about the 

5 `74-`75 coworker assignment of zero millirem,

6 when you're indicating that you actually have

7 data that shows some workers with doses from 

8 which I assume you get the coworker model. 

9 So, I am a little puzzled how you get a zero 

10 millirem in a coworker model.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: This sounds like 

12 John Mauro's question. That is a very good 

13 question. John brought it up during our Work

14 Group meeting. We are verifying right now 

15 that the actual bioassay samples that 

16 included the positive activity were included 

17 in our analysis. Once we have verified that,

18 obviously, I would think that may have an 

19 effect. If it was not included, it would 

20 definitely have an effect to be included.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254 1 coworker model you're picking some point on a

2 distribution.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if that point 

5 is zero, it's a little puzzling what the 

6 distribution would look like.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: I understand. I 

8 understand.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or maybe I am 

10 missing something.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I had meant to 

12 bring that up as one of the open issues, and 

13 I'm sorry, I forgot about it. But, yes, it 

14 is, that is an open issue, and we are working

15 through that one. Good question.

16 Actually, we were checking you, 

17 Dr. Ziemer, just see if you would pick up on 

18 that.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, right.

20 DR. NETON: My assumption, I 

21 think, is that, when the doses were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255 1 calculated, they were so small that they 

2 essentially rounded down to zero. I mean, 

3 you could get -- obviously, a dose would not 

4 be zero if you had any positive --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine, if 

6 that is the answer.

7 DR. NETON: I think that's the 

8 answer.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know that the 

10 earlier doses were just like 37 millirem or 

11 something.

12 DR. NETON: Exactly.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: But we still 

14 haven't verified that yet.

15 DR. NETON: We haven't verified 

16 that, but my guess is that they were 

17 something very small, very, very close to 

18 zero where it wouldn't be practical to start 

19 including them in the dose reconstructions.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Other questions 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256 1 for LaVon from the Board Members at this 

2 time?

3 (No response.)

4 Okay. Don't go too far away, 

5 LaVon. But Mark Griffon, who is Chair of the

6 Rocky Flats Work Group, will now give a short

7 presentation.

8 (Pause.)

9 Yes, why don't you just speak to 

10 it, Mark?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I apologize, Ted, 

12 I don't think I can get to it easily in a 

13 reasonable amount of time.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yeah, I can just 

15 speak from my notes. And LaVon, in his 40-

16 some slides covered a lot of the detail 

17 anyway. So, I will be fairly brief.

18 I mean, first of all, I wanted to 

19 start off by thanking the petitioner for 

20 their persistence in following up on this 

21 issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257 1 (Applause.)

2 I think it's worth noting that 

3 they brought forward some new issues, but 

4 also some more information on some old 

5 issues. And I think the thorium strikes, the

6 neptunium, those issues were covered before, 

7 but, obviously, NIOSH found out a lot more 

8 this time. So, again, thank you for your 

9 persistence.

10 The other thing I want to note is 

11 this review really highlighted the difficulty

12 in nailing down some of the operational 

13 information on exotics, like the thorium 

14 strikes, neptunium, et cetera. So, I think 

15 sort of a lesson learned for all of us.

16 Yeah, my slides are very similar 

17 to what LaVon went over, in much shorter 

18 form, but I did want to note I participated 

19 in some of the, or one of the classified 

20 interviews that was done out here. Again, 

21 that whole idea of confirming operational 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258 1 details, I think those interviews, along with

2 comparing them to the logbooks, was very 

3 insightful, especially for the thorium strike

4 operations, and raised some questions on 

5 locations and additional thorium strikes that

6 occurred. 

7 I think LaVon got into a lot of 

8 that. So, that certainly was very useful for

9 the Work Group. So, I'll hit the main issues

10 that LaVon also hit. But the tritium, the 

11 Work Group is still looking at the tritium 

12 issue. I just want to be clear that this is 

13 still an open issue with the Work Group. 

14 SC&A has raised some questions on some of the

15 calculational approaches, and also on the 

16 approach used to bound. I think it is from 

17 1973 prior, based on a certain incident.

18 I think the Work Group and most 

19 involved are very aware that it is likely 

20 small doses, but we still have to answer this

21 question of whether the approach can be -- or
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259 1 the model that they are proposing can be 

2 bounding and used. So, that's a remaining 

3 action for the Work Group.

4 The uranium/thorium strikes, I 

5 think, again, very useful for the follow-up 

6 on this. You know, we certainly found that 

7 there was much more activity in this regard, 

8 much more operational activity, I should say.

9 And the original approaches of using air 

10 sampling to bound may have not even been in 

11 the right room. So, we raise locational 

12 questions, too. So, I think, again, that was

13 very useful to follow up on these issues, 

14 both relative to thorium-228 and uranium-233.

15 For neptunium, you know, I think 

16 the Work Group discussed a little bit the 

17 notion of possibly using a source term as a 

18 way to bound this. I think LaVon went 

19 through this question of the throughput in 

20 the plant and also pointed out that there are

21 no monitoring records, and also the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260 1 inadequacy of the gross alpha approach, or at

2 least the questions raised in using the gross

3 alpha numbers.

4 And then, finally, the data 

5 falsification/data invalidation issue. This,

6 I want to be clear, is also a remaining issue

7 for the Work Group. I think the petitioners 

8 raised some serious concerns about the 

9 question of sort of the environmental 

10 findings and how they might have been similar

11 to workplace or occupational exposure 

12 findings. And we're following up on that. 

13 SC&A is following up, NIOSH is following up 

14 on this.

15 One thing of interest has 

16 certainly been this, prior to the Tiger 

17 Teams, there was something called the Special

18 Assessment Team that did a review of the 

19 Rocky site. And we're trying to find the 

20 full report. I think there's multiple 

21 volumes, at least it seems like there should 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261 1 be, and we are trying to track that down to 

2 see if that sheds any light on this issue. 

3 So, again, that issue is still open.

4 Especially relative to that 

5 issue, we, you know, the Work Group and the 

6 Board, I think, would very much appreciate 

7 any public comments in that regard. Since it

8 is still an open issue, I think that would be

9 very useful for us to hear about.

10 So, you know, just to close, I 

11 think the main focus for the Board today 

12 should be the NIOSH proposal. The Work Group

13 is not really making this proposal. It is a 

14 NIOSH proposal to add the Class based on 

15 neptunium and uranium-233. But we also want 

16 to hear more on these other open items from 

17 the public.

18 And I think, with that, I will 

19 close. Thanks.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions for 

21 Mark?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262 1 (No response.)

2 Okay. I would now like to hear 

3 from the petitioner. Terrie.

4 MS. BARRIE: Good afternoon, Dr. 

5 Melius and Members of the Board. My name is 

6 Terrie Barrie, and I am the co-petitioner for

7 the Rocky Flats SEC petition.

8 And thank you for giving me this 

9 time today to present the petitioner's 

10 opinion of NIOSH's recommendation. To put it

11 simply, we agree with them, and we urge the 

12 Board to vote to accept NIOSH's 

13 recommendation and expand the Class of Rocky 

14 Flats workers who would be covered from 1952 

15 through 1983.

16 My presentation will be very 

17 short, too, because we agree with everything.

18 I do want to thank NIOSH and the Work Group, 

19 though, for continuing their investigation. 

20 There are various important issues that 

21 remain to be resolved.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263 1 My number one favorite is the 

2 ever-elusive Tiger Team reports. You know, 

3 the reason -- there was a question about 

4 whether there are actually four volumes of 

5 the Special Assignment Team. And I quote 

6 from the Environmental Assessment Report. 

7 "This Special Assignment Team was divided 

8 into four groups to perform various aspects 

9 of the evaluation. The four groups were 

10 concerned with, Number 1, management and 

11 operations; Number 2, safety; Number 3, 

12 environment, and, Number 4, legal matters. 

13 This document is the report of the 

14 environmental team." End quote.

15 So, I'm quite happy that NIOSH, 

16 the Work Group, and SC&A is going to continue

17 to search for these other three volumes.

18 And we hope that these 

19 outstanding issues are resolved in a timely 

20 manner. You know, this has been going on for

21 a while, but I do appreciate, honestly, all 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264 1 the work that NIOSH has put into researching 

2 the issues for this petition.

3 And the petitioner, [identifying 

4 information redacted], asked me to read his 

5 statement into the record, if that is okay.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MS. BARRIE: And I quote, "Many 

8 workers have suffered and died from their 

9 work at the nuclear weapons plants like Rocky

10 Flats. Many thanks to those of you who are 

11 finally listening to us. Our work will not 

12 be done, though, until all of our fellow 

13 workers during the Cold War are taken care 

14 of.

15 "I would like to leave you with a 

16 short video, produced by Arin Billings, which

17 shows some of the workers from Rocky Flats, 

18 or their survivors, who will be helped if 

19 this petition is passed today. And the 

20 people on this video will benefit from the 

21 future investigation that NIOSH and the Work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265 1 Group will do."

2 And, with that, I thank you. And 

3 if anybody has any questions, I will be happy

4 to answer.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

6 you, Terrie. Thank you, [identifying 

7 information redacted], also.

8 LaVon?

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Terrie asked me 

10 to play this video.

11 (Whereupon, a video was played.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For those of 

13 you on the phone, there was a video playing. 

14 That's why there was some quiet times. A 

15 very moving video.

16 Thank you. Thank you, Terrie and 

17 [identifying information redacted].

18 And people on the line, if you 

19 could please mute your phone. If you don't 

20 have a mute button, *6. Thank you. You can 

21 do that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266 1 And, Paul, you had a question for 

2 Terrie?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, either 

4 Terrie or maybe Mark.

5 I think, Terrie, I heard you say 

6 that three of the four volumes of the Tiger 

7 Team report are not located. Did I hear that

8 right?

9 MS. BARRIE: You heard that 

10 correctly. NIOSH and SC&A have been 

11 attempting to find this through the 

12 Department of Energy, and I think Joe 

13 Fitzgerald and actually LaVon could give you 

14 --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, because I was 

16 going to ask Joe if he remembered who led --

17 was Leo Duffy the leader of that?

18 MR. FITZGERALD: He was, but, 

19 actually, I'm in contact with the two team 

20 leaders, who you know very well. And one of 

21 them is going to look. He believes he has 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267 1 copies of it.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right. Yeah, 

3 I was thinking there must be personal people.

4 In fact, I will look. I have a collection 

5 of Tiger Team reports also.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, this would 

7 predate the Tiger Teams, but the principals 

8 in that --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, right, it 

10 predates officially the Tiger Teams, but it 

11 was sort of the first one.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: It looks pretty 

13 good that they have --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I thought 

15 maybe Joe Fitzgerald would have a copy.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually, I 

17 thought I might, too. But I have contacted 

18 somebody who was actually on that review and 

19 thinks that he might actually have a copy.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm a little 

21 surprised that Glenn Podonsky's group doesn't
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268 1 have a copy since they inherited the EH 

2 mandates, so to speak. But I presume they 

3 have looked.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, we made 

5 that request, and DOE was unable to find 

6 those volumes. So, we have gone a step 

7 further and actually contacted the 

8 individuals who were in that review, and I 

9 think we will find them.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

12 Thanks, Joe. Any other questions for Terrie?

13 (No response.)

14 If not, I would like to have Ted 

15 read a letter from the Colorado Congressional

16 delegation into the record.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. Thank you, 

18 Jim. So, this is dated October 11th, 2013.

19 "Dear Dr. Melius:

20 "We write to support the National 

21 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269 1 Evaluation Report for SEC-0192 recommending 

2 the inclusion of an additional Class of 

3 workers at the Rocky Flats Plant in this 

4 Special Exposure Cohort. This long-awaited 

5 action will help hundreds of nuclear workers 

6 get the care and benefits they deserve.

7 "As you know, Congress enacted 

8 the Energy Employees Occupational Illness and

9 Compensation Program Act in 2000 to provide 

10 healthcare and benefits to workers injured 

11 among the approximately 600,000 workers 

12 employed at the U.S. Atomic Weapons Program 

13 facilities throughout the country.

14 "The Rocky Flats Plant, located 

15 in Jefferson County, Colorado, produced 

16 nuclear weapons triggers from 1952 until 

17 1989. The facility utilized plutonium and 

18 more than 8,000 chemicals during production 

19 of these triggers, and cleanup from the 

20 contamination took more than a decade.

21 "As was the case in facilities 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270 1 across the United States, Rocky Flats was 

2 plagued by workplace accidents, spills, 

3 fires, emissions, and leaking containers. 

4 Furthermore, records kept by the facility 

5 were incomplete because the true dangers of 

6 the materials being handled were unknown at 

7 the time. Workers at Rocky Flats were 

8 unknowingly putting themselves at risk on 

9 behalf of their country.

10 "The Evaluation Report from NIOSH 

11 clearly outlines NIOSH's inability to 

12 sufficiently estimate the radiation levels 

13 workers were exposed to from 1952 to 1983 and

14 concludes such radiation doses more likely 

15 endangered the health of the workers.

16 "Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 

17 73.84(q), such determination authorizes the 

18 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

19 to recommend to Secretary Sebelius for this 

20 Class of workers to be included in the 

21 Special Exposure Cohort.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271 1 "We applaud NIOSH's work on this 

2 petition and urge them to continue their 

3 efforts evaluating neptunium and other 

4 exposures at Rocky Flats between 1984 and 

5 2005.

6 "Thank you for your prompt 

7 consideration of NIOSH's recommendations and 

8 for your work on behalf of our nation's Cold 

9 War patriots.

10 "Sincerely," signed, 

11 Representatives Perlmutter and Polis and 

12 Senators Udall and Bennet.

13 (Applause.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, thank you, 

15 Ted.

16 Obviously, there are some 

17 limitations to them being able to be here or 

18 have even representatives here, given what is

19 going on with the government. But we 

20 appreciate their interest and support.

21 Okay. I would now like to take 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272 1 time for the Board to deliberate on the 

2 recommendation from NIOSH.

3 And I would add for clarification 

4 that the Work Group has met, the Rocky Flats 

5 Work Group, has met and has had reviewed much

6 of the information that is in the revised 

7 report. However, the revised report was not 

8 formally published at that time and came out 

9 a little bit later than that. So, the Work 

10 Group doesn't have a formal recommendation on

11 it, simply because there wasn't something 

12 there to recommend at that time, and so 

13 forth. But I will defer to Mark when it 

14 comes time to ask for a motion.

15 But I would first like to see if 

16 anybody, Board Members, have additional 

17 questions or comments about the report, 

18 concerns, anything that you want to raise 

19 before we start to consider a motion.

20 (No response.)

21 Okay. If not, I will ask, Mark, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273 1 if you would like to make a motion?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yeah, I would 

3 like to make a motion to add the Class as 

4 defined by NIOSH in Rev 1 of their Evaluation

5 Report.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll second that.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

9 Thank you. And that Class would be all 

10 employees of the Department of Energy, its 

11 predecessor agencies, and their contractors 

12 and subcontractors who worked at the Rocky 

13 Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado, April 1st, 

14 1952, through December 31st, 1983, for a 

15 number of workdays aggregating at least 250 

16 workdays accruing either solely under this 

17 employment or in combination with workdays 

18 within the parameters established for one or 

19 more other Classes of employees included in 

20 the Special Exposure Cohort.

21 That would essentially be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274 1 expanding, extending the Special Exposure 

2 Cohort coverage for Rocky Flats by 17 years, 

3 essentially, `66 up through the end of -- the

4 end of `66 up through the end of 1983.

5 Any further comments or 

6 questions?

7 (No response.)

8 If not -- Wanda, yes?

9 MEMBER MUNN: I would like to 

10 make a very brief statement. It has nothing 

11 to do with lack of compassion for the workers

12 or anything to do with any human issues. It 

13 is a purely science observation.

14 The Rocky Flats Plant had a very 

15 good long-term and high-caliber monitoring 

16 program. Any truly objective individual who 

17 is experiencing dose reconstruction, absent

18 the need for the reservations that this body 

19 has placed on their deliberations, and absent

20 any concern or reward for any person, would 

21 be able to do valid dose reconstructions for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275 1 these folks based on the data that are 

2 available to us.

3 For that reason, and for that 

4 reason only, I will not vote for this 

5 particular motion. But it is based solely on

6 observations of science and nothing else.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

8 you, Wanda. Anybody else wish to comment?

9 (No response.)

10 I would just point out for people 

11 in the audience, that's not necessarily a 

12 view shared by the entire Board.

13 So, Ted, go ahead with the roll 

14 call.

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Jim.

16 So, Dr. Anderson?

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach is recused 

19 from this vote.

20 Mr. Clawson?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276 1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

2 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck?

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

14 MEMBER MUNN: No.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

16 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277 1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Ms. Valerio?

3 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: So, the ayes have it, 

7 and the motion passes.

8 (Applause.)

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think you 

10 already know -- there's a little bit of time 

11 -- our recommendation goes up to the 

12 Secretary of HHS. It's a process. NIOSH 

13 assembles the information.

14 And part of the reason we had 

15 LaVon so long, a slide presentation and a 

16 135-page report, was to make sure there's 

17 ample scientific and technical justification 

18 under the Act that supports this SEC 

19 determination.

20 So, that gets forwarded, and we 

21 expect within a couple of months, actually, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278 1 maybe even sooner, this gets put into place, 

2 I guess depending on the government reopening

3 and other issues like that, but we are pretty

4 confident it will go through. Generally, our

5 recommendations, those of NIOSH, are followed

6 by the Secretary and are accepted. So, feel 

7 fairly confident of this determination going 

8 forward.

9 I would like to go into the 

10 public comment period and do that. Again, I 

11 would remind people that, if you want to make

12 the public comment period, we are 

13 particularly interested in some of the open 

14 issues that are remaining here: the data 

15 falsification issue, the 1984 through 1988 

16 period for neptunium exposure potential, 

17 magnesium-thorium alloy issue, and so forth.

18 There may be other issues you 

19 want to raise, but we are trying to move on 

20 and deal with the other issues that were in 

21 the active petition here. This is an ongoing
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279 1 process until we have addressed -- until we 

2 feel that we have satisfactorily addressed 

3 all of the issues raised in the petition.

4 I think, as you heard, there are 

5 still interviews that need to be done, and so

6 forth. So, we will do that.

7 I would also add that if you have 

8 information on any of those issues and you 

9 don't wish to make public comment or don't 

10 wish to share some of the information in 

11 public, if you could contact either one of 

12 the NIOSH staff that is here, or one of the 

13 SC&A staff which represents -- sort of works 

14 for the Board in terms of doing this, and Joe

15 Fitzgerald who -- Joe, can you stand up? Let

16 them know, one of them know, and it doesn't 

17 necessarily matter which one, just so we can 

18 be able to follow up.

19 Because I think, as you can see, 

20 one of the reasons for the success and the 

21 reason that we were able to forward on this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280 1 petition, on some of the same issues that we 

2 weren't able to, didn't on the earlier 

3 petition, is that we had much more 

4 information. And a lot of that came from 

5 interviews and talking to people who were 

6 familiar with the site and had a lot of 

7 information on it. 

8 So, what you provide us is very 

9 important. So, we appreciate that, and it's 

10 something that is, I think, critical to this 

11 process, one of the reasons we come and have 

12 meetings near these sites and try to do it in

13 conjunction with our deliberations.

14 So, rather than waiting until 

15 five o'clock, we're going to start early with

16 our public comment period. I know some of 

17 you have other things to do. And so we will 

18 go -- and Ted has to read some instructions 

19 first.

20 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, I won't 

21 read them, but I'll tell you about them. But
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281 1 before I do, I have materials from -- and I'd

2 note that one of the people who wants to 

3 speak is Judy Padilla. Zaida upfront gave me

4 an affidavit from Charles Padilla with 

5 numerous copies.

6 I just want to clarify from Judy. 

7 The instructions were to give these just to 

8 the Chair. Are these intended for the whole 

9 Board, these materials?

10 MS. PADILLA: Excuse me?

11 MR. KATZ: These materials, 

12 Charles' affidavit, you want these 

13 distributed to the Board, I assume, and NIOSH

14 and everybody?

15 MS. PADILLA: Yes, sir.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. But 

17 they don't need to be read into the record or

18 anything right now, right?

19 MS. PADILLA: Yes, I would like 

20 his affidavit read into the record.

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, you would like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282 1 them read? Okay. That's why I just wanted 

2 clarification about that.

3 MS. PADILLA: He wasn't able to 

4 come here today, but he asked me to --

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm happy to read 

6 it into the record. I just wanted to clarify

7 that that was the intent.

8 MS. PADILLA: Thank you.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, 

11 instructions.

12 MR. KATZ: Instructions. So, 

13 just to let everybody know before you make 

14 comments that -- you may not all be familiar,

15 but there is a transcript being made of this 

16 meeting, a verbatim transcript. That gets 

17 published on the NIOSH website for anyone in 

18 the public to read. So, everything you say 

19 will be printed there verbatim. So, consider

20 that with whatever you might have to say in 

21 terms of personal information, because all 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283 1 that personal information will be provided.

2 The only exception to that is 

3 that, if you provide personal information 

4 about another party, someone else, we will 

5 consider redacting some of that information 

6 to protect that person's privacy.

7 So, there are some provisos 

8 related to that, but that's the basic policy,

9 and it should be available on the back table,

10 if you want to read it in detail. And also, 

11 for people who are on the phone, on the NIOSH

12 website, it's referenced as the redaction 

13 policy. But, anyway, that is the sum of it 

14 right there.

15 Thank you. I can now read this 

16 whenever --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, it is 

18 going to be very shortly. So, get ready.

19 Yeah, what I am going to do is, 

20 for the people that are signed up, I am going

21 to start with people I believe are related --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284 1 speaking to Rocky Flats. It's not always 

2 clear here, and I will do that. And then we 

3 will come back to some of the other people 

4 that have signed up. Some of the people are 

5 not here, but have called in on the 

6 conference line, and we will do them a little

7 bit later.

8 And I believe, actually, the 

9 first person I have up here is Judy Padilla. 

10 So, if you want to read the statement, yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Sure. So, this is 

12 from Charles Padilla, his affidavit.

13 "I started at Rocky Flats Nuclear 

14 Weapons Plant in 1988 in the food service 

15 until my security clearance was completed. I 

16 then was assigned to the mailroom where my 

17 job consisted of mail delivery, internal and 

18 external, to all the buildings and trailers 

19 on the plant site. I was not issued a 

20 dosimetry badge. I later bid on a posting as

21 a utility worker and worked mostly in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285 1 Building 881. I was issued a dosimetry badge

2 and had occasional hot booties and gloves 

3 during the course of my work.

4 "I successfully bid on a job for 

5 chemical operator/process specialist and was 

6 assigned to the solar ponds where pond 

7 crete/salt crete was created. 

8 "Pond crete was made by mixing 

9 liquid sludge from the solar ponds with 

10 Portland cement. Classified by DOE as a non11 RCRA, low-level radioactive waste, it was 

12 later reclassified as hazardous waste and 

13 low-level mixed waste.

14 "I worked in Buildings 371/374 as 

15 a chemical operator in the reverse osmosis 

16 areas, as well as the holding tanks. One of 

17 my jobs was to check the" --

18 Excuse me. The person on the 

19 line, please mute your phone, *6 if you don't

20 have a mute button. Okay. Excuse me for the

21 interruption here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286 1 "One of my jobs was to check the 

2 liquids visually from the top of the tank, 

3 take samples, and record the levels. We did 

4 not have RCT assistance when we breached the 

5 tanks, and several times contamination was 

6 found on my hands, booties, coveralls, and 

7 skin at the step-off pad.

8 "During the layoffs in 1994-5, I 

9 was a work package closer-initiator and went 

10 into every building for signatures to start 

11 or close work packages.

12 "I have been diagnosed with: lung 

13 nodules, COPD, prostate cancer, numerous skin

14 cancers, kidney cancer, liver cancer, and 

15 bladder cancer. I had my bladder removed, 

16 urostomy, on October 10, 2012. My request 

17 under the EEOICP for compensation was denied.

18 "Rocky Flats was shut down 

19 because of illegal environmental activities. 

20 Rockwell, the subcontractor, pled guilty to 

21 violations of the discharge permits and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287 1 inadequate control of processes where sludge 

2 was to be made into pond crete blocks. 

3 Rockwell pled guilty to criminal 

4 environmental crimes and were accused of 

5 `concealed, illegal disposal of hazardous and

6 radioactive waste, faked paperwork, and 

7 discharge of exotic pollutants into 

8 streams.'"

9 And that's a quote from Rocky 

10 Mountain News.

11 "DOE angered many when it 

12 insisted that environmental laws didn't apply

13 to their facilities. People working at the 

14 plant talked about how dangerous and unsafe 

15 their work was. DOE released reports 

16 criticizing safety of operations. Rockwell 

17 agreed to a fine of $18.5 million. The 

18 Justice Department couldn't indict DOE, an 

19 agency of the federal government that has 

20 statutory immunity. Rockwell signed the 

21 agreement on March 26th, 1992, unequivocal 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288 1 plea of guilty.

2 "So, how does that affect me? I 

3 worked for a company who could not be trusted

4 to protect its workers, polluted public 

5 waterways, lied to officials, and 

6 participated in activities that deserved jail

7 sentences. The records and information of 

8 the grand jury trial are sealed and 

9 unavailable to anyone who would like to find 

10 the truth. As a Rocky Flats worker, I had 

11 faith in my government that I would be 

12 protected, but I feel I was deceived. I am a

13 loyal citizen who has done what my country 

14 asked me to do. I continue to have residual 

15 anger for what happened at Rocky Flats and 

16 the damage that was done to the people who 

17 worked there.

18 "It makes sense to me that a 

19 company who would admit to these crimes would

20 also destroy dosimetry records, fake reports,

21 and then lie about it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289 1 "I ask you to make good decisions 

2 and take responsibility for your own actions.

3 Please grant Special Exposure Cohort status 

4 to the Rocky Flats workers with cancer."

5 Signed Charles Padilla, September 

6 20th, 2013.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Judy, do you 

10 have anything you want to add?

11 MS. PADILLA: Yes, I would like 

12 to add I appreciate all of your working, 

13 especially NIOSH's hard work on the 

14 neptunium, but I feel like they didn't go far

15 enough.

16 As Charlie stated in his letter, 

17 Rockwell, the subcontractor, pled guilty --

18 guilty -- to these crimes. And they ran 

19 Rocky Flats up until 1992. So, I feel the 

20 Special Exposure Cohort should extend to 

21 1992.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290 1 You are all intelligent, educated 

2 people. How can you take data from liars, 

3 admitted liars, guilty liars?

4 And that's all I have to say. 

5 Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

7 you. The next person I have listed is John 

8 Krol.

9 MR. KROL: Thank you all for 

10 listening to our concerns here.

11 I started to work for Rockwell 

12 International in August of `77. I went in as

13 a vehicle modification mechanic. We had a 

14 very special set of work tasks that we had to

15 do. We created -- we were the factory for 

16 building a lot of very secure methods of 

17 transportation for the Transportation 

18 Safeguards Division in Albuquerque to support

19 whatever they wanted to haul. It was a very 

20 elaborate, very complex operation. It 

21 involved working with a lot of different 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291 1 materials. There was a group of about 100 of

2 us that supported this operation for Rockwell

3 and for DOE and to keep everybody safe here. 

4 It was the initial stages of some very 

5 important counterterrorism-type operations.

6 Throughout my career, which I 

7 spent approximately 16 years in the Vehicle 

8 Modification Center -- Mod Center, if you 

9 will -- working in kind of -- it was a very 

10 bad environment. We didn't have any -- I 

11 know air conditioning doesn't mean a lot, but

12 we didn't have a ventilation system that was 

13 adequate in any way to protect our breathing 

14 for materials we were working with, welding, 

15 cutting, grinding, all kinds of operations.

16 We worked with many exotic 

17 materials in there, as well, to support this.

18 We had many prototype jobs that we worked 

19 with, many unknown hazards.

20 I really can't get in to address 

21 the specific materials that we worked with. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292 1 Many of them were marked with "radioactive 

2 material," but we were in a cold building. 

3 We had very minimal radiological protection. 

4 Radiological control technicians were 

5 usually very scarce.

6 We did not have support from 

7 dosimetry for most of the time. We did not 

8 have -- we basically had a bioassay program 

9 that was lateral to that of office workers. 

10 We were pretty much basically the black 

11 sheep. That is how we were looked at at the 

12 plant.

13 Many of the transportation 

14 vehicles that were in the fleet, when we did 

15 have RCT support, we were told that there was

16 tritium contamination. We also worked with 

17 thorium in our welding processes on a day-to18 day basis. Many people are not here with us 

19 today that worked there.

20 I was very proud to take on a 

21 special assignment back in 1984, along with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293 1 about, I believe, seven other volunteers. We

2 worked on a special project that wasn't even 

3 for the Department of Energy. It was for 

4 another government entity. I was trying to 

5 think of who else would still be around from 

6 then. I can't think of any survivor other 

7 than myself from that project.

8 Many things were overlooked 

9 through our group, and much of our hazards 

10 were definitely not addressed throughout any 

11 of the sick employees' compensation program. 

12 Even my own brother who worked there passed 

13 away from cancer. Many people are suffering 

14 the effects, which I believe were mostly 

15 covered up or just not even acknowledged.

16 I would greatly appreciate if 

17 these concerns would be possibly raised again

18 for survivors, anyone that had become ill 

19 from this. I would be willing to release 

20 much more information in a confidential 

21 meeting, but I would really not be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294 1 comfortable with providing any more 

2 information at this time in a public manner.

3 Thank you all.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and we 

5 understand the confidentiality/security 

6 issues. So, do that.

7 Okay. I'm just trying to clarify 

8 something in terms of follow-up, but LaVon is

9 following up that.

10 The next person I have I believe 

11 is Nila Adkins. Yes?

12 MS. ADKINS: Good afternoon. I 

13 would like to thank the SEC for passing up to

14 1980, but still there is some former Rocky 

15 Flats employees that need to be approved.

16 To you, Danny Adkins is just 

17 another statistic. White male, deceased at 

18 age 47. Cause of death: pancreatic cancer. 

19 Worked at Rocky Flats from October 1981 to 

20 February 2002. However, to us, he is a son, 

21 brother, husband, father, grandfather, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295 1 friend. He was born December 7th, 1955, in 

2 Huntington, West Virginia, and died September

3 10, 2003, in Westminster, Colorado.

4 To those of us that knew him, he 

5 was a kind, gentle, fun, loving, generous man

6 who was taken from us too soon. Danny's 

7 dying request to his family was to fight for 

8 his compensation that he knew he was due. He

9 said to fight for this because he didn't want

10 this to just die and to go away.

11 He knew that during his time 

12 while working at Rocky Flats he was exposed 

13 to something that causes cancer. Having done

14 research, interviewing various coworkers and 

15 employees, and compiling lists of toxic and 

16 hazardous material that he came into contact 

17 with, I have to think that he was correct. 

18 The research on the partial list of the 

19 chemicals and radioactive elements showed 

20 that many of them are known carcinogens and 

21 have links to many cancers.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296 1 Danny has been gone for ten years 

2 now, and he was no farther in the process of 

3 dose reconstruction. There were all claims 

4 when he started his claim twelve years ago. 

5 The interview that he gave stated that when 

6 his dose reconstruction dosimeter was reading

7 zero, he was highly contaminated.

8 This whole process has been very 

9 frustrating, a large bureaucracy. The burden

10 of proof has been upon the family. Danny had

11 a top security clearance. His family and 

12 friends were not to know the extent of his 

13 job, what is entailed, and the elements and 

14 chemicals he was using.

15 The metrics that are used to 

16 determine if a chemical contributes to a 

17 cancer are incorrect. They only apply to 

18 standard use.

19 Sorry, I'm just so nervous. Bear 

20 with me.

21 Of the chemicals, this method 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297 1 cannot be applied when it comes to Rocky 

2 Flats because these chemicals were not used 

3 in the standard method.

4 Danny served his country twice, 

5 once when he was in the Air Force and again 

6 when he was employed by the various 

7 contractors that ran Rocky Flats. He gave 

8 himself to his country with no question 

9 asked. He was told that he would be safe in 

10 the job that he performed in the name of 

11 national security.

12 Danny died at the age of 47. 

13 That age is not even near retirement age 

14 requirement. He was looking forward to his 

15 life events before he was diagnosed with 

16 pancreatic cancer.

17 Since he has been gone these ten 

18 years, he has missed the birth of his 

19 granddaughter, the marriage of his youngest 

20 daughter, his 35-years wedding anniversary, 

21 and in four years will miss the high school 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298 1 graduation of his grandson.

2 I remember a conversation that he 

3 had with me, my mom, that his grandson would 

4 graduate. "I am planning on being there," 

5 saying that he is planning to be at his 

6 grandson's graduation, and all the birthdays,

7 anniversaries, and holidays and countless 

8 little life's moments that he would have 

9 cherished. These are things that were taken 

10 away from us, of all those who love and miss 

11 him. We miss him and his love, his sense of 

12 humor, that voice of wisdom, and his love of 

13 life.

14 Passing the SEC does not bring 

15 him back, but it does help all the other 

16 employees that are sick, dying, and the 

17 families of those who have passed away.

18 This subject is something that 

19 causes passion to run high. Put yourself in 

20 someone's shoes who has just lost a loved one

21 to a horrific terminal illness which had no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299 1 way -- the person changed from a healthy, 

2 able-bodied person to a former shell of the 

3 person they used to be.

4 Imagine having to do research on 

5 a subject that you know nothing about. Try 

6 to recreate and imagine the type of work that

7 someone did during their 20 years' employment

8 history, finding records for employment, only

9 to find that they were falsified, missing, or

10 incorrect; being told that it's your 

11 responsibility to prove that the illness was 

12 caused from his job; being rejected for 

13 compensation numerous times because the dose 

14 reconstruction wasn't high enough, and the 

15 evidence provided was not enough countless 

16 other times.

17 This whole process is exhausting 

18 physically, emotionally, and mentally. This 

19 process causes you to relive the most 

20 horrible parts of your life over and over and

21 over again, never really being able to move 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300 1 on, always stuck in the past.

2 Please pass a SEC for this group 

3 of Rocky Flats employees and their survivors 

4 to help start that healing process.

5 Thank you very much.

6 (Applause.)

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

8 I believe it's Peter Montez.

9 MR. MONTEZ: First of all, thank 

10 you for passing the SEC.

11 I worked at Rocky Flats as a 

12 youth from around 19 years old for 

13 approximately 26-28 years. I entered as an 

14 electrician and ended it as a senior 

15 principal development engineer.

16 And I worked in quite a few areas 

17 that were highly radioactive and a lot of 

18 areas that were highly contaminated also. 

19 And that was my job and I did it gladfully, 

20 and I was actually a Rocky Flats warrior. I 

21 represented Rocky Flats at a lot of different
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301 1 functions, like with Arvada, with trying to 

2 get the admission of us to do our low-level, 

3 mixed-waste mitigation program, things like 

4 that. And I was a project engineer on that, 

5 and also I worked with several other project 

6 engineers that were working also on other 

7 waste issues.

8 But, as I went in through my 

9 years at Rocky Flats, I was involved in 

10 several contamination incidents, and to 

11 myself specifically also. And I also did get

12 contamination to my wounds. And I worked in 

13 cold and hot areas. And some of the cold 

14 areas were the areas that had been cleaned up

15 previously through initial fires, but I also 

16 worked there to help clean up after the later

17 fires.

18 In those days, there was a lot of 

19 work to do and there was a lot of 

20 contamination. We got contaminated quite a 

21 bit.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302 1 In fact, one of my memorable 

2 experiences is when one of my workers was 

3 contaminated at the same time I was. 

4 Usually, what they would do is they would 

5 bring you out and they would start scanning 

6 you to see how far your clothing -- they 

7 would take off your initial coveralls, and 

8 they would go down to the coveralls that are 

9 inside there. If you are still contaminated,

10 they take those off, go down to your 

11 skivvies. If you're contaminated there, then

12 they go ahead and have you either disrobe 

13 there or go to a decontamination shower.

14 Well, when I disrobed and they 

15 scanned my body, I was clean. But one of my 

16 workers, when they scanned his body, he was 

17 contaminated in his testicles. And so they 

18 took him off to medical -- they took me out 

19 and just gave me a cleanup and all -- and 

20 then sent him back to work.

21 Well, a week later he quit. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303 1 I can imagine, because he told me, "How could

2 I go explain to my wife where I was 

3 contaminated and still have relationships 

4 with her?"

5 But, on my behalf here, I did 

6 have a very good -- I'm sorry, I'm also -- I 

7 forgot to say that -- I'm a cancer survivor 

8 right now. I do have -- I have had colon 

9 cancer and I'm through some radiation 

10 treatment and chemo treatment. And I am at 

11 some more chemo, I am halfway through my 

12 chemo.

13 But, anyway, I had worked doing 

14 redesign on the plutonium casting furnaces, 

15 like in 07 and a few other buildings there. 

16 And those were very highly radioactive 

17 emitters, radiation emitters.

18 And I know that at one point, 

19 too, also -- this is my recollection, okay? 

20 We have these bentonite shields around these 

21 furnaces. And you were told that you would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304 1 just stay so that these bentonite shields 

2 would keep you from getting any more 

3 radiation dosages.

4 But we had, in our reconstruction 

5 or redevelopment of the design of the casting

6 furnace for plutonium, I had to work for 

7 several hours around these furnaces. And you

8 had to get on the other side of the shields. 

9 But I was told, after one day when we went 

10 in there and these things were being taken 

11 down, I was told the reason why they were 

12 taken down was because they were intensifying

13 the radiation because you were getting 

14 bounceback of the radiation between these 

15 shields.

16 And so, once again, being the 

17 Rocky Flats warriors and stuff, you know, 

18 things like this didn't register until later 

19 on when I started thinking about things about

20 the Flats.

21 We had one demonstration there. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305 1 People came out of Boulder. People came out 

2 of Denver. And they were talking about 

3 closing down the plant and stuff like that. 

4 There must have been 10,000 people out there.

5 But I was out there with my 

6 pickup truck and my sign saying, "Support 

7 Rocky Flats. You guys are all crazy. You 

8 don't know what you're talking about." I 

9 felt like a little bug out there with all 

10 these people all around me saying about how 

11 unvaluable the land was and all. So, this is

12 just showing you what kind of a worker I was,

13 how true-blood I was. Okay?

14 And they were saying that the

15 land around there wasn't worth 10 cents. And

16 I was even telling the people that were going

17 in there, "Here, I've got a dime. I'll buy 

18 it. I've got a dollar. I'll buy 10 acres 

19 from you for a dollar." Things like this, 

20 you know.

21 So, I was really a very concerned 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306 1 American. Okay? But now I see the people 

2 that have suffered. And I don't know, maybe 

3 I should have been up on there, on that 

4 screen. I don't know. We'll see what 

5 happens.

6 I went through my first 

7 treatment, and they said I had a 50/50 chance

8 of surviving. And if I get cancer again, I 

9 won't survive. No cure. So, I'm on the 

10 second phase of that to elevate my 

11 percentages.

12 And so I thank you for listening 

13 to me, and please listen to all the others of

14 these people with their grievances.

15 Thank you.

16 (Applause.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

18 And the next person I have listed 

19 is Jerry Harden. I know I have seen you 

20 around here today. 

21 MR. HARDEN: Good afternoon. My 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307 1 name is Jerry Harden. I was employed at the 

2 Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Site for 37 

3 years. I was a radiation control technician 

4 for most of that time and a three-term 

5 president of United Steelworkers Local 8031 

6 that represented the hourly production and 

7 maintenance workers at the plant.

8 I'm here to speak in support of

9 expanding the Special Exposure Cohort status 

10 for the long-suffering workers and their 

11 families at Rocky Flats.

12 Rocky Flats was officially closed 

13 in December of 2005, after a long history of 

14 controversy. The plant had one of the worst 

15 industrial fires in U.S. history. The plant 

16 was responsible for large tritium releases 

17 over an extended period of time. The plant 

18 also spread plutonium and other hazardous 

19 chemicals in the environment, with the barrel

20 field known as 903, for many years.

21 The plant had the first FBI raid 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308 1 of a government facility and caused a federal

2 grand jury to be formed. Unfortunately, 

3 those findings have remained sealed, denying 

4 the public and the workers valuable 

5 information about Rocky Flats.

6 To date, there have been 2,319 

7 sick worker claims -- sick worker and 

8 survivor claims settled, with many more 

9 awaiting decisions. Rocky Flats has been the

10 most deadly workplace and the most expensive 

11 environmental cleanup project in the State of

12 Colorado.

13 I thank the Board for their 

14 support for the long-suffering Rocky Flats 

15 workers and their families to expand the 

16 Special Exposure Cohort status. Thank you.

17 Any questions?

18 (No response.)

19 Again, another wise choice.

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Mr. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

309 1 Harden.

2 (Applause.)

3 I was looking for help with a 

4 name that is a little hard to read. It is 

5 [identifying information redacted], something

6 like -- someone named [identifying 

7 information redacted] in the audience? The 

8 [identifying information redacted] I can 

9 read; the last name I was having trouble 

10 with. See if he is outside.

11 (Pause.)

12 Okay. Not? That's fine. If he 

13 comes back, we will give him a turn.

14 Jack Weaver.

15 MS. VLIEGER: Did you say Faye?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. You are on 

17 the list, Faye, and we are getting closer to 

18 you, I promise.

19 MR. WEAVER: Good afternoon. I 

20 want to thank you today for what you have 

21 done. I know everybody appreciates it. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310 1 we are not through yet. We have got a long 

2 ways to go to get the rest of the people 

3 covered.

4 Jack Weaver, Deputy Director of 

5 Plutonium Operations at Rocky Flats, retired.

6 I spent 41 years there.

7 But today I am going to talk a 

8 little bit about something else, and that's 

9 uranyl nitrate. I was asked if I could speak

10 to that. Laura Reis here is going to say a 

11 few things, too, because she was involved in 

12 part of the operation that exposed her.

13 First of all, I had a varied 

14 occupation at Rocky Flats, as you well know, 

15 because we've talked about it before. But I 

16 had a lot of interface with different 

17 organizations on the plant site. One of 

18 those organizations was the mass crit lab, 

19 Building 886. Building 886 was built to do 

20 mass crit experiments to establish the limits

21 by which we operated in the plutonium areas 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311 1 and the uranium areas, but primarily in the 

2 plutonium areas to keep us safe.

3 In that lab, they had a split 

4 table on which they did a lot of experiments 

5 with solid materials, metals and oxides and 

6 such. The lab was never set up for 

7 plutonium, although it did have plutonium in 

8 it from time to time.

9 But the main testing was done 

10 with uranyl nitrate, and it was done by 

11 setting up a series of tanks and pumps and 

12 lines so they could transfer this uranyl 

13 nitrate from tank to tank and do their 

14 measurements and their experiments to 

15 establish those limits by which we operated.

16 Like any tanks that we had in the 

17 771 building, 371, or anyplace else on the 

18 plant site, they all had inputs and outputs 

19 and a lot of flanges, site gauges, and et 

20 cetera, a lot of places for them to leak.

21 And, of course, these did leak, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312 1 and they leaked into pans that were on the 

2 floor in the experimental room. And, 

3 initially, they had no criticality rings, 

4 Raschig rings, in there. I had a crew that 

5 went up there, cleaned up the place after a 

6 leak, and we put in Raschig rings to prevent 

7 any criticalities that might get out on the 

8 floor.

9 And during that time, we also 

10 replaced all the gaskets on the valves, 

11 shrink-filmed everything, so if there were 

12 any further links we wouldn't have any 

13 problems. We did have leaks from time to 

14 time, but we pretty much contained those 

15 leaks.

16 But, in the end, when we got 

17 ready to -- in the `90s when we got ready to 

18 go into the D&D operations at Rocky Flats, we

19 had no P&IDs, no as-builts, or anything of 

20 any of the piping and the tanks, or anything 

21 like that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

313 1 So, one of the things that we did 

2 was we put the crew together. Laura Schultz 

3 Reis here and [identifying information 

4 redacted] was sent up to 886 to do as-builts 

5 in the building.

6 And with that, I will let her 

7 explain what she got into with the uranyl 

8 nitrate and the exposures.

9 Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 MS. REIS: I'm a clinical piping 

12 designer, and I actually was one of Jack 

13 Weaver's flunkies. Actually, I was one of 

14 his kids.

15 And I was tasked to go into the 

16 building to do some drawings for him for the 

17 building. And the building became under 

18 771's auspice. So, my partner and I, Greg 

19 Pedracki, were sent in to do some drawings 

20 for the building.

21 So, I went up there and I crawled 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

314 1 up on the berm area, which was about a 4-foot

2 berm. And I sat down on the berm. And the 

3 first thing I noticed was that there was 

4 Raschig rings on the floor which I hadn't 

5 come across before. And I go, "Hmm, that's 

6 strange."

7 So, I kind of got comfortable. I 

8 sit down, and I started doing my sketches. 

9 And I did the drain system. Okay, I did the 

10 drain system. And I went into a general RWP 

11 system, and I didn't have respirators. I had

12 my respirator with me, but it wasn't required

13 for me to have with me, to have it on, and I 

14 didn't have an RCT with me because it wasn't 

15 required.

16 And so I did my sketch. So, I 

17 did my sketch, and I was in there for about 

18 two hours. And this was highly -- I was told

19 there was a highly-fissile solution. And so 

20 I did my sketches.

21 And then I started doing the fuel 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

315 1 lines and I noticed that it was disconnected 

2 from the plenum. And I thought, "Wow, this 

3 is strange." So, I started doing the 

4 drawing, and I found that it had been 

5 disconnected from the plenum. So, I'm doing 

6 the drawing, and it is routed to a wet vacuum

7 cleaner. What? This is routed to a vacuum 

8 cleaner, and it's routed to room air. And 

9 I'm here without a respirator. This is going

10 out into room air.

11 And so I tell my partner, and I 

12 said, "I need to get a respirator." So, I 

13 back out, get down, and I take off. We go 

14 back to the building, and I tell them, we 

15 tell them what happened. And they do not 

16 monitor me. I do not get a smear. I do not 

17 get fecal smears. I do not get a nose smear.

18 And they put the room on supplied air until 

19 they can clear this room, this building, his 

20 lab, Rothe's lab. That's what happened.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

316 1 you for that.

2 Faye.

3 MS. VLIEGER: Hi. I am Faye 

4 Vlieger, and I sit on the National --

5 MS. REIS: Oh, can I say one more 

6 thing?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure, you can. 

8 Go ahead.

9 MS. VLIEGER: Certainly. You go 

10 right ahead.

11 MS. REIS: I also came down with 

12 kidney cancer. I lost my left kidney.

13 MS. VLIEGER: Hi. I'm Faye 

14 Vlieger and I sit on the National Advisory 

15 Committee for Cold War Patriots. I'm also a 

16 veteran of the United States Military and 

17 also a veteran of working at the Hanford 

18 Site. Some of the Board Members will 

19 recognize me for petitioning for the Hanford 

20 petition.

21 And I want to thank you all for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

317 1 the work that you did for both of the Hanford

2 petitions. Many of the people and coworkers 

3 that I speak for are not able to make these 

4 kinds of trips and, unfortunately, some of 

5 them are no longer with us. But we all thank

6 you very much.

7 You all know that I get choked at 

8 everything. So, deal with it.

9 I want to thank you much for your 

10 work and your continued work.

11 And, as you know, the Hanford SEC 

12 and the Rocky Flats SEC have gone hand-in13 glove. And you also may have figured out 

14 that PNNL laboratories and Rocky Flats 

15 laboratories exchanged information to try to 

16 have a different eye look at the work that 

17 was going on at Rocky. So, the labs at 

18 Hanford contained or did a lot of work for 

19 the analysis for Rocky Flats.

20 Unfortunately, the Hanford SEC 

21 that's remaining is also going to be hand-in-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

318 1 glove with what is going on with the Rocky 

2 Flats SEC. And the Hanford SEC has been 

3 languishing for more than two years. I 

4 realize things have been going on in the 

5 background, but it's two-and-a-half years ago

6 this month that we did the interviews with 

7 the workers concerning the contamination in 

8 the 300 area, which uncovered a lot of the 

9 other issues throughout the site.

10 So, I want to encourage the 

11 Hanford Work Group, which I know is going to 

12 be looking at something finally, to move 

13 along with their proceedings because it will 

14 also help the Rocky Flats issues, because 

15 Hanford seems to be the basis upon what they 

16 build the next Rocky Flats SEC for.

17 For those of you who don't know, 

18 and some of you do know, I was injured in a 

19 chemical exposure at Hanford in June of 2002.

20 That's a rather recent exposure. They have 

21 hidden, successfully, the air monitoring data
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

319 1 and the sampling that was done for my 

2 accident. All the former and current workers

3 know that the contractors do this on a 

4 regular basis, and I realize the scientists 

5 in the room are going to go, "That just 

6 doesn't happen."

7 They are successful in doing it 

8 for two reasons. They do it to avoid the 

9 premiums they have to pay for state workers' 

10 compensation. If they go up and they have a 

11 bond, they have to pay in the state. So they

12 hide the information from the workers' 

13 injuries, so that the worker settles the 

14 claim without knowing the full extent of 

15 their exposures.

16 The other reason they do it is to 

17 protect their contracts, and every worker 

18 here in the room knows that that is a fact, 

19 no matter what site you worked at. My 

20 records from my exposure in 2002, which were 

21 well-documented and monitored, have never 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320 1 been released through the Energy Employees' 

2 Program under the U.S. Department of Labor, 

3 even though we know exactly where they are. 

4 They were never released in time for me to 

5 prosecute my State Labor and Industries 

6 claim. I physically found them.

7 And then when we went to the 

8 Laboratory and said, "You need to release 

9 them because these are part of her exposure 

10 records that are required under law," the 

11 Laboratory replied to the Department of 

12 Energy employee who was handling the Employee

13 Concerns Department, "Well, you can't have 

14 that because that physically belongs to CH2M 

15 Hill." Battelle was the contractor running 

16 that laboratory, and they were holding them 

17 for the other contractor, saying that they 

18 belonged to CH2M Hill.

19 To his credit, the Department of 

20 Energy employee said, "Well, you know" -- and

21 his name was Ken Hor and he was from Los 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

321 1 Alamos, if any of you remember Ken -- he 

2 said, "You know, you can either give me that 

3 report or I can lock down your laboratory for

4 a month for an audit. What do you think it's

5 going to be?" So, the Department of Energy 

6 has those records, but they have yet to

7 release them under my claim for Energy 

8 Employees' Compensation.

9 So, for anyone on the Board to 

10 assume that the contractors are playing with 

11 an even hand with the workers and their 

12 injuries, including the radioactive injuries,

13 all of the accidents, incidents, and off14 normal occurrences are not being reported the

15 way you think they are, simply because humans

16 are involved who think they are protecting 

17 their jobs.

18 So, I would encourage you to not 

19 look with a jaundiced eye at the, quote, 

20 "recent SECs that are looking towards 

21 approval." At Hanford, we had reactors 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

322 1 operating through 1988, yet our SEC ends 

2 currently December 31st of 1983. So, we know

3 that there's plenty of product on the site. 

4 It's still on the site.

5 We just finished emptying the K6 Basins of the spent rods, and we still have 

7 all of the fuels that are being stored at the

8 site because there is no national repository.

9 People are being exposed on a pretty regular

10 basis. You can read the local newspaper.

11 DOE constantly reports that 

12 nobody was exposed on any. So, I would 

13 encourage you to look beyond the front-page 

14 articles. I would encourage you to actually 

15 go to the archives for the work records.

16 As a planner at the Hanford site, 

17 all of my documents were archival. They are 

18 in archives in Seattle. And for the Hanford 

19 site, that's where we found many of the work 

20 records that were supposedly gone for 

21 contractors. Individuals went to the federal
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

323 1 archive in Seattle and found those records 

2 for the workers. I would encourage you to do

3 the same. They are indexed, but they are not

4 computerized.

5 So, when you are asking, "What 

6 happened and where are things?" RWPs and the

7 work package are in a permanent archive in 

8 Seattle. It is not going to be fun to look 

9 through them, but they are indexed. And that

10 is the majority of the information from my 

11 accident ended up.

12 So, therefore, I would think it 

13 would be reasonable to predict that you're 

14 going to find incidents for Rocky Flats and 

15 for Hanford, whatever contractor it was -- I 

16 don't care what contractor it is -- continues

17 to cover up things because they are saving 

18 their contract and they are trying to lower 

19 their operating costs.

20 Even though the contractors are 

21 indemnified by their contracts with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324 1 Department of Energy for all costs for labor 

2 and industry claims, including the money to 

3 pay attorneys to fight the workers, that 

4 doesn't stop them from limiting their 

5 liability elsewhere. Because, remember, a 

6 labor and industry claim is only a labor and 

7 industry claim in the state if it's an 

8 accident. If it can be proven that they knew

9 about it and could have avoided it, it's not 

10 an accident and they are liable anyway.

11 I thank you for your time, and I 

12 am so happy for all the Rocky Flat folks.

13 (Applause.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

15 Faye.

16 Before I turn to comments from 

17 the phone, is there anybody here that I've 

18 skipped that signed up for public comments? 

19 To give public -- did you sign up? Okay. I 

20 don't have you on the list. So, come on up 

21 to the microphone, then.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

325 1 MS. JERISON: Thank you for 

2 allowing me to speak. My name is Deb 

3 Jerison. I am the director of the Energy 

4 Employees Claimant Assistance Project.

5 My father was a worker at the 

6 Mound Plant in Ohio, and he died in 1960. In

7 the early 1950s, Mound did separation work 

8 with materials containing radium-226, 

9 actinium-227, and thorium. This work was 

10 done in the cave, later known as "the old 

11 cave," in the GP building.

12 Because the old cave was too 

13 heavily contaminated to be cleaned up, it was

14 entombed in 12 inches of concrete in the late

15 `50s, and another room was built on top of 

16 it. The GP building, which was renamed SW 

17 building, was connected to our building. It 

18 starts to sound like alphabets.

19 A crack developed in the floor of 

20 the room filled over the old cave and 

21 radiation from the entombed area escaped into
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

326 1 SW and R buildings until the problem was 

2 corrected some 20 years later.

3 The 1959-to-1980 Mound SEC was 

4 established on May 4th, 2010, to cover 

5 workers who had been exposed to this 

6 radiation. Although tritium played no role 

7 in the contamination, NIOSH determined that 

8 this SEC Class would be defined as all 

9 workers of the Department of Energy, its 

10 predecessor agencies, and their contractors 

11 and subcontractors who were monitored for 

12 tritium exposure while working at the Mound 

13 Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio, from March 1st, 

14 1959, through March 5th, 1980. And then the 

15 regular 250 days stuff.

16 The justification behind this 

17 Class Definition was that all workers in the 

18 SW and R buildings had been monitored for 

19 tritium during the time period of the SEC. 

20 If this had been true, the definition might 

21 have worked. However, both R and SW 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

327 1 buildings had cold areas where the workers 

2 were not monitored.

3 On June 11th, 2010, the Board 

4 recommended the SEC using NIOSH's Class 

5 Definition. NIOSH began suspecting there 

6 were problems with the logbooks that NIOSH 

7 used to base its list of eligible claimants 

8 on at this point.

9 The logbooks were problematic for 

10 several reasons. Because Mound had recycled 

11 HP numbers, these numbers were not reliable 

12 sources of identification for all years. 

13 Social Security Numbers were not used. Names

14 in the logbooks were illegible and 

15 misspelled. Nicknames were used. People 

16 were not always listed by the same name.

17 However, even after NIOSH was 

18 aware of these problems, they didn't alert 

19 DOL or the Advisory Board until six months 

20 had passed. Then, on December 22nd, 2010, 

21 the NIOSH lead sent an email stating that he 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

328 1 had forgotten about the cold areas in SW and 

2 R buildings when he wrote the Class 

3 Definition. If there were workers in these 

4 buildings who weren't monitored, then the 

5 Class Definition is not valid.

6 There were additional problems in 

7 determining who had a tritium bioassay and 

8 who didn't. Claimants found MESH database 

9 records indicating tritium bioassay in their 

10 DOE files and turned these into DOL as proof 

11 of bioassay. NIOSH stated that these were 

12 not valid proof and at some point circulated 

13 a justification for this. However, this 

14 justification is undated and unsigned and 

15 doesn't show any citations or documents which

16 informed this decision.

17 I sent two reports to NIOSH on 

18 these problems. I spent weeks reviewing 

19 Mound documents and the history of the Mound 

20 MESH database and came to the conclusion that

21 the MESH database was probably reliable. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

329 1 NIOSH didn't respond to either of these 

2 reports, as far as I can remember.

3 On February 15th, 2011, NIOSH 

4 suddenly realized that there were cold area 

5 workers in the R and SW buildings and 

6 determined that an 83.14 should be created 

7 for all workers.

8 Then, on February 18th, NIOSH 

9 suddenly reversed this decision after talking

10 to an individual and the Office of General 

11 Counsel. The reason for this reversal was 

12 redacted from the emails I have, and it is 

13 very important that the Advisory Board and 

14 its contractor review and evaluate the 

15 reasons for this reversal. I would like to 

16 know what reversed the decision as well.

17 Yesterday, after talking to a 

18 chemist, another set of possible problems 

19 with this SEC has come to light. I'm way 

20 over my head with this. I really don't 

21 understand it yet. NIOSH decided this Class 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

330 1 based on radon only. As I understand it, it 

2 is possible that other compounds or oxides 

3 were formed from the daughter products of the

4 radioactive material leaking out of the 

5 entombed old cave along with the radon.

6 Also, what instrument or 

7 instruments were used to measure the leaking 

8 radon radiation level? Apparently, this 

9 could make a big difference when evaluating 

10 different kinds of radiation.

11 Lastly, what is the stated 

12 uncertainty for the radiation measurement? 

13 Was it statistical uncertainty or systematic 

14 uncertainty?

15 These are some of the questions 

16 that still need to be answered. I feel the 

17 defective Class Definition, the defects of 

18 the logbooks, and the problems with 

19 interpreting the MESH database mean that an 

20 83.14 for all workers is still called for.

21 And thank you so much for passing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

331 1 the Rocky Flats SEC.

2 (Applause.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

4 Stephanie Carroll.

5 MS. CARROLL: Hello. First, I 

6 would like to say thank you to the Board for 

7 accepting the validity of the science that 

8 was presented by NIOSH, SC&A, the petitioner,

9 workers who were presenting science, and I 

10 appreciate that you accepted that.

11 I also would like to thank Terrie 

12 Barrie for her tireless pursuit of truth and 

13 justice for the workers. She has just been 

14 amazing, and at all hours she is willing to 

15 answer the phone, get on the email, accept 

16 documents. She has just done some really 

17 great work, along with all the Rocky Flats 

18 nuclear workers who for years have been 

19 working to get this SEC passed. I appreciate

20 all their work, and I'm so glad so many 

21 people came today, too.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

332 1 I am hoping that you will 

2 continue the investigation to expand the SEC 

3 to the later years. One of the things I 

4 wanted to present was one of my clients had 

5 done an affidavit at one of the meetings, and

6 he was talking about a tritium job in the 

7 later years. He was in D&D. And he said 

8 that there were problems with the urinalysis,

9 topping off the urine when there wasn't 

10 enough in the vials. They were doing that.

11 But I found a document of his. 

12 Actually, he had it. It was not in his 

13 health physics file. So, I'm just going to 

14 read the letter that was sent to him in 

15 regards to his urinalysis, in part.

16 "Attached are the results of the 

17 pre-job sample number and post-job urine 

18 samples for a special project for tritium. 

19 As can be seen on the attached datasheets, 

20 your baseline urine sample result was below 

21 the decision level. It was background for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

333 1 tritium. The first analysis," which was done

2 the next day, right after the job, "of your 

3 post-job urine sample was greater than the 

4 decision level. It was positive. Due to the

5 first positive result, your post-job sample 

6 was analyzed a second time."

7 Why? And they used the same 

8 urine. And the analysis failed. And by the 

9 way, that analysis was done, I think, a 

10 couple of weeks after the first one. That 

11 also was not included in this letter that was

12 sent to him.

13 "The third analysis of the same 

14 urine sample was background for tritium. No 

15 sample was available for the fourth 

16 analysis." I don't know what that means.

17 "The urine data is considered 

18 inconclusive because the first analysis of 

19 the post-job sample was positive, and a 

20 subsequent re-analysis of the same sample was

21 background." I don't understand that. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

334 1 this is 1993 science that was being done at 

2 Rocky Flats.

3 "Based on the workplace 

4 indicators at the time of the job, there was 

5 no release of tritium to the workers in the 

6 immediate area. Because no tritium was 

7 released outside of the downdraft table, 

8 there is no reason to suspect that an intake 

9 occurred."

10 What this tells me is that the 

11 air monitoring, which is probably what they 

12 were using to determine if there was a 

13 release that day, overshot and overrode a 

14 bioanalysis of this worker.

15 "Therefore, we cannot confirm 

16 that any intake of tritium occurred." So, 

17 his first positive analysis is discounted.

18 So, these are the kinds of 

19 urinalysis that we are looking at to do 

20 bounding for tritium. Should we be doing 

21 that when in 1993, when things are supposed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

335 1 to be becoming -- you know, science is 

2 getting better, and as time went by, I think 

3 LaVon said something about -- I mean, I am 

4 very happy with LaVon's work, but I have to 

5 say that -- that there were improved bioassay

6 procedures as time went by.

7 Now, the thing with the 

8 improvement of the bioassay procedures: there

9 are no procedure guides for these labs. 

10 Where are they? Now, if we could see the 

11 procedures that were happening with this 

12 bioanalysis, then I think we could make a 

13 determination on if they worked or not. But,

14 by this letter in 1993 related to tritium, I 

15 mean, those procedures don't seem like 

16 science to me. But I am not a scientist. 

17 So, I'll let the Working Group and the Board 

18 and everybody else look at that.

19 I also found a document that was 

20 written -- let's see -- oh, it's called --

21 now, this is concerning the uranium or the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

336 1 U-233 -- it is called "Manual of Good 

2 Practices at Uranium Facilities," authored by

3 Bryce Rich, Stuart Hinnefeld, Clayton 

4 Lagerquist, all Rocky -- well, Lagerquist is 

5 at Rocky Flats -- Mansfield, Munson, and 

6 Wagner.

7 In there, there was a quote about 

8 air sampling, and this is it: "Although they 

9 play similar roles, there may not be an 

10 equivalence or fixed relationship between 

11 breathing zone sampling and bioassay." 

12 That's breathing zone sampling. That's 

13 supposed to be the best, right?

14 "It is usually not possible to 

15 accurately estimate individual uptake or the 

16 resulting internal dose from air activity 

17 exposure estimates. It is also difficult to 

18 accurately estimate previous internal uptake 

19 from bioassay measurements." 

20 I just think that was kind of 

21 amazing. So, I have that document. I will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

337 1 be turning it in and maybe going through 

2 that.

3 The other thing that was 

4 mentioned was raffinate, and that SECs have 

5 been passed, I believe, because of that.

6 So, I will be turning in the 

7 document, and I appreciate you listening to 

8 my non-scientific review of these scientific 

9 issues. So, thank you.

10 And the other thing, I just want 

11 to say, we really need to celebrate this 

12 incredible point in time, and, like, really 

13 be happy about something great that happened.

14 It is going to affect people in so many 

15 ways. In fact, generations of people are 

16 going to be affected.

17 So, thank you so much, everybody, 

18 for all your hard work, everybody up there 

19 and back here as well. Thank you. That's 

20 all I have.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338 1 (Applause.)

2 The next person I have signed up 

3 is Dan McKeel, who I believe is on the 

4 telephone. Dan, are you there?

5 MR. McKEEL: Yes. Yes, I'm here. 

6 Can you hear me, Dr. Melius?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I can. Go 

8 ahead.

9 MR. McKEEL: All right. Good 

10 afternoon. I'm Dan McKeel. I'm the GSI, 

11 SEC-0105, and Dow Madison and Texas City 

12 Chemicals co-petitioner.

13 I have three main concerns that 

14 address what was said today. The first one 

15 is just a comment, and that is that I was 

16 unable to use the Live Meeting software 

17 because it said that my Apple Mac Safari 

18 browser wasn't supported. So, that's just a 

19 comment. I think it is too bad that Mac fans

20 are discriminated against.

21 The second one was just before 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339 1 the last break Dr. Melius had mentioned that 

2 there might be potential votes on the GSI 

3 TBD-6000 and the DuPont Deepwater Works TBD 

4 reviews tomorrow morning on October the 17th.

5 That caught me by surprise because I was not

6 aware that TBDs are voted upon. In any case,

7 Dr. Ziemer wrote me a nice email in response 

8 to my question and said there would be no 

9 votes on GSI tomorrow morning.

10 Maybe the most important thing 

11 that I have to bring up is that I was 

12 absolutely astounded to hear speaker two of 

13 this public comment session, who offered some

14 new information that probably relates the 

15 Rocky Flats magnesium-thorium alloy plate 

16 issue that Terrie Barrie and I have been 

17 quite interested in pursuing, based on a tip 

18 that she received.

19 We followed up on that tip with a 

20 dual FOIA request to both NNSA and Department

21 of Energy Legacy Management, which we filed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340 1 on 5/9/13. And we have yet to receive any 

2 information back from them, no report.

3 We did have a $6,250 fee that the 

4 Department of Energy was going to charge that

5 was waived. We are happy for that.

6 But, to date, we have not gotten 

7 any responsive records. The Department of 

8 Energy has estimated that there are 

9 approximately 400 boxes of Rocky Flats 

10 records at Los Alamos that need to be hand11 searched, and that would probably take until 

12 the end of November of 2013 to get those 

13 records.

14 They also indicated that some of 

15 the records that were available are probably 

16 classified, and that it would probably take 

17 about two years, even though there was 

18 computer indexing of those classified 

19 records, just to get through the reviews that

20 have to take place at the Department of 

21 Energy.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

341 1 And I would just comment that 

2 these records have been withheld for many 

3 years. We have been interested in this 

4 question since 2006, when Dow was given its 

5 83.14 SEC. So, I really hope that everybody 

6 will redouble their effort. I hope they will

7 interview the second speaker tonight. He 

8 mentioned, in particular, working for many 

9 years at the Rocky Flats Mod Center, the 

10 Transport Modification Center. Our tip 

11 involved that type of employment at that 

12 particular center doing vehicle retrofitting 

13 of semi-trucks and railroad cars.

14 And so it seems obvious to me 

15 that this person has information that is 

16 highly germane to the other thorium issues 

17 that LaVon Rutherford talked about. And I 

18 hope that NIOSH will get together with this 

19 gentleman, take him up on his offer, and do a

20 secure interview in a place where he's 

21 comfortable.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342 1 The other comment I want to make 

2 relates to the fact that Dr. Paul Ziemer, who

3 is Chair of the TBD-6000 Work Group, will 

4 review the current status of TBD-6000 and GSI

5 Appendix BB tomorrow morning.

6 The reason why I wanted to 

7 address you today is because I am concerned 

8 that the petitioners' viewpoint may not be 

9 accurately represented. This particular Work

10 Group has a very long history of essentially 

11 ignoring information from the petitioners, 

12 including 52 scientific White Papers I have 

13 submitted to them during their 18 meetings 

14 held since 2008.

15 One such recent paper was two AEC 

16 NYO-4699 reports that provided the only 

17 available measured data on 2225 MeV 

18 betatrons, photons, neutrons, with matching 

19 operator film badge data. The TBD-6000 Work 

20 Group Chair refused to task SC&A to review 

21 these papers. The Board technical contractor
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

343 1 admitted not having read this key paper that 

2 was submitted by me to the Work Group a full 

3 six weeks prior to their latest October 11th 

4 Work Group meeting, just about a week ago.

5 I have also asked the NIOSH 

6 Docket Office, which usually is very 

7 responsible, and so far they have not posted 

8 these important papers to the DCAS website 

9 under the discussion papers for this meeting.

10 They are posted under Docket 140.

11 The other examples of why I am 

12 concerned about the GSI TBD presentation are 

13 as follows: On May the 17th, 2013, HHS 

14 accepted our administrative review for 

15 SEC-0105, in which we cited 44 specific 

16 errors we thought had been committed. And 

17 that administrative review is now being 

18 reviewed by the three-member HHS independent 

19 review panel. So, it has been since May. It

20 is now October. Five full months, and we 

21 still have a final-final HHS decision and no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

344 1 panel report. I understand it takes a long 

2 time, but it seems to me this is a very long 

3 time.

4 I also am very concerned because 

5 the NIOSH Docket Office has posted this 

6 administrative review on Docket 140 and as a 

7 discussion paper for today's meeting and for 

8 the TBD-6000 Work Group meeting a week ago. 

9 However, there is an addendum paper that I 

10 also submitted to the Work Group and the full

11 Board on October the 7th, but I also sent 

12 that to the Docket Office and asked that it 

13 be a discussion paper for this meeting. And 

14 that paper has not been posted yet, and that 

15 is nine days after I submitted it.

16 So, my question is, I wonder why 

17 this is so difficult. This is a very 

18 important paper. Not only does it add twenty

19 new errors that really are issues that need 

20 to be taken up by the Work Group, following 

21 the 9-to-8 vote on 12/11/12 to deny SEC-0105.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

345 1 So, those are added to the other 

2 errors that were in the main administrative 

3 review. But it also lists nineteen still 

4 open GSI SEC and Appendix BB issues for the 

5 SC&A findings that still need to be worked 

6 through by the TBD-6000 Work Group.

7 The third issue is not directly 

8 related to GSI, but it is related to the fact

9 that the DOE facilities database has been 

10 offline from August 23rd, apparently due to 

11 hacking. There was a target date to get back

12 online by September the 24th, but so far that

13 hasn't happened. So, I am happy that this is

14 being rewritten to protect against that sort 

15 of incursion, but that is a very important 

16 database that a lot of people use.

17 Another point that concerns me is 

18 in mid-July we acted on advice from NIOSH for

19 a part-time radiographer who requested copies

20 of his Landauer film badge records for the 

21 time he worked at GSI. That office advised 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

346 1 him to send them a form stating who he was, 

2 which he did promptly. And, anyway, we 

3 returned all the records to them in mid-July.

4 He has not heard a word from the 

5 CDC FOIA/Privacy Act Officer who sent him the

6 first letter and to whom he returned his 

7 form. We called a week ago, and we called 

8 again today. That office is not on furlough,

9 and we still haven't gotten an answer back.

10 And, finally, I want to just 

11 bring up the issue of PERs that was mentioned

12 today, and there will be a presentation 

13 tomorrow about the need for PERs. And what 

14 you will see on slide number 3 of that 

15 presentation is a statement that, and I 

16 quote, "Each PER will be reviewed by SC&A." 

17 Well, the GSI PER-24 was released in October 

18 of 2007 and involved four early dose 

19 reconstructions that were done using another 

20 document, TIB-004, rather than Appendix BB.

21 And I have simply been trying to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

347 1 find out for the last five years, actually,

2 what actions NIOSH took about that PER. I 

3 have made multiple direct requests to various

4 people at NIOSH and on the Board, and I 

5 simply cannot get an answer back to what 

6 happened to this PER.

7 So, it's a small matter. It's 

8 not going to make or break the SEC, but it's 

9 just exemplary of how difficult it has been 

10 to get really straightforward information.

11 So, finally, I want to thank 

12 Terrie Barrie for helping me with many 

13 things. But I want to congratulate all the 

14 workers who richly deserve the SEC today. I 

15 was present when there was the first SEC-0030

16 meeting, and the reaction was so different 

17 and so sad at that SEC outcome and so happy 

18 today, and that makes me very glad as well.

19 Thank you very much.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Dan.

21 The next person I have listed is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

348 1 an Al Frowiss, Sr. I believe he is on the 

2 line. Maybe not.

3 MR. FROWISS: Can you hear me?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now we can, 

5 yes.

6 MR. FROWISS: Okay. This is Al 

7 Frowiss, Sr., in California. [Identifying 

8 information redacted].

9 I have two questions about some 

10 SECs. The first one is very short. The 

11 second one is almost as short.

12 The first question I have is on 

13 the Fernald and Pantex SECs that you 

14 approved, your Board approved in July. Do 

15 you have any idea when the Secretary will be 

16 sending those 30-day letters to Congress? 

17 They certainly haven't appeared yet. And 

18 that's one of the questions that I have.

19 The second question has to do 

20 with the issue this morning, Sandia21 Livermore. And in particular, the question I

22 have is about the employees that were there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

349 1 for Sandia-Livermore between 1956 and October

2 of `57. They were apparently housed across 

3 the street at the Lawrence Livermore 

4 facility, which does have an SEC for that 

5 period.

6 However, when the Department of 

7 Labor adjudicates claims, they are going to 

8 be looking for evidence that the Sandia 

9 employee was, you know, in an SEC, let's just

10 say for the 1956 to October of `57 period. 

11 And I have a feeling that that's going to be 

12 an administrative problem. And I just wonder

13 whether it would be simpler if you just 

14 simply extended the SEC for Sandia to 

15 encompass that early period of, whatever it 

16 is, eighteen months or something.

17 And those are my questions.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I believe Stu 

19 can answer at least the first question.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I can speak 

21 to the first one. The Secretary, for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

350 1 Pantex and the Fernald Classes, the Secretary

2 signed the designation letter on the 30th of 

3 September, which was the day before the 

4 government shutdown.

5 The reason that we have yet to 

6 receive copies of the signed thing is 

7 because, frankly, the people who do that got 

8 furloughed. So, we have not received the 

9 signed copies, and that's why they are not on

10 our website yet.

11 MR. FROWISS: I see.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: But they were 

13 signed on the 30th.

14 MR. FROWISS: So, it should be 

15 law, presumably, October 30th, then?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that sounds 

17 right.

18 MR. FROWISS: Okay.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: With respect to 

20 the second question, I don't know. That 

21 might be a question to deal with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

351 1 Department of Labor. I'm not so sure on 

2 that.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, and the 

4 Department of Labor isn't here today because 

5 of the government shutdown. But my 

6 understanding is that the Department of Labor

7 does do sort of an implementation guidance on

8 these Class Definitions and SECs. So, that 

9 kind of issue may very well be covered there 

10 in order for them to address, you know, the 

11 concern that you raised. I think that may be

12 easier and more straightforward than the 

13 other suggestion, which would involve a whole

14 new set of actions by NIOSH and the Board, 

15 and so forth.

16 MR. FROWISS: I see.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

18 MR. FROWISS: All right. Thank 

19 you.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, okay. 

21 You're welcome.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed 

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

352 1 Okay. I think I have gone 

2 through the list. Does anybody else think 

3 that they signed up that we might have 

4 missed?

5 (No response.)

6 If not, that finishes our public 

7 comment period. We appreciate everyone's 

8 attention and time. And thank you. We'll 

9 continue to work on this. So, you may very 

10 well see us again.

11 Adjourned.

12 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

13 above-entitled matter was adjourned at 5:33 

14 p.m.)