1 

 1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

WORK GROUP ON HANFORD 

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY 

AUGUST 17, 2011 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time,

James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

2 

 2 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

LYNN AYERS, SC&A

WILFRED "BUCK" CAMERON, ATL

ANNETTE CARY 

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

FAYE VLIEGER 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Welcome and roll-call/introductions......... 4 

Status of SEC Issues 

Arjun Makhijani, SC&A ................. 6 

Sam Glover, NIOSH .................... 26 

Path Forward on SEC Issues................. 29 

NIOSH SEC Petition #155 (1987-1989) ER..... 33 

WG Update for August (Richland)

Board Meeting.............................. 39 

Adjournment................................ 46 


 

3 

 3

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

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

4 

4
 

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

2 
 (3:01 p.m. EDT) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. So welcome, 

4 
 everyone. This is the Advisory Board on 

5 
 Radiation and Worker Health, the Hanford Work 

6 
 Group. And as usual, we'll begin with roll 

7 
 call. And because we're speaking of a site, 

8 
 please speak to conflict of interest, 

9 
 beginning with Board Members. 

10 (Roll Call) 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. 

12 
 There's an agenda for the meeting, which is on 

13 
 the NIOSH website under the Board section of 

14 
 the website, the Board Meetings section of the 

15 website. And it's your agenda, Jim. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

17 
 very much, Ted. And welcome, everybody. The 

18 
 purpose of this meeting is to try to 

19 
 coordinate. SC&A has finished an updated 

20 
 report, mainly focusing on Special Exposure 

21 Cohort issues. 

22 
 And this was updated in the context 

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 

5



1 
 of some of the prior SECs this has been 

2 
 developed for, as well as, then, some 

3 
 decisions by NIOSH that were supported by the 

4 
 Board, to award SECs to certain groups within 

5 
 the Hanford complex. 

6 
 And so we sort of needed to redo 

7 
 and update. There was also additional 

8 
 information available. And on top of that, 

9 
 there are two other -- one recent SEC petition 

10 
 that was approved for this site, Petition 

11 
 Number 155. And there's also another active 

12 SEC that's under consideration. 

13 
 So we wanted to try to get issues 

14 
 identified and prioritized. I should also add 

15 
 that some of the earlier petitioners had also 

16 
 raised some additional issues that they wanted 

17 
 to make sure were considered, either as SEC 

18 
 issues or as Site Profile issues that might be 

19 related to dose reconstruction. 

20 
 So the purpose of this call, today, 

21 
 is to try to get to some prioritization 

22 
 issues, get a path forward for dealing with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

6 

6



1 
 the past SEC petitions still active and still 

2 
 under evaluation, as well as the new SEC 

3 
 petitions. 

4 
 So I'm going to turn the program 

5 
 over to Arjun to give us an update, a status 

6 
 update. He is -- Arjun has completed, and 

7 
 SC&A has completed, the two recent reports: an 

8 
 update of the SEC issues matrix, as well as an 

9 
 updated review report on Special Cohort 

10 issues. 

11 
 I believe both of those have now 

12 
 gone through appropriate clearance and are 

13 
 available. And, Arjun, I don't know which 

14 
 one's the easiest for you to work off of. I 

15 
 think these are relatively long reports and 

16 
 there's lots of issues. And it may be helpful 

17 
 to do them in some priority order, but I'll 

18 
 let you decide what the easiest way is to 

19 present these to the Work Group. 

20 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, thank you, 

21 
 Dr. Melius. This is Arjun Makhijani from 

22 
 SC&A. Yes, we sent out -- we had a matrix 

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 

7



1 
 that was done after NIOSH had suggested an SEC 

2 
 up to '72, and the Board had recommended it. 

3 
 And then NIOSH revised its Site Profile for 

4 
 dose reconstruction methods after that date. 

5 
 It also included before that date, but of 

6 
 interest to the SEC was up to 1990, between 

7 
 '72 July 1st and December 31st, 1990. 

8 
 So since we had a matrix with 

9 
 numbered SEC issues, what we did was we 

10 
 reviewed the site profile at the direction of 

11 
 the Working Group and the Board according to 

12 
 those matrix numbered issues that were still 

13 unresolved for SEC purposes. 

14 
 Now, we did not review the full 

15 
 Site Profile as we would on a normal Site 

16 
 Profile. We just did an SEC review. We sent 

17 
 out that report in two volumes. You're quite 

18 right, it is quite voluminous. 

19 
 By the way, there was a little bit 

20 
 of a logistical mix-up, and there will be a 

21 
 slight change in one of the sections. It's 

22 
 not going to affect things materially, but we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

8 

8



1 
 will send out a Revision 1 soon. But the 

2 
 report is good for all intents and purposes 

3 
 for this call. 

4 
 And I'd like to go through the 

5 
 matrix. If you could just follow through the 

6 
 matrix, that will make it easier, and then if 

7 
 people have detailed questions I can refer you 

8 
 to the more detailed version in the report. 

9 
 The report itself is organized 

10 
 according to the matrix numbers, and we had a 

11 
 number of findings. So should I do that, Dr. 

12 Melius? 

13 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you should. 

14 I had my mute on, so --

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay, sorry. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's okay. 

17 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: So the first two 

18 
 issues had already been resolved as SEC 

19 
 issues, concerning thorium dose up to a 

20 
 certain date, up to July 1, 1972. And the 

21 
 third thorium issue remaining extended beyond 

22 that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

9 

9



1 
 We did find that there were 

2 
 probably sporadic and intermittent references 

3 
 to thorium work, both kind of decommissioning 

4 
 and cleanup oriented work, as well as some 

5 
 potential production-related exposures. So 

6 
 there are some thorium issues still remaining 

7 
 after the 1972 July period. 

8 
 The next issue, issue number four, 

9 
 concerned highly enriched uranium. The main 

10 
 highly enriched uranium handling stopped in 

11 
 the late '50s, but there was some use in the 

12 
 lab and maybe in other places. And there's 

13 only fluorometric data until 1983. 

14 
 And so there are some, probably 

15 
 restricted, highly enriched uranium-related 

16 
 dosimetry issues, because you can't really 

17 
 apply fluorometric data to highly enriched 

18 
 uranium, and interpreting all such data as 

19 
 highly enriched uranium would greatly distort 

20 
 the actual dosimetry, because most of the 

21 
 uranium was, you know, around one percent or 

22 
 less. Some may have been up to about two 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

10 

10



1 
 percent. 

2 
 So there are some highly enriched 

3 
 uranium issues remaining. I understand that 

4 
 NIOSH is -- NIOSH has been researching things 

5 
 in parallel with us, so probably Sam will 

6 
 amplify on many of these things. 

7 
 The question of uranium intake of 

8 
 low-enriched or normal or depleted uranium 

9 
 prior to 1948 was resolved, but between '72 

10 
 and 1990, we've found that there are ample 

11 
 data, but -- and so it's not an SEC issue, but 

12 
 may need some revision of the co-worker model 

13 
 to ensure that the approach is claimant14 favorable. 

15 
 Now, there's a caveat to this whole 

16 
 review, because there's that other SEC still 

17 
 pending, that NIOSH is just going to discuss 

18 
 after I'm done, which is that we did not 

19 
 review issues associated with the quality of 

20 
 data between '87 and '89 in the 200 area, 

21 
 because that's a separate SEC that will be 

22 discussed later. 

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 

11



1 
 So uranium intake, we don't think 

2 
 is an SEC issue. At least, we didn't have a 

3 
 finding that concerned the feasibility of dose 

4 
 reconstruction, just an adjustment of the co5 
 worker model. 

6 
 There's uranium-233. We did not 

7 
 find any specific reference to uranium-233 

8 
 handling post-'72, but we did find that 

9 
 thorium pellets were being made, and we did 

10 
 not know whether these pellets were actually 

11 
 irradiated at Hanford or what happened to 

12 them. 

13 
 So a little bit of further digging 

14 
 into that issue seems to be warranted to see 

15 
 if there were uranium-233 exposures. And this 

16 
 is in the context of -- we really have only 

17 
 fluorometric data through certain dates in the 

18 1980s. 

19 
 Then there is a recycled uranium 

20 
 intake estimation, and we found that there are 

21 
 actually data from the site where there are 

22 
 trace contaminant measurements, from '69 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

12 

12



1 
 through '72, or '68 through '72. And we 

2 
 suggest that NIOSH should use the data from 

3 
 '70 to '72 to estimate the trace contaminant 

4 
 ratios, rather than the data from the late 

5 
 '80s, because in the late '80s, there wasn't a 

6 
 lot of recycled uranium being handled. PUREX 

7 
 was -- the reprocessing plant was operating 

8 
 only intermittently, and so my -- we thought 

9 
 it would be better if they used a different 

10 
 set of data, and we've identified that set of 

11 
 data for NIOSH, NIOSH's consideration, for the 

12 Working Group's consideration. 

13 
 But in principle, it seems that the 

14 
 data are available to develop the ratios. 

15 
 They're available from the site, and just 

16 
 before the period under consideration, from 

17 the same process, from the PUREX plant. 

18 
 Neptunium, post-1972 -- there's 

19 
 clear evidence of neptunium separation up to 

20 
 the end of 1972, so six months past the period 

21 
 that the SEC has already been granted. 

22 
 There's some discussion of later neptunium 

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 

13



1 
 processing, but we couldn't find whether there 

2 
 actually was processing or whether there were 

3 
 plans. 

4 
 And this is because when neptunium 

5 
 rods, target rods, were irradiated, then there 

6 
 was handling of pure neptunium, rather than 

7 
 just as a contaminant in other mixtures. So 

8 
 this is an issue that needs to be settled. 

9 
 And we think there were data for 

10 
 the last six months of 1972, so the Working 

11 
 Group might want to consider that, or NIOSH 

12 might want to consider that. 

13 
 Tritium, which is issue number 10. 

14 
 Did people have -- I guess if people have 

15 
 questions on these issues, they might want to 

16 
 ask me as we go along, because it's quite a 

17 
 raft of issues here. Or should I just -- I'll 

18 
 just go on, I guess, until people have 

19 questions. 

20 
 Tritium intake from 1972 onwards, 

21 
 we found that -- again, this is not an issue 

22 
 whether there is adequate tritium data for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

14 

14



1 
 tritiated water, but we found that there was 

2 
 not an adequate technical justification for 

3 
 the way the co-worker model was set up between 

4 
 '72 and '81. 

5 
 And also, there was a production 

6 
 period up to June 30, 1973 that needs to be 

7 
 separately addressed. And NIOSH has not yet 

8 
 defined the organically bound tritium and 

9 
 tritide exposure. 

10 
 It's raised the question of the 

11 
 potential exposure, but the Site Profile 

12 
 contained no details and no model. So that's 

13 
 an outstanding issue, potentially. If there 

14 
 was exposure potential -- there wasn't defined 

15 
 exposure potential or area especially for 

16 tritides. 

17 
 Promethium-147, which was a 

18 
 radionuclide that was separated at Hanford in 

19 
 quite large quantities -- promethium-147 

20 
 production did occur until the end of 1975. 

21 
 The Site Profile says -- has an earlier date 

22 for ending promethium-147 production. 

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 

15



1 
 And so, given that there was 

2 
 production going on, the claimant -- the 

3 
 assignment of dose is not claimant-favorable. 

4 
 And then there are also incidents for 

5 
 promethium-137 that need to be addressed in 

6 
 the dose reconstruction, so it's not clear 

7 
 whether this will wind up as an SEC issue. 

8 
 There are earlier data available for 

9 
 promethium-147. 

10 
 Then there are some other fission 

11 
 products: strontium-90, cesium-137, mixed 

12 
 fission products. There are a lot of data for 

13 
 these radionuclides, including mixed fission 

14 
 products, but there is some question about the 

15 quality of some of these data. 

16 
 We found audits in some years in 

17 
 the 1970s where the minimum detectable amount 

18 
 was not being met in certain years, and then 

19 
 later on, the amount -- the problems appear to 

20 have been fixed. 

21 
 And we did not find any comparable 

22 
 audits for the 1970s. It's not clear if they 

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 

16



1 
 were done. Perhaps they were not done. At 

2 
 least, we didn't find any paper trail on it. 

3 
 We found strontium-90 intake 

4 
 assignment was not claimant-favorable, and a 

5 
 better model needed to be developed. Then 

6 
 there were strontium and cesium separation and 

7 
 encapsulation programs that have not been 

8 
 adequately taken into account. So whether the 

9 
 existing data can be applied to the workers 

10 
 who were doing that needs to be -- and a 

11 
 claimant-favorable model developed -- still 

12 needs to be done. 

13 
 The tank farm worker data are 

14 
 sparse, and tank farm workers of course --

15 
 high-level waste tank farm workers were 

16 
 handling and there were incidents. And this 

17 
 is an issue that needs to be investigated, 

18 
 whether the model is claimant-favorable for 

19 
 that set of workers. 

20 
 Tank farm alpha contamination is 

21 
 addressed as part of other matrix items, 

22 
 because we actually went through and looked at 

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 

17



1 
 adequacy of data by area and worker type. And 

2 
 all that detail is provided in Volume 2 of the 

3 
 report that we sent you. 

4 
 Plutonium intake estimation. There 

5 
 are quite a lot of plutonium data, but Super S 

6 
 solubility type is not addressed in the Site 

7 
 Profile. The minimum detectable amount was 

8 
 not met in 1981. 

9 
 Also, in other parts of the 

10 
 measurement spectrum, even including above the 

11 
 minimum detectable amount, there was a 

12 
 variation between the measured amount and the 

13 
 actual amount in standard samples and the 

14 amount measured by the lab. 

15 
 So it seems, at least, that some 

16 
 correction in the measurements might be called 

17 
 for. But the issue of the quality of data, 

18 
 even before 1987, does need to be addressed. 

19 
 I mean, in other years, the problem appears to 

20 
 have been fixed. Again, we didn't find audits 

21 for the 1970s. 

22 
 NIOSH has extended 1987 intake 

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 

18



1 
 assignment into '88 and '89, and we're not 

2 
 quite clear whether that is appropriate. Hot 

3 
 particle ingestion is an issue for the early 

4 
 period that's been granted an SEC, so that's 

5 
 not an issue. 

6 
 Curium-244, issue number 16. There 

7 
 are some data, but there are no data for '73, 

8 
 and the data are quite sparse up to '83. And 

9 
 the co-worker model may be feasible for 1984 

10 to 1990. 

11 
 NIOSH has said they're going to use 

12 
 plutonium data to estimate neptunium intake. 

13 
 And this is a little bit misplaced comment, I 

14 
 think, in the wrong matrix item, but I 

15 
 referred to neptunium earlier. In those 

16 
 instances where neptunium, pure neptunium or 

17 
 irradiated neptunium, was being handled, I 

18 
 think it needs to be considered in its own 

19 right and not as a trace contaminant. 

20 
 Neutron dose issues are addressed, 

21 
 because the early neutron doses become part of 

22 
 the SEC. External exposure geometry, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

19 

19



1 
 agreed earlier on was a Site Profile issue and 

2 
 not an SEC issue. There are quite a lot of 

3 
 external exposure data. 

4 
 And there was a petitioner-raised 

5 
 issue of lack of adequate monitoring, and we 

6 
 have agreed that external data are adequate 

7 
 and that internal data are covered in the 

8 
 other matrix items. 

9 
 There's a skin contamination issue 

10 
 that was raised in site expert interviews, and 

11 
 the routine exposure is captured by 

12 
 dosimeters, and we have a separate item 

13 relating to incidents, so that was absorbed. 

14 
 There was a big issue relating to 

15 
 missing records and destroyed records. This 

16 
 was a petitioner issue, and we looked into 

17 
 this in quite a bit of detail. We had a very 

18 
 large list of box numbers and titles of 

19 
 documents that had been destroyed, it appears, 

20 
 as part of the routine sort of document 

21 management at Hanford. 

22 
 And most of the boxes related to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

20 

20



1 
 the period before 1972, and so not relevant. 

2 
 Many of the boxes were obviously 

3 
 administrative records, like time card records 

4 
 and purchasing records, things like that. 

5 
 Some boxes may have had relevant 

6 
 data. We don't know if duplicates existed, 

7 
 and we don't have a listing of the contents. 

8 
 We only have a listing of the titles of the 

9 
 boxes. 

10 There is some question in regard to 

11 
 incidents, and whether the records of 

12 
 incidents are adequate. And we examined that 

13 
 as issue number 22. And we found that, in the 

14 
 claimant records, the incidents that are 

15 
 mentioned in the worker interviews and the 

16 
 computer assisted telephone interviews do 

17 exist in the DOE-supplied claimant records. 

18 
 It's not 100 percent, but it's 

19 
 close, and we have an extensive listing in 

20 
 detail of the issues, incidents that we looked 

21 
 at. That's not true of the computerized 

22 
 database, which is called the REX database at 

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 

21



1 
 Hanford. 

2 
 There are some incidents that are 

3 
 not in the REX database that are in the 

4 
 individual Department of Energy-supplied 

5 
 claimant records, and we are presuming that 

6 
 those are used in dose reconstruction at 

7 
 Hanford. 

8 
 We didn't find any pattern that 

9 
 there was a -- that Hanford was omitting 

10 
 incidents from personnel records as a way of 

11 
 avoiding recording the incidents. We did find 

12 
 that there were some -- there were a few 

13 
 scattered incidents that we mentioned, that we 

14 
 didn't find in the records, but they were a 

15 very small number. 

16 
 The REX database adequacy is 

17 
 already covered. The polonium issue is an 

18 
 early issue, so not relevant for an SEC 

19 
 examination for the period '72 to '90. There 

20 
 were a bunch of miscellaneous radionuclides, 

21 
 and here there is a quality of data issue. 

22 
 MDA was not met in 1981 for several 

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 

22



1 
 radionuclides. 

2 
 1981 somehow seems to have been a 

3 
 problem year for more than one radionuclide. 

4 
 Later on, it did not address these 

5 
 miscellaneous radionuclides, so we don't know 

6 
 what happened with the quality of measurements 

7 
 in those later audits. 

8 
 Some radionuclides have adequate 

9 
 data, like cobalt-60. Other radionuclides, 

10 
 not so much. So this is a very complicated 

11 
 issue, because a lot of radionuclides are 

12 thrown into it. 

13 
 Data completeness, we've addressed 

14 
 on an area, worker and radionuclide basis. 

15 
 There was an issue that was brought up during 

16 
 the course of the Work Group meetings, which 

17 
 was very high contamination was discovered 

18 
 during decommissioning under Building 324. 

19 
 And we added this issue to the matrix. It's 

20 
 issue number 27. 

21 
 We did a number of interviews. And 

22 
 for the particular leak or spill in question, 

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 

23



1 
 the exposure potential really existed during 

2 
 the decommissioning. We also found earlier 

3 
 leaks, and we're not quite clear about the 

4 
 exposure potential in relation to those, and 

5 
 haven't investigated them in as much detail. 

6 
 Now, in regard to Building 324, and 

7 
 to some extent 325, I should mention that we 

8 
 are -- these are part of the PNNL, these 

9 
 Pacific National Labs. And we may or may not 

10 
 be investigating these as part of that Site 

11 Profile review. 

12 
 This is mostly handling high-level 

13 
 waste, and data on fission products do exist 

14 
 for the period in which these leaks occurred. 

15 
 But in order to determine, really, whether 

16 
 the workers who were affected by the exposure 

17 
 during that time -- because there was some 

18 
 cleanup that happened during the earlier 

19 
 spills at that time -- Lynn, correct me if I'm 

20 
 going off-base here, but this -- and we're not 

21 
 quite clear -- you know, we haven't tracked 

22 
 the individual workers down to see whether 

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 

24



1 
 they had adequate records and monitoring. 

2 
 From the interviews of the workers 

3 
 that we did, and we did do a fairly extensive 

4 
 interview set, the workers seemed to agree 

5 
 that monitoring in these areas at that time 

6 
 was very good. 

7 
 Lynn, did you want to add anything? 

8 
 Lynn? Lynn Ayers, did you want to add 

9 
 anything? 

10 MS. AYERS: Sorry, Arjun. I had to 

11 
 look at my rules on how to unmute in order to 

12 
 answer. No, that seems like a fairly good 

13 explanation. 

14 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So that's my 

15 report, Jim. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

17 Arjun. Do any Board Members have questions? 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

19 
 don't have a specific question, but I 

20 
 appreciate the summary that SC&A provided. I 

21 
 thought it was well done. I guess we're going 

22 
 to be looking for at least -- will we get some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

25 

25



1 
 answers or responses from NIOSH today or in 

2 
 the near future? Or what's -- I guess that's 

3 
 part of the plan forward. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's part of 

5 
 the path forward. What I was going to ask for 

6 
 that, if nobody had -- we're done with our 

7 
 questions -- was a reaction from NIOSH to 

8 
 this. 

9 
 I don't think NIOSH has had 

10 
 adequate time to respond in detail. We're not 

11 expecting that, but I think --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- anything that 

14 
 you want to add or clarify, and particularly 

15 
 how these issues relate to some of the other 

16 
 activity that's ongoing, that Sam and others -

17 
 - Sam Glover and others at NIOSH are doing. 

18 
 So maybe it would be helpful to turn directly 

19 to Sam, and --

20 
 DR. GLOVER: Just to make sure my 

21 
 boss has no comments first, Stu, do you have 

22 
 anything you want to add, or is it okay to go 

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 

26



1 
 ahead? 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: All I was going to 

3 
 say was, I was going to defer to you. 

4 
 (Laughter.) 

5 
 DR. GLOVER: Always good to let the 

6 
 boss talk first. Jim, as you know, we've kept 

7 
 you, and the Advisory Board Members, and SC&A 

8 
 as part of a follow-on to 1972, as we have 

9 
 looked at the dose reconstruction feasibility. 

10 
 I'll call it an 83.14 in that we're 

11 
 evaluating the adequacy of the data, looking 

12 
 at the source terms. A lot of this stuff is 

13 
 classified, and that's why we've had you, the 

14 
 members of the Work Group with appropriate 

15 
 clearances, and members of SC&A with us on the 

16 
 interviews, and also the data captures 

17 regarding a number of different items. 

18 
 I feel it may be best to not get 

19 
 into too many details, but a number of the 

20 
 items, certainly, Arjun has touched on. We 

21 
 certainly are aware of these things, and so we 

22 
 are -- we're going to look at what we've been 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

27 

27



1 
 developing, and also compare how those marry 

2 
 up with what Arjun -- they did a very nice job 

3 
 with the report. 

4 
 There are certainly some issues 

5 
 that we've identified, and as I said, we've 

6 
 kept -- Arjun sort of did this independent of 

7 
 the team that's been attending with us, so 

8 
 they're sort of separate. 

9 
 But there are certainly some 

10 
 observations there that I hadn't made, and so 

11 
 he certainly has found some things on the 

12 
 promethium that I wasn't aware of. And so we 

13 
 will carefully look at all of that, and see 

14 
 how that marries up with the keyword searches 

15 
 and the interviews that we have, and the holes 

16 
 we had to fill. 

17 
 So we will take all this into kind 

18 
 of perspective, together, in a plan forward, 

19 
 which we will keep you guys advised of and 

20 participate in. 

21 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sam, could I just 

22 make a short comment, please? 

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 

28



1 
 DR. GLOVER: Absolutely. 

2 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. We proceeded 

3 
 on parallel tracks because of the classified 

4 
 nature of what Sam is investigating. What we 

5 
 did was from the unclassified sources and the 

6 
 Site Research Database and other unclassified 

7 
 documents. 

8 
 So that's why we've been proceeding 

9 
 on these parallel tracks, and Bob Bistline 

10 
 from our group has been working with Sam on 

11 the classified portion. Thank you. 

12 
 DR. GLOVER: And Brad Clawson -- I 

13 
 don't think he's on with us, but he's attended 

14 
 almost every one of our classification -- or 

15 
 all of our reviews with us. So we've been 

16 
 trying to keep the Board very closely tied to 

17 this, as well. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sam, I'm going to 

19 
 put you on the spot. I apologize. I'm not 

20 
 expecting a definitive answer, but what do you 

21 
 think is a reasonable time frame for this? At 

22 
 what point do you think you'd be ready to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

29 

29



1 
 respond, and there'd be enough information to 

2 
 decide how to go forward on sort of all the 

3 
 SECs there, or potential SECs? 

4 
 DR. GLOVER: I think my boss -- I'm 

5 
 not going to speak too clearly without his 

6 
 approval, and without bringing everything to 

7 
 him. But some areas may have information that 

8 
 lends them towards that, but there's the 

9 
 overall scope. 

10 And as we've seen, we've often gone 

11 
 back and had to fix the Class where we've 

12 
 tried to add it for a building or a small 

13 
 area. And so that's -- I want to make sure I 

14 
 bring enough of the picture to my boss and to 

15 
 NIOSH to make sure that it can be reviewed, so 

16 that the proper scope is given. 

17 
 So part of the issue is, we 

18 
 basically, to do the TBD, developed a number 

19 
 of White Papers. Now, Hanford had removed all 

20 
 of the stand-alone systems, and so we had 

21 
 difficulty proceeding. Because we essentially 

22 
 need to write some classified White Papers, 

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 

30



1 
 because a lot of the information we have is in 

2 
 the classified sources. So we'll basically 

3 
 take those down to a level where we can then 

4 
 disseminate those. So we now have -- Hanford 

5 
 has now prepared a stand-alone system for SC&A 

6 
 and our use, so we have a path forward. We're 

7 
 going to get training on that on Monday, after 

8 
 the tours at B reactor. 

9 
 And so we are going to proceed. 

10 
 Don Beal had previously been working on this. 

11 
 Now Bob Burns has taken over. So we have a -

12 
 - we are actively going to begin putting this 

13 
 together and assembling what we understand, 

14 
 and also, of course, taking the information 

15 that Arjun, gleaning from his sources. 

16 
 I'm going to try -- it may be 

17 
 chunked, in that we may have strong evidence 

18 
 in certain time frames that we feel stronger, 

19 
 to bring it to the Board. Like '83 is kind of 

20 
 a cut point, because of the bioassay on 

21 uranium. 

22 
 So I will certainly try to take 

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 

31



1 
 that into account, but I also need to see how 

2 
 my boss wants me to try to manage it. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, we 

4 
 understand. I was just -- there may be some 

5 
 issues that I don't think we want to put a lot 

6 
 of -- it may sort of -- some of the issues on 

7 
 this matrix may be, in some sense, taken care 

8 
 of by other information and so forth. 

9 
 And so trying to get everything 

10 
 sort of in the right prioritization for it as 

11 
 we go forward, and that also best addresses 

12 
 the issues, needs for the petitioners, as well 

13 as for the potential claimants at the site. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. All I 

15 
 would offer is that, in the situation where we 

16 
 have a large number of potential issues and we 

17 
 -- as you said, Jim, we have to be a little 

18 
 bit strategic about planning the work and the 

19 
 sequence of the work, and the thought that 

20 some things may become moot. 

21 
 And so it's a little early on for 

22 
 us to offer very much. And of course, as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

32 

32



1 
 always, this work competes with all he other 

2 
 work we do for time and resources. So it's a 

3 
 little difficult to venture -- on my part, to 

4 
 venture anything, because I'm --

5 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no. I'm just 

6 
 trying to think, sort of, when do we schedule 

7 
 the next meeting. And maybe we just need for 

8 
 you to get together internally, and decide 

9 
 what --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we might be 

11 
 able to offer an opinion about that next week. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. No, that's 

13 fine. 

14 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, this is Arjun. 

15 
 If I might offer a sort of technical opinion 

16 
 for your consideration and NIOSH's 

17 
 consideration. I agree with Sam that '83 is 

18 kind of a dividing line. 

19 
 There are sort of a lot of data 

20 
 after that, and quality of data, apart from 

21 
 this '87-'89 thing seem to mostly be resolved, 

22 
 according to the audits. And the quantity 

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 

33



1 
 also seemed to be resolved. This is now from 

2 
 memory of a very complicated report. But I 

3 
 would agree with Sam on that. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, good. I 

5 
 guess my other question for Sam or Stu: the 

6 
 issues related to SEC Petition 155, does that 

7 
 overlap at all with what you're doing? 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I may have to look 

9 
 that number up. Sam, is that the U.S. Testing 

10 
 

11 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it's the 

12 
 U.S. Testing one. I'm sorry. Yes. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The specific basis 

14 
 for the U.S. Testing petition can sort of be 

15 
 isolated, we think, and dealt with separate 

16 
 from other potential concerns that might arise 

17 
 that might affect the same population for 

18 
 different reasons. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So for sort of 

21 
 neatness and clarity of keeping the matters 

22 
 straight in our mind, we would like to treat 

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 

34



1 
 155 on its own basis, merit, with the 

2 
 recognition that there are other decisions 

3 
 coming later that could affect those people. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Okay. 

5 
 And one reason we hesitated on tasking SC&A on 

6 
 Petition 155 was to -- we wanted to get the 

7 
 matrix updated and the SC&A report finished 

8 
 first. And so we had a context, sort of, for 

9 
 going forward. And then have this discussion 

10 
 before we started to task and move forward on 

11 
 the reviews for Petition 155, the U.S. Testing 

12 issue. 

13 
 Arjun, do you have any comments on 

14 that? 

15 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry, I didn't 

16 know whether I was on or off. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's okay. I 

18 can't tell half the time myself. 

19 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. We were only 

20 
 asked to kind of look at U.S. Testing petition 

21 
 '87 to '89. I agree with Stu. It's a very 

22 
 restricted SEC petition to a certain part of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

35 

35



1 
 the 200 area. 

2 
 And we have looked at it. I read 

3 
 the Evaluation Report and looked at the 

4 
 petition and Joyce did too. And we're aware, 

5 
 of course, that NIOSH has said that they can 

6 
 reconstruct doses despite the quality issues 

7 
 that were raised. 

8 
 And, Joyce, did you want to make a 

9 
 comment? I mean, at the present time, we 

10 
 haven't done an analysis or research. We've 

11 just kind of looked at it, and --

12 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, which is all 

13 we asked you to do. 

14 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, and that's all 

15 
 we've done. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

17 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I have one just 

18 
 quick question on 155. There's -- how they 

19 
 propose to isolate those people who would be 

20 
 covered under 155, given the fact that people 

21 
 did go in and out of this area during those 

22 time frames? 

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 

36



1 
 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

2 
 reporter. Who was just speaking? 

3 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phillip 

4 
 Schofield. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Sam, this is Stu. 

6 
 And I'm not entirely sure I understand the 

7 
 question. The petition speaks to the quality 

8 
 of certain bioassay, and I believe it actually 

9 
 petitions for bioassay from a particular 

10 
 facility. Is that right, Sam? 

11 
 DR. GLOVER: That is correct. They 

12 
 specifically asked for people who actually 

13 
 received bioassay at the plutonium finishing 

14 
 plant, urine or fecal measurements. 

15 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: So that would be 

16 
 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The petition sort 

18 
 of defines who would be included in it, if the 

19 
 evaluation and the petition is ultimately 

20 
 successful. So it sort of defines that group, 

21 
 and it's an analytical basis: you know, was 

22 
 the analysis any good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 

37



1 
 So then, I guess, the carry-on 

2 
 question would be, are those analyses as a co3 
 worker for anybody else? And that would maybe 

4 
 have more far-reaching things. And we'd have 

5 
 our normal issue of, what can we know about 

6 
 that. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So we're a little 

9 
 preliminary, I think, to be getting into those 

10 kind of discussions on 155, though. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Phil, I 

12 
 think that is sort of the next step. I think 

13 
 first we have to evaluate the basis for 155, 

14 
 and then worry about the Class Definition, so 

15 
 to speak, if it's -- depending on the 

16 findings. 

17 
 So I think it's hard to speculate 

18 
 right now what the -- how we would handle 

19 that. Does that make sense? 

20 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, it does, 

21 actually. 

22 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I know that we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

38 

38



1 
 clearly have ended up with -- the earlier SECs 

2 
 at Hanford ended up with broader Class 

3 
 Definitions, but we really don't know here 

4 
 until we reach that point in the evaluation 

5 
 process for this. 

6 
 What I would suggest, based on this 

7 
 conversation for 155, that we need to go ahead 

8 
 and task SC&A to move ahead on that. And what 

9 
 I will do is, I will come up with a suggested 

10 
 tasking and talk to the other Work Group 

11 
 Members when we're out in Hanford next week, 

12 
 and I think we can reach agreement on that. 

13 
 We can be able to move forward with that 

14 process. 

15 
 Is that satisfactory to Paul and 

16 Phil? 

17 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, it is with 

18 
 me. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul? 

20 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'm fine with 

21 
 that. That makes sense. 

22 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

39 

39



1 
 can do that. The final item on our agenda for 

2 
 this call was the update for the August Board 

3 
 Meeting, and because we are scheduled to give 

4 
 an update just prior to the public comment 

5 
 period there, and I don't know whether NIOSH 

6 
 had any plans for doing an update along with 

7 
 that. 

8 
 I don't have the Board's agenda in 

9 
 front of me, so I can't recall what was on 

10 
 that agenda. But Stu, Jim or Sam, do you --

11 
 were you planning on doing a presentation 

12 there? 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm looking at it 

14 
 now. Sam, were you planning to say anything 

15 there? 

16 
 DR. GLOVER: I was going to be 

17 silent unless otherwise asked to talk. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We can speak -- at 

19 
 this point, we could speak to whatever you 

20 would like us to. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. What do 

22 
 you think about talking about, sort of, what 

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 

40



1 
 your ongoing work has been? 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Sam, you can do 

3 
 that, right? 

4 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I mean, just very 

5 
 briefly and very generally. Is that --

6 
 DR. GLOVER: I can certainly -- we 

7 
 can certainly speak to that. Would you like -

8 
 - Stu, would you like that done in the very 

9 
 brief PowerPoint presentation? 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the pleasure 

11 of the Work Group? 

12 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, what I was 

13 
 thinking is that we'd have the -- Sam, sort of 

14 
 a presentation, what's NIOSH doing. Again, 

15 
 this is five to ten minutes. And then I would 

16 
 follow, as the Work Group Chair, with a short 

17 
 presentation, this is where the Work Group 

18 
 stands in respect to these ongoing issues at 

19 the site. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You can do that, 

21 right Sam? 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41 

41



1 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes? 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer here. I 

3 
 like the suggestion. I was going to offer one 

4 
 slight variation. It seems to me it would 

5 
 makes sense for the Chair to summarize what we 

6 
 did in the session today and then call on 

7 
 NIOSH to summarize what their path forward is 

8 
 on these issues. 

9 
 So it would be just the reverse, I 

10 
 think, of what you're talking about, and 

11 that's --

12 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and either 

13 way would work. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sure. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I agree with you, 

16 Paul. We can do that. 

17 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, did you want 

18 
 me to make you some slides based on the 

19 
 outstanding SEC issues, according to our 

20 report, anyway? 

21 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that would 

22 
 be -- if we could have a few slides on that, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 

42



1 
 that would be helpful. 

2 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure. I'll do 

3 
 that. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer again. Let 

5 
 me suggest that we not cover all of the 

6 
 issues. 

7 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no. That's why 

8 
 I said -- you know, there are a number of 

9 
 issues that are --

10 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You might just 

11 
 summarize the kinds of issues or something in 

12 
 a few bullet points. But let's not go through 

13 them all. 

14 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, right. It is 

15 
 a pretty complicated report, but Hanford is 

16 such a complicated site. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But believe me, 

19 Paul, I would quickly defer to Arjun on that. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't want you to 

22 even do that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43 

43



1 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I meant I'd 

2 
 tell anyone with questions, see Arjun in the 

3 
 back. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That would be --

6 
 that's not fair to the people there, to take 

7 
 up that much time trying to --

8 
 MR. KATZ: Jim and Ted, this is --

9 
 I mean, this is Ted, Jim. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Ted talking to 

11 himself. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: Just to remind you, 

13 
 Arjun, for your part, and for Sam's part, the 

14 whole session is only 15 minutes long. 

15 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. All 

16 right. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. That was 

18 
 what part I remember, and it was, like, five -

19 
 - so I was suggesting the NIOSH part be five 

20 
 or ten. So essentially, why don't we plan on 

21 
 splitting the 15 minutes, and definitely not 

22 exceeding it? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

44 

44



1 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now, Jim and Ted, 

2 
 did you -- we didn't have an instruction to 

3 
 send the reports for PA review. Should we 

4 
 send the matrix, at least for PA review? 

5 
 MR. KATZ: We don't automatically 

6 
 put matrices through PA review, but it might 

7 
 make sense, given that this is -- I don't 

8 
 know. That can't be done that quickly, I 

9 
 don't think, necessarily, but I'd have to look 

10 at them. 

11 
 But in this case, given it's been a 

12 
 long time and this is sort of preamble to the 

13 
 path forward and all that, it might make sense 

14 to do that, to ask for PA clearance on this. 

15 
 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. I'll send an 

16 email to Nancy after this. 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

18 
 DR. GLOVER: If it pleases the 

19 
 Board, because of the short time, I really 

20 
 won't be able to formulate a path forward; 

21 
 just maybe what were all the action items. I 

22 
 will very quickly speak to what we have done 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

45 

45



1 
 and say that we will take into account this as 

2 
 we develop our action plan. I would hesitate 

3 
 to say that this is our definitive path 

4 
 forward, but I will --

5 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine. 

6 
 That's not -- not expecting. But I guess I 

7 
 think it's important that we say that there is 

8 
 -- developing a path forward, a specific path 

9 
 forward and that work is ongoing. 

10 
 Good. Any other Hanford issues 

11 
 that any of the Work Group Members want to 

12 
 bring up or NIOSH or SC&A? 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, I believe 

15 
 we can adjourn the Work Group meeting. And I 

16 
 guess we'll see most everybody out in Hanford 

17 
 next week. 

18 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 
 matter went off the record at 3:50 p.m., EDT.) 

20 
 

21 
 

22 
 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 46 

1 
 

2 
 

3 
 

4 
 

5 
 

6 
 

7 
 

8 
 

9 
 

10 
 

11 
 

12 
 

13 
 

14 
 

15 
 

16 
 

46 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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