NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

86th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 8:30 a.m., 

Mountain Daylight Time, in the Denver Marriott 

Tech Center, 4900 South Syracuse, Denver, 

Colorado, James M. Melius, Chairman, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

ALLEN, DAVE, DCAS

BARRIE, TERRIE

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

KENNEY, CECELIA, DOE

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU Team

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS

WALTZ, MARK*

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

2 (8:30 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning. 

This is the third day of our 86th 4 Meeting here 

5 in Denver, and I'll turn it over to Ted to do 

6 the roll call.

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you. And let me 

8 just note for people on the line we have one 

9 main agenda item today, Nuclear Metals SEC 

10 coming up. If you're interested in the 

11 materials for that, they're posted on the 

12 NIOSH website under the Board section under 

today's date, or September 18th 13 , because that 

14 covers all three days -- I mean, September, 

15 June, no, September. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: September.

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you. I know what 

18 time of year it is.

19 Okay. And, also, for folks on the 

20 phone please mute your phones. Press *6 if you 

21 don't have a mute button. And that will take 

22 care of it. Let's do roll call. And we have no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

1 conflicts for today's agenda item, so I won't 

2 be speaking to them individually. 

3 (Roll call.)

4 MR. KATZ: Very good. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good 

6 morning. So, we have like two items of 

7 business we'll do. We'll do Nuclear Metals, 

8 and then after that we will do the Board 

9 letters. And just so you know, you have, I 

10 believe, four letters there. There's only one 

11 Mound. We're going to hold off on the letter 

12 on the other Mound, which is the second 

13 presentation yesterday. We need to get a 

14 little clarification, make sure we write that 

15 one correctly, so don't think you're missing 

16 one. That's all. 

17 So, let me now start with Nuclear 

18 Metals, Inc., and Sam Glover will be 

19 presenting. Welcome, Sam. 

20 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. 

21 Melius. You only get to hear from me one time 

22 this Board meeting, and I'm the last --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we went 

2 back to Stu, and then Jim, so we're working 

3 our way up to you. 

4 DR. GLOVER: See, there's a 

5 reassignment going on. So, today we're going 

6 to talk about Nuclear Metals, Inc., and this 

7 was delayed. We did have a large data capture 

8 that occurred, and we got 16,000 new documents 

9 from the EPA. So, we had to go through those, 

10 so this was delayed by three months, so it was 

11 a lot of material.

12 So, Nuclear Metals, Inc. They grew 

13 out of the special metallurgical operations 

14 conducted by MIT, and that was during the 

15 Manhattan Engineering District time frame. In 

16 about 1945 or `6 that was consolidated at the 

17 Hood Building, which was a DOE facility. And 

18 the Hood Building is a former, or one of the 

19 SEC facilities that we have taken up 

20 previously. NMI took over the MIT operations 

21 at the Hood Building as a private company, in 

22 1958 transferred the operations to Concord.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 NMI provided the AEC special 

2 fabrication facilities for Nuclear Metals, 

3 special alloys, uranium, thorium, a lot of 

4 different elements, and a lot of these things 

5 still remain classified today.

6 In the mid-1970s, NMI began large7 scale fabrication of depleted uranium 

8 munitions. The covered period for NMI as an 

AWE facility begins October 29th 9 , 1958 and 

10 runs through 1990 with a residual period of 

11 1991 through March 1, 2011.

12 The petition was received October 

20th 13 , 2011. The proposed Class was fairly 

14 specific as they requested all employees in 

15 Buildings, A, B, C, D, E and the Butler

16 Building, external storage containers and 

17 outside areas immediately adjacent to the 

18 plant grounds at the Nuclear Metals, Inc. 

19 facility from January 1, 1970 through December 

31st 20 , 1983, and they kept that in a limited 

21 time frame because that's the time period when 

22 they were employed at the plant, so they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 didn't feel it would be appropriate to be 

2 outside of that.

On January 17th 3 , 2012, the petition 

4 qualified for evaluation. NIOSH expanded the 

5 time period and the scope of evaluation versus 

6 that requested by the petitioner based on our 

7 preliminary investigations, that similar 

8 activities were ongoing before 1970. And, 

9 also, that there were no real boundaries that 

10 would prevent it being all employees, so we 

11 would make sure to review the entire complex.

12 So, NIOSH evaluated all employees 

13 who worked at Nuclear Metals, Inc. facility in 

14 West Concord from January 1, 1958 through 

December 31st 15 , 1983. You will note that 

16 there's a discrepancy, not discrepancy, 

17 there's a difference between the covered 

18 period. The Department of Labor later 

determined that October 29th 19 , 1958 is the 

20 actual date, the earliest date that they can 

21 be considered to be an AWE, so the covered 

22 period versus the evaluated period are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 slightly different.

2 And as you all are well aware, the 

3 sources of available information, the standard 

4 sources, the TIBs and the TBDs, our Research 

5 Database, the claimant files, affidavits 

6 provided by the petitioner, and they did 

7 provide a lot of information. We conducted 

8 nine worker interviews. 

9 We had a fairly extensive outreach 

10 meeting conducted by ATL, our ORAU team and 

11 NIOSH. We had three outreach meetings in 

12 Concord, and those were attended by us or with 

13 SC&A. They were -- the Board was invited to 

14 attend and SC&A did have a participant. We had 

15 about 50 to 60 workers, as well as former 

16 company management who go all the way back to 

17 day one when the building was actually built. 

18 So, they provided a lot of good history and 

19 perspective.

20 We collected information from 

21 OSTI, all the standard database searches, 

22 internet. As you know, we've gotten to many 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 facilities across the country, the classified 

2 repositories at OSTI, Hanford. We collected 

3 information from many of these different 

4 places regarding Nuclear Metals, Inc., the 

5 type of material they did. The early 

6 Environmental Measurements Laboratory, 

7 information from the Hagley Museum & Library, 

8 NRC. As I said, we got 16,000 documents from 

9 the Department of Environmental Protection 

10 from Massachusetts.

11 What happened was is that all the 

12 records from NMI went to a long-term storage 

13 facility, and when the company finally closed 

14 down, nobody paid the bill. So, those were 

15 denied to us for many years. Eventually, they 

16 were sent back to the facility and were just 

17 left in this abandoned facility. So, that's 

18 the state of -- you can imagine the state of 

19 records. So, they helped us, and they 

20 considered the contaminated area so they boxed 

21 up and then sent relevant records to a 

22 facility where we could actually capture 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 those. So, we really appreciate their 

2 assistance, but I did want to let you 

3 understand the state of records as we looked 

4 at them.

5 Not a large facility, at this date 

6 we have 23 claims. Many people who worked at 

7 the Hood Building transferred to this 

8 facility, so they were actually oftentimes may 

9 have been compensated under the previous SEC 

10 Class as the Hood Building. 

11 Nineteen claimants who worked here 

12 in the proposed SEC total number DR 16 at DOL. 

13 We have 15 claims with internal dosimetry, and 

14 18 with external dosimetry. 

15 So, very quickly the background. 

16 They operated at the Hood Building next to the 

MIT campus until October 28th 17 , 1958. Of 

18 course, there was a transition time frame as 

19 they began moving the facility. It was located 

20 at Concord, Massachusetts on approximately 30 

21 acres of land. In the 1990s they expanded that 

22 to 46.4 acres for this expanded operations. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 And as I mentioned, that they have been -- as 

of October 29th 2 , 1958 DOL has determined that 

3 is the time when they become an AWE facility. 

4 The workforce varied from 60 to 

5 over 650 workers over time. The original 

6 facility consisted of three buildings, 

7 Building A, B, and C. They had basically 

8 office space and research laboratories in A, 

9 cafeteria and supplies, services in B. And 

10 Building C was the main production facility. 

11 As they got more advanced or more -- when they 

12 got busier, as they began taking on new work 

13 before they built new facilities, many of the 

14 facilities would get used for storage or 

15 packing. The cafeteria was actually used for 

16 packing depleted uranium parts at one time 

17 because they ran out of space. So, this is 

18 approximately the operations in each facility.

19 Additional buildings were added 

20 over time, 1978 they added Building D to 

21 expand the production space. Building E in 

22 1983 for wet processes including pickling, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 which is basically soaking uranium in 8 molar 

2 nitric acid to passivate the surfaces, coolant 

3 reduction, waste treatment. Butler Buildings 

4 were added over time and used for storage. And 

5 I've identified some of those were for 

6 depleted uranium, operations, or radiological, 

7 some of those were not. 

8 This is -- we slightly touched 

9 this up. Unfortunately, the original diagram 

10 had some -- was difficult to read but we tried 

11 to clarify the title so you can get a better 

12 feel for how the 1994 NMI, they basically just 

13 built and added to the additional structures.

14 And when we first wrote the 

15 Evaluation Report, I felt like I was reading 

16 the Iliad because it was just list after list 

17 after list of all of the things the NMI has 

18 done. We significantly consolidated that 

19 because it would have really been -- it would 

20 have had to have been an appendix. So, pre21 1972, essentially more of a research kind of 

22 operation, fundamental metallurgy, physical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 metallurgy, chemical metallurgy, engineering, 

2 product development, fuel element development 

3 and manufacture, and manufacture of high4 temperature materials.

5 They began shifting into more of 

6 an operation scale in '72 to '79 and began 

7 looking at depleted uranium shields, 

8 counterweights, armor penetrators, metal 

9 powders, beryllium, beryllium alloys, and 

10 special titanium parts. And after '79 

11 operations continue, and as you may have 

12 noticed in our Evaluation Report with that 

13 16,000 documents we have reserved the post14 1979 time frame for further evaluation.

15 While we believe we have a good 

16 handle on the pre-'79 and all that additional 

17 information, and the new data that we have, we 

18 believe we need more time to evaluate whether 

19 we can do dose reconstruction after 1979.

20 Unbelievably, for a facility that 

21 handled as much material as they did, they had 

22 no trained health physics staff until 1981. To 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 remind you, this started in 1958. You know, in 

2 the discussions that we had, you know, because 

3 they weren't trained health physics staff, 

4 oftentimes as they began evaluating this 

5 research material they weren't aware of the 

6 new hazards that were being introduced. It was 

7 mentioned that they really didn't even 

8 understand as they rolled the uranium and 

9 produced the daughter products, they never 

10 realized even until the late '70s that that 

11 was a problem. So, it certainly is something 

12 to consider very heavily as you think about a 

13 very active research facility.

14 The program evolved over many 

15 years, and you'll see periods of improvement 

16 and lapses as people come in to review them, 

17 so it's not a clear-cut "this is how we do 

18 things," but you would see that devolving at 

19 times. 

20 And just very briefly, mid-1960s 

21 described significant uranium spills, 

22 contamination which were left unreported. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 the inspection reports in the '70s reporting 

2 emphasis on a lack of contamination controls 

3 and monitoring. 

4 Improvements in the Radiation 

5 Protection Program coincided with the growth 

6 of the company in the '70s and '80s. 

7 Improvements in the period after 1979 will be 

8 described in a future report. They included 

9 access control enforcement, increased air 

10 monitoring programs, air and swipe program 

11 analysis brought in-house to reduce delays, 

12 employee Radiation Safety Training Program, 

13 was for the first time actually provided, 

14 increased health physics coverage for all 

15 three work shifts, and a large increase in the 

16 amount of bioassays, you'll see. 

17 NMI's research and production 

18 activities involve numerous sources of 

19 exposure. These amounts go up and down with 

20 time. Some NMI activities and source terms 

21 remain classified. Sources of internal dose 

22 included uranium: depleted, natural, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 enriched, including highly enriched, in many 

2 physical forms as a result of fires and 

3 explosions. They had thorium: oxides, powders 

4 and metal, uranium and thorium progeny, and 

5 recycled uranium components.

6 So, I want to emphasize thorium. 

7 Thorium was transferred to the Hood Building 

8 from the very beginning. We believe that at 

9 least one ton was transferred at that time. 

10 Records are clearly -- we do not have all 

11 transfers, complete documentation, but we know 

12 that in the 1960s they were extruding thorium 

13 rods for the British and French companies. We 

14 know that they were converting thorium rods to 

15 powder, extruding thorium powder at this time. 

16 We know that Nuclear Metals, Inc. was casting 

17 thorium to billet size following machining, 

18 jacketing, extrusion, pickling, and then 

19 additional machining. 

20 Given the limitations in records, 

21 NIOSH believes we've identified a persistent 

22 and radiologically significant thorium source 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 term over the operating history of NMI, which 

2 no monitoring exists for the period 1958 

3 through 1979. 

4 As a source of external exposure, 

5 as we discussed, depleted, natural, enriched 

6 uranium and thorium metal submerged in 

7 contaminated air and exposure to contaminated 

8 surface, concentration of progeny during 

9 metalworking, and a separation process, 

10 enhanced radiation. They had several X-ray 

11 sources, including two industrial X-ray units, 

12 40 millicurie unencapsulated iridium-192, and 

13 40 curies of iridium-192, and 100 kV medical 

14 X-ray machine.

15 External monitoring program data 

16 availability, personnel monitoring program in 

17 place prior to the relocation of operations. 

18 In the late 1950s, we believe that film badges 

19 were issued to all uranium processing 

20 personnel, in the 1960s all personnel wore 

21 film badges according to the documentation, 

22 processing about every six and a half weeks. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 And clerical personnel badges were processed 

2 annually. 

3 So, this provides, based on the 

4 records that we have found, there is nobody 

5 actively managing the records. They don't have 

6 people to -- so, we have to go to the hard 

7 copy records and review them based on just 

8 what we received. '58 we have 98 badges, and 

9 I've provided the SRDB reference for each of 

10 these, so you can kind of get a feel for the 

11 external -- the number of badges as they 

12 change and go over time, quickly going up to 

13 about 1,000 and staying with that until we get 

14 into the late 1970s when you see a large 

15 increase in badging.

16 We do see that they had a weekly 

17 smear program in 1958, only very limited 

18 results have we been able to find. In '69, AEC 

19 inspectors remarked that they weren't taking 

20 them as required, other inspection reports 

21 that they weren't recorded on log paper, that 

22 they may have been recorded somewhere but it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 wasn't even on an official form. They may have 

2 basically just -- well, essentially, they were 

3 on a temporary form -- looked at, it was okay, 

4 they threw them away, so there's no long-term 

5 record retention.

6 Internal dose monitoring programs 

7 data availability of bioassay program 

8 consisted of urinalysis and lung counting 

9 program during particular points in time. It 

10 evolved over time to the AEC/NRC inspections. 

11 In 1977 you'll see the bioassay program 

12 starting to ramp up. By 1983, it was 

13 reportedly consistent with Regulatory Guide 

14 8.11.

15 NIOSH currently has identified 

16 2,600 urine bioassay samples for the period 

17 '58 to '79, and from the period 1980 through 

18 '83 we have 12,500. You see a marked increase 

19 as they began the munitions manufacture.

20 We do not have urine samples for 

21 '68, '72, and '75, and some of that may be due 

22 to how record retrieval has occurred. We do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 find lung counts for uranium annually during 

2 the '82 to '86 time frame. We have about 500 

3 lung counts that was done by Helgeson. And 

4 here you'll see a graph that shows the number 

5 of urinalysis samples, the massive ramp-up. 

6 You're not talking about a lot of urine 

7 samples early on, very limited. But then 

8 again, so not nearly as many employees as we 

9 ramp up to 650 around 1980. And this just 

10 gives you a feel of the number of lung counts 

11 versus urinalysis, and about what time they 

12 occurred at.

13 Again, in this post-1970 time 

14 frame which I'm asking you that we reserve for 

15 a future report, just give you a feel for some 

16 of the -- as they looked at the lung counting 

17 data you'll see that in 1982 when they 

18 initiated this they had a fairly high depleted 

19 uranium -- not fairly high but certainly much 

20 larger -- it dropped down quite a bit after 

21 1982. It went from 154 and dropped down to 11 

22 for the massive depleted uranium in the lung.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 So, NMI did maintain an air 

2 monitoring program from the earliest years. 

3 These were sort of fixed air samples. We 

4 obtained a few of these from 1980, 31 of 255 

5 reports is all we found so far. The summary 

6 data, which provide average/minimum/maximum 

7 concentration, describes having 12 fixed air 

8 samples located throughout the plant, and this 

9 was to increase later.

10 1959 reports operations involving 

11 enriched uranium or special jobs where they 

12 have additional air sampling. But if they did, 

13 we don't have the results. 1974 inspection 

14 results report specifically that the fixed air 

15 sample did not approximate worker breathing 

16 zone samples. New data available to NIOSH, we 

17 basically have 28,000 breathing zone samples 

18 between 1980 and 1983 to evaluate.

19 So, summary of monitoring gaps. 

20 Well, not really one to consider neutrons as 

21 being a significant source of exposure at a 

22 natural uranium plant. There are light 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 elements which can interact with it, so we 

2 believe that even though there is no 

3 monitoring we have guidance which would 

4 provide a suitable estimation of dose. For 

5 internal dose, however, the early bioassay 

6 programs pre-1980 are often sparse, and NIOSH 

7 cannot verify they represent the worst case 

8 exposures. Early air sample data is limited 

9 and not equivalent to breathing zone samples. 

10 Late 1970s, it's difficult to determine if 

11 bioassay results included incidents. No 

12 results for thorium operations urine or air, 

13 and we also have no results for thorium 

14 sources. 

15 So, a summary of why the Class: 

16 workers were potentially exposed to enriched 

17 uranium, thorium, uranium progeny, and thorium 

18 progeny who were not monitored, nor does a 

19 suitable dose reconstruction method exist. The 

20 decision was based on lack of adequate 

21 biological monitoring data, sufficient air 

22 monitoring information, and/or sufficient 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 process and radiological source term data to 

2 reconstruct dose with sufficient accuracy. 

3 Why everyone? Based on reports by 

4 the AEC and facility layout, the process areas 

5 were not isolated from the non-process areas 

6 and no barriers to access were in place, in 

7 particular they were not enforced.

8 What about employees not included 

9 in the SEC? NIOSH intends to use any internal 

10 or external monitoring data that may become 

11 available for an individual claim and can be 

12 interpreted using existing dose reconstruction 

13 processes and procedures. Therefore, dose 

14 reconstructions for individuals employed at 

Nuclear Metals during the time October 29th 15 , 

1959 through December 31st 16 , 1979 but who do 

17 not qualify for inclusion in the SEC may be 

18 performed using these data as appropriate.

19 NIOSH intends to estimate doses 

20 from medical X-rays using information from 

21 employee medical records and claimant22 favorable medical dose reconstruction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 assumptions and methods.

2 Why stop at 1979? A continuing 

3 analysis affects only post-1979. NIOSH 

4 determined that it is appropriate to proceed

5 with the pre-1980 feasibility evaluation while 

6 continuing to analyze the impact of newly 

7 obtained data on post-1979 dose 

8 reconstruction. Therefore, NIOSH is reserving 

9 its full assessment with available post 1979 

10 data and will continue to evaluate the 

11 feasibility of sufficient, accurate dose 

12 reconstruction for the period January 1, 1980 

to December 31st 13 , 1983.

14 And the standard "health 

15 endangerment." We saw evidence of accumulated 

16 chronic radiation exposures, and consequently 

17 specifying that health may have been 

18 endangered.

19 Proposed Class: all Atomic Weapons 

20 Employees who worked at the facility owned by 

21 Nuclear Metals, Inc. or subsequent owner in 

22 West Concord, Massachusetts during the period 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

from October 29th, 1958 through December 31st 1 , 

2 1979 for a number of work days aggregating at 

3 least 250 work days occurring either solely 

4 under this employment or in combination with 

5 work days within the parameters established 

6 for one or more other Classes of employees 

7 including the Special Exposure Cohort.

8 And our standard closure slide. We 

9 have feasibility no. Health endangerment, yes. 

10 Thank you, Dr. Melius.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

12 Sam. Good presentation. Board Members with 

13 questions? Yes, Paul. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sam, I noticed in 

15 the original Class Definition there was some 

16 descriptive information referring to the plant 

17 grounds outside the buildings, and it wasn't 

18 clear to me whether this was all fenced in. 

19 Does this new definition include what was 

20 originally referred to as these grounds 

21 immediately outside the buildings? You know, 

22 I'm really asking --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 DR. GLOVER: We were careful to 

2 modify it. We originally said in the buildings 

3 or in the facility. We want to make sure that 

4 it's the entire facility owned by that, so 

5 it's the entire designated facility, so it 

6 includes the entire grounds and also the 

7 structures.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that was fenced 

9 off so others could not access the grounds?

10 DR. GLOVER: Well, within the AWE, 

11 they'd have to be an AWE -- DOL would have to 

12 certify them as being an employee of this 

13 contractor.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

15 DR. GLOVER: So we're not 

16 segregating the grounds that are part of the 

17 facilities.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Gotcha. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Could I just add, 

20 because I want to make sure -- in the proposed 

21 Class you'll see it says "Nuclear Metals, Inc. 

22 or a subsequent owner." I think that's -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 thought LaVon was trying to trip me up or 

2 something when we were getting ready for this 

3 and reviewing it, but I think the Department 

4 of Labor, as I understand it, has requested it 

5 serve as standard language now with these 

6 sites because ownership changes, and I think 

7 some of the issues is the grounds may be 

8 split, people take over buildings, and trying 

9 to keep which is the actual AWE facility in 

10 mind, because that's really what it's focused 

11 on. So, we may see that language later on 

12 other sites, also. So, I was wrong. LaVon 

13 wasn't trying to catch me on something. Okay, 

14 Gen.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: I notice in your 

16 presentation you said that there was no 

17 trained health physics staff until 1981, and 

18 yet it appears from what you've presented that 

19 there were some changes in '79 or certainly 

20 during 1980, so what was the change that 

21 happened to make things, it appears to be, 

22 very different?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 DR. GLOVER: I would imagine that 

2 there's some contractual obligations that you 

3 have in that '70 time frame, but I'm not 

4 completely -- it is clear that changes were 

5 occurring, the number of samples had to 

6 increase, but whether that was part of an Army 

7 requirement or a contractual change, it's not 

8 clear to me. But it wasn't until that time 

9 frame, that '81, that we actually got an 

10 increase in the health physics staff. 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda, then Dave.

12 MEMBER MUNN: There's an awful lot 

13 of information here, Sam. It is of concern, I 

14 think, that we have such apparently good 

15 badging information and it appears to be 

16 ultimately worthless when we come down to 

17 identifying whether or not we can perform 

18 individual dose assessments.

19 Winnowing this down to its 

20 absolute bottom essence, does this really boil 

21 down to the fact that since we don't have 

22 thorium and radon monitoring for internal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 exposure we're hogtied with what we can or 

2 can't do? Is that the bottom line?

3 DR. GLOVER: And that's why I 

4 emphasized the thorium component. I believe in 

5 our Evaluation Report we will likely be able 

6 to do at least components of the uranium based 

7 on the data that we have. But without the 

8 thorium, there are a number of alloys and 

9 processes that we do not have anywhere near 

10 full documentation of the facility to 

11 determine all the source terms. And there's a 

12 number of classified sources as well. So, it 

13 was a substantial source term at the facility 

14 over time, and we simply have no way to 

15 correlate the air sampling data with it. And 

16 there's no bioassay, either in vitro or in 

17 vivo. 

18 Now, post-1979 that source term 

19 exists. However, with the increased air 

20 sampling data, we're not going in and just 

21 saying we can't do it. We do want to carefully 

22 evaluate whether this new data and all the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 additional breathing zone samples, whether 

2 that gives us a path forward to doing dose 

3 reconstruction. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, thanks.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dave, then Paul.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I wonder, NMI 

7 no longer exists, right? As a company.

8 DR. GLOVER: That's correct.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And I'm just 

10 curious, do you know if that facility or --

11 did it come across that that facility is 

12 still in use privately? I'm just wondering 

13 about successor companies, not -- obviously, 

14 they're not part of our compensation program.

15 DR. GLOVER: It was cleaned up or 

16 is in the process of being cleaned up. It 

17 became Starmet. It then became bankrupt. I'm 

18 not sure if there's not a small operation on 

19 site. I'd have to refresh my memory. I 

20 apologize, I didn't --

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, no, no, 

22 it's not necessary. But I just was curious 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 sort of how life proceeded after it left the 

2 government contract.

3 DR. GLOVER: I believe it was 

4 abandoned for a number of years. Now, the 

5 Massachusetts Department of Health is having 

6 to work on cleaning it up.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Thanks. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: The feasibility 

10 chart doesn't really give the usual breakdown. 

11 I assume it's feasible to do external partial 

12 dose reconstructions in the early years. Is 

13 that correct, from the film badge data?

14 DR. GLOVER: I believe the 

15 terminology they use, and it's a little bit of 

16 a difference. I think we put "may be 

17 feasible." Certainly, we're going to use any 

18 data that people have in their records to do 

19 their dose reconstruction, so if their 

20 external dose -- I don't know if you would 

21 have as much -- we have -- I don't think we 

22 have a coworker model so to speak.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. You have a 

2 partial external, and you don't have the other 

3 components that the badge might have missed. 

4 You referred to a little bit of neutron and 

5 there were --

6 DR. GLOVER: Enhanced beta 

7 radiation from the daughter progeny, so there 

8 may be aspects for which we don't have a full 

9 --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, these badges 

11 do not include beta?

12 DR. GLOVER: Well, but for, say, 

13 extremity dose, or for operations where the C14 - they certainly would have beta --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you would do 

16 partials to the extent you could, for 

17 externals.

18 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Gen.

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: So, there was no 

21 affiliation with MIT after they once got 

22 started.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 DR. GLOVER: So, right, MIT staff -

2 - it was to segregate all that activity that 

3 was at MIT in the Hood Building. And then 

4 essentially the staff who were -- that 

5 separate company became NMI, if that's what 

6 you mean. And then Nuclear Metals, Inc. 

7 actually moved -- changed from the Hood 

8 Building out to Concord, but they were no 

9 longer associated with MIT. 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, that's what 

11 I mean.

12 DR. GLOVER: Yes, ma'am.

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't know if 

15 MIT had health physics staff, but I think they 

16 would.

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: They did.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think Dr. 

20 Roessler and I are thinking about certain 

21 people that we know at MIT and wondering why 

22 this happened.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that was my 

2 comment to Paul, when Sam was partway through 

3 his presentation, with that. But I guess 

4 that's a separate issue and so forth. And I 

5 was a little bit surprised also how slow they 

6 seem to be responding to some of their 

7 inspection reports also. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if I could 

9 add another comment, I think Josie has a 

10 comment, but I assume this was an NRC-licensed 

11 facility during those early years. And it's a 

12 little surprising with the amount of materials 

13 they handled that there wasn't some sort of 

14 radiation safety staff required to get the 

15 license. Although, I know in those early days 

16 many facilities had people designated as 

17 radiation safety officers, and that was a 

18 title for somebody who was kind of clerically 

19 responsible for certain things.

20 DR. GLOVER: I used the term that 

21 it was the first time they had a trained 

22 health physicist on staff. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Exactly.

2 DR. GLOVER: So, they may have had 

3 a safety office.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

5 DR. GLOVER: They may not have had 

6 training in the field. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Sam, I'm looking in 

9 the Evaluation Report under your summary of 

10 feasibility findings, and for the natural and 

11 depleted uranium it says that you're going to 

12 reconstruct dose using some monitoring and 

13 TBD-6000. Can you kind of explain that? You 

14 may have already mentioned it, but what the 

15 percentage that you have samples?

16 DR. GLOVER: Is that where we said 

17 "may" -- let's go to --

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it says "May be 

19 feasible" --

20 DR. GLOVER: I don't have that in 

21 front of me. I apologize.

22 MEMBER BEACH: -- "to reconstruct 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 internal doses," but it says you're going to 

2 use available claimant information and TBD3 6000. So, I was just wondering --

4 DR. GLOVER: I believe it was 

5 between the two where it's appropriate. TBD6 6000 would not cover all the operations that 

7 they had here. So, we will have to carefully 

8 look at what our path forward is. That's why 

9 we used the language "may." We have not fully 

10 developed all the alternate dose 

11 reconstruction methods which may be utilized, 

12 certainly existing bioassay data that can be 

13 utilized under existing claimant methods will 

14 be used.

15 MEMBER BEACH: So, that may be 

16 something that we want to look at once you 

17 make a determination for that time period it 

18 sounds like, from '58 to '79. 

19 DR. GLOVER: Yes, so there will be 

20 a -- we will have either a TBD or an appendix 

21 for this facility.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 DR. GLOVER: That would have to 

2 conclude what we're supposed to do. That's 

3 correct. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

6 questions or comments? If not, do I hear a 

7 proposal from the Board? Brad. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I move that we 

9 accept NIOSH's recommendation.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

11 MEMBER FIELD: I'll second.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Second, okay. Any 

13 further discussion?

14 MEMBER BEACH: I just wonder if 

15 we're going to set up -- has SC&A been tasked 

16 to look at this? Probably not.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I personally 

18 think it's a little early for that. Because 

19 they have to do the post-'79 period, and I 

20 would think -- let's wait. I think that would 

21 be, at least in my mind, would be more of a 

22 priority, and then let's see what the work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 plan is from there in terms of doing that. So, 

2 I think it's just early to set up a Work 

3 Group. It certainly may depend -- the future 

4 priority may actually depend on what they 

5 decide to do with the '79 to '83 period. 

6 MEMBER FIELD: Jim, there's no 

7 petitioner?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Pardon?

9 MEMBER FIELD: There's no 

10 petitioner?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you for 

12 reminding me. Is the petitioner on the line 

13 and wishes to make comments?

14 MR. WALTZ: Yes. This is Mark 

15 Waltz, the petitioner.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

17 MR. WALTZ: In North Borough, 

18 Massachusetts. I would like to first 

19 compliment Dr. Glover. I know he and his team 

20 there at Oak Ridge had a very intensive task 

21 with the scope of information we provided, and 

22 he and his team have done an excellent job. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 I'd like to thank Vern McDougall as well as 

2 the petitioner counsel, Josh Kinman, for their 

3 assistance over this period of time. Again, 

4 thank you for your efforts.

5 I can shed some light on some of 

6 the questions raised. One was what happened 

7 with the company in its transition from 

8 bankruptcy. I am aware that when the company 

9 went bankrupt, I think it was around 2001 time 

10 frame. I may be off on that a little bit. But 

11 there was a representative from Bank of 

12 America that held the mortgage to oversee the 

13 dissolution of the company. 

14 That fellow ended up purchasing 

15 the assets of the company, the technology and 

16 proprietary information and all that, and he 

17 and a small group of employees continued to 

18 inhabit the building and operate in the area 

19 of some beryllium alloy work and some 

20 specialty products, powders and so forth, up 

21 until perhaps two years ago. I believe he sold 

22 off segments of the business or relocated it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 or whatever, and they were perhaps in the 

2 2001-on time frame, perhaps 25 employees 

3 working at the facility.

4 But right now I also have a 

5 suggestion that since this report is so 

6 exhaustive and really sheds some light on 

7 activities that weren't fully appreciated at 

8 the company during the '60s and '70s and then 

9 into the '80s, that the EPA that is there with 

10 a team of prior owners of the facility over 

11 time to decommission the facility, that the 

12 reports and information that's been gathered 

13 by Dr. Glover and his team perhaps be shared 

14 with the EPA, because there was some 

15 activities, particularly with the enriched 

16 material on thorium, that aren't fully 

17 appreciated perhaps by the decommissioning 

18 team, and the potential hazards they may face 

19 in decommissioning the facility. So, I think 

20 that suggestion could be useful to them.

21 I do have two questions. One, Dr. 

22 Glover, in your presentation you note that I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 think 19 of the 23 outstanding claims on NMI 

2 would be covered by this petition, but it 

3 wasn't clear to me. Was that for the '58 to 83 

4 time frame or for up until the '79 time frame 

5 that you're recommending?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sam Glover is 

7 coming to the microphone to answer.

8 MR. WALTZ: Oh, okay.

9 DR. GLOVER: That should go through 

10 '79 which is the covered -- which is the point 

11 of this particular report.

12 MR. WALTZ: Okay, thank you. 

13 Another question I have for you is when we 

14 were doing our data search, and we have 

15 uncovered the information that the Department 

16 of Energy was recycling the spent fuel rod 

17 material in the depleted uranium stream, so 

18 there were fission products in the depleted 

19 uranium that we were unaware of. We just 

20 assumed it was textbook-grade depleted uranium 

21 that the government was providing us. Were you 

22 able to confirm that activity, and what
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 impact, if any, did it have on your 

2 evaluation?

3 DR. GLOVER: For the recycled 

4 uranium components --

5 MR. WALTZ: Yes.

6 DR. GLOVER: Most of the recycled 

7 uranium in the stockpile at that time was 

8 recycled and not just depleted, and if you 

9 look at the munitions, what the Army has 

10 utilized, those -- and this is talking off the 

11 cuff. I don't have the report in front of me -

12 - but those also include other products. But 

13 I'd have to -- we didn't go into the details 

14 on that. We really focused on some of the 

15 thorium aspects, and we would include -- we 

16 have some default values for recycled uranium 

17 that could be utilized.

18 We will have to address that as 

19 part of the 1979 through '83 report, so that 

20 would be really the focus of that when we go 

21 into large-scale depleted uranium munitions. 

22 I'll make sure that we include that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 specifically in our next report. 

2 And I did -- I was reminded to be 

3 very clear that the Department of Labor makes 

4 all determinations on who is eligible who 

5 would be included in the SEC. It's just our 

6 first estimate of the number of claims that 

7 would be part of that.

8 MR. WALTZ: Sure. Thank you. There 

9 was a mention before about the health physics 

10 staff, and whether or not there was an RSO. 

11 And I believe [identifying information 

12 redacted], who was the [identifying 

13 information redacted] in at least the '60s and 

14 '70s later became [identifying information 

15 redacted], I believe in the late '70s. He was 

16 interviewed, a telephone interview, and in my 

17 discussions with him he commented to me what 

18 when he was assigned responsibility, he didn't 

19 have any formal training, and it was kind of a 

20 learn-as-you-go experience for him. And he did 

21 the best he could, but there were limitations. 

22 And, in fact, there was no one with formal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 training in health physics in charge of the 

2 health and safety program, which is probably 

3 responsible for the quality of the program 

4 that's been cited in the evaluation. 

5 That's all the comments I have. 

6 Welcome if anyone has any questions that I 

7 could answer, I'd be more than happy to. 

8 Again, thank you for the effort, Dr. Glover, 

9 and the whole team.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you for the 

11 comments. Any questions for the petitioner? 

12 Okay. I don't believe anyone has questions. 

13 Now, I would just certainly urge you to keep 

14 in touch with Dr. Glover and the NIOSH team 

15 involved in terms of information. They will be 

16 following up and so forth on this. So, anyway, 

17 thank you. Appreciate your comments. 

18 MR. WALTZ: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Bill, 

20 for reminding me of that.

21 Okay. Any further questions? If 

22 not, Ted, do you want to do the vote?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield.

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Anderson.

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 MR. KATZ: So it's unanimous, 

2 motion passes, a number of absentee votes to 

3 collect. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Very good. So, 

5 I'll now draw your attention to the -- we 

6 should have four letters for review. And I'm 

7 going to start in reverse order, but our 

8 counsel is approaching the table. 

9 Okay. I'm going to start with the 

10 site we just discussed. 

11 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

12 and Worker Health (the Board) has evaluated 

13 Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00195 

14 concerning workers at the facility owned by 

15 Nuclear Metals, Inc. and a subsequent owner in 

16 West Concord, Massachusetts under the 

17 statutory requirements established by the 

18 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

19 Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 

20 incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13. 

21 "The Board respectfully recommends 

22 that SEC status be accorded to, quote, `all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 atomic weapons employees who worked at the 

2 facility owned by Nuclear Metals, Inc. or a 

3 subsequent owner in West Concord, 

4 Massachusetts during the period from October 

29th, 1958 through December 31st 5 , 1979 for a 

6 number of work days aggregating at least 250 

7 work days occurring either solely under this 

8 employment or in combination with work days 

9 within the parameters established for one or 

10 more other Classes of employees included in 

11 the Special Exposure Cohort.'

12 "Recommendation is based on the 

13 following factors: individuals employed at 

14 this facility in West Concord, Massachusetts 

15 during the time period in question worked on 

16 research and production for materials used in 

17 the production of nuclear weapons. Two, the 

18 National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

19 Health (NIOSH) review of available monitoring 

20 data as well as available process and source 

21 term information for this facility found that 

22 NIOSH lacked sufficient information necessary 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 to complete individual dose reconstructions 

2 with sufficient accuracy for internal 

3 radiological exposures to enriched uranium, 

4 thorium, uranium progeny and thorium progeny 

5 to which these workers may have been subjected 

6 during the time period in question. The Board 

7 concurs with this determination.

8 "Three, NIOSH determined that 

9 health may have been endangered for employees 

10 at this facility during the time period in 

11 question. The Board also concurs with this 

12 determination.

13 "Based on these considerations and 

discussion at the December 18th to 20th 14 , 2012 

15 Board meeting held in Denver, Colorado, the 

16 Board recommends that this Class be added to 

17 the SEC. Enclosed is documentation from the 

18 Board meeting where this SEC Class was 

19 discussed. The documentation includes copies 

20 of the petition, the NIOSH review thereof, and 

21 related materials. If any of these items are 

22 unavailable at this time, they will follow 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 shortly."

2 Comments? Questions? Okay.

3 Moving on, this is the Mound 83.14 

4 petition.

5 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

6 and Worker Health (the Board) has evaluated 

7 Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00207 

8 concerning workers at the Mound Plant in 

9 Miamisburg, Ohio under the statutory 

10 requirements established by the Energy 

11 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

12 Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), and 

13 incorporated in 42 CFR Section 83.13.

14 "The Board respectfully recommends 

15 that SEC status be accorded to, quote, `all 

16 employees to the Department of Energy, its 

17 predecessor agencies and their contractors and 

18 subcontractors who worked at the Mound Plant, 

Miamisburg, Ohio from September 1st 19 , 1972 

through December 31st 20 , 1972, or from January 

1st, 1975 through December 31st 21 , 1976 for a 

22 number of work days aggregating at least 250 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 work days occurring either solely under this 

2 employment or in combination with work days 

3 within the parameters established for one or 

4 more other Classes of employees included in 

5 the Special Exposure Cohort', close quotes.

6 "Recommendation is based on the 

7 following factors: individuals employed at the 

8 Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio for the time 

9 period in question worked on research, 

10 development, and production related to nuclear 

11 weapons. Two, National Institute for 

12 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review 

13 of available monitoring data as well as 

14 available process and source term information 

15 for this facility found that NIOSH lacked 

16 sufficient information necessary to complete 

17 individual dose reconstructions with 

18 sufficient accuracy for internal radiological 

19 exposures to radon to which these workers may 

20 have been subjected during the time period in 

21 question. The Board concurs with this 

22 determination.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 "Three, NIOSH determined that 

2 health may have been endangered for these 

3 Mound Plant employees during the time period 

4 in question. The Board also concurs with this 

5 determination.

6 "Based on these considerations and 

discussion in the September 18th to 20th 7 , 2012 

8 Board meeting held in Denver, Colorado, the 

9 Board recommends that this Class be added to 

10 the SEC. Enclosed is documentation from the 

11 Board meeting where the SEC Class was 

12 discussed. Documentation includes copies of 

13 the petition, the NIOSH review thereof, and 

14 related materials. If any of these are 

15 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

16 shortly."

17 MEMBER BEACH: Under that first 

18 bullet you said 83.13; shouldn't that read 14?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

20 MEMBER BEACH: No? It should be a 

21 13?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's always 13.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We used to 

3 include both, but our attorneys advised us 

4 that's no longer necessary.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we believe 

7 them.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Gotcha.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

10 comments or questions? Okay. 

11 Next I'll do the Weldon Spring. 

12 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

13 Worker and Health (the Board) has evaluated 

14 Special Exposure Cohort Petition 00143 

15 concerning workers at the Weldon Spring Plant 

16 in Weldon Spring, Missouri under the statutory 

17 requirements established by the Employees

18 Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

19 of 2000 (EEOICPA) and incorporated into 42 CFR 

20 83.13.

21 "The National Institute for 

22 Occupational Safety and Health has recommended 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 that individual dose reconstructions are 

2 feasible for, quote, `all employees at 

3 Department of Energy, Department of Energy 

4 contractors or subcontractors who worked in 

5 any area of the Weldon Spring Plant in Weldon 

6 Spring, Missouri during the applicable covered 

operational period from January 1st 7 , 1957 

through December 31st 8 , 1967.' 

9 "NIOSH found that it has access to 

10 adequate exposure monitoring, other 

11 information necessary to do individual dose 

12 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

13 members of this group, and therefore a Class 

14 covering this group should not be added to the 

15 SEC. The Board concurs with this 

16 determination.

17 "Based on these considerations and 

discussion at the September 18th to 20th 18 , 2012 

19 Board meeting held in Denver, Colorado, the 

20 Board recommends this Class not be added to 

21 the SEC. Enclosed is documentation from the 

22 Board meeting where this Class was discussed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 Documentation includes copies of the petition, 

2 NIOSH review thereof, and related materials. 

3 If any of these items are unavailable at this 

4 time, they will follow shortly."

5 Comments or questions? Okay. Last 

6 but not least here, the United Nuclear 

7 Corporation. 

8 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

9 Worker Health (the Board) has evaluated 

10 Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00116 

11 concerning workers at the United Nuclear 

12 Corporation in Hematite, Missouri, under the 

13 statutory requirements established by the 

14 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

15 Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and 

16 incorporated into 42 CFR 83.12.

17 "The National Institute for 

18 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has 

19 recommended that individual dose 

20 reconstructions are feasible for, quote, `all 

21 site employees who worked in any area of the 

22 United Nuclear Corporation, Hematite, Missouri 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

site from January 1st 1 , 1958 through December 

31st 2 , 1973, and the residual period January 

1st, 1974 through July 31st 3 , 2006.'

4 "NIOSH found that it has access to 

5 adequate exposure monitoring and other 

6 information necessary to do individual dose 

7 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

8 members of this group and, therefore, a Class 

9 covering this group should not be added to the 

10 SEC. The Board concurs with this 

11 determination.

12 "Based on these considerations and 

the discussion at the September 18th to 20th 13 , 

14 2012 Board meeting held in Denver, Colorado, 

15 the Board recommends that this Class not be 

16 added to the SEC. Enclosed is the 

17 documentation from the Board meeting where 

18 this SEC Class was discussed. Documentation 

19 includes copies of the petition, the NIOSH 

20 review thereof and related materials. If any 

21 of these items are unavailable at this time, 

22 they will follow shortly."
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 Okay. Any additional business? I 

2 will follow up on -- to complete the two Work 

3 Groups. Loretta had to leave, and also I need 

4 to check with John Poston. He had actually 

5 expressed an interest in a Work Group, and I 

6 want to always get consent before appointing 

7 anybody. But I will try to get that done. I'm 

8 not sure how long John is away. Okay, so I'll 

9 follow up with him and get that.

10 I think we have our meeting 

11 scheduled, and I don't believe there's any 

12 correspondence. I'm not aware of any pending. 

13 And I think we can -- do I hear a motion to 

14 adjourn?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: So moved.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Motion to adjourn.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Second.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Note Dr. 

19 Ziemer made the motion, Josie seconded it. 

20 Brad was a close third, and we'll see 

21 everybody in Oak Ridge.

22 Oh, yes, Ted, the last Mound 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 letter I will circulate around when I receive 

2 that back from our counsel's office, so you're 

3 aware of it. The action stands so I think 

4 we're set. It's just making sure the wording 

5 is coordinated with the Department of Labor. 

6 You need to turn the mic on.

7 MS. LIN: Dr. Melius, I think we're 

8 ready to present a letter here, and we can 

9 conclude all the Board business. And if 

10 there's any more language that needs to be 

11 revised, then we'll bring it back to the Board 

12 for your approval.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

14 MS. LIN: If that's okay.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. If everyone 

16 could just wait a second, hold the adjournment 

17 in abeyance. Someone gag the parliamentarian 

18 quickly.

19 (Laughter.)

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And you'll have 

21 to bear with me. You'll have to listen to 

22 this. This is the other Mound. And I will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 still circulate the final, but --

2 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

3 and Worker Health (the Board) has evaluated 

4 Special Exposure Cohort Petition 0090 

5 concerning workers at the Mound Plant in 

6 Miamisburg, Ohio during the period from March 

1st, 1959 through December 31st 7 , 2007, under 

8 the statutory requirements established by the 

9 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

10 Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) 

11 incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13.

12 "The National Institute for 

13 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has 

14 recommended that individual dose 

15 reconstructions are feasible for `all 

16 employees of the Department of Energy, 

17 Department of Energy contractors or 

18 subcontractors who worked in any area of the 

19 Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio during the 

period from March 1st 20 , 1959 through December 

31st 21 , 2007, except for the workers covered in 

22 the approved SEC 00171 and the approved SEC 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 00207.' Close quote.

2 "NIOSH found it has access to 

3 adequate exposure monitoring and other 

4 information necessary to do individual dose 

5 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

6 members of this group and, therefore, a Class 

7 covering this group should not be added to the 

8 SEC. The Board concurs with this 

9 determination.

10 "Based on these consideration and 

discussion in the September 18th to 20th 11 , 2012 

12 Board meeting held in Denver, Colorado, the 

13 Board recommends this Class not be added to 

14 the SEC. Enclosed is the documentation of the 

15 Board meeting where this SEC Class was 

16 discussed. Documentation includes copies of 

17 the petition, the NIOSH review thereof, and 

18 related materials. If any of these items are 

19 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

20 shortly."

21 So, basically, it's the original 

22 petition minus what we -- and it's a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 complicated because they actually consolidated 

2 some petitions there, so we have an earlier 

3 time period that is covered. Yes, Paul.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: If I might make one 

5 comment, a bit of concern as I hear these 

6 words for the first time. But the exclusion of 

7 this group expressed in terms of the other 

8 groups, I want to make sure that if there's 

9 someone that lacks the 250 days in the other 

10 groups would still be able to pick up the rest 

11 in this. It sounds like if they're already --

12 I guess if they're already in the other group 

13 they already have their 250 days, so maybe it 

14 -- yes, I'll withdraw that.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think --

16 Jenny and I talked about this, and I think 

17 one of the things we want to make sure is that 

18 the language coincides with Department of 

19 Labor language so that we're not inadvertently 

20 causing a problem like that. So, I think 

21 that's most likely the change that would take 

22 place.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I think it's 

2 not a problem.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now that I heard 

5 what I had to say.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, when I'm 

7 reading the letter I found another error, too, 

8 but -- threw an extra state name in there, but 

9 that's okay. But yes, I think that's the 

10 issue. The discussions -- these letters are 

11 actually harder in some ways to write than --

12 especially when it's a long history like 

13 this, than others, and you throw in an 83.14, 

14 and so forth, so we do that. But, again, I 

15 will circulate what we finally do. And then 

16 you can call me up and talk about it again, 

17 and we can go through it.

18 Okay. I think we can go ahead and 

19 adjourn now.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

21 matter was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.)

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1