STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING 52 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

VOL. II 

DAY TWO 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 52nd 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Suncoast Hotel and Casino, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, on Jan. 9, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Jan. 09, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 9 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

NEVADA TEST SITE SEC PETITION 9, 77 

MR. MARK ROLFES, NIOSH 

PETITIONERS 

SENATOR HARRY REID 42 

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SEC PETITION 74,96 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH 

PETITIONERS 

SCIENCE ISSUES UPDATE 124 

DR. JAMES NETON, NIOSH 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UPDATE 145 

DR. PATRICIA WORTHINGTON, DOE 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UPDATE 172 

MR. JEFFREY L. KOTSCH, DOL 

FY08 TASKS FOR SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES (SC&A) 185 

DR. LEWIS WADE, NIOSH 

UPDATE ON SELECTION OF BOARD SUPPORT CONTRACTOR 232 

DR. LEWIS WADE, NIOSH 

MR. DAVID STAUDT, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

PREVENTION 

SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES: 258 

BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, DR. JAMES MELIUS 258 

BLOCKSON, MS. WANDA MUNN 267 

NTS BADGES 294 

PUBLIC COMMENT 309 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 375 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

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

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS

AND IDENTIFIED TELEPHONIC PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

ANSPAUGH, LYNN, SC&A 

BARATCART, CLAUDIO, H&N 

BARKER, KAY 

BARRIE, TERRIE 

BERMINGHAM, SARAH, SEN. SCHUMER 

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE, LINDE CERAMICS 

BREW, MICHAEL S., PAST EMPLOYER 

BREYER, LAURIE, OCAS 

BRITTON, DON, REECO 

BROCK, DENISE, NIOSH 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 

CAMERON, BUCK, ATL INT 

CANO, REGINA, DOE 

CHANG, C, NIOSH 

CHEW, MELTON, ORAU 

CLAYTON, DOROTHY 

COOK, PATTY, NTS 

CRAWFORD, FRANK, NIOSH 

DASILVA, MICHAEL, LOCAL 872 

DAVIS, JAMES A. 

DECKER, MARILYN 

DONWAN, PATRICK, LOCAL 872 

DUPONT, LELA M. 

EDWARDS, BILL, LLNL 

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 

ESSARY, LUCY 

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 

FUNK, JOHN R., AVV NEVADA 

GARBARINO, DAVID, LOCAL 12 

GLENN, RAILI, LLNL PETITIONER 

GOMEZ, JOE, NTS 

GRAYMAN, DONNY, IRONWORKERS 416 

GREENBERG, DAN, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 

GRIFFIN, DARNELL, RECO 

GYORDY, DORIS 

HARVEY, BYRON K. 

HAWKINS, FRANK 

HEMFORT, KARL, DOL 

HESS, JORNINE, IRONWORKERS 416 
7

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOLLOWAY-PETERSON, MARY BESS 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

HOYT, ROSEMARY, HANFORD 

HYATT, SALLY, LOCAL 12 

JAMES, DONALD D. 

JENKINS, SHERMAN, LLNL 

JENSEN, HARRY L. 

JERISEN, DEB, EKCAP 

JOHNSON, TRACY, DOL 

KIMPAN, KATE, ORAU 

KLENILE, VIRGIL, REECO 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

LAMB, DONNA 

LARRY, GEORGE, NTS 

LEWIS, GREG, DOE 

LEWIS, MARK, ATL 

LOCK, JW, SELF 

LONG, CHRISTY A., DOL 

LOVE, CONNIE 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAKRAM, MARGRETTE 

MARSHALL, KENNETH E. 

MATSON-MORSE, ANDREA, NTS 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU 

MCKEEL, DAN, SINEW 

MILLER, JUDY, PET 

MILLER, MARY L., RET’D 

MIN, JOHN 

MORGAN, WALLACE 

NASH, VIVIAN 

NEWTON, NELDA KAY, LLL 

NIELSON, TED 

OH, KATE, SEN. REID 

OSTROW, STEPHEN, SC&A 

OWENS, ELEMOIT, NTS 

OWENS, WARRELL, NTS 

PADILLA, ANNA 

PARKER, CARY 

PINCHETTI, KATHY, BLOCKSON 

PITTARO, CAROL A. 
8

RADWANSKI, FRED, SELF 

RAMSPOTT, JOHN, GSI 

REESE, GARY 

REEVE, DAVID, DOL 

RIOS, DIANE 

ROBERTS, KIMBERLEY, SAIC 

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A 

ROGERS, KEITH, REVIEW-JOURNAL 

ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH OCAS 

ROLLINS, EUGENE, DMA 

ROWE, FRANK, SEN. LIEBERMAN 

ROZNER, KATHLEEN, SEN. REID 

RUSSELL, LARRY, MOUND PETITIONER 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 

SEPULVEDA, TERI, NTS 

SIECK, BRENDA 

SINGER, EUGENE, DOL 

SMITH, BASIL L, LLNL 

SMITH, BILLY P., MH CHEW AND ASSOCS. 

SNYDER, ANN 

SPECK, BRENDA, NTS 

STAFFORD, KENNARD 

STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 

STEDNICK, PAUL, REECO 

STENDER, WARREN 

TAYLOR, JOHN W. 

TAYLOR, MAXWELL, REECO 

ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

VALDEZ, NAVOR T. 

VANBUSKIRK, ART 

VASCONI, WM. 

VAUGHN, LEE 

VENZON, LAURENCE 

WALKER, ED, BETHLEHEM STEEL 

WARNER, RONALD L., RECCO 

WATKINS, LOYAL R. 

WILEY, LEON P., II 

WILLIAMS, JOHN, GE HANFORD 

WILLIAMSON, VERN 

WORTHINGTON, PAT, DOE 

ZACCHERO, MARY JO, ORAU 

ZARITO, FRANK 

ZOITOUR, ABE, SC&A 
9

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:30 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

NEVADA TEST SITE SEC PETITION

1 DR. ZIEMER: Our first agenda item today is the 

2 Nevada Test Site SEC petition. We're going to 

3 hear initially from Mark Rolfes of the NIOSH 

4 staff. We will then hear from the petitioners. 

5 Laurie Hutton is the lead petitioner. We'll 

6 also hear from Peter White and Paul Stednick, 

7 and of course from Senator Reid. Then we will 

8 also have a report from our Nevada Test Site 

9 working group. 

10 So let's begin then with Mr. Rolfes from the 

11 NIOSH staff. Welcome. 

12 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer; thank you, 

13 members of the Board. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: One second. 

15 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on, check the mike situation 

17 here. Are you wearing a lavaliere? 

18 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, he has a lavaliere mike. 
10

1 DR. BRANCHE: It's on. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, is it -- it's on. Okay. 

3 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Thank you, everyone. Is 

4 everyone able to hear me today? 

5 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

6 MR. ROLFES: Thank you. Welcome, everyone. My 

7 name is Mark Rolfes. I'm a health physicist 

8 with the National Institute for Occupational 

9 Safety and Health, Office of Compensation 

10 Analysis and Support. I'm here today to 

11 present to you the NIOSH findings of the 

12 Special Exposure Cohort petition evaluation 

13 report for the Nevada Test Site. 

14 The Nevada Test Site came about because of a 

15 need for a testing site within the continental 

16 United States. A 1,375 square mile site was 

17 chosen in Nye County, Nevada in early 1951. 

18 Atmospheric testing began on January 27th, 1951 

19 and was conducted at the site until July 17th, 

20 1962. Beginning in 1963 nuclear testing was 

21 conducted underground only. The last nuclear 

22 test that was conducted underground was on 

23 September 23rd, 1992. 

24 The Nevada Test Site functioned to test nuclear 

25 devices and to conduct other experiments vital 
11

1 to the defense of the United States. They also 

2 conducted research into the nuclear reactors 

3 and nuclear rockets. They also researched 

4 peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and also 

5 served as a waste management repository. 

6 NIOSH received the Special Exposure Cohort 

7 petition on February 5th, 2007. We received 

8 multiple attachments to the SEC petition on 

9 February 22nd, 2007. SEC 84 qualified for 

10 evaluation on April 4th, 2007, and a separate 

11 SEC petition for the Nevada Test Site, SEC 70, 

12 was merged with the main petition, SEC 84, on 

13 April 10th, 2007. A Federal Register notice 

14 was posted on April 24th, 2007, and NIOSH 

15 issued its evaluation report on September 27th, 

16 2007. 

17 The proposed SEC class for the Nevada Test Site 

18 was all employees of the Department of Energy, 

19 or any Department of Energy contractor or 

20 subcontractor, who worked in any areas of the 

21 Nevada Test Site from January 1st, 1963 through 

22 September 30th, 1992. The petition was 

23 submitted to NIOSH on behalf of a class of 

24 employees at Nevada Test Site. 

25 In evaluating the submission or the petition 
12

1 that NIOSH received, NIOSH has several sources 

2 of information available to us. The Department 

3 of Energy "Radiation Exposure History" data, 

4 which we receive for every individual that has 

5 a claim with NIOSH. We have the Oak Ridge 

6 Associated Universities Technical Information 

7 Bulletins and the Nevada Test Site site 

8 profile. We also have on-site Rad-Safe 

9 reports, radiation surveys and operating 

10 procedure documents. We have additional 

11 documents within the NIOSH Site Research 

12 Database. NIOSH has conducted interviews with 

13 former Nevada Test Site and Lawrence Livermore 

14 National Laboratory employees and experts. We 

15 have case files within the NIOSH claims 

16 database, and we have documentation and 

17 affidavits provided by the petitioners. 

18 Within the NIOSH/OCAS Claims Tracking System as 

19 of December 20th, 2007 NIOSH has received 1,539 

20 claims from the Department of Labor which 

21 require a dose reconstruction. 927 of those 

22 1,539 have already had a dose reconstruction 

23 completed. The Department of Labor has also 

24 pulled 196 claims from NIOSH because they were 

25 added to the Special Exposure Cohort for the 
13

1 earlier time period during atmospheric testing 

2 from 1951 through the end of 1962. 

3 Specific to this petition from January 1963 

4 through September of 1992, NIOSH has 1,411 

5 claims which meet the current class definition. 

6 Of those 1,411 claims, 460 have internal 

7 dosimetry data and 1,392 have external 

8 dosimetry data. 

9 In support of the SEC petition for the Nevada 

10 Test Site there were several petition bases and 

11 concerns. These included hot particle 

12 exposures, defeating universal badging, ambient 

13 dose reconstruction, record verification and 

14 validation, radiological incidents, internal 

15 dose reconstruction, extremity dosimetry for 

16 assemblers, and destroyed or lost records. 

17 I'll go through each of these concerns in the 

18 petition in a little bit more detail in the 

19 next few slides. 

20 The first petition concern that we evaluated 

21 was that large hot particle doses have not been 

22 evaluated. Hot particles and fragments which 

23 were produced by the Nuclear Rocket Development 

24 Station were easily detectable, well studied 

25 and documented at Nevada Test Site. Bounding 
14

1 information for dose reconstruction is included 

2 in the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory 

3 report. 

4 Furthermore, external dose to personnel would 

5 have been recorded by film badges or whole body 

6 dosimeters. The external doses to the re-entry 

7 team personnel were documented in on-site Rad8 Safe reports for each operation. 

9 Internal exposures can be bounded using 

10 urinalyses and whole body count results. 

11 The next petition concern was that workers 

12 apparently did not wear dosimeters to prevent 

13 registering doses in excess of administrative 

14 controls. 

15 NIOSH interviewed workers, and health and 

16 safety, security and management personnel in 

17 order to evaluate this. We determined that 

18 non-compliance was not widespread. We had 

19 about 13 occurrences indicated in 1,215 

20 interviews which were conducted. This was 

21 approximately one percent of the individuals. 

22 Furthermore, dose reconstruction methodologies 

23 exist based on the specific facts of an 

24 individual's case. 

25 There was a petition concern that the 
15

1 resuspension model is not bounding or 

2 scientifically defensible. 

3 However, NIOSH does not use the resuspension 

4 model for NTS dose reconstruction. This was a 

5 draft methodology that was discussed with the 

6 Advisory Board during site profile meetings. 

7 NIOSH does, however, rely upon ambient air 

8 monitoring and soil contamination data for the 

9 Nevada Test Site dose reconstructions conducted 

10 under EEOICPA. 

11 There was a petition concern that the use of 

12 average air concentrations in a dose 

13 reconstruction is not claimant favorable for a 

14 worker in an unknown location. 

15 The environmental intakes of radioactive 

16 materials which NIOSH assigns during a dose 

17 reconstruction are based upon the highest 

18 recorded air sample results. This concern does 

19 not impact our ability to estimate radiation 

20 doses, but relates to the methodology that is 

21 used. 

22 There was a petition concern that workers who 

23 were no longer employed at the Nevada Test Site 

24 still had DOE dosimetry readings. 

25 We understand that this is possible. Post-
16

1 employment dosimetry results could have been a 

2 result of an individual going on-site for a 

3 visit for medical monitoring, a tour, an 

4 option, perhaps. It also could have been a 

5 result of committed internal dose calculations 

6 from radioactive materials which were deposited 

7 within the body. Once again, this does not 

8 impact our ability to estimate radiation dose. 

9 There was a petition concern that records used 

10 by NIOSH had not been verified and validated. 

11 NIOSH evaluates the completeness and adequacy 

12 of data in accordance with 42 CFR 82.15. NIOSH 

13 also performed a data validation review as part 

14 of the SEC evaluation process. 

15 By controlling external dose to personnel at 

16 Nevada Test Site, internal dose potential was 

17 minimized. NIOSH reviewed 100 workers' claims 

18 with the highest recorded external doses at 

19 Nevada Test Site. We found that 100 -- all 100 

20 workers participated in the bioassay program. 

21 There was a petition concern that NIOSH has no 

22 method to estimate external doses to workers 

23 involved in eight underground tests that 

24 "vented," or those involved in pre-1965 drill25 backs. 
17

1 External doses from ventings and drill-backs 

2 would be captured by personnel external 

3 dosimetry. For pre-1966 beta doses, NIOSH uses 

4 documented measurements and recorded beta-to5 gamma ratios to assign a claimant-favorable 

6 beta dose. In 1966 a major improvement was 

7 implemented in the analysis of film badges in 

8 order to determine beta exposures. 

9 There was a petition concern that NIOSH has no 

10 method to estimate unmonitored worker exposures 

11 to iodine-131 from ventings. 

12 NIOSH has cohort bioassay data which are 

13 available and can be used to bound internal 

14 doses to unmonitored personnel. Furthermore, 

15 there is a bounding calculation documented 

16 within the Nevada Test Site site profile which 

17 shows how we would use air monitoring data to 

18 reconstruct an individual's dose. 

19 There were petition concerns that NIOSH lacks a 

20 method to estimate internal dose prior to 1967, 

21 and that whole body counting was not available 

22 until 1967, and that full radionuclide coverage 

23 was not in place until '67. 

24 Data are available to bound internal dose from 

25 1963 forward. Urinalysis data are available in 
18

1 1963 and forward. Workers with the highest 

2 risk of internal exposures were those who were 

3 assigned to the bioassay program. Furthermore, 

4 NIOSH has more than 300 -- 300 whole body 

5 counts were conducted prior to 1967 using a 

6 portable Helgeson monitor. 

7 There was a petition concern that high-fired 

8 plutonium oxide exposures from atmospheric 

9 testing have not been investigated. 

10 The presence of highly insoluble plutonium does 

11 not impact NIOSH's ability to estimate internal 

12 dose, but rather it affects our methodology 

13 that we would use to make the calculations. 

14 This methodology is documented in ORAU 

15 Technical Information Bulletin 0049. 

16 There was a petition concern that there was no 

17 extremity dosimetry for bomb assembly workers. 

18 NIOSH found that extremity dosimetry records 

19 are in fact available. Extremity dose 

20 calculations are only applicable when a cancer 

21 is located on an extremity. Additionally, 

22 NIOSH can apply claimant-favorable geometric 

23 correction factors to the whole body dosimetry 

24 results in order to estimate an extremity dose. 

25 There was a petition concern that workers 
19

1 report that monitoring and other records were 

2 lost or destroyed. 

3 NIOSH interviewed personnel knowledgeable of 

4 records storage and retention requirements. 

5 Dosimetry records used to estimate dose were 

6 not destroyed. Some personnel rosters, forms, 

7 meeting records, and other administrative 

8 records were buried. However, the important 

9 part is that these were not used -- or are not 

10 used in dose reconstructions. 

11 I would like to show a couple of sample dose 

12 reconstructions for some of the issues that 

13 were discussed in this SEC petition that we 

14 received. The first is -- the first sample 

15 dose reconstruction is for an individual who 

16 worked at the Nuclear Rocket Development 

17 Station involved in re-entry from 1966 through 

18 1969. Following 1969 the individual became a 

19 construction miner in the tunnels from 1970 

20 through 1987. He was a male born in 1982 

21 (sic), was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1999, 

22 and was a current smoker at the time. 

23 NIOSH recognizes that there was an internal and 

24 external exposure potential at the Nuclear 

25 Rocket Development Station. This individual 
20

1 had a recorded external dose of 2.6 rem during 

2 his NRDS work between 1966 and '69. He also 

3 had a urinalysis and three whole body counts, 

4 all of which were non-positive. 

5 During this individual's time as a construction 

6 miner in Area 12, working in the tunnels from 

7 1970 through 1987, this individual received no 

8 recorded external dose above the minimum 

9 detectable amount. So in this case what NIOSH 

10 would do would be to assign missed external 

11 doses. 

12 We also acknowledge that this individual may 

13 have had potential exposures to radon and 

14 thoron in an underground environment. So in 

15 order to reconstruct these internal exposures 

16 from radon and thoron NIOSH prorated the actual 

17 number of months worked at the site in Area 12. 

18 We applied an occupancy factor of 50 percent in 

19 the tunnels. We applied radon concentrations 

20 from G tunnel, which were .16 working levels, 

21 and also assigned a thoron exposure based on a 

22 ration of 1.75 to the radon. 

23 For this partial radiation dose reconstructed 

24 to the lung, NIOSH did not consider missed 

25 internal doses from non-positive bioassay 
21

1 results, and we did not consider neutron dose. 

2 The assigned dose in a NIOSH dose 

3 reconstruction for this individual -- we 

4 assigned approximately 2.6 rem from external 

5 recorded dose. We assigned 3.4 rem from 

6 external missed dose. We assigned 

7 approximately 400 millirem from X-rays that 

8 were required as a condition of employment. We 

9 assigned 11.19 working level months of radon. 

10 And we assigned 79 rem to the lung from thoron 

11 exposures. This resulted in a probability of 

12 causation greater than 50 percent. 

13 For sample dose reconstruction number two we 

14 had a general laborer who was employed from 

15 November of 1961 through April of 1968. This 

16 individual worked in various location on-site 

17 from 1961 through 1964 and 1967 through 1968. 

18 The individual worked at the NRDS from 1965 

19 through 1966. The employee was a female born 

20 in 1943, who was diagnosed with skin cancer of 

21 the upper arm, a squamous cell carcinoma, in 

22 2001. For the purposes of estimating a 

23 probability of causation, NIOSH needs ethnicity 

24 information. This employee was a white, non25 Hispanic female. 
22

1 Once again NIOSH acknowledges that there was an 

2 external and internal exposure potential at the 

3 Nuclear Rocket Development Station. The 

4 employee had no positive external dosimetry 

5 results from '61 through 1964, or from 1967 

6 through 1968. The employee did receive 

7 approximately 600 millirem at the NRDS in 1965 

8 through 1966. Beta dose was not reported for 

9 the NRDS work in 1965. No positive neutron 

10 dose was reported for the NRDS work, either. 

11 The individual also had three gross gamma 

12 urinalyses and one whole body count, all of 

13 which were non-positive. 

14 NIOSH assigned the following external 

15 exposures: A recorded photon dose to the skin 

16 for 1965 and 1966 was assigned. Furthermore, 

17 NIOSH assigned a beta dose to the skin using a 

18 three to one beta-to-gamma ratio for 1965. We 

19 assigned missed photon doses for all years of 

20 employment from 1961 through 1968. We assigned 

21 a missed neutron dose for each reported non22 positive badge cycle during the NRDS work in 

23 '65 and '66. And finally, we assigned an 

24 occupational medical X-ray dose. 

25 For internal exposures which were assigned 
23

1 NIOSH applied overestimating assumptions for 

2 the work at NRDS. We assumed that this 

3 employee was exposed to the limiting air 

4 concentration at the NRDS for the entire two 

5 years that -- or the entire time period that 

6 the individual was at -- at the site. We 

7 applied ambient intakes from 1963 through 1968. 

8 No internal doses were assigned for the years 

9 of 1961 or 1962 due to the previously10 designated Special Exposure Cohort. Missed 

11 internal doses from three non-positive 

12 urinalyses and a whole body count were also 

13 assigned based upon claimant-favorable 

14 assumptions. 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Speak up, 

16 please. 

17 MR. ROLFES: Okay. The doses calculated from 

18 1963 through the date of diagnosis in 2001. 

19 This was an overestimate of radiation dose 

20 which was reconstructed to the skin. NIOSH 

21 considered all sources of radiation exposure. 

22 The assigned dose exceeds that actually 

23 received by the individual. NIOSH assigned a 

24 missed photon dose of approximately 1.6 rem, a 

25 recorded photon dose of approximately 600 
24

1 millirem, a missed neutron dose of 400 

2 millirem; a beta dose based upon a beta-to3 gamma ratio, which was 600 millirem. NIOSH 

4 also assigned a medical X-ray dose of 450 

5 millirem. An internal dose based upon 

6 hypothetical assumptions equaled a 222 

7 millirem, a missed internal dose of seven 

8 millirem, and an environmental internal dose of 

9 47 millirem. In all, we assigned a little over 

10 four rem. This overestimate resulted in a 

11 probability of causation equal to 2.01 percent. 

12 NIOSH evaluates the petition using guidelines 

13 in 42 CFR 83.13 and submits a summary of 

14 findings in a petition evaluation report to the 

15 Board and to the petitioners. NIOSH issued its 

16 evaluation report of the SEC petition for 

17 Nevada Test Site on September 27th, 2007. 

18 As part of the evaluation process a two-pronged 

19 test was established by EEOICPA and 

20 incorporated into the regulations which NIOSH 

21 uses. There are two questions that need to be 

22 asked: Is it feasible to estimate the level of 

23 radiation doses of individual members of the 

24 class with sufficient accuracy. The second 

25 question is -- is whether there is a reasonable 
25

1 likelihood that such radiation dose may have 

2 endangered the health of members of the class. 

3 NIOSH found that the available monitoring data, 

4 process descriptions and source term 

5 information are adequate to complete dose 

6 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

7 the proposed class of employees. Therefore, 

8 the health endangerment determination is not 

9 required under the regulations. 

10 This slide summarizes the feasibility findings 

11 for the Nevada Test Site SEC petition for 

12 January 1963 through September of 1992. This 

13 indicates that we believe dose reconstruction 

14 is feasible for all sources of internal and 

15 external exposures. 

16 There is additional information and 

17 documentation available for the Advisory 

18 Board's review under the share drive folder: 

19 "Document Review\AB Document Review\NTS\NTS 

20 SEC". 

21 And finally, I'd like to thank all former and 

22 current Nevada Test Site workers for their 

23 contribution to the security and to the defense 

24 of the United States. Thank you. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Mark. 
26

1 I'd like to now ask if any Board members have 

2 questions for you or have comments on the 

3 presentation. 

4 (Pause) 

5 Dr. Melius. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have one question 

7 immediately -- I'm trying to find the place in 

8 your slide -- but one point in your 

9 presentation you referred to people's reports 

10 of not being properly badged and so forth -- 

11 MR. ROLFES: Uh-huh. 

12 DR. MELIUS: -- and reports of some data out of 

13 your interviews? You've interviewed over 1,000 

14 people about that? Yeah, I -- I've got it now. 

15 Quote, 13 occurrences indicated in 1,215 

16 interviews? 

17 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Did you specifically ask in the 

19 interviews about that information? 

20 MR. ROLFES: Well, the majority -- the majority 

21 of the interviews which were conducted were 

22 telephone interviews that are conducted as part 

23 of the dose reconstruction process at NIOSH. 

24 There were approximately 1,200 which were based 

25 on those telephone interviews and there are 
27

1 questions in there that ask whether the 

2 individual was monitored routinely or 

3 intermittently at the site. 

4 Additionally, we conducted in between 15 and 20 

5 additional interviews in support of the Special 

6 Exposure Cohort evaluation, specifically asking 

7 if this had occurred and if individuals had any 

8 knowledge of it. The approximately 20 

9 individuals who we interviewed and specifically 

10 asked this -- none of those individuals had 

11 indicated that this practice had been adopted 

12 by them. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but in your 1,200 

14 interviews there is -- you don't specifically 

15 ask about this issue of -- you don't -- 

16 specific incidents or circumstances where 

17 workers were not wearing dosimeters? 

18 MR. ROLFES: It's not specifically called out, 

19 no. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

21 MR. ROLFES: However, it does ask for any 

22 information whether the badge was worn 

23 routinely or intermittently -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

25 MR. ROLFES: -- so... 
28

1 DR. MELIUS: I think that's a little bit 

2 different and I -- 

3 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

4 DR. MELIUS: -- would advise you in the future 

5 to sort of be a little bit more specific about 

6 this -- 

7 MR. ROLFES: Okay. 

8 DR. MELIUS: -- because I think it's... 

9 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Thank you. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I suspect that interview that Mark 

11 is referring to is the -- the -- the one that 

12 has the standard questions -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- that they're not even allowed 

15 to change those questions, I don't believe, 

16 without going through OMB or some -- something 

17 of that sort. Is that -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: And they -- they've had six years 

19 to go to OMB to get it changed -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right, if they wanted to -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: -- and it could have easily been 

22 done, so I think that -- excuses a little bit, 

23 but I -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think your remark 

25 suggested that they should change that, but if 
29

1 they do, they need to go through a process, I 

2 believe, for that. 

3 Okay, Michael. 

4 MR. GIBSON: So Mark, these interviews, they 

5 were the standard interview that every claimant 

6 gets as part of the dose reconstruction -- 

7 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

8 MR. GIBSON: -- for every site. 

9 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. 

10 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) side of those 

11 interviews, how many interviews were conducted 

12 with -- personally with site workers just to 

13 gain general knowledge of the site and the 

14 activities? 

15 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Outside of the 

16 approximately 1,200 interviews which were 

17 conducted as part of the dose reconstruction 

18 process, there were approximately 15 to 20 

19 interviews that were conducted specifically to 

20 ask this question in support of the evaluation 

21 that was conducted for Nevada Test Site. So 

22 there were about 15 to 20 additional interviews 

23 that I know of off the top of my head right 

24 now. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Additional -- additional question, 
30

1 Dr. Melius? 

2 DR. MELIUS: No, I -- I -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: No. Other questions, comments? 

4 Mr. Clawson. 

5 (NOTE: During the following discussion the AV 

6 equipment and/or telephone connection and/or 

7 failure of telephone participants to mute their 

8 phones resulted in an audible dialogue taking 

9 place in the background, at times louder than 

10 the speakers in the room. Transcription 

11 reflects the best efforts of the reporter under 

12 the circumstances.) 

13 MR. CLAWSON: You gave the two examples here, 

14 and I'm sorry that I've got my back turned to 

15 you but I'm trying to just read through this. 

16 You're talking about a lot of the information 

17 that -- of missed records and so forth like 

18 that, and I want to tell you what my issue with 

19 this is. We brought up a special claim at the 

20 Nevada Test Site where he had questioned 

21 something, and it was amazing to me what the 

22 contractor found on this. I mean they went 

23 clear back and they found data coming out of 

24 the tunnels. 

25 We have other claimants here that have got 
31

1 records that has been sent to them of 

2 unbelievable information. And all of a sudden 

3 now we have some we don't -- we don't have 

4 records for, we're going to estimate this and 

5 we're going to estimate that. I -- I'm -- I 

6 apologize, but I'm a person that I like to deal 

7 with facts and it's very hard for me to see 

8 that we've got all this information in one area 

9 and not into another. And data integrity, to 

10 us, is very important. I'm not questioning the 

11 methods that you're using or so forth like 

12 that, but have we really exhausted all of the 

13 efforts to be able to get the information from 

14 the archives and -- and get the actual doses? 

15 MR. ROLFES: We're continuing to look into the 

16 issue that we had discussed at the site profile 

17 meeting a couple of nights ago, and will 

18 hopefully have discussions and try to fulfill 

19 what the Advisory Board would like for us to -- 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Whoever the lawyer is, please 

21 mute your phone. 

22 MR. CLAWSON: Thank you. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: I wonder if the -- any of the 

24 workgroup members have any comments relative to 

25 this issue, which has to do in a sense with 
32

1 data integrity and the issue of -- that we've 

2 heard on a number of occasions, of individuals 

3 who were -- 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: Your phone (unintelligible) -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- apparently instructed or 

6 suggested that they discontinue use of their 

7 badge when they reached a certain working 

8 limit. I know the workgroup looked at this 

9 issue, and any particular comments on that? 

10 Wanda Munn. 

11 MS. MUNN: One of the facts that was not well 

12 understood in this quarter until the working 

13 group deliberations was the reality of 

14 exchanged badges being such a common practice. 

15 When we recognized that a part of the process 

16 was to pull badges that were indicating 

17 potential approach to regulatory limits and 

18 replace that badge with another badge or with a 

19 personnel ionization chamber for the period of 

20 time of the entry, it became a little more 

21 clear -- 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: Whoever's talking on the phone, 

23 please mute your phone. 

24 MS. MUNN: -- that type of thing occurred. The 

25 knowledge of controlled entry into tunnels is 
33

1 one that is key, I think, to many of the 

2 concerns that people had expressed. The fact 

3 that there was monitoring of all sorts going on 

4 in the tunnels and that there are records of 

5 who entered at what time, especially following 

6 events that were scheduled, is very helpful in 

7 terms of being able to identify information 

8 that may not have been easily of record 

9 somewhere else. It's gratifying to know that 

10 most of those logbooks have been identified and 

11 have either been scanned or are still 

12 available, and that -- the loss of -- of 

13 information was not as great as had been 

14 originally feared at the time that the 

15 workgroup undertook its investigations. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler, did you try to raise 

17 a question about the phone? 

18 DR. ROESSLER: No, the phone line is very bad. 

19 We have somebody speaking on the line and it 

20 was very difficult for me to even hear Wanda. 

21 You may have heard a woman's voice asking in 

22 the background -- I heard her -- that an 

23 announcement should be made to have people mute 

24 their phones. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Actually if -- if the people who 
34

1 are participating by phone could please mute 

2 their phone until they're ready to speak, it 

3 will allow everyone on line to hear and it will 

4 also reduce the distraction for those of us in 

5 the meeting room. Thank you. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we were hearing -- just then 

7 -- some background noises that -- apparently 

8 that has disappeared now. That's fine. Thank 

9 you. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: It sounds better. Thank you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler, did you say you had 

12 a question, or you did not? 

13 DR. ROESSLER: No, I do not. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. I'd like to 

15 follow up that last one -- or Wanda's comments 

16 then and ask -- or perhaps ask for clarity. So 

17 if NIOSH receives -- or is doing a dose 

18 reconstruction from a worker who indicates, as 

19 part of the dose reconstruction process -- I'm 

20 not just talking the initial interview, but 

21 when you go back and you ask for whether they 

22 have additional information -- and let's 

23 suppose that individual says well, in fact I 

24 was told to stop using my badge at some point 

25 in a job, what do you do in that case? 
35

1 MR. ROLFES: The first and most important thing 

2 that we would have to do is take a look at the 

3 DOE dosimetry records that we have, and take a 

4 look at the facts of the case, and then from 

5 there we would be able to determine what path 

6 forward we should take for assigning a 

7 potential unmonitored dose. 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it appeared that Wanda was 

10 suggesting that there are supplemental records 

11 in logbooks or other records beside the film 

12 badge records that supplement or would -- would 

13 at least address this issue in -- in some ways. 

14 MS. MUNN: The workgroup has been given that 

15 information and at least one very good 

16 compilation of such data, yes. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Presley. 

18 MR. PRESLEY: As chairman I was going to go 

19 ahead and -- and tell what Wanda said was 

20 exactly right. We found out from the 

21 information that was given us that where a 

22 person might have thought that they got a 

23 missed dose, that NIOSH was able to go back and 

24 find most of the time at least one, two or even 

25 three records for that time period at that 
36

1 particular site that collaborated (sic) dosage 

2 for that individual person or what went on at 

3 that individual site. They -- they did an 

4 excellent job of finding this data. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, Brad Clawson. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: This -- this is what I'm saying, 

7 and maybe I didn't say it clearly enough. It 

8 amazes me that -- where this whole thing came 

9 from was because there was questions of missed 

10 dose and so forth like that. And as you made 

11 the comment that we were -- the people were 

12 requested -- they weren't -- they didn't use 

13 their badges. One thing you need to realize is 

14 in this industry it's never told to you not to 

15 take your badge, it's suggested, because that 

16 shows negligence and so forth and people -- 

17 people realize this. But as we found out on 

18 the tour when we went out to the site -- and 

19 the person that gave us this tour -- tremendous 

20 knowledge and everything, 35 years out there, 

21 so forth. When he was asked the question did 

22 you ever go without your badge, his comment to 

23 us was let me just put it to you this way: I 

24 never let my badge get in the way of me 

25 completing my task. 
37

1 The issue that I have is we have a lot of 

2 people that -- they're do-- they're using 

3 people's -- other people's information and so 

4 forth like that, and as a Board member I'm 

5 understanding that, but it was amazing to me 

6 the attention and the level of information that 

7 we actually got because we called out one 

8 person's name and said this individual has a 

9 sworn affidavit that says this happened. So we 

10 -- we asked -- Chew and Associates were 

11 assigned to be able to get -- to be able to go 

12 in and look at this information, and it really 

13 amazed me, it totally amazed me the information 

14 they got. They got log sheets coming out of 

15 the tunnels. They got log sheets of all this 

16 stuff, and it's because we brought up this 

17 individual point. And what I'm suggesting is, 

18 are we really working on getting all the 

19 information that we want to be able to get. I 

20 don't want somebody else's dose or anything 

21 else like that. I want to know what dose I 

22 received. But it surprised me, they had the 

23 actual log sheets, clear back into the '60s. 

24 And then all of a sudden we have other places, 

25 '70s and everything else like that, that we 
38

1 have missing information. And this comes back 

2 to my whole issue of -- and data integrity. 

3 This whole process that we've got set up is 

4 based on -- to me, it's like a great big 

5 computer. I'm -- I'm a layman, okay? I'm -- 

6 I'm just a nuclear fuel handler. It's -- if 

7 you put garbage in, you get garbage out. And I 

8 want to make sure that -- that we -- that I 

9 stress that the data integrity of this is very, 

10 very important. And I hope that all workgroups 

11 and everything else like that are paying the 

12 attention to detail that we should because it 

13 amazed me. It totally amazed me, the actual 

14 log sheets of them coming out of a tunnel in 

15 1961, and then all of a sudden we're saying we 

16 can't find this guy's dose? Why, that -- 

17 that's -- that's ludicrous to me. Or are we 

18 looking at this that well, it's easier for us 

19 to be able to estimate somebody's dose than to 

20 really be able to get into the records? And -- 

21 and this has been my issue from the beginning 

22 and I hope that NIOSH and -- and all of our 

23 contractors, that we're really looking at this 

24 because I want the actual information. And 

25 people understand -- when you tell somebody 
39

1 well, we're using coworker data and stuff like 

2 that, I understand how it works. It's -- it's 

3 even difficult for me, but you know what? I 

4 want to know what I really got. I want the 

5 papers that I show. Some people don't 

6 understand that the -- the pencil dosimeters, 

7 when you come out and they read a certain 

8 amount, it may not be what you get on your TLD. 

9 Those were inadequate in a lot of ways and so 

10 forth like that, but I -- I just want to stress 

11 that we need to look at the real data integrity 

12 of this because I can truthfully say I was 

13 totally amazed at the information they got. 

14 And then for them to turn around and say but we 

15 can't -- we haven't found any of this 

16 information, I'm sorry, I -- I was dumfounded, 

17 I really was. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: So you're -- you're indicating 

19 that in many of these cases the information is 

20 there if they dig hard enough, even in -- in 

21 these kinds of cases. 

22 MR. CLAWSON: You know what I -- I really 

23 believe we do, and -- and I don't want to call 

24 anybody out by name, but I was able to talk to 

25 a very lovely lady, and I looked at the 
40

1 paperwork that she had that was sent to her, 

2 all 3,500 pages of it, and it was amazing to 

3 me. And her husband was working in the 

4 tunnels. I saw nasal smears coming out of 

5 there of 3,000 milli-- 3,000 counts. There was 

6 -- there was badge information, there was 

7 everything else there, and -- and I really 

8 firmly believe that the information is there. 

9 And you know what? I know these good people. 

10 I know I've worked at many, many of the sites 

11 and I've heard the same thing. These people 

12 don't want somebody else's dose that are not 

13 out there or anything else like that. They 

14 want their dose. They want what they got and 

15 they want to be compensated for what they did. 

16 And they want to be recognized and it's hard 

17 for them to be able to understand, to be able 

18 to use -- other thing, and I understand what 

19 NIOSH is doing, I really do. But I hope that 

20 we are using all of our efforts with DOE, 

21 everything else, to be able to dig up the 

22 people's actual dose so that they have what 

23 they have coming to them. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Phil Schofield. 

25 MR. SCHOFIELD: I'm agreeing with Brad's 
41

1 comments. The level of detail that Mel was 

2 able to bring out was incredible. I mean I 

3 have seen very few times where they have been 

4 able to go back into workers' history and dig 

5 up so much information. 

6 The problem is, this is for one gentleman. And 

7 most of what he said in his affidavit was 

8 backed up by those records. But the big 

9 problem is, these people who are sitting there, 

10 they're told well, we're going to have to use a 

11 coworker because we can't find these records, 

12 or they're saying well, we used these records 

13 and such-and-such records. But these people -- 

14 all those records that they're using need to be 

15 put in a reading room, available to the public, 

16 so they can verify what NIOSH and DOL are 

17 saying because I don't want to take your word 

18 for it, if I'm a claimant. I want to see that 

19 paperwork. I want to see what records you are 

20 using. True, there are going to be cases where 

21 coworker data is the only thing that is 

22 available. But in many other cases I question 

23 whether they're digging hard enough and why 

24 this information is not available to the public 

25 to look at their own records, to look at 
42

1 coworkers' records and see -– 

2 SENATOR HARRY REID

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Phil, I'm going to interrupt 

4 you here and you can continue that thought. 

5 The Senator is here and -- coming in to the 

6 room, I think, right now. 

7 (Pause) 

8 Welcome, Senator Reid. Senator Reid, welcome 

9 to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

10 Health. We're pleased that you were able to 

11 take time this morning to be with us and give a 

12 statement, and we'll be pleased to hear that. 

13 And I think to join you at the table we'll ask 

14 the other petitioners to come -- that would be 

15 Laurie Hutton, Peter White and Paul Stednick. 

16 So welcome, Senator, and welcome, petitioners. 

17 You may proceed. 

18 SENATOR REID: I appreciate your recog-- 

19 allowing me to be here. This is public service 

20 at its best, you folks doing this. You've done 

21 -- you've had meetings, I understand more than 

22 50 times, and I think that's commendable. We 

23 hear a lot about public service, and most of 

24 the focus is on people who run for office. But 

25 most public service in this country is not 
43

1 people who run for office, it's people just 

2 like you, people who serve on planning 

3 commissions, people who serve on tax 

4 commissions and doing all these things without 

5 a lot of glamour and attention. But it's what 

6 President Bush -- not -- first President Bush 

7 referred to as volunteerism, and that's what 

8 this is, so thank you very much for your time. 

9 I was born in Nevada, and I can remember as a 

10 boy, and my home -- my home still -- is 60 

11 miles from here. Probably from here even more 

12 than that. From the city limits of Las Vegas 

13 it's about 60 miles to Searchlight. And even 

14 though we were 60 miles from Las Vegas, the 

15 Test Site -- which is, you know, 70 to 90 miles 

16 from here -- we would get up in the morning and 

17 watch the glare in the sky of those aboveground 

18 tests that went on. And sometimes you would 

19 even feel it. Sound, as you know, bounces. 

20 And sometimes the bounce would hit us in 

21 Searchlight. But as the time has gone by, I 

22 can still see that bright light, like a sun, in 

23 the skies toward Las Vegas. 

24 Now the people that conducted these tests were 

25 always very careful, always very careful that 
44

1 the wind was not blowing toward Las Vegas. In 

2 fact, they were right, the wind wasn't blowing 

3 to Las Vegas. But Lincoln County, Nevada and 

4 southern Utah were really hurt badly with those 

5 aboveground tests. The damage is now written 

6 about and a special law was passed for the 

7 downwinders. Books have been written about the 

8 downwinders. 

9 This is a little different situation. But 

10 still the people that we're here asking that 

11 you recognize as part of the victims of the 

12 test site are people who are just as valuable 

13 in winning the Cold War as were those people 

14 who were involved in conducting the aboveground 

15 tests. 

16 I've been to the Nevada Test Site many, many 

17 times. I've been in some of the tunnels where 

18 the blasts were made. I've looked down the 

19 shafts where the blasts took place. And when 

20 we talk about about 1,000 tests being conducted 

21 at the Test Site, most of us think there are 

22 1,000 different holes, but that isn't the way 

23 it was done. They found some of the holes 

24 really good for testing, and they would conduct 

25 many, many tests in those same holes. 
45

1 And it reminds me kind of of my dad. My dad 

2 was a hard rock miner, he worked underground. 

3 And as a boy I went down with him. As a young 

4 man I went down with him. And when, as he 

5 would say, the holes were lit and charges went 

6 off, had to be very careful how quick you went 

7 back. That's why usually the final thing done 

8 in a mine was the blasting. Because if you 

9 went back too early, you would have all the 

10 gases from the dynamite and they would get what 

11 they called powder headaches. That's what they 

12 called dynamite, powder. And some of the holes 

13 that were poorly ventilated, you could go back 

14 the next day and still get sick 'cause the air 

15 was not fresh and pure. 

16 It's kind of what these men faced at the Test 

17 Site. They went back into the hole way too 

18 soon. 

19 I believe that if we reflect back just a little 

20 while ago when my children are -- my two oldest 

21 children -- I have five children. 

22 (Unintelligible) and I had two children very 

23 quickly, and then we waited seven years and had 

24 three more, and we talk about the little kids 

25 and the big kids. The big kids, they remember 
46

1 the Cold War; the fear that all boys and girls 

2 had was an atomic explosion, a hydrogen bomb 

3 wiping them out, what would they do. Little 

4 kids don't remember that. The little kids, 

5 because of the Cold War ending, have different 

6 fears. 

7 But the Cold War, which is gone, was won by a 

8 number of different people, different reasons. 

9 We -- we recognize Ronald Reagan. No one who 

10 held elective office was more anti-communist 

11 than Ronald Reagan. But what did he do? His 

12 first day in office he reached out to those 

13 enemies of his in the Soviet Union and his 

14 diplomats went out and he met with people he 

15 didn't believe in and didn't particularly like, 

16 but he was communicating with them all the 

17 time. Ronald Reagan was one reason we lost the 

18 Cold War, one of the big reasons we -- we lost 

19 the -- we -- we won the Cold War. Ronald 

20 Reagan was one of the big reasons. Not only 

21 did he do his diplomatic efforts, but the 

22 military was built up. The Soviet Union 

23 couldn't maintain the build-up. But there were 

24 others -- the -- others involved in this other 

25 than President Reagan, and many believe that 
47

1 one of the prime reasons we were able to 

2 prevail is what went on here at the Nevada Test 

3 Site and finding out about our nuclear weapons, 

4 were they safe, were they reliable, did we know 

5 how to take care of the weapons, did we know 

6 what they would do. 

7 And the answer is yes. We could tell, because 

8 we conducted these tests here. And the longer 

9 the testing went on, the better we got. 

10 Because not only would we go in and -- in the 

11 early years and look and see at the damage -- 

12 the aboveground tests, you can still go up 

13 there and see what -- the bleachers are still 

14 there where you could watch them. Buildings 

15 would be gone, some things would remain and the 

16 scientists would determine why some stood and 

17 why some didn't. 

18 But underground they could also determine a lot 

19 of things that would have happened had these 

20 been aboveground. And as the years went by, 

21 with the computerization and I -- peop-- you 

22 people on this Board certainly know more 

23 scientifically than I do, but they could tell a 

24 lot more because of the -- what they could do 

25 with the computerization. 
48

1 And we're still conducting tests at the Test 

2 Site. We're still conducting tests, sub3 critical tests. What does that mean? We're 

4 conducting tests in some of those same holes 

5 that these people got sick in. We're 

6 conducting tests there. And how are they 

7 conducted now? Among other ways, the sub8 critical tests, they set off an explosion; 

9 before it becomes critical, they stop it. And 

10 with computerization they can tell what would 

11 have happened had it gone critical. But 

12 they're using the same holes. I've been in 

13 them. 

14 I feel confident that I did the right thing in 

15 pushing for passing the Energy Employees 

16 Occupational Illness Compensation Act. That's 

17 why we're here today. But eight years later 

18 I'm troubled and disappointed how the program 

19 is failing some people at the Nevada Test Site, 

20 some people who worked there. 

21 I can remember when there were 11,000 people 

22 worked at the Test Site. I can remember when 

23 the road was called the Widow-maker, when 

24 people -- that little two-lane road, the 

25 traffic was so heavy, the deaths occurred so 
49

1 often there it was called the Widow-maker. 

2 The dose reconstruction process isn't working 

3 for Nevada Test Site workers. That's what 

4 NIOSH is using, but they're being -- in my 

5 opinion -- short-sighted and unfair. This 

6 Advisory Board -- I hope you acknowledge their 

7 shortcomings with their evaluation. You've -- 

8 you really have to do that, it's so unfair of 

9 what -- the decisions that have been made to 

10 this point. I'm here with these petitioners. 

11 They've worked very hard on behalf of their 

12 families. They've faced, I believe, injustice, 

13 and we have -- have a special petition that we 

14 ask you to grant. That's why we're here. The 

15 Board needs to understand that the badging 

16 issue was a widespread practice. Workers did 

17 not always wear these badges. These people 

18 aren't lying. Their friends will come. We 

19 have examples -- we picked out examples, but 

20 there are a multitude of other people who will 

21 say the same thing. Listen to what these men 

22 and women here are saying, who are actually on 

23 the ground working on our nations' nuclear 

24 deterrent at the Nevada Test Site. They're the 

25 ones who can tell you, in addition to whatever 
50

1 sci-- other scientific information you need. 

2 Take for example Peter White. Peter's sitting 

3 here today, was directed not to damage his 

4 badge again unless he wanted to find a job 

5 somewhere else. I mean he's not making this 

6 up. Others will verify what he said, what he 

7 will testify to here today. He worked at the 

8 Test Site from '85 to about 1990 as a welder, 

9 pipefitter and foreman. The very first day he 

10 started working at the Test Site, welding 

11 sparks damaged his badge, then he had to be 

12 issued a new badge the next day. He was told 

13 by his supervisors never to damage a badge 

14 again or else he'd have to find another job. 

15 These were good jobs out there. People wanted 

16 these jobs. They were high-paying jobs. They 

17 were there because they wanted to work there. 

18 It helped their families. He was told, as 

19 others were told, just throw your badge in the 

20 back of the truck; you don't need it. Peter 

21 White, that's his story. 

22 [name redacted] is a wonderful man and I have 

23 to tell you I'm totally biased and prejudiced. 

24 His son has worked for me for many years. His 

25 son was a four-year All American football 
51

1 player, played professional football. He still 

2 works for me, a man of truth and veracity, just 

3 like his father. His father didn't like to fly 

4 in airplanes. He always rearranged his work 

5 schedule -- worked at the Test Site -- so he 

6 could drive and watch his son play football. 

7 He was like, I guess, Coach Madden. He didn't 

8 like flying, and so he went to a lot of trouble 

9 and effort to watch his boy play football, as I 

10 understand, having four sons of my own. He's 

11 here in the audience today. He also was an 

12 outstanding athlete in his younger days, played 

13 professional football himself. 

14 But he can tell you how supervisors would put a 

15 coffee can at the entrance to the tunnels -- 

16 we've all seen them, the Folger's coffee cans. 

17 Why were they -- why was the can there? To 

18 throw your badges in bef-- when you went in the 

19 tunnel. They were expected -- the workers were 

20 expected to toss their badges in these buckets 

21 before they were exposed to radiation while 

22 serving their country. We all know why they 

23 were asked to do this. 

24 Now just a side note on [name redacted], to 

25 show you the quality of people that are here, 
52

1 he is a devoted church man. He is an executive 

2 in his church, does everything he can to go to 

3 church every day, and he's treated his family 

4 accordingly, his friends and his neighbors. 

5 Navor Valdez, he's in the audience today. 

6 He'll tell you that he went in in a tunnel re7 entry in 1970. After five minutes into the 

8 tunnel, his dosimeter read five rems. That's 

9 the quarterly limit. He got five in a quarter, 

10 you couldn't work there anymore. His whole 

11 year the records show he had one rem of 

12 exposure. Something's wrong someplace. 

13 Even the lead physicist at the Nevada Test 

14 Site, Jay Brady, admitted to directing workers 

15 to, I quote, not get overexposed. Think about 

16 that. These men and women were ordered to take 

17 tremendous risks with their health and their 

18 supervisors covered it up. 

19 So reality and protocol are two different 

20 things. And you, as Board members, need to 

21 understand that. The National Institute relies 

22 upon the site profile to perform dose 

23 reconstructions. And shockingly, they haven't 

24 even completed that. The site profile is 

25 continually evolving. It's grossly incomplete, 
53

1 and there's no way the Board can ignore this 

2 when considering this petition. The internal 

3 dose revision to the site profile hasn't even 

4 been published, yet this agency move forward 

5 with its evaluation of the petition anyway. We 

6 should all be very careful of the National 

7 Institute's judgment. 

8 Also, just as a side note, we here in Nevada 

9 have had some very bad experience with the 

10 Department of Energy with Yucca Mountain, and I 

11 don't need to go into detail about that. But I 

12 repeat, the internal dose revision to the site 

13 profile hasn't even been published, yet this 

14 agency move forward with its evaluation of 

15 petition anyway. We should all be skep-- spec16 - skeptical of the Institute's judgment that it 

17 can estimate Nevada Test Site workers' 

18 radiation dose without even having completed 

19 how you're supposed to do that. Dose 

20 reconstruction alone is not enough to ensure 

21 that all workers are compensated justly. 

22 That's why their testimony today is so vital. 

23 Our intent, Congress's intent, was to provide 

24 workers with timely, fair and adequate 

25 compensation. I'm sad to report that when we 
54

1 first started this almost eight years ago and I 

2 would have a meeting with these people, I got 

3 where I knew them pretty well. Many of them 

4 are dead now. That's why we wanted, Congress 

5 wanted, to provide workers with timely, fair 

6 and adequate compensation, not for their 

7 successors, but for them. Congress's intent 

8 was to provide workers with timely, fair and 

9 adequate compensation. 

10 You know, we have something that's sweeping 

11 this country, asbestos, mesothelioma, and one 

12 of the problems we find with that is from the 

13 time it's discovered till you die, the average 

14 time is 18 months. And we have to find a way 

15 to quickly compensate these people for this 

16 terrible condition that they're faced with, and 

17 that's the same here. Unless we grant them 

18 special exposure status, we all know this is 

19 not going to happen, they're not going to be 

20 provided timely, fair and adequate 

21 compensation. 

22 So I'm deeply grateful for, first of all, your 

23 accepting these assignments that you've all 

24 accepted to be part of this Board, appreciate -

25 - 
55

1 UNIDENTIFIED: Special exposure status. 

2 SENATOR REID: -- your listening to me. This 

3 is a very difficult issue that we're talking 

4 about, not a situation -- we're not talking 

5 about a chapter in a book, but we're talking 

6 about the lives of people, human beings, that 

7 have been hurt as a result of work they did for 

8 our country. And I think that fairness 

9 dictates that this petition should be granted. 

10 Thank you very much. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Senator Reid, 

12 and I know your schedule's -- I know your 

13 schedule is very full, and I don't know how 

14 long you'll be able to be with us, but we're 

15 going to hear from the petitioners immediately. 

16 I know that you know they're stories, but we 

17 welcome you to stay as long as you can, but if 

18 you have to leave, we understand as well. 

19 SENATOR REID: I could -- I know their stories 

20 very well. I could give them to you, and I 

21 think it's necessary -- want you to hear from 

22 them and feel free to ask them questions. They 

23 -- they are -- they are prepared to answer any 

24 question that any of you might have. This is 

25 not something that was drummed up by a trial 
56

1 lawyer. This is something's drummed up by 

2 people who have been -- I'm a trial lawyer, 

3 don't have anything against trial lawyers, but 

4 this is something that they -- they've done 

5 this themselves and they're here speaking for 

6 themselves. They don't need anyone 

7 representing them and I want, again, to tell 

8 you how much I appreciate your time and 

9 attention. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I was going to say something about 

11 trial lawyers, but discretion tells me I'd 

12 better -- better not. Thank you -- 

13 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- no, thank you very much. 

15 Again, let's all thank the Senator for being 

16 with us today. 

17 Now we'll hear from the petitioners, and let me 

18 begin with Laurie Hutton, who is the lead 

19 petitioner. Laurie, welcome. 

20 MS. HUTTON: Ladies and gentlemen of the 

21 Advisory Board, I'm honored to be here to speak 

22 on behalf of the Nevada Test Site workers, 

23 survivors and family members joining us today, 

24 and the thousands more who could not be here. 

25 My name is Laurie Hutton. I'm the lead 
57

1 petitioner for the Nevada Test Site Special 

2 Exposure Cohort petition, and the daughter of 

3 former Nevada Test Site worker Orel Triplett. 

4 My father worked at the Nevada Test Site from 

5 January 30th, 1962 to September 30th of 1970. 

6 He was diagnosed with lung cancer on August 

7 1st, 1975 and passed away November 20th, 1975, 

8 when I was only 16 years old. My father lost 

9 his life because of the service for his country 

10 during the Cold War. 

11 Many of the workers here today suffer from 

12 illnesses caused by their work at the Nevada 

13 Test Site. Many more are too sick to be here 

14 with us today. And let us not forget those 

15 who, like my father, passed away because of 

16 their service to our country. There are a lot 

17 of workers who feel that the government is 

18 waiting for them to die off so they don't have 

19 to pay their claims. Sadly, there's a lot of 

20 elderly widows who feel the same way. After 30 

21 years of empty promises and false hopes, can 

22 you really blame them? 

23 I'm here today to tell you that Nevada Test 

24 Site workers cannot and will not receive the 

25 time (sic), fair and adequate compensation that 
58

1 they deserve until we are granted Special 

2 Exposure Cohort status. 

3 As our petition explains, NIOSH relies on doses 

4 -- reconstruction process that is fundamentally 

5 flawed when applied to Nevada Test Site 

6 workers. There were many reasons why Peter, 

7 Paul and I believe that dose reconstructions 

8 cannot be done for the underground testing 

9 years, but I will not repeat them for you here 

10 today. 

11 Today I would like to focus on the most 

12 compelling and convincing issue, the badging 

13 issue. NIOSH refuses to admit that it was 

14 common for Nevada Test Site workers to take off 

15 their badges while working in the forward 

16 areas. They say it was not a widespread 

17 practice. Right now I would like to invite 

18 Nevada Test Site workers who are here today to 

19 please stand up if you took off your badges 

20 while working in the radiated (sic) areas. 

21 Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, these men 

22 and women are here to show that NIOSH is wrong. 

23 This was not only common, but was sanctified by 

24 supervisors. These men were told not to wear 

25 their badges. I urge you to hear their stories 
59

1 of these men. They will tell you that they -- 

2 it -- what really happened at the Nevada Test 

3 Site because NIOSH does not seem to have a 

4 clue. 

5 If you would like to be seated now at this 

6 time. 

7 Before I close I would like to bring an -- an 

8 important issue concerning the existing special 

9 -- special cohort. NIOSH has admitted it 

10 cannot perform dose reconstruction for workers 

11 employed at the Nevada Test Site before 1963, 

12 yet partial dose reconstructions are being done 

13 for workers who do not -- who did not work the 

14 250 working days of employment. This is wrong. 

15 Radiation does not take 250 days of exposure to 

16 cause harm. One significant exposure can be a 

17 death sentence. I ask the Board to rectify 

18 this injustice by including the Nevada Test 

19 Site workers in the expecial (sic) cohort -- 

20 expec-- the Special Exposure Cohort. 

21 Thank you again for the opportunity. I hope 

22 that you will do the right thing and grant us 

23 membership to the SEC. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And thank you, Laurie. And then -

25 - is Peter going next, or -- 
60

1 MR. STEDNICK: Paul Stednick. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- Paul -- Paul, you'll go next. 

3 Thank you. 

4 MR. STEDNICK: Okay. My name is Paul Stednick 

5 and I went to work at the Test Site in 1966 and 

6 left the Test Site in 1994. That's almost 28 

7 years out there, and I was in the drilling 

8 department for -- as a labor foreman for 26 

9 years of the work out there. And I don't know 

10 -- the people are familiar with the -- I know 

11 the Test Site workers are familiar with 

12 drilling. They drilled the holes and after 

13 they detonated the event, why, they'd send a 

14 drilling rig in there and get samples for the 

15 different labs, the two different labs. And 

16 after they was done with that, all this 

17 equipment went to decon -- had to decon it 

18 'cause it was all contaminated. The area was 

19 contaminated, fenced off and everything else. 

20 And as working on this special cohort, we was 

21 asked to get ahold of some of the people from 

22 the Test Site and find out some of their 

23 problems and, you know, what they're fighting 

24 for. And it's unbelievable some of the stories 

25 that they would tell you that actually 
61

1 happened. Anything that -- health-wise, that's 

2 their personal business. They give me a 

3 valuation of 47.17 on my dosimeter rating, and 

4 a lot of the other people that -- we've gone to 

5 other meetings all over, everybody is saying 

6 well, what good's it be to compensate -- I mean 

7 to have a 48 rating and you need 50 for medical 

8 help in that. 

9 And nowadays everybody needs their wife to work 

10 to make ends meet, and some of us is getting 

11 older as time goes and you want to make sure 

12 that your wife or your -- the little bit of 

13 money you're able to save is -- is -- don't 

14 have to spend it on medical help. I lost a 

15 right kidney from the Test Site. The reason I 

16 found out I was -- I had a bad kidney is 

17 because when I left the Test Site I did a more 

18 thorough medical examination and that's when I 

19 found it. And right now as -- I'm trying to 

20 keep this one kidney going where -- once it's 

21 gone, that's it, you know. 

22 But in the drilling department there's a lot of 

23 people that's been passed away that -- we 

24 worked up in the -- you know, you talked about 

25 asbestos. We had a mud additive that -- to 
62

1 keep the heat down and they called it 

2 Visbestos, and they used it up on the hill one 

3 time and they said all you need is a respirator 

4 -- paper respirator. And about every one of 

5 them mud plant operators and all my laborers 

6 has been passed away by now. But you know, 

7 it's just -- we put a lot of hours in. Like 

8 Senator Reid said, it's -- the Cold War was on 

9 and we put a lot of hours in there and you go 

10 out there and all them air samplers, they don't 

11 get everything in the air that's gone away. 

12 I was invited to listen to a NIOSH meeting one 

13 time and one guy was telling another -- not to 

14 mention any names -- telling another one well, 

15 once the shot's gone, the wor-- the dirt isn't 

16 disturbed. Well, that wasn't true. The -- 

17 around the location the dirt was disturbed, and 

18 not only from wind but they'd go into -- to 

19 another location, build another location, the 

20 traffic over it and everything else. And we 

21 took everything for granted that Rad-Safe was 

22 taking care of everything. Well, it's -- it's 

23 saying on my badge -- it's -- on my badge it's 

24 -- my reading come back and I had zero on them. 

25 How did they come up with 47.17 on my badge? 
63

1 And I know I've been in contaminated areas for 

2 26 years. It's all over out there. But a lot 

3 of these people here are -- they're just like a 

4 small fraction of the people that are asking 

5 for compensation for what they did out there. 

6 That's it. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Paul. Then 

8 we'll hear from Peter White. Peter? 

9 MR. WHITE: Hello. Can you hear me okay? 

10 Well, I never thought I'd have to set here in 

11 front of anybody. I thought it'd be taken care 

12 of. I thought when the program started that 

13 the rules were set up and that's the way they'd 

14 be followed. And just one rule after another. 

15 Pretty soon in your life you just get wore out. 

16 You worked out there and -- you worked out 

17 there and did a job, and you did it like you 

18 were supposed to. Then somebody asks, that's 

19 supposed to help to support you, meaning 

20 compensation or some other thing that they've 

21 come up with, and you take it as being true. 

22 Your whole life, that's how you're trained. 

23 Somebody says they're going to help you and do 

24 it, and it happens. And that's why I set here 

25 and say it's -- it's plumb wore me out, just -- 
64

1 I've had the badge issue -- it's just like one 

2 side can make up -- well, not really make up -- 

3 can have a set of documents. The other side 

4 can have a set of documents. But the people 

5 that went out there and busted their ass aren't 

6 going to sit down and figure out how they're 

7 going to work out a set of documents. Whatever 

8 happens to them, it just happens to them. 

9 Like Senator Reid said, the first day out 

10 there, burnt a badge up 'cause of the welding. 

11 To this day you still can't have a badge and 

12 weld 'cause it rips the badge up, sparks and 

13 stuff get on it. And you can't read the 

14 goddamned thing. So they told me I don't ever 

15 want to see you in here again getting a new 

16 badge or you won't be working here. Go find 

17 you another place to go to work. Well, I don't 

18 want to bring up politics, but in that era 

19 there weren't that many jobs. And what jobs 

20 you had, you hung onto them. 

21 I would just like when they do dose 

22 reconstruction -- I don't think they can do it, 

23 and I'm not a scientist, none whatsoever, but I 

24 don't want to be judged on somebody else's 

25 stuff. I want to be judged where I was when I 
65

1 worked in NTS general Area 6. And if anybody 

2 knows where that's at, that supports the whole 

3 Test Site except 51. I go all over, 

4 everyplace, and drive a truck to where you've 

5 got to be. So for me to try to remember every 

6 place that I was supposed to been, or had I 

7 been, I can't remember them all. So I think 

8 the SEC petition that we're trying to do is the 

9 fairer thing for everybody involved, just 

10 'cause of one reason -- one basic reason. And 

11 it may sound cynical, but I didn't get up in 

12 the morning to sound that way. The government 

13 can produce any documents that it wants to 

14 produce. An individual can't produce 

15 documents. They don't have the know power to 

16 really put them together. All I want is just 

17 the truth and just a way to fix the things 

18 that's happened to everybody and not be judged 

19 on a individual basis 'cause you're out there 

20 when somebody said do it, you did it. So 

21 that's just about all I got to say. I'll 

22 answer any of your questions, but it -- this 

23 whole thing's wore me out. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Thank you very much, 

25 Peter. I -- I do -- I have been told that on 
66

1 the phone Raili Glenn, who actually is a 

2 petitioner for Lawrence Livermore but who also 

3 has done work at the Test Site -- oh, she is a 

4 petitioner on this one as well, okay, I -- I 

5 had my information wrong, and so I -- I guess, 

6 Laurie, with your permission, we'll hear from 

7 her as well if that's -- yes, so Raili, are you 

8 still on the line? 

9 MS. GLENN: Yes, I am. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Please give us your 

11 comments. 

12 MS. GLENN: Okay. My name is Raili Glenn. My 

13 husband, David Glenn, after he graduated 

14 Washington State University, David got job at 

15 Lawrence Livermore National Lab, 1966, doing 

16 experimental and theoretical studies. David 

17 worked in (unintelligible) group. He often 

18 traveled to NTS, this site. He used lab plane 

19 called Amy for transportation back and forth. 

20 He was stationed at the Test Site for weeks at 

21 a time, depending on the particular test. 

22 David was (unintelligible) many nuclear tests 

23 at NTS. David worked in tunnels that were damp 

24 and water sweeping in. He had to get on his 

25 hands and knees to install entire 
67

1 (unintelligible) equipment, often way back in 

2 the tunnels where he had to install his 

3 instrument and remove them after the shot was 

4 over and -- and take the reading on the gauges. 

5 David dedicated his whole life to work in the 

6 United States government research to keep our 

7 country safe for another super power, 

8 especially in time of Cold War. Our nation 

9 space program would not be up in the scale like 

10 it is today if he did not do nuclear testing. 

11 They also benefited -- benefited from that. 

12 David worked in NTS most contaminated areas, 

13 like Yucca Valley, (unintelligible) Mesa, Area 

14 12, 16 and 20. He protected -- no protec-- no 

15 protective clothing was ever worn, and he often 

16 got only three hours of sleep at night, and he 

17 was on monthly salary and never -- and never 

18 was not -- monthly salary, and there was no 

19 overtime paid. If you calculate the hours he 

20 spent work, he end up working for minimum 

21 wages. 

22 Early '80s family members and scientists -- of 

23 scientists who spent lots of time in NTS are 

24 invited to visit Nevada Test Site. Lab plane 

25 Amy took us there. I was very excited to get 
68

1 opportunity to go there. Then our tour guide, 

2 [name redacted] (unintelligible), took us near 

3 the Sedan crater which re-- resulted over 100 

4 kiloton nuclear -- nuclear shot, [name 

5 redacted] told us that we must move on because 

6 if we stay here more than ten minutes we will 

7 get too much radiation. How about the men who 

8 worked there day after day? [name redacted] 

9 (unintelligible) also died of cancer at his 

10 early age, he was only 45 -- or 40, I'm not 

11 sure, because he spent lots of time at NTS. 

12 David had written publications on Danbury* 

13 event, and that initial shot down the Nevada 

14 Test Site and cut (unintelligible) and had 

15 6,000 curies of radioactive materials 

16 (unintelligible) atmosphere. The radia-- new -

17 - (unintelligible) include the fusion products 

18 associated with the detonation of the device. 

19 David did dyn-- dynamic and gas flow studies. 

20 They're conducted over the wide range of exotic 

21 high energy (unintelligible). For example, 

22 (unintelligible) 500 (unintelligible) was used 

23 close at the nuclear event and exposure 

24 potential resulted from the exposure in the 

25 area to the previous tests that had been done. 
69

1 After Cold War (unintelligible) group was 

2 called earth science department and last two 

3 years David dedicated his work in nuclear 

4 containment. 

5 David also had health physics degree, so he was 

6 aware that there was a danger of getting too 

7 much radiation contamination, but he loved his 

8 job and his country. Just like a soldier's 

9 going into the war, knowing there is a danger, 

10 but they also know if they get injured, 

11 government will pay their medical expenses. 

12 And if they die, their family get some 

13 benefits. David had to pay all his medical 

14 expenses, which totaled $177,278. Common sense 

15 tell me how can a person be working 25 years in 

16 (unintelligible) hours and environment and not 

17 get contaminated? At age 58 David was 

18 diagnosed cancer, (unintelligible). 

19 (Unintelligible) is a pre-leukemia 

20 (unintelligible) bone marrow disease, which is 

21 the same diagnostic (unintelligible) used NCI 

22 and DOL as leukemia, and Dave's cancer turned 

23 to leukemia. 

24 Fifteen years is a long time to be on the 

25 chemotherapy. It was hard for him and his 
70

1 family. He had to take every day oral 

2 chemotherapy (unintelligible), and also three 

3 times a week he went to get injections. That 

4 is not the way to spend your retirement, what's 

5 supposed to be your golden years. David was 

6 definitely suffering damages over the exposure 

7 radioactive rays. 

8 Thank you for letting -- listening, and I hope 

9 you can bring this case to closure. Do you 

10 have any questions? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much, Raili. 

12 Let me ask, Board members, if you have any 

13 questions at this time for any of the 

14 petitioners, either comments or questions for 

15 clarification. 

16 (No responses) 

17 Okay, apparently not. Thank you very much, 

18 petitioners. We -- we do have a report from 

19 our workgroup, but I think I'm going to have us 

20 take our comfort break here for 15 minutes and 

21 then we'll get the report from the workgroup. 

22 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:12 a.m. 

23 to 10:40 a.m.) 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We are going to reconvene if you'd 

25 please take your seats. 
71

1 (Pause) 

2 Is -- are the phone lines open? 

3 DR. BRANCHE: I'll ask. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: We're reconvening. Gen Roessler, 

5 are you on the line? 

6 DR. ROESSLER: I'm on the line. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Mark Griffon, are you on the line? 

8 (No response) 

9 Gen Roessler or Mark Griffon. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: Paul, this is Gen -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Gen, we hear you. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: Okay, thanks. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Now we're continuing 

14 on the subject of the Nevada Test Site SEC 

15 petition. We do have a Nevada Test Site 

16 workgroup, and I wanted to point out that this 

17 workgroup is charged with reviewing the site 

18 profile. This is not a workgroup that is 

19 addressing the petition per se, nor do they 

20 make a recommendation per se on the petition. 

21 They're going to give us their status as far as 

22 the site profile review is concerned. 

23 I also want to point out or remind the Board 

24 that at our last meeting we tasked our 

25 contractor, SC&A, to begin reviewing the SEC 
72

1 petition issues. We do not yet have a report 

2 from our contractor on that, so if -- is -- in 

3 the Chair's judgment, we are not in a position 

4 yet to take action on the SEC petition. 

5 However, we do want to hear from our Nevada 

6 Test Site workgroup, and then we will perhaps 

7 get some estimate from our contractor as to 

8 when we will have a report from them on the SEC 

9 petition issues. 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

11 (Unintelligible) 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes. I've been reminded, 

13 before we have this workgroup review, that Phil 

14 Schofield was in the middle of a comment. 

15 Phil, I don't know if you had completed it or 

16 if that thought is hanging mid-air, but let me 

17 give you an opportunity to complete, if you 

18 wish, the comment you were making -- if you can 

19 remember where you were. I don't... 

20 MR. SCHOFIELD: Just basically I want to say 

21 that I would like to see the same level 

22 documentation be available to the claimants so 

23 that they can corroborate whatever is in their 

24 file for their dose reconstruction. I mean if 

25 you'd seen what Mel put together, it was an 
73

1 incredible document, but how many of the 

2 claimants have access to that kind of 

3 information for their case. You know, it's a 

4 two-edged sword here. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. I 

6 think what -- then what you're saying, and I 

7 believe what Mr. Clawson was saying is that it 

8 appears that in many cases the information is 

9 there if -- if -- if we can dig for it 

10 sufficiently to -- to actually get more precise 

11 or more accurate individual dose 

12 reconstructions than we might otherwise have by 

13 the estimating procedure. 

14 The Chair might also note, although there may 

15 be exceptions to this, that in most cases -- in 

16 most cases the probability of causation, we 

17 know from experience, is higher where the 

18 estimates are made, as opposed to the actual 

19 numbers, because of the overestimating 

20 assumptions made. That -- that is not to say 

21 that we shouldn't try to get the actual data, 

22 but keep in mind that in -- in most cases we've 

23 seen that that tends to lower the assigned 

24 values to the individual and thus affects the 

25 probability of causation. 
74

1 Now let us hear from the workgroup chaired by 

2 Mr. Presley. 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: Could -- could I interrupt for 

4 just a second? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

6 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SEC PETITION

7 MR. ROWE: Hi, this is Frank Rowe with Senator 

8 Joe Lieberman's office. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes. 

10 MR. ROWE: I apologize for interrupting you, 

11 but based on the agenda I know that you may be 

12 running a little bit late and some of us are in 

13 line for Combustion Engineering. I was just 

14 wondering if that was going to be happening any 

15 time soon. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Hold on. 

17 (Pause) 

18 Actually we -- we have the flexibility to -- 

19 since we are behind schedule and you wanted to 

20 address the Combustion Engineering issue, if 

21 you would like to do that we'd be glad to do 

22 that now. 

23 MR. ROWE: That would be great because I know 

24 that one of the constituents that the Senator's 

25 been working with for, you know, more than five 
75

1 years, you know, is also on the line, so that 

2 would be helpful, but of course obviously -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we -- we indeed -- 

4 MR. ROWE: -- we don't want to set the dominos 

5 -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- will do that then. The Chair 

7 will exercise that prerogative and we will move 

8 immediately to this item on our agenda, at 

9 least -- and we will return to it later, as 

10 well, but -- because we not -- have not yet had 

11 the NIOSH report on Combustion Engineering. 

12 But we'd be pleased to hear from your office 

13 and receive the comments. 

14 MR. ROWE: Okay. Well, obviously I was more in 

15 the position of, you know, trying to find out, 

16 you know, the status of the petition, the 

17 review of the petition (unintelligible) your 

18 comments. I know Mr. Greenberg is on the 

19 phone, who has done a tremendous amount of 

20 research on this, and obviously it's been a 

21 very frustrating process, like so many other 

22 sites, trying to come up with the information 

23 needed to make a determination on these claims. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask you if you received a 

25 copy of the NIOSH petition evaluation report. 
76

1 MR. ROWE: I -- I have (unintelligible) review. 

2 Correct? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 

4 MR. ROWE: I'm sorry, I know it says evaluation 

5 report. I've got a few things open here. But 

6 that was the -- I apologize, I had that open 

7 just a second ago; too many -- but yes, I do, 

8 basically. And I wasn't sure what was going to 

9 be addressed at this... 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, as you'll note as you look 

11 at the bottom line of that report, we have a 

12 recommendation from NIOSH to include this group 

13 as -- as part of the Special Exposure Cohort. 

14 And the Board then would be acting on that 

15 recommendation. But if you wanted to delay 15 

16 or 20 minutes, we could have that report first. 

17 I'll leave that to you. 

18 MR. ROWE: That -- well, that will be fine. 

19 You know, delaying it would -- in other words, 

20 what I'm more interested in is the quality of 

21 the answer, not the speed. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then -- then we'll -- we'll 

23 just proceed. We're going to have a very brief 

24 report from the Nevada Test Site group, and 

25 then we'll move immediately to the Combustion 
77

1 Engineering report from NIOSH. 

2 MR. ROWE: Okay. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

4 MR. ROWE: All right, thank you. And I'm going 

5 to sign off for just about 10, 15 minutes and 

6 I'll be back on. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you very much. 

8 MR. GREENBERG: Yeah, I'll -- I'll do the same 

9 thing as well. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: We'll check with you when we come 

11 back to Combustion. 

12 MR. GREENBERG: Okay. Thank you. 

13 NTS (CONT’D)

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. Let's then hear 

15 from Mr. Presley on the Nevada Test Site site 

16 profile and the workgroup. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Again, I would like to thank the 

18 working group, which is made up of Phillip 

19 Schofield, Brad Clawson, Wanda Munn, Gen 

20 Roessler and myself. We've been meeting for 

21 about two years. Again I would like to say 

22 that this is a report on the NTS site profile. 

23 The NTS working group met face-to-face on 

24 December the 19th, 2007 and January the 7th, 

25 2008. December the 19th, 2007 the working 
78

1 group received all 25 -- or reviewed all 25 

2 comments with SC&A. All documents were closed, 

3 with the exception of comment 11 and 20. Also 

4 some comments listed as closed were noted as 

5 having outstanding data that the working group 

6 will be reviewing upon completion and making a 

7 final closing decision on the comment or open 

8 the comment for further review, either by the 

9 working group or sending the document in 

10 question to SC&A for their review and comment. 

11 On January the 7th, 2008 the working group met 

12 in Las Vegas in a late-night meeting to discuss 

13 the review and findings of comment 11 and 20. 

14 Comment 11 has to do with the correction 

15 factors for external environmental dose due to 

16 geometry of the organ related to the location 

17 of the film badge, was discussed at length, 

18 with one outstanding issue still unresolved. 

19 This item is not just an NTS site profile 

20 issue, but is considered to be an issue related 

21 to more than one or two sites. This issue will 

22 be discussed by SC&A and NIOSH, and agreements 

23 will be worked out and the issue will again be 

24 submitted to the working group for approval or 

25 sent back for more work. 
79

1 Comment 20 had to do with the internal non-use 

2 of film badges. This issue was also discussed 

3 at length, with the finding resolved to the 

4 satisfaction of NIOSH and SC&A. This issue has 

5 been closed. 

6 Hold on just a second, please. 

7 (Pause) 

8 What I'd like to do now is go through the 

9 comments, each one of them. 

10 Comment one was revised and closed. 

11 Comment two has been revised; verbiage has been 

12 added and has been closed. 

13 Comment three, we are waiting on TBD revision 

14 5.01 for review by the working group, and after 

15 we review it we will either say that this is 

16 fine or we will send it back to our technical 

17 contractor for review. 

18 Item four has been closed. This wording will 

19 be changed. The revision will be reviewed by 

20 the working group. 

21 Item five through seven, item 15 and 23, were 

22 all grouped together and they have been closed. 

23 Item eight, nine and ten have been grouped 

24 together and closed. The working group will 

25 review NTS revis-- NTS revision 6, revision 
80

1 .01, PC 1, Section 6.301 when it comes out, and 

2 we will make our final approval at that time on 

3 this item -- on these three items. 

4 Item 11 is still open. 

5 Item 12 through 19 have been closed. 

6 Item 20 was closed. 

7 Item 21, 22 have been closed. 

8 Item 24, we have reviewed and closed this item, 

9 but the working group is still working -- 

10 waiting on this NTS-5, Revision 01, Section 

11 5.6.3.2 for our review. We will be reviewing 

12 this for completeness and we'll make our 

13 statement when this is out. 

14 Item 25 has been reviewed and closed, and we 

15 have this statement: 

16 We as a working group say that the comments or 

17 issues that have been brought before us which 

18 appear in the site profile are closed. 

19 However, we as a working group feel that if new 

20 issues arise or are shown to be incorrect, we 

21 will act to request a review by our technical 

22 contractor to assist the informa-- or to assess 

23 the information appropriately. This working 

24 group realizes that all site profiles are 

25 living documents and subject to change. As new 
81

1 data or information is found, the site profile 

2 will be revised and this information will be 

3 scrutinized for completeness, and we will 

4 hopefully have a meeting to discuss the open 

5 issues and to discuss our findings on the 

6 revisions of these documents before the April 

7 meeting -- the face-to-face meeting. 

8 Are there any questions? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Melius. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I don't have any questions 

11 for Bob's report but I do have a question as to 

12 how are we -- how are we going to proceed on 

13 the SEC if -- is Bob's workgroup going to 

14 handle that or are we going to appoint a new 

15 workgroup? What's our plans for that? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this we can actually 

17 determine here today. We tasked SC&A -- Lew, 

18 can -- can you help me, was it at our last 

19 meeting -- to -- to begin evaluation of the 

20 SEC-related issues, and I'm looking to see if 

21 John Mauro -- oh, John, there you are. Can you 

22 tell us very quickly where SC&A stands on -- on 

23 that, and then -- 

24 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) take the witness 

25 (unintelligible) -- 
82

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, there you are. 

2 DR. MAURO: As you know, we have completed a 

3 lot of work along the lines of the site 

4 profile, many of which have a counterpart on 

5 the SEC, so from that perspective we've made a 

6 lot of progress because there's overlap. The 

7 area -- but our actual work on the SE-- the SEC 

8 petition acti-- where it is right now, a team 

9 of people have reviewed the petition, have 

10 reviewed the evaluation report. We have 

11 prepared a matrix identifying all of the issues 

12 and the inter-relationships between the -- the 

13 petition, the current version of the site 

14 profile which has been updated, and the 

15 evaluation report. And so we're in a position 

16 where now we've sort of gotten our arms around 

17 what are the SEC issues that are at play. 

18 The one area that has been receiving the most 

19 attention over the recent two or three weeks 

20 has -- has overlap in both areas, and that has 

21 to do with the practice of leaving the badges 

22 behind. So I would say -- but -- so -- where 

23 we are now, we're still very much in the early 

24 stages 'cause we were only authorized 

25 relatively recently, but I do believe we've got 
83

1 our arms around the -- the superstructure of 

2 where the issues are. The framework has 

3 developed, work has begun, and most -- the most 

4 attention, though, has been placed on this what 

5 we consider to be one of the more important 

6 issues, the -- the film badge issue. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Now it appears to the Chair that 

8 the existing workgroup is most up to speed on 

9 the issues, having looked at the site profile 

10 in great detail and since there does appear to 

11 be a lot of overlap between the site profile 

12 issues and the SEC issues. So my inclination 

13 would be to ask the workgroup to address the 

14 site profile (sic) issues as well, but I'm 

15 certainly open to other suggestions if the -- 

16 if the members of the Board believe we should 

17 go in a different direction, but keeping in 

18 mind that we have a group of people who have 

19 looked in great detail at the -- this -- issues 

20 on this site. Brad, you have a comment? Then 

21 Dr. Melius -- 

22 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: No, Brad? 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, I -- I think it's a good 

25 idea to be able to keep the working group 
84

1 continuing on because the Nevada Test Site is a 

2 very, very complicated issue, as all of us on 

3 the working group know. 

4 What I wanted to speak on a little bit, and I'm 

5 just going to take a minute with -- I was asked 

6 earlier where was I going with -- with my 

7 questioning attitude or so forth like that. 

8 The point that I want to bring up is that I 

9 want to be assured that we are using all 

10 avenues possible that NIOSH and everyone -- our 

11 subcontractors and everybody are getting all 

12 the information that they're able to get 

13 because the film badge is a big issue. Billy 

14 Smith -- I believe his last name's Smith -- he 

15 made the comment to us about the badges. He 

16 says out of over a million badges only one 

17 percent of the badges showed any kind of 

18 radiation. Well, you know what? That's great. 

19 That may be showing something right there, that 

20 these badges were being left outside, that out 

21 of a million badges and what went on out there, 

22 there's -- there's got to be able to be more. 

23 And I just want to be able to be assured that 

24 we are using all avenues, all possibilities to 

25 be able to get the actual information that is 
85

1 deserved to these people. 

2 And -- and I also want to make a comment about 

3 DOE. Now all of us that work in the industry 

4 and deal with the federal government understand 

5 -- you know what? We -- we do a lot of 

6 paperwork and it's unbelievable to me that we 

7 have so much missing data. In my industry as a 

8 nuclear fuel handler, I can tell you where the 

9 ore was mined for the fuel element that is 

10 coming in to me. When a element comes in to 

11 me, I have a complete box of information on 

12 where it's been, what it's done, and it's -- 

13 it's kind of a travesty to me to the -- the 

14 people that are working on this, the 

15 information is not as relative and available 

16 for them. 

17 We're expecting widows of 80 years old or 70 or 

18 whatever like that to be able to deal with 

19 trying to get information that their families 

20 could not even discuss because of 

21 classification. These people took this that 

22 they were at war. The secrecy and importance 

23 of this was national security, and they never 

24 broke that trust. They didn't tell their 

25 family a lot of things. 
86

1 We hear stories of people coming home and 

2 undressing out in the garage because they did 

3 not want their children around this. I want to 

4 ask the DOE, and I want to publicly announce 

5 this -- DOE should be helping these people. We 

6 had a very good person, Libby White, and I 

7 don't know where has gone from here. I know we 

8 have Patricia, but they should be getting up 

9 here and they should be able to try to help 

10 these people be able to get information. We 

11 are -- it -- it -- it's wrong. These people 

12 don't have the access, they don't have the -- 

13 the processes and everything else like that, 

14 and DOE Nevada or DOE Washington should be able 

15 to be helping these people so that they can go 

16 through this data, be able to retrieve this 

17 information for them and be able to help them 

18 get to their claim because one of the worst 

19 things is the mystery of this whole thing. And 

20 I hope that DOE will listen and will help these 

21 people go forth with this. And I hope as a 

22 Board, and you know as well as I do that I'm 

23 going to push this issue even more, they get 

24 the help from DOE. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Phil, and 
87

1 then Robert. 

2 MR. SCHOFIELD: I'd like to just add one thing 

3 to what Brad said, and a lot of personnel would 

4 be helped if the current reports 5003(a) by 

5 1003(b) reports were made available to 

6 claimants or those who are helping them, 

7 because many times that is the only 

8 documentation some of these people will have of 

9 things that happened to them that don't 

10 necessarily show up on their badge, or maybe 

11 they were doing a job where they weren't 

12 supposed to be wearing a badge, or wasn't told 

13 not to wear a badge, but they say well, this 

14 incident happened. We came out of there 

15 completely crapped up -- sorry, for the 

16 language, but that's what most people refer to 

17 it as. And as long as those reports are 

18 classified and not released by DOE, a great 

19 source of information is being hidden from 

20 claimants. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Robert? A comment 

22 first from -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: I would just -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- from Christine. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: -- encourage you, Mr. Schofield 
88

1 and Mr. Clawson, when the DOE representatives 

2 are here later on today, you can repeat your 

3 comments at that time. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: And -- and I -- I will, and I 

5 appreciate that. I didn't realize she wasn't 

6 here, so... 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Robert? 

8 MR. PRESLEY: At this time I -- I didn't 

9 realize that DOE was not here and I will -- I 

10 will hold my comments till DOE 'cause I want 

11 them to hear it. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. So -- Wanda, you 

13 have a comment. 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: Listening to the -- to the NTS 

15 hearing. 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes, I -- I do have a couple of 

17 comments. Is the mike working? Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, the microphone is working, 

19 but for -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Stay close to it. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: -- those individuals who are on 

22 the phone, if you could please mute your phones 

23 when you're not speaking, it will help all of 

24 us. Thank you. 

25 MS. MUNN: I'm really sorry that the room is 
89

1 not as full as it was before our break. 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: It must be one of the -- 

3 MS. MUNN: I'm certainly glad to see that Mr. 

4 Funk is still here and that some of the other 

5 petitioners are. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, hold on a second. 

7 MS. MUNN: I don't think that was the 

8 petitioners. 

9 UNIDENTIFIED: No. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: If the individuals -- if the 

11 individuals who are participating by phone 

12 would please mute your phones we would very 

13 much appreciate it. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda thought that was one of 

15 those laughter tracks or those cheering tracks 

16 for what you're saying, but I think it was -- 

17 MS. MUNN: I knew it was not for me. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Proceed. Are all the phones muted 

19 that are on line? Okay, thank you. 

20 MS. MUNN: You know, we have an entertainment 

21 channel that likes to say they know drama, and 

22 I'm here to tell you, they don't know drama 

23 until they've sat through one of these meetings 

24 and listened to petitioners and studied the 

25 information that's available to us and that's 
90

1 available to you. They don't know what drama 

2 is. This is real drama, where we are right 

3 now. There are no script writers here. We 

4 don't give a hang who's on strike in the 

5 writers' union right now because this is not 

6 scripted material. This is real life, and it's 

7 your real life and it's our real life. 

8 Those of us who work in this industry know the 

9 debt of gratitude that we owe to our fellow 

10 workers on every site in this country, and 

11 especially to the workers at NTS site. We know 

12 that. We understand what you've done. We also 

13 understand your frustration with what has been 

14 referred to here so many times as "the 

15 government". I just feel that it's necessary 

16 to remind us all once in a while that the 

17 government is just a group of people who have a 

18 job to do and we encounter people with a 

19 bureaucratic mindset that sometimes make it 

20 difficult to communicate with them, and 

21 sometimes make it very difficult for us to get 

22 the information that we want or the information 

23 that we need. And I -- we understand the 

24 frustration that's involved here. 

25 We want you to know that you are appreciated. 
91

1 You are appreciated enormously, and -- 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

3 MS. MUNN: -- one of the things that's not 

4 discussed often when we talk here is -- is what 

5 you have given us. You've not given us just 

6 the ability to say we won the Cold War. That 

7 part of it is over. What you've also given us 

8 is information, scientific information that 

9 could not have been gotten any other way. Now 

10 you -- you did that for us. The petitioners, 

11 the people who worked on this site, provided 

12 for our nation basic ground-level information 

13 about radiation and about how it works, what 

14 weapons were capable of providing and how much 

15 it provided. When we talk about radiation, we 

16 can't just talk about how many counts there 

17 were or what the levels were. We need to know 

18 what kind of material was involved and we need 

19 to know the energies of those things. That's 

20 the kind of information that your work has 

21 provided, so that we know exactly the worst 

22 that could have been there. You gave us the 

23 information for that. That's what all that 

24 drilling back was about, was to bring out the 

25 samples so that we knew exactly what was there. 
92

1 Now I don't know it; I haven't seen the record. 

2 You don't know it; you haven't seen the record. 

3 But it's known, and it is known in a way that 

4 makes it possible for the people who work with 

5 the information to be able to determine what is 

6 the worst exposure you could have gotten when 

7 we can't determine what you exactly got because 

8 we can't tell exactly where all you were at 

9 what time. Nevertheless, the information 

10 that's there makes it possible to determine the 

11 worst you possibly could have gotten, and 

12 that's the instruction that's been given to our 

13 dose reconstructors at NIOSH. If you can't 

14 determine the exact person -- and as Brad says, 

15 everybody wants to know what's my dose exactly. 

16 If that can't be done for whatever reason, 

17 because you had the kind of supervisor that you 

18 shouldn't have had, who did not protect you the 

19 way you should have been protected and the way 

20 the people who were running the show really 

21 wanted you to be protected, if that happened to 

22 you, that doesn't change the fact there's 

23 information that tells us what's the worst that 

24 could have happened when you were there in that 

25 tunnel. 
93

1 So I -- I guess I just want to thank you again 

2 personally, and I want you to know when we make 

3 the decisions that we make on this Board, we 

4 try to do it with the best science that we can. 

5 When we have the information that can give us 

6 what we call an upper bound, the worst case 

7 that can happen, then that's our fallback 

8 position. If all else fails, we have that to 

9 work on. I want you to know that there are 

10 people who have been -- who have -- have gone 

11 through the dose reconstruction process from 

12 NTS and they have been judged to be 

13 compensated. Over $84 million dollars has been 

14 paid out for people on this site alone. So I 

15 can't let this -- this discussion about the 

16 site go without again thanking you for what 

17 you've done and reminding you that all of us 

18 who have anything to do with nuclear 

19 technology, whether it's weapons technology or 

20 whether it's beneficial medical uses or power 

21 production, those of us who work with radiation 

22 all the time understand your concern and we are 

23 not ignoring what you're saying. I don't 

24 believe any of us distrust what you say. We 

25 know you bring us information as you see it and 
94

1 as you know it. I just want you to know that 

2 we're doing the best we can to make a fair and 

3 scientifically defensible decision when we make 

4 it. Thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Wanda. Well 

6 said. Other comments? 

7 (No responses) 

8 Okay. Again I'll repeat, in a sense, the Chair 

9 is -- is recommending that we assign the 

10 workgroup the responsibility of following up 

11 with our contractor on the SEC-related issues. 

12 Any objection to that on the part of the Board 

13 members, and is the workgroup willing to do 

14 that? Mr. Presley? 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Let me make one -- let me make 

16 one comment. As you all know, I have to have 

17 some surgery March the 4th, and will probably 

18 be down for four to six weeks. I just want to 

19 make sure that you understand that I will not 

20 be at the next meeting. I will be there by 

21 telephone, but if you put me as chairman of 

22 this, I want to -- I want to make sure that 

23 everybody understands that. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And Robert, I think you as chair 

25 have the prerogative of assigning one of your 
95

1 workgroup members to serve as a chair pro tem 

2 if needed, so -- any objections? If I hear 

3 none, I'm going to proceed on that basis, to -- 

4 to having the workgroup have this 

5 responsibility. Wanda? 

6 MS. MUNN: You may want to check with Dr. 

7 Roessler. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler, yes? 

9 DR. ROESSLER: I am on the line and I'm willing 

10 to continue. I'm also going to be having 

11 surgery, but I don't think it's going to put me 

12 out very long, so yes, I'm definitely 

13 interested in continuing. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, are any other 

15 members of the workgroup having surgery? Okay, 

16 we're going to have -- we still have some that 

17 are still mobile and -- okay, thank you. We'll 

18 proceed on that basis. 

19 Now we want to move immediately to the 

20 Combustion Engin-- well, let me make one other 

21 comment. 

22 So on behalf -- or for the local folks here, 

23 the implication of this is that the Board will 

24 not take action today on the NIOSH 

25 recommendation for SEC -- or their 
96

1 recommendation is that SEC status not be 

2 granted for this workgroup (sic) because they 

3 believe they can reconstruct dose. The Board 

4 will not take action on that recommendation 

5 today. That will be delayed until we hear from 

6 our contractor and the workgroup has an 

7 opportunity to evaluate the SEC-related issues 

8 and -- and come to us with a recommendation. 

9 They have indicated that they're hopeful they 

10 can complete that by the time of our next face11 to-face meeting, which will be in April and 

12 will take place in Amarillo, Texas 'cause we'll 

13 be visiting the Pantex area at that time, and I 

14 don't know that there's necessarily a guarantee 

15 that they will be ready at that time but that's 

16 at least a -- an operating goal. So I want to 

17 make sure the local folks are aware. 

18 DR. WADE: If history is any teacher, this 

19 process sometimes takes quite a bit of time so 

20 I wouldn't create any heightened expectation 

21 that this will be closed at the next meeting. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I say that's a kind of a target, 

23 but not a guarantee. Thank you very much. 

24 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING (CONT’D)

25 So let's move on then to Combustion 
97

1 Engineering, and LaVon Rutherford is going to 

2 present the material from Combustion. And then 

3 we also will have an opportunity to hear from 

4 the petitioners, but I want to make sure that -

5 - that they are back on the line. 

6 MR. GREENBERG: Yeah, this is Dan Greenberg. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Dan, you're back on the line 

8 -- and anyone else? Was someone there from 

9 Lieberman -- Senator Lieberman's office as 

10 well? Or was it -- Daniel, were you the only 

11 one on the line earlier? 

12 MR. GREENBERG: Frank Rowe from Lieberman's 

13 office was going to join us. He may have just 

14 gotten caught up in a phone call. 

15 MR. ROWE: Oh, hi, this is Frank Rowe again. I 

16 apologize (unintelligible) -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: It sounds like Frank is on the 

18 line. Frank, are you there? 

19 MR. ROWE: I am here and I -- I meant to hit 

20 the mute button; I hung up instead, so -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then -- 

22 MR. ROWE: -- operator error. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're going to proceed then 

24 with the report from NIOSH on the Combustion 

25 Engineering SEC petition, so -- 
98

1 MR. ROWE: Thank you. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- this is LaVon Rutherford from 

3 NIOSH. 

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

6 -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: -- so that everyone can hear 

9 LaVon's (on microphone) presentation, if you 

10 could please mute your phones. And for those 

11 of you who are in the room, if you could please 

12 turn your phones off or silence them. Thank 

13 you. 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Again, thank you, Dr. Ziemer 

15 and the Board, for giving me this opportunity 

16 to speak on behalf of NIOSH and our evaluation 

17 of Combustion Engineering SEC petition. 

18 Combustion Engineering SEC petition was 

19 submitted to NIOSH because NIOSH determined a 

20 dose reconstruction was not feasible for a 

21 given claimant. They submitted their petition 

22 requesting SEC status. We used that initial 

23 petitioner's claim as our initial boundaries. 

24 We expanded the boundaries of our -- during our 

25 evaluation process to determine the proper 
99

1 class that -- after completing the evaluation. 

2 Most of you know -- had seen this before. We 

3 have a two-pronged test. We evaluate is it 

4 feasible to reconstruct the dose with 

5 sufficient accuracy for a given class. Once we 

6 made that determination, if we determine it is 

7 feasible, then we do not go to the next step. 

8 If we determine it's not feasible, then we have 

9 to determine health endangerment -- if there's 

10 a reasonable likelihood there's health 

11 endangerment. 

12 A little background on Combustion Engineering. 

13 Combustion Engineering is located in Windsor, 

14 Connecticut, which is near Hartford. It was a 

15 contractor for the Atomic Energy Commission 

16 starting in the late 1940s -- or in the 1940s. 

17 Early work that was done for the Atomic Energy 

18 Commission was non-radiological work that was 

19 not covered -- or is not considered cover if 

20 you -- covered. If you go to the DOE facility 

21 database, the activities that were conducted at 

22 that time were considered non-nuclear or not 

23 towards the -- not considered to fit within 

24 this EEOICPA program. 

25 Radiological -- actual covered activities for 
100

1 EEOICPA began in 1965. Those activities 

2 covered -- covered activities continued until 

3 1972. 

4 The processes relevant to the class -- as most 

5 of you know, Combustion Engineering was an 

6 Atomic Weapons Employer, therefore we -- we 

7 have to be able to reconstruct the covered 

8 exposure, but we also have to be able to 

9 reconstruct any exposures that occurred on that 

10 site at that time, whether they were -- if 

11 they're included within that boundaries -- the 

12 covered site boundaries. 

13 At that time at Combustion Engineering there 

14 was research and development of nuclear fuel, 

15 there was fabrication of nuclear fuel from 

16 high-enriched uranium, construction of naval 

17 reactor prototypes, fabrication of low-enriched 

18 uranium assemblies, and shipping of uranium to 

19 Fernald. The sources relevant to the class are 

20 uranium compounds from fuel fabrication, 

21 production and shipping activities, research 

22 and development. 

23 We also had indication from FUSRAP surveys that 

24 were taken and from other documents cobalt-60 -

25 - there may have been cobalt-60 research and 
101

1 development, which is consistent with what you 

2 would expect. Cobalt-60 is, you know, the crud 

3 from reactors. It's present and they may have 

4 been doing studies because they wor-- they did 

5 have re-- prototype facilities for the naval -- 

6 for the Navy at that time. 

7 During our process to determine if dose 

8 reconstruction was feasible, we did a number of 

9 data captures. There was formal requests to 

10 the current operator. We went to the Nuclear 

11 Regulatory Commission; DOE Germantown, which 

12 archives; National Archives; OSTI, which is 

13 Office of Scientific and Technical Information. 

14 We had interviews and we also did internet 

15 searches. 

16 Dose -- or actually data available for dose 

17 reconstruction -- our internal monitoring data, 

18 we had two uranium bioassay samples from a 

19 single individual that were less than the 

20 detection limits. 

21 We had no workplace breathing zone or general 

22 area monitoring data for the covered period. 

23 We have a 1964 report that indicates that 

24 breathing zone -- or that air sampling was 

25 taking place. And they actually had a annual 
102

1 average within that 1964 report, prior to the 

2 covered period that we're talking about, that -

3 - but there is no actual individual sample 

4 data. There's no inf-- no data that indicates 

5 how -- how air sampling was performed or where 

6 it was performed. And again, we have no data. 

7 We have ventil-- ventilation effluents from the 

8 1964 report as well. However, we have no 

9 samples from 1965 to 1972. 

10 Obviously our criteria -- we look at bioassay 

11 data first. You know, we want that urine 

12 sampling, we want the whole body counting, 

13 things like that first. After that we look at 

14 air data, or follow that up with source term 

15 information. 

16 We looked for source term information for the 

17 different activities that were occurring at 

18 Combustion Engineering during the covered 

19 period. We were able to uncover the actual 

20 shipping data for the uranium shipments to -- 

21 did you lose me? -- for the uranium shipments 

22 to Fernald. 

23 We -- however, we have no source term data for 

24 the other activities that were conducted at 

25 Combustion Engineering. 
103

1 Nor do we have detailed proc-- typically when 

2 you go to the source term level of hierarchy 

3 you also have to get good process description 

4 to support -- to -- to develop an exposure 

5 model. We have no detailed process 

6 descriptions for the activities conducted at 

7 Combustion Engineering. 

8 We do have some good FUSRAP data if you looked 

9 at the files -- the Board looked at the files 

10 that were -- that we put on the Board's drive. 

11 The FUSRAP data looks -- if you look at it you 

12 will find there are maps in there that identify 

13 where activities were conducted, and -- and it 

14 identifies -- you can get a general layout of, 

15 you know, locker rooms, fuel fabrication, and 

16 you also find out that a lot of the A-- the AEC 

17 work and the commercial work was conducted -- 

18 that could be conducted in the same buildings. 

19 External monitoring data, we have external 

20 monitoring data for four claimants. Two of the 

21 claimants had monthly results and the other two 

22 had annual summaries. And you know, from that 

23 external data that we do have, and there is a -

24 - a folder, again, on the Board's folder. It's 

25 called "monitoring data" that shows you the 
104

1 data that we do have. And from that -- the 

2 little data that we do have, you can see that 

3 there was a -- a -- a external exposure 

4 potential. We had individuals with five rem, 

5 13 rem exposures, so... 

6 However, NIOSH has been unable to cover any 

7 radiation surveys for the covered time period. 

8 Again, we have FUSRAP data from when they had 

9 stopped and they prepared for D&D that has -- 

10 has both internal/external monitoring data, but 

11 we have nothing during the covered period. 

12 And as indicated previously, we have no source 

13 term data -- information for Combustion 

14 Engineering except for the shipments of uranium 

15 to Fernald. 

16 A little overview. We were unable to obtain 

17 sufficient information to complete dose 

18 reconstruction for an existing claim. From 

19 that, as I said earlier, we have to evaluate 

20 what are the real boundaries of the class, what 

21 -- we have this petitioner that we can't 

22 reconstruct his dose. At what -- you know, 

23 when did the -- our inability to reconstruct 

24 dose start and when did it finish, so we looked 

25 at that. 
105

1 On October 5th, 2007 a claimant was notified 

2 dose reconstruction was not going to be 

3 feasible and we gave them a Form A to submit 

4 for a Special Exposure Cohort petition. The 

5 petition was submitted on October 9th. 

6 Our conclusions -- feasibility conclusions, 

7 NIOSH lacks monitoring data, process or source 

8 term information sufficient to estimate 

9 external and internal radiation doses for 

10 Combustion Engineering employees for the period 

11 of January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972. 

12 Again, that's the entire covered period. 

13 NIOSH believes it has sufficient information to 

14 estimate the external dose from medical X-rays. 

15 Health endangerment, NIOSH determine it's not 

16 feasible to reconstruct dose, and that evidence 

17 indicates that workers in the class may have 

18 accumulated intakes of uranium and other 

19 radionuclides during the covered period. 

20 Our determination is that we cannot reconstruct 

21 all doses from uranium, other radionuclides -- 

22 internal doses -- or external doses from beta23 gamma and neutron. However, we will use the 

24 data that we do have for individuals. If there 

25 are individuals that -- you know, the two 
106

1 individ-- the four individuals that we have 

2 external monitoring data that are within the 

3 class period, we will use their external 

4 monitoring data for partial dose 

5 reconstructions if they do not meet the other 

6 criteria for SEC. And again, we will use any 

7 individual monitoring data that we uncover from 

8 this point on to reconstruct partial doses for 

9 -- for claimants that do not fall into the SEC. 

10 Our -- our proposed class definition -- and I 

11 am -- we have had some lessons learned and 

12 discussions with Department of Labor over some 

13 of these past SECs with just -- just in the 

14 last day that I am going to make a slight 

15 recommendation to change this class definition 

16 that we are proposing. We had proposed all 

17 Atomic Weapons Employees who were monitored, or 

18 should have been monitored, for exposure to 

19 ionizing radiation while working at Combustion 

20 Engineering site -- and you can read the rest 

21 of that. 

22 The monitored or should have been monitored in 

23 this evaluation is for all members on site 

24 should have been monored -- monitored, was our 

25 determination. We -- we are going to change it 
107

1 to be consistent with the Mound recommendation, 

2 which is going to say all Atomic Weapons 

3 Employees who worked at Combustion Engineering 

4 site, and remove the monitoring or should have 

5 been monitoring, so that is my suggestion at 

6 this time. 

7 Our recommendation again, for January 1, 1965 

8 through December 31st, 1972, NIOSH finds 

9 radiation dose estimates cannot be 

10 reconstructed for compensation purposes. 

11 And that's it. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, LaVon. I'm 

13 going to take a minute and see if the Board has 

14 questions, and let me start with one, and we 

15 have a couple of others, it appears. 

16 Somewhere the FUSRAP program, which is the 

17 remediation program, was able to uncover 

18 information about where things took place. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And I'm wondering, since there's 

21 apparently -- you were not successful in 

22 characterizing this site very well. 

23 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Were there -- were there any 

25 references or reports that FUSRAP used that 
108

1 were not available to you? Or -- you see what 

2 I'm getting at? 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, I know what you're 

4 getting at. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I mean how did they -- 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- determine where things took 

8 place -- 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Uh-huh. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- in this darth (sic) of -- or 

11 this absence of information? 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, I -- I don't know. 

13 I know that we exhausted a lot of resources 

14 looking for information by going -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in the FUSRAP reports 

16 themselves, did they reference any documents 

17 that were not available to you; that's sort of 

18 what I'm asking. 'Cause I was a little 

19 surprised to learn that they were able to at 

20 least identify buildings where things took 

21 place. That means there had to be some -- 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- references to some kind of 

24 processes. 

25 MR. RUTHERFORD: I know I -- me personally, I 
109

1 did not go down each and every one. And you've 

2 also got to remember the FUSRAP study was done 

3 in what, '96 -- or '94 to '98, and that a lot 

4 of the information in FUSRAP was also on 

5 processes that occurred in 1972 to 1994, so the 

6 -- if you look at what was in -- you know, in 

7 the report, there's a lot of generalities in 

8 the FUSRAP report when you look at AEC work and 

9 the work in that '65 to '72 period. There is 

10 no details at all, it's very general. And the 

11 work didn't stop in '72. The work continued -- 

12 the fuel fabrication continued, that type of 

13 work. So the documentation in support of those 

14 activities would have easily been -- you know, 

15 would have had a greater chance of being 

16 available. 

17 Now I did not go through each one of the FUSRAP 

18 references and verify that we had all them 

19 documents, or -- and -- and that's something I 

20 could have asked our contractor to go back and 

21 take a look and see how many of those we -- we 

22 have -- you know, how many -- or -- or are 

23 those -- or are there many of those that we 

24 don't have, and based on their title could -- 

25 would they be of any relevance to us. 
110

1 DR. ZIEMER: This is kind of the reverse 

2 situation of what we often have -- 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- where NIOSH says we can 

5 reconstruct dose and the Board says well, can 

6 you really. Here you say you can't. 

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: And I think we also have to say 

9 well, can you really not. 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Uh-huh. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Is there really no information out 

12 there, so that's the nature of my question. 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Let's hear from Brad and then from 

15 Jim. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: LaVon, one of my questions was -- 

17 because I am on the -- Chair for the Fernald 

18 group, what type of uranium product was shipped 

19 to -- to Fernald? Do we -- do we have any 

20 information on that? 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we actually have the 

22 enrichments, the actual gram amounts and Mark 

23 was the one -- Mark Rolfes was the one who gave 

24 me that information, and it's all on a database 

25 that's a database that Mark has. And it was 
111

1 low-enriched -- if I remember correctly, and 

2 Mark's not in the room right now, but -- it's 

3 in the report, but I believe it was low4 enriched uranium, roughly two percent if I 

5 remember correctly. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. I -- I just -- you 

7 understand why that was interesting to me. 

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. 

9 MR. CLAWSON: Thank you. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have a comment, then a 

11 question. The comment pertains to -- to your 

12 comments, Paul, and -- again, I was also 

13 surprised that there was so little information 

14 available on -- on the site 'cause seemed to me 

15 maybe it -- what I'm familiar with is more 

16 recent -- is that there was, though -- though I 

17 will say that in the absence of access to good 

18 monitoring data -- it's not a question of just 

19 having any information, it's having sufficient 

20 to be able -- 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly. 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- to put together a -- an 

23 estimate of the site and, much as we found with 

24 Lawrence Livermore, where some ways was -- you 

25 know, was lots of information but not 
112

1 sufficient to sort of describe operations and 

2 procedures enough to be able to estimate the -- 

3 the doses and -- and so forth, but I -- I -- 

4 again, I think it's something we need to -- to 

5 try to be comfortable with before we can ac-- 

6 accept the recommendation. 

7 My question's more of a general question, and I 

8 actually meant to ask it for the Lawrence 

9 Livermore situation also, but is -- is it your 

10 policy in situations where there is some 

11 personal monitoring data available for 

12 individuals who are in a SEC but are not 

13 eligible 'cause usually the type of cancer -- 

14 to use the available personal monitoring 'cause 

15 same -- same issue came up there. I was 

16 thinking that -- where there's -- was a fair 

17 amount of monitoring on some individuals -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think we've had that 

19 before, but Larry, if you would, for the 

20 record. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that is our policy, if the 

23 data has no -- if the data integrity is 

24 established, it's not corrupt in any sense, 

25 yes, we would use that for partial dose 
113

1 reconstructions. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Tha-- I just -- 

3 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

4 Mallinckrodt way back when (unintelligible) one 

5 of the reasons for the recommendation was that 

6 the data (unintelligible). 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. No, no -- no, no, it's not 

8 a question of whether it's suffi-- being 

9 satisfied it's not -- we know it's not 

10 sufficient for individual dose reconstruction, 

11 but it may be helpful for a partial dose 

12 reconstruction for a person with a non-SEC 

13 cancer and I just didn't know it -- was -- how 

14 -- how you handled that. I just couldn't -- we 

15 couldn't remember -- we were talking about it 

16 at lunch the other day. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: No, for the partial dose 

18 reconstructions, if the individual data exists, 

19 we would use it to the best advantage of the 

20 claimant. 

21 I have a comment on the FUSRAP thing, though. 

22 Remember that -- that the Formerly Utilized 

23 Site Remediation Program is conducted by DOE to 

24 clean up sites, and they can use the contract 

25 language, so that may have been all they needed 
114

1 to establish that AEC work was done in that 

2 time period and later on. But -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think LaVon told us that 

4 they established where certain processes were 

5 done in certain buildings, and that was what -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: But it may not have -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- triggered in my mind to say how 

8 did they know that. 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, and if you look -- 

10 actually if you -- if you look back at the 

11 FUSRAP information, a lot of the -- is 

12 interviews. It was interviews that were 

13 conducted at that time that they talked about -

14 - 

15 DR. ZIEMER: As opposed to reports and -- 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Reports. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- data sources and -- I 

18 understand. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: So they may have that, but they 

20 wouldn't necessary have exposure monitoring or 

21 air monitoring information. 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: And I do think Dr. Melius 

23 brings up a very good point. We -- we've dealt 

24 with Lawrence Livermore and some of the other -

25 - when you have commingling activities, you 
115

1 know -- although most of these activities were 

2 uranium, if you have commingling activities, it 

3 does create a little more difficulty from your 

4 modeling perspective. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Any other questions for 

6 LaVon? 

7 Okay. Yes, Dr. McKeel. 

8 DR. MCKEEL: Paul, may I make just one comment 

9 about the FUSRAP program to remind everybody 

10 that in 1997 it was turned over for the 

11 remediation activities from DOE to the Army 

12 Corps of Engineers. And I think you mentioned 

13 for Combustion Engineering that those FUSRAP -- 

14 that work was done between '94 and '98. So one 

15 -- one source might be Army Corps of Engineers 

16 for that information, and sometimes they just 

17 may have different databases and sources. So 

18 that's just something that could be followed 

19 up. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that comment. 

21 I do want to allow -- Board members, if you 

22 don't have any -- Jim, do you have an 

23 additional comment? No. 

24 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: We do want to have an opportunity 
116

1 for the petitioners and also the Senator's 

2 office to comment. Dan Greenberg, are you 

3 still with us? 

4 MR. GREENBERG: Yes, I am. Yeah, I 

5 (unintelligible) -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: You have some comments? And then 

7 we'll hear from... 

8 MR. GREENBERG: Yes, I do, a couple of 

9 comments. One is -- so if we looked at 

10 Combustion Engineering and -- in the buildings 

11 and the -- you know, as was mentioned, the Army 

12 Corps of Engineers that are -- that's working 

13 on the site for site cleanup, the site and the 

14 site contamination that's currently there, the 

15 building and the building that my father worked 

16 in still exists, has not been torn down because 

17 of the contamination. So that remediation is 

18 still ongoing. There's no one in the building, 

19 but it's still being worked. So -- I mean I 

20 know that there was talk of certain time frames 

21 of FUSRAP working on it, but I want everyone to 

22 realize, and for the record, that starting in -

23 - I think it was '94, that FUSRAP Army Corps of 

24 Engineers, that site is still being remediated. 

25 And yes, you're right, the northeast district 
117

1 is still working on that site and in their 

2 database has information. The relevance of 

3 that information, who knows, because of the 

4 current age and relevance back to, you know, 

5 '65 to '72, what have you. 

6 My concern is, quite frankly, the fact that we 

7 submitted our application back in September, 

8 2001. DO-- DOL received that application back 

9 then. Since then I haven't seen any movement 

10 whatsoever regarding this application. I know 

11 that there's been work supposedly done on it. 

12 The number on the tracking that I have is 1650, 

13 a very low number. But quite honestly, I don't 

14 see any -- any productive work being done by 

15 this agency. And I want resolution. My family 

16 wants resolution. We want closure to this 

17 item. I've written letters to the President. 

18 I've written letters to the Secretary of Labor. 

19 I've involved the Senator's office. And I will 

20 continue to do that until I get resolution. To 

21 me, it's unacceptable to now be in the year 

22 2008 and to still not have resolution on this 

23 item. I'm done with my comments. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. Is 

25 someone from Senator Lieberman's office still 
118

1 on the line? 

2 (No responses) 

3 I wonder -- I think we're trying to make 

4 contact. Is Jason trying to make contact with 

5 -- does someone from Lieberman's staff, do you 

6 know, wish to make a comment or have any 

7 questions? 

8 MR. BROEHM: Frank Rowe from Senator 

9 Lieberman's office was on the phone earlier. 

10 He had a meeting outside of the office and so 

11 my understanding from an e-mail is that he just 

12 left and is I think maybe planning to try to 

13 listen in by his cell phone. But in case he's 

14 not able to join the Board, I just wanted to, 

15 you know, express the sentiment that he was 

16 hoping to express and I think may have briefly 

17 in his remarks earlier. And that is just that 

18 his boss, Senator Lieberman, is hopeful that 

19 the process will expedite the relief to 

20 claimants who have been waiting so long for a 

21 positive outcome. So -- and if he joins, maybe 

22 he can make some additional comments on his 

23 own. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Board 

25 members, we have a recommendation here from 
119

1 NIOSH. We -- we can take action, if you wish, 

2 at this time. It would be in order to have a 

3 motion on this particular recommendation. 

4 Dr. Melius. 

5 DR. MELIUS: If it's okay with my fellow Board 

6 members, I'd like to offer a long motion. I've 

7 actually had time to compose our letter, so -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: The long motion is the form in 

9 which our recommendations to the Secretary 

10 normally exist, by at least tomorrow, and 

11 you're speeding this up is what I gather, but -

12 - 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- here's the motion then. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. The Board recommends that 

16 the following letter be transmitted to the 

17 Secretary of Health and Human Services within 

18 21 days. Should the Chair become aware of any 

19 issue that, in his judgment, would preclude the 

20 transmittal of this letter within that time 

21 period, the Board requests that he promptly 

22 informs the Board of delay and the reasons for 

23 the delay, that he immediately works with NIOSH 

24 to schedule emergency meeting of the Board to 

25 discuss this issue. 
120

1 And I'll read the proposed letter. 

2 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

3 Health (the Board) has evaluated SEC Petition 

4 00099 concerning workers at the Combustion En-- 

5 Engineering facility in Windsor, Connecticut 

6 under the statutory requirements established by 

7 EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 

8 83.13 and 83.14. The Board respectfully 

9 recommends Special Exposure Cohort status be 

10 accorded to all Atomic Weapons Employees who 

11 worked at the Combustion Engineering site in 

12 Windsor, Connecticut from January 1st, 1965 

13 through December 31st, 1972, for a number of 

14 work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

15 from -- or in combination with work days within 

16 the parameter established for one or more other 

17 classes of employees in the SEC. The Board 

18 notes that although NIOSH found that they were 

19 unable to completely reconstruct radiation 

20 doses for these employees, NIOSH believes that 

21 they are able to reconstruct external doses 

22 from medical exposures for workers at -- at the 

23 facility. 

24 This recommendation is based on the following 

25 factors: 
121

1 People working at Combustion Engineering 

2 facility during this time period worked on 

3 research production activities related to 

4 nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons production. 

5 The NIOSH review of the available monitoring 

6 data, as well as the available source term and 

7 other information, found that they lacked 

8 adequate information necessary to conduct 

9 accurate individual dose reconstructions for 

10 internal doses and external doses (other than 

11 medical) at Combustion Engineering facility 

12 during the time period in question. 

13 Number three, NIOSH determined that health may 

14 have endangered for these Combustion 

15 Engineering facility workers. The Board 

16 concurs with this determination. 

17 Enclosed is supporting documentation from the 

18 recent Advisory Board meeting held in Las 

19 Vegas, Nevada where this Special Exposure 

20 Cohort was discussed. If any of these items 

21 are unavailable at this time, they will follow 

22 shortly. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: You heard the motion. Is there a 

24 second? 

25 MS. MUNN: Second. 
122

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The Chair's going to make a 

2 friendly amendment. The last sentence should 

3 read "where this class of the Special Exposure 

4 Cohort was discussed." It is a class of the 

5 Special Exposure Cohort. 

6 Okay. Who's on the phone? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Gen Roessler. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Gen Roessler? 

9 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I just wanted to see if you're 

11 still on the phone and -- 

12 DR. ROESSLER: I am. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- is Mark on the phone -- Mark 

14 Griffon? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Okay, thank you. Discussion on this motion? 

17 (No responses) 

18 Are we ready to vote on this motion? 

19 Okay, we will take a roll call vote. You want 

20 to do the roll call? Just go around the table, 

21 if you wish. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Bradley Clawson? 

23 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda Munn? 

25 MS. MUNN: Yes. 
123

1 DR. BRANCHE: Jim Melius? 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: John Poston? 

4 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Paul Ziemer? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Robert Presley? 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Michael Gibson. 

10 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Josie Beach? 

12 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Phillip Schofield? 

14 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: James Lockey? 

16 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Gen Roessler? 

18 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, you and I will have 

20 to speak with Mark Griffon off-line to get his. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, under our procedures on -- on 

22 votes -- substantive votes such as 

23 recommendations to the Secretary, members who 

24 are not present at the time of the vote are 

25 given the opportunity to vote, and we will 
124

1 secure Mark Griffon's vote before the final 

2 documents go in to the Secretary. 

3 Then I declare that the motion does carry. 

4 It's unanimous, with the exception of the -- 

5 Mark Griffon's vote's not yet being obtained. 

6 There are no abstentions, and the motion 

7 carries. 

8 So I can report to the petitioners that they 

9 Board is recommending Special Exposure Cohort 

10 status for this class. A similar 

11 recommendation goes from NIOSH. These two 

12 recommendations go to the Secretary of Health 

13 and Human Services, who will make the final 

14 recommendation to Congress. Our -- our 

15 recommendations are just that. They are 

16 advisory. The Secretary makes the final 

17 determination. 

18 SCIENCE ISSUES UPDATE

19 I'm looking at my watch here to -- kind of want 

20 to ask Dr. Neton if we have time for the 

21 science issues update. We have allowed 30 

22 minutes on the agenda. Do you -- some might 

23 get anxious for lunch at noon, but how much 

24 time do we need? 

25 Okay, we're going to at least start it, and if 
125

1 we don't have people leaving in the middle of 

2 it why we'll be fine. 

3 So this is an update on what we have designated 

4 as science issues, and Jim will remind us again 

5 what those are and what the status is of 

6 various issues of the -- in this category. 

7 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. I know I 

8 have a tendency to be long-winded, but I -- I 

9 assure you that I can finish this in much less 

10 than a half an hour. 

11 We'll switch gears here and talk about 

12 something not necessarily related to the 

13 Special Exposure Cohort, and that is the 

14 science issues that NIOSH has on its table. 

15 This has been sort of a -- become a semi16 regular agenda item that I most recently 

17 reported on at the last Board meeting in 

18 Naperville. 

19 Just to refresh your memory, we have two 

20 classes of science issues. One is those 

21 related to the risk models and one related to 

22 the dose reconstruction process. We have seven 

23 risk model issues and ten dose reconstruction 

24 issues. We believe that we have completed 

25 three out of those ten dose reconstruction 
126

1 issues, and have either issued Technical 

2 Information Bulletins or are in the process of 

3 finalizing Technical Information Bulletins for 

4 three out of the ten. 

5 What I'd like to report to you today is our 

6 progress on the science issue related to 

7 workplace ingestion. This slide provides an 

8 overview of what the issue is. Ingestion, as 

9 we all know, is one of the three major routes 

10 of entry to the body in the workplace. That is 

11 either through inhalation, ingestion or direct 

12 entry into the body through a puncture wound or 

13 absorption, so it is a pathway that needs to be 

14 considered in all dose reconstructions. 

15 And it also must be specifically modeled when 

16 bioassay data are unavailable. When we have 

17 access to bioassay data, whether it's an 

18 individual's monitoring records or a coworker 

19 model, we can do a dose reconstruction and then 

20 assume the most claimant-favorable pathway to 

21 reconstruct the person's dose, whether that be 

22 ingestion or inhalation. Most of the time, as 

23 we're aware, the inhalation pathway dominates, 

24 although in some situations ingestion may -- 

25 may be a higher dose. 
127

1 And I'd also like to bring out that it is most 

2 applicable at Atomic Weapons Employer sites. 

3 We typically have, as you've seen in -- in many 

4 of these site profiles, bioassay data for -- 

5 for many of the Department of Energy sites, if 

6 not all. We at least have some information. 

7 But at the Atomic Weapons Employer facilities 

8 we rarely have access to decent bioassay 

9 information, so -- so keep in mind that this is 

10 -- this is specifically where -- where the 

11 ingestion model is -- is important. 

12 To address this issue early on, in 2004 OCAS 

13 put together a Technical Information Bulletin -

14 - that is TIB-9 -- that addressed the issue of 

15 how we estimate ingestion in the absence of 

16 bioassay data. This document was reviewed by 

17 Sanford Cohen & Associates as part of the 

18 normal procedures review. But in fact this 

19 issue has also arisen in a number of other 

20 forms because, as a global issue, it shows up 

21 in many dose reconstructions where it's applied 

22 in Atomic Weapons Employer dose 

23 reconstructions. It also showed up quite 

24 noticeably in the Bethlehem Steel site profile 

25 evaluation process. So it's definitely an 
128

1 issue that cross-cuts a number of different 

2 sites. 

3 As part of the review, though, the basis of the 

4 TIB-9 model was questioned by SC&A, and it was 

5 really questioned on two fronts. One was -- 

6 and I'll get into this a little later, but our 

7 ingestion model is based on a knowledge of a 

8 surface concentration that is derived from the 

9 air concentration at the facility. And 

10 secondly, once we know the surface 

11 concentration, does it really accurately 

12 account for how much a person could ingest in 

13 the workplace once we know what's on the 

14 surface depo-- what's deposited on the 

15 surfaces. And I'd like to speak to those two 

16 issues today. 

17 This model -- this is a box model that shows 

18 simplistically what the ingestion model would 

19 look like. You see the top box talks about 

20 some deposition on the surface. I don't have 

21 it on this diagram, but you could imagine 

22 material blown into the air by some work 

23 process, depositing on a surface, and then it 

24 either gets onto your hands and ingested from, 

25 you know, hand going to the mouth; peri-oral 
129

1 surfaces, such as the lips, or directly from -- 

2 from licking your fingers. It could be 

3 ingested that way. 

4 There's also contamination that can enter the 

5 body via deposition onto food products -- cups 

6 sitting out in the open, sandwiches, that sort 

7 of thing. And it was -- we know -- it's been 

8 well-documented in early days, especially at 

9 the AWE facilities, it was not necessarily 

10 prohibited to have people be eating in the work 

11 environment. 

12 So this is a fairly simple model. One of 

13 SC&A's issues was that our model was fairly 

14 simplistic and it didn't really have a pedigree 

15 associated with it. I mean we felt we made 

16 some very reasonable assumptions, but we really 

17 just couldn't prove to them that we felt that 

18 this model covered the waterfront properly. 

19 I've talked about the issue of settling 

20 material onto food or drink and the transfer to 

21 contaminated surfaces. And the second bullet 

22 on this slide talks -- speaks to what the crux 

23 of the ingestion model is in TIB-9. It's a 

24 fairly simplistic calculation, there's -- 

25 there's only a five-page Technical Information 
130

1 Bulletin, but we made some basic assumptions 

2 about the settling velocity of material that's 

3 blown into the air, how -- how it would deposit 

4 on the surfaces, and the number of transfers. 

5 That is, how many times a person would touch 

6 the surface and eat the material. The bottom 

7 line is that the amount of ingestion, in 

8 picocuries per day, is equal to .2 times the 

9 air concentration in the facility in picocuries 

10 per cubic meter. You'll just have to take my 

11 word for it that the units work out here. I 

12 didn't show all the conversion factors that go 

13 in here, but that .2 has several conversion 

14 factors built into it. 

15 But as -- as you can see from the equation, 

16 though, ingestion is totally dependent, in this 

17 model, on the relationship between the activity 

18 in the air and surface contamination. We went 

19 this route specifically because the data 

20 available for surface contamination at the AWE 

21 facilities is exceedingly sparse. They did a 

22 lot of -- a reasonable amount of air sampling 

23 in a number of facilities, but very rarely did 

24 they go through and actually measure the 

25 surface contamination deposit around the 
131

1 facility. 

2 Well, as part of the evaluation of the 

3 Bethlehem Steel site profile we went back -- 

4 the comment that was raised on the Bethlehem 

5 Steel site profile, we went back and 

6 empirically evaluated the relationship. You 

7 know, could we -- could we show that there was 

8 any sort of relationship between air 

9 concentration and surface concentration. And 

10 this graph shows a plot of the few available 

11 datapoints we could find -- there's three, four 

12 five -- there's eight datapoints that we have 

13 plotted here that show, at least on this scale, 

14 that there is a relationship from the data that 

15 we could find -- it's somewhat intuitively 

16 obvious, I would think, that the higher the air 

17 concentration, the more material you're going 

18 to have deposited on the surface. 

19 Where this may break down, though, is in 

20 situations where you have acute versus chronic 

21 exposure scenarios. For example, you could 

22 find data in the literature that says if I run 

23 the -- if I -- if I run my process two days, 

24 you'll have a certain amount in the air and 

25 certain contamination measured on the surface. 
132

1 If you run it for a month and don't clean the 

2 floor, you're obviously going to have more 

3 contamination per surface area than you would 

4 based on what you would observe in the air. 

5 So I'd like to stress that this model has 

6 application for sort of the unique -- unique 

7 situations of AWEs where they tended to be sort 

8 of acute exposure scenarios. They go in for a 

9 day or two, do some work, generate some air 

10 concentration and the material deposited on the 

11 ground. That's what these points represent. 

12 But -- but clearly they -- they are distributed 

13 fairly closely about the line. 

14 Okay. So we believe that we do have a 

15 relationship that we can demonstrate between 

16 surface contamination -- I mean air 

17 concentration and surface contamination. 

18 But then the next point is, though, how good is 

19 the model that -- in TIB-9 that talks about 

20 going from what's on the surface to how much 

21 you ingest per day. This became a big point of 

22 discussion with SC&A over -- over an extended 

23 period of meetings. And I have to say, it's 

24 been a -- been an interesting scientific 

25 discussion we've had on this. 
133

1 Well, we -- to look at this issue, we went back 

2 and did a literature review and pulled out over 

3 35 applicable references on, you know, what are 

4 the -- what kind of behavior is there in the 

5 workplace that leads to ingestion and how much 

6 -- you know, how big is the surface area of the 

7 hand and what fraction is -- is transferred 

8 from touching, per touch, how many touches per 

9 hour, those sort of things. And it was our 

10 original intent, and I think I presented this a 

11 while ago to the Board, to develop our own 

12 empirical model. I mean we have -- we know 

13 these little box models and we could -- we 

14 could -- we could develop our own model. But -

15 - and we were going to do this for uranium 

16 because remember, this is -- this issue is 

17 predominantly -- is only applicable at Atomic 

18 Weapons Employer facilities, and uranium is the 

19 big radionuclide of concern, although it would 

20 not necessarily -- it would also more than 

21 likely be applicable to other radionuclides. 

22 So we were going to do this based on 

23 coefficients and transfer factors found in the 

24 reviewed literature. 

25 But in our evaluation, we uncovered a document 
134

1 put out by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- 

2 that is NuReg/Contractor Report Number 5512, 

3 which is also known familiarly as RESRAD-Build. 

4 Those of you in the D&D business probably know 

5 this document pretty well. But what RESRAD6 Build is -- it was developed by the Nuclear 

7 Regulatory Commission to evaluate doses from 

8 occupancy of contaminated buildings. They -- 

9 they did what we were going to do already, and 

10 it seemed to us that it's more appropriate to 

11 use a peer-reviewed model already that's in 

12 place, that the work had been done and 

13 scientifically validated and such. So we went 

14 about trying to see how our TIB-9 model 

15 compared to the RESRAD model. 

16 This -- the RESRAD model is a probabilistic 

17 model in the sense that they give you a range 

18 of values with distributions. It runs very 

19 much like the IREP model dose, Monte Carlo20 based model. But it provides for an effective 

21 transfer rate for ingestion per day in the 

22 workplace, or per hour. And again, they were 

23 based on a review of the literature. In fact, 

24 most of the literature that we uncovered was 

25 already cited in this RESRAD-Build program. 
135

1 And if you go down through their derivation, 

2 the default value in their model for ingestion 

3 is a log-uniform distribution with values that 

4 range from 2.8 times 10 to the minus fifth, to 

5 2.9 times 10 to the minus fourth metered 

6 squared per hour. That's kind of a funky unit 

7 to get your hands around, but what that really 

8 says is about every hour in the workplace you 

9 would ingest about the size of two postage 

10 stamps of material. So you know, whatever 

11 contamination is spread there, however heavily 

12 contaminated it is, you would ingest out of 

13 that one square meter something equivalent of 

14 about the size of two postage stamps. That's 

15 kind of the way I like to look at it. 

16 So we wanted to go -- we wanted to -- to 

17 determine does this RESRAD-Build model and TIB18 9 -- or do they fit closely together or are we 

19 way off base. So we went about and did this 

20 simple comparison, which is we took the air 

21 concentration data that you see in the first 

22 column in dpm per cubic meter, and we estimated 

23 what surface contamination would have been 

24 present in the workplace using the TIB-9 model. 

25 That is, how much surface contamination would 
136

1 be there. And then we went and calculated -- 

2 on the far right-hand column, using TIB-9 -- 

3 what the hourly ingestion rate would be in dpm 

4 per hour. And then, in the second from the 

5 right-hand column, we took the RESRAD model and 

6 ran it using that same surface contamination 

7 and generated the range of values that RESRAD 

8 would predict. Remember, the values ranged 

9 from 2.8 times 10 to the minus fifth to 2.9 

10 times 10 to the minus fourth. And 

11 interestingly enough, even our simplist-- with 

12 -- even giv-- with our simplistic model, the 

13 TIB-9 values were very consistent, we believe, 

14 with the RESRAD distribution. If you look at 

15 the highest contamination, which is 48,800 dpm 

16 per cubic meter, which is something around 700 

17 MAC air, it's a really high concentration, we 

18 would predict that the person would breathe in 

19 or we would assign about 1220 dpm per hour 

20 ingestion, and the ranges in RESRAD go from 119 

21 to 1233. I think in all cases our value is 

22 either within the range or higher than the 

23 RESRAD model would -- would assign. Which was 

24 comforting to us to see that, you know, even 

25 though our model was based on somewhat 
137

1 simplistic assumptions, we're in -- very much 

2 in the right ball park and we believe it's -- 

3 it's an appropriate model. 

4 So let's talk a little bit, though, about what 

5 -- what's the significance of ingestion. I 

6 probably should have maybe staged this earlier, 

7 but ingestion doses are a small fraction of the 

8 dose from inhalation for all -- for all of our 

9 dose reconstructions. And that is because the 

10 gastrointestinal absorption fraction is small. 

11 It ranges from .02 to .002 -- that is, of what 

12 you ingest, anywhere from .2 percent to 2 

13 percent of the material, depending on how 

14 soluble it is, gets taken up into this -- 

15 becomes systemic, gets absorbed across the GI 

16 tract. So you could eat a fair amount of 

17 uranium, and 98 percent of it, or more, doesn't 

18 become absorbed. You do get a GI tract dose, 

19 of course, but no -- no systemic dose. 

20 We calculated the committed doses to organs 

21 other than the GI tract, and we used committed 

22 because it was difficult to bracket this with 

23 annuals, but the 50-year dose to organs other 

24 than GI tract are less than .7 percent of those 

25 due to inhalation. That is, if we assumed all 
138

1 the dose was due to inhalation, most -- you 

2 know, the G-- the -- the committed dose from 

3 ingestion is a very small fraction of the dose 

4 from inhalation, so we're not missing much 

5 dose. I mean we're assigning with TIB-9, but 

6 keep in mind that the doses are small. And the 

7 maximum committed GI tract dose -- the GI tract 

8 dose of course is going to be higher because it 

9 does pass through the GI tract. The highest 

10 value we could come up with was it'd 3.4 

11 percent of the inhalation dose, and that would 

12 be for type S material. 

13 Another thing I'd like to point out when we 

14 talk about the significance is that when we 

15 apply the TIB-9 model we assign the high -- we 

16 take a distribution of air samples to estimate 

17 a person's inhalation intake and we -- we 

18 typically use or almost always use the 95th 

19 percentile of the air sample distribution to 

20 estimate their inhalation intake. Well, we 

21 take that same 95th percentile air 

22 concentration to infer what the surface 

23 concentration would be. So we believe, in this 

24 respect, our model is conservatively estimating 

25 the surface deposition because we're assuming 
139

1 that the worker is 100 percent of the time in 

2 this 95th percentile air concentration and the 

3 material is depositing around the surface areas 

4 where he's working. And we also assume that 

5 the ingestion occurred at this location for the 

6 entire day, as I said. So we believe that, 

7 even with TIB-9, we're making some pretty 

8 conservative assumptions about -- about the 

9 intake. 

10 So with all that being said, I think I can 

11 conclude that the ingestion doses of course 

12 does require knowledge of the process specific 

13 surface contamination levels. Those are very 

14 sparse in the Atomic Weapons Employer data. 

15 I've gone through most of the AWE sites and 

16 this is about the extent of the data we can 

17 find, what I presented in that one linear plot. 

18 Given that they're sparse, we need to have some 

19 way of -- of inferring what they would be, 

20 given an air concentration data. We believe 

21 the relationship does exist. We've 

22 demonstrated that. And TIB-9's derived values 

23 compare favorably with those in the RESRAD 

24 model, which we were quite comforted to see. 

25 And that's it, so I'd be happy to answer any 
140

1 questions. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim. Let's see if we 

3 have any questions on that. Jim Lockey. 

4 DR. LOCKEY: One question. You said cubic 

5 meter versus two postage size, is that -- is 

6 that for dpm? Is that how that analogy was? 

7 DR. NETON: No, it's -- it's the fraction -- 

8 just think if you're standing on a one-square 

9 meter plane, you would in effect ingest two 

10 postage stamps square -- you know, couple of 

11 square inches out of that -- out of that square 

12 meter every hour you're standing there. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: What -- whatever the total 

14 activity, that -- 

15 DR. NETON: Whatever -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- fraction of it. Is that -- 

17 DR. NETON: If the activity had 500 dpm per 

18 cubic meter, you would ingest a small fraction 

19 of that cubic meter. 

20 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. Thank you. 

21 DR. NETON: It's -- it's an interesting unit. 

22 It works out -- the math works out, though. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Wanda. 

24 MS. MUNN: Is this model applicable across the 

25 board for all isotopes of uranium? 
141

1 DR. NETON: We believe so. I mean we -- we -- 

2 I'm -- I can't think of any condition why it 

3 wouldn't be applicable. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

5 DR. NETON: It may break down, though, when -- 

6 you know, uranium has a certain mass. When you 

7 get into very high enrichments of uranium or 

8 high specific activity material like plutonium, 

9 you've kind of got to wonder because then 

10 you're not really dealing with a mass model, 

11 you're dealing with some -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, intuitively you would think 

13 if the specific activity was, for example, real 

14 high, that this might depart from -- 

15 DR. NETON: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- what you've shown. 

17 MS. MUNN: But -- but then that's unlikely in 

18 AWEs -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

20 MS. MUNN: -- anyway. Yeah, thanks. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or questions? 

22 DR. ROESSLER: Paul, this is Gen. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler, go ahead. 

24 DR. ROESSLER: I have a question of Jim. In 

25 your slide number three where you showed the 
142

1 general box model, what is your reference for 

2 that? 

3 DR. NETON: You know, that's a good question. 

4 I think we actually -- this was put together 

5 with some help from folks from EG&G, and I 

6 think -- I can't be certain of that. I can 

7 find that out for you, though. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: I think when SC&A questioned the 

9 pedigree of the model -- of course I know they 

10 were probably referring to numbers and so on, 

11 but it seems that -- I guess I would like to 

12 see that this model came from somewhere like 

13 ICRP or -- 

14 DR. NETON: Well -- 

15 DR. ROESSLER: -- something like that. 

16 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think -- I think the model 

17 itself is somewhat generic. And I think if you 

18 compared this to what's in RESRAD you'd see the 

19 same things. I mean there -- there's only so 

20 many ways ingestion can get into the body. And 

21 what really is -- is that, as you mentioned, 

22 under -- under review here is the constants 

23 that go between those boxes, what is the 

24 fractional uptake at each juncture and how many 

25 times does one do that. In other words, like 
143

1 how many times do you -- you touch the surface 

2 and lick your lips per hour. There -- believe 

3 it or not, there's a lot of studies that have 

4 been done on this, not necessarily all 

5 radiation-related. Many of them are industrial 

6 hygiene type studies, but there's a fair amount 

7 of data out there on this issue. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. Thank you. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Aside from resuspension, which 

10 puts it into the inhalation category, so -- 

11 DR. NETON: Yes, resuspension is another issue 

12 and we're working on that issue as well. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

14 DR. LOCKEY: One other -- one other question. 

15 This is based on uranium in particular, I take 

16 -- (unintelligible) -- your model? 

17 DR. NETON: The RESRAD model itself is not 

18 based on uranium, but we intend to apply it to 

19 uranium at AWE facilities. 

20 DR. LOCKEY: Right. Okay. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

22 DR. MELIUS: I was just going to as-- this is -

23 - I mean this is a common model used in risk 

24 assessment, lead -- you know, childhood lead 

25 poisoning, it -- it comes up a lot in some 
144

1 other -- other situations like that. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

3 DR. NETON: What I didn't mention was that this 

4 analysis is going to be written up into a 

5 Technical Information Bulletin and then would 

6 be available for review by the Board -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 

8 DR. NETON: -- when we complete that. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other comments on 

10 this? 

11 (No responses) 

12 Okay. Thank you. We're ready to recess for 

13 lunch. Do we have any housekeeping issues 

14 before lunch? Okay, we're -- we'll take an 

15 hour break -- let's see, we're not due back 

16 till -- well, we ha-- Yeah, we ha-- yeah, we'll 

17 take an hour break for lunch, and try to return 

18 shortly after 1:00 p.m. Thank you. 

19 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:05 p.m. 

20 to 1:25 p.m.) 

21 DR. ZIEMER: We're ready to reconvene if you 

22 would please take your seats. 

23 If there's no objection, we -- Board members, 

24 we'd like to proceed immediately to the reports 

25 from the Department of Energy and Department of 
145

1 Labor, and then we'll go back and pick up the 

2 SC&A '08 tasks and the issue of selection of 

3 Board contractor for future years. 

4 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UPDATE

5 So let us first then receive the report from 

6 the Department of Energy, an update, and Dr. 

7 Worthington is here. Patricia, we welcome you 

8 again, be pleased to hear from you now. 

9 DR. WORTHINGTON: Good afternoon. Can you hear 

10 me okay? It's good -- good? Okay. 

11 Again, it's my pleasure to join you this 

12 afternoon. I wanted to bring you some 

13 greetings from Mr. Glenn Podonsky. He's the 

14 chief of the Health, Safety and Security 

15 organization. This program is one of his 

16 highest priorities. He couldn't be here today 

17 but he asked me to be here, and I have with me 

18 today Gina Cano and Greg Lewis. They're also 

19 working on this program. Many of you know 

20 them. They've been very active and very 

21 enthusiastic about the work for some time now, 

22 so we look forward to giving you an update. 

23 We had an update a few months back, actually 

24 out in Chicago, and I'll give you some similar 

25 kinds of information, more of an update towards 
146

1 the end of the year, how things have changed, 

2 and we'll be happy to address any questions 

3 that you may have about the -- the program. 

4 Certainly we're very pleased to be here. Dr. 

5 Ziemer, Dr. Wade, members of the Board, members 

6 of -- from Department of Labor and from NIOSH 

7 and the -- the great workers and citizens that 

8 are here, again, this is a very important 

9 program to us and so we want to give you some 

10 insights in terms of what we've been doing. 

11 It's been a very interesting year. It's been a 

12 challenge for us, as well as for many of the 

13 other organizations across the country. We 

14 worked for an entire year on a continuing 

15 resolution. It certainly brought some unique 

16 challenges with it as well, and we've had some 

17 changes in terms of the numbers and so forth in 

18 the program and so you'll see some of those 

19 things as I go through this afternoon. 

20 The role of the Department of Energy is 

21 primarily to work with NIOSH and to work with 

22 Department of Labor to make sure that 

23 information needed by the workers regarding 

24 claims -- they're made available. So we're 

25 basically supporting, we're facilitators, to 
147

1 make sure you receive the information that you 

2 need to move forward. 

3 There are a couple of things that we do. One 

4 is that we respond to Department of Labor and 

5 NIOSH's request for information related to 

6 individual claims. And as I go through the 

7 discussion today you'll see that that's a very 

8 big part of what we do, looking for the 

9 employment verification and exposure records. 

10 We provide support and assistance to DOL and 

11 NIOSH and the Advisory Board regarding research 

12 and retrieval of various documents. And then 

13 we research issues related to EEOICPA regarding 

14 covered facilities and their time frame 

15 designations. 

16 A little bit about the activities and the 

17 numbers. Again, as I said, it's been a very 

18 aggressive year, a lot of requests and quite a 

19 bit of work from a large number of people at 

20 the sites and in headquarters. 

21 We had nearly 22,000 individual claims, and 

22 that's certainly quite a big number of claims. 

23 In terms of the breakdown for those, you'll see 

24 the employment verifications for Department of 

25 Labor, about 8,000 this year; 5,000 dose 
148

1 documents for NIOSH, and then we had about 

2 9,000 document acquisition requests that we 

3 worked on this year. 

4 The next one is the number of requests, and 

5 what I wanted to do first is to go directly to 

6 the very last bullet on that slide, which is 

7 the one that's certainly shaping what we can do 

8 and how we've been responding. And you'll see 

9 that the percentage increase for -- from 2006 

10 to 2007 was 32 percent. That's a huge increase 

11 in terms of the kinds of things that we're 

12 requested to do. And again against this 

13 backdrop of this challenge of working against 

14 the continuing resolution. The total number of 

15 records requested and completed for FY 2006 was 

16 nearly 17,000, and the total number for 2007, 

17 as I indicated earlier, 22,000. So it's been a 

18 -- quite an increase in the number of things 

19 coming to us for -- for our -- our support. 

20 I want to focus on this slide in terms of the 

21 total requests completed for FY '07, talk a 

22 little bit about that and what it actually 

23 means, the kinds of things going on. These 

24 include all of the individual requests 

25 completed by DOE. This would include DRs and 
149

1 employment verifications from DOL, as well as 

2 from NIOSH. And as you can see, there 

3 certainly was an increase in the number, and we 

4 believe that the increase could be actually 

5 more significant than indicated on the -- on 

6 the chart. As you know, as we worked towards 

7 the end of the year we had, in some cases, to 

8 kind of pull back a little bit and set some 

9 priorities in terms of what we were doing, and 

10 so those numbers could actually be much higher. 

11 NIOSH requests completed for FY '07 is the next 

12 slide that you see here. This gives you an 

13 idea in terms of over the last 12 months, the 

14 kinds of things that we've done, from the 

15 average of 350 at the start of the year to 450 

16 in November. Again, certainly those numbers 

17 possibly could have been higher towards the end 

18 of the year, so you see that we're seeing a 

19 significant increase in -- in the requests. 

20 I want to talk a little bit about some things 

21 that DOE is doing, the different kinds of 

22 activities. Again, our support and 

23 coordination for activities with Department of 

24 Labor and with NIOSH, we -- we have a 

25 significant effort with Department of Labor on 
150

1 what we call the site exposure matrix. It's a 

2 gathering of information to help them support 

3 their activities. We want to certainly support 

4 the Board in terms of things that they request 

5 and they need. And we recognize the importance 

6 of having good site profiles. We want to make 

7 sure that we get the -- the information to you 

8 so that you can move forward on that. And then 

9 recognizing that, when there are Special 

10 Exposure Cohorts, that we work with you on 

11 those activities. 

12 A little bit about some -- continuing on the 

13 DOE activities and the NIOSH activities, here 

14 are some things that we've been working on over 

15 the last few years, and I think I've talked 

16 about that a little bit in the last slide so 

17 I'll go to the next one. 

18 I mentioned the site exposure matrix, things 

19 that we do to work with Department of Labor so 

20 they can gather information. This slide is 

21 just intended to give you sort of a picture in 

22 terms of the number of places that we've 

23 actually looked and worked with those 

24 organizations on over the past year. 

25 Here are some things that we've done in terms 
151

1 of records research support. That again is a 

2 significant area, and you'll see the large 

3 number of activities that we've -- we've done 

4 with NIOSH and ORAU in 2007. Records research 

5 support for the Advisory Board, you see the 

6 ones here, and we would hope that we've been 

7 supportive of those areas over the -- the last 

8 year. 

9 A little bit about our -- our responsibility, 

10 one of the key things for DOE is to research 

11 and maintain the covered facilities database 

12 and we've been doing that. We have the 343 

13 covered facilities that cover the DOE 

14 facilities, AWEs, as well as the beryllium 

15 vendors. 

16 Here are some activities that we've been doing 

17 over the last year. You'll hear more about 

18 Chapman and Dow tomorrow. Certainly these 

19 things require some innovative approaches in 

20 terms of looking for -- for documents and doing 

21 searches, and trying to provide information, to 

22 answer questions and to make our relevant 

23 information available to both NIOSH and -- and 

24 DOL. 

25 A little bit about the Office of Legacy 
152

1 Management, and it's an office with the 

2 Department of Energy. They -- they have unique 

3 skills and expertise in terms of doing record 

4 researches and record retrievals and -- and 

5 looking at processes and trying to determine 

6 what information may be relevant. And they've 

7 been working very close with us to serve as one 

8 of our primary research arms to help deliver 

9 the information and to answer the questions 

10 that we have before us. And so we expect as we 

11 move into 2008 that we will continue that close 

12 relationship with -- of Legacy Management. We 

13 believe it's been productive and it's helped us 

14 to facilitate getting responses to some of 

15 those key areas. 

16 Again, we believe that DOE's role in terms of 

17 interfacing with the various organizations -- 

18 that it's critical to -- to help these 

19 organizations to be successful in -- in 

20 certainly carrying out their mission. We've 

21 looked for opportunities, we've looked for ways 

22 that we can improve the program, and we -- we 

23 certainly welcome, as always, comments from -- 

24 from any of you on how we might be able to do 

25 that. I've talked about utilizing in-house 
153

1 expertise regarding Legacy Management. We've 

2 had regular conference calls with various 

3 organizations to gather information, answer 

4 questions, and to figure out how we can 

5 coordinate better. We -- we've established a 

6 POC. I think many of you have interfaced with 

7 Greg Lewis, or people in your organization have 

8 done that. Greg is our point of contact for 

9 those various coordinations of -- of -- of 

10 information. And we think that's working well 

11 and we certainly look for, you know, more 

12 feedback on how we might be able to improve in 

13 those areas. 

14 Again, we've been working close with DOL on 

15 this SEM project, and we have, again, our own 

16 internal POC in that area. We've -- we've done 

17 something this year and we-- we're looking to 

18 get more feedback from you on that, and that's 

19 we initiated training sessions. We probably -- 

20 maybe training might not be the best way to 

21 characterize it, but it was an opportunity for 

22 us to bring together all of the key players and 

23 to sit down and talk about the process from A 

24 to Z, and what are the kinds of things we need 

25 to do as we enter the process. You know, how 
154

1 do we move forward, the kinds of data, and to 

2 make sure that people familiar with the DOE 

3 process. And so we -- we believe that that's 

4 been successful and we want to continue with 

5 that. 

6 I probably should take an opportunity at this 

7 moment to kind of talk a little bit about why 

8 it's important for us to do these interactive 

9 sessions in terms of training or making people 

10 familiar with the DOE sites. As you know, our 

11 role in terms of record retrieval and record 

12 research is based on looking for documents for 

13 -- you know, back from -- from some decades 

14 ago, in some cases. And the -- the 

15 organizations having responsibility for 

16 collecting and preserving the data -- certainly 

17 they were done in different ways with different 

18 levels of maturity and rigor and formality 

19 associated with those. And so often there are 

20 nuances associated with the various sites in 

21 terms of the processes of record retrieval, how 

22 they gathered information. We wanted to make 

23 sure that as we move out on those projects that 

24 we make sure that people are familiar with that 

25 and that we're -- we're providing all the 
155

1 information to make it as smooth and as timely 

2 as possible. 

3 We've conducted audits at three of the sites to 

4 evaluate record process and contractor 

5 efficiency. We believe for the most part that 

6 people are doing a good job, given the systems 

7 that they have, that are already there, that 

8 are in place, the things they've inherited as 

9 they move forward with these activities. And 

10 so we want to continue to do that. We want to 

11 go to some additional sites, but we believe the 

12 feedback that we're getting, you know, 

13 indicates that people are doing a good job and 

14 that, where there's opportunity for 

15 improvement, we recognize that and we're able 

16 to move forward and to address those concerns. 

17 That's kind of where we are in terms of the -- 

18 of the big picture on DOE's role in -- in 

19 trying to make sure that we can do researches 

20 and retrieval and -- and provide information, 

21 whether it's individual or whether it's about 

22 classes. And I'll be happy to answer any 

23 questions about next steps or processes or 

24 provide more detailed information on the things 

25 that we've been working on or have completed. 
156

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you -- thank you very much, 

2 Dr. Worthington. And it appears that there's a 

3 growing effort to be more proactive in 

4 addressing those records issues, and we 

5 appreciate that. 

6 We have a number of comments. We'll start with 

7 Brad Clawson, then Josie Beach. 

8 MR. CLAWSON: I apologize for having my back to 

9 you, but if I don't Ray gets upset when I talk 

10 -- you know, the mike. 

11 DR. WORTHINGTON: I can hear you okay so it 

12 should work. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I -- I appreciate hearing 

14 that we're -- we're doing so much better on 

15 record retrieval and so forth like that, but as 

16 we've had through these -- this comment, one of 

17 the things that is bothering me, and in your 

18 slide we were talking about with DOL and the -- 

19 the contractors and so forth, the problem that 

20 I have is this is overwhelming. As a workgroup 

21 I know what we go through in getting 

22 information and so forth, and I do realize that 

23 it's very hard. But I put myself in the -- the 

24 situation of a 80-year-old widow that I have -- 

25 I don't know what my husband did because it was 
157

1 classified. I don't have a lot of this 

2 information. Are there any things that we're -

3 - are doing as -- as DOE to be able to outreach 

4 to be able to help these people be able to 

5 retrieve this information, because this is -- 

6 this is even hard for us as Boards, and as -- 

7 as NIOSH or anything else like that to be able 

8 to get some of this information, and is there 

9 anything that we're doing to be able to help 

10 the claimant from DOE because, you know, as I 

11 realize there's a lot of things that go on, 

12 it's very difficult to get this information and 

13 -- and I'm just wondering if there's anything 

14 that DOE is doing to be able to assist with 

15 this. 

16 DR. WORTHINGTON: There are a number of things 

17 that we're doing, and then I'll ask Gina and 

18 Greg -- if there are some things that I'm 

19 leaving out -- if they would point them out as 

20 well. In terms of classification where people 

21 might be seeking information that's classified, 

22 we are working on developing a process that 

23 would be friendlier to those kinds of things. 

24 We want to -- we've been working with the 

25 headquarters classifiers and we're trying to 
158

1 make them available so that they can go to the 

2 sites and help to expedite -- it also would 

3 save cost, but also to expedite going through 

4 the classified information to make sure that 

5 information is available. 

6 We also are trying to get smarter about doing 

7 targeted researches, and so we're asking that 

8 when individual workers meet with NIOSH or 

9 others that they provide as much information as 

10 possible so that we -- 'cause we actually go 

11 through various sources -- would look for more 

12 information to target the research so that 

13 we're able to -- if an individual said that 

14 these are the kinds of things that we worked on 

15 in the past, that we're able to go to those 

16 places to look for those documents to make sure 

17 that they are available. We believe that the 

18 things that we're -- that we're gathering from 

19 like SEM activities, or other things that would 

20 characterize the sites, make us smarter about 

21 activities and processes that were conducted in 

22 the past and so that when individuals even 

23 mention a key word or a key time frame or key 

24 activities, we're able to maybe go to those 

25 specific documents that we believe are ones 
159

1 that would provide more insights on that. So I 

2 think that we're gathering a lot more -- more 

3 data and a lot -- a lot of things to make us 

4 smarter so that we can expedite those kinds of 

5 things. 

6 And Greg and Gina, I don't know if there are 

7 some new initiatives that we are doing, or 

8 improved ones, that I should point out or -- or 

9 not. 

10 MR. LEWIS: No, I agree. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Use the -- you'll have to use the 

12 mike for our recorder, please. Give your name, 

13 as well. 

14 MR. LEWIS: Greg Lewis from DOE. And I would 

15 say I agree. The only thing I can say is it's 

16 not always a one-size-fits-all on the search. 

17 I mean there are certain places we search, but 

18 based on the information provided, both by the 

19 claimant and things that our POC identifies in 

20 that claim, they do search different locations 

21 where -- where they think their -- their 

22 likelihood of there being records, so while we 

23 do have a standard set, you know, if there's -- 

24 there's no other information provided or not an 

25 extensive amount with the claim, we will search 
160

1 a number of locations. Certainly if we have 

2 other things, we will go that extra step to -- 

3 to try to locate additional records that would 

4 be specific to that individual or where they 

5 might have worked or what they might have done, 

6 so -- 

7 DR. WORTHINGTON: I think Greg is pointing out 

8 the fact that we're trying to -- as he said, 

9 not a one-size-fit-all, but to look at the 

10 information to see where the information is 

11 driving us rather than to set a path in the 

12 beginning in terms of where we ought to look 

13 for the records. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Josie, and then Jim. 

15 MS. BEACH: Yes, within your records research 

16 support slides I didn't notice a bullet for 

17 Nevada Test Site. Is there a reason for that? 

18 DR. WORTHINGTON: In terms of record -- 

19 MS. BEACH: Just records that you have searched 

20 out. That's what I took those three -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you -- 

22 MS. BEACH: -- to be -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- highlighted a number of areas, 

24 and it was a little noticeable to us here 

25 today, since we've been talking about Nevada 
161

1 Test Site records, that that didn't appear on 

2 either of the two lists that you gave us -- 

3 MS. BEACH: Actually three -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: --- for some reason. 

5 MS. BEACH: -- three lists. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Or three lists. 

7 DR. WORTHINGTON: I -- I don't -- we talked 

8 about those big projects that were nearing -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: The lists may not have been -- 

10 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- that were nearing 

11 completion or nearing maturity, but we have had 

12 record verifications, individual kinds of 

13 activities that we've responded to for Nevada. 

14 We probably ought to look at those slides and 

15 see if they -- they do need to be tweaked to 

16 reflect that. Thank you. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I apologize if this issue's 

19 come up earlier -- I had to step out for a 

20 second -- but we -- we've had problems at the 

21 Hanford site due to the continuing resolution 

22 and that's provi-- you know, been a significant 

23 hold-up in terms of access to necessary records 

24 from that site for our review of the site 

25 profile and the SEC evaluation. With the 
162

1 omnibus budget package and everything being 

2 passed, is that now -- should that now free up 

3 the funding that's necessary for records 

4 retrieval there? 

5 DR. WORTHINGTON: I'm going to provide some 

6 information, and then the three of us actually 

7 -- Greg and Gina and myself -- we were on the 

8 phone I guess about ten minutes before we 

9 arrived here to make sure that we have the most 

10 recent status regarding Hanford because there 

11 was some questions on that yesterday, so we'll 

12 try our best to be able to answer that. 

13 In terms of the funding for Hanford, there is 

14 some funding at Hanford now. We expect to send 

15 out in January another document that will allow 

16 some additional funding. And then by February 

17 to be able to hopefully release all the funding 

18 that was originally budgeted for for the actual 

19 Hanford site. And as I mentioned on some 

20 earlier slides, we've had significant increase 

21 in terms of the data requests and searches or 

22 whatever, things that were not actually 

23 budgeted for in the previous years. They 

24 weren't envisioned in terms of the level of 

25 funding. And so at Hanford, while we had some 
163

1 funding there, it was not funding that would be 

2 adequate to address all the needs on the table 

3 at this time. And so we've been working with 

4 NIOSH and others to set some priority on the 

5 kinds of things that we could do with the 

6 limited funding that we had. And the number 

7 one priority was to focus on the individual 

8 claims first. That's how we set the 

9 priorities. And then based on the funding 

10 level that we had, we kind of worked through 

11 what are the other things that we can do. We 

12 believe that we will have an improvement in the 

13 funding. We'll have some additional relief by 

14 February, some additional funding in January, 

15 and then we have to begin to address this 

16 overall concern about the actual funding. 

17 Again, the projections in previous years -- 

18 they certainly were low compared to what it is 

19 that we actually are confronted with today in 

20 terms of what we have to do, so we have to be 

21 able to figure out how to get our arms around 

22 that and how we can fund those things at a -- 

23 at a higher level. And Greg and Gina, anything 

24 else coming out of that -- that call that we 

25 had? I think that -- that's pretty much where 
164

1 we are. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Can -- can I follow -- yeah -- no, 

3 I -- I appreciate that, I appreciate the 

4 difficulty. I think what we were -- had 

5 problem at Hanford is now that with the -- both 

6 the site profile review but also the SEC 

7 evaluation, we are requesting a lot more 

8 information, I mean in sort of turning our 

9 attention to that site, beyond just individual 

10 dose reconstructions. And turns out as part of 

11 this, NIOSH is doing considerable revisions to 

12 their dose reconstruction methods, or at least 

13 looking into that, particularly for neutron 

14 exposures. So we have sort of their requests 

15 for records, we have requests from our 

16 contractor to look at other records that are 

17 necessary to evaluate the SEC, and I think at 

18 this point we just would like, you know -- if 

19 we can work out and coordinate it -- we've been 

20 holding up on the requests from our contractor 

21 for records there, hoping that with the 

22 continuing resolution, the issue being put 

23 aside, that the funding would be freed up, but 

24 -- but there is -- there will be a significant 

25 demand and it is holding up not only -- it may 
165

1 not -- to some extent it may be individual dose 

2 reconstruction, but certainly the -- the -- the 

3 SEC review there, we can't go forward. So I 

4 would hope that we could get some attention 

5 there and coordination. I mean -- appreciate 

6 you being willing to follow up, but I don't 

7 think we need additional information now but 

8 just as long as we can get it coordinated and 

9 moving forward. 

10 DR. WORTHINGTON: And I do want to comment a 

11 little bit on the coordination piece. That's 

12 something that we believe we've already started 

13 to address. We've tried to work with all the 

14 organizations. We were looking to have some 

15 entrance activities with the sites, bringing 

16 everybody together initially to kind of 

17 understand the -- the real impacts and the 

18 kinds of things that are needed such that in 

19 some cases we're only asking for the 

20 information once, or that there's some idea 

21 when they're looking for the other information, 

22 you know, where we are po-- where it's possible 

23 that we have a -- you know, a -- a list of 

24 things that -- that you would want in terms of 

25 the Board and your contractors to work on 
166

1 those. So we're working hard on the 

2 coordination. 

3 The new things that we're starting up I think 

4 will have a better chance. The other ones 

5 we're kind of back-fitting and reaching back 

6 and trying to make sure that we can -- can look 

7 at what we have already and how we can improve 

8 and get those things out. We recognize that 

9 this certainly is a challenge and it's -- 

10 certainly people are aware of it at -- at the 

11 high levels and we will try to figure out how 

12 best to -- to get to the bottom of this. But 

13 it will probably not be easy, but we're working 

14 it. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mr. Presley. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: This morning Larry Elliott gave 

17 us a overview of the NIOSH responses. One of 

18 the things that Larry Elliott talked about was 

19 that they had 170 cases that the documents were 

20 over 60 days overdue; 120-plus of these cases 

21 or documents were from one single location. 

22 I'd like to see you all kind of look into that. 

23 That's 75 percent of the documents they need 

24 from one location. And it may be part of the 

25 continuing resolution or -- we don't know, but 
167

1 that might be some -- one you might want to 

2 look into. 

3 DR. WORTHINGTON: We certainly will keep trying 

4 to improve that. I believe we -- we know the 

5 site and actually, you know, while we speak of 

6 it as a single site, it is a site where -- the 

7 record retrieval is coming through one 

8 location, but there are many sites and many 

9 programs associated with it. And also the -- 

10 again, sometimes at a given site for a process 

11 you may have to go 16, 20, 25 different places 

12 in order to get that. So in some cases it's 

13 quite complicated. 

14 Also if I could go back to this -- and I hate 

15 to keep bringing it up, but to go back to this 

16 vision in the past -- in the previous years in 

17 terms of the level of funding that would be 

18 required to do this. The sites themselves have 

19 very small operations and -- and so even when 

20 we -- when we come to them with these huge 

21 requests, they're very small -- one, two, 

22 three, four individuals, if they're lucky, that 

23 are focused on that. So we -- we are certainly 

24 bombarding them with huge requests. And in 

25 some cases, you know, they've had to bring on 
168

1 additional people where the funding was 

2 allowed, but also we're working on, as far as 

3 the classification things are concerned, we're 

4 trying to bring in people from headquarters 

5 that could help facilitate and expedite that 

6 part of the review. But again, we -- we 

7 appreciate all the comments and we will 

8 continue to try to work and improve these 

9 things. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Phil Schofield. 

11 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah, I've got a concern here, 

12 and that's -- Libby White, before she moved on, 

13 was trying to get clearances for some of the 

14 Board members and some of our contractors are 

15 running into problems having access to records 

16 because they've -- their clearances have 

17 expired. What is DOE doing on this so that 

18 these issues are being addressed -- how are 

19 they being addressed now? 

20 DR. WORTHINGTON: In terms of clearances or 

21 access to the sites, we have to always follow 

22 the protocols or requirements at that site. 

23 And I'll ask Gina and Greg if they have some 

24 additional comments on the back and if they 

25 could provide them for further clarity. But I 
169

1 believe that the requests for Board members -- 

2 for clearances, that they've been submitted, 

3 you know, to DOE and that we've been working 

4 through those. And in some cases they're 

5 already completed or whatever. But any time if 

6 you feel something that something fell through 

7 the crack or whatever, you know, please bring 

8 it to our attention. But certainly we 

9 recognize that the Board members and in some 

10 cases their contractor need access and we 

11 forward those on for -- for processing. But we 

12 will be, again, required to follow the overall 

13 protocols of the -- of that site in terms of 

14 access requirements. 

15 And Libby was very gracious -- we certainly 

16 miss her, but she was very gracious as she 

17 moved on to science, you know, to brief us on 

18 any open issues, and I believe that we have, 

19 for the most part, addressed any access issues. 

20 But if there's something that's pending that 

21 somehow or another we're not aware of, please 

22 make us aware of today so that we can get with 

23 our folks and -- and expedite those things and 

24 locate those -- those -- those files that 

25 somehow or another didn't go through the 
170

1 process. 

2 MR. SCHOFIELD: Possible I'd like to speak to 

3 you a little later off the record then. 

4 DR. WORTHINGTON: Yeah, I -- I welcome that. 

5 Thank you. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments or 

7 questions? 

8 DR. WORTHINGTON: Thank you very much for your 

9 attention. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you again, Patricia. Next 

11 we'll hear an update on Department of Labor 

12 activities from Jeff Kotsch. Jeff, welcome 

13 back. 

14 (Pause) 

15 Before Jeff starts let me double-check and 

16 confirm that Gen Roessler is on the line. 

17 DR. ROESSLER: I'm on the line. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Did Mark Griffon get 

19 back? 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Gen, we cannot hear you. 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) was denied, but 

23 I don't know, it's up to you (unintelligible) -

24 - 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Please mute your phone unless 
171

1 you're speaking. Thank you. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Again I'll ask if Mark Griffon is 

3 on the line. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) the same coming 

5 down in the morning (unintelligible) that stuff 

6 and -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Gen, is that you speaking? 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: -- (unintelligible) I'm telling 

9 you -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me, for those of you who 

11 are participating in the -- in the meeting by 

12 telephone, if you would please mute your line, 

13 there's someone whose line is open and we're 

14 hearing a lot of background information about 

15 your personal business. Thank you. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: That seemed to work. 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Paul, this is Gen Roessler. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Gen. 

19 DR. ROESSLER: I -- I -- in trying to operate 

20 this complicated phone, I disconnected but I -- 

21 I'm back on and I'm now on the regular phone 

22 rather than the earphone so I think you can 

23 hear me better. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We can hear you very well. 

25 DR. ROESSLER: Okay, thank you. 
172

1 DR. ZIEMER: I think we just got rid of some 

2 other background interference. Is it all clear 

3 from your end? 

4 DR. ROESSLER: It sounds quite clear. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. 

6 (Pause) 

7 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UPDATE

8 MR. KOTSCH: We're not going to be able to -- 

9 for -- for some reason this computer's not 

10 picking up the CD drive and so we won't be able 

11 to project -- does everyone have a copy? I 

12 think the Board certainly does. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do you have a copy 

14 of Jeff's presentation? Okay. Go ahead, Jeff. 

15 I think we all have copies and for members of 

16 the -- 

17 MR. KOTSCH: Okay, good, let's do that -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, stand by. We'll get a 

19 computer glitch corrected here. 

20 (Pause) 

21 Are there any new products being shown this 

22 week in this town that will solve these 

23 problems for us? 

24 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

25 staff to get their presentations 
173

1 (unintelligible) earlier (unintelligible) 

2 different reasons. But also (on microphone) it 

3 would be helpful to have the SEC evaluation 

4 reports on there rather than just the 

5 presentations so that we can refer back to the 

6 -- right now all there is is -- most of them 

7 are the PowerPoint presentations, not the full 

8 evaluation reports. 

9 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

10 when we can't get on line and pull that stuff 

11 (unintelligible) -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: Exactly, yeah. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Or -- or send them by e-mail in 

14 advance. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Well, it -- it just would be 

16 helpful to know. I don't object to getting -- 

17 I just need to know what to bring with me, what 

18 to put on the computer. I -- I was expecting 

19 those to be on the thing, and since we can't 

20 get them on line here very easily, I think it's 

21 -- it's more important. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) I didn't bring 

23 anything (unintelligible). 

24 MS. MUNN: The real -- the real problem is not 

25 having access to our usual wireless capability 
174

1 in the conference room. That's -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: This -- this -- this room is 

3 prohibiting your ability? 

4 MS. MUNN: This -- well, this particular 

5 facility does not provide wireless 

6 communication in the conference rooms. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: It does, but it's... 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

9 (Unintelligible) $49 per person, yeah. 

10 MS. MUNN: Per person. 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: $50 per day per person. 

12 MR. KOTSCH: Thanks, Brad. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Are we set? 

14 MR. KOTSCH: Yep. Sorry -- sorry for the 

15 delay. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Let's proceed now with Department 

17 of Labor status -- or update. 

18 MR. KOTSCH: Good afternoon to the Board, to 

19 the claimants of the program, to our associates 

20 with Energy and NIOSH, its contractors and the 

21 Board contractors. 

22 One thing I wanted to just state at the 

23 beginning is that we have at this meeting a 

24 member -- the Director of our Las Vegas 

25 Resource Center in attendance, as long -- as 
175

1 well as three members of our Seattle District 

2 Office, including Christy Long, who's our 

3 District Director, here talking with claimants 

4 if they -- to -- to answer questions or address 

5 issues. And that's -- we started that up again 

6 in Chicago and it seems to be a useful thing, 

7 along with the NIOSH PHAs. And Larry's helped 

8 facilitate us to do that and we think that 

9 works out pretty well. 

10 The DOL portion of the program actually has two 

11 parts. Part B, which is primarily what we're 

12 involved with here, that's the portion of the 

13 program that deals with cancers, silicosis, 

14 beryllium sensitivity, beryllium disease. That 

15 part of the program became effective in July of 

16 2001, and as of -- I think all our slides are 

17 dated December 25th, 2007. As of that date 

18 we've had 60,213 cases involving 87,464 claims. 

19 And for those who haven't heard me say this 

20 before, the difference in those two numbers is 

21 simply because a case can have more than one 

22 claimant in the -- in the event of a survivor 

23 claim. Of all those claims, 39,330 involve 

24 cancers; and 26,002 of those cases have been 

25 referred to NIOSH for dose reconstructions. 
176

1 The other part of the program that DOL deals 

2 with that's not -- is -- is the Part E program, 

3 which was enacted in October of 2004 by 

4 Congress. There we have 50,012 cases, of which 

5 25,884 were transferred over from Department of 

6 Energy under their old Part D program in June 

7 of 2005. That part of the program is all toxic 

8 exposures, asbestosis, all the other conditions 

9 other than cancers. 

10 The compensation program to date, or at least 

11 the end of 2007, has issued $3.2 billion in 

12 total compensation; $2.2 billion of that have 

13 been paid for Part B claims, $1.7 billion for 

14 cancer, $272 million for the RECA claims that 

15 is also adjudicated by the Department of 

16 Justice, $939 million have been paid for Part E 

17 claims, and $187 million in medical. 

18 The total payees under the program are 36,653, 

19 of which -- and the percentages are there. The 

20 cancer cases are 32 percent, the RECAs are 15, 

21 Part Es are 23. The other Part Bs are the sil22 - like I said before, the silicosis, the -- the 

23 beryllium sensitivity, the chronic beryllium 

24 disease. 

25 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, I wish to find out that 
177

1 order that had (unintelligible). 

2 MR. KOTSCH: Now as far as the Part B cancer 

3 case status, we've had 39,330 cases involving 

4 60,237 claims. We've had 30,000 -- almost 

5 31,000 cases in final decisions. That's about 

6 79 percent. A little under 2,000 with 

7 recommended but no final decisions. That is -- 

8 those would be cases that would be with our 

9 Final Adjudication Branch, which is the point 

10 in time where the claimants have the 

11 opportunity to submit additional information or 

12 object to the -- to the recommended decision if 

13 it's a denial. 

14 We're showing 400 -- I'm sorry, 4,332 cases at 

15 NIOSH. Our numbers always differ a little bit 

16 from Larry's because of the -- some of the 

17 nuances in our tracking systems, as well as the 

18 time we take the snapshot of the -- the case 

19 numbers. And we've got 2,074 cases pending 

20 initial decision. That is they're in the -- 

21 they're in the initial development stages at 

22 Labor as we develop for survivor information, 

23 medical information, employment information. 

24 The breakdown for the cancer case final 

25 decisions is shown in this slide. There've 
178

1 been 11,111 final approvals, and 19,024 final 

2 decisions for denial. In the breakdowns on the 

3 right side, moving left to right, the yellow 

4 column is about 3,200 for non-covered 

5 employment. The green is the 11,546 that have 

6 had dose reconstructions with POCs less than 50 

7 percent; 2,803 for insufficient medical 

8 evidence; 1,114 for non-covered conditions, 

9 which would generally now be covered under the 

10 Part E, or at least addressed under the Part E 

11 program; and 361 for ineligible survivors. 

12 Related to the NIOSH referrals, this case 

13 status for those -- that category, we're 

14 showing 26,002 referrals to NIOSH. We've had 

15 19,656 returned; 2,000 -- a little over 2,000 

16 of those were withdrawn for various reasons 

17 that we did not require that they have a dose 

18 reconstruction. So that left the number of 

19 17,652 dose reconstructions and about -- little 

20 less than 3,000 rework requests. And we're 

21 showing 4,336 initial referrals at NIOSH for 

22 dose reconstructions. So the percentage is 

23 about 74 for completion of dose 

24 reconstructions. 

25 Dose reconstruction case status, we're showing 
179

1 16,000 about 700 with dose reconstructions; 

2 14,000 -- about fourteen and a half thousand of 

3 those have final decisions, and a little less 

4 than 2,000 have recommended but no finals. And 

5 we have about 400 pending a recommended 

6 decision. Again, we've received the dose 

7 reconstruction. The District Offices are 

8 proceeding through with final reviews for those 

9 be-- as they write the recommended decisions. 

10 It's -- it's -- it's at that point often that 

11 we get -- which may trigger into the reworks, 

12 where we get additional information, as -- as 

13 Larry mentioned yesterday, related to 

14 additional cancers, additional employment, 

15 maybe different -- or additional survivors that 

16 may result in that dose reconstruction having -

17 - dose reconstruction having to be returned for 

18 a -- for a rework. 

19 The new SEC-related cases, in regard to that, 

20 we've had 1,495 withdrawn from SEC review after 

21 NIOSH and DOL worked together to formulate the 

22 list of cases that we think are affected, and 

23 then we withdraw those cases and then DOL does 

24 the actual review to determine whether the -- 

25 each case meets the criterion of the class -- 
180

1 criteria of the class. From that we've had 

2 1,326 final decisions, or about 93 percent of 

3 those; 59 have recommended but no finals; 43 

4 are pending, that's -- they're in the review 

5 process; and we've had 67 closures, meaning 

6 that they basically didn't meet what we thought 

7 -- you know, they didn't meet the intent of the 

8 class and just went back into the -- into the 

9 process again. 

10 So the case-related compensation is -- as far 

11 as numbers goes -- $917 million in 

12 compensation. That's for 9,513 payees in 6,145 

13 cases. We've had $748 million on 5,004 dose 

14 reconstructed cases. We've had $169 million on 

15 the added SEC cases. That involves 141 (sic) 

16 cases for -- involving 2,434 payees. 

17 And then what we often do in -- at meetings for 

18 sites that are up for SEC evaluation or of some 

19 other interest to the Board, we just give some 

20 numbers. Combustion Engineering, the left -- 

21 we have cases or -- and claims are in 

22 parentheses. For Part B and E there were 78 

23 cases. NIOSH performed four dose 

24 reconstructions. We had 11 Part B decisions by 

25 DOL; two Part B approvals, one Part E approval. 
181

1 And total compensation for Parts B and E was 

2 $4,000 -- I'm sorry, $425,000. 

3 For Lawrence Livermore National Lab we had 

4 1,905 cases, 421 dose reconstructions by NIOSH, 

5 621 final decisions resulting in -- final B 

6 decisions resulting in 215 B approvals, 173 

7 Part E approvals, for a total of $37 million in 

8 total compensation for Part B and E. 

9 For Mound we had 1,396 cases for both Part B 

10 and E. NIOSH performed 271 dose 

11 reconstructions and DOL issued 486 final Part B 

12 decisions, which 140 were approvals. We had an 

13 additional 121 Part E approvals for $27 

14 million. 

15 Nevada Test Site, we had 5,064 cases for both 

16 Part B and E. NIOSH performed 996 dose 

17 reconstructions. We had 1,674 Part B final 

18 decisions, of which 638 were approvals. We had 

19 another 546 Part E approvals, for total 

20 compensation of -- for Parts B and E, of $120 

21 million. 

22 Texas City was there, it's -- I don't think 

23 it's on our agenda here so I won't discuss 

24 that, other than the fact that Part E only 

25 applies to DOE facilities, so in the case of 
182

1 Part -- I'm sorry, in the case of Texas City 

2 Chemicals, that was an AWE. Part E wouldn't 

3 apply to that anyway. 

4 And that's it for the update. Any questions? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you again, Jeff, very much. 

6 Board members, do you have questions? Josie. 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: Wow, what's that? 

8 MS. BEACH: In regards to your slide, Jeff. I 

9 just have a question on the Linde site. In 

10 December it was redesignated from an AWE site 

11 to a DOE site. Can you give us a little 

12 background or why that occurred, and if -- if 

13 that decision is final? 

14 MR. KOTSCH: I think -- I'm not -- I know this 

15 decision is final. I unfortunately don't 

16 always keep up with some of that -- those kinds 

17 of things 'cause they're on the other side of 

18 my -- of our shop there. I don't know if 

19 anybody else can provide guidance or 

20 information. That decision is final. I think 

21 they just reviewed, you know, the information 

22 there and decided that there was -- there was a 

23 need for a change in the -- the -- what do you 

24 call -- the classification for that site. I 

25 don't know if Larry or -- I -- I have to admit, 
183

1 I don't remember all the details for that. 

2 MS. BEACH: Is it possible to get back to the 

3 workgroup and let us know that? 

4 MR. KOTSCH: Oh, yeah, yeah, we can do that. 

5 Got a question from a woman last night who had 

6 -- we talked after the public session and I 

7 need to follow up on that information because, 

8 like I said, I'm unfortunately not as familiar 

9 as I probably should be on -- on that 

10 particular thing. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that was an individual who 

12 basically raised that question during the 

13 public comment period, and we indicated that 

14 probably that was a question that needed to go 

15 to Labor and/or DOE because those are the ones 

16 involved in making those determinations. 

17 MR. KOTSCH: Right. But I've got that 

18 information from -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: And she has followed up -- 

20 MR. KOTSCH: Yes. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: She told me she did -- 

22 MR. KOTSCH: Okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- follow up with you, so at least 

24 that first step has been made. 

25 MR. KOTSCH: But we'll get back to the 
184

1 workgroup. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

3 DR. MELIUS: That information should be given 

4 to the whole Board 'cause it's an area that's 

5 still confusing to -- to many of us, 

6 understanding how these designations are made, 

7 and I think it'd be useful. 

8 My question, Jeff, is among the whatever it is, 

9 4,400 claims remaining at -- that NIOSH is 

10 working on, includes I believe it is 44 that 

11 are among the first 5,000 that came in that are 

12 five or six years old, and just wondering if 

13 Department of Labor had a position on sor-- 

14 sort of be ultimately responsible for 

15 processing claims in this program on -- on 

16 whether those -- something ought to be done to 

17 move those claims along. It seems to me that 

18 five or six years is an unacceptable amount of 

19 time for a compensation claim and certainly is 

20 far out of the norm for any of the programs 

21 that I know about within the Department of 

22 Labor. So do you have any comment on that? 

23 MR. KOTSCH: I -- I mean all I can say is we're 

24 -- the -- NIOSH is responsible for performing 

25 the dose reconstructions once we've shipped 
185

1 them to -- to their -- to their shop to be 

2 worked on. And I know we've been working with 

3 NIOSH from the beginning to -- an effort to 

4 move all claims forward, and that's just -- I 

5 don't -- I don't really have anything else 

6 beyond that, you know, that I can say. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Thank you. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Other questions or comments? 

9 (No responses) 

10 Okay. Thank you, Jeff. We appreciate the 

11 update. Thank you very much. 

12 MR. KOTSCH: Thank you. 

13 FY08 TASKS FOR SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES (SC&A)

14 DR. ZIEMER: Now we want to go back and pick up 

15 two items that are carry-overs from this 

16 morning's agenda. First, Fiscal Year '08 tasks 

17 for SC&A, the Board's contractor. 

18 Dr. Wade, are you prepared to take us through 

19 that topic? 

20 DR. WADE: Yes, I am, and I would also ask if 

21 David Staudt, who's the contracting officer, is 

22 on the line. David will be assisting. David, 

23 are you with us? 

24 (No responses) 

25 David Staudt? 
186

1 DR. ZIEMER: I know that we need to have David 

2 here for the next item on the support 

3 contractor. Are we able to move ahead on this 

4 one -- 

5 DR. WADE: Yes, we are, I can -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the absence of David? 

7 DR. WADE: I can give Christine the phone and 

8 she can talk to David. 

9 Let me proceed with the item of tasking the 

10 Board's contractor for this fiscal year. We've 

11 talked about this at the last two Board 

12 meetings, one the call, and the meeting before 

13 that. And we're making progress. I'll -- I'll 

14 provide an introduction to my comments to say 

15 that we do want to keep SC&A fully tasked. 

16 They have a cadre of very capable professionals 

17 on staff and I -- I think it's incumbent upon 

18 us to consider that as we task them with new 

19 work. That doesn't mean we should spend money 

20 foolishly. So that's background for my 

21 comments. 

22 What I'd like to do is talk about each of the 

23 tasks under the SC&A contract, and in some 

24 cases there are decisions for you to make; in 

25 some cases there is not. 
187

1 Let me start with the simpler ones, and that 

2 would be Task IV, which is the review of 

3 individual dose reconstructions. You know, we 

4 do about 60 a year. The subcommittee met 

5 yesterday and offered the potential of 60 cases 

6 to be reviewed this year. That would -- that 

7 would be the whole brace of cases to be 

8 reviewed this year. One of the problems -- or 

9 two of the problems is that it could be that 

10 the Board, when you hear the subcommittee's 

11 proposal, might not agree with some of them, in 

12 which case we would need to find some more 

13 cases. We might also find, once those 60 are 

14 taken to DOL, that some are in adjudication and 

15 would be inappropriate for review. But right 

16 now the subcommittee is prepared to bring to 

17 you 60 cases. That would complete all of the 

18 assignments necessary for SC&A this year in 

19 terms of cases to be reviewed. 

20 There is the need for the review of two blind 

21 cases -- last year, we owed two -- and the 

22 subcommittee decided on two blind cases to be 

23 reviewed by SC&A. There are two blinds to be 

24 done this year. That remains for the 

25 subcommittee to choose those cases and to make 
188

1 the assignment. 

2 I think on Task IV we're well on our way to 

3 fully tasking the contractor. It well might be 

4 if some of those 60 fall off the table, it 

5 might be necessary on the September 20th call, 

6 for example, to add another five, six, ten, to 

7 complete the brace of 60 for this year. So 

8 that's Task number IV. 

9 John, nothing to add? Okay. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me interrupt here. So 

11 right now this is just a description of the 

12 tasking. We will have an opportunity later to 

13 actually review the -- the list of -- 

14 DR. WADE: Of 60. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- 60 being recommended by the 

16 subcommittee. 

17 DR. WADE: Right. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: And let me just make sure, in 

19 preparation for that, will -- do all the Board 

20 members have the lists from which those 

21 selections will be made? 

22 MS. MUNN: I think so. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So we probably are going to need 

24 that before we have that in our work session 

25 tomorrow. 
189

1 DR. WADE: Okay, we can provide that this 

2 evening. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Or -- yes, right. 

4 DR. WADE: I can also indicate the 60 that have 

5 been selected from those lists, so then the 

6 full Board can have them. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Some have it already. 

8 DR. WADE: I think it was distributed, but 

9 we'll distribute it again. Maybe this time 

10 Mark -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I just want to make sure that -- 

12 that the Board members have those -- if you 

13 don't, let Lew know -- the lists from which the 

14 60 have been selected, and then they will give 

15 us the designations for each of the 60 from the 

16 list. 

17 DR. WADE: So just to prepare, there are two 

18 lists. There's a list of all cases, and then 

19 there's a list of best estimate cases, and the 

20 subcommittee selected from both. 

21 At 10:45 tomorrow on the agenda is that 

22 subcommittee report out. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now hold on, we're having 

24 problems with the phone lines again. 

25 Gen Roessler, are you still on the line? 
190

1 (No responses) 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Apparently, Dr. Ziemer, 

3 we've -- we've -- we're the ones who were 

4 kicked off the line, so David Staudt is trying 

5 to get back in and we need to take a minute to 

6 get back -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: -- get the line back on. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so -- 

10 DR. WADE: Have we done that? 

11 DR. BRANCHE: We're doing it. He said it's 

12 going to take a few minutes to re-engage -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so -- 

14 DR. BRANCHE: -- so can we take -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- just stand by. Just stand by. 

16 If you need to take a break, just do that 

17 individually but we're just going to stand by 

18 here a minute. 

19 DR. WADE: All I was going to do was walk you 

20 through each of the tasks and tell you what -- 

21 what's done, and in some cases some things 

22 could be considered to be done. 

23 (Pause) 

24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:25 p.m. 

25 to 2:45 p.m.) 
191

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll now come back to 

2 order. I've just confirmed that those on the 

3 phone, including Dr. Roessler and David Staudt, 

4 can hear us. We are returning to the -- the 

5 item on the agenda called Task '08 -- or FY '08 

6 tasks for Sanford Cohen & Associates, and Dr. 

7 Wade had just completed describing Task IV and 

8 the selection of 60 dose reconstruction re-- 

9 cases to review. I think, Dr. Wade, if you 

10 want to continue from that point, let's 

11 proceed. 

12 DR. WADE: Just for David's benefit, where we 

13 are on Task IV is the subcommittee made a 

14 preliminary selection of 60 cases to be 

15 reviewed this year. They will be presented to 

16 the Board tomorrow. We always have the 

17 possibility of some of those cases falling off 

18 the table based upon the fact that they're in 

19 adjudication or the Board might not approve 

20 them, in which case we would have to find the 

21 number of cases of those 60 that fell off the 

22 table, add those to SC&A's plate so we'd have 

23 the full 60 for this year. 

24 The subcommittee did recommend two blinds to 

25 SC&A. Those two blinds really fill slots that 
192

1 were available from blind reviews last year, so 

2 the subcommittee has to come up with two new 

3 blind reviews for SC&A this year. But Task IV 

4 is well underway to being fully prescribed. 

5 Let's talk about Task III, which is the 

6 procedures review. That's been a very active 

7 and ongoing workgroup. John Mauro informed us 

8 when last we met that there's -- there's not 

9 much free board there, but maybe there's free 

10 board to do three, four, five additional 

11 procedures. We talked to the procedures 

12 workgroup. They would rather wait the 

13 assignment of those procedures to see how 

14 things unfold because, as they do their 

15 business, they are learning of additional 

16 procedures and so there's some free board 

17 there, not a lot, and that's where that stands. 

18 Jim? 

19 DR. MELIUS: I could ask this to my neighbor 

20 here, but -- are we going to have a report from 

21 the procedures workgroup at -- 'cause I mean -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we'll have a report from -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: -- one -- one thing that might be 

24 -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- all the workgroups. 
193

1 DR. MELIUS: -- one things might be helpful 

2 including in deciding that is sort of -- I mean 

3 I've not been involved and I'm not really 

4 familiar with what they've been doing and I -- 

5 I think, as we found with the case reviews, 

6 it's helpful to sort of bring back to the full 

7 Board and get -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

9 DR. MELIUS: -- flavor of how -- how we go 

10 forward with that. Not that I question the job 

11 that they're doing, but... 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we will have a report 

13 actually from all the workgroups tomorrow -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- either a status report or an 

16 update, as the case may be. And certainly if -

17 - if -- as a result of those reports, if 

18 there's something significant to impact on 

19 tasking, we can certainly identify that. 

20 DR. MELIUS: But -- but I'm sort of looking to 

21 -- can we come to sort of closure on some of 

22 our reviews in some way for the full Board to -

23 - 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- weigh in, that's... 
194

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

2 DR. WADE: Okay, let's go to Task V, which is 

3 the SEC task. When we let the contract for 

4 this year we assumed that there might be six 

5 reviews that the Board would ask its contractor 

6 to do. When John reported to you last time, he 

7 indicated that they have underway now out of 

8 this year's funding the NTS review -- this is 

9 the NTS underground petition that you heard 

10 earlier today. You assigned SC&A yesterday a 

11 Mound review. John indicates to me that he has 

12 free board for three additional SEC reviews. 

13 It was the wisdom of the Board when last we 

14 talked to wait on those assignments to see what 

15 comes your way. I would say to you when LaVon 

16 Rutherford presents tomorrow his report on the 

17 status of SEC petitions, you'll start to see 

18 that there are some building up in the queue, 

19 such as Pantex or Texas City Chemical or Santa 

20 Susana Field Lab, that you might want to give 

21 your contractor a jump start on and allow them 

22 to start to -- to review background material in 

23 anticipation of a petition evaluation report 

24 that will be out there. 

25 I'm not advocating that you do that. I'm not 
195

1 advocating you do it now. I'm just saying 

2 think about that tomorrow when LaVon presents 

3 to you. Giving SC&A an ability to review 

4 background material before a petition hits that 

5 they're likely to have to review can help the 

6 process in terms of time efficiency. 

7 John or Arjun, anything you'd like to add 

8 there? 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Please come to the microphone if 

10 you do. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on, hang on, Phillip has a 

13 comment. 

14 MR. SCHOFIELD: While we're talking about tasks 

15 for SC&A for the next year I would like to 

16 throw in something here that -- e-mail that Dr. 

17 Dan McKeel sent out. Says (reading) Dr. 

18 Ziemer, Board members Advisory Board on 

19 Radiation Worker Health, may I respectfully ask 

20 that you please consider having SC&A review the 

21 six-part Weldon Spring plant site profiled June 

22 2005 during the 2008 fiscal year. I believe 

23 assigning SC&A site profile reviews for 

24 particular sites is scheduled for final 

25 discussion during Las Vegas meeting January 8th 
196

1 through 10th -- excuse me. I have listened 

2 carefully and believe that this major DOE site 

3 has not really been considered for a site 

4 profile review the last few years. Weldon 

5 Spring merits such a review based on the total 

6 number of claims, which is larger than several 

7 sites being currently considered by the Board 

8 for Fiscal Year 2008 SC&A review. As the Board 

9 is well aware, Mallinckrodt Destrehan where the 

10 uranium division operated before moving St. 

11 Charles County received the first SE-- SEC 

12 petition award. Many Destrehan Street workers 

13 moved to the Weldon Spring plant to continue 

14 their employment in the MCW uranium division. 

15 Abundant testimony and Board meeting 

16 transcripts from both MCW Destrehan Street and 

17 Weldon Spring workers during the MCW SEC 

18 deliberations in 2005/2006 showed that many 

19 practices that led to the Destrehan Street SEC 

20 continued at Weldon Spring. This is another 

21 reason the site profile should be reviewed by 

22 SC&A. Weldon Spring off-site operations such 

23 as those of General Steel Industries and Dow 

24 Madison in Illinois are not accurately or 

25 completely covered in the Weldon Spring site 
197

1 profile. For example, there are many other 

2 aspects of the existing WS site profile that 

3 merit re-examination by the Board's contractor. 

4 Ms. Brock originally submitted a joint SEC for 

5 the Destrehan Street plant for the Weldon 

6 Spring plant that NIOSH split in two. The 

7 Weldon Spring SEC was apparently never re8 submitted. Therefore all compensation decisions 

9 for workers at the Weldon Spring plant are made 

10 based on the June 2005 site profile that has 

11 never been formally reviewed by SC&A. I am 

12 asking the Board consider addressing this 

13 oversight. Dr. Dan McKeel. 

14 DR. WADE: Thank you. That serves as a perfect 

15 segue into the next task I was going to 

16 discuss, which is -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, let -- 

18 DR. WADE: -- site profile review. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- let me mention here, and we 

20 want to distinguish between the SEC reviews 

21 where there is an actual petition and the site 

22 profile reviews. We will have an SEC sort of 

23 update from -- from LaVon tomorrow. I -- I'm 

24 thinking that the memo you just read -- I 

25 either distributed it to everyone, or Dan did, 
198

1 I forget which it was -- 

2 DR. WADE: It was distributed. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- but -- but everyone has that so 

4 we're aware of that memo and we want to take 

5 that into consideration with others that are 

6 coming down the pick -- 

7 DR. WADE: Right. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- so that we can kind of 

9 establish priorities on these, 'cause there are 

10 many -- not just that one, but there are many 

11 others, as well, we need to be looking at. 

12 Thank you. 

13 DR. WADE: Okay. So -- John? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: John? 

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, one issue -- when you raised 

16 the question regarding Task V and the SEC -- I 

17 was taking some notes earlier when you were 

18 discussing Lawrence Livermore. Now you did -- 

19 certainly did not task us with this, but I just 

20 wan-- I noticed that there was some question 

21 regarding cutoff point -- I think it was 1973 -

22 - because at that point certain data became 

23 available, and for that reason there was a 

24 judgment made that the SEC would cover a 

25 certain time period which would end in 1973. I 
199

1 know there was some discussion regarding that. 

2 I -- I -- I thought it would be appropriate 

3 just to remind. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I think we -- on Lawrence 

5 Livermore we asked the SEC subcommittee (sic) 

6 and we did -- we asked -- actually authorized 

7 them to task -- or we tasked, I forget which it 

8 was, in fact, to assist in that issue, that 

9 very issue, so that's on the table as well and 

10 -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- make a note of that. 

13 DR. WADE: Good. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Add that to this list that -- that 

15 Lew talked about with the Mound and the NTS. 

16 DR. WADE: Right, this was to -- to review the 

17 coworker models for that -- that site. 

18 Okay, so let's -- let's go now to the most 

19 complicated task and that's Task I, that's site 

20 profile review. When we started the year we 

21 told SC&A to expect four new site profiles to 

22 be reviewed. We've assigned them now Sandia 

23 and ANL-East. They're also reviewing TBD-6000, 

24 6001, and Appendix BB to those TBDs under Task 

25 I. John tells us that that ongoing work 
200

1 largely consumes his resource as he started the 

2 year. 

3 New paragraph, though, John also tells us that 

4 he has about $800,000 that he holds in reserve 

5 to complete the reviews of site profiles that 

6 have been started by SC&A but not completed by 

7 the Board. 

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah. The way I refer to it is 

9 the-- these are reports that we've delivered. 

10 However, we've never really started the 

11 closeout process. So there is -- they're 

12 sitting on your shelf, but we have not 

13 initiated a closeout. And what I do is, for 

14 every deliverable like that I -- I put 400 work 

15 hours into the bank, so to speak, saying the 

16 day may come when we're going to have to end-- 

17 engage the closeout process. So in effect I 

18 have about $800,000 that I have on ice, so to 

19 speak. 

20 DR. WADE: Now again, if that money is spent in 

21 the review of new site profiles, then it's not 

22 available for the closeout process. On the 

23 other hand, there is some benefit to 

24 considering new materials. We just heard from 

25 Phillip, Dr. McKeel's suggestion for Weldon 
201

1 Springs. I asked John in anticipation of this 

2 meeting to recommend additional sites that he 

3 thought would be appropriate for site profile 

4 review. Again, you've -- this information's 

5 been shared with you. He recommended possibly 

6 Brookhaven Laboratories, LBNL and Santa Susana 

7 Rocketdyne as possible site profile review 

8 candidates. So now the Board faces this 

9 question: Do you give SC&A new site profiles to 

10 review and spend into the reserve that is held 

11 for the closeout of site profiles already 

12 completed, their initial review, or do you wait 

13 and see how things progress. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Let me add to that as you think 

15 about the question which Lew has asked, which 

16 is partially rhetorical, but maybe not so 

17 rhetorical, and that is that one scenario would 

18 be that there's a new contractor next year. 

19 I'm not suggesting there will be, but we have 

20 to ask that question. And if that occurred, 

21 would we not still want the present contractor 

22 to be the one closing out those reports that 

23 this contractor has delivered. And so I would 

24 ask -- for David Staudt, for example, if there 

25 were a new contractor, can the old contract be 
202

1 continued, maybe even overlapping, to allow the 

2 closeout process to go to completion on those 

3 items already delivered? 

4 MR. STAUDT: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, we could give 

5 SC&A a no-cost extension to complete those 

6 activities. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And were that to occur, then it 

8 would behoove us to make sure that we had that 

9 capability. That is, John has earmarked those 

10 funds for that purpose. If we eat into those, 

11 we could have a dilemma. 

12 Okay, Jim Lockey. 

13 DR. LOCKEY: Just for my own education, why 

14 aren't some of these being closed out? Just 

15 give me the history on that 'cause I don't 

16 recall. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have enough Board 

18 subcommittees -- or workgroups to -- to work on 

19 all of these and -- I mean we -- we have the 

20 reports, the evaluation reports -- or not 

21 evaluation reports, the reviews, site profile 

22 reviews. We have a number of these. And in 

23 the press of doing all the other things -- SECs 

24 and site profiles where we have pressing 

25 issues, and dose reconstruction reviews and so 
203

1 on -- it's just been a backlog and we -- you 

2 know, we have taken those items which press 

3 upon us, either through the -- through our own 

4 priorities or through priorities that in some 

5 way are thrust upon us politically or there are 

6 certain pressures to get certain sites done. 

7 So all of these things taken together, I mean 

8 there's a lot of work for this Board and -- 

9 DR. LOCKEY: That I understand, I just -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

11 DR. LOCKEY: -- how many are there, do you 

12 know? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in fact that was the reason 

14 we were going to have at each meeting the 

15 tracking, and I'm not sure if we have that -- 

16 DR. WADE: We'll have that tomorrow, but John 

17 can answer that question. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

19 DR. MAURO: Right now there are 12 site profile 

20 reviews that we've completed and delivered, but 

21 there is -- has not been any action on engaging 

22 them and closing them out. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And -- and this also is 

24 impacted by even NIOSH's ability to maintain 

25 the workload, particularly on the continuing 
204

1 resolution process that's been thrust upon them 

2 this past year to maintain the -- the workload. 

3 I mean part of that process is not just us, 

4 it's -- NIOSH has to respond, then we have to 

5 get together with the workgroups and do the 

6 resolution process. So it's an extensive 

7 consumer of time by us, by SC&A and by NIOSH. 

8 DR. LOCKEY: I take it, because if we have 12 

9 we're behind now, we're going to be further 

10 behind next year. And so maybe the Board needs 

11 to look at that and come to some kind -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this is one of the reasons 

13 that we -- we have suggested that we may need 

14 additional Board members in the future to help 

15 -- 

16 DR. LOCKEY: That's -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- share the load. How many 

18 workgroups are each of you on? 

19 DR. LOCKEY: Right. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And those are meeting more 

21 frequently. Some of you feel like you have a 

22 second home in Cincinnati. 

23 DR. LOCKEY: And I think that -- I think we 

24 need to have discussion about that 'cause we're 

25 not -- if -- if we're 12 behind now, we're 
205

1 going to be 15 behind next year, and so we need 

2 to come to some kind of solution to this issue. 

3 DR. WADE: You could stop assigning new site 

4 profiles and work the backlog that way, or you 

5 could take some other step. That's really what 

6 we're talking about here is to -- what you'd 

7 like to do. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we have a comment. Wanda 

9 and Jim. 

10 MS. MUNN: A sense of good stewardship would 

11 seem to dictate that we not do anything to 

12 interfere with -- with the wisdom of having set 

13 aside funds for closeout activities. The 

14 procedures group has been able to work very 

15 well with our contractor in terms of getting 

16 these things to reasonable fruition. In most 

17 cases when we still have items on our list, 

18 they are well-documented and -- and have been a 

19 little slow in closure for the last few months 

20 because we're in the process of reformatting 

21 what we're doing and have spent a great deal of 

22 attention to that. 

23 Because of the excessive amount of work that's 

24 been involved in Proc. 6000 -- in the -- in the 

25 6000 and 6001 and appendices issues for our 
206

1 contractor, the preference here would be for us 

2 to wait until tomorrow to take a look at any 

3 possible additional -- or possibly even later 

4 than tomorrow, to put any more on the 

5 contractor's plate than we have already given 

6 them, unless they specifically request us to do 

7 so. It's just a matter of using the -- the 

8 personnel that we have to the best end. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and also keep in mind the 

10 other side of that is, as we get into funding 

11 for the year ahead -- I mean this year, which 

12 is the '08 year -- we don't want them sort of 

13 sitting there idle. So to the extent -- so 

14 it's -- it's a balance between making sure we 

15 have the funds to do closeout, and still move 

16 ahead because there is work -- other work to be 

17 done. And if they're ready to do it and have 

18 personnel and funds available, we want that to 

19 occur also. Jim. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, several comments. First of 

21 all, to Jim Lockey's question, I don't think 

22 it's an issue of just the Board's lack of 

23 resources. I think it's much more complicated 

24 than -- than that. I mean I think NIOSH itself 

25 has limited resources. That's been compounded 
207

1 by the contracting problems with ORAU, but -- 

2 but even among -- there's limited number of 

3 NIOSH staff that are engaged in -- in the 

4 resolution of -- of these site profile and SEC 

5 reviews and all the other issues that are on-- 

6 ongoing and so -- just a limited number of time 

7 for meetings and so forth. And I think all of 

8 us on workgroups have had to delay because of 

9 that, either in terms of people being available 

10 or in terms of the kind of work that can easily 

11 get done between meetings to -- to -- to get 

12 accomplished. And as I said, the contracting 

13 issues have -- have made that e-- even -- even 

14 -- even worse. So I'm not sure that -- that 

15 there's a simple solution to it and I'm not 

16 sure -- it could get worse, but it -- there are 

17 also just a limited number of sites to -- to 

18 deal with so at some point it -- so run out. 

19 The other thing that we have to remember, 

20 though, that -- that is I think becoming a maj21 - or it has -- is a major problem with the site 

22 profile closeouts is that the site profiles 

23 continue to change. And in some cases what 

24 we've reviewed some time ago, or SC&A reviewed, 

25 is -- is essentially meaningless because the 
208

1 chapters have been -- had significant 

2 revisions. In the case of the -- the Hanford 

3 site profile, the -- the major issue in that 

4 being the neutron exposure is going through a 

5 whole series of revisions. When we first met 

6 about the site profile review, NIOSH was 

7 engaging in a revision. Then when the SEC 

8 evaluation came up, they're now in a set -- new 

9 revision. That's been held up because of this 

10 records access issue at Hanford because of the 

11 continuing resolution. So for us to proceed -- 

12 yeah, we've been proceeding extremely slowly on 

13 trying to close out that site profile simply 

14 because what are we -- you know, we close out 

15 something in the past but it's already changed 

16 -- and do that. So I think one of the things I 

17 -- I think we need to seriously look at and I 

18 think I -- you know, we've all been -- at least 

19 I've been delinquent in -- in putting down on 

20 paper is is there some better way of tasking 

21 SC&A to -- or whoever our contractor will be, 

22 to -- to review these. Could we segment them 

23 more -- rather than trying to do a whole site 

24 profile, should we focus on what are maybe the 

25 key parts of a site profile or at least have -- 
209

1 maybe have some more flexibility in being able 

2 to deal with issues as they come up. The thing 

3 we have very little control on is the SEC 

4 petitions, so we can have a great schedule for 

5 doing site profiles and then someone throws in 

6 a -- you know, we -- we may have designated a 

7 particular site profile as not being high 

8 priority bec-- you know, we don't think it 

9 needs to be dealt with, there are not many 

10 cases or whatever. Then you throw in a 

11 petition and suddenly we've got to pay 

12 attention to that and there -- there's a lot 

13 more time pressures for -- for ad-- addressing 

14 that petition and therefore that site prof-- 

15 profile review. But I -- I do think it would 

16 be -- behoove us to try to, you know, think 

17 about -- we talked about it a little bit at the 

18 last meeting -- how can we -- is there a better 

19 way, rather than having site profile reviews 

20 and SEC reviews, of -- of tasking our 

21 contractor to -- to be assisting us in -- in 

22 doing this that would be more efficient. May 

23 not, maybe it's too complicated, but -- but 

24 maybe the -- one of the things we can start out 

25 with next time -- I know this is sort of the 
210

1 next issue on the agenda -- is -- is tasking a 

2 contractor to develop a -- a schedule and sort 

3 of really look -- look at the -- the overall 

4 status of, you know, site profile reviews, 

5 SECs, what -- you know, what -- what's on our 

6 plate and come up with a -- a way of, you know, 

7 committing resources to that in order to -- to 

8 most efficiently deal with that. Again, 

9 probably no perfect way, given -- given what 

10 goes on. 

11 Finally, I just want to pick up on Phil's point 

12 and so forth and -- and actually also point 

13 about wh-- what if SC&A doesn't get the -- the 

14 next contract, how -- you know, we have this 

15 closeout -- the Weldon Springs is, you know, 

16 related to Mallinckrodt, which SC&A has spent a 

17 lot of time on it and I -- I -- and effort and 

18 has a fair amount of expertise. There are 

19 differences and -- in terms of I think process 

20 as well as time frame, but -- but they're not 

21 totally dissimilar and I think the -- I'd hate 

22 to lose that expertise there, so -- so I think, 

23 even though we don't have at present time an 

24 SEC petition pending on Weldon Springs, I think 

25 that -- that we ought to give it some priority 
211

1 or think about that in terms of -- of a site 

2 profile review assignment if -- if only on the 

3 chance that SC&A doesn't get the next contract. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim, did you have an 

5 additional comment? 

6 DR. LOCKEY: A comment -- what Dr. Melius just 

7 said. I -- I agree with what he's saying. I 

8 think maybe the use of the term "closeout" -- 

9 maybe there's another term. Maybe some of 

10 these actually can be closed out because we 

11 don't anticipate any changes and there's 

12 nothing on the horizon. But other ones, such 

13 as what Jim was talking about, rather than 

14 putting them in the closeout category we put 

15 them in an active review category or revision 

16 category that we expect these to be revised on 

17 an ongoing basis as additional information 

18 comes up, and allocate some of the funds to 

19 help with that process. 

20 DR. WADE: Coming out of Dr. Melius's 

21 discussion and now speaking as Technical 

22 Project Officer, not as your Designated Federal 

23 Official, I think the SEC engine is running, 

24 and you can see things happening there. You 

25 can anticipate what they are. You can 
212

1 anticipate the need for your contractor to 

2 review certain things. That, played against 

3 the fact that SC&A has staff now available, 

4 would lead me to think that possibly looking at 

5 what's coming down the SEC pike and making some 

6 early assignments to SC&A would be a good 

7 thing. That doesn't preclude assigning another 

8 site profile -- Weldon Springs if that's your 

9 choice -- but I do think there is some merit to 

10 considering using the potential that's there in 

11 anticipation of what will indeed likely be SEC 

12 work that you're going to ask your contractor 

13 to do. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, additional comment? 

15 DR. MELIUS: Just add along those lines, one 

16 thing we're trying on the Hanford site profile 

17 is more frequent consultations between all the 

18 parties involved, so we've had some -- 

19 essentially two sort of fairly quick technical 

20 meetings/conference calls just to update on 

21 where status of -- of where people are in terms 

22 of work that's ongoing, trying to break down 

23 the reviews into small pieces rather than in 

24 trying to do, you know, a complete site profile 

25 or complete -- complete SEC evaluation review 
213

1 so that we can keep the process going. And 

2 then at the same time trying to involve the 

3 petitioners and other worker representatives 

4 from that site in the process so their input is 

5 -- can be focused on the parts that we're 

6 working on now rather than -- than, you know, 

7 expecting them to, you know, address everything 

8 all at one time, but also gives them some time 

9 to -- to think about -- 'bout what kind of 

10 input would be helpful and what, you know, sort 

11 of resources -- experiences to draw on that 

12 would be most useful to tha-- to that -- that 

13 part of the review. And I think in the long 

14 term that may be more -- more efficient. We're 

15 going to try it out and appreciate the help 

16 from, you know, Larry's staff and everybody -- 

17 Arjun and the other people at SC&A to make that 

18 work, but... 

19 DR. ZIEMER: And that particularly will be the 

20 case on these large complex sites. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Savannah River will be another 

23 such case -- would be less so perhaps on sites 

24 like Pinellas, which are, in a sense, much more 

25 straightforward I think. 
214

1 Okay, other comments? Lew, do you have -- 

2 where -- where are we, as far as you're 

3 concerned, at this point? 

4 DR. WADE: I would like, before we leave Las 

5 Vegas, to have the Board consider whether or 

6 not you would like SC&A to begin its review of 

7 an anticipated SEC situation. I think the 

8 trigger for that'll be LaVon Rutherford's 

9 presentation -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

11 DR. WADE: -- tomorrow where he lists them. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I think after LaVon's 

13 presentation, and we have some Board working 

14 time, we can in fact develop such tasking -- 

15 DR. WADE: And once you do that -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- and -- and -- yeah, once the 

17 SEC part is taken care of, we can look at 

18 others. 

19 DR. WADE: -- then you can look at the site 

20 profile issue as to whether or not you would 

21 like to in some way task them. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

23 DR. WADE: I think this is exactly the 

24 discussion -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: The dose reconstruction review 
215

1 part is, in a sense, defined. It needs some 

2 tweaking, but that'll be defined. We'll get 

3 the SEC work identified. Then we can see where 

4 we are in terms of site profile. 

5 DR. WADE: My -- my small DR discussion, which 

6 I had with the subcommittee yesterday, is that 

7 when you started out you said two and a half 

8 percent would be a reasonable review number. 

9 If you're looking at 20,000 DRs, you're looking 

10 at 500 DR reviews. You've just crossed the 200 

11 line. Now maybe that's good. Maybe you want 

12 to think about that. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well the early pace was rather 

14 slow. The first 20 took a long time. Now we 

15 have the process pretty well down, although in 

16 terms of coming to closure, that has also been 

17 impacted by other activities. I mean in -- we 

18 really have only closed out and sent to the 

19 Secretary reports on the first 60 cases, and 

20 we're up to eight -- we have 160, so we have 

21 another 100 that you've already reviewed but 

22 the Board has not closed out. 

23 DR. WADE: Mark is preparing and has in draft a 

24 review of the first 100 cases. He shared that 

25 with the subcommittee, so you know, progress is 
216

1 being made there. You could accelerate your 

2 activity there. Again, when the subcommittee 

3 sits and looks, though, it's finding difficulty 

4 coming to enough best estimate cases to warrant 

5 review. I mean, you know, they -- in the early 

6 work, you did a lot of over- and 

7 underestimates, and the subcommittee feels that 

8 that's not the most productive thing to 

9 continue to do. So you're bumping into the 

10 boundaries all around, but it's okay. 

11 I do like Dr. Melius's discussion of some sort 

12 of strategic pause. How you want to do that 

13 and when you want to do that, you know, we 

14 serve at your pleasure. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think that's a good thing 

16 for us to ponder. It may be that you would 

17 look at items in terms of sort of a topical 

18 approach rather than, you know, looking at the 

19 whole site. In fact, one could do this across 

20 the board, whether it's neutron dosimetry or 

21 what, and -- and look at a number of those. 

22 But that's off the top of my head. I'm not 

23 proposing that at this point, but something to 

24 think about, is there another way to approach 

25 what we do other than simply say okay, it's 
217

1 this site and this site and this site, and then 

2 you get that done and find the first site's 

3 already been modified and so your findings, 

4 even as you're getting ready to resolve them, 

5 have no meaning because what you found is not 

6 in effect anymore anyway, so that's part of the 

7 issue. 

8 Another comment. 

9 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, in that regard -- mention 

10 that is something maybe to task as part of the 

11 new -- new contract, but -- but is it something 

12 we could do as part of the current contract. 

13 Again, you know, possibility SC&A doesn't get 

14 the contract, may be much better to draw on 

15 their experience in having gone through the 

16 process and their familiarity with it rather 

17 than wait until, you know, a new contractor 

18 came in and would have -- I mean there'd be a 

19 learning curve, et cetera, and -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and in fact -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: -- and also I think there's a need 

22 from our perspective -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- let me suggest that a 

24 possibility under Task I would be to ask the 

25 contractor to give some input as to whether or 
218

1 not that -- are there some alternate ways to 

2 conduct the Task I tasks, which are site 

3 profile reviews. I mean it seems to me -- and 

4 David, you can input on this -- do we need a 

5 new task or -- 

6 DR. WADE: And we have a project management -- 

7 MR. STAUDT: I don't think you need a new task, 

8 but -- no, I would do it under number one, if 

9 you can. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh, but -- but -- excuse me, 

11 but Larry I think -- I don't know if Larry's 

12 still here or if he's left -- good, Jim can 

13 com-- can commit to this, but is that they're 

14 in the process of -- of sort of thinking of 

15 their work plan for next year and -- and so 

16 forth, so it would be good in terms of them 

17 having input and providing information, so look 

18 at that work plan, bring that together with 

19 where we are with site profiles and SE-- SEC 

20 reviews -- no, I was laughing -- I was kidding 

21 with Ji-- Jim earlier about we're going to get 

22 him to commit to a lot of things quickly for 

23 the next meeting while -- I guess Larry had to 

24 go back to Cincinnati, so... 

25 DR. WADE: David, a generic question, if I 
219

1 might. I mean do we have the capability under 

2 the project management task to -- 

3 MR. STAUDT: Lew, I -- I was just going to 

4 interrupt you -- 

5 DR. WADE: -- ask SC&A to do some strategic 

6 thinking? 

7 MR. STAUDT: -- to suggest that. Yes, you do 

8 have that flexibility. 

9 DR. WADE: Okay. 

10 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, that's -- really could fall 

11 underneath of John's purview under that task. 

12 DR. WADE: Okay. So I think under the project 

13 management task we have the ability to ask SC&A 

14 to do some strategic thinking, even beyond just 

15 a site profile issue. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I don't think we're 

17 tasking at this moment. John's making a note, 

18 but we are thinking about this, and tomorrow 

19 after you've had a chance to think about it, we 

20 can formalize something. 

21 DR. WADE: Yeah, to -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Robert Presley has a 

23 comment. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: I think we've talked about this 

25 before, and I think John's probably working on 
220

1 some of this. We've already talked about 

2 setting aside some overlying issues like the 

3 220-day (sic) issue for different sites, 

4 radionuclides for -- you know, we've got that 

5 problem with all sites. We've got the same 

6 problem with everybody not wearing their badge 

7 or missed dosage and things like that. There's 

8 things like that that I believe that you all 

9 could probably come up with a pretty easy list 

10 that -- and say okay, this falls into that 

11 category and maybe we need to look at that as 

12 one thing and then take that out of all of the 

13 site profiles. Because I know some of those 

14 things get pretty lengthy, and if we have to do 

15 some of them for each and individual site 

16 profile, we'd spend a lot of money and time. 

17 DR. MAURO: There's no doubt out of the 23 site 

18 profile reviews that we've completed there's -- 

19 there are recurring themes. We've probably 

20 come up with a list of -- these are -- these 

21 are the ones that happen over -- types of 

22 things you mentioned a few, so that -- that's 

23 certainly something that will -- that emerges 

24 directly from our experience on doing all 

25 these. And another concept I think it's 
221

1 important to keep in mind is one of the 

2 benefits we have from having the Hanford site 

3 profile done, having the Nevada Test Site and 

4 Fernald, all of those put us in the position 

5 that allowed us to take a new strategy on the 

6 SEC reviews. Under Dr. Melius' direction, for 

7 example, we're coming at SECs in a different 

8 way than we did originally. It's -- it's very 

9 focused. It's because we understand from what 

10 ba-- because of the site profile review, we're 

11 in a position to quickly say okay, I think we 

12 understand where the -- where the hot button 

13 items are that really will have some play on 

14 the SEC side of the house, so we zero right in 

15 on those and then we iterate -- that is, we 

16 will -- under the direction, for example, of 

17 Dr. Melius, we will investigate certain lines 

18 of -- certain lines of issues, feed it back to 

19 the workgroup and get further direction. So we 

20 have -- to a certain degree, have taken a new 

21 strategy, but only as it applies to SECs. Our 

22 strategy that we're using right now on site 

23 profile is still the old conventional way. We 

24 put out this big book, you know. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't think we're 
222

1 necessarily suggesting that that's wrong. 

2 We're simply saying is -- think about is there 

3 another way that strategically would be useful 

4 as we go forward. 

5 Another comment. 

6 DR. MELIUS: While we're discussing sort of how 

7 do we do things more efficiently, I -- 

8 something I suggested before and think we still 

9 need to consider it, you may think otherwise, 

10 one is -- is there some way -- should we have 

11 more subcommittees and be able to rely on them 

12 for taking more actions, and that would reduce 

13 the amount of time that the full committee 

14 needs to deal with things. We've talked about 

15 it, for example, for dealing with 83.14 

16 petitions, which we started to get a number of, 

17 it's slowed down, I think largely because of 

18 the ORAU contract issue. I -- I think that 

19 they're going to start -- being more of those 

20 soon. Each one of those takes now an hour, 

21 hour and a half to go through during a meeting, 

22 and so we can -- you know, if we have three or 

23 four a meeting, there goes a day at -- you 

24 know, three-quarters of a -- of a day to -- to 

25 just deal with those. And I really think 
223

1 they're -- they're straightforward and if a 

2 subcommittee was charged with doing those, I -- 

3 I think we could accomplish more and could 

4 probably deal with actually -- you know, talk-- 

5 talking to the petitioners and so forth rather 

6 again having to spend the time during the -- 

7 the meeting, and still allow the -- the public 

8 part of -- of the -- the process. 

9 I also think we need a better way for our 

10 working groups to report back and sort of 

11 summarize and present the material. We -- I 

12 think that was one of the problems we ran into 

13 with Rocky Flats. It was just difficult 'cause 

14 the workgroup has done -- and we -- we have lot 

15 of our workers that are doing a lot of good 

16 work and a lot of detail work within -- and how 

17 do we get that information back before the -- 

18 the full committee in an efficient way so that 

19 we don't have to repeat that, but at the same 

20 time, members that aren't on that workgroup, 

21 you know, are -- are comfortable with -- with 

22 what the decisions are and -- and have some -- 

23 you know, appropriate amount of -- of input and 

24 -- and -- and time to get -- get questions. 

25 And I think we need to think of a way of either 
224

1 getting reports or some -- some way of doing 

2 that, beyond just the up-- the updates are 

3 helpful, but I have no idea of what Bob, you 

4 know, is doing with the NTS thing. Not that -- 

5 you know, I know they're busy and I know 

6 they've done a lot of work, but -- but I -- you 

7 know, I can't follow that and -- and -- 

8 MR. PRESLEY: And I -- I don't -- I don't -- I 

9 don't think that you -- I don't think you'd 

10 want me sitting here for half a day and tell 

11 you what each one of those comments was over 

12 and over. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Exactly, but at some point when we 

14 have to come to grips, like with the -- the NTS 

15 SEC evaluation thing, we're going to need some 

16 way of understanding what you've accomplished 

17 in that, what you've reviewed, and then making 

18 sure that -- that we're all -- you know, have a 

19 level of comfort and are -- and may -- you 

20 know, other questions are -- can be answered 

21 that -- that -- that are up -- and so I -- I 

22 think those are some things we need to think 

23 about, do -- do -- should we have a 

24 subcommittee on procedures? We have a lot of 

25 procedures under review. We need some way of 
225

1 coming to closure on those. Is it -- is it -- 

2 should we make Wanda's -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Whoa! 

4 DR. MELIUS: -- workgroup into a subcommittee -

5 - 

6 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and -- and -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: -- to allow for some more -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- indeed we have a number of 

9 workgroups where it appears -- and procedures 

10 is a good example -- where it appears that they 

11 may have an ongoing mandate, just as the dose 

12 reconstruction does. In which case, almost by 

13 definition, they -- they fit the description of 

14 a subcommittee and they require a formal 

15 charter, rather than a workgroup, which is ad 

16 hoc and is supposed to come to closure in a 

17 semi-finite period of time. 

18 Actually the SEC group, your -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- workgroup, probably is 

21 attaining that status as well. So there may be 

22 several like this, as opposed to a workgroup on 

23 a particular site -- we'll say the Ames site, 

24 which the work was done and it's -- somewhat 

25 briefer time period and it fits the -- the 
226

1 description of what a workgroup is supposed to 

2 be. It's supposed to be ad hoc and be -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- not a recurring thing that 

5 meets for five years and -- and -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: Right, there's no reason that we 

7 couldn't have two or three subcommittees 

8 meeting at the same time and -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Exactly. 

10 DR. MELIUS: -- or Ray could run back and forth 

11 or something, I don't know. 

12 DR. WADE: We await your instruction in terms 

13 of the desire for subcommittees. There is no 

14 problem in terms of developing the charters. 

15 You just need to tell us what you want us to -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and actually the way we're 

17 operating in terms of minutes and announcing 

18 meetings and so on would no change, so we can -

19 - we can slide into that a little more easily 

20 than we might otherwise anyway. 

21 DR. WADE: Just -- just for the new 

22 subcommittee chairs to realize, the only 

23 difference would be we need a Federal Register

24 notice for a subcommittee; we don't for a 

25 workgroup. That will add a little bit of rigor 
227

1 and time to announcing a subcommittee meeting, 

2 but it's no big deal. 

3 DR. MELIUS: But -- but the subcommittees could 

4 have workgroups. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Subcommittees can also have 

6 workgroups, if needed. 

7 Jim Lockey? 

8 DR. LOCKEY: Dr. Melius -- Jim Melius, are you 

9 suggesting -- I -- I just want to be clear on 

10 this. Are you suggesting that there be 

11 subcommittees of the current Board members, or 

12 -- or you're adding additional people to the 

13 Board? Or that subcommittees -- new appoint 

14 meets -- new appointments who serve at the 

15 discretion of the Board? I'm trying to 

16 understand what you're proposing. 

17 DR. MELIUS: I -- I don't know what the rules 

18 are, but the -- ex-- exactly, but I'm 

19 suggesting subcommittees made up of current 

20 Board members. Obviously we -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: We're not in a position to add 

22 members to -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- to this, and I don't think -- 

25 DR. LOCKEY: Well, but it gets -- it gets back 
228

1 to the issue -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: A subcommittee could have a -- a 

3 consultant of some sort, but -- 

4 DR. WADE: It could indeed. 

5 DR. LOCKEY: But -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- subcommittee members have to be 

7 members of this Board, I believe. I'll ask -- 

8 DR. WADE: Correct. 

9 DR. MELIUS: We have a -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- counsel to -- 

11 DR. LOCKEY: Well, it -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know, Emily or Liz, am I 

13 correct in that statement, that subcommittee 

14 members would have to be members of this Board, 

15 but they could have -- 

16 MS. HOWELL: A federal -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- consultants and -- 

18 MS. HOWELL: A federal advisory board can have 

19 subcommittee members that do not sit on the 

20 main board. However, those are also going to 

21 have to go through the appointment process and 

22 be appointed by the President, affirmed by the 

23 Secretary and all of that. So there could be 

24 members of a subcommittee that didn't sit with 

25 you all, but you cannot appoint those persons. 
229

1 DR. ZIEMER: And they'd have to go through the 

2 White House in any event, which is not -- 

3 MS. HOWELL: It would take -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- an easy thing. 

5 MS. HOWELL: -- a couple of years. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but you can have -- I 

7 mean you -- just theoretically, I'm not 

8 suggesting this, but you could have workgroup 

9 members that are not members of the committee. 

10 DR. WADE: Correct, you could have -- the 

11 workgroup could ask ad hoc people to come and 

12 support their efforts. That could be done. 

13 They wouldn't be members of the Board. They 

14 wouldn't be voting members. They really 

15 provide staff support. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

17 MS. HOWELL: Right, and there's -- there's a 

18 difference between ad hoc members of the 

19 working group versus staff support, which Lew's 

20 talking about and you've talked about, 

21 additional contract staff or hired staff in the 

22 past, and those are two different things, so -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- ye-- yeah, no, I -- 

24 MS. HOWELL: Okay. 

25 DR. MELIUS: But I'm not -- again, I'm not sure 
230

1 that -- those be efficient for this, but I'm -- 

2 was thinking it was -- we have one 

3 subcommittee. We could have another one, maybe 

4 -- you know, three -- you know, three 

5 subcommittees or whatever, I don't think 

6 there's any real limit to it, but that could 

7 meet, you know, among the current Board members 

8 and so forth. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Now one other thing that might be 

10 helpful and working group chairs -- would be if 

11 there are reports, particularly reports that 

12 impact on the business of a particular meeting, 

13 it actually would be helpful if we had those in 

14 advance. Now one of the problems of course is 

15 if the workgroup is meeting just prior to the 

16 Board meeting, such as the Rocky Flats -- not 

17 Rocky, the Nevada Test Site workgroup. Your -- 

18 your outcomes are not available till -- at the 

19 Board meeting, but in essence if we're to act 

20 on issues in a meeting, it's very important 

21 that we have workgroup reports in advance, so 

22 that's another part of the whole issue. 

23 It's one thing to have an update -- yes, this 

24 workgroup met and we're doing this. It's 

25 another thing, if they have particular issues 
231

1 that we're going to debate in a meeting, to 

2 know what those are in advance and not hit them 

3 cold. 

4 DR. MELIUS: But -- but -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

6 DR. MELIUS: But we -- we certainly could task 

7 our contractor to prepare reports for us -- 

8 those things. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: But again -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: Wanda was kicking me -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: But again, that means -- again, 

12 that means that the workgroup -- the work of 

13 the workgroup involved has to be done well in 

14 advance of a meeting, not, you know, that 

15 morning or something like that. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Wanda just accused me of totally 

17 confusing everything. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, other comments in general on 

19 the issue of tasking the contractor? 

20 DR. WADE: I would like to make a general 

21 comment, and you -- you're -- you're laboring 

22 with all kinds of very difficult issues. I'd 

23 be remiss if I didn't remind you of the 

24 tremendous productivity and output of this 

25 Board. I've been involved with a number of 
232

1 FACAs, and I've never seen a FACA that -- that 

2 has taken on and processed so much work with 

3 such quality. So there are ways to improve 

4 what you do, certainly, and you should work 

5 hard at that. But don't, in that difficult 

6 discussion, lose sight of the tremendous work 

7 that you have done through your current 

8 structure. I think you can do better work, 

9 always we can do better work. But don't lose 

10 sight of the fact that you've done a tremendous 

11 job in supporting those people who have no 

12 voice, the -- the petitioners and the 

13 claimants. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Words of encouragement 

15 are also welcome. 

16 Is there anything else at this point -- we'll 

17 have the opportunity to formalize some tasks 

18 tomorrow, but any other input at this point? 

19 (No responses) 

20 UPDATE ON SELECTION OF BOARD SUPPORT CONTRACTOR

21 Okay. Now the next item will be an update on 

22 the selection of the Board support contractor. 

23 I'm wondering if we need to take our break 

24 first or if -- 

25 DR. BRANCHE: David Staudt is on the line. 
233

1 DR. ZIEMER: David is on the line. 

2 DR. WADE: Yeah, David's on the line, so -- 

3 MR. STAUDT: I -- yeah, I think this will be 

4 very brief, Dr. Ziemer. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, why don't we proceed 

6 and we'll hear from David, and then have 

7 additional discussion as needed. 

8 MR. STAUDT: Well, I -- I think we're -- we're 

9 at the point now where the Board has reviewed 

10 the -- the draft Statement of Work and the 

11 evaluation criteria, and I believe we're at the 

12 point where we were going to ask the Board, you 

13 know, to -- to allow us to go ahead and proceed 

14 with the normal procurement process that CDC 

15 has. And it's about a six-month process, give 

16 or take a little bit of time. And we are 

17 anticipating once again that we're going to 

18 have several Board members that are going to 

19 sit on the Technical Evaluation Panel. 

20 And the one difference from last time, Dr. 

21 Ziemer, is I don't believe there's any need to 

22 have the pre-proposal conference that you ha-- 

23 that you participated in Cincinnati. There is 

24 a tremendous amount of information out there 

25 for any bidder -- potential bidder to review, 
234

1 so that -- that will certainly make things a 

2 little bit easier this time. 

3 I don't know ri-- right now that we need 

4 anything else from the Board. I mean we 

5 certainly can provide an update in a couple of 

6 months, as we go through the process, but I -- 

7 Lew, I think -- I think we're pretty much on 

8 track. 

9 DR. WADE: One more opportunity -- this is the 

10 third meeting we've -- we've talked about it. 

11 There is a draft Statement of Work that you've 

12 had and I've given you a hard copy of. There 

13 is an evaluation plan we've talked about, this 

14 is the third meeting. We did receive one 

15 comment from a Board member. Mr. Presley 

16 submitted a comment that really goes to the Q 

17 clearance requirements for the contractor. 

18 Again, one last bite out of the apple, if -- if 

19 there are things that the Board would like to 

20 suggest, this is an opportunity to do that. 

21 We'd always take suggestions from individual 

22 Board members, but now we're getting close to 

23 the time when we would put this announcement 

24 out on the street. 

25 Also remember that we have made public 
235

1 announcement of our intentions and will 

2 continue to do that so that no one can accuse 

3 us of not doing this in -- in the broad light 

4 of day. 

5 David, when would you anticipate going on the 

6 street with this announcement? 

7 MR. STAUDT: I think just to go through the 

8 normal review cycle time here it's going to -- 

9 it's probably going to be about two months, I 

10 think, before we get through that and get all 

11 those approvals before it actually -- actually 

12 goes out. And then -- and then there's a 

13 synopsis that hits -- that -- that gets 

14 published, and then that basically is a summary 

15 of what -- what's going to happen, and then 

16 that has to be out for 15 days and then after -

17 - at that 15-day mark, then we can officially 

18 release the solicitation. And that is going to 

19 be out on the street probably for -- we can do 

20 it for as -- as minimal as 30 days, but will 

21 probably be out there for 45 days. 

22 DR. WADE: So again, for the Board's timing, if 

23 the Board wishes to comment as a board today, 

24 that's fine. 

25 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, -- 
236

1 DR. WADE: Individual comments -- 

2 MR. STAUDT: -- we -- we welcome any comments, 

3 up until the time we actually release the 

4 solicitation. 

5 DR. WADE: And you think -- 

6 MR. STAUDT: And then after that, then it gets 

7 a little tricky, but certainly any -- any input 

8 is -- is welcome up to that point. 

9 DR. WADE: So the -- 

10 MR. STAUDT: And I -- and we would not -- 

11 matter of fact, I would -- I would not even 

12 release the solicitation without letting the -- 

13 one -- one more, you know, option for the -- 

14 for the Board to make comments, so they'll be 

15 informed on when it's going out. 

16 DR. WADE: Yeah, there is a Board call 

17 scheduled for February 20th, so that's within 

18 the space you have for receiving comments. 

19 Correct? 

20 MR. STAUDT: Absolutely. Absolutely. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let me ask -- is the 

22 Statement of Work dated September 2007 the 

23 latest version? Does -- and does that include 

24 Mr. Presley's change? 

25 DR. WADE: It is the latest version. It does 
237

1 not yet include Mr. Presley's comment. It will 

2 when we modify, but it does not at this point. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Wait till after this Board 

5 meeting. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: That's fine. I just want to make 

7 sure and ask -- Board members, do you all have 

8 a copy of the draft Statement of Work? And you 

9 have the opportunity individually to make 

10 comments. They don't automatically get 

11 accepted, I don't think. I think David or 

12 some-- someone would have to judge that they 

13 have merit, I suppose. 

14 MR. STAUDT: Yes, and this -- and you know, I -

15 - I just want the Board to understand that, you 

16 know, this -- everything's got to be reviewed 

17 internally here through -- through the -- 

18 there's a lot of people that look at it within 

19 the CDC. You have the normal procurement 

20 staff, plus you also have the legal staff, and 

21 then others who review it that -- you have to 

22 look at the Statement of Work and the 

23 evaluation criteria and everything else that's 

24 in that that's going to be in the solicitation, 

25 so there is a potential that they -- they may 
238

1 have comments and we'll just have to see at 

2 that -- at that time. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Now the -- the actual document -- 

4 I think what we have to ask in terms of the 

5 full Board is are there items in this document 

6 that the Board, as a group, feels need to be 

7 amended in some way, either added to, deleted 

8 or otherwise modified. The -- the statement is 

9 -- it has a description of the purpose of the 

10 contract, which is fairly straightforward, and 

11 the background of the contract. 

12 Part of it is really c(3), I think, which is 

13 the contract tasks. Although if there are 

14 problems with earlier sections, we certainly 

15 want to identify those. But if in the contract 

16 task sections we -- we see issues -- and -- and 

17 this is divided up into the dose reconstruction 

18 reviews, the site profile and procedures 

19 reviews, the SEC petition work, and the dose -- 

20 and then there's details on each of those -- 

21 DR. WADE: Right. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- then it's important that we 

23 identify those and give that feedback to Da-- 

24 to David. And I guess I would ask, Board 

25 members, it may be that you haven't had a 
239

1 chance to fully focus on this. We could 

2 certainly suggest, if you wanted to -- to 

3 revisit this tomorrow during our work session, 

4 you could. But if you have items now that 

5 you've already identified that you think need 

6 to be discussed and brought -- brought forward, 

7 let's also give you the opportunity now to do 

8 that. Or if any of you, after having reviewed 

9 it, if -- if you feel it is complete in the 

10 sense that it adequately describes what the 

11 tasks of our contractor will be and -- and yet 

12 has sufficient flexibility for us to also move 

13 in other directions, because we have found I 

14 think that some degree of flexibility is 

15 useful, it -- it will also be helpful for 

16 individuals to indicate that they believe that 

17 this is adequate. I think we need to know, you 

18 know, one way or the other, is this adequate, 

19 is it not adequate, or what changes should be 

20 made. 

21 DR. WADE: Dr. Melius. 

22 DR. MELIUS: I have some comments. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we have a couple of 

24 comments. First Dr. Melius. 

25 DR. MELIUS: The Melius/Munn team here. The -- 
240

1 DR. ZIEMER: Is this good cop/bad cop or is 

2 this -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: I don't know -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- bad cop/good cop or is it -- 

5 DR. WADE: Bad cop/bad cop, I think. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. The -- I'm withholding the 

7 cookies till -- no, that -- the first comment 

8 is -- and again, it's no reflection on Dave 

9 Staudt or any actions done recently with this 

10 contract, but -- but I do think we need to be 

11 sen-- sensitive to the situation that CDC/NIOSH 

12 is letting a contract to review their own work. 

13 And -- and that's mandated by Congress and that 

14 -- that this review is supposed to be 

15 independent of the agency and -- and so forth. 

16 So I -- I think it's important that we have 

17 transparency to -- to the process and, you 

18 know, recognizing the need for the various 

19 layers of review as this contract gets -- goes 

20 through the bureaucracy at -- at NIOSH/CDC, I 

21 think -- I think we understand that, but -- but 

22 I think it'd be important that the Board 

23 members all see the -- the final product before 

24 it goes out on the street and -- just so we can 

25 say that we've seen it and that it doesn't 
241

1 violate sort of the ability of the Board to be 

2 able to have its contractor work independently 

3 of -- of -- of the agency in reviewing the 

4 agency's work. So I think if you can keep -- 

5 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, this is Dave. Yeah, we'd be 

6 more than happy to share the -- if you would 

7 like the final -- the final draft version of 

8 the -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

10 MR. STAUDT: -- solicitation before it would go 

11 out, would that -- would that -- would that 

12 take care of your concerns? 

13 DR. MELIUS: Tha-- that would be fine, and then 

14 I think as -- as -- if we're submitting 

15 individual comments or suggestions, that those 

16 be shared widely, then if -- you know, on the 

17 off-chance that one of us objects or something 

18 to a particular change, that -- that we -- we 

19 have some sort of process to that that doesn't 

20 require a full Board meeting or anything -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Let me insert here, if this is 

22 reasonable, David -- if -- if changes are 

23 suggested, if they could be acknowledged and if 

24 they're -- particularly if -- whether they're 

25 accepted or rejected, if we -- if we would have 
242

1 kind of a feedback to the Board. For example, 

2 Mr. Presley made this recommendation and we've 

3 added it, or Mr. Clawson made this 

4 recommendation and we haven't added it, or 

5 whatever it is and -- and if it isn't accepted, 

6 maybe the reasons why. I don't want to 

7 overburden it, but I think it would be helpful 

8 to sort of be able to say that yes, the Board 

9 input has been heard and here's how it's 

10 affected things. 

11 DR. WADE: Or Board member input. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, or Board member. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Secondly is a procedural 

14 issue, I don't believe Mark Griffon's on the 

15 phone, but I think it's important that our dose 

16 review -- dose reconstruction review committee 

17 -- subcommittee get some input into this, and I 

18 don't believe they have any suggested changes 

19 for how we would do dose reconstruction 

20 reviews, but if they do, in terms of the 

21 procedures or clar-- you know, changes that -- 

22 that they get some input into this so I think 

23 if we can -- someone can get back to Mark or 

24 whatever to do that -- I don't know if they 

25 discussed it yesterday or -- or what, I'm not 
243

1 part of that process, but I -- again, I'd just 

2 like them to be -- make sure we've consulted 

3 them, and particularly Mark, about -- about 

4 that section of the -- the Statement of Work. 

5 DR. WADE: I would suggest that Christine and 

6 David call Mark and discuss it with him. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and then my -- my third, and 

8 this is a suggested change, is that we include 

9 some method in the Statement of Work in terms 

10 of the review of the site profiles and in terms 

11 of the review of the SEC evaluation reports 

12 that would allow us to do that in an 

13 incremental fashion, as we've talked about 

14 earlier, rather than having them be assigned to 

15 do, you know, whatever it is, three site 

16 profile reviews per year or what-- I can't 

17 remember the exact numbers in -- in that and so 

18 many SEC evaluation reports, that we allow that 

19 same amount of work to be broken up into 

20 smaller increments. Now -- now I don't know 

21 how to quite do that in terms of the -- to 

22 describe those in terms of the contract, but my 

23 thought would be that we include in both of 

24 those sections of the Statement of Work some 

25 statement to the effect that this work may be 
244

1 broken down in a way that, you know -- that 

2 rather than doing a complete site profile 

3 review, they would be foc-- doing just parts of 

4 the review. I think for purposes of sort of, 

5 you know, responding to the -- the contract and 

6 sort of being able to gauge the level of work 

7 and to be fair to other people that might be 

8 bidding on -- on -- you know, submitting to 

9 this contract that -- they'd want to be able to 

10 look at -- at what's been done so far and 

11 understand that and -- I don't think we 

12 necessarily need to try to rewrite that -- 

13 totally rewrite that, but I do think it's 

14 important that we provide some clarification 

15 that this work may be assigned in a different 

16 way. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Let me insert at this point, and I 

18 think this speaks to the flexibility issue, 

19 that it may be that the contract could be 

20 worded in such a way that -- for example, that 

21 the -- there is the equivalent of some number -

22 - 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- of site profiles done. For 

25 example, the equivalent of six might be 12 
245

1 halves or something. I don't -- I don't want 

2 to spell it out too much, but maybe we can get 

3 some flexible wording in there that allows us 

4 to assign portions of site profiles in such a 

5 way that the total equals the equivalent of -- 

6 DR. WADE: If I can -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- something. 

8 DR. WADE: -- refer you to the la-- the very 

9 last sentence on the page, the site -- the 

10 Statement of Work. We attempted to do that for 

11 the SEC petitions. It says: In a given year 

12 of contract performance it is anticipated that 

13 the contractor will review three complete SEC 

14 petition and an aspect or aspects of three 

15 other petitions. 

16 Now we could make words like that -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Something -- something -- 

18 DR. WADE: -- in the -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- like that, yeah. 

20 DR. WADE: -- site profile section. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Something like that. 

22 DR. MELIUS: I noticed that and I think it's -- 

23 that -- I think it's a little bit beyond what's 

24 called for there, but it's along the line and I 

25 think the same kind of language should be in 
246

1 the -- 

2 DR. WADE: Site profile? 

3 DR. MELIUS: -- site profile review section and 

4 -- and then I just think it would be -- allow 

5 us better -- and I -- I think it'd -- you know, 

6 it's again more transparent in terms of the -- 

7 the contracting process and so forth. 

8 DR. WADE: David, I think we can accept that 

9 recommendation right now, can't we, and -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Let me just get some consensus 

11 here from the Board if that sort of thing seems 

12 to be agreeable. I'm looking for nodding 

13 heads. No -- okay. 

14 DR. WADE: Sorry. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to hear -- we're going 

16 to hear maybe -- we're going to hear another 

17 view, but Wanda, go ahead. 

18 MS. MUNN: The concern when writing contracts 

19 and legislation, initiatives -- for anyone 

20 who's had experience doing that, it's very 

21 clear that the more instructive you become, the 

22 more difficult the process becomes for the 

23 individuals who are attempting to meet it. As 

24 long as the contract does not preclude 

25 undertaking these projects in a different 
247

1 manner, then for us to identify something other 

2 than what we've been working with in the past 

3 has a tendency to create more expectations and 

4 more limitations than we already have. 

5 Perhaps David can help tell us whether there's 

6 anything in this wording that precludes our 

7 doing what we were just talking about doing, 

8 from the Board's standpoint. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Well, I think this is 

10 actually a good cop/good cop situation. You -- 

11 you're supporting the flexibility -- in other 

12 words, the idea that we don't want to preclude 

13 some other ways of doing things. 

14 MS. MUNN: Absolutely. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: But perhaps not having to spell 

16 out exactly how that is going to be done. 

17 MS. MUNN: My concern is the more things we 

18 spell out, the less flexibility we are likely 

19 to have, as long as the circumstances do not 

20 preclude -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well -- 

22 MS. MUNN: -- our changing (unintelligible). 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- let me ask David to speak to 

24 that, then we'll hear from Brad, then we'll 

25 hear again from Jim. David? 
248

1 MR. STAUDT: Well, I -- well, I think, you 

2 know, it starts right away from the -- the type 

3 of contract that we've -- we've been working 

4 with, and I think it's been working well. It's 

5 a cost reimbursement contract 'cause we really 

6 can't define specifically what's going to 

7 happen as these tasks do change over time. And 

8 it really comes down to the wording that's in 

9 the actual individual task orders. So I think 

10 we -- we have all the flexibility the -- the 

11 Board needs at that time to -- to either be too 

12 descriptive or -- or -- or you know, give the 

13 flexibility. And we're really looking for the 

14 -- the outcome of allowing S-- whatever 

15 contractor that's going to be to -- to perform. 

16 And we just need to let them know what we 

17 needed done, not so much how it's going to be 

18 done. So we -- we don't want to tie anybody's 

19 hands and -- and be too restrictive. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Brad? 

21 MR. CLAWSON: You know, I -- I agree with -- I 

22 agree with everything that's being said, but 

23 one of the things that I worry about -- we have 

24 a very good relationship with SC&A. They -- 

25 they -- they've been in long enough -- know 
249

1 what we mean. I would hate to see a new 

2 contractor come in and us start to cut these 

3 site profiles or something up like that and -- 

4 and have them say well, no, wait a minute, this 

5 -- this isn't what it says. We didn't agree to 

6 this. So that'd be the on-- only my concern 

7 about not -- not getting something in writing 

8 of -- of -- of being able to do it. That -- 

9 that's my -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I think David has just told 

11 us, though, that the reality is it's the 

12 individual tasking that's going to specify what 

13 work is done, so -- as opposed to the 

14 generalities of the main contract -- the task 

15 orders themselves, which are not here, spell 

16 out specific work. Is that -- correct? 

17 MR. STAUDT: That's -- that's correct. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: All right. 

19 DR. WADE: I think it would be honest in this 

20 document, if we anticipate that the site 

21 profile task might involve very focused reviews 

22 of aspects of site profiles, that we send some 

23 signal to that effect. I think it can be done 

24 with very few words. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 
250

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I think it's 

2 appropriate to inform the people bidding on 

3 this contract that -- about the ways that you 

4 may assign work. And again, I don't think it 

5 limits the flexibility or the ability to -- to 

6 do it in a way -- and as Dave says, the -- you 

7 know, the specifics are -- are dealt with in -- 

8 in terms of, you know, awarding specific tasks 

9 at the time -- after the contract's been 

10 awarded, so -- so I think it's just adding some 

11 language indicating that we may assign this in 

12 a different way and we ought to be -- and 

13 truthful that -- and straightforward if that's 

14 the way we're going to consider doing it. 

15 Now if we don't want to do it that way, then I 

16 think we need to have a discussion, you know, 

17 now about how we're going to approach these. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Dave, I think all of the comments 

19 that you've heard, though, speak to assuring 

20 that there is sufficient flexibility in the 

21 contract to allow for different modes of doing 

22 some of these tasks. And I think you're 

23 telling us that there is -- 

24 MR. STAUDT: Ab-- absolutely, there's 

25 absolutely -- 
251

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- and if there's some additional 

2 words that could be added to even emphasize 

3 that, perhaps that can be done as well. 

4 DR. WADE: We'll take that as -- certainly take 

5 that under advisement and we -- we'll take this 

6 as a formal discussion. We'll respond to the 

7 discussion with a modification, or a non8 modification, in an e-mail from David. 

9 Before you're done, though -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Any other items, though? 

11 DR. WADE: Well -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: That's one. Others on -- on this? 

13 DR. WADE: -- the -- I'd love to -- for the 

14 Board to start to think about three Board 

15 members who would join the evaluation team. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, before we do that -- 

17 DR. WADE: I know Mark is-- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- I want to see if there's other 

19 comments on the contract -- or on the -- on the 

20 proposed contract words here, or the Statement 

21 of Work. Jim Melius. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Only a possible -- I 

23 thought that the -- I'm satisfied certainly 

24 with the draft evaluation criteria, and I think 

25 that's appro-- appropriate, if only -- want to 
252

1 bring that up for this focused discussion, if 

2 we need any on that. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yes, that's a-- that's 

4 another piece of it, and I think it's important 

5 for the Board, if -- to register either way, if 

6 they're satisfied with it or dissatisfied, and 

7 you've indicated you believe that is 

8 appropriate. And others may wish to comment on 

9 that. Jim is referring to the evaluation 

10 criteria now. 

11 DR. WADE: Right, this document that you have. 

12 Hopefully it adds up to 100 percent. And then 

13 there is a past performance element of plus or 

14 minus 20 points. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask if there's any 

16 other comments, pro or con, on either of these 

17 documents. Anything else on the Statement of 

18 Work? 

19 (No responses) 

20 Anything else -- words of support or concern 

21 about the evaluation criteria? 

22 (No responses) 

23 Again, I -- without calling for a formal vote, 

24 I'm going to ask if there are any concerns with 

25 the evaluation criteria. If there are not, I'm 
253

1 going to take that as a consensus that the 

2 Board is -- is satisfied with those criteria. 

3 Gen Roessler. 

4 DR. ROESSLER: Yes, I am -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Any comments on either document? 

6 DR. ROESSLER: No. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Does that designate 

8 satisfaction, disinterest or any other -- 

9 DR. ROESSLER: Are you asking me? 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. We're -- we're trying to 

11 put you on the spot, Gen. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: I know you -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: You said you had no -- 

14 DR. ROESSLER: -- are, you're trying to -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- comments, are you -- 

16 DR. ROESSLER: -- find out if I -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- okay with it? 

18 DR. ROESSLER: I'm okay with it. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: In -- in Lake Wobegon, okay is 

20 above average, so she likes it. 

21 DR. WADE: Paul, Dr. Lockey. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Dr. Lockey. 

23 DR. LOCKEY: One question. When I look this -- 

24 corporate experience, maybe you can explain 

25 what is meant by that 'cause there's no 
254

1 explanation. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I think the corporate 

3 experience gives some -- as I understand it, 

4 would give some credit to the existing 

5 contractor's had experience working with this 

6 Board, does it not? 

7 DR. WADE: Right, the corporate experience is 

8 made up of two components, conflict of interest 

9 plan and then the work history. So those two 

10 components make up the corporate experience, 

11 and ten -- ten plus 15 is 25 points overall. 

12 Medical doctors. 

13 DR. LOCKEY: Didn't see it. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now on the issue of Board 

15 participation, the -- the Chair would like to 

16 learn what Board members, if any, are 

17 interested -- this is just an indication of 

18 interest because obviously we cannot have 12 

19 Board members on this. 

20 DR. WADE: We could. There is no -- no, I 

21 asked David Staudt particularly, and -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think if we have 12, we 

23 have to have an open Board meeting, don't we? 

24 DR. WADE: Well, that's -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we're going to have 
255

1 -- 

2 DR. WADE: Not if the -- Mark Griffon has told 

3 -- has left with me his proxy. He would like 

4 to be -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 

6 DR. WADE: -- on the Evaluation Panel. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- okay. I'd like Christine or -- 

8 you or Lew make up a list of those interested. 

9 DR. WADE: So Mark's on the list. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Phillip Schofield is 

11 interested. 

12 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah, I have no life, so... 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Get a life. 

14 DR. WADE: Bradley. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Bradley Clawson. Any others? 

16 DR. WADE: The Chairman has indicated at one 

17 point. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: I'd certainly be glad to do it. 

19 If we have enough, I'll -- I'm -- 

20 DR. WADE: Well, four is a nice number. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: You would make four -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Jim would like Wanda to be on it, 

23 Wanda would like Jim to be on it. 

24 Anyone else on the Board wish to be part of 

25 this evaluation -- what's the proper name of 
256

1 the group, the -- 

2 DR. WADE: Technical Evaluation Panel. 

3 MR. STAUDT: Technical -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- Technical Evaluation -- 

5 MR. STAUDT: -- Evaluation Panel. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- Panel. 

7 DR. WADE: David, four is acceptable, is it 

8 not? 

9 MR. STAUDT: Yes, that's a very reasonable 

10 number. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Then our four are Phillip 

12 Schofield, Bradley Clawson, Mark Griffon and 

13 Dr. Ziemer. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: That's it. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Dr. Wade, do we have any 

17 more -- 

18 DR. WADE: No -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- business on this item? 

20 DR. WADE: No, I don't believe so. David, do 

21 you need -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: David, any further -- 

23 DR. WADE: -- anything else at this point? 

24 MR. STAUDT: No, I'm -- I'm good. Thank you 

25 very much. 
257

1 DR. WADE: Thank you. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're due for a break, 15-

3 minute break. Let's take our break at this 

4 time, then we'll come back with SEC petition 

5 status on Bethlehem Steel, Blockson and any 

6 others related to that. 

7 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 4:05 p.m. 

8 to 4:20 p.m.) 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I think we need to stay on track 

10 here time-wise. Let me check on the phones. 

11 Gen Roessler, are you still on the phone? 

12 DR. ROESSLER: I am here. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Any -- anyone on the phone that 

14 can still hear us? 

15 MR. WALKER: Ed Walker. 

16 MS. BERMINGHAM: Hi, this is Sarah Bermingham 

17 in Senator Schumer's office. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, thank you. And -- and let me 

19 ask if Dr. Roessler is on the phone. 

20 DR. ROESSLER: Yes, I'm on the phone. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

22 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Mark Griffon, are you on the 

24 phone? 

25 (No responses) 
258

1 Okay, we do have someone from Senator Schumer's 

2 office on the phone, as well. 

3 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES: BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY

4 Our next item of business is an update on some 

5 SE-- SEC petition items and issues. These are 

6 more in the form of status reports. First on 

7 the list is Bethlehem Steel. And in this 

8 particular case we had particularly assigned 

9 the issue of sur-- use of surrogate data to a 

10 workgroup, and Dr. Melius will give us a quick 

11 update on -- on that one. 

12 DR. MELIUS: My peanut gallery here. I'm 

13 getting it from both sides now, I -- I can see 

14 how we did the seat assignments so -- thought 

15 you were headed back -- no -- John. 

16 The surrogate data working group has met -- we 

17 -- SEC has -- SE-- SCA has re-- produced two 

18 reports for us. The initial was an inventory 

19 of sort of the use of surrogate data in various 

20 procedures, site profiles, so forth. I believe 

21 that one's been recently transmitted to the 

22 entire Board. 

23 Sec-- second one dealt with some of the 

24 technical issues and review -- evaluation 

25 issues involved with the use of surrogate data. 
259

1 I believe that's still in clearance? I don't 

2 know if that's been -- not -- not been cleared 

3 yet, so that should be out shortly. 

4 I am tasked, along with some help from John and 

5 -- and Mark Griffon, to produce a report for 

6 review by the workgroup, eventually by the 

7 Board, that would be a -- I think some-- 

8 something similar to the type of report that we 

9 did on the SEC evaluation report that -- 

10 talking about some of the criteria and -- that 

11 we would use -- utilize in terms of evaluating 

12 the use of -- of surrogate data, essentially a 

13 set of guidelines for that -- and doing that. 

14 And I -- I will confess that I was trying to 

15 get that done a few weeks ago, just before the 

16 holidays, and have been late with doing other 

17 things and so hopefully will have that done by 

18 the end of this month, circulated and -- either 

19 for discussion at our February conference call 

20 or -- or I guess it's early April we have a 

21 Board meeting and we should be able to discuss 

22 it there. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Now that particular 

24 report, although in -- in general is a -- or is 

25 intended to be a somewhat generic report, but 
260

1 it has direct implications on Bethlehem Steel. 

2 And until -- until we have that report in hand, 

3 I think there's no particular action that we're 

4 in a position to take regarding Bethlehem 

5 Steel. Is that -- would that be a correct 

6 interpretation as far as the -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: I believe so, yes. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- workgroup is concerned? Yes. 

9 Let me ask, Board members, do you have any 

10 comments or questions regarding that particular 

11 issue at this time? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Okay, apparently not. Let's move on to 

14 Blockson, and Wanda Munn is the workgroup chair 

15 there. 

16 MR. BROEHM: Actually, Dr. Ziemer -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm sorry, do we have a -- 

18 MR. BROEHM: -- we have a letter from Senator 

19 Schumer -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, we do have a letter from -- 

21 MR. BROEHM: -- on Bethlehem Steel. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, I -- and I knew that 

23 and I forgot to recognize it. And Jason, I 

24 wasn't sure if you were here, but one of the -- 

25 Senator Schumer's staff is on the line as well, 
261

1 so... 

2 MR. BROEHM: Okay. So this is the letter from 

3 Senator Charles Schumer from New York to the 

4 Advisory Board. 

5 (Reading) Thank you for the opportunity to 

6 address the Board on the question of the use of 

7 surrogate data in the site profile for the 

8 Bethlehem Steel facility in Lackawanna, New 

9 York. I appreciate the careful consideration 

10 that the Board is giving this issue, both 

11 through its creation of the working group and 

12 through the continued discussions of the full 

13 Board. 

14 As I've done before, I would like to take this 

15 opportunity again to urge the Board to 

16 acknowledge the shortfalls in data for the 

17 Bethlehem site and to grant the petition to add 

18 it as a class to the Special Exposure Cohort. 

19 I strongly believe that in constructing the 

20 site profile for the Bethlehem facility the 

21 National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

22 Health was forced to rely too heavily on 

23 surrogate data from Simonds Saw and Steel 

24 Company in Lockport, New York. 

25 Over the years former employees of Bethlehem 
262

1 Steel have called into question the 

2 similarities between their employer and 

3 Simonds. If their concerns prove well-founded, 

4 then the site profile for Bethlehem has not 

5 been accurately reflecting the conditions to 

6 which these men and women were exposed. 

7 In any situation where the site profile cannot 

8 predict the causation of disease, and when it 

9 cannot be used in such a way as to consistently 

10 decide ambiguous cases in the claimant's favor, 

11 the profile must be considered ineffective and 

12 should be replaced with a class of the SEC. My 

13 concern for the use of surrogate data in the 

14 profile for Bethlehem Steel is larger than my 

15 fear that the profile is not appropriately 

16 determining causation. In addition to that 

17 concern, I feel that the former employees of 

18 Bethlehem Steel are being subjected to a 

19 difficulty with this profile that workers at 

20 other facilities are not. 

21 The Bethlehem Steel site profile was 

22 constructed very early in NIOSH's experience 

23 with the dose reconstruction, and the Institute 

24 could not have been reasonably expected to know 

25 what normal parameters for surrogate data would 
263

1 be in the hundreds of facilities it has since 

2 analyzed across the country. With the 

3 knowledge that comes with hindsight, it is now 

4 obvious that the degree to which the Bethlehem 

5 profile relies on surrogate data is an 

6 aberration from the standard site profile. 

7 With this acknowledgement I think it is only 

8 appropriate for the Board to recognize that 

9 Bethlehem Steel warrants the designation of a 

10 class in the SEC. 

11 As you are all very well aware, the men and 

12 women whose claims are here at stake are the 

13 veterans of our nation's long Cold War. Their 

14 service and sacrifices have kept us safe, and 

15 it is our obligation as a country to repay 

16 their service in the small way afforded by the 

17 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

18 Compensation Program. These Cold War heroes 

19 are aging and ill, and every day that we delay 

20 granting their petition is another day that 

21 their country refuses to honor their sacrifice. 

22 I urge you to grant this SEC petition as 

23 expeditiously as possible. Thank you very much 

24 for your time and for your consideration of 

25 these brave men and women's application. I 
264

1 wish you the best of luck in your 

2 deliberations, and I hope for a prompt and 

3 positive decision. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, and 

5 let me ask if any of the Senator's staff 

6 members have additional comments that they wish 

7 to make at this time. 

8 MR. WALKER: Dr. Ziemer, this is Eddie Walker 

9 calling. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Ed? 

11 MR. WALKER: And I'd -- I've got a comment that 

12 I'd like to make that -- after listening to 

13 what has been going on here. On that Bethlehem 

14 site prile -- profile, I think it should be 

15 brought to light that when I started out, which 

16 is six years ago, it was my understanding that 

17 a site profile was to be performed, but into a 

18 technical base document, and from that you'd 

19 use dose reconstruction. And one of the very 

20 important issues and one of the main issues was 

21 talking to site experts on the job. And I 

22 wanted to bring it to light that that was never 

23 done at Bethlehem Steel. It's documented at 

24 one of our meetings that one of the people from 

25 NIOSH said they have talked to nobody, and this 
265

1 is 18 months after we were being denied on a 

2 technical base document that had false 

3 information in it. I think that's very 

4 important. With all the issues that I brought 

5 up in the past and most of them been kind of 

6 discredited, there's a lot of issues that never 

7 really were answered properly. 

8 One of them -- I just wrote NIOSH a letter and 

9 I just got a response a couple of weeks ago, 

10 December 19th, is about the types of uranium 

11 rolled. It seems to me if a site profile would 

12 have been performed properly we would have 

13 known what we were handling. The letter I got 

14 from NIOSH says that the uranium -- the 

15 recycled uranium was scrap, and that's not what 

16 the report says that I got this from, and I 

17 submitted that report to NIOSH. 

18 Since then I've got another report that also 

19 states in 1949 they were anticipating rolling 

20 recycled uranium. The report that I got back 

21 from NIOSH on the 19th says that we didn't 

22 start rolling possibly, but they -- it did 

23 admit that we possibly rolled recycled uranium 

24 and the type -- types of substances and 

25 isotopes are in it is clearly explained in the 
266

1 document that I found from the AEC printed out. 

2 And I would -- I would really like to know, or 

3 have somebody contact me -- don't have to do it 

4 immediately, but -- does SC&A know about all 

5 these issues that I have had. 

6 I also uncovered where I can prove that for 30 

7 years that plant was never touched, never 

8 cleaned up. And Simonds Saw they attempted to 

9 clean up and Simonds Saw is still off-limits. 

10 They can't sell the property because of the -- 

11 of uranium deposits -- radiation found on it. 

12 Bethlehem Steel was never cleaned up -- to this 

13 day has never been cleaned up. Granted, 

14 Simonds Saw had produced more billets than we 

15 did, had -- had done more work. But still and 

16 all you're talking working with recycled 

17 uranium and -- and I would hope that somebody 

18 from NIOSH or somebody would look into this -- 

19 or from the SC&A -- to see just what went on 

20 with my information that I just discovered. 

21 That's all I have to say for now, so thank you 

22 very much for giving me a chance to comment on 

23 it, you and the Board. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Ed. Again let 

25 me ask if any of the staffers from Senator 
267

1 Schumer's office have comments as well. 

2 (No responses) 

3 Wonder if they're -- are they on the line? 

4 (No responses) 

5 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES: BLOCKSON

6 Okay. Then let us move to Blockson. And Wanda 

7 Munn, you have a report for us? 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes, I do. I have put together a 

9 very simplistic four slides, none of which are 

10 startling in any way or contain any information 

11 that you don't already have. 

12 The first of the slides that I wanted to show, 

13 on the off chance there's someone here other 

14 than staff and us, is -- oh, go ahead -- is the 

15 working group members. The first four members 

16 were the initial members of the group. 

17 Bradley's been with us for several months now 

18 and is I think as up to speed as much as any of 

19 the rest of us. 

20 There were two petitions I believe, merged into 

21 one, that were qualified in 2006. The 

22 Technical Basis Document that would serve as 

23 our site profile was produced and -- and -- 

24 very shortly thereafter and then withdrawn 

25 because there was additional information and 
268

1 some confusion about the process that had been 

2 undertaken. It was reissued in early -- in 

3 late 2006 and in January of 2007 our technical 

4 contractor responded to our request for a 

5 review and provided six technical items that 

6 were at issue to be questioned. 

7 The workgroup began its efforts at that time, 

8 and we have had two specific workgroup meetings 

9 -- I mean worker -- worker outreach meetings 

10 near the Blockson site to have an opportunity 

11 to talk to the people who actually worked at 

12 the site and had a great deal of knowledge with 

13 respect to it. Out of the half-dozen items 

14 that were identified as -- as technical issues, 

15 we fairly rapidly closed four of them with 

16 pretty much a technical team interaction 

17 between the NIOSH technical folks and the 

18 Sanford Cohen & Associate people. 

19 The workgroup itself has met either face-to20 face or telephonically I believe seven times. 

21 The two most persistent issues that took the 

22 longest deliberation were issues revolving 

23 around what actually happened to the thorium in 

24 this process, and there was concern about the 

25 lack of written data with respect to how the 
269

1 process was performed. So as a part of the 

2 technical team review we sought expert advice 

3 from chemists who were familiar with this 

4 process to reassure ourselves that it was in 

5 fact the wet process and that the information 

6 that was being given to us by the workers 

7 themselves was really quite accurate and quite 

8 helpful. We were able to establish that the 

9 areas were known where the process took place, 

10 that time period was quite discrete, and that 

11 there was security available during the period 

12 of time that this occurred. 

13 At the final steps of our deliberations we had 

14 asked that white papers be presented from 

15 NIOSH's review of the documentation and then 

16 ultimately a final report from the technical 

17 contractor with respect to the outstanding -- 

18 the -- the final outstanding issues that we 

19 had. Our contractor issued a final report at 

20 our request, which was published -- forwarded 

21 to us and cleared in December of 2007, leaving 

22 no unresolved issues for the permanent record. 

23 It was assumed at that time that we would be 

24 recommending that we look at what NIOSH's 

25 recommendation had been, and that we accept 
270

1 that. It's my understanding that Dr. Melius is 

2 -- still has some reservations with respect to 

3 the robust nature of the data, so I am unable 

4 at this time to make that statement across the 

5 board. But I would nevertheless request that 

6 our technical -- that our NIOSH folks give us 

7 the benefit of a quick review of what their 

8 recommendation was prior to the time that we 

9 began this. 

10 Jim, can you do that for us -- Jim Neton? 

11 DR. NETON: I'll -- I'll be brief. Just a few 

12 introductory remarks before I get to our 

13 recommendation. To our knowledge, we are in 

14 complete agreement with SC&A on all issues 

15 related to the Blockson Chemical evaluation 

16 report, and the only outcome that resulted in a 

17 change to our site profile was that we modified 

18 the site profile to allow for the existence of 

19 solubility class M and S in -- for thorium in 

20 Building 55. 

21 We have modified the site profile that was 

22 reissued in late November, and that's been made 

23 available to the Advisory Board, as well as the 

24 petitioners. In addition to that, we made sure 

25 that the petitioners had a copy of SC&A's final 
271

1 report that was issued also at the end of 

2 November. 

3 Just to refresh your memory, I -- we -- NIOSH 

4 presented the revised evaluation report for 

5 Blockson Chemical at the Board meeting that was 

6 held in Richland, Washington last July, and 

7 this is the summary slide that we presented at 

8 that time, which is the feasibility of dose 

9 reconstruction. And our opinion at that time 

10 was, and still is, that the monitoring records, 

11 process descriptions and source term data 

12 available are sufficient to estimate radiation 

13 doses with sufficient accuracy for the class of 

14 -- proposed class of employees. And this is 

15 our summary slide that -- that indicates which 

16 types of dose reconstructions are feasible. In 

17 this case we believe that we can do internal 

18 exposure for uranium and associated progeny, as 

19 well as radon and thorium and progeny, and we 

20 can do dose reconstructions for external 

21 exposure to beta-gamma and occupational medical 

22 X-rays. That was our position at the July 

23 meeting and -- and we still hold that position. 

24 MS. MUNN: Thank you very much, Jim. I 

25 appreciate that. 
272

1 Comments? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Does that complete your report -- 

3 MS. MUNN: That completes -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- Wanda? 

5 MS. MUNN: -- my report. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I'm -- I'm not aware that 

7 any of the petitioners are with us today -- 

8 MS. PINCHETTI: Yeah, I'm here -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Who -- 

10 MS. PINCHETTI: -- Kathy Pinchetti. I'm the 

11 petitioner for -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 

13 MS. PINCHETTI: -- petition 58. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Hang on. 

15 (Pause) 

16 Kathleen, do you have any comments for us? 

17 MS. PINCHETTI: Well, I don't know if you're -- 

18 you're taking a vote today or what the status 

19 is right now. Is there going to be a vote 

20 whether it's accepted as an SEC or not? 

21 DR. ZIEMER: At the moment we do not have a 

22 motion before us, so we simply heard the 

23 report. I'm simply asking for input and 

24 discussion at this point. We do not have a 

25 motion on the floor at the moment. 
273

1 MS. PINCHETTI: Okay. Well, I submitted 

2 Petition 58 on behalf of [name redacted], and 

3 his coworkers in Building 55. He worked at 

4 Blockson for 44 years and was in Building 55 

5 working predominantly double shifts the entire 

6 -- you know, over a ten-year uranium contract 

7 period. He was then hospitalized for three 

8 consecutive weeks during this time, in April of 

9 '61, and it took me four years to find his 

10 medical records. And in the records the ICD-7 

11 codes didn't even match the written diagnoses 

12 and, because [name redacted] was sworn to 

13 secrecy about the Blockson project, he didn't 

14 even tell the physician what material he was 

15 working on. So while he was in the VA hospital 

16 he was given atropine, which is a medication 

17 used to treat exposure to nerve agents, and 

18 compazine, which is a cancer treatment drug. 

19 In researching all the requirements for all 

20 these petitions and applications over the past 

21 eight years, I recall a reference to rural 

22 physicians typically not being as familiar with 

23 toxic occupational exposures and how to treat 

24 them, so [name redacted] was never diagnosed 

25 with cancer or any of the selected illnesses 
274

1 which qualify for compensation. And as a 

2 result of the work that NIOSH is doing, there 

3 appears to be no question that Blockson 

4 employees were exposed to radiation. It's also 

5 been verified that [name redacted] was in 

6 Building 55. I think they cite his urinalysis 

7 sample on page 29 of the September '06 SEC 

8 petition evaluation as one of the samples that 

9 had his name on it. These urine samples appear 

10 to be the only attempt at monitoring the 

11 radiation. There were no dosimetry badges or 

12 external monitoring done, you know, during that 

13 time. Soil samples and readings on equipment 

14 30 to 40 years later may not be valid 

15 indicators of the amount of exposure, either, 

16 due to the regular environmental factors such 

17 as the humidity, tornadoes and the below-zero 

18 wind chills that, you know, have gone on since 

19 then. 

20 In the technical data report there's a lot of 

21 references to estimations, probabilities, 

22 assumptions. Throughout the years the EEOIC 

23 bill appears to have morphed into something 

24 that Hillary Clinton referred to in her written 

25 comments submitted at one of the previous NIOSH 
275

1 Bethlehem Steel meetings that it morphed into 

2 something that it wasn't meant to be. 

3 There's now a list of excluded, non-compensated 

4 illnesses which greatly exceeds the list of the 

5 illnesses that are covered. Radiation 

6 poisoning is going to affect different 

7 individuals differently. If someone's already 

8 genetically predisposed to develop cancer, 

9 uranium exposure is only going to accelerate 

10 that development. If [name redacted] wasn't 

11 treated when he was and as aggressively as he -

12 - as he was, his illness would have mostly 

13 developed into a cancer. Instead he suffers 

14 from several related illnesses with a 

15 diminished quality of life. So it's not a 

16 matter if he was exposed, became sickened or 

17 was sick enough, but he didn't have the right 

18 sickness. 

19 So I want to avoid this sounding like an appeal 

20 to his denials, but rather this is a request to 

21 review how it has come to be that some 

22 employees qualify and some don't. This isn't a 

23 monetary issue since receiving the compensation 

24 is not going to bring back one's health nor 

25 one's spouse or parent. I believe the original 
276

1 intent of President Clinton's EEOIC law was to 

2 acknowledge that measures were not taken to 

3 protect the employees, and that their health 

4 was put at risk for the benefit of the country. 

5 At the signing of the law I don't believe there 

6 was a list of excluded, non-covered illnesses, 

7 nor was there such an extensive list. 

8 Also I'd like to comment about Dr. 

9 Worthington's reference to all the lists and 

10 references that they go back to. On the 

11 Department of Labor web site there is a list of 

12 all the medical conditions with no readily 

13 known associations to occupational chemical 

14 exposures, and it lists the ICD-9 code. Back 

15 in the '60s it was an ICD-7 code. And so the 

16 codes and the written descriptions aren't going 

17 to match if they're reviewing, you know, 

18 medical records from back then -- from 

19 diagnoses from back then. 

20 Soon-to-be-President Obama, when he spoke at 

21 one of the Board meetings, he recommended that 

22 the delay in distributing the compensations 

23 end, one of the delays being trying to 

24 reconstruct all the dosages. I would hope this 

25 doesn't go down in history as another 
277

1 embarrassment of how the government treats its 

2 people. The past eight years for me has felt a 

3 little torturous, but -- and I haven't even 

4 been one that was personally exposed to the 

5 radiation. 

6 I don't think anyone can sit in an office 

7 workgroup and expect to conceptualize exactly 

8 the work conditions and health care 

9 availability that was present 50 years ago, nor 

10 the degree to which the resulting illnesses are 

11 negatively affecting people and their families 

12 mentally, emotionally and financially. 

13 Although I don't feel accurate dose 

14 reconstruction can occur, despite the extensive 

15 efforts on the parts of NIOSH, the Department 

16 of Energy and Labor, but if the Board does 

17 decide not to accept Blockson as a Special 

18 Exception (sic) Cohort I would ask that they 

19 re-evaluate each individual case, with the 

20 understanding that if employment is verified 

21 and if they've decided that exposure and dose 

22 reconstruction can be determined, then keep in 

23 mind that all bodies are not going to process 

24 similar environmental toxins in the same 

25 manner, nor can we expect that all doctors in 
278

1 the 1950s and '60s to have been equally well 

2 versed in identifying the signs and symptoms of 

3 the covered occupational illnesses. This would 

4 not be a decision where decisions are based on 

5 -- like Greg with Department of Energy stated 

6 earlier -- one size fits all. 

7 In sum, I'd like to thank you for all the work 

8 you've done -- NIOSH and the workgroup -- and 

9 for the opportunity to speak today. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Kathleen. Let me 

11 ask also if either Dennis Kellogg or Rosemary 

12 Malone are on the line. They are also 

13 petitioners from Blockson. 

14 (No responses) 

15 Okay. Apparently not. I -- I note that there 

16 perhaps is not unanimity on the workgroup in 

17 terms of the path forward, but it was mentioned 

18 that Dr. Melius -- that you had some concerns. 

19 Did you want to share those as well? 

20 DR. MELIUS: Believe there are at least two 

21 outstanding issues related to Blockson. The 

22 one issue is the one I brought forward, relates 

23 to the -- I think it's a report that SC&A 

24 issued following our last workgroup meeting, I 

25 think it was issued the end of November. Is 
279

1 that correct, John, something like that. And 

2 that -- that issue is -- some documentation 

3 related to an issue I raised which was 

4 basically about the robustness of the available 

5 sampling data for the -- the Blockson work 

6 force. I continue to have some questions about 

7 it. They're not addressed in compl-- 

8 adequately addressed in the SC&A report and I 

9 think they may very well be addressed, but -- 

10 but that's going to take a direct review of -- 

11 of the data, which I guess I will end up doing. 

12 The second issue relates to the methods used 

13 for estimating radon exposures at Blockson. 

14 That was an issue that was actually raised by 

15 Mark Griffon and is, again, I don't think 

16 completely addressed in the report. I've asked 

17 Mark to also look at that issue again and see 

18 if he is satisfied. Fortunately (sic) he's not 

19 here and so I don't know -- can't -- can't 

20 speak for him in terms of -- of where he has in 

21 terms of looking at that -- that report. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

23 DR. MELIUS: So I guess in summary I'm not 

24 ready -- personally ready to decide one way or 

25 the other on -- on Blockson at -- at this 
280

1 particular meeting. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do any of you have 

3 questions or comments -- 

4 DR. ROESSLER: Paul, this -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- relative to -- 

6 DR. ROESSLER: -- is Gen. I have a comment. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Gen, go ahead. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: I'm on the workgroup, and I 

9 assume that the transcript is not out yet on 

10 our last meeting, but it was my understanding 

11 that at that meeting all issues were cleared. 

12 I thought Dr. Melius agreed that everything was 

13 in order, so I'm somewhat surprised at this 

14 point that the issues have resurfaced. And I 

15 just wanted to get that on the record. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Did you want to 

17 respond to that, Jim. You had your flag up 

18 there again. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I certainly do want to 

20 respond. I don't particularly being -- called 

21 to be un-- appreciate being called untruthful. 

22 I would only indicate that in the last meeting 

23 that I clearly indicated that John Mauro and 

24 SC&A had not satisfactorily addressed a 

25 question I had actually raised at -- think the 
281

1 initial -- one of our initial calls or meetings 

2 about -- workgroup meetings about this, and 

3 that would -- had to do with the integrity and 

4 robustness of the monitoring data. John 

5 acknowledged he had not addressed that yet and 

6 I asked for that to be addressed in writing, 

7 which it was done in the November -- I believe 

8 the report that they issued in the end of 

9 November. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: Okay, Jim, I want to go on 

11 record, too. I don't think I called you 

12 untruthful. It was just my recollection that 

13 you had agreed to all the issues and said they 

14 were resolved, but perhaps I'm not remembering 

15 correctly. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, are there any other 

17 questions that any of you have for Wanda or for 

18 Jim at this point? 

19 MS. MUNN: Dr. Ziemer -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Wanda. 

21 MS. MUNN: -- I'd like to comment that, as I 

22 see the issue now, the workgroup has fulfilled 

23 its charter. We have done what we were asked 

24 to do, and the contractor has done what they 

25 have been asked to do. They have accepted the 
282

1 resolution of the issues that were raised as 

2 presented to them by the agency. Until Dr. 

3 Melius and supposedly his colleagues take a 

4 look at whatever information is available, I 

5 have no feel for how the workgroup can go 

6 further on this. My personal instinct would be 

7 to recommend that we accept the NIOSH position, 

8 and I'm prepared to make a motion to that 

9 effect if the Board wishes to hear it and 

10 wishes to vote on it at this time. If they do 

11 not, then I would request that we have some 

12 concept of when we might have a response from 

13 Dr. Melius and from Mr. Griffon. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Let me point out and remind the 

15 Board that in a previous vote on Blockson there 

16 was what I'll describe as a stalemate. I think 

17 we were actually split 50/50 on this particular 

18 petition. That being the case, perhaps it 

19 would not be inappropriate to allow the review 

20 of the data -- I'm sorry, am I wrong there? 

21 DR. NETON: Point of clarification, that was 

22 Chapman Valve, I believe. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, not -- not Blockson, I'm 

24 sorry, yeah. I'm thinking of the wrong one. 

25 So -- so that did not occur. 
283

1 MS. MUNN: No. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you for -- for 

3 correcting that. What I was -- what I was 

4 trying -- trying to determine in my mind was 

5 whether it would be useful to vote at this time 

6 when all the members of the working group have 

7 -- have not indicated that they feel that the 

8 issues have been fully closed, and perhaps to 

9 allow at least Dr. Melius a chance to look at 

10 that data. But certainly a motion can be made 

11 and can be acted on. Jim. 

12 DR. LOCKEY: Jim -- Dr. Mel-- I -- I just need 

13 some clarification. Does SC&A -- on the two 

14 points you raised, did they address those two 

15 points to your -- are they -- did SC&A say that 

16 the data is robust and that the radium -- the 

17 radium issue has been addressed or not? I -- 

18 it's -- I'm not on this workgroup -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, what -- what -- 

20 DR. LOCKEY: -- so I don't have a clear -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

22 DR. LOCKEY: -- it's not clear to me here. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Well, the radon issue was really 

24 one raised by Mark, and I -- you know, I can't 

25 speak completely to whether they addressed all 
284

1 his concerns. He had actually sent an e-mail 

2 to the working group some -- some time ago 

3 about that particular issue and I haven't -- I 

4 didn't have a chance to talk with him while he 

5 ws here. And as you know, he's been distracted 

6 -- some other issues -- personal issues to -- 

7 to deal with recently. 

8 My particular issue relates to the monitoring 

9 data that's available for the -- the Blockson 

10 workers. The SC&A report, which they just came 

11 out with recently, all it really did in regards 

12 to that issue was they did provide a report 

13 regarding the methods that were used for the 

14 monitoring at the laboratory. They did it, 

15 however they didn't address some of the 

16 statistical issues related to the monitoring of 

17 those employees. I believe it's something like 

18 120 samples over about a five-year period. It 

19 may or may not be adequate, but all they did 

20 was quote some partial data from NIOSH's 

21 report, did not provide, you know, a complete 

22 independent assessment. It may be fine, it may 

23 not. I just wanted to have the opportunity to 

24 look at it myself and decide that. I was 

25 hoping that SC&A would provide more detail on 
285

1 that. They didn't. I think the easiest way to 

2 resolve it is to just go and look at it, and 

3 which I will do. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we have a comment from 

5 Josie, then I think Dr. Wade has a comment as 

6 well. 

7 MS. BEACH: I would also like a chance to 

8 review some of the work from the workgroup. 

9 When there's a issue between the working group, 

10 I think it's important for us to have the 

11 information to make the decision as well in 

12 front of us. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Lew Wade. 

14 DR. WADE: Well, Josie stole my thunder. 

15 That's what I was going to say. I do think 

16 it's appropriate, given the fact that there's 

17 an opened issue here, that first Dr. Melius and 

18 Mark be given an opportunity to look at the 

19 materials they've -- they've requested. And if 

20 they would like, make comment either to the 

21 working group or back to the Board. 

22 In anticipation of a discussion, I think it's 

23 only fair that the -- the Board be given the 

24 full record of these documents, transcripts of 

25 the workgroup meetings, have all that 
286

1 information at their hand before we discuss 

2 this on the record, possibly leading to a vote. 

3 I think -- again, these are difficult issues. 

4 I think we best serve those who -- who we're 

5 here to serve by seeing that there is full 

6 disclosure and information available to the 

7 Board before it makes a judgment as important 

8 as this. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: In that connection, the Chair 

10 would also like to make sure that we indicate 

11 on the agenda items where there will be a vote 

12 versus simply an update. I -- I think, 

13 although the petitioners were on the line today 

14 and we appreciate that, we want to make sure 

15 that in cases where we are ready to vote that 

16 we have prior assurance that the petitioners 

17 are -- will be available, number one; and 

18 number two, that the Board has access to any 

19 information where there are perhaps questions 

20 that have some resolution issues that need to 

21 be addressed. Difficult for the Board to 

22 adjudicate, as it were, if there are 

23 differences in the -- in the workgroup's 

24 report. 

25 Further comment? 
287

1 MS. BEACH: Can you say before the meeting that 

2 we have that information? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that was what I was 

4 implying. 

5 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

6 MS. PINCHETTI: This is Kathy Pinchetti again. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Kathy? 

8 MS. PINCHETTI: Can I also just clarify that 

9 those 120 samples, those were of -- I think 

10 they said 22 to 25 of the workers. I don't 

11 know how many employees there were throughout 

12 the entire plant, but it was my understanding 

13 that it's not just Building 55 workers now. 

14 There's Building 40 and I think it was expanded 

15 to include employees in other parts of the 

16 plant. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

18 MS. PINCHETTI: But the 120 samples were only 

19 out of Building 55 and the 25 or so workers in 

20 there. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Sure, 

22 Wanda. 

23 MS. MUNN: There was some concern over where 

24 the thorium might have gone. It was very clear 

25 where the uranium went. This was a wet 
288

1 extraction process. A small amount of uranium 

2 was extracted from phosphate processes. There 

3 was concern at one time that if the thorium did 

4 not follow the uranium, that it might have gone 

5 in off-streams to other buildings. And at that 

6 time other buildings were considered. It was 

7 concluded that the thorium did in fact follow 

8 the uranium. That was the expert opinion of 

9 the chemists who are familiar with this 

10 process, which alleviated much of the concern 

11 with respect to potential thorium extraction. 

12 Those samples were analyzed at HASL and were -- 

13 with a high degree of confidence were 

14 recognized as being appropriate and adequate to 

15 cover the issues at hand. 

16 If we are going to extend our overview of this, 

17 and the Board -- all of the Board members want 

18 to review all of this documentation, it seems 

19 only fair to me that we establish a time when 

20 we will in fact do this. And if all the Board 

21 members want to read these documents, I urge 

22 them please do read them all. And if we can 

23 identify when we will be able to say we've read 

24 this and we will or will not accept it, it 

25 would be only fair to the claimants for us to 
289

1 establish some time-certain for them. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. And Brad 

3 Clawson. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: I was -- I was just going to make 

5 a suggestion that be-- before we make votes or 

6 anything else on this that -- that the Board 

7 does have an opportunity -- as I threw out 

8 earlier, just a suggestion. As we make a 

9 matrix and so forth through that, maybe we 

10 might be allowed the time and the petitioners 

11 to be able to understand we are going to make a 

12 vote on it, but be able to go through with the 

13 Board, through the matrix, of what the issues 

14 were and how they were taken care of and so 

15 forth. I know this'd take -- on a lot of them 

16 -- on the matrix and so forth like that -- 20 

17 or 30 minutes to be able to go through them and 

18 explain where we went through it and so forth 

19 like that and give the Board the opportunity, 

20 the ones that are not on the working group, to 

21 be able to understand a little bit more of the 

22 process that we have gone through to be able to 

23 resolve these issues. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And Brad, I think you're speaking 

25 even generically, not just about this 
290

1 particular issue -- 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Not -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- because I think you've 

4 expressed something similar, for example, 

5 Nevada Test Site -- 

6 MR. CLAWSON: Correct. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- where in the final report, 

8 those of us who are not privy to the various 

9 items in the list, may need to have some 

10 identification of what those issues were and 

11 how they were resolved. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, I -- I'm just -- I'm just 

13 speaking generically, not for any one site or 

14 anything else like that, but what I'm trying to 

15 do is try to alleviate the issue of the 

16 workgroup just coming and giving us a small 

17 overview of it, be able to help us understand 

18 the process that we went through for it and -- 

19 and what the correct evaluation was. I think 

20 it'd make everybody on the Board feel a lot 

21 more confident with -- with what we're making a 

22 vote on and -- and how we're doing it. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and that can certainly be 

24 done and I -- I would be hopeful if -- in 

25 taking Lew Wade's suggestion, if in -- it 
291

1 appears, Jim, that if we go forward with -- 

2 with actually deferring action until you have a 

3 chance to review the data, that you would input 

4 that -- your assessment. I -- I think you need 

5 to input -- put that to the workgroup and then 

6 they can incorporate that if -- if the 

7 workgroup agrees or defers. And -- and I -- 

8 let me point out that it's always useful if a 

9 workgroup all concur on something. But if they 

10 don't, that's fine, too, and there can be, you 

11 know, different views on a workgroup. That's 

12 all right. But to bring the issues forward so 

13 that the full Board can understand them and 

14 then we can make a final judgment, and I think 

15 that's what Josie's asking for as well, so... 

16 DR. MELIUS: Can I make both a specific -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

18 DR. MELIUS: -- comment, then a generic one? 

19 The specific comment is -- is that that would 

20 be the intent, and then if there's an issue 

21 that needs to be discussed by the workgroup, 

22 then we would have another workgroup meeting. 

23 I would -- I would just add that the issues 

24 that I'm raising are issues that are covered -- 

25 are the types of issues that are -- we 
292

1 considered important when we did the SEC, you 

2 know, rev-- evaluation review report that -- 

3 you know, matrix that we sort of set up in 

4 terms of how we did it and, for whatever 

5 reason, it -- that's -- those have not been 

6 completely covered in this particular 

7 situation, yet they may be, you know, shortly; 

8 they may not be, I don't know -- do that. So I 

9 would agree with that. 

10 Secondly, I think, again, echoing what -- what 

11 Brad said, I think this calls for -- you know, 

12 we need to have a specific sort of closeout 

13 procedure for dealing with these situations. 

14 They go on for a period of time. There's some 

15 people that are familiar with them. Some 

16 people -- with the -- what's happening at site 

17 -- others -- others are not. We need a 

18 procedure that assures that we have some sort 

19 of a presentation or report that the rest of 

20 the Board can refer to, that that information 

21 is also shared with the petitioners and they 

22 have the opportunity to not only review what 

23 materials have been -- you know, should be 

24 available to them -- so forth, as well as the 

25 conclusions of the -- the workgroup and that 
293

1 they have the opportunity to comment on that 

2 be-- before we -- we close out and -- and that 

3 information gets them. I'm not sure what the 

4 status is of SC-- C&A's latest report, if 

5 that's been closed out and provided to them. I 

6 -- 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

8 (Unintelligible) 

9 DR. MELIUS: It has? Okay. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I would suggest that we 

11 anticipate a vote on this at our next face-to12 face meeting in April, that -- at least work 

13 toward that as the -- as the goal, and I'll ask 

14 Wade and Christine to -- Dr. Wade and Dr. 

15 Branche to put that on the agenda. If for some 

16 reason, after the review, if the workgroup 

17 reaches a point where they believe that 

18 additional time is needed, they would -- could 

19 let us know in advance. But otherwise, if -- 

20 if we could have such a report at the next 

21 meeting, indicating what the issues are and how 

22 they are resolved. And if there are 

23 differences, those can be voiced as well. Is 

24 that agreeable with everyone? 

25 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 
294

1 DR. ZIEMER: So we will put that on the agenda 

2 for the next meeting, hopefully for action. 

3 And make sure the petitioners are kept in the 

4 loop as well. 

5 NTS BADGES

6 We are almost out of time. In fact I had added 

7 one other thing. Dr. Lockey had a suggestion 

8 for some issues relative to -- particularly for 

9 the NTS site, but I think we can do that during 

10 our working time tomorrow, unless you -- 

11 because we need to have a break here be-- for 

12 dinner before the public comment period. How 

13 long did you need, Jim? 

14 DR. LOCKEY: Oh, I -- I think -- you know, I've 

15 talked to SC&A, I've talked to NIOSH, I think -

16 - don't think it will take that long. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim has a proposal relative 

18 to the NTS SEC petition, and this would -- this 

19 would fall into the workgroup, Mr. Presley, and 

20 I think Jim has talked to you about this as 

21 well. But Jim, tell us your proposal here. 

22 DR. LOCKEY: I also spoke to Mark about it. In 

23 -- in some of the work that I do personally in 

24 our -- in our research endeavors, we have to go 

25 back and reconstruct historical exposures, and 
295

1 there's different methodologies of doing that. 

2 But in relationship to the -- to the Nevada 

3 Test Site, there is a lot of data available, 

4 and the data exists in relationship to badge 

5 measurements, exists in relationship to PIC, 

6 exists in relationship to area measurements. 

7 And looking at the issues that were raised by 

8 the Senator in regard to badges not being worn, 

9 et cetera, I think it's reasonable to ask 

10 NIOSH, and perhaps our (unintelligible) group, 

11 to do this on a parallel basis, to go back and 

12 gather that data, gather the badge data, the 

13 PIC data, the area samples both -- and 

14 individuals that have asked for dose 

15 reconstructions as well as in those individuals 

16 that have not asked for dose reconstructions, 

17 and to see how that data is correlated over 

18 time. If -- if -- if it's -- if it's vigorous 

19 data, if it's good data, it should have some 

20 kind of correlation. But it has to be done on 

21 a time -- stratified on time and it has to be 

22 done stratified on job tasks and on location at 

23 the Nevada Test Site. If that data is rigorous 

24 data and it's fairly correlated, then it's some 

25 indication that we're getting good data. If 
296

1 it's not, then there's a problem existing. 

2 The second thing that can be done is that that 

3 data then can be correlated with what Brad was 

4 talking about, with the extensive data that 

5 apparently is exis-- is available at the 

6 Department of Energy. They can take a random 

7 sample of that data and reconstruct it and -- 

8 and see how it correlates with the exposure 

9 data that's been gathered and see if there's 

10 some type of correlation. 

11 And then the third thing that can be done, from 

12 a statistical perspective, we can look at the 

13 badge data that's been maxed out, see how many 

14 actual badge samples have been maxed out and 

15 see how that is distributed, again over time 

16 and place and job tasks at the Nevada Test 

17 Site, and see if that distribution is 

18 reasonable or unreasonable. This is something 

19 that is -- is -- I think NIOSH is -- is 

20 certainly capable of doing it 'cause they do it 

21 in other type of occupational settings, and I 

22 think -- speaking with SC&A, I think they're 

23 also very capable of doing it. I think it will 

24 help us resolve the issue as to lost badges or 

25 misplaced badges or badges where workers were 
297

1 instructed perhaps by the supervisors not to 

2 wear... 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I -- Board members, you've -

4 - you've heard the -- sort of the concept here 

5 that Jim has in mind, which is a sort of a 

6 statistical way of addressing whether or not 

7 the issue of the badges set aside is extreme or 

8 minimal. It doesn't fully answer the question, 

9 but in any event, it's not clear to the Chair 

10 how big this task is, both in terms of what 

11 NIOSH would do -- and we do not task NIOSH, but 

12 we can request things -- nor the extent of the 

13 task for our contractor. I don't have a feel 

14 for what we're talking about in terms of data 

15 recovery and analysis, particularly if it goes 

16 beyond the -- the actual cases that are under 

17 review and goes to the whole -- the whole body 

18 of -- of the data. So does -- does anyone have 

19 some feel for this and is this something that 

20 can be reasonably done? I think we'd like to 

21 hear from -- maybe from NIOSH, from SC&A. I -- 

22 I think before we task anybody, we need some 

23 feel for its do-ability and their -- and what 

24 it involves. 

25 DR. MAURO: To a certain extent this process 
298

1 has begun, because our previous workgroup 

2 meetings -- our concern had -- that came 

3 directly off the SEC petition where there were 

4 several affidavits that indicated that this 

5 practice was widespread. One of the 

6 suggestions made during the working group 

7 meeting, well, we -- I think we have a handle 

8 on the problem, and we discussed this during 

9 our working group meeting, and that is if -- if 

10 we can go in and -- and sample workers over the 

11 -- a particular time periods that are of 

12 interest, and that was -- you know, this was in 

13 the 1960s, and -- and pull their PIC data -- 

14 this is the Pocket Ionization Chamber data -- 

15 and let's say we have a number of these. We 

16 talked about this during the workgroup meeting. 

17 I believe you were there. And then we said 

18 okay, now we've got a set. And then -- and 

19 then we say okay, now let's take a look at the 

20 -- the film badge readings, and the expectation 

21 being listen, if we have ten, 15, 20 randomly22 selected or -- or -- PIC data that have 

23 positive readings, you know, above background, 

24 and then we go ahead and take a look at the 

25 film badge readings for those same time 
299

1 periods, you -- the expectation would be -- in 

2 general, when you get a high PIC you should be 

3 getting -- that month, let's say that cycle -- 

4 you should probably be getting some positive 

5 high reading. You know, if you start to get a 

6 lot of high PICs and you get all zeroes, 

7 something isn't right. So this was a 

8 suggestion that was made at the workgroup 

9 meeting. That work was done by Mel Chew & 

10 Associates and reported on at the last 

11 workgroup meeting, and it turns out they -- 

12 they went ahead and -- and did just that for 25 

13 ran-- samples. Now -- where -- and it turns 

14 out the place they got their samples was from 

15 workers who went into tunnels. As it turns 

16 out, the workers that went into the tunnels -- 

17 it was the right place to look because that's 

18 where you got positive readings. That is, 

19 readings that actually showed up as a positive 

20 reading on the PIC. 

21 And now we did not review the data because the 

22 data was presented to all of the working group 

23 during this meeting that we held, and at 25 out 

24 of 25 was reported by Mel Chew & Associates as 

25 having positive correlation. That is, we got a 
300

1 -- we got a high PIC, we got a high film badge. 

2 And -- and there was a lot more to -- it was 

3 ver-- it was much richer than that, as you had 

4 mentioned. It was -- extremely rich dataset. 

5 Now the reason I'm saying all this is that I 

6 believe the stage has been set, at least in the 

7 case of that time period -- for those group of 

8 workers at that time period that went into 

9 tunnels. Now what we -- and effectively what 

10 I'm hearing is that well, good, I think that we 

11 -- we've gone a long way toward let's say 

12 exploring whether or not there's robustness or 

13 -- or consistency between PIC and film badge 

14 data. And what I'm hearing is that -- I don't 

15 know the level of effort that was involved when 

16 Mel Chew & Associates did that, but they did do 

17 it. Now in theory, that type of analysis -- 

18 which I would believe -- in my opinion, did a 

19 very nice job on addressing the issue as it 

20 applies to tunnel workers at that time period. 

21 The question becomes well, there are other 

22 categories of workers. We know we've been 

23 hearing a lot about, for example, welders 

24 whereby it was a practice -- now maybe not 

25 because of high exposures, but because of 
301

1 concern that they might damage the films. I 

2 mean there was -- these are -- this -- this is 

3 the material we're getting and -- and the -- 

4 during the meeting the -- the other evening, we 

5 know that a lot of folks felt that that was a 

6 widespread practice. Well, what I'm -- what 

7 I'm hearing is that there's a strategy to get 

8 at this problem, and that is by coming up with 

9 some kind of nested sampling program -- by 

10 time, perhaps job category, location -- for the 

11 time period of interest, and run the same type 

12 of tests that Mel Chew & Associates did, but on 

13 a broader basis, capturing a larger set of 

14 stratified samples. It would be a statis-- 

15 properly statistically designed so that you 

16 would beforehand come up with some sense of -- 

17 of the level of statistical power you would 

18 hope to achieve. 

19 Now, to answer your question about how long 

20 will it take, and I guess I would have to ask 

21 Mel Chew & Associates because they just did it. 

22 They did 25 cases that they sampled from for 

23 tunnel workers. I don't know how -- how 

24 intense an effort that was, so I can't answer 

25 that. But in concept, what was just described 
302

1 to us by Dr. Lockey is a very powerful approach 

2 to coming to grips with a very difficult 

3 problem. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, did you have some comments on 

5 this as well? 

6 DR. NETON: I -- I don't have too much to add 

7 other than I think the concept is a sound 

8 scientific concept to explore, although I have 

9 no idea how long this would take. I think what 

10 we're proposing to do is somewhat -- a little 

11 different than what Mel Chew & Associates 

12 undertook, and I would propose that we have -- 

13 be given some time to think about how long this 

14 would take, meet with the working group that's 

15 been assigned to this and discuss this maybe in 

16 a technical conference call or something 

17 (unintelligible) that matter to scope out the 

18 issue. But I -- I do think it has merit, but I 

19 -- I really have no idea, you know, how much 

20 time this would take. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't think that we 

22 necessarily need to task you to do this. I 

23 think it was important for Dr. Lockey to get 

24 the idea on the table so that both our 

25 contractor and NIOSH can be aware of it. And 
303

1 as the workgroup goes forward, I think they 

2 have the -- they are empowered under the 

3 present tasking to incorporate this if they 

4 think it's -- it's appropriate. And perhaps as 

5 you go forward and NIOSH gives it some thought 

6 about how they would go about it and what the 

7 effort would be, if necessary they could come 

8 back and get some additional tasking. But I 

9 think under the present task, Lew, as I would 

10 understand it, they're completely free to 

11 pursue this. But I wanted to make sure that 

12 the idea got on the floor so that it had some 

13 visibility and there will be now an 

14 expectation, at least, that you have looked at 

15 this conceptually and then determine whether 

16 you can proceed on it. 

17 DR. MAURO: I -- I would just like to offer 

18 probably the first step would be to come up 

19 with a -- almost a proposal. In other words, I 

20 think this is the way to come to grips with 

21 this problem, the de-- what would the design 

22 be, what would you sample, what time periods, 

23 what categories of workers, how many samples 

24 would be collected that -- and then that -- so 

25 there wouldn't be a large effort put in, but it 
304

1 would -- it would take it the next step, then 

2 you would have an opportunity -- and -- and -- 

3 and I think this would be done -- and certainly 

4 NIOSH would look at it -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

6 DR. MAURO: -- and -- and then we move forward 

7 from there. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and you can work with the 

9 workgroup on this and then, if necessary, come 

10 to the Board. I think we have a comment from 

11 Dr. Melius, then Mr. Gibson. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Well, I mean I think it's a very 

13 important issue for -- that we need to deal 

14 with it at the si-- Nevada Test Site in some 

15 way. It's a major concern we need to -- I 

16 think the credibility of our final 

17 determination will be dependent on that. I am 

18 a little bit skeptical and concerned about 

19 trying a statistical approach. One -- one is 

20 trying to explain it after we do it, but 

21 secondly is that a lot of the statistical 

22 approaches assume some sort of random 

23 distribution. And if one has some sort of 

24 intentional bias in terms of the way that these 

25 data are censored or something, badges not used 
305

1 or whatever, it -- it really can dramatically -

2 - you can end up with very misleading results 

3 when applying a statistical model to it and -- 

4 that may be overcome. There may be -- there 

5 are techniques for doing that, but I think one 

6 has to be careful about it and I would -- we 

7 may want to consult with a statistician -- does 

8 some of this type of work before we, you know, 

9 implement the final product 'cause it's not 

10 looking for natural distributions or whatever. 

11 We're looking for someplace where there's -- 

12 these distributions are altered in some way, so 

13 we can be fooled by -- by correlations. You 

14 know, there -- there can be correlation be two 

15 -- two sets of -- of exposure data, but it may 

16 -- one can still be censored in some way 

17 because the, you know, badges were taken off 

18 when they got to a certain -- people stopped 

19 using badges at a certain level of exposure or 

20 something, so how we approach that I think has 

21 to be done fairly carefully before we do it. I 

22 think it's definitely worth considering as an 

23 approach, though. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Michael? 

25 MR. GIBSON: Paul, this sounds to me like -- I 
306

1 know it's associated with Nevada Test Site, but 

2 it's more in the lines of the coworker data 

3 stuff and things like that, so I don't know if 

4 it's something that should be tied directly to 

5 the NTS workgroup and maybe shouldn't go to the 

6 coworker data workgroup, or even the full 

7 Board. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't know the answer to 

9 that at this point. I think, insofar as they 

10 would use the Nevada Test Site in -- perhaps as 

11 a -- as a pilot operation using that data, it 

12 has some immediate applications. But perhaps 

13 if the methodology develops, it could be 

14 generalized to other areas. 

15 Mr. Presley. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: I think that Paul's exactly 

17 right. The one thing that I do -- would -- I 

18 would like to say is if -- if we do task 

19 someone to do this, I would like to see SC&A 

20 and NIOSH work together on this. I want to get 

21 -- if it comes back to -- to the working group, 

22 I want to get one report that's concise. I 

23 don't want to have to start going back and 

24 forth, back and forth, back and forth on this 

25 subject. So I would like to ask, if we do 
307

1 something like this, that we work together and 

2 we get a report that -- that we get that says 

3 this happened, finally. And I don't mean to be 

4 derogatory to anybody about that, but that's -- 

5 I mean what we're after now is trying to get 

6 stuff done as timely and as costly as we 

7 possibly can -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Cost effec-- 

9 MR. PRESLEY: -- cost effectively. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. Any other comment? 

11 Dr. Melius or -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: No, I'm sorry. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- Dr. Lockey, okay. 

14 DR. LOCKEY: Mike -- Mike, one -- one comment 

15 to address your issue. When we had talked is 

16 the methodology that -- that possibly would be 

17 developed to approach this then should be 

18 standardized and -- and perhaps does have 

19 applicability to other sites 'cause this issue 

20 that's -- that's been raised about Nevada Test 

21 Site is not unique to Nevada, and it may apply 

22 to other sites also. So a -- a methodology to 

23 look at the robustness of the data, how 

24 consistent the data, I think is -- is 

25 important, taking consideration the limitations 
308

1 that Dr. Melius said. That is, when you find 

2 data that's consistent across time, across job 

3 tasks, across positions, that gives you a lot 

4 of reassurance that you're getting fairly good 

5 data. If it's inconsistent, then that raises 

6 all kinds of red flags. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim? 

8 DR. NETON: I think that's a very good 

9 suggestion, but I would caution the -- the 

10 working -- or the Board that -- NTS is sort of 

11 -- is unique in a certain sense that we have 

12 access to these control point logs that have 

13 simultaneous PIC data and TLD or film data that 

14 happen to be computerized in many respects. We 

15 haven't seen that very frequently at other 

16 sites, and we tried the approach at Rocky 

17 Flats, if you remember, looking at data as it 

18 ramped up and as people approached the control 

19 limit -- you know, did it taper off -- and all 

20 that proved to us was that either people were 

21 pulled out of the workplace or they didn't wear 

22 their badge. We couldn't really tell. So the 

23 statis-- that particular statistical approach 

24 was -- was not very fruitful for us. 

25 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 
309

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Michael, another -- 

2 okay. 

3 Other comments? 

4 (No responses) 

5 Okay, thank you very much. I think that 

6 concludes our business for this afternoon. 

7 We're going to reassemble at 7:30 for the 

8 public comment period -- 

9 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- and a quick comment before you 

11 go. 

12 DR. WADE: When you get back to your place 

13 tonight you'll find two stacks of list of dose 

14 reconstructions. Circled in there will be the 

15 recommendations of the subcommittee. You don't 

16 have to look at it tonight. You'll have it. 

17 It'll be presented to you tomorrow. But when 

18 you see that material in front of you, that's 

19 what it'll be. 

20 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Where's that -- 

21 tonight (unintelligible). 

22 DR. WADE: You'll find it on your place 

23 tonight. 

24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 5:25 p.m. 

25 to 7:30 p.m.) 
310

1 PUBLIC COMMENT
311

1 DR. ZIEMER: Good evening. Good evening, 

2 everyone. We're going to begin our public 

3 comment session. Just make sure you're in the 

4 right part of the hotel. This is the Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation and Worker Health. This is 

6 not one of the entertainment shows that you 

7 paid big money for. But seriously, we're 

8 pleased to have you -- many of you here. 

9 I notice in looking at the commenters' list for 

10 this evening, a number have already commented 

11 to the Board and I'm going to give preference 

12 first to those who have not previously 

13 commented. Otherwise, I will take things in 

14 the order that -- that people have signed up. 

15 For those who may not have been here at our 

16 other sessions, I do want to remind you that 

17 this Board is an advisory board. We advise the 

18 Secretary of Health and Human Services. We are 

19 not employed by NIOSH or Department of Labor. 

20 We are an independent advisory board. So we're 

21 here to conduct the business of the Board, 

22 which has to do with a sort of oversight of the 

23 program, and part of that oversight is gaining 

24 input from the constituents, those who are 

25 claimants that -- and -- and that input helps 
312

1 us in our evaluation of how the program is 

2 working or how it is not working, depending on, 

3 sometimes, one's point of view. 

4 We do have some ground rules, one of which is 

5 to limit the comments to ten minutes, and I 

6 want to remind -- and I did yesterday -- remind 

7 you again, that's not a goal to be achieved, 

8 but an upper limit. So if you can keep your 

9 remarks more concise, that's -- particularly 

10 helps those who are toward the end of the 

11 commenters when others may be getting a little 

12 weary this time of day. 

13 We do have some other ground rules and I -- we 

14 have as our Designated Federal Official here 

15 tonight Dr. Christine Branche, and Dr. Branche 

16 will read for us the official ground rules of 

17 the public comment period. Christine? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. And for those of you 

19 who are present in the meeting, there are 

20 copies of our policy on redaction. We've also 

21 provided them -- and most of you have sat 

22 towards the back, but we actually have them on 

23 the seats in the fro-- in the front rows, the 

24 first three rows of the meeting room, if you'd 

25 like your own copy. 
313

1 I'm going to read this to you for the pur-- for 

2 the purposes of the people on the phone, as 

3 well. 

4 If a person making a comment gives his or her 

5 name, no attempt will be made to redact that 

6 name in the transcripts. 

7 NIOSH will make reasonable steps to ensure that 

8 individuals making public comment are aware of 

9 the fact that their comments -- in this case 

10 this evening, your comments -- including their 

11 name, if provided, will appear in a transcript 

12 of the meeting posted on a public web site. 

13 Such reasonable steps include, first, a 

14 statement read at the start of each public 

15 comment period stating that transcripts will be 

16 posted and names of speakers will not be 

17 redacted, such as what I'm doing now. 

18 A printed copy of the statement mentioned -- 

19 that I just mentioned will be displayed on the 

20 table where individuals sign up to make public 

21 comment. 

22 A statement such as that which I've already 

23 expressed will also appear in the agenda for 

24 the Board meeting when it is posted on the 

25 NIOSH web site. 
314

1 And a statement such as what I've already 

2 provided will appear in the Federal Register

3 notice that announces the Board and 

4 subcommittee meetings. 

5 If an individual is making a statement -- 

6 excuse me. If an individual, in making a 

7 statement, reveals personal information such as 

8 medical information about themselves, that 

9 information will not usually be redacted. The 

10 NIOSH Federal -- FOIA -- 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: Freedom of Information -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: -- thank you -- Freedom of 

13 Information Act coordinator will, however, 

14 review such revelations in accordance with the 

15 Freedom of Information Act and the Federal 

16 Advisory Committee Act and, if deemed 

17 appropriate, will redact such information. 

18 All disclosures of information concerning third 

19 parties will be redacted. 

20 And lastly, if it comes to the attention of the 

21 Designated Federal Official -- and that's the 

22 part that I'm playing this evening -- that an 

23 individual wishes to share information with the 

24 Board, but objects to doing so in a public 

25 forum, then the Designated Federal Official 
315

1 will work with that individual in accordance 

2 with the Federal Advisory Committee Act to find 

3 a way that the Board can hear such comments. 

4 Thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Dr. 

6 Branche. We'll now proceed to the list of 

7 commenters and we'll begin tonight with Anne 

8 Snyder. Anne, are you here? 

9 (No responses) 

10 Okay, I'll -- I'll come back and check in a 

11 little while. 

12 How about Lela Dupont? 

13 MS. DUPONT: (Off microphone) That's me, but I 

14 must have (unintelligible). 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I -- I know sometimes 

16 people, in -- in registering, if you get to the 

17 wrong book, you've signed up for making comment 

18 rather than registering, so that may have 

19 happened to you, Lela. I'm sorry about that 

20 and I'll remove you from that list. 

21 Doris -- it's G-y-o-n-d-y? Doris, okay, thank 

22 you. 

23 MS. GYORODY: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is 

24 Doris Gyorody and I want to thank you for 

25 giving me this opportunity to speak. My 
316

1 husband Frank started to work for the Test Site 

2 December of 1988 and worked for the Test Site 

3 until April 1999. His original job was Tonapah 

4 Test Range, and then was relocated after two 

5 and a half years. 

6 My husband had a Q clearance, so therefore I 

7 never knew where he worked or what he did. He 

8 always said if I told you where I worked or 

9 what I did, I'd have to shoot you, so therefore 

10 I never knew, even after he left there. My 

11 husband was a dedicated worker who received an 

12 outstanding service award for his employment. 

13 On January 16th, 2006 at the age of 58 my 

14 husband was diagnosed with highly aggressive 

15 Stage IV bladder cancer, and was treated by the 

16 director of the Nevada Cancer Institute, Dr. 

17 Nicholas Voglezang, who served on the editorial 

18 boards of Cancer, Cancer Research, Journal of 

19 Clinical Oncology, and is the author of 385 

20 scientific publications. He states in a letter 

21 that he wrote for my husband that it is his 

22 professional opinion that Frank's exposure to 

23 radiation at the Test Site would be a risk 

24 factor. The latency period from radiation 

25 exposure to development of cancer can be as 
317

1 short as five years. However, in some cases it 

2 can be as long as 40 years. 

3 Frank and I were not made aware of the NIOSH 

4 and dose reconstruction until after he was 

5 diagnosed. My husband's health deteriorated 

6 rather quickly. He had major surgery. He 

7 almost bled to death. He had 35 rounds of 

8 radiation, had a bowel obstruction, and he went 

9 from 150 pounds to 80 pounds, and was in a 

10 clinically -- medically-induced coma his last 

11 ten days of life to control the pain he was in. 

12 I'm telling you this so that you realize you 

13 are dealing with people, not just statistics. 

14 He was unable to give the Department of Labor 

15 or myself an accurate statement with all of the 

16 locations he worked at and the names of his 

17 supervisors. I contacted one of the 

18 contractors for the Test Site and could not get 

19 confirmation of his employment. When I 

20 contacted the Department of Labor I was told 

21 that the burden of proof of his employment and 

22 job locations was my responsibility. When I 

23 did contact one of his supervisors to ask for 

24 verification, I was denied that. He still 

25 works for a contractor and did not want to get 
318

1 involved in this case. 

2 I am a young woman who is not a scientist or 

3 government employee, but I do realize with any 

4 government entity the wheels turn slowly. I 

5 ask that you please expedite this process for 

6 all of us, because I am becoming painfully 

7 aware that my two daughters will receive the 

8 compensation rather than me because my case 

9 might not be resolved in my lifetime. 

10 I thank you all again for giving me this 

11 opportunity to speak. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Doris, for 

13 sharing that with us. 

14 Andrea Matson-Morse? Andrea. 

15 MS. MATSON-MORSE: (Off microphone) 

16 (Unintelligible) 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Could you use the mike so we 

18 can... 

19 MS. MATSON-MORSE: This is a board I put 

20 together, it has my husband down in the hole -- 

21 shot, has him here, and then a month before he 

22 passed away. These are stickers that they put 

23 on the shots after they arrived out at the Test 

24 Site and they -- as the gentleman explained to 

25 me here -- checked in, and then they put them 
319

1 on with the name of the shot. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And let's go ahead and pass 

3 that around, if we could. 

4 MS. MATSON-MORSE: I wish I could speak as 

5 eloquently as this lady did. I was married to 

6 my husband 22 years and he worked for EG&G and 

7 then Bechtel laid him off in '97. He worked 

8 from 1988 to '97. 

9 I'm just -- I wanted to let you know of some of 

10 the situations that have happened out there. 

11 (Unintelligible) had a situation with his badge 

12 that it -- his dosimeter badge changed color, 

13 and some men came up and they grabbed it and 

14 they took it away and they were gone for a few 

15 hours and they came back with a new one. And 

16 when he kept questioning him, he says listen, 

17 my badge changed, you know, something's going 

18 on here. Oh, never mind, don't worry about it; 

19 it's nothing. And the more he questioned, they 

20 just kind of shoo-shooed him off and wouldn't 

21 answer anything. 

22 And then in one of my conversations with NIOSH 

23 I was told that something big had happened out 

24 there and he was -- my husband was in that area 

25 at that time at one of the tunnel shots, but 
320

1 that it was up to me to prove what had 

2 happened. And also this individual that had 

3 told me that all of his dosimeter readings, 

4 everything, were missing and were gone. I 

5 commented, you know, how do I prove this? This 

6 is a highly classified area; how does a spouse 

7 prove any of this? And he says it would be up 

8 to me. 

9 The men at the tunnel shots would always 

10 comment how -- inside the tunnels -- they're 

11 very wet and it was water leaking out of pipes. 

12 And they'd always say oh, yes, the water's hot 

13 -- meaning radioactive. Their boots were 

14 getting soaked, they were getting wet, and my 

15 husband would always tell me about these 

16 situations. 

17 He didn't talk a lot about different things 

18 because he took big pride in his job, but 

19 certain things that bothered him, he would. 

20 Another time in the tunnels all the -- 

21 supposedly all the electricity went out and 

22 they made the men sit in there for two and half 

23 hours in the dark, and they weren't allowed to 

24 move, anything. When it went out they had to 

25 stay right where they were at. 
321

1 And then I just want to put -- by denying these 

2 workers who gave of themselves for the 

3 betterment of our freedom of our country and of 

4 medical technology and other scientific 

5 technology -- which a lot of the tests were, 

6 including medical technology and these other 

7 items, other than just defense -- you know, 

8 they sacrificed a lot and this is -- it's -- to 

9 put them through this, the people who are still 

10 with us, and through the families for having to 

11 fight for the ones who are passed, it's very 

12 frustrating. 

13 I had an incident with someone that came from 

14 Washington, D.C. I had my children with me and 

15 they called me in to have a hearing. I was 

16 talking to the woman -- when I first walked in, 

17 she looked at me and says well, gee, you're 

18 awfully young -- like that had a bearing on if 

19 I could move forward, whatever. And then after 

20 I did the talk and everything with them, she 

21 says well, at least you had him 22 years. Her 

22 name was [name redacted]. 

23 This is how people are being treated. The more 

24 information you give, the harder you're 

25 treated. 
322

1 So I just want to thank you for letting me be 

2 able to speak and tell you some of these 

3 incidences that happened out there. A lot of 

4 people had different scenarios, but I just 

5 wanted to show and put a face to things. Thank 

6 you. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and thank you, Andrea. Let 

8 me check back again and see if Anne Snyder has 

9 joined us. 

10 (No responses) 

11 Okay. Now you'll have to indulge me a little 

12 bit, some-- sometimes it's difficult to read 

13 the writing. I think this is [name redacted], 

14 or something close to that. Is... Anyone -- 

15 let me start it -- this will simplify it. 

16 Anyone here with the initials [name redacted]? 

17 We'll start that way. 

18 (No responses) 

19 Okay. I think that's -- okay. Let's go on 

20 then. We have [name redacted]? Again, a 

21 little difficulty reading the handwriting here. 

22 We, again, may have had individuals who thought 

23 they were registering rather than signing up to 

24 speak. 

25 Brenda Sieck -- Brenda was here last night so I 
323

1 know we have that name right -- yeah, you're 

2 up, Brenda. Thank you. 

3 MS. SIECK: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. 

4 I know I was here last night and spoke. I'm 

5 here actually to speak for a gentleman who 

6 could not be here tonight. His name is [name 

7 redacted]. He lives in Spokane, Washington 

8 now, and he did a -- a statement that I wanted 

9 to read to the panel tonight. I'm giving you 

10 all a copy so you'll see what I have. 

11 The first -- top copy actually is from [name 

12 redacted], who actually is worn out from 

13 speaking and getting letters in the mail. I 

14 just wanted to reiterate something on some 

15 paperwork I gave to you last night. 

16 If you'll notice at the bottom of the e-mail 

17 that she sent to Senator Reid, I just wanted to 

18 point out a situation that she had, an 

19 appointment with I believe it was NIOSH. I 

20 think she had to go downtown to a court 

21 building to have this meeting, and on that 

22 hearing she was told by the officer that any 

23 questions pertaining to the dose reconstruction 

24 was off limits. So she asked the question 

25 anyway, how does the government reach its 
324

1 conclusions regarding the dose reconstruction. 

2 And the hearing officer turned off the recorder 

3 and told us what he was about to say was off 

4 the record. He proceeded to tell [name 

5 redacted], [name redacted] that was with her 

6 and a coworker of my father, [name redacted], 

7 that nobody really understands the dose 

8 reconstruction report and that he himself could 

9 not read the dose re-- the dose reconstruction 

10 report. 

11 The hearing officer was a very young man and 

12 admitted that he was not familiar with the 

13 Nevada Test Site or what happened up there many 

14 years ago. So [name redacted] witness, [name 

15 redacted], that was with her had to give him a 

16 history lesson before they could begin the 

17 hearing. 

18 She had called a -- several agencies, including 

19 Department of Radiation at UNLV, to talk to 

20 professor about the dose reconstruction report 

21 that she had on my dad, Ronald C. Bain, and she 

22 was told that it is impossible to read this 

23 report because the government has manipulated 

24 this report to always conclude in the 

25 government's favor. So every time that she had 
325

1 to send in claim forms and attend meetings or 

2 hearings regarding this matter, she was 

3 basically forced to relive all the painful 

4 memories of losing my father and seeing what he 

5 had to endure the last years of his life. And 

6 basically the only reason that she does 

7 continue to do this is because my dad told her 

8 to, and she does appreciate that -- you hearing 

9 us, you hearing me last night, and that's it on 

10 that matter. 

11 For [name redacted], who cannot be here 

12 tonight, I'm not sure who has a copy of this, 

13 if it's the U.S. Department of Labor, but it 

14 was submitted -- I know NIOSH has it, and I 

15 just wanted to read to you -- maybe take about 

16 five minutes. 

17 (Reading) I, [name redacted], Test Site 

18 employee -- gives his badge number -- am making 

19 a statement regarding his employment at the 

20 Nevada Test Site. 

21 He says he first worked at the Nevada Test Site 

22 in Area 9 as a carpenter apprentice, second 

23 year. This was for about two or three months, 

24 around April 1966. He worked in the areas 

25 around 9 where the shops and offices were. 
326

1 These would include Areas 9, 10, 8, 2, most of 

2 which were sites of above-ground tests prior to 

3 1963. 

4 He says (reading) I didn't return to the Test 

5 Site until 1968 when I first worked underground 

6 in the tunnels in Area 12 and Area 16. The 

7 first tunnel I worked in was N tunnel. I 

8 believe there was at least one nuclear test in 

9 N tunnel prior to my arrival. I know there 

10 were areas we were told to stay out of because 

11 of the contamination. The supervisors told us 

12 not to cross any yellow rope, and stay out of 

13 the water that was flowing in the piss ditches. 

14 These were small open ditches that were dug 

15 next to the rib, or the side of the drift. 

16 These were used to pump the water out of the 

17 different drifts, including the drifts where 

18 they had previously (sic) tests that were 

19 contaminated. The water was then pumped down 

20 from the portal, or the front of the tunnel, to 

21 the settling ponds down away from the work 

22 areas. These ponds all had radiation hazard 

23 warning signs attached to yellow rope that made 

24 a fence all the way around the ponds. Every 

25 tunnel I worked used this same system for 
327

1 removing the water from contaminated and non2 contaminated areas. 

3 Between 1968 and '76 I worked a very active 

4 tunnel -- actually he says I worked every 

5 active tunnel -- in Area 12, E tunnel, G 

6 tunnel, N tunnel and T tunnel, and also the 

7 last event to be conducted in 16 tunnel. 

8 In 1970 I was a carpenter welder working on 

9 swing shift E tunnel in December when Baneberry 

10 vented. We didn't know it had leaked, so we 

11 reported for work and at the 100 gate, which is 

12 the main gate, they told us to report to 

13 Building 112, which was job assignment. They 

14 told us to go back home and they would call us 

15 back when we could go back to work. About the 

16 middle of January, 1971 they called me back to 

17 work because our tunnel was a priority. They 

18 wouldn't let us take our vehicles past the 200 

19 gate access to the forward areas because of 

20 contamination to the forward areas. We had to 

21 get on a school-type buses in Mercury and ride 

22 the buses about 20 miles into Area 1 on Orange 

23 Road just past CP-6 to Rad-Safe station. We 

24 got out of that bus and went into and suited up 

25 in cotton anti-Cs -- he's got coveralls in 
328

1 parentheses -- gloves, rubber boots, then got 

2 another bus past -- got onto another bus past 

3 the Rad-Safe station where it was contaminated 

4 and rode that bus up to E tunnel portal and 

5 went underground. We had to keep the anti6 contamination suits on in the tunnel while we 

7 worked because when Baneberry vented the 

8 radiation cloud went up into Area 12 and they 

9 didn't shut off the tunnel ventilation system 

10 when they evacuated Area 12, so it sucked the 

11 radiation into the tunnel, contaminating them. 

12 The steel we were welding on was obviously 

13 contaminated like everything else, but they 

14 never issued us any masks or respirators. 

15 After a week or so they told us welders we 

16 weren't to be issued the coveralls because at 

17 the end of each shift our coveralls were all 

18 burned full of holes, so from then till it was 

19 cleared -- or declared safe, none of us welders 

20 wore the anti-Cs, only the clothes we wore 

21 every day to work and took home to our families 

22 to be washed. So it seemed they were more 

23 concerned about their coveralls than they were 

24 the workers or their families' health. All of 

25 the tunnels I worked in had previously (sic) 
329

1 nuclear explosions in them except for T tunnel, 

2 and it was brand new at that time. I first 

3 worked there. The only thing that was 

4 contaminated was the area down below where we 

5 built a building and a yard for the 

6 electricians. This area was badly contaminated 

7 because I, J and K tunnels below -- actually, 

8 the tunnels blew -- out of the front of the 

9 tunnels, spewing radiation and debris over a 

10 half to three-quarters of a mile distance 

11 across a small valley. T tunnel was located 

12 about a quarter to a half-mile west of I, J, K 

13 tunnels on the same face of the mountain. 

14 T tunnel was an extremely wet tunnel. I can't 

15 recall how much water was pumped out hourly, 

16 but it was a lot. Much of the tunnel we worked 

17 in was like being in a rain forest. This 

18 caused a great problem when the nuclear device 

19 was detonated because of the pressure created 

20 by the super-heated steam from the water. I 

21 was told by a friend that worked Holmes & 

22 Narver that the gas steel (sic) door had leaked 

23 almost -- and almost ruptured. This is the 

24 last plug and access door in the main drift. 

25 The only thing keeping everything from coming 
330

1 out of the mouth of the tunnel like I, J and K 

2 did. Of course everything from the gas seal 

3 door back contaminated -- actually he says of 

4 course everything from the gas seal door back 

5 was contaminated. This was all supposedly 

6 cleaned up before we went back into work on the 

7 new drift behind the gas seal door. On the 

8 next event in there we built a thick plug in 

9 the tunnel drift be time -- between the gas 

10 seal door and the other drifts to help ensue 

11 the integrity of the gas seal door. This plug 

12 was called the hasty plug. I believe they 

13 called it that because it was a last-minute 

14 decision because they were afraid of a repeat 

15 of the first event, and that the gas seal door 

16 wouldn't hold this time. 

17 Every tunnel we worked in was contaminated to 

18 one degree or another. Probable the worst was 

19 E tunnel. The main drift for the first event 

20 there was so contaminated with radiation that 

21 they had to abandon it and dig a new drift for 

22 it about 300 or 400 feet to the west of the new 

23 one to the old one. We had occasion to use the 

24 bypass and old drift for egress on different 

25 occasions but I can't remember exactly how many 
331

1 times. There was a period of approximately 

2 three to four weeks we were working back in the 

3 area in E tunnel where they had previously had 

4 a nuclear detonation. We were building 

5 bulkheads, which were concrete forms that were 

6 six feet to ten feet thick, and pouring 

7 concrete to seal off the crosscuts and bypass 

8 drifts that led to the contaminated areas. We 

9 were close enough into the Ground Zero that 

10 some of the steel seats (sic) were deformed and 

11 the rough cuts, which were three inches by 12 

12 inches, wood lagging was burned and charred. 

13 The steel sets and lagging are like a half-oval 

14 that goes from the floor up the rib side of the 

15 tunnel and over the top form of the wall and 

16 sealing the barrier for loose rock. We welded 

17 things to these sets and rock bolt plates to 

18 install our forms and brace off -- brace off 

19 of. This steel was contaminated with 

20 radiation, as was everything else, yet we 

21 weren't provided with masks or respirators. As 

22 carpenters welders we were required to furnish 

23 our own hand tools, hammers, squares, nail 

24 aprons, pry bars, tape measures, hand saws, et 

25 cetera, because they weren't able to use any 
332

1 of their own hand tools and they weren't able 

2 to remove anything from that secured area. The 

3 entire area secured -- was secured it to 

4 control entry and exit through Rad-Safe 

5 station. Every morning we went into the Rad6 Safe area and suited up with coveralls, rubber 

7 boots, gloves and then everything was taped up 

8 so we couldn't remove the gloves or boots 

9 without tearing off that special tape. The 

10 front and crotch of the overalls was taped over 

11 the zippers so we couldn't unzip them. If you 

12 smoke, you couldn't have cigarettes with you. 

13 If you chewed tobacco, you couldn't have that 

14 with you. They told us not to touch our faces 

15 or get our gloves hands -- gloved hands around 

16 our mouths. In addition to our regular film 

17 badges that we normally carried that were 

18 changed about every 30 days, but were changed 

19 as I believe lunchtime and quitting time every 

20 day. We also carried dosime-- dosimeters that 

21 have a constant reading that was checked every 

22 time we came out into the Rad-Safe station. 

23 Any time we needed to get a drink of water, go 

24 to urinate, have a cigarette or chew of tobacco 

25 or gum, we had to get all undressed at the Rad-
333

1 Safe station and get our dosimeters read and 

2 had sample swabs of our clothes and faces and 

3 hair and hands. They were also checked with a 

4 Geiger counter before we could do anything 

5 else. These were the conditions we worked in 

6 there every day till the work was finished. 

7 I have this highlighted on the last page. 

8 (Reading) When we finished doing the above 

9 work, we took all of the hand tools, welding 

10 leads, helmets, extension cords, grinders, Skil 

11 saws, all of these tools and everything else we 

12 used were loaded on cars on the trains and 

13 taken outside. We watched as they were taken 

14 out where there was a big pit dug and they were 

15 dumped in the pit and buried by a bulldozer. 

16 They were too contaminated by radiation to use 

17 again. 

18 All of these things took place in the tunnels 

19 of Area 12 where myself and coworkers like 

20 Ronald C. Bain worked on a daily basis. Ron 

21 and I worked together as carpenter welders and 

22 went from tunnel to tunnel. We worked together 

23 from around 1971 or so till the latter part of 

24 1975 when I left the tunnels. I can't remember 

25 the exact dates of all these things because we 
334

1 never kept records of the dates and what we 

2 did. The work was classified and you couldn't 

3 even tell your families what you did or exactly 

4 where you did it. The only ones who knew were 

5 the government, and they aren't talking. 

6 There were other things that were just as bad, 

7 and maybe a lot worse than that that I 

8 mentioned that happened to me and my coworkers 

9 like Ron Bain and others, but these happened 

10 over 30 years ago and more. We believed them 

11 when they told us it was safe. We believed 

12 them when they told us they would not put us in 

13 harm's way. And they lied to us. They won't 

14 take any responsibility or blame for the 

15 mistakes that made -- that cost Ron Bain and a 

16 lot of other people just like him the loss of 

17 their lives, and to their families the loss of 

18 them. Most of the families have suffered great 

19 financial, and even homes and such have been 

20 lost. The government has a chance to step up 

21 to the plate and to do the right thing rather 

22 than to dodge the issue and waste more millions 

23 of dollars on studies that benefit no one 

24 except the people doing those studies. 

25 Ron Bain and I became close friends in the last 
335

1 part of his life. He still felt like what he 

2 did up at the Test Site was important and made 

3 a difference. We talked about it a few times. 

4 Maybe we were just naive. I hate to think so 

5 because that would mean that too was just part 

6 of being the big lie and Ron Bain died for 

7 nothing. He deserved better than that. 

8 These statements are (sic) facts are true to 

9 the best of my ability to remember them as they 

10 happened. [name redacted]. 

11 Thank you very much. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Brenda, for 

13 sharing that on behalf of [name redacted]. 

14 Deb Jerison? Is Deb here tonight? Yes. Thank 

15 you. 

16 MS. JERISON: My name is Deb Jerison. My 

17 father, James Goode, worked at Mound as a 

18 research physicist from 1949 to 1957. He died 

19 in 1960 at the age of 36, leaving a widow and 

20 four small children. [name redacted] filed her 

21 claim with EEOICPA in February of 2002. In May 

22 2005 she received her first draft dose 

23 reconstruction and asked for my health -- help. 

24 Right now she's in a nursing home recovering 

25 from a fall and in generally frail health. 
336

1 We're currently awaiting our fourth dose 

2 reconstruction, after submitting yet another 

3 batch of documentation of additional 

4 radiological exposure. Ironically, my dad's 

5 cancer is a non-compensable cancer and he 

6 worked with thorium and radium, so the new 

7 information I worked so hard to find will 

8 probably be wasted as his thorium and radium 

9 exposure will now be discounted. My father had 

10 a finely-honed sense of irony. Perhaps he 

11 would have enjoyed that. I'm not so sure my 

12 mother will, however. 

13 This being said, I do wish to thank NIOSH and 

14 the Advisory Board for recommending an SEC for 

15 Mound workers from October 1st, 1949 to 

16 February 28th, 1959. This will help many 

17 claimants who have been struggling for years to 

18 be paid. 

19 In a way this SEC is a continuation of the 

20 Monsanto SEC, as the workers moved from the 

21 Dayton Project to the Mound site as buildings 

22 were completed, bringing their research and 

23 work with them. I'm concerned that the dates 

24 used for this class may inadvertently eliminate 

25 some eligible claimants. Workers were working 
337

1 at Mound prior to the October 1st, 1949 date. 

2 I did a quick search last night to see how 

3 early I could place workers on the Mound 

4 complex. A more thorough search might come up 

5 with earlier dates. Floyd Hertweck's T6 building Structural History and Process Summary 

7 Background Document states the first occupants 

8 moved into T-building on March 15th, 1948. I 

9 list several other documents here. Mound 

10 Quarterly Report for General Research was 

11 available for April 1949. Some of these are as 

12 early as I think July of '48. 

13 Likewise, the February 1959 cutoff date may be 

14 a bit premature. A November 1st, 2000 

15 document, Report of Non-Intrusive 

16 Characterization of SW-19, the Old Cave, states 

17 the cleanup was completed in the old cave in 

18 March 1959 and that the most conservative 

19 estimated indicated that a maximum of five 

20 curies of actinium-227 and 12 curies of radium21 226 could still have been present. If my 

22 memory serves me, they also unexpectedly found 

23 actinium around 2005 while cleaning up T24 building. 

25 I was also very glad to hear that NIOSH will be 
338

1 reviewing records from the 1990s 

2 decommissioning and deconstruction era. This 

3 was a very difficult time for Mound workers in 

4 many ways, and I have heard many stories of 

5 inadvertent contamination by unmonitored 

6 workers who thought they were working in a safe 

7 area, only to find that the materials they were 

8 handling were contaminated. 

9 There's some other areas that the NIOSH report 

10 didn't identify as being problematic which need 

11 to be considered. 

12 The occupational medical X-ray discussion in 

13 the NIOSH response states that as there's no 

14 proof that photofluorography was used at Mound, 

15 it's assumed that it was not. In a supposedly 

16 claimant-friendly program, wouldn't it be more 

17 reasonable to assume Mound used 

18 photofluorographic X-rays until proved wrong, 

19 other than the other way around? Also, the 

20 section states that it's assumed that one X-ray 

21 was done per year. In the early years at least 

22 it was customary to have X-rays done at six23 month intervals. 

24 I do not feel as confident as NIOSH that the 

25 monitoring data at Mound is complete. There 
339

1 are large gaps in my father's monitoring, even 

2 though he continued to write papers on 

3 radionuclide research during the missing years. 

4 And there is at least one mistake where data 

5 was transferred from the card file to the 

6 PORECOM database, as well as incorrect data in 

7 the tritium MESH database, if my memory is 

8 correct. 

9 In talking to a Mound health physicist I'm 

10 still convinced that the neutron tracking 

11 problem has not been sufficiently addressed. 

12 He was very convincing in explaining why the 

13 corrections made so long after the fact could 

14 not be correct. 

15 The same gentleman was also very disturbed that 

16 the neutron problems with the classified 

17 devices program in the SM-building during the 

18 1960s was not even mentioned in NIOSH's 

19 response. He wondered if the problem was that 

20 NIOSH did not have the clearance to get into 

21 appropriate classified records. Both these 

22 areas surely need more exploration. 

23 Another area that disturbs me is that NIOSH 

24 relies so heavily on compilations of data 

25 rather than going to primary sources. Even 
340

1 someone like [name redacted] could not be 

2 expected to remember clearly everything that 

3 happened 40 or 50 years before. Along with 

4 this, I'm curious why NIOSH used an outdated 

5 version of the Wayne King document, 

6 Radionuclides by Location, rather than the most 

7 current one. 

8 On the issue of contaminated buried records, 

9 NIOSH states that MJW retrieved 43 of the 435 

10 contaminated boxes from Los Alamos, and the 

11 bioassay data these boxes contained was already 

12 -- had already been microfilmed. I can't 

13 follow how knowing what was in less than ten 

14 percent of the boxes tells us anything about 

15 what was in the other 90 percent. 

16 One other area I haven't had time to explore 

17 that might be important in an SEC is 

18 incineration and the open burning of 

19 radioactive materials at Mound. I would 

20 encourage that this area be explored. 

21 The units used to measure radiation on some of 

22 the Mound Laboratory radiation exposure 

23 records, Form 1015, are ambiguous. Some 

24 records give measurements in "reps" rather than 

25 the more common "rems". When I questioned 
341

1 NIOSH about this I was told that this was a one 

2 -- that there was a one-to-one conversion 

3 between the two. According to Control of 

4 Radiation Hazards in the Atomic Energy Program, 

5 from 1950 on page 11, reps have a different 

6 measurement scale depending on the type of 

7 radiation measured. Although NIOSH's 

8 assumption of a one-to-one conversion is 

9 accurate with gamma or beta radiation, it would 

10 be vastly inaccurate when applied to photons, 

11 neutrons or alpha radiation. Perhaps this is 

12 moot with the SEC, but it will still matter to 

13 claimants who have to undergo dose 

14 reconstruction. 

15 I also have a question about how the term 

16 "claimant-friendly" is defined. In a letter 

17 from Larry Elliott dated December 1st, 2006 Mr. 

18 Elliott states: Your father's dose est-- your 

19 father's dose estimate contains a number of 

20 claimant-favorable assumptions that produce an 

21 overestimate of the radiation dose. These 

22 assumptions cannot be used if they result in a 

23 POC between 45 to 49.9 percent. Instead, a 

24 more realistic estimate would have to be used, 

25 that would most likely lead to a lower estimate 
342

1 of dose. 

2 How can this be called claimant favorable when 

3 the assumptions are only used when they're not 

4 productive to the claim? A more correct term 

5 would seem to be "dose reconstructor 

6 favorable," as the only reason I can think of 

7 for this type of assumption is to make the dose 

8 reconstruction quicker and easier for the 

9 person doing the calculations. 

10 Also, I would like to add my voice to what many 

11 others have said in the last few days. Getting 

12 information and documents from Department of 

13 Energy is very, very difficult. The burden of 

14 proof is on the claimant, and DOE, as well as 

15 DOL, actively withholds information the 

16 claimants need. Even when a claimant gets 

17 documentation and gives it to NIOSH or DOL, the 

18 information is often ignored or discounted. I 

19 really don't see how it's possible for a 

20 claimant who is ill, elderly, or both, to do 

21 what must be done to meet the burden of proof 

22 for a claim. 

23 Thank you for giving me this chance to share my 

24 concerns, and thank you all for your hard work. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And thank you very much, Deb. 
343

1 Next we'll hear from [name redacted]. 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: He's not here. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, he's not here tonight? Okay. 

4 Dan McKeel -- Dr. McKeel here? Yes. Thank 

5 you. 

6 (Pause) 

7 Thank you. 

8 DR. MCKEEL: Good evening. I'm Dan McKeel, 

9 representing the Southern Illinois Nuclear 

10 Workers. My remarks tonight concern a status 

11 report from my view as a co-petitioner for the 

12 Dow SEC 00079. 

13 First item is that on November the 27th DOE 

14 announced publicly that they had received 

15 additional documents from Livermore and NNSA 

16 that related to Dow. DOE was reviewing these 

17 documents. I have asked DOE several times 

18 without being answered what these documents 

19 contain and asked when they could be released. 

20 Point two, DOE told me the FBI had not been 

21 asked to interpret their findings with respect 

22 to the five TDCC Dow-Mallinckrodt purchase 

23 orders in their first report. DOE then 

24 requested orally that the FBI is-- issue a 

25 revised report concentrating on particular 
344

1 passages that bear directly on the type of 

2 magnesium alloy Dow Madison sold to 

3 Mallinckrodt's uranium division. The FBI, 

4 according to DOE, promised to furnish their 

5 revised report to DOE on or about the week of 

6 December the 24th. That report has been 

7 delayed and I have not received it prior to 

8 this meeting. I have requested a delivery 

9 date. 

10 Point three, Senator Obama's office furnished 

11 me with a document from DTIC that referenced 

12 Dow magnesium-thorium alloy, and I quote, HM 

13 21XA-T8, end quote, the exact identifier we 

14 believe is referenced under the Mallinckrodt 

15 AEC purchase order TDCC-316 issued to Dow 

16 Madison. A copy is attached to this comment. 

17 SINEW and I, as Dow co-petitioner, continue to 

18 believe we have presented DOL and DOE with 

19 multiple affidavits and Mallinckrodt purchase 

20 orders that should be sufficient to establish 

21 that some of the thorium activities at Dow 

22 Madison were in fact AEC-related. This 

23 information should be sufficient for DOE to 

24 modify the Dow Madison facility description and 

25 for DOL to extend the Dow Madison coverage 
345

1 period to at least 1998. Thorium remains at 

2 the plant, and will until the current thorium 

3 license decommissioning under Illinois 

4 Emergency Management Agency and Pangea Group is 

5 completed. Illinois is an agreement state with 

6 the NRC, so actually the thorium production 

7 period extends later than 1998. The FUSRAP 

8 cleanup by the Army Corps of Engineers involved 

9 only Building 6 uranium and not thorium. 

10 Point five. I would also like to bring to your 

11 attention that the SC&A evaluation of the NIOSH 

12 Dow SEC 79, to my knowledge, has never been 

13 formally presented to the Board or discussed by 

14 the Board. This important document was posted 

15 on OCAS web site several months ago. 

16 Tomorrow's session on the Dow SEC would be one 

17 opportunity to have the report reviewed by SC&A 

18 in order to complement whatever information DOE 

19 has to share with us. 

20 Point six. I am aware of escalating secrecy 

21 and the lack of transparency in the Dow SEC 

22 extension proceedings. If this matter had been 

23 handled properly, the Board could and should 

24 have been presented with the information it 

25 needs to vote on the Dow SEC 79 extension to 
346

1 cover '61-1998 by the January meeting, this 

2 meeting. This vote thus will be delayed at 

3 least until the April Board meeting. 

4 Point seven. There remain six unanswered 

5 questions by DOE that I made to DOE and DOE has 

6 not answered them. There remains a response to 

7 my July letter to DOE that I await. And a 

8 final report of my April 17th, 2007 FOIA 

9 request to CDC Atlanta regarding two remaining 

10 items about the NIOSH evaluation report of SEC 

11 79. 

12 Point eight. Issuance of a subpoena for Dow 

13 Madison records under Section 73-84W of the Act 

14 has been an issue for the Dow SEC extension. 

15 Accordingly, I wrote to DOL twice asking for a 

16 simple definition of whether subpoenas can be 

17 issued only to private companies or also to 

18 government agencies. I received no answer. 

19 Then I asked NIOSH the same question and was 

20 referred back to DOL. My fourth attempt was 

21 referred to the DOL Solicitor's Office. The 

22 question itself has not yet been answered. It 

23 seems that a straightforward question such as 

24 this could be answered right away this many 

25 years into the compensation program. 
347

1 Point nine. On January the 8th, 2008, 

2 yesterday, I received from Robert Stephan of 

3 Senator Barack Obama's staff a two-page letter, 

4 copy is attached, of the same date from Glenn 

5 B. Podonsky, HHS -- HSS director at DOE, to 

6 Peter Turcic at DOL stating that DOE now 

7 accepts Dow Madison as an AWE site based on 

8 evidence they have concerning thorium-magnesium 

9 plates supplied during 1958, 1959 to 

10 Mallinckrodt for use in atomic weapons. It is 

11 my hope that Dr. Worthington will describe this 

12 letter tomorrow and the specific evidence that 

13 is the basis for it. That evidence could 

14 include the revised FBI report that I was told 

15 had not been received by DOE as of Friday, 

16 January the 4th, 2008. I had not previously 

17 been informed of several meetings that led up 

18 to the issuance of this dramatic disclosure 

19 letter, even though I have been in constant 

20 touch with the HSS office since last May 

21 advocating extension of the Dow SEC 79 to cover 

22 the period 1961 to 1998. This DOE letter 

23 validates our position and research presented 

24 formally to the Board on May 4th of last year, 

25 2007. I hope an explanation will emerge why it 
348

1 has taken eight full months to achieve this 

2 result. Before the Board can vote on the Dow 

3 SEC extension I presume that several more steps 

4 must take place to accommodate the fact that 

5 Dow Madison is now considered by DOE to be an 

6 AWE based on thorium operations that partly 

7 overlap the Mallinckrodt uranium contract that 

8 is the basis for the present SEC class which 

9 extends from 1957 to 12/31/1960. And those 

10 steps are, one, DOE will have to change the 

11 official facility description in its databases 

12 for the Dow Madison, Illinois site to include 

13 AEC-related thorium operations; two, DOL will 

14 have to agree to modify the coverage period; 

15 three, both DOL and DOE will have to coordinate 

16 with NIOSH and set limits for the non-separable 

17 thorium mixed waste stream residual 

18 contamination period. The ending year 1998 

19 when uranium was cleaned up was suggested, but 

20 the thorium remained on site at the Madison 

21 site during the thorium license decommissioning 

22 project now being carried out by IEMA and the 

23 Pangea Group. Thorium was widespread 

24 throughout the Madison plant in June 2005, as 

25 evidenced by the Pangea report I brought to the 
349

1 Board's attention last May 4th. 

2 Fourth, NIOSH will have to re-examine the 

3 thorium production and residual contamination 

4 period after 1960 to see whether they are able 

5 to reconstruct radiation doses during that 

6 period. NIOSH has no individual monitoring 

7 data for this site, and there is no site 

8 profile, nor is there an appendix related to 

9 TBD 6000. NIOSH will then have to present its 

10 new findings to the Board. 

11 Fifth and last point, the Board will have to 

12 hear the presentation of the SC&A review of the 

13 NIOSH SEC 79 evaluation report, including the 

14 results of the SC&A outreach meeting held in 

15 East Alton, Illinois on June the 20th, 2007. 

16 That SC&A report itself has flaws that must be 

17 addressed, including the fact that the 83.14 

18 SEC petitioner is not the Simmons Cooper Law 

19 Firm. Major problems were the workers have 

20 identified about accuracy of the 1957 

21 Silverstein document and mention of several 

22 building numbers that were never present at Dow 

23 Madison as but a few examples of needed factual 

24 corrections. I will -- I will, and -- as well 

25 as my group, SINEW, pledge to work with all 
350

1 three agencies so the Board may be in a 

2 position to vote on the Dow SEC petition 

3 extension by its next meeting in April of 2008. 

4 Thank you very much. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. McKeel. 

6 [name redacted]. Is [name redacted] here? 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: [name redacted] won't be here. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, will not be here, thank you. 

9 John Taylor? 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: Taylor? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh. 

12 MR. TAYLOR: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

13 name is John Taylor and I worked 

14 (unintelligible) the rock from 1969 through 

15 August of 1992. I was (unintelligible). 

16 Before that I was (unintelligible). I lost an 

17 eye (on microphone) two back injuries, and I 

18 lost my hearing. When I filed for my cancer, 

19 my chronic rhinitis, my heart problems, my 

20 (unintelligible), the nodules, the deep 

21 scarring in my lungs, the State denied me 

22 because they were paying disability on these 

23 other maladies that I had, so I filed for a 

24 stay. And in 1999, because I had a -- for two 

25 decades I had an association helping injured 
351

1 workers in this state, I'm a 47-year resident, 

2 Senator Reid and Representative Givens* 

3 listened to me and I wrote an outline. I got a 

4 pass for 200,000 for us people, the House 

5 Judiciary reduced it to 150,000, took out the 

6 dependents, made it worse for us for the 

7 silicosis, and the fight was on. Many of you 

8 might not be aware, there are no verbs in the 

9 law. I've hammered away, wrote letters, 

10 there's no verbs in the law to have the 

11 bureaucrats, the DOL, do anything in a time 

12 frame to help us people. And what I've heard 

13 here the last couple of days is the same thing 

14 I'm involved in right now with my claim. The 

15 people are wanting to have the facts of their 

16 claim, the law applied to the facts of their 

17 claim. And if you can bear with me a minute, 

18 I'll read you something really simple out of 

19 Black's Law Dictionary. Due process of law 

20 implies the right of the person affected 

21 thereby to be present before the tribunal which 

22 pronounces judgment upon the justice (sic) of 

23 life, liberty or property, in its most 

24 comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony 

25 or otherwise, and have the right of 
352

1 controverting, by proof, the (sic) material 

2 fact that bears on the question of right and 

3 every (sic) matter involved. If any question 

4 of fact or liability be conclusively presumed 

5 against him, this is not due process of law. 

6 And that's what NIOSH is doing, and I'm after 

7 them right now -- been that way for the last 

8 year -- just to give me some of my records. 

9 I've got some of them, and if any of you have 

10 seen those records, they're IBM cards. And 

11 they've got our dose -- doses on them. I've 

12 got some. Yet a young lady by the name of 

13 Martha DaMarre that works over here at DOE -- 

14 or she works for Bechtel and now the National 

15 Securities Association -- writes zeroes on all 

16 of our dose reconstruction and don't give up 

17 these records. And I've never seen this in our 

18 State Worker's Compensation program, not -- 

19 I've seen them hold back a little evidence, but 

20 I've never quite seen anything -- that's why I 

21 came down here tonight. I think we should be 

22 able to see those records. 

23 I'm sick because I steam-cleaned radioactive 

24 equipment in '71 and 2 as an apprentice. There 

25 was no rad safe decon pad. Us crafts, we 
353

1 steamed off all these muckers and everything 

2 that was underground, they'd bring it out and 

3 we'd steam it off just wearing DOE clothing or 

4 anything we could. There was no monitors. 

5 They had a high-pressure washer, one of the 

6 guys, and they told me -- they says put your 

7 badge under your clothing, you're getting it 

8 contaminated. Go down to the change house for 

9 the miners and change when I had all this 

10 silica all over me that was radioactive. They 

11 took my boots one time and didn't want to pay 

12 me. Lot of things -- just on and on. 

13 And [name redacted] testified to something that 

14 I was really involved in. You had roughly 900 

15 underground shots, most of them down there in 

16 the Yucca Valley, some of them up on the mesa. 

17 There's probably a minimum of 100 emplacement 

18 holes out there with metal plates over them 

19 that haven't been used, so you're talking about 

20 1,000 holes in the ground. Right? 

21 Okay, to get those holes in the ground, dozers 

22 and scrapers that I repaired had to make a 

23 swath in the desert. Then the drow* rigs, 

24 which in the '70s and '80s -- there was about 

25 six or seven of them. They jack them up, we 
354

1 put these (unintelligible) buggies which was 8-

2 foot-long tracks up against them and they 

3 broke, broke, broke because of the weight of 

4 dragging these drow* rigs through that desert. 

5 So you had 1,000 resuspensions about of the 

6 dirt to begin with. Then you have another 

7 1,000 resuspensions of that dirt moving those 

8 drow* rigs. Then you have another 1,000 

9 resuspensions over the two decades when they 

10 set up those pads. Those pads are two -- two 

11 football fields long, the event pads. Then you 

12 have the post-shot pads. Then you have the 

13 blades, the scrapers, doing all those dirt 

14 roads because there's only two roads. There's 

15 the Mercury Highway and the old Orange Road. 

16 They didn't pave Rainier Mesa up to Area 20 

17 until 1987, so all we worked in was 

18 contaminated dirt, every day. And my lungs'll 

19 bear it out, deep scarring. I'm a non-smoker. 

20 And when they talk about safety, over at T 

21 tunnel in 1986, Mighty Oak, when it vented, 

22 they didn't know what to do. This is the most 

23 expensive -- if you've ever seen pictures of 

24 it, it's beautiful. It's a safe tunnel, in 

25 that sense, but it was contaminated. So they 
355

1 took white paint and painted it from the portal 

2 all the way back past the gas seal doors. And 

3 the running joke on the Test Site was they used 

4 lead-based paint. 

5 All the locomotives that I worked on had 

6 permanent radioactive stickers on it, and they 

7 kept saying don't cut on them with a torch. 

8 Finally my foreman stuck up for me and the 

9 other guys and they got rid of them, buried 

10 them down there with the rest of the stuff that 

11 they buried over the years, which everything 

12 was buried down in the -- the holes down in 

13 Area 3 containment. 

14 But there's a lot of things that we were 

15 involved in that was just nasty work. And I 

16 just wanted to touch again that I really think 

17 that we need to see these records. Now they 

18 said -- Mr. Michaels, DOE in 1999 or 2000, said 

19 if they don't have them, we'll give you the 

20 benefit of the doubt. Well, I kind of chuckled 

21 at that. But what really needs to be done is a 

22 little bit more looking at the records and 

23 giving us our evidence. That's -- anybody have 

24 any questions? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. One 
356

1 individual who wished to make comment, Carol 

2 Pittaro, is not able to be here tonight, but 

3 she did leave a written statement. I'd like to 

4 have that read into the record, so we will do 

5 that at this time. I believe her last name is 

6 spelled P-i-t-t-a-r-o. So this is the 

7 statement that Carol Pittaro left with us. 

8 MS. CHANG: (Reading) Dear Board, I apologize 

9 for not being here to read my -- read this 

10 myself. I left at 4:00 p.m. for a doctor's 

11 appointment. Thank you, Carol A. Pittaro. 

12 Petitioner Carol Pittaro on behalf of husband 

13 Anthony J. Pittaro, deceased November 4th, 

14 2001, from AML, acute myelocytic leukemia, 

15 employed by REECo -- R-E-E-C-o -- at NTS, 1984 

16 through '93. 

17 Anthony worked in Mercury for his first 

18 assignment. When his Q clearance came through 

19 he was transferred to Area 51. During his time 

20 at NTS he was transferred to Tonapah, Nevada 

21 for a short time. He began in construction and 

22 later switched to maintenance. 

23 My claim has been denied numerous times, 

24 stating he did not work in a covered area. 

25 According to my knowledge, the whole of the NTS 
357

1 is a contaminated area. Radiation does not 

2 disappear. The wind blows the soil around in 

3 the air. 

4 (A), dose reconstruction cannot be correct 

5 because of not having correct input, especially 

6 after hearing the info stated by the 

7 petitioners today. Remember, garbage 

8 in/garbage out versus NIOSH denials; 

9 (B), how can NIOSH deny passage of the SEC 

10 after hearing from the petitioners today 

11 regarding not wearing badges; 

12 (C), Combustion Engineering, NIOSH cannot do 

13 dose reconstruction properly; 

14 (D), EG&G in (sic) parent company of REESCo 

15 (sic), inadequately (sic) handling of 

16 statistical information in many areas, lost 

17 records; 

18 (E), I have just learned that my claim does not 

19 have much of a chance of approval since Anthony 

20 worked mainly at Area 51. 

21 A subpart of (E), (a) non-covered area; (1), he 

22 worked on the flight line; (2), he worked in 

23 Mercury, Nevada; (3), he worked for a short 

24 time in Tonapah; (4), he worked all over Area 

25 51. 
358

1 Now I am being advised that Area 51 is not 

2 covered under the SEC petition. Do I have a 

3 leg to stand on? 

4 Area 51 is a huge area and I don't believe this 

5 area should be excluded. Fairness, please. 

6 Include Area 51. 

7 Thank you for reading this and also for 

8 assisting in this effort. 

9 Her contact information is here. I won't read 

10 it aloud, but I'll give it to the -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and if you'd leave that copy 

12 with the court reporter also, that would be 

13 good. Thank you. 

14 That -- that completes the requests for public 

15 comment that I have this evening. I do want to 

16 let you know that the Board will be convening 

17 again tomor-- oh, do we have -- 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- another comment, some -- 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

21 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

22 (Unintelligible) 

23 DR. ZIEMER: You certainly may. Please 

24 approach the mike. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: We have someone by phone. 
359

1 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, do we have someone -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Is there also someone who would 

3 like to make a statement by phone? 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: This thing get taller? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: We'll check again after this 

6 gentleman -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Is there someone on the phone who 

8 would like to make a comment also? 

9 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Hang on and we'll catch you 

11 right after this gentleman. 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you. 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: He can go first if he wanted to. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: No -- no, I -- 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: I would also like to make a 

16 comment on the phone. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll catch the phone 

18 comments after you're completed here. 

19 MR. VASCONI: Okay. My name is William 

20 Vasconi. I've been here (unintelligible) -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Could you spell your last name -- 

22 spell your last -- 

23 MR. VASCONI: V-a-s-c-o-n-i. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

25 MR. VASCONI: It is not Irish. I went to work 
360

1 at the Test Site in 1964. The first four years 

2 was as a radiological technician and monitor. 

3 I also worked there for ten years in 

4 construction and I worked with the -- the 

5 construction workers on getting vent sites 

6 ready for detonation. The individual spoke a 

7 little bit earlier is true. We had 928 nuclear 

8 devices detonated at the Nevada Test Site. 

9 Twenty-four of them was with Great Britain 

10 before they went to Australia, but 928 -- 100 

11 of them was atmospherics, the other 100 (sic) 

12 was underground. 

13 Now through those years we had an ungodly 

14 amount of people working out there. At one 

15 point we had 11,200 people. Our last event was 

16 in September of '92, 15 years ago. 

17 The point I would like to make is I noticed 

18 this evening when I come in that -- let me read 

19 this -- the National Institute for Occupational 

20 Safety and Health has basically denied the 

21 Nevada Test Site workers Special Exposure 

22 status. I want you to reflect on the fact that 

23 irregardless of -- with our weapons program and 

24 our -- our making everything up, the Nevada 

25 Test Site's where they were detonated. The 
361

1 Nevada Test Site is where the exposures to 

2 individual workers was at. 

3 Now out there at Nevada Test Site you had a 

4 bunch of good ol' boys -- I'm talking about 

5 construction workers, et cetera. You know, the 

6 Test Site paid for a lot of college educations, 

7 paid for a lot of houses, paid for a lot of 

8 divorces. But the bottom line on it was we 

9 were patriotic. We were special. We was doing 

10 something for our nation. We brought down the 

11 Soviet Union as well as anybody 'cause 

12 economically they couldn't keep up with what we 

13 were doing at the Nevada Test Site. But you 

14 talk about flag-raisers, patriotic people, we 

15 were there. 

16 I worked in Rad-Safe and what -- some of the 

17 things you heard tonight are true. There was 

18 events out there -- those sets in those tunnels 

19 were as tall as these ceilings. On one event 

20 in particular we got no experiments back from 

21 it, 'cause I worked with experiments, too. We 

22 walked -- we went back in there on re-entries 

23 with Scott and McKay* air packs, full -- full 

24 air. And we opened the bolts on those blast 

25 door-- on that one blast door, and the water 
362

1 seal come all the way around and it took us 

2 weeks to drain that tunnel out, completely out 

3 the front of it, down the portal, into storage 

4 tanks. And indeed, it was a hot radiated area. 

5 But there was a lot of cases where odd things 

6 happened, and I won't get into all of them, but 

7 just like getting samples from workers 

8 underground. You know, hard rock miners didn't 

9 have another mine to go to. They were working 

10 at Nevada Test Site making more damned money 

11 they'd ever seen in their lives. If their 

12 radiation limits got to a point, you would have 

13 to get a security guard to go in there with you 

14 'cause they'd hide those dosimeters, they'd 

15 hide those film badges so they didn't get any 

16 more radiation on them. 

17 Folks, I'm here to tell you, those records are 

18 there. Those records -- when I worked at Rad 

19 Safe, every individual that come on to event 

20 site went on the rosters. Everything that 

21 happened was in a logbook. When we reached 

22 total depth, it was on there. Those records of 

23 who worked in the tunnels, who worked on those 

24 vent sites was written, 'cause I wrote some of 

25 them. Don't let DOE or anybody else convince 
363

1 you those records aren't available. Oh, my, 

2 indeed they are. 

3 And you -- you're dedicated. I appreciate your 

4 efforts as an advisory board, but don't let 

5 this thing at the Test Site die. My God, those 

6 men out there did you a job, and you damned 

7 sure ought to be proud of them. 

8 Thank you very much. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We have I think two 

10 individuals on the phone that wish to speak. 

11 Is that correct? 

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's correct, Doctor. John -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Let's go ahead -- identify 

14 yourself and proceed, thank you. 

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: Doctor, it's John Ramspott in 

16 St. Louis. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, John, yes, thank you. Go 

18 ahead. 

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: I appreciate the opportunity to 

20 address the Board again. And on behalf of the 

21 workers at General Steel Industries would like 

22 to thank you again for considering and 

23 authorizing the SC-- or -- SC&A review of 

24 Appendix BB, which is forthcoming, as I 

25 understand. We remain committed on our 
364

1 original critiques of Appendix BB and certainly 

2 request, which you have now given us, 

3 assistance and another look at that appendix by 

4 certified experts. We received a reply to the 

5 critique from NIOSH. I also appreciate the 

6 fact that we did get that. That certainly 

7 gives us a place to start in order to get more 

8 accurate information. I know it's hard to find 

9 this information so I'm not trying to second10 guess anyone, but I do know that with the two 

11 meetings held in Collinsville, Illinois, the 

12 first early meeting being an SC&A worker 

13 meeting, people were actually on the site, 

14 worked with the Betatron, worked in the plant; 

15 and the outreach, which was the NIOSH outreach 

16 meeting. Both of those meetings contributed 

17 very much important new information or 

18 additional information. I thank both of those 

19 organizations for having people come to 

20 Collinsville, Illinois so they could talk to 

21 the workers. They definitely showed everyone 

22 great respect. The families felt like someone 

23 was there to actually listen to their story. 

24 I'd also like to thank the Department of Labor 

25 for getting the name of the site correct now. 
365

1 It's taken a while, but there are actually some 

2 people being paid now. The site name has 

3 always been an issue. That appears to be 

4 corrected now. 

5 I'd also like to thank the Department of Energy 

6 for helping us get documents that help us I 

7 think understand what a Betatron did when it 

8 impacted uranium. There's a lot of important 

9 information that was made available through 

10 their efforts and we certainly appreciate that. 

11 I personally have spent two and a half years 

12 collecting, researching and sharing quite a 

13 great deal of information with everyone. I 

14 hope now we'll see the results of that. I 

15 appreciate everything that I guess all 

16 agencies, all individuals, have done to help 

17 get the answer to some of the questions that I 

18 presented in August of 2005 in my first public 

19 comment. And some of those -- I won't make it 

20 lengthy, but what happens when a Betatron 25 

21 million volt X-ray beam impacts on uranium; 

22 what happens when a Betatron X-ray beam hits 

23 steel alloys that contain various elements; 

24 what happens when the back-scatter from that 

25 said device goes through thin doors into 
366

1 occupied areas. Those are the kind of 

2 questions that we looked forward to getting 

3 answers from. We know it's been looked at and 

4 hopefully when that becomes public, that 

5 report, we'll have an opportunity to have some 

6 input -- if the Board of course deems 

7 appropriate, so we might have some input on 

8 those results and be able to take a look at it 

9 and discuss it. I'm not familiar with the 

10 exact review process, but if there is an 

11 instrument like that which we would be entitled 

12 or invited to participate in, we'd certainly 

13 like to do that. And if it was ever possible 

14 to have -- in the St. Louis area so actual 

15 workers could be there, we would certainly 

16 appreciate it. 

17 And again, I thank everyone for their efforts. 

18 I think we're in a down stretch. I think the 

19 efforts everyone's put into this -- finally 

20 going to come to fruition and I appreciate your 

21 time. Thank you very much. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John. And of course 

23 those reports will be made public and you will 

24 have opportunity, if you wish, to comment on 

25 them as well. 
367

1 Let's see, we have one other individual on the 

2 line, do we? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, can you hear me? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, please identify yourself and 

5 proceed. 

6 MS. HOYT: Thank you. My name is Rosemary 

7 Hoyt. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 MS. HOYT: H-o-y-t. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

11 MS. HOYT: I am a petitioner for SEC petition 

12 00057 at Hanford. I have a question. Is the 

13 180-day requirement met if a portion of the SEC 

14 is approved? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: That's a legal question that I'm 

16 not sure I can answer. I'm looking to see -- 

17 okay, we have -- counsel for NIOSH is here. 

18 Hold on, Rosemary. 

19 Okay. Thank you. 

20 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I certainly don't normally 

21 address public comment. That's not a question 

22 that we've answered, nor have we looked at it, 

23 and we would definitely need all the specifics 

24 regarding that case. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Rosemary, we -- we don't -- 
368

1 we don't have an official legal opinion at this 

2 point. I think counsel for NIOSH will look at 

3 this question and will try to get you an answer 

4 for it. 

5 MS. HOYT: Thank you. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Did you have additional comments? 

7 MS. HOYT: Oh, yes. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, please proceed. 

9 MS. HOYT: At the July 7-- at the July 2007 

10 Advisory Board meeting I was assured that NIOSH 

11 did not get 180 days for part one and another 

12 180 days for part two. Our petition was 

13 qualified for review in December 2006. More 

14 than a year later it is still not completed. 

15 The redaction policy was a step in the right 

16 direction, but it does not cover all the NIOSH 

17 public meetings. As posted on the Advisory 

18 Board web site, this policy covers only 

19 Advisory Board meetings. It is imperative to 

20 individuals and petitioners that minutes of all 

21 public meetings with NIOSH and OCAS be 

22 published or posted promptly and without 

23 redaction. Worker outreach meetings are a 

24 wealth of information. They need to be 

25 published promptly, with the names included. 
369

1 There needs to be transparency for public 

2 confidence. 

3 I'm very concerned about capturing labor 

4 history. Designating only specific buildings 

5 and only portions of areas is not claimant 

6 friendly and has proven to be inaccurate. 

7 Hanford has buildings within areas which adds 

8 to the confusion. In a conversation with Dr. 

9 Glover on October 3rd, 2007 he stated that only 

10 DOL put employees in buildings. NIOSH 

11 determined radiation exposures for individuals 

12 in locations. Repeatedly and emphatically he 

13 stated NIOSH did not have anything to do with 

14 putting workers in locations. 

15 Tuesday January the 8th he made the comment in 

16 his presentation that this was something that 

17 they worked with DOL to do. This is 

18 aggravating, really aggravating. I request 

19 clarification. 

20 Here is an example of why this is so important. 

21 My father worked at Hanford from 1942 until 

22 1961 as a carpenter, which included maintenance 

23 mechanics and rover status. His claim was 

24 approved under SEC 57 part one. However, [name 

25 redacted] father -- his name was [name 
370

1 redacted], his DOL number is [redacted] -- also 

2 worked at Hanford as a carpenter. He worked 

3 out there from 1943 through 1945, which periods 

4 are covered in the approved section -- SEC of 

5 part one. On November 13th, 2007 she received 

6 a letter from DOL denying her claim as there 

7 was no evidence her father worked in the areas 

8 mentioned in the SEC. 

9 Obviously there's a contradiction here. It is 

10 critically important that this be cleared up. 

11 Today Wanda Munn again explained the worst case 

12 scenario and upper bounding. If all else 

13 fails, they can use this procedure. As Senator 

14 Reid stated, there is the procedure or policy, 

15 and then there is the reality. We petitioners 

16 do not believe the worst case scenario can be 

17 used accurately. We say repeatedly, and are 

18 ignored repeatedly, that records are 

19 inaccurate. Badge information is not accurate. 

20 Procedures were not followed, and site profiles 

21 are incomplete and/or flawed. Still NIOSH and 

22 its contractors continue to use inaccurate or 

23 flawed data. 

24 Mr. Mark Rolf (sic) of NIOSH, in his 

25 presentation for the Nevada Test Site, stated 
371

1 there were few of the people he interviewed 

2 that did not wear their badges, that the 

3 practice of not wearing badges was not 

4 widespread. Today Laurie Hutton asked those 

5 present who took their badges off to please 

6 stand up. For the sake of those who were on 

7 the phone, please give us an idea if anyone 

8 stood up. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: My recollection is that there were 

10 quite a few people that stood up. I would 

11 guess there was at least 25, I'm -- I'm -- if 

12 someone could -- in that ball park. Others 

13 here are nodding in -- let me ask some of the 

14 Test Site people here. Would that be a fairly 

15 accurate statement? It was a goodly number of 

16 folks, yes. 

17 Thank you. Go ahead, Rosemary. 

18 MS. HOYT: Thank you. It appears that NIOSH, 

19 contrary to being claimant friendly, actively 

20 works to disregard or discredit or minimize 

21 information presented in petitions. The 

22 practice of giving NIOSH interviewers -- or 

23 interviews preference over affidavits is 

24 outrageous. In our petition for Hanford there 

25 is a handwritten diary from a former worker who 
372

1 died several years ago. He wrote about 

2 falsifying monitor records. A coworker who 

3 worked closely with this man for many years 

4 signed an affidavit that falsifying monitor 

5 records was practice. Supervisors coerced 

6 workers to falsify their records because they 

7 were being overexposed and the work had to be 

8 done. If they went over the limit, they were 

9 sent home without pay. 

10 At the July 2007 Advisory Board meeting a staff 

11 member, Robert Stephan from Senator Obama's 

12 office, questioned the Board regarding 

13 affidavits. Unfortunately, six months later 

14 the July Advisory Board minutes are still not 

15 available. 

16 On the OCAS Hanford web site there was an 

17 outreach meeting with the Hanford Atomic Metal 

18 Trades Council, HAMTC, dated Jun-- or excuse 

19 me, January 13th, 2004. On page 4 of this 

20 document a worker named [name redacted] states, 

21 quote, before good readings were kept, a lot of 

22 people were exposed due to fooling with 

23 exposure to get overtime. People needed 

24 exposure (sic) time to make the money they 

25 wanted. In the '90s the Navy came in and 
373

1 things improved, but many people are gone, end 

2 quote. Note the document was not redacted. 

3 It was widespread knowledge of widespread 

4 practices, even into the '90s, that monitoring 

5 and/or badge information was being manipulated. 

6 This appears to be systemic throughout the 

7 atomic industry from the very beginning. 

8 In an e-mail from the Alliance of Nuclear 

9 Workers Advocacy Groups they had a copy of a 

10 letter from Senator Obama to Elaine Chao dated 

11 November 2nd, 2007. In this letter Senator 

12 Obama asks, quote, Does the Department of Labor 

13 consider worker affidavits to be true if there 

14 is no documentation to establish that their 

15 testimony is false, end quote. 

16 It appears that NIOSH, contrary to being 

17 claimant friendly, actively works to disregard 

18 or discredit or minimize affidavits. We 

19 petitioners need to know the answer to the 

20 question. Does NIOSH consider worker 

21 affidavits to be true if there is no 

22 documentation to establish that their testimony 

23 is false? 

24 Important information is offered during the 

25 public comments. There is no process or matrix 
374

1 for the public to track the progress or answers 

2 to the public comments. Please establish a 

3 method of doing this for program transparency. 

4 Thank you, and I would appreciate someone 

5 getting back to me to answer my questions. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Rosemary. And 

7 you're I think specifically referring to the 

8 question on the legal issue that you raised 

9 earlier? 

10 MS. HOYT: Yes, that and does NIOSH consider 

11 worker affidavits -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 

13 MS. HOYT: -- to be true if there is no 

14 documentation to establish their testimony is 

15 false. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- yes. We'll certainly relay 

17 that to Larry Elliott and he can answer that on 

18 behalf of NIOSH. Thank you. 

19 MS. HOYT: Thank you. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any others on the line 

21 that wish to -- to give testimony tonight? 

22 (No responses) 

23 Okay, thank you very much. This then completes 

24 our public comment period. Again, I'll remind 

25 you the Board will resume its deliberations 
375

1 tomorrow morning. You're certainly welcome to 

2 be present then as well. Thank you, everyone, 

3 and good night -- 8:30 tomorrow morning. Thank 

4 you. 

5 (Whereupon, the day's business was concluded at 

6 8:55 p.m.) 

7 

8 

9 

10 
376

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Jan. 9, 2008; 

and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 

testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

9th day of February, 2008. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102