THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY TWO
 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the DoubleTree Club Hotel, 720 Las Flores Road, 

Livermore, California, on December 14, 2004. 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

December 14, 2004 

REGISTRATION AND WELCOME: 9 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES, MEETING 26: 10 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

PROGRAM STATUS REPORT: 12 

MS. LAURIE ISHAK, NIOSH 

STATUS AND OUTREACH – DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: 57 

MR. SHELBY HALLMARK, DOL 

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 102 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

SITE PROFILE REVIEWS: 126 

DR. JOHN MAURO, SANFORD, COHEN & ASSOCIATES 

NIOSH RESPONSE TO SITE PROFILE REVIEW: 154 

DR. JIM NETON, NIOSH 

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION: 210 

INTRODUCTION: 259 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

PUBLIC COMMENT: 266 

ADJOURN 386 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 387 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND 

The following transcript contains quoted material. 

Such material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

 

4 

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

ELLIOTT, Larry J.

Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (PRO-TEM)

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D.

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

MEMBERSHIP 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

ANDRADE, Antonio, Ph.D.

Group Leader

Radiation Protection Services Group

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 
5 

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

Director 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 

Professor of Medicine 

Nashville, Tennessee 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 

GIBSON, Michael H.

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Salem, New Hampshire 

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

Director 

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund

Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I.

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington 

OWENS, Charles Leon

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-550 

Paducah, Kentucky 

PRESLEY, Robert W.

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee 
 

 

6 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 

AGENDA SPEAKERS 

(in order of appearance) 

Ms. Laurie Ishak, NIOSH

Mr. Shelby Hallmark, DOL

Dr. John Mauro, SC&A

Dr. Jim Neton, NIOSH 

STAFF/VENDORS 

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
7 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

BISHOP, STANLEY

BLAKE, PAUL K., DTRA

BLASZAK, MARK, WKBW TV

BLEWETT, BERYL, SUPPORT GROUP

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH

BRAND, ANSTICE, CDC

BRANDAL, LYNDA, NIOSH

BROOKS, JOYCE

BUMGARNER, ROBERT L., SAIC

CASE, DAVID R., SAIC

CHEW, MELTON, CHEW AND ASSOCIATES

CISNEROS, LEROY

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FULK, M.M.

GLENN, H. DAVID, LLNL

GUERRIERO, JUDIE, UNIV. OF CAL.

HALLMARK, SHELBY, LABOR

HEISTER, MELANIE, NCRP

HERBERT, NICHOLE, NIOSH

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOEY, STEPHANIE, WKBW TV

HOFFMAN, OWEN, SENES

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

KATZ, TED, NIOSH

KOTSCH, JEFF, LABOR

MAIER, HILDA, NJPR

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCDOUGALL, VERNON, ATL

MCGOLERICK, ROB, HHS

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP

MORAN, FRANCINE A., LLNL

NEELY, KRIS, CA RESOURCE CENTER

NESVET, JEFF, LABOR

NETON, JIM, NIOSH

NUGENT, MARIAN, U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

OLSON, INGA, TRI-VALLEY

PORTER, DIANE, NIOSH 
8 

RICHARDS, JOE, IGUA LOCAL 3 OAK RIDGE

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR/BCTD

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A

SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, DTRA

SCHAUER, DAVID, NCRP

SWEENEY, THERESA, BSAG

TOOHEY, R.E., ORAU

TURCIC, PETE, DOL

TYLER, SHARON, DOL

ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH

WALKER, ED AND JOYCE, BSAG

WOOSTER, BEVERLY 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

P R O C E E D I N G S

 (9:45 a.m.) 

 REGISTRATION AND WELCOME

 DR. ZIEMER: This is the second day of our 

meeting here in Livermore. For some of you who 

are visiting with us today, this may be the 

first day of the meeting for you. I want to 

repeat a few of the announcements that we had 

shared yesterday. 

First of all, I'd like to remind all of you -- 

Board members, staffers, visitors -- to please 

register your attendance with us today. Even 

if you registered yesterday, we do this on a 

day-by-day basis. The registration book is on 

the table just outside the room, so if you 

haven't already done that, please do so. 

I'd like to remind you again that there are a 

variety of handouts on the rear table which 

include copies of the agenda, copies of a 

number of the presentations, and a lot of 

related materials that pertain to today's 

agenda, as well as to other general material 

pertaining to the work of this particular 

Board. So please feel free to help yourself to 

those materials. 

Many of the materials that you find on the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

table also appear on the web site, so that if 

you feel like your suitcase is pretty 

overloaded and you don't want to lug a lot of 

paper, virtually all of that is on the web site 

and you can download it at home if you feel 

that's more convenient. That would be the OCAS 

web site -- O-C-A-S web site, which is -- you 

can get to by going into the NIOSH web site, 

which you can get to by going into the CDC web 

site, which you can get to by going to the 

government... Anyway, one way or the other, 

you can get there, so please help yourself. 

Larry Elliott, who is our regular Designated 

Government Official, is back with us this 

morning. Larry, welcome back, and do you have 

any preliminary statements or announcements 

before we go into the -- he doesn't. Okay. 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES, MEETING 26 

Then we're going to move into the agenda. The 

first item on our agenda is the action on the 

minutes from our last meeting. Our last 

meeting was actually in August, which as I 

mentioned yesterday, that's -- that's the 

longest gap we've had I think in three years 

between meetings because of difficulties in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

having one of our meetings actually canceled. 

But Board members, you've had copies of these 

minutes. I'd like to ask if there are any 

additions or corrections to the minutes that 

anyone has. If you have typos, you can simply 

pass those on to Cori. If you -- I 

particularly ask, and you've probably done 

this, to look at the items where your own 

statements or views have been encapsulated and 

make sure that the minutes correctly reflect 

what you said or what your intent was. 

So again I ask, are there any additions or 

corrections to those minutes, either the 

Executive Summary or the Minutes themselves? 

 (No responses) 

And I also remind everyone that the actual 

transcripts that these minutes summarize are 

also on the web site, at least -- are they on 

by now? They are on by now. 

Then I will entertain a motion to approve the 

minutes. 

DR. ROESSLER: So moved. 

MR. ESPINOSA: So moved. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Moved and seconded. All in favor 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

of approving the minutes, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: All opposed, say no? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you very 

much. And with that action we got way ahead of 

schedule. 

PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

We're going to begin then in terms of our 

presentations with a program status report. 

Laurie Ishak, who is a Presidential Management 

Fellow with the OCAS group, is going to do the 

program status report. So Laurie, welcome back 

to the podium. 

MS. ISHAK: Thank you very much, and good 

morning. As Dr. Ziemer introduced me, my name 

is Laurie Ishak and I will be doing the program 

status report. And the agenda originally had 

Heidi Deep as the presenter. However, because 

of personal reasons, she couldn't make it so 

I'm filling in for her. 

I kind of have some good news. First that my 

presentation's scheduled for an hour, but it 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

shouldn't take me more than about half an hour 

to get through it, so I'll keep you on 

schedule. And the bad news is, you'll have to 

listen to me for half an hour, so I'll try to 

keep you entertained. 

Now as you know, the purpose of the program 

stats is to present to the Board the progress 

OCAS has made both from a short-term 

perspective and a long-term perspective. This 

first slide shows our progress since October of 

2001 and goes all the way through the current 

time. The blue line represents the cases that 

we've received from the Department of Labor. 

The green line represents the number of draft 

dose reconstruction reports that we've sent to 

claimants. And the red line represents the 

final dose reconstruction reports that we've 

sent to DOL. 

As you can tell, the number of claims we've 

received from DOL is decreasing, and 

approximately we're receiving -- or we're 

receiving approximately 200 to 300 a month from 

the Department of Labor. The number of drafts 

that we're sending out is over 500 for the last 

three months, and I'll break that down on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

another slide. And then the final number of 

claims -- dose reconstructions that we're 

sending to DOL is averaging between 400 to 500 

claims a month. 

Now the cases received from the Department of 

Labor, that hasn't changed too much since our 

last meeting in Idaho. Cleveland has 3,675 

claims representing about 21 percent of the 

number of cases that we receive from the 

Department of Labor. Denver, we received 1,987 

total cases, representing about 11.4 percent. 

Jacksonville, 6,425 cases, representing the 

most at 36.7 percent. And then Seattle, 5,407, 

representing 30.9 percent of our total claims, 

bringing the total number of cases that we 

received from the Department of Labor to 17,494 

as of November 30, 2004. 

Now this bar graph represents that first graph 

that I showed you, the line graph, the number 

of cases received from DOL. Now this breaks it 

down by quarter as opposed to month, and you 

can see that we're gradually receiving less and 

less cases from the Department of Labor, and 

that number's going down. And so you're seeing 

that by quarter, which represents three months, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

we're receiving about 700 to 800. Quarter 

five's not over yet, so that's why that number 

is so much lower, but that equals out to about 

200 to 300 a month. 

Now the number of draft dose reconstructions, 

reports to claimants -- and again, this is -- 

this one's monthly. As of November 30th, 2004 

you can see that we're averaging over 500 

claims that was -- or 500 draft dose 

reconstructions that we're sending to 

claimants. At last meeting in Idaho in August 

we were almost at 500, but not quite there. 

But since then we maintain numbers well over 

500. 

And in the first graph where we showed you the 

number of claims coming in from DOL is 

decreasing, we get about 200 to 300 a month, 

the number of draft dose reconstruction reports 

going out to claimants is increasing, where 

about 200 to 300 more are going out than what's 

coming in, so it's always positive for 

production numbers. 

Now this graph also is -- was represented on 

the line graph on the first chart. It's the 

number of final dose reconstruction reports 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

that we're sending to DOL. You can see we're 

averaging about 400 -- mid-400's, high 400's 

the last three months. However on this chart 

it's a little deceiving because we can't really 

control the number of final DR reports that we 

send to DOL because once we send the draft dose 

reconstruction report to the claimants, they 

review it, they sign their OCAS-1 and send it 

back to us. And until they do that, we can't 

send a final report to the Department of Labor, 

so that's why the two graphs don't necessarily 

match up because it's the claimant's 

responsibility to return the OCAS-1. And every 

month we have about 400 to 500 claims that are 

in the hands of claimants, waiting for them to 

send us back the OCAS-1s. So that's important 

to remember on that. 

Now here we have the number of DOE responses 

that we've sent to request for exposure 

records. You can see that we've sent 17,476 

requests to the Department of Energy for 

exposure records. Now the chart -- we received 

17,494 claims from the Department of Labor, so 

we've got about 18 cases that we need to send 

out a request for exposure records. And then 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

responses received from Department of Energy, 

we received 16,948 responses, and that's also 

probably important to note that sometimes when 

we get responses they may contain no 

information, so the response may be we have no 

information on this employee. And other times 

we do get exposure records, but that number can 

be misleading because of that, as well. It 

doesn't mean we necessarily have exposure 

records for 16,948 of our claimants. 

The age of the outstanding requests, there are 

60 claims that have been outstanding for 60 

days or less. There's 33 that have been 

outstanding for 90 days or less. There's 18 

that have been out 180 days -- or 120 days or 

less, and 32 for 150 days or less. I guess I 

should say or more. Excuse me, or more. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Heidi (sic), could you 

clarify that? You're -- it's -- 60 days or 

less would be all the -- everything. 

MS. ISHAK: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Or you mean 60 days or more. 

MS. ISHAK: Days or more, I -- right. Thank 

you. I should have said 60 days or more. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

MS. ISHAK: I noticed that by the time I got to 

the last one and thought well, there's more 

than 32. 

All right. Telephone interview statistics. As 

you all know, we do telephone interviews or -- 

for -- with claimants. They can opt out of the 

telephone interviews if they choose to, but 

when we receive claims we talk to either the 

claimants or the survivors and give them 

opportunity to provide us more information or 

anything that they would like to add before we 

begin our dose reconstruction. There have been 

17,043 claims where we have completed at least 

one interview. And after we complete the 

interview we send out interview summary report 

and the claimants can look at it and then they 

can choose to add anything or clarify anything 

if they choose to. And of those interview 

summary reports, we sent out 23,175, and we 

have more reports because some claims might 

have multiple claimants on the survivors. And 

the number of interviews left to be conducted 

is approximately 360. And again, that number 

doesn't always match up with the top number, if 

you add them together, to our total number of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

cases because some choose to opt out of the 

telephone interview. However, they choose at 

any time to decide to go back -- they say they 

don't want to do a telephone interview, they 

can at any time contact us and we will perform 

a telephone interview with them if they change 

their mind at a later date. 

Here we have the number of interviews conducted 

from 2002 all the way through the current time. 

And you can kind of tell the chart goes up by 

the need for the telephone interviews. Now 

we're conducting a lot less because we've 

caught up and have conducted most of the 

telephone interviews for the claims that we 

have in now. We're only doing about 400 -- 300 

to 400 a month. 

Now this slide has changed some since our last 

meeting, so I'll explain it to you. The first 

point we have here, the bullet, is cases in 

pre-dose reconstruction assignment development. 

And what that means is any case that has come 

in and hasn't been assigned for dose 

reconstruction. It could be waiting for a CATI 

interview, it could be waiting for DOE records, 

it could be waiting for site profile document, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

it could be waiting for data collection, but it 

has not been assigned for dose reconstruction. 

And of the 17,494 total cases we have from DOL, 

5,223 of them are in that period of 

development. 

We have 5,983 of the 17,494 that are assigned 

for dose reconstruction. 

 The third bullet, we have 625 DR draft reports 

that are sent to claimants. And I want to 

point this out as well 'cause it can be kind of 

misleading when I changed it. We used to 

report the total number of draft dose 

reconstructions that have been sent to 

claimants, so we've sent more than 625, but 

this is the current number that are with 

claimants that have not been sent to DOL yet. 

And then the last number is the final number of 

DR reports we've sent to DOL, and that's 5,663. 

So when you add all those numbers up, that'll 

give you the 17,494, so you know where they all 

at -- are at. 

So we've completed -- over 30 percent have been 

sent to DOL, and then completed DRs that are in 

the hand of claimants, you add that into that 

and that makes it go up a little more. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

All right, these are the cases completed by 

NIOSH tracking number. You can tell that we've 

completed more in the higher number -- or we've 

completed -- there are higher numbers for the 

lower tracking numbers, so you see that we're 

trying to complete some more in like the 1,000 

to 5,000 range, and you can see here where 

we're making progress on that. Almost half of 

the claims that are 1,000 or below and over a 

third on the ones between 2,000 and 5,000. And 

these are as of November 30th, 2004, as well. 

Here we have the administratively closed 

records. In administratively closed records, 

we close them when we, for instance, send out 

an OCAS-1 form, we give them 60 days to respond 

and send by the signed OCAS-1. If they don't 

respond we send them another letter saying that 

you have 14 days to send us your -- back -- 

back your signed OCAS-1. And then if they 

continue to not respond, be non-responsive, 

then we'll administratively close the record. 

And you can see that there are a few that we've 

done that at around four or five a month. And 

that's not permanent. If somebody were to 

contact us and send us an OCAS-1 later on, we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

would open the case again and then send the 

final DR report to the Department of Labor. 

Reworks, the total number of reworks we 

received from the Department of Labor is 454, 

and we've returned 247 of those back to the 

Department of Labor. You can see that the 

green bar represents the number of DR reports 

received monthly and the blue are the number of 

returned monthly. And of these reworks, about 

90 percent of them, come back to us because 

there's additional information that DOL 

receives. For instance, additional employment 

information comes in or an additional cancer. 

And when that happens, it comes back to us, we 

include that back in and look at the -- the 

reports and the DRs and then send it back to 

DOL, with changes if they're needed. 

The number of phone calls and e-mails that 

we're getting, OCAS currently gets 34,786 -- as 

of December 7th that's how many we've received. 

ORAU has received 128,454. And the number of 

e-mails that OCAS has received is 5,363. If a 

claimant has a question about the program or if 

they want to know their claim status, they can 

call either OCAS and talk to one of our public 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

health advisors who will help them and assist 

them on their claim. They can also call ORAU, 

and ORAU's number is also higher because that 

includes the telephone interviews and the 

scheduling of the telephone interviews. They 

can call ORAU or they can also choose to e-mail 

us. They can e-mail us with general questions 

or they can go on-line and do an automatic 

status request on-line if they choose to get 

their status information and the Privacy Act 

information is verified that we can give it to 

them. 

SEC petitions, as of December 6th, 2004 we 

received 13 total SEC petitions. Nine of them 

are active. Two of them have qualified, and 

four of them have been closed. Of the active 

petitions we have one from Hanford, four from 

Iowa, one from Mallinckrodt, one from Paducah 

and two from Y-12. 

Now an Iowa petition has been qualified. We 

published a notice in the Federal Register. On 

Monday, October 25th, 2004 that was published. 

And a petition and evaluation plan has been 

presented to the subcommittee. It includes 

Line 1, which includes Yard C, Yard G, Yard L, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

the Firing Site, the Burning Field B, and 

storage sites for pits and weapons including 

Building 73 and 77. It includes the job titles 

of all technicians, laboratory, HP, chemical, 

X-ray, et cetera; engineers, inspectors, safety 

personnel and maintenance persons and 

production personnel, hourly and salaried. And 

it covers a period of employment from 1947 to 

1974. 

Also the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company SEC 

petition has qualified for evaluation, and that 

includes the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company 

Destrehan Street plant, St. Louis, Missouri; 

and job titles, all employees that conducted 

AEC work at the plant -- at the Street (sic) 

plant, and from 1947 to 19-- I mean -- I'm 

sorry, 1942 to 1957, and that notice will be 

published in the Federal Register. It hasn't 

been published yet, but that notice is being 

worked and sent out, and the petition and 

evaluation plan has also been submitted to the 

subcommittee for review on Mallinckrodt. 

We've also had some changes in EEOICPA. On 

October 27th, 2004 the President signed subti-- 

the Ronald Reagan Defense Authorization Act, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

and that contains provisions that amend EEOICPA 

42 USC Section 7384 and subsequent provisions. 

The two major changes is their coverage 

expansion to employees at certain sites with 

residual contamination, and it also changes 

some of the time lines that were originally 

outlined in EEOICPA. 

 The coverage expansion to employees at certain 

residual contamination sites, the definition 

was changed -- or I guess I should say expanded 

to include workers who were employed at AWEs 

during period time -- during time periods when 

NIOSH determined that significant residual 

contamination existed outside of the period 

when weapons-related production occurred. So 

that's been included to include the original 

residual contamination report that NIOSH 

conducted. 

 The time lines have also changed. NIOSH now --

or OCAS now has a 180-day time limit to provide 

a recommendation to the Board regarding 

qualified SEC petitions. The Secretary of HHS 

has 30 days to -- from the receipt of the 

Board's recommendation to submit a 

determination to Congress to either add or deny 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

the addition of an SEC, and then Congress has 

30 days to decide whether to add or deny a 

class be added to the SEC. 

And the final slide is OCAS accomplishments. 

As I showed earlier, we've reached over 5,000 

completed final DR reports sent to DOL, and 

we're expecting by the end of December to be at 

6,000. 

The SEC petition representing a class of 

workers from both Iowa and Mallinckrodt has 

qualified and has been published in the Federal 

Register or will be published in the Federal 

Register and submitted to the Board for 

evaluation. 

And we've had some staffing updates. We've 

included another health communications 

specialist. We have three new health 

physicists, a new technical program manager has 

been named, and we've added a research 

epidemiologist. 

 We've also completed 21 technical basis 

documents since our last meeting in August, and 

we have put together an estimated completion 

date for site profile documents in response to 

the GAO report that came out, and that should 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

27 

be in your packet with all the dates and sites 

and the estimated completion dates for those 

site profile documents. 

And that is the end of my presentation if 

anybody would like to follow up with questions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Larry has 

one clarification to make. Thank you, Laurie. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Just to clarify that the SEC 

evaluation plans for the petitions that have 

qualified went to the working group, not the 

subcommittee. You have a working group to -- 

that's been designated to look at those and 

make comment on those. It went to the working 

group which Bob Presley chairs, not the 

subcommittee. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Leon, you have a 

comment? And if this is not your comment, you 

might add it, but we know that you were -- had 

some information on the time line issue on the 

SEC petitions, so this would be a good time to 

raise that, if that wasn't what you were 

planning to raise. 

MR. OWENS: No, sir, it wasn't. I had a 

question -- a couple of questions in regard to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, do both then. 

MR. OWENS: -- the presentation, but... 

MS. ISHAK: Well, I think -- I think somebody's 

going to be presenting on the SEC plan, as well 

-- program -- process. 

MR. OWENS: The first question I had was in 

regard to the four SEC petitions that were 

closed. 

MS. ISHAK: Uh-huh. 

MR. OWENS: Could you give us specific 

information as far as those petitions 

themselves or... 

MS. ISHAK: As in the sites that they 

represented? 

MR. OWENS: Yes, ma'am. 

MS. ISHAK: There were four sites. One was Los 

Alamos National Laboratory. There was also a 

petition that we received for multiple 

facilities, as opposed to one site, and two K25 petitions which were already covered under 

the original SEC class definition, so didn't 

qualify under the new -- new rules. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Larry, do you want to add -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They're on our web site. You can 

-- you can -- we'll notice on our web site when 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

we qualify. When we find a petition 

ineligible, we'll put that on our web site, 

too, and these four are on there now. 

MR. OWENS: And the other question, in regard 

to the 32 outstanding requests of 150 days or 

more, do you have information as far as are 

those specific sites? 

MS. ISHAK: They are. The ones that are more 

than 150 days? 

MR. OWENS: Yes, ma'am. 

MS. ISHAK: We have six from Lawrence 

Livermore, ten from General Electric Vallecitos 

-- I'm not sure I pronounced that correctly -- 

four from Allied Chemical Corp., one from 

Hallam Sodium Graphite Reactor; two from Y-12 

and ten from Hanford. 

MR. OWENS: Thank you. 

MS. ISHAK: Well, and two from Sandia National 

Laboratories. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And if I could add that we follow 

up on these with DOL on a monthly basis, and 

certainly the ones that are out over 120 days 

we target as a specific action item to follow 

up on and find out what's -- you know, what's 

the status, where are they going, how close are 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

they or how far away are they to finding 

information. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I didn't see who was next; 

we'll just go down the line. Dr. Roessler? 

DR. ROESSLER: First of all, I'd like to thank 

Nichole and the OCAS office for the 

organizational chart that I had asked for last 

time that -- we received it by e-mail on -- 

last Thursday, I think it was, so you should 

have it in your packet. That was very nicely 

done. 

Then I have a question. On the phone calls 

that claimants -- the phone calls or e-mails 

claimants make to either ORAU or OCAS, how long 

does it take for them to get a response? Do 

they talk to somebody immediately or do -- is 

there a time lag between -- 

MS. ISHAK: They talk to somebody immediately 

in most cases. I think that if -- if they do 

get a voice mail, I think the policy is to 

return a call within 24 hours, but in most 

cases they'll get somebody because the system 

is set to roll over to a line that's not busy 

if they just call into the main 1-800 number as 

opposed to a direct PHA. Usually they call the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

1-800 number and it gets directed to an open 

line, so they should talk to somebody 

immediately. 

And with the e-mails, it's the policy to return 

e-mails within 24 hours of receiving the email, unless there's a problem where there 

seems to be inadequate Privacy Act information 

and we think that it might be somebody who 

doesn't have the -- the right status to receive 

information, but they still receive an e-mail 

within 24 hours saying that we're sorry, due to 

Privacy Act releases we cannot release this 

information over the internet. 

DR. ROESSLER: I think that fast response is 

very important. 

MS. ISHAK: I think so, as well. I think 

that's something that we try to do to make sure 

and stay on top of... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Roy? 

 DR. DEHART: A question. If I remember 

correctly, there was a goal set for the number 

of DRs to attain, and that was I think 800 per 

month. 

MS. ISHAK: Two hundred a week was the original 

goal that we had set. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

 DR. DEHART: Okay, yes, about 800 a month. 

MS. ISHAK: Uh-huh. 

 DR. DEHART: We've -- we're currently at about 

500, over the last three to four months. When 

do we hope to attain that -- that goal of 800? 

MS. ISHAK: Well, originally -- originally we 

had said that our goal was 200 a month (sic), 

and --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Two hundred a week. 

MS. ISHAK: Or 200 a week, I'm sorry. 

Definitely we passed when our goal was 200 a 

month, 200 a week. And that was what we were 

estimating that ORAU should be completing. 

Since the August Board meeting, ORAU's done a 

thorough review of their capabilities. And 

after they presented that to us, we've looked 

at it and the number that we're trying to reach 

now is 160 we think is more reasonable to get 

done each week, and I think we're gradually 

progressing to that. You know, 530 a month is 

-- my math's not too good here -- 125 -- about 

475, so we're getting to -- getting to 160 a 

week pretty quickly. 

 DR. DEHART: Wasn't that -- have as a basis for 

compensation a -- an award point if they were 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

to attain 800? Was that readjusted then when 

you --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we --

 DR. DEHART: -- downloaded the number? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- we did readjust. Based upon 

the analysis that was presented to us by ORAU, 

we entered into a negotiation for their current 

cost performance award fee that they're 

operating under for the next six -- for this 

current six-month time frame, and the goal now 

is 160 a week during this performance award fee 

cycle. We'll renegotiate that for the next 

cycle. 

 DR. DEHART: Okay. Just a comment. Could we 

please put two photographs or two graphs on a 

page rather than three? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Okay, we hear you. We will 

do that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And possibly -- I think on some of 

these if you actually print them out in black 

and white rather than color -- it's very hard 

to read on -- they show up great on the screen, 

but if you go to the black and white print 

which gives you basically a mirror image, it 

probably will show up better. Jim? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes. However, make sure that the 

colors you're using do show up when you do them 

in black and white 'cause that can be a 

problem, also. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe if they're larger that'll 

solve it. They're very hard to read. 

MS. ISHAK: I'll give you some color-coded 

(unintelligible) your packet. 

 DR. MELIUS: We'll do that. To follow up on 

Roy's question, I'm looking -- I guess it's on 

page four of your handout. I don't know what -

- it's the slide -- cases completed by NIOSH 

tracking number. 

MS. ISHAK: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MELIUS: And I've asked this before, but 

the -- there still seems to be a significant 

backlog among the early cases that -- so those 

are people, like say in the first 1,000, have 

been waiting a long time and their cases are 

not -- not completed yet. So I guess I would 

ask, one, is what progress are you making that 

area? My recollection is there was a -- ORAU 

and you had a team that had been put together 

to focus on those and try to figure out ways of 

resolving those particular cases, and I guess 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

I'd like an update on that. 

MS. ISHAK: Well, I don't have the numbers 

since our last August Board meeting, but I know 

we have almost half of the 1,000 done, as you 

can see from the numbers that I have on there. 

I won't repeat them back to you, but I do know 

that we're focusing on claims below 5,000. I 

don't have any specific progress as made by the 

team that was put together with ORAU and OCAS 

up here with me on the progress that was made, 

but I know that they are focusing on completing 

the claims below 5,000 as they -- they exist. 

I don't know if... 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me add to that. As we talked 

about in Idaho Falls in August, we have 

incentivized this particular aspect of 

production to look at the first 5,000 cases by 

tracking number. ORAU is under in this cost 

performance award fee cycle and incentived to 

complete those first 5,000 by the end of this 

month. As you can see, they're probably not 

going to make that. 

These are -- there's some difficult cases in 

there, in that first 5,000, that rely on 

coworker data. We've been trying to -- ORAU 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

has been working to develop a model on use of 

coworker data. We have some other situations 

where we're looking very -- at very difficult 

situations where there's only one or two cases 

for an AWE site and we're looking at whether or 

not, you know, we can actually do dose 

reconstruction or should those be put into the 

SEC. So we are focusing our attention and 

ORAU's attention on those first 5,000 cases, 

with the hope and goal that we can move through 

those to closure. 

 DR. MELIUS: One of the other areas that I 

think were delaying some of these cases were 

dealing with construction workers, and if I 

remember, Jim Neton had presented to us that 

they're working on -- in terms of modifying the 

site profile process and -- in order to better 

deal with construction. Could you update us on 

progress on that? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, yes. We are -- we have been 

working with CPWR to put together a contract to 

support site profile development chapters on 

construction trades, and I believe this week 

that'll be put into effect. It will -- will be 

-- we'll see CPWR assign one or more particular 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

people to support the ORAU site profile teams 

in that regard and pull that information 

together. And they're targeting Hanford and 

Savannah River first. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Another question. You've 

mentioned the ORAU contract a few times here 

and this cycle. Could -- just -- maybe I 

missed it and I apologize. I was -- I was a 

little bit late this morning, but could you 

tell us sort of what is the cycle that you're -

- terms of awarding and where that stands and 

so forth? I think when we asked last time you 

were in the midst of negotiating that and so 

the amount of monies involved and so forth were 

-- you couldn't tell us, but -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- can you update us on that? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we -- we asked ORAU to 

provide a cost proposal for the next 18 months, 

starting in January. This will still leave 18 

months of the contract award period that they 

will have to propose for at the end -- we'll 

have to cycle this so that we can get the last 

18 months awarded properly, but this next cycle 

where we asked them for a cost proposal and a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

project management plan on how they would work 

over the next 18 months in order so that we can 

use that to modify the contract and, for the 

next 18 months, put additional funds into the 

contract for their work. 

That should -- that award should happen in 

January. They will have expended their 

original award at that time, which was $70 

million for five years, so we'll be into about 

-- going into the third year here, we'll add -- 

be adding money to this contract based upon a 

cost proposal, a project management plan, a 

staffing plan that will reflect what work will 

be done over the course of the next 18 months. 

And then again we'll have to enter into another 

cost proposal, another management plan, another 

staffing approach. We anticipate that at the 

last 18 months we're going to see the bulk of 

this workload completed and we'll be scaling 

back in that contract effort. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can you share with us at this 

point what -- how much --

 MR. ELLIOTT: I can't share what the costs 

right now. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

I 

39 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's not been awarded, so -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, I'm not going to -- okay. 

have another question on the SEC issue. I 

recollect, and maybe my recollection is wrong, 

that there was also a Congressionally-imposed 

deadline about timing in terms of between the 

time NIOSH completes its evaluation and a 

meeting of the Advisory Board with that, or is 

that just a --

 MR. ELLIOTT: That was for the first -- that 

was for the petitions that were submitted 

before October 31st. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And you will have -- you will 

have addressed those in the time line that is 

specified in that Act. 

MS. ISHAK: We also have to noti-- publish a 

notice in the Federal Register 30 days prior to 

a Board meeting where we present a petition -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

MS. ISHAK: -- to the Board. 

 DR. ZIEMER: This may be discussed also in 

further detail --

MS. ISHAK: Right, Ted Katz I believe is doing 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- tomorrow when we --

MS. ISHAK: -- an SEC --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- talk about that, so -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

MS. ISHAK: -- process --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'll get into those -- 

MS. ISHAK: -- presentation. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- issues. Jim, did you have 

additional questions? I've got one from 

Richard here. 

 DR. MELIUS: You can go to Richard and I'll -- 

come back to me 'cause I do have another 

question. 

MR. ESPINOSA: On the DOE responses -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: What slide are --

MR. ESPINOSA: -- page three, exactly what are 

-- what are you receiving from DOE in terms of 

well, we're looking into it or we have no data 

on this employee? 

MS. ISHAK: Well, there's ongoing dialogue 

between OCAS and DOE when situations arise. 

For the most part, we're receiving whatever 

data they have if there are any exposure 

records. If we get information back from them 

that there are no exposure records, we log that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

into our system and we might -- later on if -- 

during the telephone interviews, for instance, 

they say no, I know there's exposure records on 

me, then there might be a follow-up with DOE, 

so it's an ongoing communication dialogue 

between DOE and OCAS when situations arise. 

The general practice is when we get a case from 

DOL, we send a request to the site that the 

claimant worked at, and we get a response 

usually back within 30 days is our goal, and 

then we put that in our system. And then 

sometimes we get exposure records, sometimes we 

get nothing. If we get nothing and the 

employee continues to say or survivor say well, 

we know that there are records, then -- you 

know, that's handled on a case-by-case basis. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I would add to that that I think 

we've shown great progress here in working 

strongly with DOE that right now we don't -- we 

don't see an issue with a particular site. All 

of these are individual case issues, something 

going on individually with the case that -- 

that has caused, you know, a problem in finding 

records or understanding what DOE has to offer. 

And so that's what we're following up on now. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

Right -- we don't have, as we've reported in 

the past where we've had certain sites that 

we're dealing with problems, we don't have that 

going on right now. We are watching it close 

because of appropriations and where DOE stands 

with money to support this effort to comply 

with our records requests, and I think we're on 

top of that, too. And the only one we've hurt 

in that regard is having no money available at 

the end of the year was Hanford, and we worked 

that out with DOE and got them moving again, 

so... 

MS. ISHAK: Did that answer your question? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: I have a question, partly of 

clarification on sharing of information that 

the Board has. I noticed with this -- our 

binder this time we suddenly have blue stamps 

on it saying that -- maybe they were there 

before, maybe I hadn't noticed it -- document 

is part of the official meeting file. We've 

also had some issues with Privacy Act related 

to individual dose reconstructions and we've 

had pre-decisional documents, and not 

everything comes labeled and it's confusing. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

For example, for Bethlehem Steel we've got a 

report from our contractor which was done with 

a note from you, Larry -- actually I got the 

note from you first, but -- the vagaries of the 

internet system -- but saying that that was I 

think basically pre-decisional, shouldn't be 

shared. We then get comments from NIOSH about 

the same document that had no -- nothing on it, 

just -- I assumed it was a public document. I 

don't know, maybe it wasn't, shortly before 

here and it's very confusing. It's obviously -

- particularly the Bethlehem document has been 

at issue in terms of public perception of this 

process of all the way to getting an editorial 

in the Buffalo newspaper. Could someone 

clarify for this sort of where we're going with 

this? We've talked a little bit about it with 

your counsel yesterday. I can't remember if 

you were still there -- that was in the open 

session, but we would sort of -- at least I 

would like some clarification on -- on this 

issue and sort of what is policy, what is 

legally required, what is -- how are we going 

to handle this in terms of sharing documents 

and so forth? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, I can start off with 

the blue stamp that's on this -- the papers 

that are in your notebook. We've started 

adding those because a number of members of 

public have been bringing documents and placing 

them on the back table for other people to pick 

up while they're at the Board meeting, so we 

wanted to be clear about what was actually part 

of the official record of the Board and what 

other people were bringing. That's why this 

stamp was developed. 

 The Privacy Act information obviously cannot be 

shared publicly. There's not really a lot that 

we can do about that. We're following the 

Privacy Act requirements, and we will continue 

to redact Privacy Act information that's 

provided to the public. You all, as you know, 

are special government employees, so therefore 

you have access to Privacy Act information that 

the public does not, but you are also bound as 

special government employees to maintain the 

privacy of that information, the 

confidentiality of it. 

As far as the pre-decisional goes, there are 

legal precedents for the Department holding 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

information as pre-decisional, and that's a 

Departmental decision as to when they're going 

to hold a document as pre-decisional and when 

they're not. 

 DR. MELIUS: So if I understand, and you said 

this yesterday, also, that's a policy issue, 

not a legal requirement, if I -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: It's a policy issue based on 

the legal determination. There's a legal 

determination that -- that the U.S. government 

can hold documents as pre-decisional. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but there's not -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And it's a policy decision 

made based on that legal determination. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but it's not a legal requir-

- like whereas with the Privacy Act there would 

be a legal requirement not to share -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, you're right, it's not a 

legal requirement that it be held -- withheld. 

 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And like I mentioned to you 

all before, it's being released today when you 

all review it, so -- except for the dose 

reconstructions, which I believe you all voted 

to withhold until it's settled by the Board, if 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

I --

 DR. ZIEMER: We'll discuss that later this 

morning, right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: There's one other designation 

that Liz should talk about and that's business 

confidential that you may see stamped on some 

documents from Sanford Cohen & Associates that 

has proprietary information and that -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, we would obviously -- 

the same way that we protect privacy 

information, we would protect business 

confidential information for either contractor. 

We wouldn't want to give out the information 

that's going to allow their competitors to 

underbid them in contracts, so unless SC&A or 

ORAU wants to release that information, they 

can give us permission to do so, but otherwise 

we would hold it as confidential. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any further questions for 

Laurie? One more. Henry? 

DR. ANDERSON: The numbers are pretty small on 

the administratively closed cases. Do you --

do you attempt to contact those people other 

than by mail? I mean I -- with some of these 

that are -- I mean many of the -- if the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

claimant is deceased and you have an elderly 

person, you could also have, in the process of 

this, that that person could become ill or 

could be deceased and you wouldn't know and 

you're mailing, and it goes to somebody who's 

an executor who isn't doing anything and your 

time frame is such that -- I mean do you -- 

MS. ISHAK: Well, there's a 60-day letter -- 

DR. ANDERSON: -- attempt to determine is the 

person still alive? I mean do you call or -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, if I can answer this, 

Laurie --

MS. ISHAK: All right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Every person gets a close-out 

interview, so we make a phone call saying you 

have a copy of your dose reconstruction report; 

can we explain it to you? Are there any 

questions that you have about it? Is there any 

additional information that you wish to 

provide? And we run those close-out interviews 

probably a week or so after the report has been 

sent out. If we don't -- at the time frame 

that we expect to see that the OCAS-1 form 

signed and sent back to us, if we don't see 

that, another phone call goes out and another 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

letter goes out, and we give them 14 days at 

that point, at the -- another 14 days to either 

submit their OCAS-1 or say that they're not 

interested. At the end of 74 days expired, if 

they haven't contacted us, they haven't said 

they've got additional information to provide 

or they haven't signed the OCAS-1 form, then 

they're closed out. They are re-opened at any 

point in time thereafter when the claimant or 

an authorized representative comes forward and 

says here's the OCAS-1, please process my 

claim. 

DR. ANDERSON: So it's more than just the 

mailing. 

MS. ISHAK: Oh, yes. 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay. And would any of those 

have been compensated? 

MS. ISHAK: Compensated? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

MS. ISHAK: Yes, some of them have been. 

DR. ANDERSON: No --

 MR. ELLIOTT: We have --

DR. ANDERSON: No, those that are 

administratively closed, is somebody not 

signing it --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We've had one that was 

administratively closed that was compensable, 

and we went to a little extra lengths to make 

sure that the authorized representative 

understood what was going on. It was a 

situation where the Energy employee had -- was 

deceased. 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mark has a question. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just a question. I think 

it might come up with our subcommittee 

discussions a little more, but the completed 

dose reconstructions, I was wondering, it might 

be helpful for our case selection process to 

have again -- and this might be an ongoing 

tracking question -- to have a breakdown of 

those completed DRs by site, by POC, by cancer 

type. I'm not sure that that -- if you have 

that now, but --

 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't have that now, but I 

thought yesterday we committed that -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- we would fill out your matrix 

for you --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- for each Board meeting. And I 

think that's the information you're asking for 

now. I mean it would be resident in that 

matrix. Right? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think so. That would be part 

of the tracking, right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That would be the base value 

against which we would be comparing our 

selections. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's our sampling 

selection, right, right, okay. 

MS. ISHAK: Also as an FYI, you had -- your 

comment reminded me. You also have in your 

binders -- based on a comment from one of the 

Board members in the Idaho Falls meeting about 

questions about what was going on in Idaho 

Falls region, we put together a description of 

covered facilities in California for your 

review, and it has a summary of the document, 

as well as a breakdown of the cases in 

California and where those -- the number of 

cases we received from DOL on those cases in 

California under Subtitle B and where they are 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

in the process. So that's in your booklet, as 

well. That's only specifically to California, 

but just as -- your comment made me remember 

that that was in there, and that was put 

together for your review. And from now on, 

whenever -- whatever site you choose, we'll put 

together a breakdown of facilities -- covered 

facilities in that area and our progress 

related to that area 'cause I know some Board 

members wanted that at Idaho Falls, so that's 

also in your packet to look at and review. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And perhaps if there are questions 

on that, this would be an appropriate time to 

raise those, as well. 

Jim, do you have a question? 

 DR. MELIUS: I hope this brings -- this is a 

Liz question, to alert you. I said I assumed 

that the response we got from NIOSH and I guess 

an attached response from the Department of 

Labor on the Bethlehem Steel site review by 

SCA, was that considered pre-decisional? I 

mean I -- I don't recall it being labeled as 

such and I'm just trying to understand. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That may be more of a Larry 

question. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, let it be a Larry -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It was not pre-decisional. Those 

are our reaction-- our comments on the 

technical accuracy that we tried to provide, 

and it's -- they're available for public 

consumption. They'll be on our web site today. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but would they have been 

available before -- I guess I'm trying to 

understand how a document that reviews a predecisional -- you're labeling one document as 

not being available to the public, and yet your 

comments on it are available to the public, and 

somehow that doesn't make sense or I'm 

misunderstanding. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: They're both available to 

the public today. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think he's asking were they 

available --

 DR. MELIUS: Were they available a week ago -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: They weren't --

 DR. MELIUS: -- when we got them? 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- weren't marked pre-decisional 

at that time, was the question. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'm just... 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, they weren't stamped pre-
-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

53 

decisional. You weren't cautioned to -- to 

control their -- their distribution. They were 

 DR. ZIEMER: Were they intended to be -- 

 DR. MELIUS: It came by e-mail, if I recall. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They came on an e-mail. 

 DR. MELIUS: Came in e-mail. I'm just trying 

to understand the policy. I'm not -- you know 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, I --

 DR. MELIUS: And so the policy would be that 

your comment --

 MR. ELLIOTT: This was NIOSH's position on what 

we reviewed. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but -- it seems to me 

there's a disconnect here. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think the -- the conundrum is 

is that your technical support contractor's 

document is a pre-decisional work product for 

the Board. We didn't consider NIOSH's -- we 

provided comment and clarification on technical 

and factual accuracy to your contractor. They 

either chose or chose not to incorporate that, 

and we felt it necessary to provide our -- our 

comments for clarification to the Board in your 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

discussion and your deliberation. The 

conundrum is is theirs come out as predecisional; ours did not. I understand that. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It is confusing. I do know that. 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, we can talk more -- more 

about it in specific -- I'm just trying to -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, the issue probably would be 

that the NIOSH document reveals the content 

basically of the other one by identifying the 

issues. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Like the Board, we're working 

through this process trying to figure out how 

it should work or how it won't work, and so we 

welcome your comments and your input on that. 

 DR. MELIUS: Well, then let's talk about it. I 

mean my comments are input and it's been 

expressed before is that the comments from our 

Board -- from our contractor to the Board, 

their review, should be a public document at 

the time that it is made available to the 

Board. Given that, you know, NIOSH accepts 

comments from the general public or from 

technical people on site profiles, you have an 

ongoing process for -- for doing that, given, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

you know, the -- what we witnessed in this 

case, a public perception that somehow because 

we were -- or you were -- NIOSH, the government 

was withholding this document that, you know, 

it was secret or there's something that 

shouldn't be shared with the public and so 

forth. You're now making it available at this 

meeting. It seems to me that it's no reason -- 

there's no Privacy Act -- there's other reason 

-- there's no reason that it shouldn't be made 

available to the public, posted on your web 

site at the time it is provided to us. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I have to disagree with 

that. There was Privacy Act information that 

had to be pulled, so that document would have 

been held at least until it could go through 

review by our privacy officer. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we should -- you should 

have this discussion during your work session 

and after the site profile review. I think 

that's when it's best held. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Tony, comment? 

 DR. ANDRADE: A very quick comment on that 

particular situation. It's standard business 

practice out in the real world that documents 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

are generally held, not as private doc-- not as 

secret or classified in any such sense, but 

documents having -- that are still being 

massaged for technical accuracy are held until 

both agencies usually come to some consensus 

position on what the final set of findings, 

what the final set of comments are. This --

this just goes across the board and it -- I 

mean this is both -- this happens both in 

business and -- and in the government, so I 

don't -- I disagree from that point of view, as 

well, insofar as just general availability of -

- of raw information and comments being made 

available that can be misused in a political 

manner; it could be misused in a business 

manner, and I think that would be detrimental 

to the work of the Board, and so I think we 

should keep that in mind. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's save the debate on this 

issue till our work session and focus on this 

report for the moment. We will definitely have 

this as a topic for our work session. 

Let me ask for other general questions here for 

Laurie. 

 (No responses) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

If not, thank you very much, Laurie. 

MS. ISHAK: Thank you. 

STATUS AND OUTREACH - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 DR. ZIEMER: I want to ask -- is Shelby here? 

Shelby Hall-- yeah, Shelby, you show up on the 

agenda as having an hour presentation. We're 

probably a little early for our break. Is your 

presentation going to take a full hour? 

MR. HALLMARK: Only if there are extensive 

questions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we're not going to guarantee 

the extensive questions part. Why don't you 

proceed with your -- with your presentation and 

if we need to take a break mid-term, we will. 

But I think we might as well go ahead here. 

Status and outreach, Department of Labor. 

MR. HALLMARK: Good morning -- is this live? 

Okay, I'm going to try to get organized here. 

My first call from Washington was at 6:30 this 

morning, so I'm not entirely organized. I have 

a Blackberry for the first time, and it's not a 

good thing. 

Just to give you a very quick overview of where 

we are with the Department of Labor, and then 

hopefully we will have time for questions, as 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

you know, unlike HHS's situation, we do still 

have a Secretary of Labor and so we're moving 

ahead. Ms. Chao in fact is on record as 

indicating that one of the reasons why she is 

staying on at Labor is to pursue the work 

involved with EEOICPA, and we take that as very 

important and helpful in this context. 

We see Part B of EEOICPA as being now fully 

established and reaching maturity, after a long 

-- relatively long period of time of 

development, as cases are now flowing through 

the system. We recently passed, a week or two 

ago, the $1 billion mark in total benefits paid 

under Part B, which as we know in Washington 

means we're up to serious money now. 

We're continuing to pursue improvements in Part 

B. As I said, we're now into the full-fledged 

processing of cases under dose reconstruction. 

We're continuing our outreach with regard to 

individuals who still may not be clear about 

their eligibility under Part B, or not fully 

understood the program. 

 And we're also working on trying to move 

medical bill payments for eligible claimants 

into our funding stream. Many people who have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

been approved and are eligible to receive 100 

percent first dollar medical payments still are 

not having those bills flow through our system. 

They were being paid under private insurance or 

under a combination of insurance and Medicare, 

and that often we believe continues to be the 

case, and we're interested in making sure that 

the payment streams are appropriate and we are 

supposed to be the first payor in this 

instance. 

Let me see if I can find out how to use this 

machine, I'll see if I can move along here. 

(Pause) 

There we go. So what we have here is the 

general data with respect to our claimant 

situation and -- I seem to have lost this 

document; no, here it is -- 60,000 cases in 

hand so far, so it's a fairly large program 

already. And you see here a listing of the 

types of conditions that have been claimed. 

Obviously these add up to more than 60,000 

because multiple conditions can be claimed, but 

I think that the interesting number here at the 

bottom of non-covered conditions, we -- as I've 

mentioned to the Board in previous 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

presentations, especially at the outset, the 

program received a lot of claims under Part B 

which were truly Part D claims. They were 

claims for conditions other than radiationinduced cancer, beryllium or silicosis for 

miners. And that has now started to dwindle 

and we expect obviously as we get started under 

Part E, which I'll talk about in a moment, that 

that problem will be resolved because we will 

be receiving claims for EEOICPA and it will 

determine under which of the two parts the case 

should be applied -- or both. 

I've shown this slide and Pete Turcic -- who is 

in the audience this morning and who I'll be 

calling on if anybody asks me really tough 

questions -- has shown to you before, this 

breakout of where we are in the various claims 

situations. I mentioned 60,000 claims. When 

you count that in terms of cases, cases being 

individual workers; claims being potentially 

multiple survivors of workers, that's why 

there's a difference in the numbers, 44,000 

total cases in the door since (sic) November 

25th, 27,000 of them completed to final 

decision. And then there's -- the other 17,000 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

are in these three statuses on the left here, 

about 4,000 or 5,000 that are pending within 

the Department of Labor process. So we feel 

this is a -- we're moving along very quickly. 

NIOSH is moving now and as discussed just in 

the previous presentation, moving to resolve 

the ones that are pending with them. But it's 

where the bulk of our 40 percent or so that are 

unresolved. 

We received about 10,000 claims -- or cases 

this year, and so that accounts for the numbers 

that are in the unresolved status, except for 

the backlog in dose reconstruction. 

 Final decisions are broken out here by approval 

on the left and denied on the right, and then 

the denials are broken out by reasons for 

denials. Again, our -- I think it's 

interesting to note that our approval rate is 

still very high, about 40 percent. The reasons 

for the denials are -- we've talked about 

before and I think this also reflects the 

maturity of the program. As we started out in 

early days, the second bar there -- I guess 

that's purple; I don't know, I'm color blind. 

The second bar is denials based on the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

individual having not one of the Part B covered 

conditions, and as I said, early on we got a 

lot of claims that were -- really came in the 

wrong door. They were Part D claims that came 

to us, and so we were simply denying them as 

not being one of the three covered conditions. 

That -- that now has dwindled -- as a 

percentage it's still 50 percent of our total 

denials, but the others, which are the sort of 

more substantive denials -- the person was not 

a covered employee under the program, the 

survivor is not one of those who's eligible 

under the program, or they weren't able to 

mount sufficient medical evidence to prove the 

case, and then the last one is the specific 

instance where the NIOSH POC number is less 

than 50 percent. Those are the more 

substantive kinds of denials, and they now 

represent 50 percent of the denials. Earlier 

they were less than a third when we've talked 

about this. That number -- that percentage 

obviously is going to grow as the program 

becomes more clear. 

And let's see here, we have -- where are we 

with regard to the NIOSH referrals. We've 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

gotten back, as Heidi (sic) and Larry were 

explaining this morning, about 5,600 -- we 

never can quite reconcile this number because 

of the puts and takes and the backs and forths 

and the time periods, but it's a good -- in 

that general area, and a few of them that have 

come back to us have been situations were a 

dose reconstruction was not even required. We 

may have sent it to NIOSH in error, for 

example. And of those 5,600 or 5,700 cases, we 

have acted on approximately -- roughly 5,000 

with a recommended decision which is in our 

district office. And as you see here, the 

approval rate is roughly 20 percent, which is -

- we have found that to be higher approval rate 

than we really expected, and I think when this 

program was getting started back in 2000 or 

even before 2000 when it was in gestation, what 

we were hearing from DOE in terms of 

expectations was that the percentage of 

approvals of dose reconstruction cases, as 

opposed to just all the other types of cases 

where we don't go to NIOSH, would be very low, 

that it would be under ten percent. In fact, I 

recall DOE estimated it as one or two percent 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

as being the likely outcome in terms of their 

expectation of what people's exposure might 

have been. 

We don't know that this is a mature approval 

rate, and Larry may be able to answer more 

questions about the degree to which the 5,600, 

5,700 that have been completed now represent an 

adequate sample of the full environment. But 

still, 20 percent is probably an indicator from 

our perspective that the claimant-favorable 

aspect of the NIOSH process is in fact working. 

And you go down to the last bullet here, now 

the final decision -- our -- we have a twostage adjudication process. Final decisions -- 

actually the approval ratio there is a little 

higher, but that's probably because more of 

those cases are in the appeal process and have 

not yet come to closure. 

And at the last bullet we're showing $140-plus 

million have been paid to people who have gone 

through the dose reconstruction process, which 

again, as I indicated, indicates that while 

this process has taken a while to get going, it 

is now moving ahead and it is a functioning 

program. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

This just gives you a little indication of how 

our adjudication process works and some of the 

rights that claimants have under our final 

decision process. The Final Adjudication 

Branch is within Pete Turcic's operation, but 

it operates as a separate new pair of eyes to 

look at the case. And the claimant has a right 

to ask for an oral hearing, which will be held 

near their place of residence; they can ask for 

a review of the written record; or they can 

waive their objections, typically what they 

would do if the case has been approved at the 

recommended decision level so that you can in 

effect move on quickly to the payment status. 

With respect to our FAB process of reviewing 

cases that have been through NIOSH dose 

reconstruction, which I think is of particular 

interest to the Board, we do review those cases 

very carefully with respect to the factual 

material that has been addressed in the dose 

reconstruction report, and with regard to the 

application of the methodology that NIOSH -- 

that we've -- that we understand is NIOSH's 

process. We don't, or we try not to, evaluate 

the methodology itself, as laid out in NIOSH's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

procedures and regulations. 

The outcomes of the -- of our reviews are -- 

they could be -- we can affirm -- the FAB 

hearing officer or claims examiner can affirm 

the recommended decision; they can reverse it 

and go the other way; or they can remand it to 

the district office, and in some cases to NIOSH 

for further consideration. 

And taking a little look here about this cohort 

of cases -- first of all, these are all the 

claimant responses to our recommended decisions 

during last fiscal year. So this adds up to a 

total of roughly 11,000 or so. And of those, 

about 1,500 asked for a hearing or a review of 

the written record, which is the sort of 

written equivalent of a hearing. The rest 

either waived their objections or didn't 

respond, which is I think an indication that 

there's a fairly good acceptance -- that's 

about 12 percent asked for an appeal, in 

effect. So that, to us, suggests that there's 

a fairly good acceptance of the process of 

adjudication at the district office level as 

it's playing out. 

 The hearing requested -- this -- this gives you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

a rather complex chart here by quarter of 

hearings requested and conducted. I guess that 

shows -- demonstrates that the requests have 

gone up a little bit during the past four 

quarters, and we're catching up on those. I 

don't think it represents a big backlog. We 

expected our hearing requests to go up as more 

dose reconstruction cases came through the 

system. They're more complicated, they're more 

susceptible to -- to dispute or for factual 

questions. 

This is the same chart with respect to reviews 

of the record, so that's just a different 

avenue of appeal. And again you see a slight 

increase over the four quarters in the number 

of requests, and we're still catching up. 

Again, we are doing well in terms of our 

timeliness goals and meeting the -- moving 

those cases through. 

Now I think this is a particularly interesting 

slide for the Board in terms of your evaluation 

of how dose reconstruction cases are faring 

when they come back to DOL and are being 

evaluated in our process. Now I think we're 

still kind of working on these data here, so I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

think they are approximate, but I will talk a 

little bit about this if I can. First of all, 

the 631 at the top there of total remands with 

respect to cases that have been through the 

NIOSH process, that means the case went through 

NIOSH, got to our final adjudication board in 

the context of some sort of review by final -- 

by the FAB, and ended up going back to the 

district office for one reason or another. As 

you see, that includes 120 cases that were 

approved, and on review by our FAB examiner we 

decided that there was a problem with it and 

sent it back to the district office. Some of 

those have been approved finally anyway, and 

others are still in the process, as you see 

there, the 46 final approvals. 

The majority, however, are cases that were 

recommended for denial at the district office 

level, so -- and typically there was going to 

be a hearing or review of the record on those. 

And during that process we found a need to send 

the case back to the district office. And most 

of those that are shown here are pending the -- 

still pending a final decision because they've 

gone back for one reason or another. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

Now one thing I'd want to say about that, 

that's all the possible reasons for remand, so 

the remand may have been -- had nothing to do 

with NIOSH's process, the dose reconstruction. 

It may simply have been that the district 

office erred in one fashion or another in 

compiling their recommended decision. I 

believe -- and Pete will correct me if I'm 

wrong, but I believe the number of cases that 

have actually been remanded from FAB decisions 

to NIOSH -- in other words, we found in looking 

at the case that the NIOSH report had failed, 

in our view, to address some factual issue, or 

some new factual information had been raised 

such as an employment period which our 

adjudicator felt was sufficiently documented 

that we felt it needed to go back for NIOSH to 

expand their review. Those cases that I've 

just -- that category is less than 200 in our 

estimation. Larry may have a better feel about 

that. Again, getting exact counts is difficult 

between the two agencies, but in the 

neighborhood of 200. And I suggest to you that 

out of 5,700 cases that we've looked at, if 

we've had to send 200 of them back to NIOSH for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

reasons which could include either an error in 

their application or a failure to see a piece 

of information and develop it completely, or 

the introduction of new information at our 

hearing, is a pretty good indicator that we're 

not way off mark here. Obviously if that -- if 

that number were very much higher because 

errors were coming out in this process, it 

would be something that would be of interest, I 

think to all of us. 

Here's just a quick description of the types of 

cases -- of issues that we have found and sent 

back in that category of 200. I don't have 

data here -- I would like to have had this, but 

we weren't able to capture this from our 

computer system. We'll try to do better in 

future presentations to you. Informa-- but 

here are the categories. Information provided 

in the interview but not addressed in the NIOSH 

report, that's -- that's a category of things 

that we've seen; exposure from ingestion not 

addressed; an incident -- a specific incident 

that's been identified, not addressed -- again, 

that may or may not -- that could have been one 

that was in the dose reconstruction report and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

not addressed in its findings, or it could have 

been something new that was raised by the 

claimant; unmonitored dose treated as missed 

dose, and this is an issue I think was talked 

about a little bit yesterday, just a procedural 

error; and an inappropriate cancer model used. 

Those are -- and again, not very many of those 

kinds of issues found. 

Now moving on here to our recent additions in 

the world of EEOICPA, and you've heard already 

from Heidi (sic) about the 2005 Defense 

Authorization bill which created a new program 

for the Department of Labor. It abolishes the 

old Part D program which DOE had been 

responsible for administering, which was a 

state worker's comp assistance program, and 

creates a whole new program, Part E, which is a 

Federal entitlement -- similar, but not exactly 

like Part B -- to be administered by the 

Department of Labor. And as -- as Heidi (sic) 

mentioned, makes some relatively narrow changes 

to Part B, as well. 

Just to give you a brief overview of what we're 

looking at in Part E, it's similar to Part D in 

certain major respects. It covers the DOE 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

facility employee cadre not AWEs and beryllium 

vendors. It covers any illness due to toxic 

exposure, not just the nuclear weapons-related 

ones which are the Part B focus. Survivors are 

eligible if the death of the employee was 

caused or contributed to, which is language 

that comes from the old Part D and is carried 

over as such. And the survivor definition is 

the traditional definition of who's eligible in 

worker's comp, in general. That is, spouses or 

-- or typically your dependent children, 

children who were under the age of 18 or 

thereabouts at the death of the employee. And 

so that's different -- that's like Part D, 

because it was the state worker's comp program, 

but not like Part B, because the definition of 

survivor under Part B is the expansive 

definition that Congress gave which includes 

adult children. 

And to take the other side of the coin, the new 

Part E is different from Part D in that the 

benefits are Federal. This is a Federal 

entitlement program, like Part B in that sense. 

It's not a ticket to get help in the states. 

We have impairment and wage loss benefits 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

available for -- for living employees, and lump 

sum entitlements for survivors. There is a 

Part B-like adjudicatory process. In other 

words, the physician panels that were set up 

for the Part D program to be run by the 

Department of Energy are no longer required, 

which helps in terms of the efficiency and 

speed of the program. 

Part B approval is equal to Part D approval. 

think that's actually backwards. A Part D 

approval from one of the physician panels 

that's already looked at a case under the DOE 

process is automatically grandfathered into 

Part E eligibility. Also individuals who are 

eligible under Part B, as in boy, are 

automatically eligible under Part E, the new 

program, so -- and that is important to the 

claimant population in that if I received 

$150,000 under Part B, I'm also eligible to 

receive benefits under Part E, and there's no 

off-set between those two, so that's a -- 

that's an important facet of the new program. 

 The Congress added eligibility under Part E for 

uranium miners and transporters and millers. 

They were not eligible under the old Part D 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

program. They are now eligible under Part E. 

And there's an Ombudsman office -- Richard, 

where are you? There you are. There's an 

Ombudsman office to help individuals and to 

assist the Secretary in implementing the 

program, and the Secretary's Office is pursuing 

that. That's a new provision. 

 We're working on implementing Part E as hard as 

we can, which is why I got a call at 6:30 this 

morning. And we are working very closely with 

the Department of Energy to transition the 

25,000 claims they had pending as of the 

passage of this statute over from them to us. 

And there's a very cooperative and smooth 

transition going on right now, I'm glad to 

report. In fact, we already have in hand 

somewhere upwards of 18,000 of those cases, 

Pete, is that about right? 

 MR. TURCIC: About 16. 

MR. HALLMARK: Sixteen? All right. So most 

cases are in our hands already, and the rest in 

many cases are either still being reviewed 

under the Part D panels that are still in 

operation, or are not in urgent status. 

 We're already developing those cases under Part 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

E. We are working to implement regulations, as 

the last bullet here shows. They're required 

by May of 2005 under the statute, but in the 

meantime we're working on the cases now so 

there won't be any kind of hiatus between the 

hand-over. And we are planning to conduct 

outreach under Part E, another round of town 

hall meetings as we did back in 2001 to let 

people know about this new program, which is a 

substantial change, as you can understand from 

my brief presentation here, so that people know 

-- those who have already filed Part D claims 

will know that they're now going to be 

processed under Part E; that people who have 

not filed under Part D can figure out how to do 

that and give full information about that. 

And we are now, by the way, in full response -- 

running the resource centers ourselves by the 

Department of Labor. As Leon knows, this was a 

joint effort with Department of Energy and 

Labor from the inception back in '01. Now we 

have both sides of the house and so we'll be 

running those offices around the country and 

using them as a means of outreach, as well. 

I think Heidi's (sic) talked a little bit about 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

the changes that the legislation has made with 

regard to Part E -- B -- B as in boy, I'm sorry 

-- the major piece being, of course, that the 

window for covered employment at AWE sites has 

been expanded to include not just the period of 

time that the AWE was working on DOE activity, 

but any additional period of time that NIOSH 

has designated as having significant contin-- 

continuing contamination. That -- we -- that -

- that -- an individual previously had to have 

worked during the contract period with DOE. 

Now they can have started work after that 

contract was over, but during the contamination 

period. 

There's also a requirement in the statute that 

NIOSH go back and do further studies. I know 

Larry's anxious to do that. I think by 2006, 

is that correct, Larry? And as we've already 

discussed, there are deadlines with respect to 

SEC petitions that we don't need to go into 

here. And I think that is the end of my 

slides. I'm sure as -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's open the 

floor for questions for Shelby. 

MR. HALLMARK: There were just a couple more -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

before we do that --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- there were a couple of 

comments that I wanted to make in addition to 

what was covered in the slides that came up as 

a result of our conversation yesterday, and one 

of them was that Dr. -- Dr. Wade mentioned that 

the budget process for NIOSH, and ultimately to 

support the Board, is related to the Department 

of Labor, and I just wanted to explain a little 

bit for the Board's information how that works, 

and the -- in fact Dr. Wade was correct. Every 

-- all the money that NIOSH and HHS receive to 

administer the EEOICPA program is appropriated 

to the Department of Labor and then transferred 

to NIOSH. We of course get it from OMB and 

Congress in an appropriation process. 

 In the context of the discussion that was held 

yesterday, I think it's important to note that 

the appropriations process is -- for nondefense, non-homeland security agencies, is not 

rosy at the present moment. And I think it's 

important for the Board to consider that fact 

in its deliberations about how it proceeds and 

how it -- what it recommends that NIOSH should 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

do with respect to funding its contractor. 

We received a substantial rescission in our 

2005 budget. A rescission is, for those of you 

who are not government wonks (sic), is removal 

of monies that had already been appropriated. 

And we expect that 2006 is going to be a less 

favorable year than 2005, so I would just again 

caution that in considering recommendations 

with respect to contractor activity that that 

scarcity environment be taken into account. 

NIOSH is obliged, under the circumstances, to 

make decisions that are -- that will maximize 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the funds, 

and I would suggest that, for example, in the 

discussion yesterday about an iterative process 

with the contractor to come to closure on 

evaluations of the dose reconstruction, that 

the Board think in terms of making that process 

work efficiently and with as few iterations as 

possible so that in fact you can get it done 

and achieve the results that you're looking 

for. That's comment number one. 

 The comment number two is regarding the -- 

sort of the general process issue, and as 

Department of Labor's the chief consumer, if 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

you will, of the dose reconstruction process, 

and so we're very interested in how the Board 

goes about its responsibility to evaluate that 

product and make sure that it's the best it can 

be. And we appreciated the discussion 

yesterday and the outcome. I think that one 

point that I think would be very important for 

the Board to consider in categorizing and 

characterizing any comments that are -- that 

are generated with respect to the dose 

reconstruction process, is that documents like 

that are going to be viewed by our claimant 

population from the perspective of how the 

evaluation of the process impacts on the 

ultimate yes/no claimant outcome. And as one 

of the few non-doctors in the room yesterday I 

was fascinated by the discussion that went on 

with respect to the evaluation that SC&A has 

done of dose reconstruction. But it occurs to 

me, and I think from our perspective it's 

something that the Board ought to keep close in 

mind, is that its products are going to be 

viewed from this perspective of is my dose 

reconstruction that I received from NIOSH 

fundamentally sound; did I get the right yes or 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

no call. In pursuit of the scientific 

excellence and precision that is part of the 

responsibility of the Board, to try to make 

that process better I think it's important that 

the -- there's -- there's a categorization of 

the comments such that the public can decide 

whether this is -- the recommendation is one 

that is important to make our process more 

clear and more precise, or if it's really 

fundamental and we're -- NIOSH is making 

mistakes, if you will, fundamental mistakes 

about whether this is a yes or a no. So I 

really think that's an important comment to 

make. 

So with that, any questions? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We'll begin with Rich. 

MR. ESPINOSA: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: Use your mike there. 

MR. ESPINOSA: With the number and types of 

claims I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown 

by site and by illness in concerns of Subtitle 

E and B. And I'd also like to know if there's 

any efforts being made on doing a -- basically 

a site profile for toxins and stuff under 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

Subtitle E. 

MR. HALLMARK: Okay. A breakdown under Part -- 

your -- your question is a breakdown of the 

data that we're showing here with respect to 

sites --

MR. ESPINOSA: Site and illness. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- and conditions? All right. 

That kind of material can be pulled together, I 

believe. 

MR. ESPINOSA: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) for future report. 

 DR. ZIEMER: For future reports Rich is 

suggesting that would be helpful. 

MR. HALLMARK: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Not necessarily right now. Right? 

Thank you. 

MR. HALLMARK: And with respect to Part E and 

site profiles, we do have a -- part of the 

legislation points the Department of Labor to 

doing something along those lines, and we do 

have a -- that's part of our implementation 

plan that we're working on right now to develop 

as much information as we can about the kinds 

of exposures that were experienced on all the 

different sites, and to codify that in ways 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

that will -- that will speed the process. So 

yes, we are -- we do have a site profile 

process for Part E, as well. 

MR. ESPINOSA: And as for -- with concerns to 

your outreach, has there been any schedule 

implemented on going out to the sites and town 

hall meetings and stuff like that? 

MR. HALLMARK: We are working on a schedule. 

We don't have -- we don't have an approved 

schedule yet, Richard. The expectation is that 

as soon as possible after the new year, we'll 

get started and we'll probably announce a -- 

you know, once we're able to put it in motion, 

we'll probably announce that, at least a number 

of those events in a single announcement. 

MR. ESPINOSA: Once you get it in motion, how 

are you going to -- how is the information 

going to be delivered to -- you know, how are 

you going to notify the communities of your 

outreach? 

MR. HALLMARK: Well, we -- as in the past with 

respect to actual town hall meetings, we will 

have a sort of a blitz of information. We 

contact media outlets, we -- obviously we work 

with the Congressional delegation in a given 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

site, and obvi-- our resource centers and a 

whole matrix of information goes out so that we 

get as much notice in that particular area as 

we can in advance of the event. But we also 

plan lots of other means of informing the 

public. We already have some information up on 

our web site. We'll be expanding that. We 

expect to issue a letter to all of the 25,000 

Part D existing claimant community explaining 

the new program and that we will be further in 

touch with them. And by the way, people who 

have filed under Part D as in dog do not have 

to file a new claim. It will automatically be 

treated as a claim under Part E. So we'll be 

communicating directly with them with -- 

through our web site and in as many other ways 

as we can to get the word out. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler. 

DR. ROESSLER: My question has to do with your 

slide 12 where you discussed -- that's too 

close -- what happens when DOE -- maybe that's 

it, I got feedback -- when DOL gets the NIOSH 

decision and then you have people who go over 

the decision, what technical qualifications do 

these people have and how much time do they 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

actually spend on each -- each review? 

MR. HALLMARK: Well, our claims examiners and 

hearing representatives are not health 

physicists, that's -- that's certain, although 

we do have a health physicist or two -- 

including Jeffrey Kotsch back here in our 

audience -- to help inform them and to give 

them guidance. We rely on a procedural 

framework that informs the claims examiner as 

to the issues they need to focus on. For 

example, as is pointed out in the slide, are 

there factual issues that are mentioned in the 

dose reconstruction -- or that the claimant has 

brought forth evidence to us afterwards -- 

which are not addressed in the conclusions and 

findings of the dose reconstruction report. 

Now they won't try to -- we don't have the 

basis for saying these are -- these are 

necessarily significant or they would change 

the outcome. But if they haven't been 

addressed, that would be the basis for us going 

back and saying that NIOSH needs to evaluate 

their report again. Obviously if the employee 

has indicated an employment period which we 

credit that's outside of what NIOSH has used as 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

the basis for their dose reconstruction, then 

that would need to be re-evaluated. As I say, 

these are -- so they're sort of procedurallydefined categories which do not require our 

claims examiner to make a scientific judgment, 

simply that there is an issue that has -- has 

been raised that we credit and which was not 

addressed in the report itself. But as I say, 

the number of cases that fall into that 

category has been less than 200 to date. 

 (Tape difficulties) 

THE COURT REPORTER: Would you mind starting 

over with your question? 

 DR. DEHART: I don't even remember what I said, 

but I'll try. 

As you recall, under the Part D there was a 

physician panel which addressed the issue of 

diagnosis and causation. I understand that 

that will not be envisioned in the Part E as 

under the Department of Labor. How do you 

intend to address causation and its 

relationship to the disease? As you may well 

know, we are seeing all kinds of medical 

ailments -- such as stroke, heart attack, high 

blood pressure, diabetes, et cetera -- from 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

claimants, and it becomes somewhat difficult in 

dealing with making a causation statement when 

we're dealing with chemical toxicity, which is 

the majority of the claims, although radiation 

is also considered as a toxin under this issue. 

MR. HALLMARK: Well, we -- we view the new 

structure in Part E as beneficial, and 

especially in terms of the promptness of the 

program. One of the major difficulties of the 

panel structure -- which was set up for reasons 

which perhaps -- it probably made sense in 

terms of the program as it was designed for 

Part D, but which we think is probably 

excessively time-consuming under Part E. We do 

-- we do -- we will retain the causation 

standard that was enunciated in the regulations 

for Part D, which is cause contributed to 

aggravated -- which is a broader standard and a 

lower bar to achieve than some worker's comps 

programs normally apply. 

How would we get there and how do we address 

this difficulty of trying to connect conditions 

to difficult -- or not necessarily obvious 

exposure situations? I think that would run 

the whole gamut of all medical kinds of issues, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

and that's something we have a lot of 

experience in other programs of doing. There 

may be cases which are particularly complex 

where, as we have done in the past in other 

programs, we need to call together multiple 

physicians, you know, from different 

disciplinary groups to address a particular 

case which we consider to be particularly 

knotty. 

So in asking -- basically the way we will do 

business is the claims examiner will obtain 

information through evaluations that are -- 

that are done by physicians, and then use that 

evidence to make their determination. If the 

evaluation is -- needs to be complex and we 

need to in effect have a panel of experts, then 

that's what we'll do. If the medical evidence 

that's submitted by the claimant from their 

treating physician is sufficient to make that 

causal connection, then we're able to say yes, 

it is, and go on about our business. So it's 

that range of possibility that we think makes 

this structure more efficient and prompt in 

terms of the way we'll be able to get this 

program done. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I've got a few questions. 

First of all, I guess I would advise a little 

bit of caution in using -- saying that -- I 

think the 20 percent claimant payment rate for 

-- or positivity rate, whatever you want to 

call it for -- for claims is above expectations 

based on DOE's expectations. Maybe you can't 

say it, but I can. I mean their performance in 

this whole program has not been -- has been far 

from ideal, and I'm just not sure what we can -

- can say much, based on, you know, whatever 

the rate of people getting -- meeting the 

definition in terms of probability of causation 

isn't -- and also particularly based on how 

NIOSH has approached this so far. There's 

still -- you know, again, of the first 1,000 

claims, 400 or so still haven't even been -- 

gone through the entire process, so we really 

don't know what the ultimate -- 

MR. HALLMARK: No, I agree --

 DR. MELIUS: -- number was --

MR. HALLMARK: -- and just as a caveat, I'm 

referring back to the initial process, back 

when we were trying to estimate the cost of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

program in 1999/2000, the estimations that were 

being generated at that time, not -- not -- 

nothing with respect to the interim. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I just think it's 

very -- that was very hard projections to do -- 

MR. HALLMARK: And I would agree that we don't 

know --

 DR. MELIUS: -- that's all. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- if this percentage is going 

to alter over time. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, so whether it's claimantfriendly or how people are filing claims or 

whatever, there's just a lot of factors in 

there. 

Secondly, to follow up on Gen's question, I 

think it would be useful if you could come back 

to us with some sort of analysis of the remands 

and -- and issues that you are discovering 

during your review of these cases in some sort 

of a statistical -- you know, proportional sort 

of way, just to give us a better idea of what's 

going on. 

Also I think -- you know, we have our dose 

reconstruction review process. It's focused 

differently, appropriately -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

MR. HALLMARK: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- but I think they can -- it can 

inform -- your process can inform what we do 

and so forth and avoid duplication and 

misunderstanding, and I think you've got enough 

cases now that it would be helpful, you know, 

again, and -- to us and I think maybe to you, 

too, in terms of this process. So if possible 

by our next meeting or the meeting thereafter, 

I think it would be helpful. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me insert here, that may apply 

particularly to slide -- the information on 

slide 12, which were a number of categories. 

It would be of interest, I think, to know what 

you're finding there. 

MR. HALLMARK: Absolutely, and I -- in fact, I 

tried to get that, but our computer system 

wasn't nimble enough to gather that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: In the future that would be good 

information. 

 DR. MELIUS: Those that are due to new 

information -- okay, that's separate, but 

there's others where there may be issues that -

- I just think it would be helpful to the 

process. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

I noticed in NIOSH's slide that the number of 

claims under Subpart B has gone down recently, 

and would your expectations be that, as part of 

your outreach and part of this new and more 

claimant-friendly Subpart E, that the number of 

claims would be going up again, or -- any idea 

on -- any thoughts on that? 

MR. HALLMARK: The number of Part B as in boy 

claims has -- after obviously the peak in the 

first two years -- has declined. But it's been 

relatively steady. It hasn't -- there hasn't 

been a precipitous or continuing decline. It's 

stayed around 12,000 over the last year or two, 

so we haven't seen a -- as much -- actually as 

much of a tailing-off as we really expected. 

My anticipation is that as we do the outreach 

for Part E, and obviously -- it's now -- we're 

going to be viewing this in the future as one 

integrated program which has two different 

eligibility streams, which are in fact interrelated. But as we do that outreach, we will -

- we expect to see more Part B claims 

generated, as well as obviously we expect to 

see many more Part E claims. So we expect that 

trend to continue, and I -- and I expect that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

will also result in some increase in the number 

of transfers to NIOSH. 

 Now that number has been kind of dwindling down 

into the, you know, 70's, 80's a week or less, 

recently. But you know, I think it could -- it 

could inch back up again. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Comment? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we should also anticipate 

that we're going to see an increase in claims 

under the residual period aspect, too -- 

MR. HALLMARK: Correct. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and I just think that as we 

look at that we want to make sure that we 

communicate clearly and appropriately that in 

many cases, for different types of cancer, the 

residual alone may not result in a compensable 

dose reconstruction, but we anticipate we'll 

see more claims coming from that venue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What will the impact of that be on 

claims that have already been processed? Are 

there a number that you're going to have to go 

back with that expanded time period and -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- rework? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we will be looking -- as our 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

rule requires, we will re-evaluate those cases 

that have already been processed and determine 

whether or not there's a change in 

compensability based upon revised dose 

reconstructions. 

MR. HALLMARK: I don't -- I'm not sure that 

that's -- I think I have to take exception. My 

understanding of cases that we have sent to 

NIOSH, insofar as we have so far sent a AWE 

case to NIOSH, the person had to have worked 

during the contract period. Okay? If they 

worked during the contract period, then NIOSH 

was obliged to count, for the dose 

reconstruction, the contract period exposure 

and any exposure during the radiation tail for 

-- contamination period for that individual. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So that would have already been 

covered. 

MR. HALLMARK: So that -- so assuming they've 

done that properly, that would -- that would be 

correct. If the individual's employment 

started after the contract period, in the 

contamination period --

 DR. ZIEMER: It wouldn't have previously been 

submitted. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

MR. HALLMARK: -- we would have deemed that to 

be a non-covered employee and so if we were 

following our procedure correctly, it never 

would have gotten to NIOSH. 

Now there are -- my recollection is we know of 

300 cases that we denied because their 

employment fell outside of the window. Those 

300 cases we need to go back and look at and 

possibly determine whether we should go ahead 

and send them to NIOSH. Some of those 300 may 

be people who did not work during a 

contamination period, either, but we -- those 

are things that we'll have to decide. But that 

will -- and obviously then there would be more 

claims that will come in, as Dr. Melius is 

suggesting, from people who worked during those 

contamination periods and that will generate 

more work in the Part B stream for NIOSH, but I 

think -- it's important to know that those 

which have gone to NIOSH have been fully 

treated to our -- under the procedures to date. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to get Mark, and then 

jump back. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Actually one was to follow onto 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

Gen and then Jim on that dose review reports. 

I think -- I agree, an analysis would be useful 

on that. 

Also you mentioned a procedure that you use to 

do the reviews, and I think -- I don't know if 

that's on the web somewhere or if that's 

written up somehow. That may be just a useful 

tool to look at. I'm not sure it's -- 

MR. HALLMARK: I think -- I think all our 

procedures are available through our web site 

and so I would point you to the dol.com -- 

.gov, not com. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's great. 

MR. HALLMARK: I wish I got a percentage of 

this. 

 MR. GRIFFON: The next question I had was I 

noticed in the Bethlehem Steel site profile, in 

NIOSH's comments -- actually DOL commented on 

the site profile review, as well, and I was 

wondering if -- if this is part of your 

function -- I mean in terms of -- these DR 

reviews, I was interested in the analysis on 

that. Are you doing -- do you have an ongoing 

function on reviewing site profiles, or is that 

part of your function? I was -- I wasn't clear 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

that it was, but I --

MR. HALLMARK: Well, we -- as I say, we are the 

ultimate consumer of everything NIOSH does, and 

so we do review their materials. We have 

reviewed the iterations of site profiles over 

time and -- and provided comments back to NIOSH 

on those TBD documents and so on. It's our --

our sense is, obviously, that we -- that since 

we have to adjudicate cases under the -- under 

the results of the NIOSH process, that we have 

a stake and an interest in trying to make those 

as good as possible, just as -- as does the 

Board. So that's -- that's where we're coming 

from in that regard and I -- you know, I -- I 

think that's been a profitable process. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So is this sort of on a request 

basis or would -- or is this an ongoing -- are 

you -- and are the DOL review comments 

available through the OCAS web site? I mean 

are they all rolled into the reports we'll find 

on the OCAS web site or... 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They -- it is an ongoing process. 

All of our site profiles, as Shelby mentioned, 

have been reviewed by DOL. And no, the 

individual comment sheets that we receive, not 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

only from DOL but also from our own technical 

reviewers, are not on the web site, but they 

are accessible to the Board through that -- I 

believe that general database that we keep. Or 

if not, we will make them available. 

 MR. GRIFFON: DOL's are, too? I wasn't aware 

that DOL --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, DOL's are included in the 

com-- we have a comment resolution process that 

we go -- we have a form that is used to track 

all comments and whether or not the comment was 

addressed and how it was addressed. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And the last -- Jim, you can 

finish up, but the last one is on Subtitle E, 

just to follow on with Roy's comment, I was 

curious if -- and I'm not aware of this -- if 

Subtitle E has any setup or provision for an 

independent review of -- of the claims 

processing, sort of like what we -- maybe not 

exactly like what we've got here, but... 

MR. HALLMARK: Not precisely. The ombudsman is 

set up to provide recommendations to the 

Secretary about the general procedure. The way 

that -- it's a claims process and the -- what 

the statute says is that the Department of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

Labor will apply basically the same 

adjudicatory process that we have developed 

under Part B, which as I, you know, indicated 

from the slides seem to indicate it has been 

successfully implemented and received. And the 

statute goes one step further and codifies what 

we had always expected was the case with 

respect to Part B, that there is an access to 

Federal court for individuals who are 

unsatisfied with the outcome in our 

adjudicatory structure. That was our legal 

interpretation of what happens with respect to 

our decisions under B, but it wasn't specific. 

In the new statute it is a specific designation 

of review. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just two other brief 

comments. One is, in terms of your advice in 

terms of being fiscally prudent and given 

what's happened to the deficit, I think we also 

all have to recognize that this has been a 

brand new program starting up, much as NIOSH 

has had to modify its contractor, it's in the 

process of doing that and I think things have 

gone over expectations in terms of -- of how 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

much some of these issues have cost. I think 

that may as well apply to other parts of the 

program, and I think, you know, within the 

Board, I think we just also have to take very 

seriously that whatever money is asked for or 

needed is justifiable, and that gets put 

forward much as I think there's a process 

within NIOSH and other agencies that have been 

working on this process under that. 

MR. HALLMARK: Agreed. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I also have a few questions 

on your comments -- Department of Labor's 

comments on the Bethlehem site profile review. 

If you or Pete are going to be here this 

afternoon, I'd be glad to defer those to this 

afternoon. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't you reserve that for 

that discussion period. 

MR. HALLMARK: We will be here and -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- glad to participate. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Henry? 

DR. ANDERSON: This is just I guess for me to 

know where our review fits in compared to your 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

review, and this is for Larry. The cases that 

-- the individual cases that the Board and our 

contractor has reviewed, is that before, after, 

at the same time as the ones that go to DOL? 

In other words, it appears about ten percent 

are remanded. Are we before or after remand? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Your review is -- from the very 

start of this, your review is on final 

adjudicated cases. They're -- they're out of -

- the decision has been garnered. 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay. 

MR. HALLMARK: Yeah, the remands obviously 

would have -- would cycle back and become -- 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- and receive a final decision 

at a given point, and the sample is from those 

which are past the final -- 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, okay. 

MR. HALLMARK: -- decision. 

DR. ANDERSON: I just wanted to be sure we were 

not -- something was not going on after ours. 

MR. HALLMARK: No, I think that was very 

carefully determined to ensure that we don't 

create -- that your review process doesn't -- 

doesn't create tumbling in the adjudicatory 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

process. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Shelby. 

We're going to continue now, and the 

continuation is a break -- 15 minutes. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:20 a.m. 

to 10:40 a.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to reconvene the meeting, 

please. Before we begin our next topic, Liz 

wants to make one comment regarding some 

previous remarks on the --

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- documents. Yeah. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just wanted to make a -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Clarification. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just wanted to make a 

clarification. When Dr. Melius and I were 

discussing documents that have Privacy Act 

information in them, he was discussing the SC&A 

report on the Bethlehem site profile review. 

There is no Privacy Act information in that 

document, but that still does not mean that 

that document would not go to our privacy 

office and be withheld at least until it was 

reviewed, just as any other document that's 

prepared would go to our Privacy Act office for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

review before it would be -- ever be released. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So I just wanted to clarify 

that. I believe in my answer I indicated -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, when you had talked about 

redacted information, you were -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, I believe I'd 

indicated there was Privacy Act information in 

that, and there was not, and I was corrected on 

that so I wanted to be sure it was on the 

record that there was no Privacy Act 

information in that document, but that they 

would be reviewed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for that 

clarification. 

 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The next item we have is subcommittee report 

and recommendations. This is the subcommittee 

on dose reconstruction, which met yesterday 

morning. Most of the Board members, who are 

also members of the subcommittee, were present 

at that, but I will report to you that the 

subcommittee has recommended -- from a list of 

random -- randomly-selected cases, they have 

recommended 12 cases for review, which is not 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

enough for our next batch of 20, so the 

subcommittee also requested that an additional 

25 randomly-selected cases be provided for us, 

and requested that the full Board assist in 

selecting the other eight cases. 

For the record, I want to identify for the 

Board members -- for the full Board, the 12 

cases that were recommended for the next 

review. There was a 13th case for which the 

vote on whether to carry it forward was tied, 

and we will need to resolve that and I'll 

identify that in a moment, and then we will 

supplement then from the next list of 25 cases 

which carry the I.D. numbers -- the date plus 

26 through 50, and that sheet is being 

distributed to you now. 

Board members, the recommended cases from the 

original list of 25 randomly-selected cases, 

they all carry the prefix 2004-12 and then they 

have the following numerical designations for 

our temporary I.D. here -- cases 1, 2, 3 -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Paul, could you --

 DR. ZIEMER: I'll slow down. 

 DR. MELIUS: We're just getting the handouts 

here. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is the -- yesterday's 

handout, but you may need that. It's in 

horizontal rather than vertical format. 

 DR. MELIUS: Got it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Starting at the top then with -- 

it would I.D. 1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 23 and 25. That's 12 cases. Case number 

9, a Rocky Flats lung cancer case, there was a 

tie vote on whether or not to include that, so 

I'd like to start with that one. We'll 

determine whether to include that. This is 

case number 9 with a probability of causation 

78.8, lung cancer, Rocky Flats, working years 

10.9, work decade 1950. Do you all see the 

case? 

Now we'll use the procedure we used yesterday, 

just to vote it up or down, or abstain. Do we 

have any abstentions on this case? 

 (No responses) 

Okay. Up means you favor carrying it forward. 

Up -- hands up? This was split yesterday, so -

-

DR. ANDERSON: (Off microphone) The explanation 

of what we're doing is (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: What's that? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

DR. ANDERSON: I mean I think when we initially 

voted I think -- then we discussed people's 

reasons for it and --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and you may have changed 

your mind since then, so -- and you have 

another -- you have some additional lists. 

Okay, let me see the hands -- up? 

 (Affirmative indications) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Down? Put your hand up if you're 

voting down. 

 (Negative indications) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it looks like the downs have 

it. 

 You're abstaining? 

 DR. MELIUS: I'm abstaining. Since I missed 

all the confusing discussion, I don't -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: You don't want to add to the 

confusion. 

 DR. MELIUS: I don't know whether I'm up or 

down. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So that case will be 

excluded, also. 

So that means we need to supplement this list 

with eight more cases. Take a moment and look 

over the next list of 25 cases. The 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

subcommittee had indicated the desire to 

include, if possible, cases in the 40 to 49.9 

percent range. I see a couple on here that are 

in that category. I'd just call those to your 

attention as we move down the list. 

Well, as -- yes, and let's take a moment to 

identify facilities on the new list that I -- 

have not already been included. The Iowa 

Ordnance Plant has not appeared on any of our 

lists to date. 

 MS. MUNN: Nor has Paducah -- Paducah or 

Blockson. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are there others here that -- 

Allied, is that a new one? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, that's a new one. 

 MS. MUNN: So is Livermore. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And Livermore, yeah. 

 MS. MUNN: Iowa, Livermore, Blockson and 

Paducah -- and Allied. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Blockson we have had. 

 DR. MELIUS: One. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Paducah and K-25 I think are both 

-- K-25's been listed before, but along with Y12, so it's --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

 MR. GRIFFON: Never alone. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Now the procedure that we used 

yesterday was to go through the list 

sequentially, but we can make some exceptions. 

I'd like to ask the Board, for example -- there 

are two cases on here that fall in the 40 to 

49.9 range. These are cases number 28 and 49. 

And for example, 49, there's a possibility we 

wouldn't otherwise get to that case in getting 

our next 12, so I ask you at the front end, do 

you wish to include case number 49? So let --

if it's agreeable, let's determine that at the 

front end. 

 MS. MUNN: Well, we already have three from 

that site. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And that site is Rocky Flats. We 

had one Rocky Flats case in our original list -

-

 MS. MUNN: I thought we had three. 

 DR. ZIEMER: In our original list -- or no, I'm 

sorry --

 MS. MUNN: Three. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we had three in the original 

list --

 MR. GRIFFON: Three that we've --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and there was one other Rocky 

Flats case on this list, which was not 

accepted. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think there's another bit of 

information the Board -- There's another bit of 

information that the subcommittee asked for 

yesterday, and that was the number of cases 

that have been adjudicated -- finally 

adjudicated that fall between 40 percent POC to 

49.9, and I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: In the present batch --

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- Stu Hinnefeld has that in the 

present batch, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That percentage was eight percent? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was about eight percent -- 

it's about 8.1 percent -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of the --

 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the sampling pool. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of the completed cases or of all 

cases? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the sampling pool, of those 

cases that are eligible for us to sample -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Which is basically completed 

cases. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. Did everybody 

hear that? So of the completed cases, about 

eight percent are in that category. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's eight percent of like 

5,600 or whatever? Is that that -- that 

completed --

 DR. ZIEMER: No, there are not that many -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Finally adjudicated number? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Finally adjudicated is what -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The finally adjudicated number 

is quite a lot less, I want to say in the 2,000 

to 3,000 range, if that many. 

 DR. ZIEMER: No, less than that final. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably less than that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: More like 1,000. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Suffice it to say, it's a very 

small number. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: 2,000 or 3,000 -- 2,000 or 

3,000, according to Shelby. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, are you ready to act on 

number 49? To include? 

 (Affirmative indications) 

 DR. ZIEMER: One, two, three, four -- well, it 

looks like unanimous. We'll include 49. 

Now I'll jump back --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

UNIDENTIFIED: You have to approve the first 

12. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, I'm sorry, let's do that. 

The first 12 come as a recommendation from the 

subcommittee, so before we continue, let us act 

as a group on the first 12, and then we will 

add to it individually. Is that agreeable? 

This comes as a recommendation from the 

subcommittee, does not require a second. It 

has the form of a motion since it's a report 

from the subcommittee, so it's on the floor. 

Any discussion on the first 12 cases that are 

recommended by the subcommittee? 

 (No responses) 

There appears to be no discussion. All in 

favor of accepting those first 12 cases that 

were previously identified, say aye. 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We have accepted those 

first 12 cases. Now we will individually, as 

full Board action, add to those and -- did we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

vote on -- we were just voting -- we voted on -

- unanimously to add number 49, so that is on 

the list. 

Now let me return to the top of the table here, 

case number 26. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Are you going yes or no? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Five, six, seven, eight, 

nine, ten, eleven -- okay, that -- more than a 

majority, that case will be included. 

Number 27, Bethlehem Steel, lymphatic multiple 

myeloma. If anyone needs further information 

on numbers of cases, we had -- three Bethlehem 

Steels were done in the first batch. In the 12 

that we just approved there was one. 

 Bethlehem Steel, in? Out? The outs have it. 

That one will be excluded. 

The next one is the Lawrence Livermore breast 

cancer case number 28. In? Unanimous, that's 

in. 

Number 29, Savannah River case, male genitalia. 

In? Appear to be no ins. Outs, just to 

confirm? Okay, that one is out. 

 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion, non-melanoma skin, 

squamous cell case number 30. In? One, two, 

three, four, five, Chair votes in, six. Outs? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

One, two, three --

UNIDENTIFIED: Abstain. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- one abstain --

 MR. PRESLEY: Two abstain. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Two abstain. That one will be in. 

The next one, number 31, a Savannah River Site 

lymphoma and multiple myeloma. In? Out? It's 

out. I should call for abstentions on all of 

these. Any abstentions on Savannah River, for 

the record? Okay. 

 The next Savannah River, acute myeloid 

leukemia. In? No ins? Outs? Abstentions? 

Out. 

 Thirty-three, Hanford, breast cancer case. In? 

Four. Out? One, two, three, four, five, six 

out. Abstentions? 

 MS. MUNN: One. 

 DR. ZIEMER: One. That is out. Feed Materials 

Center, rectal cancer, number 34. On any of 

these if anybody has any questions or needs 

more information, please chime in or we're just 

going to proceed with the votes. In? Out? 

Abstentions? One. One abstention, that one is 

out. 

Rocky Flats breast cancer, number 35. In? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

Just one? Out? Abstentions? It's out. 

 Feed materials, male genitalia, number 36. In? 

Nine, ten. Out? One. Abstain? One. That 

one is in. 

 I'm just going to pause a minute and see -- 

one, two, three, four -- we have selected five. 

We need three more. Keep that in mind as we 

proceed down the list. 

 Savannah River Site number 37, skin and oral 

cancers. In? Out? Okay. Abstentions? It's 

out. 

Bethlehem Steel connective tissue cancer, 

number 38. In? Out? Abstention? It's out. 

Bethlehem Steel skin basal cell, malignant 

melanoma, number 39. In? Out? Outs --

abstentions? That one is out. 

Savannah River Site lymphoma, multiple myeloma, 

number 40. In? Out? Outs have it --

abstentions? Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, how many do we have left, 

four or --

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we need three more. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And keep in mind Allied's last on 

the list and so --

 DR. ZIEMER: We've already -- oh, yes, okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

Let me -- well, let me help us with this. 

Without objection, the Chair will jump to the 

bottom of the list for the moment. Let's 

decide what to do with Allied and that'll help 

us. 

This is number 50, the pancreas cancer, Allied 

Chemical. All in -- ins? Let me see the ins. 

One, two, three, four, five, six -- that's -- 

abstentions on that one? One abstention. And 

that one will be in. 

Now we have two remaining then. 

Back to number 41, bladder cancer, Savannah 

River. In? Out? Lot of outs. Abstentions? 

That one's out. 

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plants -- well, 

this is K-25 and Y-12, it looks like, male 

genitalia, 42 -- number 42. In? One, two, 

three, four, five, six. Out? Three, and 

abstentions? One. That one will be in. 

That's 42. That is seven cases. 

 Savannah River lung, number 43. In? Out? 

Abstentions? Okay, that one's out. 

 Number 44 Blockson, skin, basal cell. In? 

Abstentions? By conclusion I'll assume -- 

Okay, that one's out. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

Oak Ridge breast cancer number 45. In? Out? 

Is everybody abstaining? Okay, that one's out. 

 Now Paducah, male genitalia, number 46. In? 

One, two, three -- seven, eight, nine, ten. 

Out? One, and abstentions? One. That one 

will be in. 

Then we have reached our eight right there and 

then are returning -- the other will also 

return to the pool then. That's cases 47 and 8 

are automatically out since we have our pool 

now -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, 

eight. 

Just to reconfirm this last group, it would be 

cases number 26, 8 -- 26, 28, 30, 36, 42, 46, 

49 and 50. Everybody have that? Thank you. 

These cases will -- the details will be 

provided to the contractor for their review. 

We also need to assign teams, as we did before. 

We need two individuals for each case. If you 

want to go with the same teams, that's fine. 

We need to make sure that the -- I'm trying to 

recall how we actually did the assignments last 

time. 

 DR. DEHART: (Off microphone) I think 

(unintelligible) we had a health physicist on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

each team. 

 DR. MELIUS: That didn't work. It didn't work. 

They got all -- because of conflicts and -- it 

was hard. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me double-check the teams. We 

had -- Henry and Robert were on one team. Roy 

and Genevieve, Tony and Mark, Mike and I, Leon 

and Wanda, that's five teams. 

DR. ROESSLER: What happened to Rich? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Rich, oh, yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: Rich and I, the A team. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What happened -- what happened to 

you, Rich? 

MR. ESPINOSA: I --

 DR. ZIEMER: How come I'm not seeing your name 

on here? Oh, here we are, we've got Jim Melius 

and Rich. Good, okay. That's right, because 

some teams had three and some had just two 

cases I think is -- or one team -- or three and 

four, is that how it was? 

 DR. MELIUS: We had four. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to see if we can -- 

without getting too complex on this, just take 

these teams in the order that I just mentioned 

and see if we can get them assigned to these 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

117
 

cases as they come. We may have to juggle. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Paul? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Can Henry and I take 2, 3 and 7 

'cause I've got a conflict of interest on 1. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, if you have conflicts of 

interest, we've got to -- we've got to 

eliminate those right away. Let's see if we 

can try that. 

So Henry and Robert, 2, 3 and 7. Okay, I'm 

calling -- that's -- just for my code, team 

one. Okay. 

Roy and Genevieve -- let's see, Roy, do you 

have a problem on case 1 at all? 

 DR. DEHART: On 1? Three -- I'm sorry -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it's Oak Ridge. 

 DR. DEHART: They're doing 1 and 2 and 7. 

DR. ROESSLER: No, they're doing 2, 3 and 7. 

 DR. ZIEMER: They're doing 2, 3 and 7. I'm 

looking --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Roy can't do Y-12. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You can't --

 DR. DEHART: Yes, I can't do 1. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You can't do 1, but you could do 4 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

DR. ROESSLER: We didn't pick 4. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, let me get the right 

ones here. We're down to -- actually 15, isn't 

it, the next one? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, it is. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Can you do 15, 16 and 17? 

 DR. DEHART: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Team three will be Tony and 

Mark. Let's see, we have a problem on 1 at 

all? Can you guys do 1? Okay. And then how 

about --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Mark, you've got --

 DR. ZIEMER: Mark, you have a problem on 18? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: What about K-25? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't have a problem with that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You're listed on K-25. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You have a conflict on -- you're 

listed as -- on a K-25 --

 MR. GRIFFON: I'll pass it for now, but I 

didn't think I had that. I mean just to make 

this easy, I'll step down. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's drop it, just in -- so we 

don't have to worry -- we'll take you back off 

of that one. And let's see, Feed Materials? 

You're okay on Feed Materials, so let's do that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

one. Bethlehem Steel and Hanford? Okay? 

That's -- those are 18, 19 and 20. Okay? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Number 1? 

119
 

 DR. ZIEMER: Nobody has number 1 at the moment. 

Next, Ziemer-Gibson. I'll have a conflict on 

1, so let's -- and on 23, as well, so let's go 

to -- I'm okay on 25, I believe -- well, you 

know what, I'd probably better not be on 25. 

just went off one of their review committees at 

Battelle, so -- am I listed on Battelle? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) But you are 

listed on (unintelligible) recusal required 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I'll have to recuse on 

Battelle, so let's go with Iowa Ordnance -- 

Mike, are we okay on that one? And Lawrence 

Livermore, you okay? And I'll be out on 30, so 

let's go to 36. Okay? 

Now Leon and Wanda, how are we on case 1 for 

you two? 

 MS. MUNN: Fine here. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oak Ridge? 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

MR. OWENS: I should be. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Should be okay? 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

MR. OWENS: I should be fine. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, case 1 will be Leon 

and Wanda. What do we have on the first page 

yet? 

 MS. MUNN: Twenty-three. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Twenty-three, Y-12, Leon and Wanda 

then. And then -- what about 30? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Twenty-five. 

 MS. MUNN: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 MS. MUNN: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 MS. MUNN: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 MS. MUNN: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 MS. MUNN: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 DR. MELIUS: 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

Can't do 25 --

Oh, I missed 25. 

-- can do 30. 

Yes, 25. 

Can't do. 

No, you can't do 25. 

Can't do. 

That's basically Hanford -- 30? 

Sure. 

Okay. Melius-Espinosa. 

We get the leftovers, Rich. 

No, the good stuff, we always save 

the good stuff for last. Let's see, on the 

first page -- or first list we have still 

number 25. Correct? Pacific Northwest? We're 

okay? 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, we're fine. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

 DR. ZIEMER: And then is 42 the next one? 

That's Oak Ridge. You okay on Oak Ridge? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And then Paducah? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Forty-six. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's number 46. Okay. 

DR. ROESSLER: Give them another one. 

 DR. ZIEMER: No. You two are begging for more. 

Right? 

MR. ESPINOSA: I thought I heard volunteer for 

the last two. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The last two -- we have a Rocky 

Flats and an Allied. Which teams want to 

volunteer for either of those? 

 MS. MUNN: I'd like Allied --

MR. OWENS: I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: -- if it's --

 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

 MS. MUNN: You can't do it? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We've got Mark and Tony 

doing Allied and -- who volunteered for Rocky? Okay, 

Wanda and Leon for Rocky, and that covers all 

of our cases. Okay? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

Anyone identify any conflict of interest now 

that has not already been taken care of with 

your assigned cases? The recorder has those. 

I think all of us have a list. Any questions 

on the subcommittee report then? 

(Pause) 

Now I think -- does that complete all of our 

subcommittee action? Appears to. I think 

probably we -- we have a little bit of time 

before lunch. I think perhaps it might be 

appropriate if I reported on the closed session 

of the Board for -- from yesterday afternoon, 

reported out that information for the public 

meeting. 

The closed session yesterday was for the 

purpose of reviewing the individual dose 

reconstructions -- the reviews of the 

individual dose reconstructions as provided by 

the Board's contractor. That involved review 

of some 20 cases from our first batch of 

reviews. In the course of the discussions that 

ensued, a number of issues arose which included 

issues of factual correctness, issues of format 

and related things. And the net result is that 

the Board has made the following motion, which 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

I will read to you. I'm actually reading from 

my notes as the -- the transcriber may have a 

few words slightly different, but I think I 

will be able to capture pretty fully the motion 

that the Board approved. I believe it was 

unanimously approved. And this is a six-part 

motion. I will give you each part by number. 

First, that -- that NIOSH complete its 

technical and factual review of the SCA report. 

NIOSH had made a partial review but had not 

completed the technical and factual review of 

the SCA report; that SCA -- 

Number two, that SCA and NIOSH resolve and 

clarify issues in the report where there were -

- and I'm adding parenthetically where there 

appear to be disagreements on the facts of the 

case -- or cases. 

 Three, that SCA prepare a new report to the 

Board to address any issues raised by NIOSH, 

including corrections and changes that SCA may 

make. I will add parenthetically that SCA had 

already prepared a list of errata that they 

wanted to add to their report and we had not 

had a chance to review that. 

Four, that SCA provide a better categorization 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

of their findings and categories of findings. 

Five, that NIOSH communicate to the Board any 

unresolved issues that arise from their 

collaboration with SCA on the items talked 

about in item -- part two of this motion. 

And six, that SCA provide to the Board, at 

least one week before our next meeting, their 

revised report. 

That is the motion. I'll ask the Board, have I 

described it correctly? It's not verbatim, but 

I think very close. We could have the reporter 

read it back fully, but that basically 

summarizes the nature of the motion. The net -

- which was passed. The net result of that 

motion is that the Board is not at this point 

ready to release a final report on those first 

20 cases. Okay? 

Board members, any additional comments at this 

time? Have I failed to describe anything 

correctly? Yes, Mark. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And you might -- you might be 

getting to this, but just to say the Board is 

in that process. We set up in a later motion a 

working group --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- that will work with NIOSH and 

the contractor to sort of -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, we have a working group 

that will work with NIOSH and the contractor as 

they -- so that we're fully engaged as -- on 

some of the issues that we have identified in 

the reports are addressed and resolved. 

 And Richard? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Just for the record -- just for 

the public record, it might be important to 

announce the members on the working group. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And the specific charge for the 

work group. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The working group that is to 

monitor these actions will be chaired by Tony 

Andrade. The other members are Mark Griffon, 

Rich Espinosa, Wanda Munn and Mike Gibson. 

Those are the members of the work group, and 

basically they're -- they're charged -- I don't 

have the exact wording of the charge, but their 

charge is to work with the contractor and NIOSH 

to address the issues that were covered in the 

motion and to help prepare the final materials 

that come back to the Board, which would be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

SCA's final report to the Board. Okay? 

Other Board members, any additional input on 

that? Okay, thank you very much. 

 Are there any housekeeping things that we need 

to take care of just before lunch? Okay, we're 

going to then have our lunch break. Right 

after lunch we'll begin the session on the site 

profile reviews and more specifically the 

Bethlehem Steel site profile. We are recessed 

till 1:00 o'clock. 

 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken from 11:30 

a.m. to 1:05 p.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: If you would please take your 

seats, we'll begin the afternoon session. 

I'd like to call attention to the fact for our 

session this afternoon Dr. Wade will be serving 

in the capacity of the Designated Federal 

Official for this particular session. 

SITE PROFILE REVIEWS 

Our main topic of interest this afternoon is 

the site profile review for Bethlehem Steel. 

Members of the Board, you should have several 

documents. First of all is the site profile 

document itself. Secondly the review that was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

done by our contractor, SC&A. Also there is a 

document that has been provided by NIOSH, which 

is a set of comments on the site profile 

review. And I believe also you will have a set 

of comments from Department of Labor. 

Now as we proceed this afternoon, we've set 

aside the first hour for a presentation, 

starting with the SC&A presentation where Joe 

Fitzgerald will give us an overview of the site 

profile that SC&A has developed for us. 

Following that we will have the presentation 

from NIOSH by Dr. Neton, and they will provide 

some comments on the site profile review. And 

then we will have basically the rest of the 

afternoon session for the Board to discuss the 

documents. And Board members, when we get to 

that point -- and keep in mind that one of our 

objectives here is to develop the Board's 

position or the Board's comments on the review. 

And at that point I'm going to suggest a sort 

of road map as to how we might proceed that 

hopefully will be helpful to you as we go 

through our comment period. 

So let us begin with the overview of the site 

profile review itself and call on Joe 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

Fitzgerald. And Joe, I understand you have a 

couple of supplementary pages to go with -- 

with the material that's in our -- or is that -

-

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that correct? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Is Cori here? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is it this set of tables? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, based on yesterday's 

experience --

 DR. ZIEMER: Board members -- and I believe 

these are available also to the public, there 

are some -- a three-page supplement to the 

slides that -- or the Power Points that Joe 

will use. So Joe, please proceed. Welcome. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm going to 

-- given the brevity of time that we have, I'm 

going to probably just skip over some of the 

preliminaries that I think you have in your 

slides. And frankly we've talked about these 

before in terms of approaches, what have you. 

I do want to go to one slide, though, if you'll 

bear with me. Yeah, I want to -- I want to 

talk through this a little bit because I think, 

given this is the very first site profile we've 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

reported on and given some of the comments that 

we certainly have seen from NIOSH, I just 

wanted to emphasize some of the attributes of 

what we're doing. 

Certainly you're familiar with the horizontal 

and the vertical -- we've talked about that 

quite a bit. But in terms of interviewing 

workers, site experts in particular, the notion 

there is a real objective to -- to get 

information, to understand processes and to 

effectively start pulling the string. And that 

-- you know, just a little perspective on that, 

certainly not to use that as an exclusive 

source of information. I think it's a very 

valuable source of information. It supplements 

much of what we've gone through the records. 

It points to I think some of the secondary 

records that we've found to be very important, 

so I want to emphasize that certainly that was 

one of the charges that this Advisory Board 

approved for us, which was to fully avail 

ourselves of the input we would get from the 

workers at the sites. And I think for 

Bethlehem Steel in particular, we felt that was 

a very valuable perspective and something that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

we would use as a guide. 

Now again, given I think some of the comments 

we've seen, this is 50 years ago, so in terms 

of corroboratory information, in some cases we 

didn't have corroboratory evidence but we felt 

there was enough perspective and information 

that was provided that it gives us the ability 

to tee up some issues, to point to some 

possible concerns that we want to pursue 

elsewhere, or we certainly would want to raise 

for the Board's attention. So just to put some 

perspective on that, certainly that we found to 

be a valuable input and a part of our 

procedures. 

In terms of the conformance with regulations, 

standards and procedures, you know, frankly, we 

-- we understand that a lot of these procedures 

originated with -- with NIOSH, with OCAS and, 

you know, we're not being presumptive to 

question the authors on how -- on what the 

procedures mean and how we interpret them, but 

I think our perspective is that where we see 

some notions or evidence of potential 

inconsistencies, we think it's important to 

raise those to understand what they mean, and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

perhaps in some cases to have NIOSH explain 

these -- these issues and inconsistencies and 

raise those and surface those, not from the 

standpoint of challenging procedures so much as 

to understand how they're being applied in real 

life. And I think in terms of the site profile 

review we're looking at manifest use of 

procedures applying policies, and we're trying 

to report back on what we're seeing and how 

that plays out. 

This last point, the Chairman has almost in 

every meeting I think raised the issue of don't 

solve the problem. You know, this is not a 

confirmatory exercise. There's certainly not 

enough resources. And after our experience I 

would certainly agree that it takes a great 

deal of resources to drive a number of these 

issues to ground. But we certainly wanted to 

substantiate the issues to the degree that we 

felt they were legitimate issues to bring 

forward to this Board. And we wanted to 

distinguish between that information we felt 

was significant and had a strong basis in the 

information that we looked at, we termed those 

"findings" in the report and that distinguishes 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

them from "observations", which we identified 

in the report as being perhaps less significant 

and perhaps without as much of a basis. We did 

not find as much information or we didn't see 

as much documentation, and we wanted to make 

that distinction that -- we didn't want to lose 

that feedback for the Board's benefit. But by 

the same token, we wanted to signal that 

perhaps we felt we had a little less either 

corroboration or information for that. 

So in any case, we did have a factual accuracy 

and representation review by NIOSH before 

submitting the report to the Board. It's the 

opportunity to go through the report in draft 

and to feed back to us any instances where we -

- there was felt to be any factual errors or 

representation issues, those kinds of things, 

and that's part of the process that we're -- 

that we're exercising here. 

 With that, and given the time that we have, I 

want to just frankly ask Arjun Makhijani -- Dr. 

Arjun Makhijani to come up and go through the 

technical findings. Arjun's a co-author of the 

site profile, along with Kathy RobertsonDeMers, who's in the first row -- Kathy, you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

want to raise your hand? So they're the two -- 

two technical authors and I just wanted to get 

right to the meat, given the time frame that we 

have. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Joe. We were 

confronted with a job in Bethlehem Steel site 

profile review in a situation where there's 

manifestly big gaps in the data, data are very 

incomplete. For instance, there are no 

dosimetry data, no bioassay data and so on. 

Even the air concentration data are rather 

scattered. There are many gaps. There are no 

data for some rollings, very few data at 

particular job locations and so on. 

In a situation like that, we felt that it is 

important to develop a method to join the two 

terms, "scientifically sound", which applies in 

every case, whether you have complete data or 

not, with the idea of "claimant favorable", 

because in this case you've got gaps in the 

data and so you have to fill those gaps by 

resolving it -- giving the workers the benefit 

of the doubt -- or the claimants. Now in 

practice, when you raise those terms of 

"claimant favorable" and "benefit of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

doubt", you have to give a quantitative 

substance to that. And the first thing that we 

decided was, you can't first go to the term 

"claimant favorable". You have to first go to 

the term "scientifically sound" and 

"statistically sound" and look at that, and 

then step back from that and say well, which 

workers do these statistics represent, what is 

claimant favorable in the context of properly 

fitting the data. So claimant favorable 

considerations are crucial, but in the logic of 

what we -- how we viewed the problem, they come 

second. 

If you're not scientifically sound and you 

don't have the right statistics, then every 

claim you make for claimant favorable may be 

put into question and some claims would turn 

out to be wrong. And just to put things in 

perspective, this is a large part of the 

problem that we found occurred with NIOSH is 

there was an attempt to be claimant favorable 

by using a very important datapoint from 

Simonds without going through the exercise of 

first being statistically sound. 

 That consists of two things -- the prior slide 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

cons-- shows categories of workers. You cannot 

apply a one-size-fits-all to workers. If you 

try to do that, you're going to be claimantfavorable and reasonable for some workers, and 

perhaps not for other workers, and that turned 

out to be the case. 

We found, for instance, that workers who were 

not involved in uranium processing, they were 

eligible for compensation, even though the 

statistics of the triangular distribution are 

not quite right. Clearly for these workers 

it's all claimant favorable that NIOSH goes 

through Table 2 and Table 3. They weren't 

present in the rolling process, so they were 

clearly not exposed to those high levels of 

uranium. 

At the same time, the workers who were in the 

rolling process, some were in hazardous jobs, 

some were going into furnaces and cleaning up, 

some were handling uranium a lot, some were at 

rollers a lot of the time. And others may have 

been inspectors who were wandering the 

facility, for whom an average facility profile 

would do. And so unless you know what the 

worker is doing, you can't use the statistics 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

appropriately because the job is not to 

describe the facility. The job is to make an 

individual's dose calculation in a manner 

that's scientifically reasonable and fair to 

that person. And fair in this case, because of 

the gaps in data, mean that you have to 

actually be claimant-favorable, but on the 

basis of sound science. 

So we found that NIOSH's site profile had some 

strengths. They used the right solubility 

class for inhalation doses. They rightly 

realized that internal inhalation doses will be 

very important. We also supported the use of 

NIOSH data -- NIOSH's use of data from Simonds, 

with some caveats and cautions, and these -- 

I'll come to -- these are very important 

because they're not exactly comparable 

facilities. In some cases Simonds 

concentrations will tend to be higher because 

the process involved putting uranium through 

the rollers twice, which was not the case. But 

in other cases, Simonds would tend to be less 

polluted because they had some ventilation and, 

according to information that we have from the 

workers of the time, there was no ventilation 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

in terms of engineering controls at Bethlehem 

Steel. So we endorse that with some caution, 

and I feel personally that it was -- it's a 

shade or two on the side of reasonable to use 

it, but what -- can't stretch that very far. 

So there are a number of weaknesses in the site 

profile and they're limit -- listed there. Air 

concentration data were not critically 

evaluated. ICRP gives guidance on how you use 

short-term data and fixed data in -- to 

calculate worker doses. There's new Reg. 1400 

which gives these guidance. We didn't say that 

there should be some factor by which all air 

concentrations should be multiplied. Please 

remember that we were making, first of all, an 

illustration of scientifically sound methods 

and the relevant guidances which should have 

been used. And we believe, even after 

examining NIOSH's response to us, that NIOSH 

should evaluate ICRP-75. We're not saying 

there should be some multiplicative factor for 

the data or not, but it definitely should be 

evaluated. There's an asymmetry between 

minimum doses and maximum doses, and that 

involves like taking category of workers and so 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

on into account that's very important. And we 

think ingestion doses are under-estimated and 

so on, and I'll go through some of these 

points. I'm not going to hit all of the points 

that we covered, but try to explain some points 

in detail. 

So let me get to one of the very, very big 

issues. We felt -- when we looked at -- the 

most important thing in the whole site profile 

is a single number. That number is in Table 3 

of the site profile. It -- it's a number 

that's drawn from Simonds data. It says that 

the high air concentration is 1,000 times MAC. 

This number in the whole site profile really 

drives both the compensation claims for those 

who are not compensated at the minimum dose 

level, but it drives both compensation and it 

drives denial. These other numbers really are 

pale in comparison to that single number of 

1,000 times MAC, because that gives you an 

average -- it alone essentially determines the 

average of the triangular distribution, which 

is the sum of all three parameters divided by 

three -- 1,000 divided by three is 333.3, and 

when you add up all three, it's 334. So 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

essentially all other numbers pale in 

comparison. So 1,000 times MAC is really the 

crucial number in the whole site profile. 

Therefore, we decided to focus on the 

reasonableness and scientific soundness of that 

number. And since it is drawn from Simonds 

data, we thought we should take a hard look at 

that dataset. When we looked at the dataset 

from which it was drawn, we found that the data 

did not fit a triangular distribution. A good 

fit would be the points would lie along the 

line. So you could be claimant favorable or 

not and you may get -- can make many claims, 

but this is starting off on the wrong foot. As 

I said, you have to first go to the science and 

then go to the claimant favorable. 

So we tried to do that. We tried other fits. 

This is a lognormal fit, and this is the normal 

way in which air concentration data are 

expected to fall. And NIOSH itself has 

presented some lognormal calculations in its 

response and you can see that and -- that it is 

a bet-- this is a better fit, normally. You 

can see there's one kind of weird point there 

that doesn't quite fit, but the other -- you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

don't expect a very, very good fit because 

these are scattered data with many -- many 

gaps. Many stations have just a single 

datapoint, and they may be stations at which no 

data were taken. So this is a reasonable 

starting point for examining the data. 

Now NIOSH has said that 1,000 -- this is a 

paraphrase -- 1,000 times MAC is the indicated 

maximum air concentrations at Simonds. The 

maximum point in the attachment number four 

comes from a particular work station called 

roller number one, and there were only three 

samples taken at this roller number one. So if 

you ask yourself the statistically appropriate 

way to approach the question of what's the 

maximum possible number -- first of all, NIOSH 

did not use the maximum of 1,071. It used 

1,000 and said that the probability of any air 

concentration above 1,000 is zero. That's what 

a triangular distribu-- that is that it is 

impossible to get a value of air concentration 

greater than 1,000, when we actually had 1,071. 

That was a relatively minor error in numerical 

terms, but a procedural -- as a procedural 

error, it's important. However, when you ask 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

yourself -- the question is, if you make many 

measurements at that station, what kind of air 

concentrations would you expect? Since you 

have only three datapoints, there are a number 

of different ways to fit those datapoints. You 

can use a lot of different distributions. And 

Dr. Shimalenski*, who's a statistician who 

worked with us -- along with Dr. Peter Bickel 

of UC Berkeley; he's actually in Washington and 

so could not be here -- but they're both 

extremely expert in their fields and we work 

very closely with them, and this work is 

essentially their work. I took statistics 

under Dr. Bickel when I was a student at 

Berkeley, actually, 30-odd years ago, and -- 

and so this is their work that I am explaining 

to you and I'm presenting to you. 

So when you start here and ask that question, 

then you can come up with a set of values. And 

Dr. Shimalenski did some calculations which 

indicated that the -- you can be sort of fairly 

confident at the 95 percent level, something 

like -- close to that, that the maximum 

measurement at this station will be something 

between 1,470 times MAC and 4,900 times MAC. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

Now these are huge numbers. They're all above 

one thou-- all the answers were above 1,000 

times MAC. 

Why is that? Because you had three relatively 

large measurements, and it's likely that if you 

make more measurements that you'll find 

something more than your largest measurement. 

And -- and so we were -- but -- but please bear 

in mind that we did not actually recommend the 

use of any of these numbers in dose 

reconstructions. We made methodological 

illustration that when you do a statistically 

correct representation of the data, these are 

the kinds of numbers you get. You should not 

be using triangular distributions and post 

facto kind of going and saying it's claimant 

favorable. 

If you look at this distribution and say well, 

what's claimant favorable for an inspector 

who's wandering around the facility, what's the 

95 percentile value of this, and the answer to 

that's about 570 times MAC, which is 

considerably bigger than the average of Table 

3, which is 334 times MAC. 

If you ask yourself the question what's the air 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

concentration if a worker stood at roller 

number one all day, what would he experience, 

and the answer to that may be something in the 

several thousand MAC. 

Now NIOSH has raised the point that we should 

have used time-averaged data. And I looked at 

this question actually, and I consider -- SC&A 

considers that the use of time-averaged data 

from Simonds for Bethlehem Steel would be 

wrong. The details -- it would be stretching 

the comparison over the limit. There were only 

two rollers at Simonds. There were six at 

Bethlehem Steel. There was ventilation at 

Simonds. There was no ventilation. The layout 

of the equipment was different. We don't know 

the job -- the number of people in various jobs 

at Bethlehem Steel, which we have data at 

Simonds. There's no real good way to transfer 

that data to Bethlehem Steel. So the 

suggestion that Simonds time-averaged data 

could be applied to workers at Bethlehem Steel 

I think stretches this comparison way beyond 

the breaking point. 

You could ask the question well, for argument's 

sake, you could use Simonds time-averaged data 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

for Simonds workers, and what would that give 

you? So we did a little bit of a quick 

exercise. I worked with Dr. Bickel, who did 

some numbers on the airplane, and all of the 

sort of responses to NIOSH's response have been 

done rather rapidly, and so you might imagine 

that this is very preliminary and for the sake 

of illustration, and they're not reviewed and 

well-considered numbers. We haven't actually 

done all of the work in the normal way that we 

did this. But the idea that you could take 

time averaging that was done for industrial 

hygiene purposes at face value and use this for 

those calculations is statistically incorrect. 

We find that it is indefensible to -- to do 

that. 

The reason is, the proper way to approach time 

averaging would be to construct an air 

concentration profile for every place in which 

the worker spent time -- lunch area, roller 

number one, some other place and so on -- and 

the places are catalogued in the documents. 

However, many places have only a single air 

sample. You can't do an air concentration 

distribution with a single air sample. If 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

you're using that to represent the workers, it 

would be statistically very, very dubious, and 

it certainly would not be claimant favorable at 

all. 

The -- but there is a procedure for -- in terms 

of lack of data that you can develop, which is 

you can develop an air concentration profile 

for stations where you have numbers of 

datapoints, and then you can develop a facility 

profile -- and I've shown you, this is a 

facility profile -- and then you can weight it. 

You could say 20 percent of the time at roller 

number one, 80 percent of the time sort of over 

the facility. It's crude, but statistically at 

least defensible. Crude because the data don't 

support anything more than crude. And when you 

do that, the time-weighted average, the 95 

percentile -- and these are all unreviewed 

numbers and we would ask your indulgence to 

change them upon review, but I'm just giving 

them to you since some numbers have been put 

out there that -- that we don't think are 

correct. The time-weighted average for the 

most contaminated work station in Simonds works 

out to considerably over 1,000 times MAC. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

And so the -- you have to consider the 

statistically sound approach first, and only 

then can you consider -- so what's the bottom 

line in all of this. The bottom line is that 

NIOSH did not adopt scientifically sound and 

statistically sound ways to approach the 

problem in the first step, and that's what 

should have been the first step. NIOSH's 

approach is certainly claimant-favorable for 

some workers, but we have very little question 

that NIOSH's approach is not claimant-favorable 

for some workers. And that's very important 

because it's not claimant favorable enough that 

it could affect some compensation claims, 

especially those compensation claims that are 

not far from 50 percent probability of 

causation. 

Now NIOSH has also said that we should have 

used Bethlehem Steel data for making these 

conclusions. As we said, the most important -- 

as I said, the most important point in NIOSH's 

site profile was drawn from Simonds data and so 

we focused on that. Because NIOSH made that 

choice, it made it inevitable for us that we 

should focus on that. And we did not actually 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

go to Bethlehem Steel data because it was not 

our charge to complete all of this. We 

illustrated the methodology. We didn't 

prescribe what NIOSH should say or do in terms 

of actual numbers to use, but we suggested that 

this approach should be used. 

Now NIOSH has presented some numbers regarding 

Bethlehem Steel data, and unfortunately I've 

examined this and I discussed this with Dr. 

Bickel some, also, and -- and again, we've both 

agreed that this approach that NIOSH has used 

again for the analysis is not statistically 

sound. NIOSH itself has said that there are 

two processes that were used at Bethlehem 

Steel. There was an early process and then a 

later process, the salt bath process in which 

emissions were much reduced. But if that is 

the case, you have to split up the data into 

early data and later data because they're two 

com-- quite different populations of data, as 

the statisticians say. 

If you look at the later data, NIOSH is quite 

right. The air concentrations are quite low. 

If you look at the earlier data, the air 

concentrations are -- all the higher 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

concentrations are in the earlier data. Now we 

haven't critically evaluated this earlier data. 

A lot of the data are illegible. We don't know 

exactly which stations they belong to in many 

cases. We have not attempted a critical 

evaluation of them. I just did some quick 

numbers of an empirical lognormal fit, just for 

purposes of illustration. These numbers are 

not meant to be prescriptive or definitive or 

even well-considered. I just did them just to 

show that when you split -- when you adopt a 

sound approach, at least your concept should be 

right. And we -- the unfortunate thing is that 

NIOSH's concept in doing the statistics even 

here, not in a single instance did we find that 

NIOSH's concepts in using the statistics were 

right because in Bethlehem Steel data it is 

essential that you should split the early data 

from the later data. 

Well, the bottom line on Bethlehem Steel for 

dose reconstruction, in SC&A's view, is -- is 

that if you -- once you do that, you could do 

that, then you have to know exact worker 

history for every claimant. This would add a 

layer of complication and uncertainty to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

claimants that would be quite considerable, 

fif-- more than 50 years after the fact. And 

so this -- this is a very, very difficult issue 

which -- which I think the Board will need to 

grapple with in terms of if you want to adopt 

some of the things that have been presented by 

NIOSH. 

Let me go to the next big issue, which is 

ingestion doses. NIOSH used the approach that 

fine particles will deposit on food and that 

this is the main pathway for ingestion doses. 

We don't agree with this. We suggested some 

numbers that are out there in terms of possible 

ingestion. We again did not prescribe what 

should be used as numbers. The main avenues -- 

pathways for ingestion are likely to be big 

uranium flakes coming off of the rolling or 

coming off the floor when the floor is hosed 

down and things like that. And -- and this 

needs to be evaluated and taken into account. 

In OTIB-4 which is the Technical Information 

Bulletin published by NIOSH, which includes 

Bethlehem Steel and covers Bethlehem Steel, the 

inges-- indicated ingestion doses are more than 

50 times greater than those in the site 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

profile. Now I find it quite strange that 

NIOSH has not done a well-considered analysis 

of ingestion doses. And even in the Huntington 

site profile, Dr. Mauro, when he did the -- did 

the site -- the dose audit, found that the 

deposition did not fit the model of fine 

particles, but was greater than that. 

Now NIOSH has not done a good analysis of 

ingestion, and yet it has concluded that 

ingestion doses are low. Well, this is 

backwards. You first have to do the analysis, 

and then conclude how big ingestion doses are. 

We believe ingestion doses are underestimated 

enough that they may -- may, if properly 

estimated, affect some cases. We have no way 

of telling at the present time, but certainly 

if you look at OTIB-4, those ingestion doses 

are big enough that they could affect some 

cases. 

 Number of rollings. NIOSH has said they are -- 

there's evidence only for 13 rollings and has 

assumed 48, and this is very claimantfavorable. We looked at this question in the 

site profile review, and we agreed that 

assuming 48 rollings is claimant-favorable, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

from what evidence there is. You can't really 

decide. But the contract was signed in '49, 

and '49 was the first Soviet test. The whole 

nuclear weapons complex were being ramped up a 

great deal. The fact that there's no 

documentation, in the face of a lot of 

documentation having been destroyed and 

Bethlehem Steel having gone bankrupt, isn't -- 

isn't clear evidence as -- that there were no 

rollings and therefore it's definitively 

claimant-favorable, it just means we don't have 

the documentation. And we found that NIOSH 

hadn't done a complete document search, records 

search. It had not gone to Bethlehem Steel 

records center in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, 

which was pointed out to us during the worker 

meeting that NIOSH held in July. And so before 

you can -- the bottom line is that 48 rollings 

is claimant-favorable, but it's also reasonable 

in view of the contract and the fact that there 

was a Soviet test, and you have to put it in 

the context of the time and do the best you 

can. And we think that NIOSH did the best they 

could, and we agree with NIOSH that this -- 

however, you cannot say we were claimant-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

favorable in '49 to '52 and therefore somehow 

this rubs off in '55 to '56. This is a 

technical non sequitur. 

We also found technical non sequiturs in other 

places, like saying the uptake of uranium from 

the stomach is two percent and this is claimant 

favorable, and so you don't have to worry about 

a claimant-favorable value for intake of what's 

going into the stomach. Those are completely 

different problems. '55/'56 the workers ready 

to swear -- NIOSH told us they don't decide the 

time -- who's covered in terms of the time 

period, and we actually revised our draft to 

indicate that NIOSH should refer this to the 

Department of Energy, which they said at the 

time -- maybe the Department of Labor should 

look into it. But when workers are ready to 

swear there were rollings, then we feel that 

this is a festering, longstanding issue which 

should be addressed with greater alacrity and 

thoroughness. 

Let me -- let me just wrap up. I know I'm 

probably pushing the time. Let me -- let me 

put SC&A's position, both in terms of our site 

profile review and in terms of -- to the extent 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

that we have had time to study NIOSH's 

response, and we've taken a pretty good look 

and -- and done some -- some work, and you -- 

you have a table before you that -- that was 

also quickly produced and should be considered 

a draft table because it was produced today. 

NIOSH's statistical approaches for anal-- to 

analyzing both Bethlehem Steel and Simonds data 

for dose reconstruction are not correct. That 

should be the first thing. The triangular 

distribution is not a good way to represent the 

data. 

NIOSH's site profile is claimant-favorable for 

some workers, notably those not involved in 

uranium-related work. NIOSH's approach is not 

claimant-favorable for uranium rolling workers, 

especially those in high exposure locations or 

jobs. 

 NIOSH's ingestion doses are likely to be 

considerable underestimates. 

 The scientific and statistical errors in the 

site profile are of a magnitude that could 

affect some claims, notably those that are just 

below compensability in the probability of 

causation. There may be also -- there may also 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

be some that are affected by ingestion dose 

underestimates based on OTIB-0004, though this 

must await more definitive analysis. Thank 

you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Joe, do you 

have any additional comments at this point? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let's move on to the 

presentation from NIOSH, and we'll turn the 

podium over to Jim Neton. 

 DR. MELIUS: Excuse me, Paul. Maybe I missed 

it, but we're going to hold all our questions -

-

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, right. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- to the end? Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

NIOSH RESPONSE TO SITE PROFILE REVIEW 

DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Well, I'd 

like to say that we do appreciate and recognize 

the amount of hard work that -- is this 

working, I can't tell -- the amount of hard 

work that went into the SC&A review. It was 

certainly a large piece of effort, judging by 

the size of the document review. And we 

recognize that there are a couple of issues 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

that they point out in their document that 

NIOSH needs to address a little better. 

We also -- I'd also like to recognize that we 

think that the review process, the independent 

review process is -- is good. It's a good 

process that needs to be done, and ultimately 

we'll have a stronger defense and -- and 

product of our position later on down the line 

when claims become challenged, and this is 

going to -- in the end they make the product 

better, whether that's through NIOSH doing 

better job documenting what we -- what we've 

done, or incorporating area -- concerns or 

issues that were raised in the review process. 

That being said, I would like to make some 

comments on what was just presented. 

Interestingly enough, I think SC&A's 

presentation was more rebuttal of our comments 

than their original presentation, so it's kind 

of a little different perspective here. Their 

prepared presentation is very different than 

what you just heard. 

But I'd like to just point out that there are 

several areas of concern. We have very serious 

concerns about the Bethlehem Steel profile 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

review. The first one is that there's a 

misinterpretation by SC&A of the dose 

reconstruction requirements under 42 CFR Part 

82 related to worst case assumptions. This is 

most notable in the several instances, and 

you've just heard Arjun -- Dr. Makhijani speak 

about the use of this so-called OTIB-4 

document. OTIB is Orau Technical Information 

Bulletin number four. That is a maximizing 

approach document that was adopted to apply 

worst case assumptions underneath -- under the 

efficiency process. And I'll talk a little bit 

about that to show how either the ingestion or 

the inhalation doses that SC&A asserts should 

be assigned under that document more 

appropriately is an incorrect understanding of 

the way NIOSH approaches this process. 

I think the second issue is a failure to put 

claimant-favorable assumptions into context. 

You've heard some discussion by Dr. Makhijani 

about where NIOSH may have not done statistical 

analysis properly or -- or things of that 

nature. But I think that SC&A in their review 

certainly ignored a lot of claimant-favorable 

approaches that we've adopted that overshadow 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

some of the issues that they've raised, and 

failed to even acknowledge that those things 

are over-estimates and put them in the 

appropriate context they deserve to be put. 

And I'm going to give you some examples of that 

as I go. 

I think the selective or inappropriate 

interpretation of monitoring data -- I think 

we've heard some rebuttal to the effect that 

time-weighted average exposures are not 

appropriate. I think we're going to say that 

we totally disagree with that, and I'll comment 

a little bit about that in a future slide. 

And then I think one thing that I think does a 

disservice, particularly to claimants and 

people who are reading these documents, is 

speculation on possible exposure conditions 

that could have been out there. Could there 

have been solubility type F uranium. I mean 

that makes no sense in a uranium facility. 

That would be a very soluble form of uranium 

that's more typical of uranyl nitrate. Or 

speculation about particle sizes that are 

extremely small that have not been observed in 

uranium facilities. I don't know whether this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

is just a misunderstanding of issues, a lack of 

understanding of the concerns in the 

occupational exposure setting, I don't know, 

and I won't speculate. 

Okay, the first issue here is misinterpretation 

of worst case assumptions and, again, the 

mistaken belief that we must use worst case 

assumptions. The dose reconstruction 

regulation permits but certainly does not 

require us to use worst case assumptions when a 

claim is denied. I believe there's a statement 

exactly to that effect in the SC&A review. 

That is totally untrue. And that in fact is 

the basis of one of their findings or nonconformance, as they call them, and I suggest 

that that's totally false. 

There is a huge difference between a claimantfavorable estimate and an intentional 

overestimate. Claimant favorable we've heard 

where there are gaps, as Dr. Makhijani 

correctly pointed out -- if there are gaps in 

the data and there are equally plausible 

scenarios, we will pick the higher value that 

tends to give the claimant more dose. That is 

true. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

But there are approaches in the efficiency 

process that we've adopted where we will do 

intentional overestimates, large overestimates, 

to help process a claim so that -- I think -- 

I'm paraphrasing the language in the 

regulation, but it says in cases where 

additional research would not result in any -- 

would not result in the claim -- changing 

compensation on one side or the other, we can 

stop the dose reconstruction using these high 

overestimates and move it forward. This is 

only applied in cases that are non-compensable. 

And in particular, as you'll -- when I talk 

about OTIB-4, this is applied to noncompensable claims that are what we call nonmetabolic cancers, cancers of organs that do 

not concentrate the radioactivity. That's 

exactly what OTIB-4 is. It's written in that 

document and so its application to Bethlehem 

Steel cases could have been done, but they 

would have been non-compensated, as well. 

I think the implication is that if we used 

these high values in OTIB-4, these cases could 

have been compensated under these high, overarching assumptions. That's just not true. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

I'd point out this is a -- misunderstanding is 

the basis for these several non-conformances in 

their document. 

We've all seen this before, and I'd just like 

to rehash a little bit of this, just to show 

what we've done. In the case of OTIB-4 -- 

let's take OTIB-4 as an example -- this is a 

flow chart right out of our own procedure, PR003, where we say we determine the organ of 

interest and most probable mode of exposure, so 

let's take a pancreatic cancer in a person who 

worked at a uranium facility. Let's take OTIB4. OTIB-4 assumes a 100 MAC air on a 

continuous basis for however many years the 

worker was -- was at that facility. If you put 

all that uranium into the person, have him 

breathe it, is there a low probability? Well, 

under the conditions that we pre-select for 

OTIB-4, the answer is yes. 

Now we say okay, that's for the internal dose. 

Now there's another Technical Information 

Bulletin that says let's apply the highest 

external exposure we can envision at a uranium 

facility and assign that to the worker. If we 

assign that highest estimate and the PC still 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

is less than 50 percent, the dose 

reconstruction is complete. It's also noncompensable, though. So this -- this approach 

is not geared towards giving very high 

intentional overestimates to compensate 

claimants. And I think that's -- that's a 

misunderstanding that needs to be pointed out. 

So OTIB-4 could not be used to compensate cases 

-- claims for ingestion or inhalation at 

Bethlehem Steel. 

Okay, let's -- I just want to pre-stage some of 

my remarks with some dosimetric facts about 

uranium, because I think they're relevant here. 

As SC&A has appropriately pointed out, and I'm 

glad that we agree, that inhalation is a very -

- delivers a very high dose per unit intake 

'cause it's the exposure mode of concern here. 

I'm glad we can come to agreement on that. And 

it also has the property of concentrating only 

in several select organs. In this case -- if 

you inhale it, of course it's going to be in 

the lung, but it's also going to concentrate -- 

to some extent, more or less, depending on the 

organ -- in the kidney, liver and bone. So one 

can envision that the cancers of relevance here 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

that have a higher potential than others for 

developing a high PC would be kidney cancer, 

liver cancer, bone cancer, possibly leukemia, 

and of course lung cancer if you inhale it. 

Uranium is a chemically-toxic metal. The 

Maximum Allowable Air Concentration in the 

1950's was based on chemical, not radiological, 

conditions. It was recognized very early on 

that uranium is a kidney toxin. It -- once it 

gets into your kidneys, it precipitates out in 

a certain portion of the kidneys and plugs it 

up, essentially, and keeps it from working. 

Some of the exposure scenarios that SC&A has 

speculated may have existed would result in 

acute renal failure and probably death to the 

workers. 

The uptake from ingestion is fairly low. It's 

.2 to 2 percent. We use 2 percent in our 

profile, being claimant-favorable, even though 

oxides of uranium are most notably -- which is 

-- I think everyone would agree, in the health 

physics community, oxides of uranium are 

typically less soluble and probably .2 percent 

is more appropriate, so we -- we feel we've got 

a factor of ten overestimate there. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

 External Exposure values from uranium are about 

-- less than ten millirem per hour to organs 

that are deep in the body. Not superficial 

organs like the thyroid, but organs that are 

fairly deep in the body, so it's not a high 

exposure rate for even large quantities of 

uranium. 

It's a couple hundred millirem per hour to the 

skin. There's a beta particle that irradiates 

the skin significantly, and if you have slabs 

of uranium -- large slabs -- you could get 

something approaching this if you -- if you 

actually had contact, were sitting on the 

uranium for any extended period of time, 

something to that effect. 

 Skin contamination, which was raised in the 

SC&A review, has a fairly low -- you can't get 

a lot of uranium on your skin to give you a 

high dose, the mass-limited quantities. It's 

8.4 millirem per nanocurie hour per square 

centimeter. Now what does that mean? On a 

practical basis, it means you could have about 

a quarter of a million disintegrations per 

minute of uranium on 100 square centimeters of 

your skin and it would deliver about 8.4 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

millirem per hour -- not a huge amount. And as 

I'll show later, these alleged or speculated 

skin contaminations that may have existed were 

certainly addressed in our large overestimates 

for external dose that were not considered by 

the SC&A review. 

Okay. I'd like to discuss a little bit about 

claimant favorability in the profile. And I 

think as -- Dr. Makhijani did point out some of 

these, so I won't go over them in some detail, 

but we did assume that there were 48 rollings 

in the accordant '48 and '49, and I will state 

that there is an error in the Technical Basis 

Document. It says that there was a signed 

contract in 1948. We have no evidence that a 

contract was signed in '48. That was -- to my 

knowledge -- I just contacted the Office of 

Worker Advocacy. They couldn't find one. So 

we don't know that there was a contract in '48. 

We certainly know there were rollings in '51 

and '52. The '48 contract -- the indication 

that rollings occurred in '48, according to the 

Office of Worker Advocacy, the reason they set 

that window is because there was an internal 

Bethlehem Steel communication -- not internal, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

a letter to a request from an employee 

inquiring about possible rollings. And the 

person, 26 years after the fact or so, 

indicated rollings occurred between '48 and 

'51, I think, to develop a method to roll steel 

at another facility. So that is the factual 

basis for the -- for there being a window of 

'48 to '52. 

We did use the highest single air concentration 

at Simonds -- whether it's 1,000 or 1,070, I'll 

grant them that 1,070 is probably more 

technically accurate. But we used it -- and 

this is -- this is extremely important. We 

used it as a surrogate for time-weighted 

average exposures. Now this is a key 

distinction here. If you notice, the document 

title is not an air sample model for Bethlehem 

Steel. It is an exposure model. Now by 

exposure model, we're really saying what did 

the worker really breathe in while he was 

there. So if we took the highest single air 

sample that we could find at Simonds Saw and 

Steel, and applied it and assumed the worker 

breathed it every minute for every hour of 

every production run, it's going to be pretty 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

conservative. 'Cause I think even SC&A would 

agree that people don't have their face in 

roller one every minute of every hour of every 

day, and in fact, the air samples that were 

criticized by SC&A as being short and not 

representative of the work environment were 

short out of necessity because they were short 

duration events. 

One shears a piece of uranium. That takes 

about ten seconds or whatever. It's a very 

short period of time. A billet can run through 

the process at Bethlehem Steel in about two 

minutes, once it was running under high 

production. So you've got two-minute, 30-

second, 10-second episodic little puffs of air 

that come out that were captured in -- in the 

breathing zone samples. In fact, the highest 

sample that we took -- and it's correct -- came 

out of a furnace on its way to roller one, I 

think. And I'll point out that this was a gasfired furnace that just raw-heated up a fiveinch billet -- five inch diameter billet. It 

was recognized early on and it's estimated that 

using those -- not the baths, the salt baths, 

but the gas-fired furnaces, about .5 percent of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

the uranium was oxidized in that process. So 

here's where we're seeing the highest air 

sample. I have trouble believing that that's 

not the highest air sample, or close to it, 

that we have. And we assume that that person 

was carrying that billet to that roughing mill 

every minute of every day of every hour of 

every run. It's unbelievable that we could not 

consider that to be claimant favorable. 

The mode of the external dose is based on the 

highest survey at Simonds Saw and Steel, as 

well. And SC&A I guess challenged that as -- 

as maybe not being claimant favorable, but I 

have some data later that I'll get to that I 

think can show that we believe it is. 

Just to wrap up here with the favorableness, we 

did use ICRP model default parameters that we 

believe are claimant favorable, organ-dependent 

solubility classes. I was very interested to 

hear that SC&A believed that Type S was 

appropriate for inhalation. What they didn't 

tell you is that we also assumed the opposite 

for organs that -- outside of the lung, so we 

assumed if you breathed it in, it was very 

soluble if you had bladder cancer because that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

would maximize the dose to the bladder. So we 

sort of had this bifurcated process where, 

depending on what you breathe in, we assumed 

the worst case -- I mean the best case for the 

claimant. 

They made some big -- some deal in the document 

about maximally exposed workers heavy 

breathing. The fact is, the upper end of our 

model did assume heavy breathing. We did not 

adjust for particle density. The default ICRP 

particle density is 3 grams. Oxides of uranium 

are somewhere in the 9 to ten range. We didn't 

even bother to correct for that. 

I talked about the GI absorption, and the use 

of the highest non-metabolic organ dose -- some 

of the organ dose's organs are -- are not 

modeled because their dose is going to be so 

low they were of no concern in the ICRP 

biokinetic models, so we take the highest organ 

that was modeled that didn't concentrate 

uranium and apply that. That's led to some 

confusion in dose reconstruction reviews, but -

- but suffice it to say that we do pick the 

highest organ that doesn't concentrate uranium 

and use it consistently in the process. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

Okay. I'd like to -- I think the SC&A report 

says something to the effect that this is the 

general area sampling program at Simonds Saw 

and Steel and therefore it's not applicable and 

doesn't fulfill the requirements of ICRP-75, or 

something to that effect. I think -- I think 

that there is a lack of understanding on SC&A's 

part of the early AEC sampling programs. This 

was in fact the genesis of representative air 

sampling. This was a novel technique at the 

time of taking a 20-liter-per-minute air sample 

pump, around 20 liters per minute, and placing 

it at work stations where the workers resided -

- I mean and worked. And they would take these 

time-weighted averages. So for instance, the 

32 air samples at Bethlehem Steel were taken 

all around the work process, including the 

locker room, including 15 feet from the 

rolling, one on the east side, one on the west 

side -- a very representative profile of the -- 

of the exposure in the workers' environs. And 

using that profile, they would come up with an 

estimated time-weighted average. I will agree 

that there may be some differences in the 

processes, but I think it's very informative 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

and -- to a large extent as to what the average 

worker and the highest exposed worker could 

have been breathing. 

 Again, these short-term samples were really 

intended to reflect exposures at non-continuous 

operations. The report says that short-term 

samples are not valuable. They were short-term 

samples by design because the process did not 

occur that long. They also helped to optimize 

sample counting efficiency, and these were 

integrated into the time-weighted average 

exposure assessments, and there's about a dozen 

pages or so in a Bethlehem Steel -- or Simonds 

Saw document that -- that demonstrates how they 

did these calculations. 

The AED Medical Division, now -- then it turned 

into the Health and Safety Laboratory, now it's 

the Environmental Measurements Laboratory -- 

processed almost all the samples. The SC&A 

report questioned the value -- the validity of 

the samples, that we don't know the pedigree. 

Maybe they were, you know, not -- not processed 

properly. The quality control measures could 

have been poor. Well, it was recognized in the 

-- from the very first time I ever looked at 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

these air samples that Naomi Halden*, who 

actually signed most of these samples, was Dr. 

Naomi Harley, now a professor at New York 

University, fairly well-renowned in the 

radiation sciences business. I've gotten her -

- since she -- she measured most of these 

samples, if not all of them -- I don't know if 

they're all -- but a large majority of these 

samples. There's a statement attached to our 

comments that provides the indication of the 

level of quality and care that were taken in 

processing these samples, and we don't believe 

this to be an issue. 

Again, the samples are really more aligned with 

a representative sampling as defined in ICRP75. There seems to be a misunderstanding on 

SC&A's part about what personal air sampling 

really means. Personal air sample does not 

always mean you have a little lapel air pump 

that breathes -- samples two to four liters per 

minute, full-time basis. The ICRP-75 document 

itself even asserts that a good representative 

sampling program could be composed of a fixed 

sampler at area locations where the workers are 

known to be, supplemented with the general area 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

samplers where the workers also are, but 

they're not these episodic, high concentrations 

that occur because of the work process. 

I've noticed in some of these comments that 

SC&A has provided to us as a rebuttal, I think 

they called it, to our comments -- they 

indicate that the geometric mean could be much 

higher if you ignored the general area samples. 

Well, I would suggest that you can't do that 

because the time-weighted average samples 

include worker occupancy time in general areas, 

including locker rooms, including being 15 feet 

from the mill. You know, it's part of the 

process. Just because it's a general area 

sample does not mean it's invalid. The highest 

concentration samples, which were the personal 

samples or the proximity samples, are valuable. 

But you know, you need to take in the whole 

picture. You can't throw away the GA samples 

and say that now the geometric mean is much 

higher. That's -- that is scientifically 

invalid, in my opinion. 

Okay. I'd just point out some of the early 

sampling locations. These are the type of 

areas -- you know, all stands. There were 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

samples at Bethlehem Steel at all six stands, 

three locations at the shear and different 

orientations from the shear, at the salt bath, 

opposite stands at 15 feet, over and above -- a 

good smattering of where they believed that the 

air concentrations could possibly be elevated 

in this work environment. 

 And the worker categories that were evaluated 

using the time-weighted average analysis, I 

think there were nine -- ended up with nine 

worker categories with -- out of 32 workers. 

So again, I think -- this is the genesis of 

personal air sampling and representative air 

sampling. This is not, as portrayed in the 

review itself, as a -- as a not -- as a general 

area sampling program that could not be used to 

reconstruct internal exposures. 

Let's talk a little bit about air samples 

collected in '51 and '52. I'm glad that we 

agree that '51 and '52 exposures were lower. 

need to point out, this document -- the profile 

-- was developed two years ago, almost two 

years ago to the day, and we didn't have all 

this data -- these data when we did this, but 

we were trying to give claimants a timely 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

answer to their claim that came in our door. 

We didn't have nearly the quantity of air 

sample data at Bethlehem Steel, so we couldn't 

make any inferences from that. Now that we 

have more air sample data and access to it, I 

think there's a good reason for us to go back 

and revisit the profile, and we can -- I firmly 

believe that the air samples in 1951 and '52 

need to be reduced considerably from what they 

are right now. There is no indication that the 

air samples in 1951 and '52 are anywhere near 

the 1948 rolling samples that occurred at 

Simonds Saw and Steel when they came out of a 

gas-fired combustion furnace and carrying to 

the roughing roller. In fact, in '51 and '52 I 

saw no evidence of roughing rolling occurring. 

Of the six rollings that we have, these were 

all pre-finished rollings. They occurred -- 

they were two-inch diameter by one-and-a-halfinch diameter pre-rolled ovals at Allegheny 

Ludlum. They came and were rolled down to 

about a one-and-a-half-inch or something 

diameter. The Simonds Saw and Steel started 

with five-inch billets and rolled them down in 

many cases to a -- like about a one-inch 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

diameter -- a huge difference in the mechanics 

of the process. And I agree they're different. 

I would submit that the Bethlehem Steel 

process, particularly in '51 and '52, was much 

less messy and involved by the nature of the 

differences in the work processes. 

If you look at these samples -- I'm not going 

to harp on this -- the geometric mean of .2 

MAC, a geometric standard deviation of 8 -- I 

won't quibble that this couldn't be a little 

higher. This is just to illustrate that this 

is a low value, .2 MAC versus the 1,000 MAC 

that we assigned to the high end of the 

triangular... 

This is just a fit. I'm not sure why a Z-score 

analysis of data is statistically invalid. 

I've been using this for years. We've 

published literature, articles using this 

approach, in the peer-reviewed literature. 

think it has some scientific validity. 

This is a pretty good fit, R squared .97, so it 

does fit a lognormal distribution pretty well, 

and in fact I think it could be used, to some 

extent, in evaluating the early samples. And 

if we threw out the '52 data and used the very 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

early samples, it may go up some, but it's 

certainly not going to be anywhere near the '48 

and '49 rollings that we assumed. 

Okay. The early air samples at Simonds were 

1,000, we talked about that. Time-weighted 

average. Here's where we have a little bit of 

a difference. I believe, based on our analysis 

and review of that time-weighted average 

analysis, it gives us a pretty good feel that 

the workers at a messier environment rolling 

five-inch billets were -- could be 

characterized using something like this. I'm 

not saying this is the final product, but this 

is -- this just gives you a flavor for how much 

lower this is than was provided in the profile. 

Okay. I think this -- this slide says a lot. 

This solid line here -- this is a Monte Carlo 

simulation that I did by inputting the 

distributions that we -- we generated from the 

different air samples, so you'll see this 

yellow squiggly line here is the site profile 

document. We ran -- I forget -- 50,000 

iterations or something like that of each run, 

and here is the time -- here is the 

distribution of the triangular. Now if you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

look at the blue line, it's the Simonds Saw and 

Steel -- not time-weighted average values, but 

all the values of the 32 runs. And yes, a 

couple of these points pop over here at the 

1,000 MAC. But again, we're talking about an 

exposure matrix here, not an air sample matrix. 

And here's the Bethlehem Steel. So by any 

measure, this certainly over-arches the two air 

sample distributions. 

If you prefer to use the Q-Q plot that SC&A 

use, this is a similar analysis that 

demonstrates the same thing. Perfect agreement 

would be a straight line. I think it's 

important to point out, though, that any point 

below this straight line indicates that the 

model overestimates the exposure. I don't 

think that was pointed out very clearly. So 

anything above the line -- and here I'll agree 

this point is slightly above -- it would under-

- tend to underestimate the exposure. But all 

these points clearly show that the triangular 

distribution over-arches all the datapoints for 

the sample sets. I've got the Bethlehem Steel 

'51/'52 data here, and here is the timeweighted average distribution that we generated 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

for Simonds Saw. 

Okay. The site profile used, for external 

dosimetry, 1.8 rem as the mode for skin, 

evaluated an annualized dose of 30 rem to the 

mode and 250 rem for the maximum exposed 

person. Remember, we assume these rollings 

occurred for 12 days, ten hours a day, so 120 

hours exposure. If you annualize that, the 

maximum estimate we assume was 250 rem to a 

worker. So the mean annualized dose of the 

distribution is 133 rem, a huge amount of 

shallow dose exposure to the worker. That's 

what was applied in the model. 

If you look at another facility, like Fernald, 

that between 1952 and 1955 processed about 25 

million pounds of uranium in one given year, 

and machined 15 million pounds, the highest 

dose to 4,500 man-years of monitoring data is 

ten rem. So I have trouble understanding why 

this is not claimant favorable, and would not 

tend to include some of these episodic 

incidents and off-normal occurrences that may 

have occurred at Simonds Saw and Steel. This 

is a major, major difference. And this is a 

fact -- the effect -- if you put this as a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

constant into our distribution, you would get 

the same value as if you put the distribution 

in since the values are so narrow compared to 

the uncertainty of the overall models. And so 

again, I have trouble agreeing with SC&A's 

review that this was not necessarily claimant 

favorable. 

Just a little bit about some of the speculative 

exposure conditions. They've talked about the 

4,350 MAC. They suggest that they didn't 

intend for that to be used; however, it appears 

in their report as the value. It's pretty hard 

to imagine why they would have put it in there 

if they don't believe it could have been a real 

value. I mean I just don't understand the 

logic behind putting a 4,000 MAC value in there 

and then saying well, it's for illustration 

purposes only; we don't believe it to be true. 

 This proposed particle size distribution of .01 

microns, ten nanometers -- it was a finding, by 

the way, which means that there's sufficient 

evidence to -- for -- for SC&A to come to the 

conclusion that NIOSH was not claimant 

favorable, or something to that effect, in 

their review. They provide no evidence there 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

were such particles in this range. In fact, 

there seems to be an understanding on their 

part that our five-micron distribution is a 

single point, because they make the case well, 

there surely were particles smaller than that. 

It's true, the ICRP model assumes a five-micron 

particle size, but a geometric standard 

deviation of two and a half. So they account 

for a large particle range, and in fact I think 

95 percent of the particles would fall above I 

think .4 microns or something like that, but 

there are particles smaller than that. So I 

think there may be a fundamental 

misunderstanding of the ICRP models going on 

here. I can't tell from the review. 

 Again, if they didn't believe that Type F could 

have been a possibility, why raise it -- the 

specter in the report? I mean it just makes no 

sense to raise that in a report and say we 

never intended for NIOSH to address this. If 

they don't believe it existed, then why put it 

in? And again, these are just principally 

oxide exposures. 

I won't go into this, but if you do Type F and 

-- fast solubility at the highest end, you get 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

a three-and-a-half gram intake, which -- which 

puts you above the LD50 for uranium, which -- 

lethal to 50 percent of the people that breathe 

it. 

Just some brief comments on ingestion. I think 

I'm probably running a little over, but I'll 

just wrap up. We talked about the site profile 

using a claimant-favorable .02 -- or .2. This 

100 milligram ingestion, they raise it based on 

an NCRP, I think, document that they point to. 

I think the uranium -- uranium was a pretty 

dusty operation. By all accounts, uranium 

rolling mills are very dusty. In fact, the 

workers continually talk about how dusty it 

was. But they also say that when they rolled 

uranium it was less dusty than steel, which 

makes sense. Uranium is a dense metal -- 18 

grams per cubic centimeters, quite dense 

material, doesn't go very far when you get it 

airborne, kind of settles out fairly quickly 

near -- near where you generated it. 

So we believe that, you know, this ingestion 

pathway, other than fine particles settling, 

SC&A speculates that they could have ingested 

from touching surfaces, we believe would have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

been in a milieu of other steel dust that's 

around the site. I mean this is a very dusty 

site. I believe if you -- if you consider the 

difference in the percentage of time rolling 

versus -- rolling uranium versus steel, you'd 

come up with something, even using SC&A's 

logic, of some-- somewhat closer to what we 

came up, which was about a total gram uranium 

ingestion. 

And this may be called a non sequitur, but the 

fact -- the fact of the matter is that the 

doses from ingestion of uranium are very small. 

I think when we added -- way back in February, 

2002 -- our ingestion pathway model, the entire 

gram of uranium ingestion added less than one 

millirem dose to every claim per year for all 

organs except the kidney and the bone marrow, 

which had -- I think the median value -- the 

mean value was somewhere around 30 millirem. 

So you know, you can't get there from here. 

 Residual contamination, we're -- we somewhat 

disagree with the comments that were made that 

this -- the survey's not valid. The residual 

contamination we're talking about is was there 

contamination at this site from 1952 forward 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

into 1970's. The survey that we had was the 

next to the last rolling that was ever -- that 

was documented to be conducted. That rolling 

had a survey of about -- I don't know, 14 

smears, very low contamination in three areas -

- on the floor less than 1,000 dpm. That's 

free-releasable area by even today's 

conventional standards, by the Department of 

Energy or -- requirements. The floor surveys 

averaged 13 dpm. That's essentially almost 

indistinguishable from background, in my mind. 

So clearly in 1952 there wasn't much there, so 

why we can now come to the conclusion that 

there's significant contamination over the next 

20 years is very difficult to understand. 

And conclusions, I won't go over these. I 

think I've gone over my time, but I think they 

speak for themselves. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim, for that 

presentation. Now we're going to have a time 

of open discussion. Before we do that, let me 

make some general remarks about how we might 

proceed. And it occurs to me that, since this 

is our first site profile, we might have in 

mind not only how we deal with this particular 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

one, but can we think of it in terms of how we 

might deal with site profile reviews in general 

and what will our template be. 

This particular review by our contractor 

included eight findings -- they're listed in 

the summary. A number of them have been 

highlighted in the presentation, but you'll 

find eight items categorized as findings. You 

will find seven observations, which relate to 

technical and process questions. Those are 

issues that, as the contractor has described 

them, issues that might need to be considered. 

And there are three procedural conformance 

issues, which raise some issues about the 

procedures that are used in terms of how the 

site profile was apparently used. 

Now -- so they have those categories of things, 

the findings, the observations and the 

procedural conformance issues. 

Now it occurs to me that there are several 

possible ways that we can approach dealing with 

or -- I'm searching for the proper word -- but 

taking what our contractor has given us and 

determining how it becomes our report. Let me 

suggest several possibilities, and this may 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

stimulate you to think of yet other 

possibilities. 

 One approach would be to review each of the 

individual findings, observations and concerns 

-- that is one by one -- and determine whether 

or not we agree with those. Yes, I agree with 

this; I don't agree with that, or -- in other 

words, they could be handled one by one and we 

could determine which we agree with or which we 

don't agree with, or even which ones we don't 

think we can even evaluate fully, because it 

does occur to me that in some of the technical 

issues, we may have as much trouble evaluating 

our contractor's views as we would evaluating 

the NIOSH positions. 

A second possibility would be to accept the 

document as the findings of our contractor -- 

that is without necessarily endorsing or 

rejecting them. We accept these as their 

findings, and then request that the issues that 

they have raised be considered as input that 

may result in some sort of revisions to the 

site profile. NIOSH then would -- in that 

scenario in my mind -- would need to report 

back at some point how and to what extent, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

after considering these issues, the site 

profile may be altered or amended. 

A third possibility it seems to me would be to 

accept the document as the findings of our 

contractor, just as in the previous one I just 

described, but with the identification of 

specific items that we would especially like to 

see followed up on. Not necessarily saying 

that yes, we agree or disagree with these, but 

we think these are items -- these particular 

items we would like to see followed up, and 

perhaps have additional further discussion on. 

This would be -- this might include reporting 

back on the specific items by NIOSH in terms of 

how they dealt with them. 

Now some of these issues of course NIOSH has 

already responded to here, but depending on how 

the Board looks at both the findings and the 

responses, you may say I want to hear more on 

this topic. So there's some possibilities that 

I offer, sort of as a framework that we can 

sort of build around. 

I would like to get some kind of feedback as to 

whether any of these make particular sense to 

the Board, or if there's yet another scheme 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

that you might offer as to how we might in fact 

engage with the document to come to a -- a 

position where it will be useful, both as a 

Board document and useful to NIOSH as they move 

forward. And again thinking in terms of also 

how future documents might be handled, viewed 

and -- and commented on. 

 Dr. Melius, please. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, there may be another 

possibility in terms of how NIOSH handles our 

comments, and I think it may affect how we want 

to transmit them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: That is that this site profile is 

two years old. There's been -- and Jim Neton 

or someone can correct me, I think there's been 

one correction to it in terms of the ingestion 

pathway issue already. But as Jim Neton 

acknowledged in his response was that there is 

other -- new information, some of which I think 

our contractor included in their review, which 

NIOSH was aware of but had chosen or -- 

whatever not to include in the site profiles 

yet. 

I think there's a need with these site 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

profiles, particularly in a site like this 

where they're being used and some limits to the 

population involved and so forth, that there be 

some plan for the way that these site profiles 

get -- get revised and changed. And they 

talked about them as sort of under a continual 

process, but it seems to me that it -- it's 

going to be an intermittent process. At some 

point there's enough new information that NIOSH 

may want to review the site profile, decide -- 

there's a whole range of issues that they have 

to -- that have been raised, factual and 

otherwise, and -- as they've learned more, and 

there ought to be a revision process. And it 

may be that then our comments from our 

contractor simply become one of the inputs into 

that revision process along -- there've been -- 

for example, Bethlehem -- there's been some 

meetings up there, some -- a tour of the -- 

what's left of the facility, I believe, some -- 

some other information-gathering that's gone 

on, and that all ought to be brought together 

in, you know, some sort of a process to revise 

that document. 

I also think it's (unintelligible) that brings 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

closure rather than this continual saying well, 

there's new information; we'll incorporate, 

we'll incorporate. Well, there has to be a 

time when they sort of weigh all this. 

I also think it addresses this claimantfavorable issue which I interpreted very, very 

differently from SC&A's comments. But -- but 

there -- it does have to be sort of a balancing 

there of -- of the technical and of what's 

claimant-favorable and so forth, and I think 

that's best done not in an individual 

particular technical issue, but something -- 

from a larger perspective in looking overall 

how the site profile's going to be used. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You're basically suggesting that 

perhaps NIOSH might use the opportunity of the 

reviews -- at least for those 16 that we do 

review -- as a mechanism to, in a sense, 

formally update said site profiles, using that 

as part of the input. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And that certainly -- whichever -- 

whatever we adopt as a means of review could 

carry with it that kind of recommendation, as 

well. That's not really necessarily a fourth 
-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

option, but a way to take one of these options 

and utilize it for that purpose, I believe, is 

 DR. MELIUS: And it certainly may factor into 

how we decide to do that --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- rather than us trying to 

finalize a communication. It may be let's 

submit this in the context of -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of updating. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's go to Tony. 

 DR. ANDRADE: Well, believe it or not, I agree 

with Jim. No, in reality what I wanted to say 

here was that one of the options that you laid 

out makes a lot of sense, and that is that we 

accept the SC&A document, as is, and allow it 

to be used as an input -- and make sure that it 

is designated as such, an input -- for NIOSH to 

consider, not necessarily only to update a site 

profile. As has been discussed and shown to us 

I believe in a very convincing fashion by Jim, 

the updates to the site profile may not be 

necessary or huge updates to the site profile 

may not be necessary if two other things are 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

done. One is if, during the dose 

reconstruction process, as we had opportunity 

to discuss, there could be better documentation 

of an approach that was used, and if in the 

guidance documents that dose reconstructors use 

these approaches are actually laid out and 

explanations are given to reasons why we, for 

example, bifurcate on the use of different 

solubility classes for one given material, and 

that is precisely for the reason of providing 

claimant-favorable results for the different 

type organs that are affected by a given 

radionuclide. So if we can use and accept this 

in that spirit, as input, such that guidance 

documents can be updated -- and site profiles, 

as necessary -- then I think that what you're 

suggesting, Paul, would be a good approach. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I've suggested at least 

three things. They can't all be good. 

 DR. ANDRADE: No, but the -- the one that I 

said is -- is to accept it as-is, as one input 

to the process of updating, but -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that option involves simply 

accepting it, without identifying whether we 

agree or disagree with it. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

 DR. ANDRADE: Okay, but -- right, exactly, 

without identifying whether we agree or 

disagree. The thing is, the only place where I 

differ with what you said is that you were very 

specific to updating site profiles, and so is 

Dr. Melius. What I'm saying here is I don't 

see the need to update the site profiles so 

much, maybe a couple of datapoints here and 

there, if they are datapoints. But it's rather 

the documentation of the approach to doing the 

dose reconstructions -- okay? -- which are in 

the guidance documents, or some people call 

them procedures. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Who's next? 

Okay, Leon and then Jim. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, if I remember 

correctly, the Board had very specific 

objectives that it wanted the contractor to 

address in the site profile reviews. And if 

I'm not mistaken, the final draft was signed 

off on in May. I guess my first question is 

how many of the Board members have had an 

opportunity to review those objectives and then 

match what we have heard from our contractor 

with the objectives that the Board had 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

specified? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have those -- I think I 

have them with me. 

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir, I do, and I think that it 

would be wise for the Board to consider the 

points that the contractor has made and match 

those with our objectives, rather than just 

agree with what the contractor has said. And 

then if we do agree after we have taken the 

time to look at the objectives, then we could 

possibly formulate a course of action or 

recommendations to NIOSH based on those 

objectives. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's make sure -- Leon, I'm going 

to -- I'm pulling out my copy here to see if 

we're on the same page here. Objective one had 

to do with completeness of the datasources. Is 

that correct? 

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Objective two had to do with 

technical accuracy. 

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Objective three, adequacy of data. 

Objective four had to do with consistency among 

site profiles, and obviously only one having 
-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

been reviewed, can't be addressed at this 

point. And the fifth one was regulatory 

compliance. I believe those are the categories 

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- of objectives. Under each of 

those, there's -- there's a lot of detail, but 

those are the categories. And do you want to 

comment? I --

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir, that's --

 DR. ZIEMER: Can I assume that you in fact have 

done what you have just delineated -- 

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and please --

MR. OWENS: -- and again --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- give us your feedback. 

MR. OWENS: Well, I just -- I just think that 

the Board needs to have a discussion in regard 

to these objectives, Dr. Ziemer, before we even 

proceed. And I don't know how many of the 

Board members might have the documents. If 

they don't, I think it would be wise for us to 

make copies and at least review this before we 

proceed any further with a course of action. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. You've heard Leon's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

comments on that. Let me get some other 

comments here, but --

 DR. MELIUS: Let me --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we can do something in the 

break here in a minute. 

 DR. MELIUS: Let me address two points. One is 

Tony's last comment. I'm not making a value 

judgment that the site profile needs to be 

changed, only that there be a review of the 

updated information, new information, including 

a report from our subcontractor, and a decision 

made; does that warrant revision or not. And 

that, you know, follows the usual process and 

so forth, but it's not making a value judgment 

yeah, absolutely, it must or -- now we can 

discuss whether we want to recommend something, 

you know, on that, but at this point I think 

it's just a process thing and it's trying to 

get some way of bringing closure to this in a 

timely fashion. 

Secondly, I agree with Leon, and I guess in 

response to NIOSH's review of the review, I 

actually did pull out the charge to the 

contractor and review it 'cause I thought maybe 

I misunderstood something and so forth and, you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

know, I personally believe that they did 

fulfill -- they're responding to their charge, 

what -- their charge we had given them to do 

and that what they had written was appropriate 

and I personally felt that some of NIOSH's 

comments back were at least out of context, if 

not inappropriate in terms of somehow implying 

that they weren't meeting that charge, but 

other people may feel differently. I agree 

that we should discuss that issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: This is a very painful pilot project 

here. Certainly the comments with respect to 

review of initial requirements are well taken, 

and I certainly support that suggestion, Leon. 

As we go into our deliberations with respect to 

this particular site profile, I would hope all 

of us would be mindful of what effect major 

changes to the document may have with respect 

to claims that have already been processed. 

One of our major concerns from the outset, I 

believe, has been timely processing of claims. 

If claims have already been processed and site 

profiles that support those claims are 

significantly changed over time as other 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

information becomes available, then it could 

create issues that we might find insoluble -- a 

point I think we need to certainly consider 

strongly as we deliberate how to proceed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I might insert, though, that 

NIOSH already has in place a process for 

reviewing claims that have been completed in 

cases where -- because as was indicated, all of 

the site profiles may be subject to change as 

new information becomes available, whether it 

comes from review process or -- or worker 

information or even another claim. And so the 

possibility of going back, I think -- and 

reviewing past claims, particularly those that 

were denied, with new information is going to 

be there regardless, probably. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes, I agree. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Tony again? 

 DR. ANDRADE: I was just going to say that this 

Board should not be afraid to accept new 

information and/or make recommendations on a 

major revision to a site profile if such 

information does come up. But from what I've 

seen, at least today in what we -- in what 

you're calling the pilot project, and it 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

certainly is -- I'm not convinced that I've 

seen anything major that would -- 

 MS. MUNN: I don't think so, either. 

 DR. ANDRADE: -- that would -- that -- any 

major change that would go into the site 

profile. 

 MS. MUNN: I think it's unlikely we would. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I'd like to hear from 

others, either on the information presented by 

our presenters, or on the approach to handling 

the information. Roy DeHart. 

 DR. DEHART: What I heard was some significant 

technical differences of opinion as to how to 

approach the creation of dose in these -- in 

these models at the sites. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. DEHART: I think those need to be resolved 

in some way. The question was mentioned that 

perhaps one group isn't understanding what 

really needs to be done, or understanding what 

is provided under various documentation 

programs, or isn't understanding what the 

regulations have. Those issues need to be 

resolved. We had recommended just yesterday a 

possible solution in doing dose calculations, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

and essentially what we asked to happen was 

that the NIOSH authors and the audit group get 

together and try to resolve as much of this as 

can be. I think that has to be a part of 

whatever the process is that the Board 

recommends in going forward. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me play the devil's advocate, 

however, for a moment here -- and you know, I 

sort of agree with that. On the other hand, 

one of the roles of the independent review is 

to bring in some -- some other thinking for 

consideration. We're only an advisory board. 

And I don't -- I don't think we want to get in 

a role of trying to force our contractor and 

force NIOSH to necessarily agree on some 

technical issues, for which there may be valid, 

scientific differences of opinion on the -- you 

know, the statistical issue. That's not easily 

resolved. I'm sure there can be valid 

differences of opinion as to what is the best 

way to -- to characterize some of these 

distributions. Certain ones have some 

advantages in one way, some in another way, and 

you -- you understand what I'm saying. 

 DR. DEHART: Oh, yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

 DR. ZIEMER: So although if there are issues of 

fact that need to be cleared up, it seems to me 

that's one thing. The other is if there are 

valid other ways of looking at these things, it 

seems to me we'd let them stand. Then the 

agency, NIOSH, can look at those and they can 

either say yes, I think we ought to revise 

things; or no, we think what we're doing is the 

better way. It seems to me that's their 

option. And unless the Board mandates and says 

we're smart enough to know which of those 

distributions is best, and we're going to 

demand through the Secretary that that's the 

way it ought to be done, I think on most of 

these issues where the scientific disagreement 

occurs, I'm not sure this Board is any more 

capable of deciphering the truth than any other 

group. We may have to hire yet another 

contractor to tell us whether SCA is doing its 

job right. Well, you understand my point. 

Audit the audit. 

So in a certain sense, there's a role for the 

differences, and they can -- it's not wrong for 

there to be a disagreement. And I don't think 

the Board necessarily has to say this then is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

our position, particularly on those cases where 

we may not be prepared to be able to -- or may 

not be able to fully evaluate the merit of the 

technical argument. But we can certainly say 

here's some information; please consider it as 

you go forward. 

Okay, I'll get off the stump and go back to Jim 

Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: Or let someone else get on the 

stump. Right? 

Just in res-- follow up to Roy's -- Roy's 

point, there may -- I would also wish that we 

would try to resolve some of these issues, 

although I do agree with Paul that maybe it's 

impossible and -- do that, and I guess it's 

hard to sort through that for two reasons. One 

is that there's this polemic on both sides that 

doesn't really address the scientific issue but 

sort of projects that you don't understand, you 

don't understand. And that's hard to sort 

through that, rather than saying, you know, 

this other approach should be considered and so 

forth. And my question, though, along this 

line is -- is to Jim Neton is to whether the -- 

and -- or whoever is responsible for the NIOSH 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

comments, maybe it's Larry or -- should answer 

this, but do these represent sort of the full 

NIOSH response to the -- the review of 

Bethlehem by SCA? Is this dealing with every 

issue that you thought was appropriate to 

respond to? Are there some comments that you 

accept that you didn't deal with in this 

report? Are there things that you thought you 

needed to -- needed more time to explore and so 

forth? 

DR. NETON: By and large it incorporates most 

of our comments, but not all. There's a few 

issues that are remaining out there that SC&A 

raise that -- that need to be explored. 

 DR. MELIUS: And I think just along those 

lines, it would be helpful -- and you did it to 

some extent but I just didn't think -- I had 

trouble -- I sat there and spent a lot of time 

trying to match up the site profile, the SCA 

review and the NIOSH response to SCA and, you 

know, figure was everything being, you know, 

addressed. Were you accepting some, not 

accepting some. It was very hard to do, and I 

think some better organization of the NIOSH 

comments would have been helpful in that regard 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

203 

and -- do that --

DR. NETON: I can -- I can address that. The 

rationale behind our comments was that we 

viewed this as a preliminary -- a report to the 

Board, and we had no idea how the Board was 

going to handle this document. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

DR. NETON: Why we didn't feel it was 

appropriate to address all the comments -- for 

instance, if the Board reviewed the document 

themselves internally and decided that some of 

these comments weren't valid. So it was not 

our intent to -- to prejudge the Board's 

decision on this. 

 DR. MELIUS: And then one of the things we may 

want to consider is we need to communicate how 

these will be dealt with in the future so NIOSH 

knows what the expectations are, the contractor 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and that's the sense in 

which I'm suggesting that if we can identify a 

sort of template that we can use going forward 

that would apply and say this is how we are 

going to handle documents in the future, either 

take them point by point or highlight certain 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

items or just accept it and say here it is, do 

something with it, you know. 

Okay, who else has comments? Okay, Henry, 

please. 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I mean I support Jim's 

recommendation. I don't think we need to, you 

know, adopt I think their comments coming in. 

I guess where I was looking at it and trying to 

look at this really was a discrete review of a 

document, and I think a lot of the issues 

identified and discussed and explained may not 

be explained in the document, and therefore -- 

I mean I kind of saw one of the issues as 

claimant-friendly. Well, that's a very 

difficult thing to define, and it seemed our 

reviewer sort of did a word search, found that 

and then looked -- has that been explained. 

But wasn't explained, scientifically or 

whatever, versus holistically, saying well, is 

this whole document and are the basic concepts 

of it or what -- what did NIOSH intend by what 

was in the site profile document, and I think -

- I mean that's the kind of way I looked at it 

as that structurally or -- we really have to 

keep in mind that what was being reviewed was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

what was written in the site profile. And if 

not necessarily trying to interpret what was 

behind what was written in the site profile, I 

think we got a whole lot more richer discussion 

from NIOSH explaining why it was some kind of -

- or what could be viewed as undefended 

statements in the site profile were in fact 

well thought out, had been considered and 

issues like that, and this is a big document 

already and could have been considerably even 

more. So I think that's part of the thing we 

have to look at or I would say to NIOSH look 

at, not so much the arguments about whatever, 

but rather was it adequately explained. I mean 

choices had to be made, and one choice isn't 

necessarily better than another; it just has to 

be adequately described and discussed. If it 

isn't, you know, I think that's what was sort 

of -- I took a lot of the comments as that's 

how that was done and I think it's valuable to 

have somebody go over it like this, and then I 

think we can pass it on and it's up to NIOSH -- 

and I don't think right or wrong is really the 

way to look at it, but rather as, you know, 

does the site profile recognize that there's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

other ways to do it versus this is the way it's 

got to be, and that may be a thing in the site 

profiles that we need to look at as we go 

further along, are they too definitive as 

opposed to a description of here's, you know, 

how we arrived at the conclusions we did. And 

I think that's where some of the disagreement 

was. It was perhaps good justification for 

what was done, but it wasn't necessarily 

adequately documented or described in the site 

profile. I haven't gone through it, but trying 

to cite all of those things and to say well, 

they didn't understand it because what they 

were basing it on is the site profile rather 

than the whole program. Well, those are really 

quite different things and I think you can 

arrive at the same -- both sides could be 

right, based on what they based their comments 

on. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- yeah, I think I -- I sort 

of agree with Henry. One thing that struck me 

when I reviewed the first -- I think it's the 

NIOSH review of the -- of the SCA review was 

that there was a lot of detail in there that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

was very good, and I was thinking boy, this 

should have been integrated -- you know, would 

have been helpful in the original site profile, 

would have been more -- more descriptive and 

maybe less questions would have been raised. 

I'm sure some -- some issues still -- there are 

still differences of opinion. 

Second thing, I think -- I think my -- my 

opinion is that we as a Board should try to 

make some recommendations. And going back to 

Leon's comment, if we can look at our original 

objectives for the site profile review and from 

this report we may be able to make some 

recommendations, and some of those may be -- 

you know, where we get into situations where 

there's specific technical issues, we may -- 

the recommendation may be as simple as NIOSH 

consider the proposal made by SCA. 

Other things we may be able to weigh in a 

little more strongly. For example, you know, 

some -- there were some findings about whether 

or not all data was -- whether or not NIOSH 

made a good attempt to get all data that was 

available, so we may want -- you know, that's -

- that's not as technical of an issue. It's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208 

more of a -- a data collection issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That approach is the one where we 

accept the report and highlight certain items 

for emphasis. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, okay. And -- yeah --

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to get support for one 

of my views. 

 MR. GRIFFON: We're supporting all of them. 

But yeah, I think that -- and then the last 

thing on that was, even with the technical 

issues, I think we as a Board have to at least 

request of NIOSH some kind of follow through on 

that, that where we say we see a sort of 

division of difference in technical issues, we 

request that NIOSH follow up and, where 

necessary, correct the -- you know, modify the 

site profile, if necessary -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Or report back --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- or give us an action, what did 

you do and why, you know. And part of that 

action may be this whole question of, you know, 

we have this difference. However, you know, we 

have assessed it and we believe that any way we 

run any claims, it's not going to affect any 

outcomes on any -- you know, sufficiently 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209 

affect any doses that it would make a 

difference in claims down the line, so you 

know, the change was not necessary, something 

like that, so... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I want to interrupt 

the discussion a moment to ask Dr. Wade a 

procedural question. Does the action of this 

Board on this document go specifically to the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, whoever 

it may be, or does it go to NIOSH? Or do you 

know? 

 DR. WADE: Well, I don't know, in point of 

fact. I'd offer an opinion, but I'd defer to 

anybody who thinks they do know. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Or maybe NIOSH staff knows. I 

mean if we have a formal recommendation to 

NIOSH, do we have to feed that back through the 

Secretary, Larry, or do we simply feed it 

directly --

 MR. ELLIOTT: You advise the Secretary of HHS. 

That's where your recommendations go. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So any formal action on 

this document, as was the case for the comments 

on the -- Parts 42 and 43 and so on, formal-- 

although you're aware of them, they formally go 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210 

through the Secretary. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Right, and they end up on my 

doorstep. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I know. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And then we have to address 

those, tell you how we handled them or why we 

did not incorporate them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's -- that's helpful. We're 

going to take a break in a moment, and when we 

reconvene we're going to have a motion of some 

sort. The Chair's going to call for a motion. 

The Chair may even suggest what it will be. 

 MS. MUNN: That would be nice. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can we line up behind doors one, 

two and three? 

 DR. ZIEMER: There you go. We'll take a 15-

minute break and then reconvene. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:55 p.m. 

to 3:20 p.m.) 

 BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'll call the meeting back 

to order, please. 

I did want to allow a representative from the 

Department of Labor, Shelly (sic) Hallmark -- 

Labor did have comments also on the document, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211 

and Shelly, if you would just take a moment and 

-- you wanted to comment also on -- on the -- 

MR. HALLMARK: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- profile review relative to 

Labor's views. 

MR. HALLMARK: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, Shelby, 

with a B, just for the record. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

MR. HALLMARK: I just -- I wanted to express 

some institutional concern regarding the notion 

that the Board might pass this report forward 

with -- with no comment or with only marginal 

comment. It seems to me that insofar as what 

we have here is a scientific debate going on, a 

scientific debate is fine and obviously there 

are all -- there's plenty of room for people to 

have different perspectives. The concern is, 

from our perspective, is that that document 

would have a life that would play out in the 

claims adjudication world and in the lives of 

our claimants. Some 500 or 600 claimants have 

already received a decision based on the site 

profile as it stands. Individuals, especially 

those who might have received a denial, who 

learn that there's a report that has been 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212 

forwarded by the Board which -- at least in 

terms of the current -- my understanding of the 

report as it stands now, seems to be 

extraordinarily negative with respect to the 

site profile and suggests that the decisions 

made based on that site profile are in fact 

questionable, if not flat-out wrong. 

 That document, whether -- the Board's passing 

it forward would represent a public statement 

from this Board, which I don't -- I don't 

believe is an appropriate way for the Board to 

address a contract which they -- which you in 

fact have set in motion. As a party to the 

budget process that the Board enjoys through 

NIOSH, I'm concerned that that -- that you 

haven't really exercised your responsibility 

with respect to that expenditure if you don't 

at least try to reconcile and characterize the 

differences between the site profile as 

described by NIOSH and SC&A's perspective on 

it. I don't know whether that reconciliation 

is possible, as Dr. DeHart has suggested. You 

know, I don't know to what extent we have a 

fundamental disagreement. But it seems to me 

that the Board has some responsibility to try 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

to untangle that. 

If you don't do that, if you do pass the 

document forward at this point, you also are 

sending the signal with respect to all the 

remaining tasks that SC&A is moving ahead with 

which will simply elaborate and continue the 

difference of opinion, and presumably continue 

to move the -- spread the differences and cause 

the reports that are received on further site 

profiles and further dose reconstructions to 

continue to be problematic for this Board to 

deal with. 

So it seems to me that, unpleasant as it is -- 

as Wanda suggested -- at this moment, that the 

Board needs to find a way to address this 

matter and bring some sort of closure. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

MR. HALLMARK: One last point, if I may, with 

respect to one particular factual issue -- and 

it may be repetitive in this regard -- there 

was a comment made about 1955 and 1956 

potential other exposures. This is a classic 

matter of dealing with the adjudicatory 

process. It's not appropriate, in my view, for 

NIOSH or SC&A to address additional areas 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214 

outside of the employment -- the covered 

employment period. That is an adjudicatory 

matter that's reserved to the Department of 

Labor. In this case, that precise issue has 

been adjudicated. Cases -- claimants have come 

forward with that -- with evidence or purported 

evidence regarding 1955 and '56. The 

Department of Labor has chosen -- has 

adjudicated the matter negatively; that is that 

we did not find there was sufficient 

information to show that there were rollings in 

those years. And it would not be appropriate 

for NIOSH to question the -- add that 

additional time to their -- to their scope, in 

our view. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, I have Tony and 

then Jim. 

 DR. ANDRADE: As you mentioned earlier, Paul, 

this Board serves in an advisory capacity, not 

as -- as a scientific body or in any other 

role. And really for us to try to untangle 

every scientific issue would -- it would rather 

-- it would be going towards the impossible 

side of things. Hence, I wanted to make a 

comment here. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

In talking to a friend of mine, I guess I 

missed -- what I said earlier was probably not 

spoken with great clarity, and I probably miscommunicated what I meant. I had no intention 

of -- of -- or leaving the impression that I've 

-- all I wanted to do was pass the -- pass the 

buck or pass the report on into never-never 

land. Quite the opposite. 

On the other hand, what I said about the site 

profiles was, in general, true. The site 

profile that was reviewed I believe is 

factually correct. That's my opinion. The 

rest of the Board will have their own. But 

nevertheless, given the fact that NIOSH had to 

stand up and defend its position or explain its 

position with respect to how some of the 

information has been noted in the site profile, 

then I do believe that the site profile needs -

- not to be changed, but those positions 

explained. Okay? 

Now in some cases Jim did note that there were 

some new data that could be indicated in the 

site profiles and that those could be updated 

and changed, as necessary. And so those 

changes I think would be appropriate. But I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

think for the vast majority of his 

presentation, he rather explained why the 

positions were taken in the site profile as it 

were. 

 Hence, given what I have just said, I'm almost 

ready to make a motion in that regard, but I 

would like to hear from the rest of the Board 

how they feel about it, but what I'm saying is 

that I accept Jim's explanations and feel that 

NIOSH is on the right track. SC&A did a good 

job of explaining alternatives, seeing where a 

group of professionals could -- could disagree 

with the information that was there at hand and 

could be interpreted as -- such as they did, 

and hence the -- I do believe that the 

explanations are necessary from NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have one question for the 

Department of Labor in terms of what Shelby 

just commented on and in terms of this sort of 

turf issue, who's supposed to -- who's 

responsible for what. You indicated that you 

had already adjudicated the issue about the 

time period for exposure at Bethlehem Steel. 

Did -- did your review of that take into 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

account what was mentioned in the SC&A report, 

which was records from -- possible records from 

a Bethlehem record center, as well as records 

from Hanford, Savannah River I believe were the 

other -- one other site, I can't remember what 

it was, that might shed light on that issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Pete? 

 MR. TURCIC: Yes, I did, Jim. In fact, those -

- that information -- we received that 

information. We spent a lot of time, along 

with DOE, investigating every possible lead we 

could come up with. And in fact that 

information -- SC&A knew that, and that was 

still put in. That -- that was welladjudicated. I mean hours were spent looking 

into that, looking every possible place to get 

records. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: I'd like to go back to Leon's 

comments, and I agree that, you know, we 

charged the contractor with -- with a task, and 

I think that we need to take the task that we 

gave them and go through this thing and make 

sure that it was fulfilled so that the 

government's money is spent properly. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218 

 And then secondly, I believe that there are 

issues in SCA's document that, even though 

we're not scientists, I believe we could come 

to a conclusion on, either up or down, 

depending on how the vote goes. But then 

secondly, there are the technical issues that 

may be over our heads and that we could ask for 

a comment resolution, as outlined in some of 

the procedures for the others and send those 

recommendations on to the Secretary. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. In fact, 

what -- what might be helpful now, and you have 

opened the door for this -- we didn't get 

together on this, but I did talk with Leon 

during the break and I think we're prepared to 

first address the issue that you raise, and 

that is the five objectives as a measuring 

stick. And this would be separate from what we 

do with the document. And Leon, if you would, 

let me give you the floor and you can address 

the five objectives and give us -- since Leon 

has actually -- you know, you don't raise a 

question unless you know the answer. Leon has 

in fact I think thought through each of these 

and has laid, as it were, the objectives side 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

by side with the report. And Leon, give us 

your take on it and then we'll get some Board 

reaction. 

MR. OWENS: I guess, Dr. Ziemer, when looking 

at the objectives, the first one is 

completeness of datasources. And based on 

SC&A's presentation, I feel that they have 

fulfilled that objective. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That basically says to identify 

principal sources of data and information that 

were used to write the source -- site profile. 

MR. OWENS: Exactly. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Paul -- Paul, did you get the 

copy -- do we have a copy -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Actually if we do that, we've got 

to run off a lot of copies for everybody. 

There just -- there will be five things to 

remember. Item one, completeness of data 

sources. Write it down. Completeness of data 

sources, and Leon's suggesting that he believes 

that that was -- that objective was met. 

MR. OWENS: Was fulfilled, yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. OWENS: Objective number two is technical 

accuracy. And basically the bullet states 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

220 

(reading) to critically assess how the sources 

of data identified in the site profile were 

used in developing technically-defensible 

guidance or instruction as cited in the site 

profile Technical Basis Document. The review 

procedure for this element should therefore 

address the question or questions of whether 

proper technical use was made of the available 

data. 

And I feel that SC&A fulfilled that objective, 

also. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That is they did assess the 

technical accuracy. This says nothing about 

the conclusion, but that they did it. 

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Proceed. 

MR. OWENS: Objective number three is the 

adequacy of data, and the bullet states 

(reading) to determine whether the resultant 

data and guidance contained in the site profile 

are sufficiently detailed and complete for use 

in dose reconstruction; or in instances where 

no or limited data provide a defensible 

surrogate approach to dose reconstruction. 

 That particular objective I would like to have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221 

additional information provided by the 

contractor. While they may have hit on that, 

I'm still not comfortable in saying that that 

objective has been fulfilled. 

 Objective number four is consistency among site 

profiles, which that's open since this is the 

first one that they have reviewed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So it's not applicable in this 

case. 

MR. OWENS: At this point. And objective 

number five is regulatory compliance, and the 

bullet states (reading) to determine whether 

the site profile or Technical Basis Documents 

are consistent and compliant with the 

following: stated policy and directives 

contained in the final rule in 42 CFR Part 82, 

and guidance and protocols defined in OCAS 1G-- 

or IG-001 and OCAS IG-002. 

And while I note the comments that were made by 

Dr. Neton for NIOSH in questioning whether or 

not there was a complete understanding by SC&A 

of 42 CFR Part 82, I think that that is an 

interpretation that NIOSH has made and I would 

say that SC&A has fulfilled this objective, 

though, in their review. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

222 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Again, the objective was to 

assess those, and that assessment could be 

their either did or didn't comply, but it -- 

the assessment, you're saying, was made in 

fact. 

So basically what Leon has suggested is that 

the contractor has met objectives one, two and 

five; that number four does not apply, and you 

have a question on number three as to the 

extent that the contractor determined whether 

the data and guidance in the profile are 

sufficiently detailed to complete dose 

reconstructions. 

Now -- and a motion dealing with this would be 

a motion to the effect that the Board agrees 

that these items were met by the contractor and 

that another one may not have been met. 

However, I think in fairness we should hear 

from the contractor on that one. I think the 

point is that -- Leon, you're suggesting that 

it wasn't clear to you that they actually did 

that evaluation of the adequacy of the data. 

MR. OWENS: That's correct, Dr. Ziemer. I 

would like to hear from the contractor, unless 

there's some other comments by other Board 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223 

members. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I wonder if John or Joe -- and of 

you -- or yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, Mr. 

Owens. In regard to this objective, as we 

understood it, and we -- it's listed in the 

site profile on page 12, we did hold 

discussions with NIOSH on this point and also 

attended -- I myself attended the worker 

meeting organized by NIOSH in (unintelligible) 

on July 1st, and a lot of our observations in 

this area dealt with the information provided 

by the workers and whether NIOSH had dealt with 

it or not, and we felt that they'd made 

inadequate use of the available information. 

 Specifically, the question of incidents like 

cobbles/hobbles* when these uranium rolls 

passed through, they have process upsets, 

sometimes once a day, sometimes more than once 

a day, and these rods get all tangled up and 

the workers have to chase them down and then 

cut them into pieces and so on, and then -- and 

then ship them off. Or when people crawl into 

furnaces and the exact types of job 

descriptions that give rise to exposures. We 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

felt that -- and we've kind -- described that 

in here. Maybe we didn't quite -- one of the 

things maybe I'm picking up from your comment 

is in the -- in the body of the explanation -- 

exposition we should have maybe connected it to 

which objective it goes to, but that -- that 

part of our report does go to the objective of 

whether there was inadequate use of the 

available information. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's not completely clear to me 

whether the objective deals with the way they 

use the information or whether it was there -- 

it was even -- this talks about whether there 

is adequate data there to do the dose 

reconstructions. I think -- I'm making a fine 

distinction here, as opposed to whether you 

think they used it right, which is sort of a 

different question. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I guess we didn't make a 

direct call on that, but there's quite a lot of 

analysis around this question that I'd like to 

point out to the Board, which is -- we tried to 

evaluate whether you could actually use these 

air concentration data from the Simonds 

facility and -- and, you know, we paid some 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

attention to Bethlehem Steel, but as I 

explained, Simonds had the most important 

numbers so we focused on that. And we found 

that it was a close call. There were -- there 

were -- it was okay to use it, but it was -- 

there was very limited information to do the 

job. I mean from Simonds there was really one 

day of data that was really more or less 

comparable because after October they installed 

a more extensive ventilation system and the 

facilities were no longer comparable 'cause 

Bethlehem Steel never had ventilation. And so 

the -- it's a very -- it's a very tough 

situation at Bethlehem Steel with actually 

making a confident calculation of doses. And 

some of the higher numbers that we came up with 

in terms of suggesting that high numbers be 

used is a kind of substitute for really large 

gaps in the data. Our suggestion that OTIB-4 

be evaluated -- we didn't say it should be 

used, but evaluated -- are also for the same 

reason. So Bethlehem -- there's really -- 

there -- there is a paucity of data at 

Bethlehem Steel, and I think we have said that 

in so many ways, but not maybe -- we didn't say 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

226 

that you couldn't do a dose calculation, but we 

have said that the uncertainties in these 

numbers are very, very significant. And so a 

default procedure should perhaps be employed 

and evaluated. Now we didn't actually go ahead 

and evaluate that default procedure, but we did 

consider the question of adequacy of data and 

it's sort of on the margin. We didn't say it. 

Maybe we didn't put a bottom line to it, as we 

should have. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So on this particular one, it's 

focusing on -- pretty much on the question of 

whether there is sufficient data -- or adequate 

data to do dose reconstructions and to make a 

judgment on that issue. And again, let me 

point out that I think Leon, if I may borrow 

from what you have told us, you are suggesting 

a kind of template against which future dose 

reconstructions may also be measured -- or not 

dose reconstructions, but site profiles may 

also be measured, that we would expect the 

contractor to specifically relate their 

findings to these issues that would help us to 

say yes, you've met this objective or you 

didn't. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

Now we have some additional comments. Mike and 

then Tony. 

 MR. GIBSON: Just an observation that I had was 

that I believe based on NIOSH's rebuttal to 

SCA's report would demonstrate -- which is 

legitimate, but would demonstrate that SC has 

indeed evaluated the information that was 

available or there wouldn't have been such -- 

such a rebuttal by NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Tony? 

 DR. ANDRADE: Two comments. One, Paul, is I 

agree with your statement regarding Charles's 

point regarding perhaps in the future having a 

template against which further site profiles 

can be evaluated with respect to these 

expectations. I think that's a very good idea. 

So Leon, I think we should perhaps form a 

motion, or you can form a motion along those 

lines 'cause I -- I do think that -- that's 

very well done. 

But number two, I did want to point out that I 

think both organizations, SC&A and NIOSH, both 

came to the conclusion that the adequacy of 

data was -- was poor, but they both came to the 

same conclusion that the data that was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

available and information that was available 

from other organi-- from another organization 

that was performing similar operations was such 

that the data that was available was sufficient 

to form surrogate models with which I think 

dose reconstructions can be performed. And as 

a matter of fact, SC&A even came up with its 

own model. Right or wrong, they came up with 

their own model. 

 Therefore, it's my personal opinion that 

objective number three was fulfilled by SC&A. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would just concur with 

both Mike and Tony on that point. Again, much 

of the dispute we've heard and disagreement's 

been sort of what's the best thing to do with 

pretty poor set of data and being with -- and 

how to extrapolate from other sites and so 

forth. But I do think they've addressed the 

objective and it ought to be -- in terms of our 

review at this point -- accepted as such. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What I'm looking for now will be 

first a motion to deal with the objectives. 

That will be separate from a motion on the 

document itself. In other words, the motion 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229 

might be that the Board -- I'm searching for -- 

you can help me with words. The Board concurs 

or agrees that the contractor has carried out 

the five objectives stated in the site profile 

review procedures in conducting its review, 

with the exception of objective four, which is 

not applicable at this point. Or it could be 

stated more simply as has carried out the 

objectives stated in site profile review task. 

The motion would be I move -- I move that the 

Board recognize that the contractor has carried 

out the objectives of task one, site profile 

review. 

MR. OWENS: This is the motion, man. Do it, 

Dr. Melius. Put a motion out there. I'll 

second it. 

 DR. MELIUS: We need to distinguish whose words 

you're --

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't want to put words in other 

people's mouths because that's a very 

unsanitary way of speaking. 

 DR. MELIUS: I so move. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The motion then -- if you 

can repeat the motion, I'll allow it to be 

yours. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230 

 DR. MELIUS: I move that we accept the SCA 

report as meeting the objectives of the task. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I'm going to take the words 

out of your mouth and -- we've not yet accepted 

the report. I think the motion is that we -- 

that we concur that the report has carried out 

the objectives of the task. 

 DR. MELIUS: As meeting the objectives of the 

task. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's a difference -- 

procedural difference on -- accepting a report 

means that you agree with all its findings. 

That's almost a separate issue. This simply 

recognizes that the tasks were carried out. 

I'm making a distinction here because we'll 

have a separate motion that will deal with the 

content, per se. Not that this doesn't deal 

with con-- it deals with meeting the objectives 

of the task. Does everybody understand -- is 

this a distinction that's so fine that only I 

understand it? 

 MS. MUNN: No, no, it's very clear. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have a motion on the floor 

which we're going to clarify in a minute. Did 

somebody second it? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

231 

 MR. PRESLEY: I'll second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then we'll figure out what 

it was. Robert Presley. 

 MR. PRESLEY: It's called assessment criteria 

and that the Board recommends that our 

contractor has met the assessment criteria -- 

or concludes that it has met the -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: The Board concludes that the 

contractor has met the objectives in the site 

profile review procedures. And we understand 

that objective four doesn't apply at this time. 

 Further discussion on that? Wanda, please. 

 MS. MUNN: Was it our intent also to include a 

comment with respect to a somewhat more direct 

reference to those objectives in future reports 

 DR. ZIEMER: In future reports. 

 MS. MUNN: -- in order to provide clear 

understanding by the Board what items of the 

report do in fact meet those objectives. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That could be -- let's take that 

as a separate motion, so we just have this as 

clear-cut on this report, and then let me take 

another motion as instruction for future 

reports, and you can make that motion. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232 

 Other comments on this motion? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: All opposed? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda, your motion is that 

we instruct the contractor in future reports to 

specifically identify and -- 

 MS. MUNN: Yes, this Board requests that the 

contractor, in future reports, make specific 

reference to the objectives. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Five objectives. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Seconded? 

 DR. DEHART: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any further discussion on that? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: All opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Abstentions? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

233 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you. Now 

we have the weightier matter of the report 

itself. Does anyone wish to make a motion? 

Yes, Tony. 

 DR. ANDRADE: I'd like to move that NIOSH 

prepare a response to each of SC&A's findings 

and observations in terms of either an 

explanation that will be inserted into the site 

profile, or a short response such as presented 

to us today, as to why a particular issue need 

not -- finding or observation need not be 

addressed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Before I call on a second to that 

motion, can I propose that it be prefaced by a 

phrase such as the Board receives the document 

as the findings of the contractor and...? 

 DR. ANDRADE: Yes. Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the motion would include 

receiving the report as the findings of the 

contractor. Now I want to make sure you 

understand that I have worded that in a way 

that at this point does not embrace the report 

by this Board, 'cause I'm not sure you're ready 

to embrace it yet. You may want to hold hands 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

234 

with it a little bit, but no embracing. Is 

that -- you're playing footsie? 

 DR. ANDRADE: That's absolutely correct. And 

my -- my language was such that there could be 

points in there that are simply not -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: And your motion --

 DR. ANDRADE: -- to be addressed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- includes all points that are in 

the document. 

 DR. ANDRADE: All points, and if -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: We'll start with -- okay. 

 DR. ANDRADE: All points --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's the motion. Is --

 DR. ANDRADE: -- the findings and observations. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- there a second? 

 MR. PRESLEY: I second it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it's on the floor for 

discussion. Yes? 

DR. ANDERSON: Did you include the procedural 

issues that they raise or not? 

 DR. ANDRADE: Findings and observations only. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Findings and observations, two 

categories. There are eight findings and -- 

eight findings and seven observations. 

Okay. Yes, Leon. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235 

MR. OWENS: I guess my question is, if this 

motion passes, what is our process then for 

resolving the issues that we might have as a 

Board with the overall findings from the 

contractor, and at what time would we then hold 

hands with the entire document? Would it be at 

our next Board meeting or would it be beyond 

then, since we were hopeful that SC&A would 

continue on their site profile reviews? That's 

just a question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's sort of a rhetorical question 

at this point, but clearly if the motion passes 

it instructs NIOSH to do something, which means 

they report back. And incidentally I believe 

that that process carries it through the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services. I mean 

this is -- this is not -- I know Larry is here 

hearing it, and Jim, but technically it -- it 

has -- it would be advice to the Secretary, who 

could say I don't like your advice at all; I'm 

not going to do it. This is -- what we're 

doing is advising the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, who could very well say thank 

you, I've gotten your report. I just -- so 

when you ask about the time frame, I think we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

236 

have to realize what the -- sort of the 

framework of handling it is. I don't think 

NIOSH can automatically do that without sort of 

the blessing of the Secretary. Am I right in 

that? 

 DR. WADE: You're correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: They're nodding. They're --

they're hoping that's the case. 

 DR. WADE: I think that is the case. You 

advise the Secretary; the Secretary will speak 

to us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that is correct. The 

Secretary will take whatever you give him and -

- or her and make a decision on whether to pass 

it on down to us or just say thank you very 

much for your input. That's the way it may be 

handled. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And in that regard, 

probably the extent to which there's more 

specificity in identifying particular items may 

be helpful. Or if you say yes, we agree with 

these or we don't understand this or whatever, 

that might be helpful, too, taking Shelby's 

comments that we -- we can't necessarily 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

237 

disassociate ourselves and just say it's out 

there, either. If there are things that we 

think are good, then we can embrace them. If 

there's issues we don't agree with -- if we 

know those now. 

Okay, who's next? Okay, Jim, you're next? 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. I think we're -- somehow an 

added step got added in here. I thought what 

Tony was proposing was similar to what we did 

with the individual dose reconstruction 

reviews. We were first asking for a complete 

NIOSH response to the findings and rec-- you 

know, recommendations from this report that 

would then inform the Board's deliberation on 

this report. And I guess I don't quite see 

where --

 DR. ZIEMER: You're asking whether this is an 

intermediate step before our final action? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't know the answer to 

that, honestly. I'm unsure, and I don't know 

if legal counsel can help us on that at all or 

DR. ANDERSON: Do we need to send it to the 

Secretary first? 
-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

238 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I would interpret as 

we handled the other issue, that we don't -- 

that maybe a next step it gets sent to the 

Secretary, but first we were asking for a more 

complete NIOSH response to this. Again, my 

question earlier to Jim Neton was was this -- 

was what was presented to us a full response, 

and they indicated no 'cause they weren't sure 

what our procedure was going to be for handling 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I don't know, and maybe 

 DR. WADE: I think there's a question as to 

whether you were prepared to advise the 

Secretary at this point. If you are, then do 

that. If you feel you need more process, then 

you take those steps. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's helpful. Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Seems to me we're still in the 

forest primeval here trying to flail around and 

identify exactly how we are to proceed. 

Actually, it seems to me that we were 

approaching that yesterday in subcommittee when 

the understanding I had of the outcome of our 

discussion was we were going to ask essentially 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239 

that there be more dialogue between the 

contractor and NIOSH with respect to these 

issues that they raised, and that -- as Tony 

has pointed out -- a more precise and complete 

document of this kind probably would be 

forthcoming from NIOSH for our acceptance and, 

in my mind, inclusion or attachment, perhaps, 

to the existing site profile as a definition of 

how issues that were raised regarding the site 

profile were in fact resolved. Or if not 

resolved, at least explained by -- by NIOSH's 

approach. It would appear that that kind of 

document would be an appropriate transmittal to 

the Secretary if that is the decision of this 

body in how we might proceed in the future. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: Just a procedural question. If we 

-- if the motion passes as it stands and we get 

a clarification of issues from NIOSH about 

SCA's report, then do we have to embrace or 

reject the whole report or send it forward to 

the Secretary, or can we select the sections 

thereof that we --

 DR. ZIEMER: It's my understanding that we can 

handle it as we believe it should be handled, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240 

which means we could embrace it completely, we 

could not embrace it completely. We could 

embrace parts of it. We could reject parts of 

it. I think it's completely open. There's 

nothing that dictates what we do with it, so I 

believe that's true and -- 

 DR. WADE: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Dr. Wade is nodding assent that 

it's completely at the discretion of this Board 

what it wishes to send forward to the Secretary 

in the way of advice. 

 DR. WADE: I mean I do think it's important 

that the Board understand that when it provides 

advice to the Secretary, a great weight will be 

brought to that. And I think you need to be 

prepared when you take that step to provide a 

substantive document to the Secretary by way of 

providing advice. I think that's what Shelby 

was trying to point out to us -- to you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think, you know, what's -

- what's floating around here is a strategy for 

comment resolution. I mean I was going to make 

a similar point to what Jim said, which is I'm 

not sure this means a report to HHS, to the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

241 

Secretary. I think this is -- and Wanda hit it 

on the process that we're using for the dose 

reconstructions review. That adds in that 

iterative step, which I think adds in more work 

for NIOSH and the contractor, and potentially 

us, you know, but maybe we need to do -- I mean 

we have to have some comment resolution 

process. One thing I would add to that is if 

we are going to go to that next step and 

request more -- more comments -- we've got lots 

of comments. We've got comments to comments to 

comments at this point. I think to ask NIOSH 

to give us a complete set -- it might be useful 

for us to actually dig in and go through the 

findings and say for findings 1, 3, 5 we need 

more -- more iterative process between -- you 

know, for these two we can at this point make a 

recommen-- you know. I don't know that we -- 

we've said that and done that, so I -- but I 

think, you know, I -- I in general agree with 

that --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's one of the options, to go 

through each item and -- each finding and each 

observation --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and -- and narrow --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

242 

narrow down --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and each specific action. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- our request to NIOSH, right. 

Because they've already given us a lot of 

responses to findings and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Gen? 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- observations. 

DR. ROESSLER: I think it's becoming clearer to 

me, but what I want to understand before we 

vote on Tony's motion is does it include the 

Secretary or not include the Secretary? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- now Dr. Wade, what 

you're suggesting is the Board has the 

prerogative, if it wishes right now, to try 

some comment resolution prior to going forward 

to the Secretary with a final recommendation? 

 DR. WADE: Indeed it does. 

DR. ROESSLER: So the answer's no, it does not 

 DR. ZIEMER: Not necessarily. 

DR. ROESSLER: Not necessarily. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I -- I mean I think it -- 

it's not very helpful to send a kind of a draft 

document up and then say we want you to tell 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

your people to respond. I think that's a very 

awkward approach. So I think -- I mean if 

NIOSH -- if we suggest we get a full response, 

I guess I would like to add to that full 

response do they also see that there may be 

some way to address some of these issues in the 

site profile. And I think you don't have to 

choose one science over the other if you 

recognize that there's multiple ways to do 

this, and we chose this one for the following 

reason. That -- that at least recognizes that 

there are other ways, rather than this is the 

way, the only way and that's -- so I think I 

would like to add that as part of -- not just 

responding here, so now we've got two responses 

and we either have to choose one over the 

other. I would like to see so do they see this 

being helpful to respond in some way within the 

document -- the site profile if and when it 

gets reviewed -- something along those lines, 

so that, you know, there may well be that these 

are irreconcilable differences, but what we're 

really looking for is just a recognition that 

they're there and that this one is as good, if 

-- as the other. I guess that's where I was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

headed with it and so I would like NIOSH to 

come back with not just here's our complete 

response, but also is this going to have any 

impact on the site profile so when we send 

something then up to the Secretary we can say 

and we recommend the following, you know, 

changes or modifications or approaches in the 

site profile, something like that, along with 

it so you -- Secretary gets a series of 

documents in the process. We've narrowed it 

down to just exactly what our recommendations, 

as it relates to the site profile, not as it 

relates to what our contractor writes or what 

NIOSH -- I mean this is all just in-- 

information leading to a set of 

recommendations. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim, then --

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'd like --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Tony, then Roy. 

 DR. MELIUS: I'd like to offer I think what I 

hope to be two friendly amendments to Tony's 

motion. One is that we bring this NIOSH review 

and interaction with the contractor back to the 

Board for further discussion before we 

formalize any recommendations that would go 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

forward to the -- the Secretary. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You're talking about -- which 

review, the one that's called for in the 

motion? 

 DR. MELIUS: The one that's called for in the 

motion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And? 

 DR. MELIUS: And that's the first amendment. 

The second friendly amendment is that we ask 

that there be particular emphasis on two 

particular points, and I'm going to refer to 

page 8 of the SC&A review -- mainly because I 

like the tone of the title, overview of 

opportunities for improvement -- and I would 

propose there be particular emphasis on the 

first two points on that page. I think 

they're, to some extent, the crux of some of 

the back and forth and disagreement we've had, 

and I think it would be useful for us to have a 

more complete discussion of those points and 

focus on those two. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think I'm going to rule that the 

first one is indeed friendly. The second one, 

not that it's unfriendly, but it -- there may 

be more points or they may -- they may be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

different points, so I will ask for an actual -

- a formal amendment on that, but the friendly 

amendment would be that we would ask, as part 

of the motion -- Tony, if you regard that as 

friendly, that NIOSH -- the review that you 

asked for be brought back to this Board. You 

regard that as a friendly amendment? 

 DR. ANDRADE: You mean the second part? 

 DR. ZIEMER: The first part, that the -- 

 DR. ANDRADE: The first part, yes, that's... 

 DR. ZIEMER: And who was the seconder? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Just a clarification there 'cause 

Jim -- Jim said that NIOSH and the contractor's 

review come back to us, and the motion called 

for just a NIOSH expanded review. There's a 

little difference there. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm uncertain as to what -- you 

were talking about the review by NIOSH. Right? 

 DR. MELIUS: Correct, yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Which is what the motion -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's not what was stated. I'm 

just -- okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And the motioner and the 

seconder regarded that as a friendly amendment, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

so we'll include that as part of the motion. 

If you'd like to amend the motion with your 

second part, then I'll call for that as an 

amendment, then we'll -- 

 DR. MELIUS: You ready? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Then I would move that we 

amend Tony's motion -- in a friendly fashion, 

but not as a friendly amendment -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think it's friendly, but not 

friendly enough. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- that the NIOSH response to the 

-- and presentation to the Board on the SC&A 

review would lay particular emphasis on two 

points that are at the top of page 8 of the 

SC&A review of the NIOSH site -- Bethlehem site 

profile, number one being apply procedures and 

standards as discussed in this review, 

including use of ICRP-75 and appropriate 

portions of ORAU-OTIB-004; and number two, 

assure that appropriate statistical methods are 

applied in analyzing air concentration data 

after adjustments -- adjustment according to 

ICRP-75. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's the suggested amendment to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

the main motion. Is there a second? 

 DR. DEHART: I'll second it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We're discussing the amendment now 

-- only the amendment. And as I understand the 

amendment, you're only asking that there be 

particular emphasis on those points, regardless 

of how it's resolved. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. And the rationale for that 

is these were -- seem to me were the crux of 

some of the disagreement and discussion that we 

heard earlier be-- presentations from SC&A and 

from NIOSH, and I think they're worthy of 

further discussion and -- on our part, and I 

think we need to make sure that we have 

appropriate information to be able to do that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Discussion on the amendment? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote on the 

amendment? 

Okay, the amendment then is that there be 

particular emphasis on the first two points on 

page 8 of the SC&A review. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Opposed, no? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now we have a motion, as 

amended, both by friendly amendment and the 

less than friendly amendment -- marginally 

friendly amendment -- we're back to the main 

motion as amended now. The main motion is to 

accept -- no, the main motion is to receive the 

report of the contractor and whatever was said 

by Tony after that. And we may -- we may have 

to go back and review those words here in a 

moment. Roy, you have additional discussion? 

 DR. DEHART: I would just like to mention that 

I am supportive of the motion and the 

amendment. That gets back to what comments I 

had made earlier, and I would remind the Board 

that this is an opportunity to clarify 

potential issues that might be existing, 

because we're going to see this discussion in 

some form for seven more of these reviews. And 

hopefully some of the issues will not come up 

again because they'll have been resolved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: Could I ask a clarifying question of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

250 

Jim? You refer to information on page 8. I 

assume you're referring to the bolded comments? 

 DR. MELIUS: The two topics discussed under the 

bolded --

 DR. WADE: The two bolded comments. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, which are -- really 

summarized other parts of the report, but that 

was the... 

 DR. WADE: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler. 

DR. ROESSLER: Does Tony's motion have any time 

line associated with it? I think it didn't, 

but I'm wondering if it shouldn't have. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't believe it has a time line 

with it. 

DR. ANDERSON: Only discussion at the next 

meeting, whether we get something or not. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or questions, 

discussion? 

 DR. MELIUS: I guess on that point I -- I mean 

it would be good if it could be at our next 

meeting. I'm just not sure if that's fair to 

NIOSH. That's asking a lot and I don't want 

to, you know, ask them to react to that right 

away here 'cause I think they've got a -- we've 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

already given them a lot to do and I'm not sure 

I want to give them a lot more to do on a short 

time frame at this point in time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's pause a minute and I'm going 

to ask the recorder to -- if he's able to go 

back and find this and read Tony's motion. 

 (Whereupon, Dr. Andrade's motion was located 

and repeated by the court reporter to the 

Board.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: ... contractor and asks NIOSH to 

prepare a response to each of these SC&A 

findings and observations in terms of either an 

explanation to be inserted into the site 

profile, or a response as to why a particular 

observation should not be -- included, or be -- 

I missed a word there; I guess it was included 

-- and that -- and the friendly amendment, and 

that NIOSH -- the NIOSH review be brought back 

to the Board for further review and that there 

be particular emphasis on the first two points 

on page 8 of the SCA review -- page 8 of the -- 

first two points on page 8 of the SCA review. 

That is -- is that the motion as everybody 

understands it? 

 Any further discussion? Yes, Robert. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

252 

 MR. PRESLEY: Do we want to ask that this be 

presented to the Board by the end of April, put 

a time period on this? 

 DR. ZIEMER: That was the question that Gen 

raised earlier. You've heard Jim's comments 

that -- again, it's open for the Board. Do you 

wish to add a time frame or leave it open? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Can we get some response about 

that? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Tony, Michael -- Tony. 

 DR. ANDRADE: I think I would like to ask Jim 

Neton when he believes that something like this 

would be reasonable. As you can tell, I left 

this motion intentionally flexible. I really 

don't expect to see much more, except what was 

verbalized by Jim, than what is on this piece 

of paper. Okay? And he said that there were 

perhaps a few more issues that needed to be 

addressed. But I didn't want it to turn into a 

dissertation. I want simple, terse, 

explanatory remarks that can be inserted into 

the site profiles such that any reasonable or 

educated person that understands these things 

can open it up and understand why -- why this 

particular item in the site profile is what it 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

is. 

 DR. WADE: You know, I think it's reasonable to 

hear from program people if Jim is comfortable 

speaking to --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity 

to weigh in on this. I personally believe that 

the next Board meeting is -- is very soon. I 

agree with Dr. Melius on this. We have SEC 

petitions scheduled for that Board meeting, as 

well as our consolidation of comments with SC&A 

on the dose reconstruction reviews. I do 

think, though, the next Board meeting -- if it 

is indeed scheduled in April sometime -- is a 

reasonable time frame. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Robert, did you have another 

comment? No. Okay. 

Okay, is the Board ready to vote on this 

motion? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Do you want to put those words in 

there about April? You want to tie it down? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't -- I think we just heard 

that as information. We don't have to insert 

it necessarily. 

Okay. All in favor of the motion, say aye. 

 (Affirmative responses) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

 DR. ZIEMER: All opposed, say no. 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: The motion carries. Now I want to 

tell you that in a little bit there -- the 

Chair will be interviewed by the Buffalo news 

channel, and I can only tell them basically 

what the Board's position is, which is 

encapsulated in this motion. This position, as 

currently set forth, neither accepts nor 

rejects the findings of our contractor. 

DR. ANDERSON: We found they were responsive to 

their charge. 

 DR. ZIEMER: They were responsive to their 

charge in terms of addressing the issues that 

we wished to have addressed. The points that 

they have raised we have asked NIOSH to go back 

and examine them and to report back to us. And 

basically this -- as I understand it, and I 

will try to avoid inserting my own opinions on 

any -- any points. I won't even tell them how 

friendly the amendments were. But I want --

want the Board to -- I believe those are my 

limitations and I sort of serve notice to the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

255 

reporters here, don't ask me to give anything 

beyond that because I cannot speak beyond that. 

This is the Board's current position on the 

site profile. 

Now -- and Joe, let me -- you wished to speak 

to this issue that -- 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Not this issue, so I -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: When there's a break, I want 

to --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- amend the record. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have two -- two things to bring 

up. The first is I think a request for a 

agenda item for one of our next few meetings, 

and that's if NIOSH could address the issue of 

-- of modification of the -- of the site 

profiles and where they stand, 'cause I think 

the amendment -- the motion we just passed 

addresses that to some extent, but I think 

there are some bigger issues here and I think 

it'd be worth discussing. I don't think we 

need a motion -- just do that, but I just would 

like --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

256 

 DR. ZIEMER: Just the process itself -- 

 DR. MELIUS: -- that as -- I think it is 

appropriate to this discussion. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would also like to discuss the 

issue of the release of the draft reports, site 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, I think that what we'll do 

-- we will have time in our work session 

tomorrow to specifically address that. We do -

- you recognize we have an evening session and 

so we're going to recess a little bit early 

this afternoon, but we'll definitely include 

that in the work session tomorrow. That --

that's a procedural issue that we need to look 

-- to address for future site profiles. 

 Joe Fitzgerald. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, thank you very much. 

want to amend the record and put on the record 

a reaction to a comment that was made by the 

Department of Labor, and I thought it was a 

pretty serious allegation and could not go 

unresponded to, quite frankly. I'm going to 

paraphrase the comment by Mr. Turgic (sic), but 

I think it's something that, you know, 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

257 

certainly stunned us. It says the Department 

of Labor -- this is, again, a paraphrase -- has 

stated that they have evaluated the possibility 

of rollings in 1955 and 1956 and that this 

issue was adjudicated negatively, and that -- 

and this is the part that I think we take 

exception. SC&A knows this -- that this 

adjudication was made and went ahead and put 

this in their report anyway. 

You know, certainly we kind of all looked at 

each other and, you know, asked -- no, we 

certainly would not have done that, so how 

could that have been the case. And I just 

wanted to double-check with Mr. Turgic (sic), 

you know, just because we were, you know, 

puzzled at that reference. And apparently the 

conveyance of that information took place at a 

breakfast meeting that you, Mr. Chairman, 

attended with -- with John Mauro and myself and 

Larry Elliott and Jim Neton, and all I would 

comment is -- I'm not saying it might not have 

been said, but certainly in terms of catching 

everything that was said and -- and frankly, 

you know, reflecting that as a -- you know, as 

a vital piece of information, we certainly did 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258 

not hear that. I'm not saying it wasn't said, 

but we didn't hear that. And I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I can simply tell you that 

the Chair's unable to confirm that that was 

said at a breakfast meeting, either, but -- 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- that may say more about the 

Chair than it does about the discussion. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: But I think my point is that, 

you know, certainly if the information was 

received and understood, clearly we would not 

have intentionally put it in the report anyway. 

And I think that's the part that I -- we take 

firm exception to and want to make sure that 

the record --

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- reflects that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for clarifying the 

record on that particular issue. Yes, Jim, 

please. 

 DR. MELIUS: Just in terms of the discussion of 

the draft reports and so forth, I'd just like 

that to be done in the morning session 

tomorrow. Henry has to leave at around noon 

and we have a work session -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

259 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes --

 DR. MELIUS: -- around 10:30, if you could just 

make --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure, we can do that right at 

the front end there, sure. 

 DR. MELIUS: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Are there any other 

items to come before us today -- or at this 

session? 

Okay, we're going to recess. We will reconvene 

at 7:00 o'clock for the public comment session, 

and -- and then of course we'll be back here 

tomorrow morning, as well. So we are recessed. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 4:25 p.m. 

to 7:00 p.m.) 

INTRODUCTION

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to ask you please to 

take your seats. We're going to begin our 

evening session. This is a public session of 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. We welcome you to this portion of our 

meeting, pleased to have many members of the 

public visiting with us this evening. 

We do have some sign-up sheets for those who 

wish to make public comment. A number of you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

260 

have already signed up and I have those sheets. 

If you have not signed up but do wish to or 

intend to make public comments, we ask that you 

just sign up on the sign-up sheet, it's near 

the door, and we'll get you on the schedule yet 

this evening. 

My name is Paul Ziemer. I serve as Chairman of 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. And I want to take just a few minutes 

here at the front end of our public session to 

acquaint you a little bit with the work of this 

particular Board. 

 The program to which we are involved or with 

which we are involved and we are advising, in a 

sense, involves several agencies that are 

represented by the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services -- I'm 

trying to get this to work here. 

(Pause) 

This Board has expertise in technology, you 

know. 

(Pause) 

The projector has gone to sleep. We hope that 

those here don't follow suit. 

Also involved, the Department of Energy, and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

261 

finally the Attorney General. So these are the 

agencies that are involved in the program. 

Now the Advisory Board itself is an -- a group, 

an independent group which is established by 

legislation. The legislation indicates that it 

consist of no more than 20 members, and 

actually there are 12 members, who are 

appointed by the President of the United 

States, who also designates the Chair of the 

Advisory Board. In addition to the members of 

the Board... 

What did you push here, Jim, to wake this up? 

(Pause) 

It's very hard for me to do two things at once. 

Fortunately I'm not chewing gum, either. 

 The legislation specifies that the membership 

of the committee should represent a variety of 

groups, including the affected workers and 

their representatives, as well as 

representatives of the scientific and medical 

communities. 

 The Board itself currently has 12 members plus 

a Designated Federal Official, and I just want 

to tell you the names and point out who the 

various Board members are that are here this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

262 

evening. I've indicated that I serve as the 

Chair. On each of these names you will also 

see the person's position. I don't need to 

repeat all those, but you can read them. Larry 

Elliott is our Designated Federal Official and 

here's Larry. Henry Anderson, Tony -- Antonio 

Andrade is over here, Roy DeHart here, Richard 

Espinosa, Mike Gibson -- I am going to say 

something about Mark Griffon. Mark wants it to 

be known -- he's president, but this is a very 

small corporation that -- it consists of Mark. 

He's the president and the janitor, but Mark is 

a health physicist and he is there in that -- 

he is here in that capacity, as a health 

physicist. Jim Melius is here, Wanda Munn, 

Charles Leon Owens -- we call him Leon; he goes 

by his middle name actually, and Robert Presley 

and Gen -- Genevieve Roessler. So this is the 

current committee, representing a variety of 

backgrounds, as you see from their titles and 

so on here. 

This group has been essentially in existence 

now -- we're just completing our third year and 

have been together a lot over that three-year 

period. We have visited many parts of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

country. This is our first visit to Livermore, 

but we do try to have our meetings in the 

vicinity of the various sites, either DOE sites 

or some of the other contractor sites that are 

involved in the program. So this is our first 

visit to Livermore and we're very pleased to be 

in this area during this week of our regular 

meetings, and have the opportunity to hear from 

some of you, as well. 

I need to tell you -- and this'll be -- I think 

is the last slide. The role of this Board is 

also specified by the law, and I want to tell 

you what that is so that you don't have any 

misconceptions, because the Board does not get 

directly involved in processing the claims. 

That's done by the various Federal staff -- 

agency and staff people. 

We are involved in the development of some 

guidelines, and those guidelines now are in 

place, one of which is the guideline dealing 

with what is called probability of causation. 

That's the guideline that discusses whether or 

not it is likely that a cancer has been caused 

by radiation exposure, whether it is likely 

that -- the probability of causation describing 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264 

that likelihood. 

And then a guideline which deals with the 

methodology for dose reconstruction, this Board 

has been involved in the development of that 

guideline. 

And then we are charged with assessing the 

scientific validity of the dose reconstruction 

efforts. This is a type of audit function 

where we select, somewhat at random, cases that 

have been processed by the agencies -- by 

agencies I mean NIOSH and the Department of 

Labor, essentially -- that have been processed 

and completed, and we sample from those 

completed cases. And with the assistance of a 

-- our con-- the Board's own contractor, we 

assess the validity of those dose 

reconstructions as a quality assurance measure. 

And then finally we have a responsibility for 

participating in the determination of what are 

called the Special Exposure Cohorts. And 

again, this Board has a function in providing 

input on the decision as to whether or not a 

petitioner that petitions to be part of the 

Special Exposure Cohort actually should be 

granted that status. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265 

So those are the actual functions of this 

Board, and all of what we do centers around 

meeting those requirements. 

However, as part of our meetings we do like to 

hear from the public, even though we don't get 

involved directly in processing individual 

claims. We do learn from these meetings what 

kind of issues, what kind of problems that are 

envisioned or seen or perceived by individuals 

who are actually participating in the program 

through the submission of claims. So although, 

if you have a particular issue, if you're here 

as a claimant or representing a claimant and 

have a particular issue, we would always refer 

that back to the staff because we do not handle 

individual claims in this Board, but we do 

learn from people's experiences perhaps issues 

about how the program is going, where there are 

problems in terms of communications back and 

forth between claimants and the agencies, and 

issues of that type. So as we hear from you, 

we learn those kinds of things. 

This evening as we have you give your public 

comment, I want to let you know that the public 

comments are intended to be just that, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266 

comments. We're not here necessarily to answer 

questions. If you have questions, for example, 

on your claim or how something is being 

handled, then you need to direct that to Larry, 

who will get you in touch -- you know, 

separately just say I have this issue, I need 

to have somebody address it, so that you can 

have some particular thing taken care of. But 

in a general sense, you may wish to share 

experiences or anything like that. But if you 

say where is my claim or what is being done on 

it, that's not what the Board is prepared to 

address tonight. Rather we learn from you as 

I've described, experiences you've had, 

problems, if you -- if you have issues, for 

example, with site profiles that you want to 

make us aware of, anything like that that helps 

the Board be more aware of individual issues, 

site issues, those kinds of things, we're very 

pleased to have that input. 

So with that, I'm going -- I think that was the 

last -- do I have anything else there? I 

didn't think so. 

 PUBLIC COMMENT 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267 

 With that, I'm going to turn to our agenda of 

speakers, and I'm simply going to take these in 

the order that you signed up. The first 

individual is Ed Walker. Ed is a Bethlehem 

Steel person, so he's come -- he's come a piece 

to speak to us tonight. He's from New York. 

Ed, welcome. 

 MR. WALKER: (Off microphone) Thank you, Dr. 

Ziemer. Is this on or off or can you hear me? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Should be on. Do we have a volume 

control, or maybe it needs to be snapped on. 

(Pause) 

 MR. WALKER: Okay. Thank you very much, Dr. 

Ziemer, and I've met with you before in 

Buffalo. I talked there -- I hope not too 

much, but I guess not or you wouldn't have had 

me come back tonight, so at that I'd like to 

start -- there's probably quite a few that 

don't know what I'm doing or who I am or 

anything, but my name is Ed Walker, as he told 

you, and I'm a claimant/victim. I have cancer. 

I have bladder cancer. I've had it for four 

years. It's been in remission and I come from 

Buffalo and I worked at Bethlehem Steel. I 

went to work there when I was 18 years old and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268 

worked with a group in a brick-laying gang, a 

specialized gang that worked on hot furnaces. 

We were kind of like the firemen of the brick 

layers when -- there was a big group of brick 

layers, but there was a special gang picked out 

and when there was a breakdown of any sort in 

any part of the plant, we were called upon to 

go and work there, and we worked there for the 

duration of the job. If it was a 8-hour job or 

a 12-hour job -- in many cases 16 hours -- we 

would go and patch holes in these furnaces. 

I'll get to that a little later, just more on 

that, but out of that 16 -- group of 16 that I 

worked with, there's two of us that are alive 

today. The rest of them, as far as we know -- 

we tried to trace back, and as far as we can 

find out, they all have passed away of cancer. 

I don't know what all their cancers were, but 

account of this program I contacted this other 

fella that I'd worked with a year or two older 

than I was and I asked him if he had heard 

about it and he said no. And I told him that I 

had cancer and he says Ed, he says I got 

cancer, too. So the two of us that have 

survived, he has colon cancer and I have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

269 

bladder cancer. And kind of ironically -- and 

I trace back my family tree back into 

Switzerland, and as far as my grandfathers and 

grandmothers on either side, or any relative, 

of all my cousins and uncles, either in the 

States or that were over in Switzerland, there 

hasn't one of -- one of them that had died of 

cancer. There's a couple that have it that 

it's in remission, too, and when I mentioned 

that to Norm, he says Ed, none of our -- in my 

family have had it, either, as far back as we 

could go. 

So with that, this is not -- this is not a 

story about me. I got with a group. I signed 

up and -- the application to go in and what I 

started to encounter was some things that I 

didn't feel that the group from Bethlehem Steel 

was being treated fairly. And we kind of 

formed a group. We started out like any other 

group, one or two, and it's grown now till 

there's about 2,000 strong. We've had protests 

down in Cleveland. We went down and had a 

protest. We had a protest in front of the 

plant -- in front of the building, basically, 

where this uranium was run. Along the way we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

270 

picked up the media which, you know, is here 

from Buffalo and supporting us, Channel 7, 

locally and other stations also have -- have 

picked up on it. We met -- five of us went 

down to Washington two weeks ago and we had a 

half-hour meeting with Hillary Clinton and 

Senator Schumer, the senior citizen from -- 

senator from New York, and we met them both at 

the same time and we presented what we felt -- 

why we were being treated the way we're 

treated. We felt it was very unfair. 

They supported us also, and at that I think the 

off-shoot might be that we're going to have 

another meeting back at Bethlehem Steel. We've 

got the support, as I said, of the newspaper, 

the whole group. All feel that there's 

something wrong with Bethlehem Steel. 

I'm going to go a little bit to the human side 

of the story, and I've been -- you've seen me 

here yesterday listening and watching, and I 

really admire what you people do, really. 

You're really doing a great job. First of all, 

I don't feel that any of you people are 

involved what happened to these people. You 

did not cause this, but we're looking for you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

271 

to help us. But I'm going to go back to 

(unintelligible) and I'm going to tell you a 

little story about it. 

I worked with a lot of veterans. It was right 

after the war and I was 18 years old, and a lot 

of them had fought in Normandy and the Battle 

of the Bulge, and one particular person was 

over in Corregidor. And some of you may have 

heard this story -- I think Mr. Turcic has -- 

and I worked with that gentlemen. He was also 

a brick layer. And as we worked in the plant, 

we just -- you sat down anywhere you could sit 

down and eat your lunch and talk, or if you -- 

if the furnace was too hot to get near, that 

you just couldn't get near it, they had to wait 

for it to cool down, you would set there and 

open up your lunch bag or your pail, whatever 

you had, and you would eat lunch. And I was 

talking to this fella, friend of ours, he was a 

brick layer, and he was over in Corregidor in 

the Second World War. This is the type of 

people that this is happening to, what the 

government has done to these people. And he 

was captured by the Japs. He escaped after 

five days and he was chased around the jungle 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

272 

for two years. They were hunting him, and the 

natives in the country, they protected him. 

They hid him when the Japs come around, and if 

the natives were caught, they were also killed 

for hiding him. And him and I were setting and 

he was telling me some stories, and he was what 

we called back then -- I don't know, most of 

you are so young you probably don't remember, 

but it was referred to as shell-shocked, and he 

was definitely shell-shocked. And we were 

setting in a pile of brick and eating our lunch 

and two of the trains or the cars hit together 

and made a pretty loud crash. And again, this 

-- this man's my hero. I'm 18 years old and he 

was a Japanese prisoner of war. And -- and 

that man sat up -- I'll never forget it, it 

stuck with me the rest of my life -- he sat up. 

His eyes almost come out of his head, and he 

was sweating just -- it just ran down. He was 

soaking wet and the (unintelligible) it was hot 

in there anyway, and it was that hot, and he 

apologized to me. I understood what he went 

through. He worked as a brick layer. That's 

an example of the type of people I was working 

with, heroes. He got Congressional -- he 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

273 

didn't get the Congressional Medal of Honor, 

but he had a Presidential Citation. This is 

the kind of people that I worked with, and I'm 

not belittling anybody that wasn't at 

Corregidor because they all -- these guys were 

real true heroes. 

They come home, they had to feed their family. 

They went to work at Bethlehem Steel -- hard. 

I'm going to compare Bethlehem Steel with hell. 

If any of you ever -- ever heard or had hell 

described to them, that's what you worked at at 

Bethlehem Steel. Today they would put a lock 

on the gate. You couldn't walk in. There's 

times when you walked in that facility, you 

couldn't see 35 feet in front of you, and 

people worked in there. They had to work. 

They're looking -- they had to raise the 

family. There was -- there's no comparison to 

what -- I don't think -- the only other 

position there or the only other job that I 

would regret to work at is in the coal mines, 

but I compare that about the same as Bethlehem 

Steel. There was fire shooting out. There was 

flames in the air. There was whistle blowing. 

There was -- it was just hell, just what you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

274 

would picture hell at. 

So these are the kind of people that back in 

'49 and '50 the government decided that we're 

going to roll some uranium at Bethlehem Steel 

because they've got a great facility for 

rolling steel. It was one of the best in the 

country. So they contracted with Bethlehem 

Steel to roll this uranium. We knew nothing 

about it. We did not have a clue that there 

was uranium. I did not find out that we were 

working with uranium for 50 years later. We 

had no protection whatsoever. I -- I can -- I 

know the times I was sitting on top of piles of 

steel, could have been uranium, I don't know. 

You would -- you'd go to work with your lunch 

bag, you'd go, you'd set down, it was a hot 

furnace. They'd say you're going to have to 

wait a half-hour, you can't get to it. We 

would wait there, we'd set there. We'd eat our 

lunch there. There was no locker rooms. There 

was no -- no protection whatsoever. When you 

went, you start working on either laying the 

brick, if there was steel in the way or 

whatever was in the way, you'd move off to the 

side. So this is what our government exposed 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

275 

these men. 

Whether it caused all their cancer or not, I 

don't know. I don't know if it caused my 

cancer. I can't honestly say. But for the 

government to do that to these people upsets me 

to this day, as you can see, and that's one of 

the reasons I formed this group. 

It's been said to me that it's not bad. It 

wasn't bad. That stuff -- that won't hurt you. 

That's what we were told, by the way, and 

there's government -- there's documentation to 

prove that, that the people were told -- the 

plant didn't even know it, but the government 

officials told their people that went out and 

done these reports, tell them that the material 

is not harmful to you. You can -- you can work 

with it, it's not harmful. 

These are veterans that just went over, fought 

for our country for the freedom and justice and 

to take them -- I hope that none of you people 

in here have grandchildren or children that go 

over in Iraq and fight and come home and be 

exposed to that uranium like that -- or any 

kind of condition like that, that your 

government don't do that to you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

276 

And the point being is why did they lie to 

these people? If it wasn't bad, why didn't 

they just tell us, you're working with uranium. 

You're going to have to get a checkup. I 

looked into it. How many lives would have been 

saved of these guys that have died of lung 

cancer, whatever cancer they died from, had 

they known they had worked -- today you 

couldn't do that. They'd probably arrest you. 

You go back in the German prison camp when they 

told the prisoners go in and take a shower and 

they got gassed to death. Is it any different 

than what was done to the people at Bethlehem 

Steel? Go down there and work; it won't hurt 

you. 

But had they told the people that that was 

uranium they were working with -- and this is 

the government's fault, not yours; I don't want 

you to get that feeling at all -- how many of 

them could have been checked up and been alive 

today to live with their grandchildren and have 

their wives. I've met so many claimants, it's 

-- and I know you've heard this before, but the 

first person that I contacted to talk to was 

eight years old. She brought a picture of her 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

277 

father. While she's talking to me, she's 

crying. This was my dad. I lost him when I 

was eight years old. She's -- she treats me 

like her father now because I've tried to help 

her through this system that is so cumbersome 

that most people don't even understand what's 

happening to them. 

So that, to me, is the human side of the 

Bethlehem Steel story. And I've heard 

Bethlehem mentioned here and Bethlehem -- I -- 

I just want you people to know that I'm an 

emotional man and if there was -- the people 

that I know, I've met you people, you're all 

wonderful people, I could not let you down if 

you needed help. If this place burns now, I'm 

not going to run out the door. I'm going to 

try and help who I can, and -- and I feel that 

our soldiers, our heroes that were over there I 

think deserve somebody to step up to the plate 

and say lookit, fellas, I -- when I went down 

to Washington to have the meeting with Hillary, 

after we left my -- I had to get out of there. 

I don't have -- I'm retired, but I don't have 

much time, and we walked over to the World War 

II monument, and I don't know how many people 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

278 

have been there, but I would suggest you go 

over there because knowing what I know and what 

was done to these friends of mine, when I 

walked through there and visited that monument, 

it put a feeling on me like those guys were all 

there just saying thanks for coming and 

visiting me. It's very emotional -- I found it 

so. If you do get a chance to get down there, 

I would recommend you do it. 

 Getting along, 'cause I know there's other 

people that are saying when is he going to shut 

up, that was the human side of the story. Then 

I got into the program. Of course the program 

started and Melissa Sweeney went in with me. I 

worked with her husband. He was one in the hot 

gang and he had also died about four years ago, 

and she asked if she could go in with me 

because she had no idea what her husband done 

down there, where he worked or who his friends 

were or coworkers, and she asked if I would go 

and I said certainly, no problem. So we went 

together and we signed up, and we were told 

when we signed up that what we needed was to 

have cancer, and we had to work there at that 

time. Well, it was obvious that we both had 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

279 

that. 

And this is what we were told: If you've got 

cancer and you worked there at that time, you 

would receive the compensation case. And I 

said well, you know, I hate to qualify, but I 

do. And that went on. A couple of months 

later we saw a news article in the paper a 

report from -- I don't know who it come, the 

Department of Labor or who, had an interview on 

the -- in the paper and it said in a couple of 

months you -- cases will begin to receive their 

awards. Well, with no one else to ask, we 

believed it. Ten months -- ten months after 

that, we got -- we're waiting. We got a notice 

that now we're ready for dose reconstruction. 

We said what's dose reconstruction? Who's he? 

Well, of course going in the program, we got 

questionnaires, which was a joke. The 

questionnaire was a joke. (Unintelligible) 

couldn't -- the group that I'm with, the actual 

claimant group -- not the -- all the supporting 

group, probably 200 of them all had the same 

feeling, what do I do? You would not believe -

- I'm retired. I get 25 phone calls a day -- 

Mr. Walker, can you help me? What does this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

280 

mean? Who do I see? I can't contact anybody; 

it was 50 years old. My husband died 20 years 

ago. It's -- it's a sham. These women come up 

-- not only women, the children and a lot of 

men come up, we don't have a clue on what to 

do. How do we apply for this? Where do we go? 

Who do we see? How can I find -- my dad worked 

with so-and-so and I tried to call him and he's 

dead. I help them when I can. I try and find 

-- at least in some cases I can tell them what 

job because I was there and I can tell them if 

he was a carpenter, well, this is what the 

carpenters normally done, so I can help some of 

them through the process. But we -- we started 

on that process, I think it was around in July 

or August, somewhere around there. My dates 

could be off a little bit, but we're working on 

the dose reconstruction and we're dose -- 

they're asking us questions on the dose 

reconstruction and metrics wasn't even 

completed yet. Obviously -- obviously somebody 

knew what was going to be in -- in the metrics 

because why would you go through all this 

paperwork and ask all these questions, get all 

these applications in unless you were going to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

281 

get a metrics, so we knew it was coming, but 

there -- there was no chance. 

 And another question before I get too far, why 

did they tell us that? I would not be here 

today -- and I could have handled it. I can 

live with it. If they would have said Ed, 

we're paying lung cancer patients and the rest 

of you aren't going to get it, it isn't in the 

cards, none of these women would have been 

bothered. None of these women would have had 

to go back or these children trying to trace 

down, run all around the country, cry, bring 

back the thing that they had -- you'll never 

forget, but you get over and you learn to live 

with, why did they -- why did they do this to 

these women? 

It wasn't you, I understand that. But the 

system probably you could blame it on. It 

would have been so simple -- I mean they could 

have had you people doing other stuff I'm sure 

and -- just as important, if not more 

important, but why did they do that to us? 

This -- this is a question that haunts me every 

night. Why am I going through this? I've got 

cancer. I could have lived till the end and I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

282 

didn't -- I didn't have to, but I just feel 

compelled to help these people that were 

friends of mine and -- and I'm trying to help 

them where they can't. I'm trying to help 

their wives. 

One of the fellas that went down to Hillary's 

office was not a claimant. He had nothing -- 

he was 80 years old and he worked with uranium 

with his bare hands, and I took him down there 

for the fact that there was a man that had 

absolutely nothing to gain. He's 80 years old. 

His wife is -- he's on a death watch with his 

wife and he says Ed, I'll go with you if I can 

help these -- these -- he says a lot of these 

were wives of men that I knew and I worked 

with, and they're completely lost, and he says 

I'll go with you and talk. And that's why I 

took him, because he doesn't gain a penny to do 

this. He done it just to help people, and this 

is the kind of people that I think -- I grew up 

with and I hope are around that can help us, 

that -- that aren't out to -- I don't 

understand, first of all, why they just don't 

take care of -- of the people that were 

originally supposed to be taken care of. When 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

283 

they turned around and -- and done on four 

government facilities, without a dose 

reconstruction, and I've heard all kinds -- I 

never can get a straight answer, but I've heard 

all kinds of stories. Well, you know, they 

think they had something there, so the 

politicians I guess thought well, let's just 

give them their compensation. 

I had a fella call in -- into the -- I believe 

it was to the Department of Labor, could have 

been EEOICP or whatever it is -- and ask why, 

when I got my dose reconstruction -- I got 3.29 

percent, by the way -- asked this woman why did 

-- why did I get denied and why was mine so 

low? And you know what the answer was -- and 

it -- and it still upsets me. The answer that 

come out of the thing was we took care of the 

slam dunk cases first. Now that was a nice 

slap in the face. Trust me, that was a slap in 

the face. I got over that -- not quite, but 

almost. 

As -- as we go on, the technical base data was 

approved in three -- I think it was 3/31/03. 

They finally got it approved and everything, so 

we start getting denied. A year and a half 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

284 

later -- a year and a half later, it's revised. 

I'm -- I'm just talking from my end. You may 

know a lot more about what went on during that 

period, but I'm talking as a claimant that 

don't know what's going on. A year and a half 

later it's revised. And then it says we're 

going to allow ingestion, which I know I ate 

and drank it 'cause you sat there, you couldn't 

help but eat and drink it. So they revised it 

a year and a half -- I think 15 months or 

something like that, they revised it and 

included ingestion. And my question to that 

is, in documentation that I found -- and I 

don't have the documentation that you people 

have, but in my documentation I found back in 

1949, I believe it was, that Simonds Saw, in a 

report from -- from -- health report that went 

through there, that it said in that report that 

ingestion was a very important part in dose 

reconstruction and they should consider doing 

it. 

Now if Bethlehem Steel is using the 

documentation from Simonds Saw -- which I think 

is wrong in the first place -- to do that, who 

missed that? I think that's kind of an 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I 

285 

important item. Who missed that? Who missed 

that thing? 

I was a -- I was a contractor all my life. 

worked four years at the steel plant, but 

somewhere along the line somebody dropped the 

ball because that should have been brought in 

right up front. It wouldn't have changed mine 

any. You know, I'm not crying on account of 

that because it wouldn't have bothered me one 

way or the other, because there's not enough 

allowed. As a matter of fact, I guess we get 

1,000 percent claimant favorable or 1,000 

times? I would have probably needed about 

300,000 times to get up to the 50 percent. And 

thank God they gave us those extra time or I 

would have owed these people money 'cause I was 

so low on my percentage. 

So I'm trying to get along here. I'm going to 

drop down to -- account of time and want to 

give the other people -- one of the things that 

upset me and I just found out 'cause I go over 

these documents and people will call me and, 

you know, look -- and there was machining and 

grinding, and I called this to -- attention to 

Richard Miller. I called him up and I says I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

286 

found, after all this time and all the times I 

went over that documentation, I noticed this 

machining coming up and grinding, so I said I 

looked through the documentation and it 

mentions it throughout. Well, grinding of any 

substance, particularly uranium -- and it -- it 

mentions five ton ground. All the ones that 

needed grinding had to be ground. And 

machining, machining I haven't figured that out 

yet. I feel like -- I'm like Columbo trying to 

find all this stuff out, and I don't know what 

the machining consists of, but it mentions it 

throughout the documentation. And I've started 

to check with the group that I work with, I've 

asked at the meetings if anybody is familiar 

with any grinding or machining. I've gotten 

some reports, but I don't feel confident enough 

-- I'm sure what they told me was true, but I 

don't understand it in my head just how the 

operation went and just where it went on. But 

I didn't hear anything in this dose 

reconstruction or anything about any machining 

or grinding, and that -- that's going to be -- 

you know that's worse than just running it 

through the mill. That rod that was going 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

287 

through that -- I -- you mentioned about it, I 

think maybe Mr. (sic) Neton mentioned it, but 

that rod came through it an inch and a half, 

red hot, between these stands, was like 

shooting a rod through this room, coming 

through there red hot at 200 to 300 feet per 

minute. When that didn't hit the next stand 

right, that rod went up in the air. And it was 

-- it was cloudy and dirty in there, and you 

ran. You had to get out of the way. You had 

to get out. Sometimes that rod would -- would 

go and shoot right out of the door, right out 

of the building. By the time the machine got 

shut down, then they had to go in there with 

torches and -- and take care of this. And 

their own -- your own documentation says some 

of it took four hours. We're talking about an 

8-hour shift of exposure or ten hours or we 

give you the benefit of the doubt? When was 

all this machining and grinding going on? You 

don't reach -- and I'm pretty sure some of the 

documentation says 30 -- 30 ton had to be 

ground. Thirty ton's a lot of grinding. You 

don't do that in a half-hour. Did they do it 

during the week? Does anybody know? I'm 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

288 

trying to find out, but was there any 

consideration? I'm trying to find out because 

nobody else seems to care, but I seem to care 

because I think it would change the dose 

reconstruction quite a bit. 

We ate -- as I mentioned before, we ate our 

lunch on uranium. If it was setting -- I'm not 

saying I run in and saw it was uranium and sat 

down. I don't know for sure, but I was in the 

vicinity and it wouldn't have -- not knowing 

what it was, why would it stop? We sat in 

everything else down there. 

Working inside the furnaces, I was really put 

out one -- one fella told me you guys could not 

have worked in those furnaces, those hot 

furnaces. Now I'm going to tell you something, 

and I can bring you witnesses, the guys that 

worked there -- not continually in the hot 

gang, but worked -- once in a while these 

people would be brought in if we were short 

people. You talk about hell and about working, 

if that furnace shut down -- just cleared it 

out of steel -- in some cases still was in the 

other end of it and the furnace was still on. 

You would go in there, you might work there for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

289 

16 hours. You would go in that -- that -- you 

would crawl in a hole, two by three hole. 

Those brick were so hot you might only be able 

to stay in there a minute, and this is -- I'll 

take a lie detector test. When -- you come out 

of there when your clothes start smoking and 

the next guy would go in and go in. You -- you 

had wooden handles -- I've seen wooden handles 

laid down that the guy left in there that were 

burning when I got in there. I remember stuff 

like that. So I'm sure this dose 

reconstruction and amount of contamination that 

we got wouldn't even come close -- wouldn't 

even come close, and nobody -- and I'm sure 

nobody in here, and I wouldn't let you go into 

a condition like that, but we were in it, and 

there's no consideration given to this. 

And this upsets me more. My wife can't fly. 

We took a train to get out here because I felt 

if I only could talk ten minutes, I might be 

able to make you people understand where the 

people from Bethlehem Steel are coming -- 

coming from. No ventilation, as the auditing 

brought out, and there was no ventilation in 

this building. I've talked to the people. The 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

290 

people came out to Hamburg and we met with the 

people there, crane operators, telling us how 

you -- you couldn't even see and they would not 

allow you to open the building, so all this -- 

and one end of it was open where the wind from 

Lake Erie could blow in and blow it around, and 

I think you all know what Lake Erie's like. 

You've heard about it. But they wouldn't allow 

any ventilation in the building. There was --

there was fan -- hoods up or fan -- places to 

put them, but they never installed the fans. 

But there is documentation showing that the 

government knew this before they stopped 

rolling at Bethlehem Steel, and I have that 

documentation. And the answer to them was 

don't waste the money. It's going to cost you 

$50,000 to $100,000 to install all these fans 

and we're going to be moving out and working in 

Fernald. 

This isn't Eddie Walker's story. This is 

documentation that I've read. The government 

knew this and said that. I think that's 

horrible. I think it's -- I'm -- unbelievable. 

We went in the salt baths -- you were talking 

earlier about salt baths. They were lined with 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

291 

brick. Who do you suppose had to crawl in them 

salt baths, take out the old brick by hand, no 

gloves, nothing. When they cooled down, they 

set them aside to go line that bath where you'd 

had the uranium in there. Who do you think 

went in there? Not only me, a lot of other 

people did. Laborers went in there carrying 

brick out. I didn't see nothing mentioned 

about any time exposure for that, whether we 

went down there in the middle of the week and 

they said there -- go over there and the brick 

are piled there and all this dust is around, 

probably uranium, I don't know, and go and line 

that -- that salt bath. That's what we had to 

do. 

 It was brought up today that in Fernald their 

readings were very good, you know, as good as 

some that we found from Bethlehem Steel. 

Certainly they should have been good. All the 

procedures -- they went from water-cooled 

rollers to air-cooled. All the procedures, all 

the ventilation was done at Fernald. Oh, they 

done all this work, but they didn't have that 

much. No, and more than likely they were all 

protected. That I haven't found yet, but I'm 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

292 

sure they were. 

Again, I can only say that I believe Bethlehem 

Steel -- these people were used as guinea pigs 

with the uranium. We were used -- guinea pigs 

on the site profile. We're the first ones 

being done. Try it at Bethlehem Steel. They 

were dumb enough to get through it back there, 

they'll be dumb enough to listen to it now. We 

were -- we're guinea pigs on the metrics. 

We're the first one out. We've had people come 

up, certain people come up, and I might just as 

well have gone and talked to that wall. The 

information that they got -- there was never a 

return from anybody. Nobody said well, some of 

your issues we're looking at or nothing, 

absolutely nothing. 

I've gone to -- to hearings where you say 

present your case. I went to a hearing. I had 

five other people with me, claimants. I had an 

attorney sitting there. I told him not to say 

nothing because he didn't know what was going 

on, basically. When that man got done I had I 

don't know how many pages documentation, he 

talked to all of them. He never said nothing. 

When it got done, the man stood up and he put 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

293 

his hand down on my paper and he says you got a 

3.9 percentage causation, and he looked me 

right square in the eye, and he says you ain't 

getting it. He says unless you can change that 

number -- how am I, how is any woman, how is 

any lady like Terry that never worked in the 

plant and never knew what her husband done 

going to change that figure? How can they? 

worked there and I can't change it because no 

matter what I say -- I don't challenge the 

metrics. I don't challenge your dose 

reconstruction because I think it's -- it's 

fine. I really do. You've done a great job on 

it. But what you're putting into it is what I 

have an issue with. 

I went down to Cincinnati and I -- and I 

learned about the -- the dose reconstruction, 

how you put it together, and I think at certain 

facilities it'll work. Your questionnaire will 

work. But if -- if these people, when you do a 

questionnaire and you ask people for witnesses 

and they call back and say what's their phone 

number and address, I thought well, this is 

great, they're going to check into it. These 

people to this day were never called. Terry 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

294 

told her agent that she couldn't tell him 

anything. Obviously now we can't -- first of 

all, when I done it, even -- I didn't even know 

all these issues about all this -- these 

accidents that happened at the plant. She told 

the agent call Mr. Walker because he worked 

with my husband, and they looked it up and they 

says oh, yes, we see, he's right here. To this 

day -- to this day, and this was a couple of 

years ago, I believe -- I've never been called. 

Why? Why ask me for it? Why waste the postage 

if you're not going to do nothing about it? 

Not you people, but the system. 

 I'm getting near the end. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me interrupt you for a minute 

because we have -- we have 12 more speakers. 

You've gone 30 minutes, and if we do that for 

each we're going to be here a long time. 

 MR. WALKER: Okay, I just --

 DR. ZIEMER: So please wrap --

 MR. WALKER: -- have a couple more -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. WALKER: -- quick things. Today I noticed 

there was two different opinions from the audit 

team and one from Jim Neton, and I'm wondering 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

295 

now, two different opinions, at what point do 

we -- do we say that Bethlehem Steel is a 

Special Cohort like these government 

facilities? And it's -- you don't have to 

answer that question. I'd like somebody to get 

back, but not now, it's not important. But 

with these two differences of opinions, just 

when -- when do they decide well, Bethlehem 

needs -- needs a Special Cohort? 

And then last but not least, you were talking 

about the '56 rollings -- '55 and '56, you 

don't have -- you're not going to answer the 

question and I don't expect you to at this 

point, but what were you looking for when you 

were looking for the rollings, and where did 

you look for them? I'd like these, if somebody 

could tell me, send me a letter or whatever. 

Who looked for it, and did anyone ever look for 

shipping records, because without having 

shipping records, you couldn't have had 

rollings. So if there are shipping records, 

you might be able to find it there. 

At that I'm going to close and I -- I want to 

thank you all for listening and putting up with 

me for a half hour. My wife has to do it all 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

296 

the time. 

You know, these people that fought was for 

liberty and justice. The liberty part we got 

because that's why I'm here speaking, and I 

appreciate having the opportunity to. The 

justice part we need, and that's what we're 

asking for you to help us with, to help these 

people and help these widows and help these 

children that lost their parents and -- and 

maybe that the government won't do it no more. 

Maybe these people coming back from Iraq will 

get a fair shake. A lot of these fellas 

didn't. Thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Ed, for those comments, 

and for traveling all that way to be with us 

this week. 

Next on the list is Richard Miller from 

Government Accountability Project. Richard. 

Is Richard not here? 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) He's in the 

bathroom. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. If I don't pronounce these 

names correctly, please help me. Jerry 

Giovacini? 

 MR. GIOVACINI: Giovacini. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

297 

 DR. ZIEMER: Giovacini? 

 MR. GIOVACINI: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, who's a Sandia person, 

Livermore. Please. 

 MR. GIOVACINI: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

 MR. GIOVACINI: I, too, worked at Sandia 

National Laboratories and I am a claimant, and 

hopefully what I have to say here tonight is -- 

may help you all with your site dose 

reconstruction at Sandia, California site. And 

please allow me to read my statement. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

 MR. GIOVACINI: I worked at Sandia National 

Laboratories for approximately 26-plus years, 

from October, 1971 to November, 1997. My first 

job there -- for my six-plus years of 

employment I worked in an X-ray diffraction and 

fluorescence laboratory as a laboratory 

technician. Here's where I think I got into 

trouble. I used ionizing radiation to 

characterize the crystalline structures of 

weapons grade materials. I physically handled 

most of the elements in the Period Table 

setting up standards files and the weapons 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

298 

grade components. One method of sample 

preparation consisted of grinding the material 

to a very fine powder for insertion into 

capillary tubes. The grinding was performed in 

the lab on a bench top wearing just a lab coat 

and a dosimeter. The heating and cooling was 

the only ventilation provided. 

Another method of sample preparation consisted 

of mounting nuggets in an epoxy-based resin and 

hand-polishing the surface for a diffractometer 

or fluorescence analysis. In certain 

circumstances the diffractometer 

characterization did allow this ionizing 

radiation to scatter about the room. In 1978 

while calibrating a diffractometer I received 

an elevated accidental exposure to my fingers 

of my right hand and the upper trunk of my body 

when the X-ray beam interlock shutoff failed. 

I filed an incident report with the safety 

department. Building 913 has since been 

demolished. I think that was demolished in 

approximately 1999. 

On April 28th of this year I contacted the 

occupational medicine department at Sandia in 

Albuquerque, who supposedly has all my records, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

299 

requesting my radiation dose exposure records 

from my 26-plus years of employment. I was 

sent an incomplete record. The dosimetry 

records that I received were only for six 

years, from 1989 to 1994. Unfortunately, the 

time during my incident when I worked in the Xray lab, those records are missing. 

After making a second request for the balance 

of my records, I was told that no other 

dosimetry records are available, and they could 

not be found, and that all revenue -- avenues 

of retrieving the records have been exhausted. 

My second job at Sandia was for four-plus 

years, from 1978 to 1982. I worked in an 

electrical -- an electronic-repairing 

calibration lab known as instrument repair and 

calibration. Here I repaired and calibrated 

electrical laboratory instrumentation, both in 

the instrumentation lab and in the field. 

While performing this job I was exposed to 

various levels of electric and magnetic EMF. 

While working in the field there was also the 

exposure to radon gas and tritium at the 

collection and sample analysis stations. 

My third job at Sandia -- and this is the one I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

300 

retired from -- was from 1982 to 1997. I 

worked as an electromechanical laboratory 

technician in building 968, which has now been 

reassigned to another use, formally known as 

the tritium research lab. In this lab I built 

the primary and secondary containment systems 

for the radioactive isotope tritium and its 

compounds. Additional job duties included the 

operation and maintenance of these tritiumcontaminated systems, both during the normal 

work day, plus on call for 24 hours per day for 

emergency response to operational failures, and 

of course the more potentially dangerous hazard 

alarms involving tritium. There was an 

occasional exposure to tritium in the gaseous 

form, and the unknown risk of exposure to 

tritium in the oxide form. The oxide form, as 

we all know, is more hazardous, approximately 

25,000 times more hazardous than the gaseous 

form. Unfortunately, the overall tritium 

monitors that were utilized in the tritium lab 

did not distinguish between the gaseous form 

and the oxide form of tritium. 

 On routine job -- one routine job requirement 

where there was a radioactive exposure during 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

301 

the performance of the periodic source 

calibration of these room air tritium monitors. 

The sources that were used to held adjacent to 

the tritium monitor ionization chambers to 

generate these alarms was a cesium 137 and a 

more powerful strontium 90 source. 

As a California site, as Sandia was preparing 

to terminate tritium operations, during the 

performance of the periodic -- excuse me -- 

during the -- I'm lost. At the California site 

was preparing to terminate tritium operations, 

the tritium research laboratory went from a 

tritium R&D laboratory to a decontamination and 

decommissioning type of mission to transition 

the facility to another type of research and 

development. Due to the nature of this type of 

work, the risk of tritium exposures was greatly 

enhanced. It was during this transition phase 

that I received another accidental elevated 

exposure when cutting a copper manifold with a 

jaws-of-life type of machine. 

In conclusion, during my 26-plus years at 

Sandia, I held a number of positions and 

performed numerous tasks. From 1989 to 1997 I 

have had four occurrences of non-Hodgkin's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

302 

lymphoma, with subsequent radiation and 

chemotherapy treatment. It was due to my 

medical condition after my fourth occurrence of 

lymphoma that the Sandia medical department 

placed me on extended sick leave and advised me 

of early retirement oppor-- options. The 

potential -- the potential of additional 

exposures and the state of my health were the 

predominant factors in considering this 

premature retirement. Upon the recommendation 

of Sandia, I took their disability retirement 

in November of 1997 at the age of 48. 

When I was being treated for my fourth 

occurrence in 1997 my doctors at Stanford told 

me that my disease is one that is notoriously 

difficult to eradicate, and is now in a chronic 

stage. I was told that it would most probably 

reveal itself again, and it did just that. Not 

only did it reoccur, but it's also reoccurred 

as a more aggressive type of lymphoma. I am 

currently undergoing chemotherapy and radiation 

treatment for my fifth occurrence of nonHodgkin's lymphoma. My doctors have told me 

and my personal research leads me to believe 

that my employment history at Sandia more than 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

303 

likely had an impact on my health, and more 

specifically that my cancer was more than 

likely related to my radioactive exposures. 

I applied for the EEOICP in 1992 -- that was 

March of 1992. In June of this year I had my 

dose reconstruction telephone interview with 

NIOSH. I believe the next major step in the 

process is a site profile for Sandia. I hope 

that the information given in my testimony here 

tonight will ensure that all relevant issues 

will be addressed appropriately when the sitewide dose reconstruction is constructed at 

Sandia, whenever that might be. 

I would like to be around tomorrow to listen to 

the Special Exposure Cohort, 'cause I do 

believe non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and exposure to 

ionizing radiation's at the very top of the 

list, but unfortunately I'm back at Stanford 

tomorrow for another session of chemotherapy. 

But you do have my name, you have my phone 

number, and if I -- and I've been around Sandia 

for 26-plus years during the early days, and if 

I could be of further assistance, please give 

me a call. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Barry -- or 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

304 

Jerry. I have Jerry, and our next speaker is 

Barry, Barry -- looks like Lubowski? 

 MR. LUBOVISKI: Luboviski, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Luboviski, okay. Luboviski --

Barry, thank you -- who is -- Oakland, 

California, uh-huh. 

 MR. LUBOVISKI: Yeah -- yeah, and I'll give my 

introduction. Thank you. 

My name's Barry Luboviski. I'm the 

secretary/treasurer for the building and 

construction trades council of Alameda County, 

AFL/CIO. Our council represents 28 local 

unions that represent membership in Alameda 

County. We have workers working today and -- 

on a consistent basis at Lawrence Livermore 

National Lab that are represented by the 

various unions, and the building trades council 

negotiates a contract with the contractors that 

come in on what's known as the labor-only 

agreement. These are maintenance workers. 

 We've also had literally hundreds of workers at 

the Lab, union workers, that have been involved 

in a number of projects at Lawrence Livermore 

Lab. Most recently under project labor 

agreement, the national ignition facility was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

305 

constructed by hundreds of construction workers 

through the various phases. So we have a very 

definite interest and concern about the 

process, and I want to comment a bit about 

that. 

 November 30th of this year we were visited by 

representatives of the NIOSH team, an outreach 

team, who contacted my office and said that 

they were interested in working with the unions 

that had workers at the facility so as to 

inform us of this program and so that we could 

more effectively work together. I was pleased 

to see that the government had put together a 

program to address issues for workers who for 

years have been part of the backbone of those 

facilities that have been vital to our 

country's defense and have played a significant 

role. Certainly this society is invested in 

the infrastructure, and now I was hopeful that 

the society and the government would invest in 

the workers whose lives were at jeopardy by 

working in these facilities. 

At our meeting were a number of the unions in 

my council. About seven or eight of the unions 

directly were there -- the electricians, the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

306 

carpenters, the plumbers, I believe the roofers 

were there, the painters. We -- also were 

representatives there from SPSE UPTI*, another 

one of the unions out there, and also from TriValley Cares, an organization that has been 

working with workers that are injured at the 

facility. 

The meeting, I felt, was useful because it 

opened the door. In fact, if the door was 

opened and if that was the beginning and the 

end of substantive dialogue, then I would have 

to characterize the meeting as a 

disappointment, if that was the end of the 

dialogue. If in fact the meeting 

representative -- represented a sincere and an 

earnest effort on behalf of all of the 

government agencies that are involved in this 

program to really effectively work with the 

workers and to go through the complex tasks 

that are necessary for workers to get 

compensation, then it was an important start. 

At the end of the presentation we expressed -- 

everybody in the room expressed some concern, 

because there certainly was some things 

lacking. The job, as I think you've heard 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

307 

probably far more eloquently than I from the 

previous speakers, certainly was a challenge to 

individual workers seeking compensation or 

their -- or their surviving relatives. And so 

we wanted to know how the data was going to be 

collected, and to what level of transparency -- 

what level of transparency would enable the 

unions and other organizations representing 

workers and the workers and community 

organizations to be able to make and assist in 

making the necessary assessments. 

Any kind of reconstruction is difficult. If I 

were to ask anybody in this room what they did 

last Wednesday of last week at 3:00 o'clock in 

the afternoon, I think a lot of us would be 

looking at our PDAs, if we had them, or 

scratching our heads. Yet workers are asked to 

reach back years and decades to reconstruct 

information. And so therefore the data that is 

already in the hands of the Lab is absolutely 

essential in assisting those workers to 

recollect. And if this is a partnership and if 

in fact that's the intent, then we applaud the 

agencies for doing that. 

But we didn't hear that yet, and I haven't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

308 

heard that in the speakers here. So to capture 

and effectively partner with these workers to 

put together an effective and an accurate site 

profile, you need the input of the workers, you 

need input of investigative teams, some of 

which have occurred by the Lab; and you need 

those individuals in a role as an ombudsperson 

or as an assistant who has the confidence and 

the integrity of the workers to be able to 

assist in this -- in this very important 

endeavor. 

 The data should include the tiger team reports. 

It should include event data that's historical 

and consistent and accurate. And it should 

seek to add to that event data where there are 

lapses, as we have heard, by cataloguing and 

the exposure events, some of which have already 

been done by the Lab, that information should 

be transparent and -- and accessible by those 

people that are assisting the claimants. 

But in addition, the administrative records of 

the individual claimants, although there might 

be confidentiality concerns, certainly are 

valuable when quantified and when the personal 

information is taken out so that assessments 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

309 

can be made. And again, accurate and full 

records of the exposures of all of the 

individuals working at the Lab can be done. 

We have not yet heard whether that's going to 

happen. We certainly don't believe that that 

kind of partnering has occurred at this point. 

I understand that in this morning's testimony 

that there was an assessment made. In fact, 

when it was reported that the percentage of 

approval where -- of appeals on claimants that 

have filed appeals is low and therefore the 

assessment is that the process is effective. 

Well, if people aren't appealing, they must be 

satisfied with the assessment and the initial 

awards that have been determined and the 

determinations being made. That certainly is a 

grand leap, and I think we can certainly all 

agree what the percentage is. But to come to 

that conclusion is both arrogant and I believe 

foolhardy because there are a number of 

explanations as to why the appeal rate is low. 

And speaking for the unions, our concern is 

that if workers are not afforded effective, 

good faith support by people that they know and 

respect to enable them to effectively compile 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

310 

and to understand what is -- and I've only seen 

it briefly -- complex and baffling information, 

which many of these individual claimants have 

no ability to read, quite rightfully so -- it's 

a level of sophistication that would be a 

challenge to, I'm sure, many with PhD's -- and 

so therefore, again, another assessment can be 

made on low claimant appeal rate that people 

are demoralized, people give up, people settle 

for what they can get out of the worst kind of 

cynicism, a cynicism born out of despair. And 

I don't believe that anybody in this room wants 

to see a process for workers that have 

literally devoted their lives to the most 

important work in our country. And so I hope 

that this Board and this policy body will take 

a look at some of the remedies, some of the 

ways to enable us to begin to more effectively 

address the research that these workers need. 

Now on that, and then I'll close, two things of 

concern. One is retaliation. I think we have 

to be practical. Although all of us would like 

to believe that workers coming forward will not 

be retaliated against -- because we're not only 

talking about former workers, but we're talking 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

311 

about workers that are working in the plants 

and these various facilities today, so there 

needs to be a process whereby it's recognized -

- certainly for union workers it should be 

recognized that those workers can be 

represented by spokespeople such as union 

representors such as myself, who can represent 

their experiences where that representation 

will be effectively documented and taken with 

the full weight of the testimony of the 

individual workers still working at the plant. 

And there needs to be a process in place to 

ensure that there will not be retaliation 

against workers coming forward. 

Secondly, we appreciate the resource center and 

the efforts of the resource center that is 

attempting to work with workers. It's my 

understanding that the effective rate is very 

low, and I think that on a challenge that's 

this daunting and this complicated that the 

Board should embrace a number of approaches 

towards addressing effective outreach, one of 

which would be looking at funding of some one 

or some individuals with the technical 

expertise and the individual confidence of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

312 

labor community, of the local community to be 

able to come in and play that role of -- that 

important role of bridge. 

Now that's not that unusual in terms of 

government funding. I deal with WIB funding -- 

workforce investment board funding -- where the 

government has said -- the Federal government 

has said there's problems with unemployment, 

there's problems with education, problems with 

transitioning people out of poverty into 

productive jobs. We aren't going to come in 

and tell you and your local community how to do 

that, we're going to give you the funding. And 

out of a process that involves the unions and 

involves the community and involves 

corporations through WIB boards, they've been 

able to put together effective bridges. 

There's a close analogy here, and funds should 

be put aside and set aside to -- and there 

should be other meetings set with labor and ask 

us who we think some of the effective technical 

experts that are out there that have the 

confidence of the unions and the confidence of 

the work force that can come in and assist in 

an independent role where there will not be a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

313 

fear of retaliation, where there will not be 

the bridge or the gap between people that 

nobody's ever seen before that are not in the 

area. I think that that would be an added and 

an important component. 

I'll stop with those comments. I hope that at 

some point they'll be addressed and we'll hear 

back. I would like to ask what's the process 

for hearing back. I'm sure throughout this 

process you're going to hear a number of 

questions. When and through what vehicle do we 

receive answers? 

 DR. ZIEMER: The general answer to that is that 

NIOSH, who hears these and has that 

responsibility for that process will, through 

their representatives, be in touch with yours. 

So I'm only answering that in a very general 

sense --

 MR. LUBOVISKI: Fair enough. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I think -- again, you can 

talk directly to Larry individual and get a 

little more feedback. 

 MR. LUBOVISKI: Good. I would also invite and 

suggest that this is certainly important enough 

that there ought to be more hearings in this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

314 

local area. And hearing of this gentleman who 

came across the country, there should be -- 

there should be more hearings and more of a 

presence where these workers live in their 

local communities so that they don't have to 

come out and come across at personal -- the 

personal difficult to be able to testify. I 

think it shows the level of frustration and 

anger. 

Also one of our speakers who's going to speak 

tonight with the roofers is going to talk 

anecdotally -- I was hoping he'd come first. 

You're going to hear about a member and about a 

frustration at a lower level. Again, one of 

the conclusions I want you to take when you 

hear Leroy speak from the roofers is that 

you're going to hear the frustration that's 

typical of individual workers that really don't 

have the power and the sophistication to 

represent themselves and are left alone, and I 

hope that you'll take some of our observations 

from the building trades council and put into 

effect an effective network that will enable 

those workers to be able to effectively be 

represented and reach what in many cases are 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

315 

the proper findings that would enable these 

people to get the funding where in many cases 

we believe workers have not been funded in fact 

where they should have been. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And 

incidentally, some of this is Labor's outreach 

program, too, and NIOSH will be working with 

them and --

 MR. LUBOVISKI: With who? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Department of Labor, so they'll be 

working with them. 

 MR. LUBOVISKI: Well, and we suppose and hope 

that the Department of Labor and NIOSH will 

both be working with the unions as we -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, exactly. 

 MR. LUBOVISKI: Okay, good, in building these 

networks. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Barry. 

MR. CISNEROS: Excuse me, I may be out of 

order, but my name is Leroy and I'd just like 

to tie this in, if I could speak out of order? 

 DR. ZIEMER: That would be fine, Leroy. You're 

Leroy Cisneros? 

MR. CISNEROS: Cisneros, correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we'll jump ahead. Leroy is -
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

316 

-

MR. CISNEROS: Thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- with Local -- the roofer. 

MR. CISNEROS: I'm a roofer, waterproofer, I've 

been a union roofer for 20 years. These past 

four years I've had the opportunity to 

represent our members. Part of my job 

responsibility is representing workers on 

safety issues, health hazards on the job site. 

I just want to -- about three years ago one of 

our workers was dying of cancer -- well, first 

of all I just wanted -- as background, we do a 

lot of work -- our subcontractors that are 

(unintelligible) to us are doing a lot of work 

in the Berkeley laboratory and Lawrence 

Livermore laboratory. There's always roofs to 

be replaced, new buildings demolished and new 

buildings built, as people have testified 

before. 

Uranium has been around 50, 60 years. We know 

the half-life of it. The poison sticks around. 

My concern is removing an old roof, you know, 

the dust that the workers have to ingest, 

breathing and eating around the project. New 

projects, operating engineers kicking up old 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

317 

dust. I'm sure -- I'm sure there's a big 

clean-up problem over there that isn't -- 

that's always there, and the workers in 

construction are always there working around 

it. That's an issue that I'm concerned about. 

I just want to bring up a story about a brother 

roofer. He died three years ago, a young man, 

maybe 53. He worked a lot of his life and a 

lot of his work was done at the Berkeley 

Livermore laboratory and at Lawrence Livermore. 

As I said, our contractors are doing a lot of 

work over there. And I remember when he -- the 

last time I seen him at the union hall, he was 

going through chemotherapy and he said Leroy, 

he says, you know, all of a sudden he just -- I 

can't help feeling that all the work I done 

over there, some -- I believe that I -- some of 

that exposure is part -- is related to the 

problem I'm having now. And he just mentioned 

it to me, and I always remembered that. And I 

always -- I always felt that some day, you 

know, that there would be a -- a venue that I 

could bring it forward and carry this on, and 

the day has come. I just -- I just like to 

bring -- I'd just like to -- also I'm -- you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

318 

know, this is -- I've got a lot of family in 

Los Alamos. 

Over in Los Alamos in San Juan County it's the 

poorest -- one of the poorest counties in the 

area. A lot of the community over there, they 

all work at the Los Alamos Laboratory. I've 

got aunts and cousins that works in the 

hospitals and in the laboratory over there. 

And frankly, I worked there for one time doing 

some waterproofing over there. And this --

this issue's not going to go away with the -- 

with the poison that we're dealing with. It's 

always there, unless you clean it up. And if 

you clean it up, there's no more laboratory. 

I just thank you for listening to me and I hope 

that -- that some kind of meaningful process 

will be -- you know, instead of just words, 

something meaningful will be taken care of. 

came here, I heard about this. I got some 

information. I'm going to go and try to bring 

this information to my member's wife and see if 

she can continue going on with this process 

with a claim. But from what I'm hearing, she's 

going to be like putting a thread through a 

needle, and I hope she doesn't have to do that. 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

319 

Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Leroy, for adding those 

comments. Our next speaker is Joe Richards. 

Joe is from Sweetwater, Tennessee. Joe? 

MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. I work at the Y-12 

plant, and I'm a union safety rep, but I'm 

doing this on my own, what I've got to say 

tonight. 

A few months ago or -- a few months ago we were 

-- we were contacted to do a site profile, and 

really didn't know what to do. I've been out 

there in plants 20 years. There's people that 

have been out there prior to -- we've been 

exposed to a lot of things, kind of like 

construction workers. It seems like when they 

do profiles, when they come in, they want to 

talk to the plant -- you know, to the -- to the 

people actually -- the machinists, you know, 

the -- and what I'd like to see -- y'all are 

doing a good job, but what I'd like to see is 

make sure that when we have these site profiles 

that everyone is talked to and everyone has a 

story to tell. Everyone's been exposed, or 

maybe think they've been exposed to something -

- that you all -- that you all hear this and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

320 

you all know, and you all take that -- take 

that in. That's really -- really I guess what 

I want to see. I know y'all are doing a good 

job. 

The unknowns is what gets us, and times -- 

times are better. You know, years ago we 

didn't have the buffer zones and the things we 

have now, so times are better. But people -- 

people have been exposed, and they want -- they 

just want to have their right to say and have 

their -- to let you all know and maybe get 

something out of this. And -- and I've talked 

to some people here today and yesterday, and -- 

and I -- I think we're going to have something. 

I think some of the people are going to help 

us. But basically all -- I -- I guess another 

question I wanted to ask, and I don't know if 

this is the right place to ask. 

I want to know how much money has been paid out 

in -- in claims, and then I guess a follow-up 

on that is how much money has been spent 

through the government, and maybe this is the 

wrong place to ask, but how much money has been 

spent to -- to turn these claims out? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me tell you that the answers 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

321 

to both of those questions were addressed this 

morning. I don't have them at my fingertips, 

but we can get you those numbers. They were in 

the -- some of the presentations this morning. 

I think Department of Labor perhaps was -- 

Shelby, was that in your presentation? Maybe -

- maybe he can get together with you and 

provide you with those -- 

MR. RICHARDS: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- those very figures. 

MR. RICHARDS: And one other thing. It seems 

like listening to y'all today, got two 

different groups and you're stalemate, you 

know, and you're trying to work a process and -

- and one side says -- sees it this way and the 

other side sees it this way. But you've got 

the workers here in the middle just setting. 

And you know, they started this program and I -

- and I know that it's -- it's a hard program 

to -- you know, y'all are trying to look at 

things that you don't even know. You're just -

- you can't pull a rabbit out of a hat. But 

somewhere down the line someone's going to have 

to say well, this side's right and this side's 

wrong, and let's go, let's -- let's make this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

322 

happen. And I hope that, you know, y'all 

decide on this -- this -- this meeting here 

that you decide something and go forward. Left 

or right, let's get something done and let's -- 

you know, try to make it right for the workers. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 

MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Next we'll hear from Sue Byers 

from Livermore, Society of Professional 

Scientists and Engineers. Sue Byers. 

MS. BYERS: I'm Sue Byers and I'm with SPSE, 

which is the Society for Professional 

Scientists and Engineers. And we're a labor 

union at the Lawrence Livermore Lab. We're 

affiliated with -- through the University of 

California with the University Professional and 

Technical Employees and the Communication 

Workers of America. Our members in SPSE are 

scientists, engineers, professionals and 

technicians that are employed as employees at 

LLNL. I'm a 24-year laboratory employee. I've 

worked at site 300, which is our explosive 

testing facility, for the past five years. 

I've also worked in LLNL's superblock. I've 

worked in the plutonium facility, the tritium 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

323 

facility, as well as the heavy elements 

facility. 

I also, as the SPSE representative, attended 

the meeting that Barry was talking about 

earlier and where representatives of the 

building construction trades council, SPSE and 

EPTI* and Tri-Valley Cares came together to 

hear the presentation from -- on the EEOICPA by 

NIOSH and the ORAU, the contractor who 

performed the site profile. And there was a 

lot that wasn't included. We ended up with a 

whole lot of questions, things that weren't 

answered, things that we'd still like to get 

answered so that we can pass information on to 

our members, and also have a part of the 

process. 

We're still not sure what is the process for 

developing the site profile. What's the time 

line? Who's going to review the process? And 

how will union and community input be solicited 

and then be included in the site profile? 

Worker and community input must be inclusive 

for this process to work. A list of documents 

to be reviewed need to be made public so that 

additions can be suggested. An early draft 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

324 

profile needs to be made public so that input 

can be provided. And the final draft needs to 

be made public for input before it's finalized. 

And also the profile needs to be open-ended so 

that new information can be added as it becomes 

available, and these are the kind of questions 

we came away with that weren't answered for us. 

As Livermore Lab scientists, engineers, 

technicians doing the research, developing and 

testing with the nuclear materials, many of our 

employees have worked at sites other than LLNL. 

You know, an employee's lifetime radiation 

exposure can come from various sites, and 

record-keeping for where employees have 

traveled have not been kept. You know, the lab 

had its own plane, and employees could just 

jump on the plane and go to the test site or go 

to other sites. Documentation was not kept. 

Travel records were not kept. The work they 

performed, the projects they worked on, those 

type of records are not available. They've not 

been kept. And radiation exposure has not been 

well-documented. 

And this is the kind of information that will 

help in the claims process publicly, so what 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

325 

we're requesting is that information be 

provided publicly on the job exposure matrix by 

site, individual buildings, years and radiation 

exposure for other sites, as well as our own. 

We'd like to have the information for where our 

employees have worked. LANL, the Nevada Test 

Site, Sandia Livermore, GE Vallecitos and other 

sites that will be identified as we go through 

the claims process. So we need that easily, 

readily identifiable to us so that we can help 

our employees and survivors and former 

employees work through this process. 

 The information, you know, isn't available to 

us. But if you know it, then pass it on to us 

so that we can help work those issues. 

Another part of it is what's missing. We 

believe that the limited documentation -- 

documentation available for the Livermore 

employees' work, which can include known 

exposure, it can also be missed, or what has 

not been recorded radiation exposure, and 

dosage records at the various sites -- this has 

got to be thoroughly addressed. You know, it's 

very dif-- as we've heard tonight, it's very 

difficult for workers to put together 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

326 

information that's never been made available to 

them or to our employers. So somehow we need 

to cover in this process how do we handle 

what's missing. That's, I think, really key 

from what we've been hearing about the other 

sites, and we know, as our members are the 

scientists and engineers who worked on a lot of 

these projects, we know that there's a lot of 

missing information. 

And additionally, we also believe the site 

assessments, such as the tiger team 

assessments, occurrence reporting, radiation -- 

radiation exposure events are very critical 

that they be included. They're not only 

critical that the information in them be 

included, but they also can be a way to 

document where radiation exposure could have 

occurred without being detected, so that there 

is no dose readings for that exposure. So 

we're requesting that the full findings of the 

tiger team assessments from the late '80's and 

early '90's, and other assessments of 

management and building safety systems, be 

released to us to help review that, and also be 

released to be included as part of this report. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

327 

This includes any rollover to the laboratory's 

def track system, which tracks by buildings 

deficiencies that have been found and 

subsequent reportings to the safety programs. 

This includes management controls for safety 

and inadequacy of maintenance of the building 

safety systems, the systems that weren't 

calibrated, the systems that weren't working 

like they were designed to work. These are the 

pieces of information that will help us 

recreate the missing pieces of our dose 

reconstruction. 

And we also request that the EEOICPA 

statistics, the data for Livermore and the 

Sandia labs, be made publicly available 

throughout this process. I'm just talking 

statistics. I'm not talking about Privacy Act 

information -- information on individuals. 

We'd like to have it posted on the NIOSH web 

site. Statistics won't reveal personal 

identities or information, but it will give us 

the ability to sort by illness, occupation, 

trade group, whether people are living or dead, 

and how many claimants have been waiting and 

for how long they've been waiting. And I think 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

328 

this information can become really important to 

us as we help our claimants put together their 

histories and they can see what else is going 

on out there. 

We also at SPSE are concerned with retaliation 

and whistle-blower issues. If you listen to 

the news at all, you've heard the Livermore 

Lab, Los Alamos have been in the news a lot on 

the whistle-blower issues. This is a real 

concern to our scientists and engineers. 

They're not going to come forward and help us 

create the dose reconstruction unless we can 

assure them that they will not be retaliated 

against and that they will have whistle-blower 

protection. 

You know, we believe that the radiation dose 

reconstruction and the site profile is a 

necessary part of this process, and we want to 

be part of that process to ensure that the 

current or former workers or survivors with 

valid claims are paid in a timely manner, and 

also that the intent of Congress in passing 

this Act is met. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Sue, for 

those comments. And the individuals 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

329 

responsible for follow-up on that are here and 

have heard you. Thank you. 

Francine Moran, retired claimant from 

Brentwood, California. Retired from Lawrence 

Livermore. 

MS. MORAN: Good evening. I wanted to let you 

know about my dissatisfaction of trying to get 

help from the Department of Energy's sick 

worker resource center located at 2600 

Kittyhawk Road, Suite 101 in Livermore, 

California. I was informed on three different 

occasions when I tried to get information the 

only thing they do at the center is help you 

fill out the initial forms and applications for 

compensation. I had hoped they could help me 

understand the process of the NIOSH 

reconstruction, how to -- about -- how to go 

about not having to work within the time frame 

of the Department of Labor, when -- being 

scheduled for interviews and to submit their 

paperwork when having to deal with some very 

important situations. I was either going into 

surgery or coming out of surgery, and I was on 

some very painful -- powerful pain medication. 

I have a rare -- a rare type of cancer that is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

330 

only treatable by abdominal surgery. I have 

had six major abdominal surgeries in the last 

five years. I was told by three different 

representatives at the resource center that 

they did not have any information for going 

about rescheduling telephone interviews, names 

of individuals that may be able to help me in 

getting assistance, either here or in 

Washington, D.C. I was told on all three 

occasions that the only thing they did at the 

center was help you fill out your initial 

paperwork and submit it, and that was all they 

did -- really did at the center. 

Being 58 years of age and a retired employee of 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a 

United States citizen, I have filled out a few 

forms in my lifetime. I'm very disappointed in 

the resources that have not been made available 

to me as a claimant. It was only through luck 

and stumbling blocks that I was introduced to 

Helga Olson and was informed about this 

meeting. 

As a claimant, being left on your own is very 

scary. You're left on your own when you're 

fighting for your life, you're very, very sick 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

331 

and you're having to make some major, major 

decisions. Maybe that's why you're not getting 

the appeals. We are so sick, we are so tired, 

we can't respond. We're fighting to stay 

alive. And this is from material we know was 

caused by where we worked and what we were 

exposed to. 

The times for the inter-- phone interviews -- 

and I have appealed my re-- my NIOSH 

reconstruction. I could not believe how 

inconsiderate they were in scheduling. I had 

requested that, because of testing and medical 

reasons, I wanted to be scheduled sometime in 

February. I would be through with some very 

extensive testing and doctors' appointments by 

the end of January, and I would be at their 

disposal any time in February. I receive a 

very curt memo telling me that my meeting is 

scheduled in -- January 5th in San Jose. I 

live in Brentwood. The time is 9:00 o'clock. 

Has anybody ever tried to travel Basco* Road, 

580, 680, to get to a meeting, you don't know 

where the hell it is, by 9:00 o'clock in the 

morning? My only alternative was to get a 

letter from my doctors explaining the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

332 

situation, and then they made a big deal out of 

it because I had asked for a rescheduling. 

When I asked to have the meeting made more 

convenient, even an Oakland office, I was told 

that was not -- that was not an option. 

I want to know where, as a claimant -- I'm sure 

I'm not the only one in this situation. Where 

is my help? Where is our help? Where is the 

information coming from that we have 

representatives, that we have resources at our 

availability? I feel like a naked baby on a 

table. Where do I go for help? All I have is 

NIOSH and the Department of Labor bombarding me 

with telephone interviews and documents I don't 

understand. I don't understand a 

reconstruction of a dosimeter. 

I was -- started working at Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory in 1980. At that time 

dosimeters were not issued. I was a Q-cleared 

employee and an administrative assistant, and 

made an administrative escort. I spent many 

hours escorting uncleared visitors into very 

potentially hazardous parts of the laboratory, 

day after day, hour after hour. The records 

are gone. Who do I ask? Who do I ask for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

333 

assistance? Where do I go? 

And one of my last things -- one of my last 

question is is how do I go about getting my 

administrative records? Do I call the resource 

center that tells me the only thing they will 

do is help me fill out my initial application? 

Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Francine, for sharing 

those comments, which are certainly 

disconcerting to all of us. 

UNIDENTIFIED: May I have two minutes? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We have other speakers that have 

signed up, sir, but we will add you to the list 

if --

UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

UNIDENTIFIED: He has to drive back up the hill 

to --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, you do? 

UNIDENTIFIED: -- and it's about two hours 

away. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Please, go ahead. 

UNIDENTIFIED: If he could just --

 DR. ZIEMER: Identify who you are and then... 

 MR. BENHARD: My name is Hans Benhard and I was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

334 

an employee at Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory for 20 and a half years. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Hans, could you spell your last 

name for our recorder? 

 MR. BENHARD: B-e-n-h-a-r-d. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. BENHARD: First name H-a-n-s, middle 

initial H. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. BENHARD: I was interested on this lady's 

comments just a moment ago because, as I went 

through the process as a claimant in spring of 

2003, the first area of discouragement I 

received was in April when the first half of my 

medical file went to the Department of Labor up 

in Seattle. And I got back some very curious 

letters that I didn't understand, so I called, 

and I got ahold of this woman who -- I'm not 

slandering the female sex here, but at best 

left a lot of intelligent answers to be 

desired. I said I have listed in detail in my 

medical reports to you the various skin cancers 

I have, and I've suffered from skin cancer for 

almost 30 years -- 28 years, to be exact. And 

she said well, you know, you should realize 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

335 

that squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas 

are not really cancer. And I said oh, really? 

They're not the mumps. And she said also you 

would have had to have worked 250 days at Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory to be considered a 

contaminant. And I said oh, really? 'Cause I 

was a director in motion picture and television 

production for Lawrence Livermore Lab for 20 

and a half years. And I said there's one area 

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory by that 

reactor building, all you have to do is go in 

that area for at least a half an hour and you 

don't have to worry about 250 days of exposure; 

you've already had it -- a lethal dosage. 

And for those of you who might be interested, 

I'm going to take my coat off 'cause I just had 

part of my continuing surgery today, and if you 

look at the back of me, those aren't bullet 

holes, that's the marks of the surgery that 

leaked through my shirt from the surgery I had 

in the middle of my back for a squamous cell 

and -- squamous cell carcinoma today, and I go 

through this almost every two to four weeks, of 

surgery. My upper body is just a mass of scar 

tissue, and I've been going through this for a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

336 

long, long time. And the responses I've gotten 

from the Department of Labor and also DOE 

leaves me somewhat unfulfilled as to the 

validity of communication that I've received 

from those people because I don't think -- like 

that woman I talked to in Seattle at the 

Department of Labor office, she was not a 

health physicist. She sure as hell was not a 

PhD in radiology. I keep wondering, why 

doesn't somebody like John W. Gofman, who is 

the world's leading expert in radioactivity and 

X-rays, why is he not on a panel of people to 

assess claimants' problems with cancers, 

whatever cancer that they might have? And I --

I don't want to go on and on about this, I 

don't want to bore people to death about it, 

but I think there are some valid concerns about 

those of us who are claimants and we're not 

getting the answers we should be getting. And 

I've reached the point -- and I'm 72 years old. 

I'm getting damned sick and tired of listening 

to people's bureaucratic, you know, 

monosyllabic answers to questions that I think 

should be more pertinent and more relevant to 

the subject. Thank you. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

337 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, thank you very 

much. 

 Inga Olson, Livermore? 

MS. OLSON: Steve -- Steve was going to come. 

I'm going to -- I can go at the end. He -- is 

that all right? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Steve is --

MS. OLSON: Steve Butler. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I -- that -- I have Steve on 

the list here. Sure, Steve. 

 MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much. My name is 

Steven Butler and my father was Clement Butler. 

I'm a claimant in an EEOICPA claim, along with 

my two sisters. My father worked at site 300 

and he worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab. He 

worked about 19 and a half years there and he 

eventually ran the transportation department at 

site 300. 

I know it seems kind of a dumb thing to say, 

but I'm going to -- I'm going to try and do it 

to you this way. I've got all my fingers, I've 

got both my eyes, I have no major injuries 

myself. And the reason why is because my dad 

was also a cabinet-maker and he taught me how 

to use power tools. And he told me, you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

338 

respect these power tools. They'll cut through 

your hand just as fast as they'll cut through 

this sheet of plywood, and I always listened to 

that. 

And I worked in the trades. I worked in 

construction for many years and I had no major 

injuries, and the reason why is 'cause my dad 

said you respect these tools. So I know my 

dad's work ethic was very good. 

He worked for 19 and three-quarter years at 

Teamsters Local 70 out here in Oakland, and he 

also worked about 18 or 19 years in the 

checkers union. He worked full time since he 

was eight years old. Okay? 

He got to enjoy one year of retirement, and at 

the end of one year of retirement, he was 

diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and he spent 

the next 11 months pretty much in bed and in a 

lot of pain, and he really suffered a lot. And 

you've got to picture how unusual this is for a 

guy who started jogging in the '70's and was a 

weightlifter and tried really hard to stay in 

shape and stayed away from drugs and stayed 

away from alcohol and cigarettes and did 

everything he could 'cause he wanted to live a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

339 

long healthy life and be very healthy, so he 

worked out almost every day, sometimes as long 

as three hours a day. And all the people I've 

talked to who knew my dad, they would say, you 

know, how's your dad doing? And I'd say well, 

you know, he's -- he died. And they would just 

be shocked, you know -- that guy? He used to 

jog around the facility every day. He used to 

run, he used to work out. That guy died? I'd 

say yeah, he -- he died, he had pancreatic 

cancer. 

So everybody who knew him was shocked, and we 

were shocked, and of course most of all, he was 

shocked. So we found out about this claim, 

this EEOICPA claim, so me and my sisters 

decided okay, we'll get ahold of his -- his 

wife, he got remarried -- and we'll see what we 

can do about this thing. And it's $150,000 and 

we're not really in this for the money. You've 

got to kind of picture, here's a guy who was 

just a few months short of a full retirement 

with the Teamsters. He's got his Social 

Security, his Lab retirement, Teamsters 

retirement that he could have gone back and 

worked six months and gotten a full retirement, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

340 

and then he could have gone back and worked for 

the checkers union for less than a year and 

gotten another full retirement -- three full 

retirements. So he was looking forward to 

enjoying his life. He didn't enjoy much of it. 

And we can't, as a family, figure out what 

happened, because we were shocked that he would 

-- he would not live. 

His brother was an Olympic athlete. His father 

lived a long life. His mother lived a long 

life. We don't have pancreatic cancer in our 

family. My -- one of my aunts did die from 

skin cancer, but the problem was she had a 

diagnosis of skin cancer, she never went back 

to get it rechecked and by then it had spread 

three years later. But no other cancers in the 

family, so we're really surprised. 

And I wanted to comment on Francine, who -- she 

said that she felt like she got no help from 

the sick worker resource center. We didn't 

either. They said pretty much the same thing, 

we can't really help you for two reasons. One, 

we can only help you with filling out your 

forms -- which of course we'd already done. 

And the other thing was that she said because 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

341 

of HIPAA violations -- and I've worked in a 

hospital before so I understand about HIPAA -- 

we can't help you. Well, I don't understand 

why not because, as claimants and as people 

who've already released his medical records, 

certainly, you know, HIPAA should not be an 

issue at this point in time, but we were told 

that it was the main reason that they couldn't 

help us, because of HIPAA. So they were all 

but useless, I'm sorry to say. They were 

friendly to us; however, they were useless. 

So here's my dad -- and we did this -- we did 

the best we could. We've had a lot of 

difficulty getting records from the Lab. My 

sisters tried very hard to get these records 

and has been told that they -- that they 

wouldn't release them to her. So we know that 

he worked -- he went to Los Alamos. We know 

that he went to Tonapah. We know that he went 

to Rocky Flats. We know that he went to Texas, 

I think it's called Pantex. We know that he 

went to the Nevada Test Site, and I just found 

out -- this is just a couple of days ago -- on 

Sunday I found out he's a member of the NEST* 

team. I didn't even know what it was. His 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

342 

wife didn't even know what it was. But then we 

found out oh, he's also on the NEST team. 

That's another factor that we didn't know. 

Nobody at the Lab helped us with this 

information. If anything, they were -- they 

were not helpful at all and stonewalling us, 

and it seemed almost trying to prevent us from 

getting this information, which we're just 

trying to do the right thing. The man's dead. 

 There's another factor, too, that I want to 

bring in. I don't -- I'm not a radiologist. 

don't understand pancreatic cancer. But what I 

do know is that my dad ran around that site. 

He worked out at that site. He took showers at 

that site, so maybe he doesn't fit your typical 

profile. I know that he was very conscientious 

about cleanliness, so he cleaned his truck. He 

cleaned the inside of his truck. He was always 

concerned about contamination. Maybe he was 

exposed to even more stuff because of the 

running around and the working out and the 

showering, so maybe he doesn't fit some sort of 

typical profile. Everybody's an individual. 

Okay? Like many of the people here have said, 

nobody's just a profile. Everybody's an 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

343 

individual. So here he was trying to take 

extra good care of himself. He may have 

actually increased his risk. That's 

unfortunate. 

 So the chronic exposure was something that we 

were concerned about, and when we read the 

report they said one sentence. They said he 

jogged around the site. They made it sound 

like it happened one time, not for 19 years 

that he jogged around the site. He jogged 

around the site almost every day, so what about 

chronic exposure being a factor? Is it 

possible that it's not just acute exposure that 

somehow plays into the risk factors, and that 

was not considered? 

We've appealed this -- this decision. They 

came up with a -- I believe it was about 26 

percent responsible, and that was very 

disappointing to hear. We were all kind of 

hurt by that, actually. It hurt quite a bit, 

because we know that this guy was a very 

healthy person, very conscientious and we just 

can't figure out, how did he die of cancer? 

What did he do? What did he come into contact 

with? And we're pretty convinced that it was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

344 

some of these substances or compounds or 

radiation or whatever that he came in contact 

with 'cause we can't figure out anything else 

that our dad ever did or was around besides his 

work-related at -- at the Lab. 

So we would like some help in being able to get 

this information to the appeal because we've 

been told by the person at the appeal level 

that we can't challenge the methodology, but we 

can only challenge the factors that go into the 

methodology. And I understand that that has 

various legal implications because of the -- 

the way that the government has said well, 

we'll accept this type of methodology and such, 

and so I kind of understand that. But then 

you've got to understand it from our point of 

view, which is but we can't get the information 

that we need to introduce those other factors. 

It's not being made available to us. 

 What's interesting, and I just have to comment 

on this, we also protested that our meeting was 

scheduled for San Jose on January 5th at 10:00 

o'clock because it was in San Jose, and we 

said, you know, that's about a three-hour drive 

from Livermore. At that time in the morning, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

345 

it's a rough drive and maybe we can have it 

closer, Oakland -- even San Francisco would be 

better than San Jose. And the guy told us no, 

the other party that we're meeting with at 9:00 

o'clock is coming from that area. Now that I 

know she's in Brentwood and I know how far away 

that is 'cause I used to do that commute, it's 

interesting because that's -- I tried to tell 

this guy, you know, that maybe -- maybe that's 

not true. Why don't you call that other party 

and tell them where we're coming from and see 

if we can -- he said no, we have to have it at 

a Federal building and it has to be in San Jose 

and your appointment's at 10:00 o'clock in the 

morning, and we'll reschedule for February, but 

that's -- that's the way it's going to be. So 

it's -- that's -- may be just one example that 

I think is kind of hard proof that -- I can -- 

I'll swear under oath that this guy told me 

that. 

I thank you for having this opportunity. I 

thank everybody for allowing me to speak, and I 

just want to paint a picture for you. December 

23rd two years ago -- I'm a skier, I'm an avid 

skier. I love to ski. I had one of the best 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

346 

days of skiing in my life. I skied up at the 

Sierras. I had a great day of skiing. I came 

down. I hit the hot tub. I went to sleep. 

December 24th about 3:30 in the morning I got a 

phone call from my dad's sister who said 

Steven, you need to come to the hospital. Your 

dad's not going to make it. And I live in 

Stockton, and I said okay, you know, Mary, how 

serious is this 'cause this is like the fourth 

time that I've been told. And she said Steven, 

he's not going to make it. So I went there and 

I got to the hospital at 5:00 o'clock, he was 

dead. 

You know, these are real people. This is 

really serious. The guy only got 11 months of 

retirement, and he was a very conscientious 

worker. He used to study those laboratory 

books. He used to memorize those things. He 

was very concerned. He was very safe. He only 

got one traffic incident in his entire life, it 

was a minor fender-bender. He worked hard for 

the Lab and I think people need to work hard to 

help all of us to do the right thing, which is 

just to do the right thing in protecting 

ourselves and protecting other people that work 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

347 

there and speaking up for what's right as if 

they were exposed to this stuff. Help us get 

the records and help us -- help us prove this 

stuff. Thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Steven, thank you for sharing 

that with us, as well. 

Inga, I have you next on the list -- Inga 

Olson. 

MS. OLSON: I'm from Tri-Valley Cares, a nonprofit group in Livermore. I'm the program 

director and I also facilitate the support 

group for sick workers, many of who are here 

speaking today. 

I want to acknowledge you all for moving the 

meeting from San Francisco to Livermore. We 

really appreciate that because most of the 

people wouldn't have been able to come out 

tonight over to San Francisco, so thanks very 

much for making that switch. 

And one thing I would like to request is when 

you meet -- I know you're not going to be 

coming back to Livermore again, but when you 

meet, you know, in whatever town, if you'd do 

some more media outreach, because you know, if 

it gets put in the papers there's going to be a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

348 

lot more people that'll come and that'll find 

out about it. And it's surprising, even in 

Livermore there's still people that don't know 

about this Act. And then there's a lot of 

people that don't believe in it. You know, 

they're not applying. So when they see stuff 

like this, it just gives more credibility, and 

also some of these people, if they could see 

the agenda, they'd actually come to some of 

these things and it might give them some 

encouragement, you know, because you all are 

really serious here. You're having serious 

conversations and I think that it would help 

them to hear some of what's going on and see 

how hard you're working to make this program be 

successful for these people who are sick, or 

for their survivors. 

There's a couple -- there's just a couple of 

things I want to ask for. I'd like to request 

that two local facilities be added as covered 

facilities. We have sick workers in our group 

from those facilities and they're not -- 

they're not covered. One is the Interstate 

Nuclear Services. We had a nuclear laundry 

down here in Pleasanton and we've got -- we've 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

349 

got a woman, and there was a couple people -- 

her relatives and a friend that died. They're 

gone, but she's alive and she's fighting hard 

for her life, but she's not covered, and we 

think that it's an inconsistency because the 

DOE laundries area covered but then the 

Interstate Nuclear Services, the 

subcontractors, are not covered because they're 

not -- you know, they're not AWE. They didn't 

-- they didn't build the bomb. But you know, 

the builders of the bomb wouldn't have been 

building it without the clothes that they 

laundered. And I could go on about that. 

The other facility is the Naval Radiological 

Defense Laboratory at the Hunter's Point Naval 

Shipyard. But I know you hear Naval and you 

say it doesn't count, but this was the 

precursor, you know, to -- you know, before 

there was a DOE. This is where Lawrence 

Berkeley employees worked and Lawrence 

Livermore employees worked. There wasn't a 

DOE. It was a precursor body and we have -- we 

have people that are sick there from that site, 

as well. And we understand that there are AEC 

buildings out there or there are AEC contracts, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

350 

so people were working and being paid on AEC 

contracts, so that it should be -- it should be 

considered and we ask that you help us by 

getting some of that research so that the 

people that are sick that worked there -- this 

can become a covered facility. 

We also want to request a site profile. Our 

support group has people from Sandia Lab, 

Livermore Lab. You know, there's GE Vallecitos 

down the street. You know, there's a lot of 

facilities here in the Bay area. And then you 

know, people -- people are down in LA and they 

kind of crawled into our group via phone and 

stuff, so -- but the -- but Sandia National 

Laboratory has 54 cancer cases that have been 

referred to NIOSH. They've been sitting there 

for anywhere from a year to three-plus years. 

And you know, we've got to get that site 

profile done at Sandia. People need that to be 

done because their individual dose 

reconstructions are sitting because there is no 

site profile and you have nothing scheduled, 

from what I can see. And it seems like a real 

opportune time since Sandia is right next door 

to Livermore, you know, to do it right now 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

351 

while the site -- the survey team is there, so 

I'd like to put in that request. 

Also I want to just piggy-back on -- we want to 

confirm that workers and family members will be 

actively involved in the draft site profile. 

And we'd like to see more outreach at -- for 

that meeting than there was at this meeting so 

we really get like a good slice of people to 

tell their stories and corroborate, you know, 

like individuals so we've got more than one 

individual to talk about what hap-- what really 

happened at the Lab so that the survey will be 

as comprehensive as possible, that -- so no 

worker will be excluded un-- unfairly because 

of in-- you know, uncomprehensive (sic) site 

profile. 

We'd also request that your survey team at 

Lawrence Livermore and Sandia come to TriValley Cares. We've been here for two decades 

and we have a two-decade-old library with an 

annotated bibliography, and we have records of 

accidents. We have some of the tiger team 

reports. We have the operation technical 

summaries. We have a whole host of documents, 

and I think that it would help to ensure the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

352 

thoroughness of your -- your sources for the 

site profiles for Lawrence Livermore and 

Sandia. 

The Lab employees, both at Livermore and 

Sandia, worked frequently at other sites. They 

were Livermore Lab employees or Sandia Lab 

employees, but they were at Y-12, they were at 

Rocky Flats, they were down every week on the 

corporate jet to Nevada Test Site. And what 

we're finding is when their dose 

reconstructions get done -- 'cause some are 

getting done, even before the site profile -- 

or when they get their records, those records 

don't come along with their records from 

Livermore Lab. Like those records from like a 

stint -- a month here or a month here, they're 

not coming along with all their records, so we 

believe that there's missed dosage in a lot of 

cases for the different sites that the worked 

at on a temporary basis, because they were 

Livermore Lab employees who were only at these 

sites, you know, temporarily. 

We also request that -- that NIOSH provide a 

public session about how to file a petition for 

a Special Exposure Cohort, because we believe 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

353 

we have a stable metal (unintelligible) 

problem, both at Sandia National Lab and at 

Livermore National Lab, that involves workers 

demolishing tritium facilities. 

 We request funds for a technical consultant to 

assist us with the Special Exposure Cohort. 

Lastly, the sick workers have come to TriValley Cares for help, and we work on a 

shoestring budget, and we're not funded to help 

the workers. And that's okay. You know, this 

is part of our mission and this is really 

important to us. We want to do this. But we 

also feel that people are not getting the 

adequate help that they need from your systems. 

And we want you to please look into these 

problems because there's a lot of taxpayer 

money being spent on these systems, and it's 

not that tough to make these systems right. 

And if you just investigate -- I know you had 

some consultants looking at your methodology -- 

I know that you can get these systems right 

where people feel satisfied. And I'm not 

equating satisfaction with getting paid or, you 

know, getting a yes on your award. I'm 

equating satisfaction with people knowing that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

354 

they gave it their best shot. And whether it's 

no or yes, they feel confident that they were 

helped. So thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Thank you. Next we 

have Fran Schoerber-- Scher-- Scheiberg -- 

Schreiberg, yes, Oakland, California. 

 MS. SCHREIBERG: Thank you. My name is Fran 

Schreiberg and I'm here representing Work Safe, 

which is a coalition of labor and community 

groups that's dedicated to promoting 

occupational safety and health, not something 

that I've heard a whole lot of people talking 

about here today. We're talking about a 

workers' compensation program, not a program to 

prevent injuries, illnesses and deaths. And I 

do wonder in my mind, although this is 

obviously not something that you're talking 

about, I do wonder about how the current 

workers at these facilities are being 

protected, and I think this is something you 

all ought to address at some point. 

I'm really impressed with the speakers that 

I've heard today. I am not an expert in this 

particular type of exposure. I'm just 

impressed with the -- the victims who have been 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

355 

here today, and they are victims, with their 

families, the survivors, with the unions and 

the community groups that are trying to help 

these folks, from Tri-Valley Cares, from the 

building trades, from the engineers' union, as 

well. And as I sat here listening to what 

people were saying, I became more and more 

angry, actually, at what these folks are having 

to go through. And they're having to go 

through this without help. 

I -- although I'm a lawyer, I don't practice 

law. I actually do training for unions and 

workers on health and safety. I do a little 

bit of legislative work and help with writing 

regulations and so forth. I'm -- I'm pretty 

much a worker advocate. But I don't really do 

litigation, but I'm hearing people being put 

into a system that is essentially shifting to 

their shoulders the burdens of litigating their 

own cases. You say it's a non-adversarial 

system because, quote, there's nobody on the 

other side. But there is someone on the other 

side. It's on the other side of the table, and 

that is the person who's handing out this 

money. And although it's a paltry sum and in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

356 

fact I think it is a paltry sum compared to the 

kinds of cases that involve fraudulent 

concealment or involve failure to warn, which 

is in fact what our government did to these 

folks, this is a paltry sum of money. And what 

you're doing is making these folks be their own 

adversaries with a complex set of exposures 

based on epidemiology that is actually narrowly 

construed, which they can't contest because 

you've regulated it. And that's how the law is 

being structured, and they're stuck with what 

they have, and they have very little 

information that they can even get to you to 

controvert a conclusion. And then on top of 

that, they aren't even given the information 

that they need to actually assert their legal 

rights to go through an appeal process, to get 

an administrative record to try to challenge 

the underlying information where they do have a 

chance to maybe get that. And if I was 

representing them, if I was acting as if I was 

a lawyer, to me, what I think you need to do, 

and I think you need to allocate money to help 

these people to do it, whether it's through lay 

advocates or a real resource center, 'cause 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

357 

apparently from what I've heard today, this socalled resource center is not a resource 

center. It does not help these people press 

their claims. What I think you need to do are 

a couple of things, and let me just look at my 

notes because I wrote them down. 

The first thing is is that this site analysis 

that y'all are trying to pull together for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Lab and for these 

other sites, as well, because a lot of these 

people traveled from one place to the other -- 

when we met with these folks from NIOSH and 

from the different consultants that NIOSH and 

DOL have, it sounded to us as if you were 

shifting to us the burden of coming up with 

information and preparing something that would 

be a site analysis. As I listen more today, it 

-- it occurs to me, and as I talk to a couple 

of people, you're going to come up with this 

site analysis, but we're not really going to be 

able to give you meaningful input into the site 

analysis unless -- until we know exactly what 

government data you used, and I heard this from 

other speakers, we need to know the underlying 

data that you use to produce the site analysis, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

358 

and that data has to be fairly precise. It has 

to be precise in a temporal nature and it has 

to be precise in a spatial nature. In other 

words, we need to know what buildings, what 

particular job categories you are -- you're 

cre-- you're using to make your conclusions. 

It has to be a real job site analysis or 

matrix, whatever it is that you all want to 

call it. It's the kind of stuff we do every 

day when we analyze a work place for current 

occupational health and safety problems. We 

need to have all that underlying data. And you 

all have to produce the records for us, and it 

has to be transparent, as Barry and a number of 

other people said. 

The second thing is is then you go and you talk 

to the workers, and you interview those 

workers. And it's not just a handful of 

workers who themselves are brought together by 

a community group such as Tri-Valley Cares. I 

think it's incumbent on the government to talk 

to every single survivor, every single one of 

those workers, and get data from them about 

what they know happened. We're talking about 

missing reports. Well, where the heck do you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

359 

get the information? You get it by talking to 

as many people as possible. We can't do that. 

We don't even have the names of these people. 

You have the names. You have the employment 

records. You're the government. And every 

single one of those workers needs to be talked 

to and that information needs to be put into 

this system and into this site analysis. 

 The next thing is, as far as I'm concerned, 

their individual exposure records have to be 

put into this system, as well as the area 

monitoring. There are -- there are widows, 

there are survivors -- children who are 

survivors who have none of this information. 

And I'm not saying that this is information 

that you have to do to violate people's 

privacy, but you can put this information into 

a computer program, you can put it into a site 

analysis as the coworker data. Where is the 

coworker data, 'cause when I -- when I have -- 

you know, when -- when tort attorneys go in and 

represent a person and that person -- or a 

survivor -- in other words, that person isn't 

there, where do they get that information? 

They go to coworkers, and they use coworker 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

360 

exposures in like situations, in situations 

where that other worker worked. How can we get 

that information? How can these individuals 

get that information? You need to get that 

information and it needs to go into this 

system, as well as, by the way, the historical 

reports of the -- all the accidents and nearmisses and so forth. 

In addition then to the individual interviews 

and all of that data, I -- okay, I think I 

mentioned having the -- the exposure records of 

the coworkers. 

And finally, I think the individual workers who 

are submitting claims need to have very 

concrete assistance, which I mentioned at the 

very beginning of this. And that means they 

need an advocate, and that advocate is going to 

actually have to be paid. And it would seem to 

me that -- it doesn't have to be a lawyer, it 

can be a lay advocate, but it needs to be 

somebody who's trained and who has an 

understanding of this system and who feels that 

they're an advocate as opposed to a place that 

fills out pieces of paper for people. And that 

means they give them information about how to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

361 

go about getting their administrative records, 

how to analyze that stuff, how to challenge it, 

how to gather the information that they need to 

supplement it if that's what the government 

wants from them, and how to take their appeals 

up. All told, from the amount of money that I 

understand y'all are spending on your 

consultants, you know, I realize that this is 

outside the purview of this group, but you 

might well think about the fact that maybe the 

law is inadequate and needs to be changed, and 

maybe at some point this group will have the 

ability to come forward and to say that to 

someone because the epi that you're using, 

which as I understand it is based on atomic 

bomb survivor information, clearly is 

inadequate. You need to have a broader view of 

the epidemiology that's involved here. I'm 

hearing that today from all of these people 

that are testifying. 

And in addition to that, one might think that 

if you look at the balance of money that you 

have spent on consultants and what it would 

mean to take that money and have a presumption 

that anybody who walks out of one of these 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

362 

plants is actually presumed to have a cancer 

caused by the radiation that were -- that was 

inside these work places, have this be a real 

workers' comp system. Don't make them jump 

through hoops on this causation. Give them the 

presumption, then give them the $150,000 bucks. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Fran, for 

sharing those thoughts. 

We're then going to hear from Sharon -- Sharon 

or Shannon -- Wood. 

 MS. WOOD: Sharon. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sharon -- Sharon Wood. 

 MS. WOOD: My name is Sharon Wood. I'm a 

claimant for my husband, who died 17 years ago 

of cancer. He was a mechanical technician at 

Lawrence Livermore Lab. And I'm also 

representing one of his coworkers who died a 

year after he did, also from cancer. These two 

fellows trav-- he worked for -- in the weapons 

division for most of his 26 years, and I guess 

I -- I haven't completed -- NIOSH hasn't 

completed the claim. It's been there for 

almost three years. I applied in October to 

Seattle and it was sent on to NIOSH in March, 

and you know, I get these quarterly reports 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

363 

that tell me how many people it's -- submitted 

and how many people they've completed -- or 

sent off. I've had the -- some of these 

interviews and -- but I don't understand -- he 

traveled to almost all of the nuclear 

facilities that's here. He traveled to Argonne 

and Hanford and -- and Rocky Flats and Los 

Alamos. And he spent six week out on Christmas 

Island in the atmospheric nuclear tests. He 

spent years traveling back and forth to Nevada 

Test Site and, you know, I don't know where all 

he went. Those travel records are not 

available. About the only thing I have is some 

documents that showed what kind of projects he 

was on for some of that time. Anything, you 

know, past six years, apparently the lab -- as 

far as travel goes -- and he's been dead for 

17, so I don't know how -- you know, I don't 

know what they're going to do as far as 

figuring out whether he had a high enough 

exposure or not. And if he didn't, then I have 

to appeal and I don't know how to get ahold of 

anything else other than what I have. 

Now I'm pretty sure that some of that work was 

probably low level radiation. He -- I don't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

364 

know that he had any overt contamination, but 

he spent a lot of years in and around those 

sites where they were working actively. He was 

-- essentially was placing photographic and 

other diagnostic equipment and then collecting 

them afterwards. I have slides of the 

atmospheric shots that were taken out on 

Christmas Island that he brought back with him, 

developed at the Lab and released to him. 

So this -- this process has been rather 

frustrating. I've made numerous calls to 

NIOSH, who started out with two or three 

people, and now I understand it's well over 100 

people. They've spent somewhere around $95 

million and there's 13,000 claims and they've 

cleared 6,000 -- or 600. That's according to 

the paperwork I've got -- what, in September, 

October. So this was -- the whole thing was 

supposed to be -- you know, we're going to be 

turning this around. That's before they 

decided they had to put -- make this department 

NIOSH. And I don't know how you -- you do a 

site survey or profile of Lawrence Livermore 

Lab that would predate, you know, 30 years ago 

or 20 years ago. But you know, so we're -- I'm 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

365 

really frustrated as far as this goes. 

The friend that I represent, she's older and 

she's had two strokes and a heart attack. 

Whether she'll ever see any of this I don't -- 

and -- if there is any compensation, I don't 

know, you know. My husband lasted seven months 

with his cancer, and the Lab retired him on the 

day he died. So it's been a long time. 

Anyway, I thank you for coming and listening to 

our stories, and -- and I hope that something 

will come of this, that a little bit more -- a 

little faster. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Sharon. Gina LaMens, 

Lammens -- Gin-- is it Gina? No? 

Okay, let me move on. Barbara Green? 

MS. GREEN: Hi. As stated, I am Barbara Green. 

I'm representing my husband, Frank Green, who 

is a claimant. The first -- I -- just hearing 

everything that I'm feeling has come from all 

the people that have spoken before. You are 

begged to apply for this pittance, may I say. 

And then you're challenged all the way, saying 

that you probably don't deserve it anyway, is 

the way you feel. I think I'm hearing that 

from everyone that's spoken this evening. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

366 

I -- what I get -- it's four years for us, as 

far as the amount -- the time of the claim, and 

each time I have called anybody I always get 

another group of papers that tell me that this 

is where they are and this is what's going on. 

I think my book is about that thick now. And 

so nothing new comes from it, but they kept 

sending, every time I do call or, you know, 

have any questions, they do send me some more 

paperwork. It's repetitive and as I say, I've 

got about that much from four years. I don't 

know how many pounds, I think I should weigh 

it. 

Anyway, how long can a claim take? I know they 

keep saying that the site profile at the 

laboratory where my husband did work, he has 

said that the reason that you're not going to 

have a real chance of finding out what's going 

on out there, that most of the people are dead 

that he worked with. In fact, all of them that 

he knows, the people have all died that he has 

been involved in. 

I've been to several of the meetings. I've met 

-- I've probably met some of you before. I met 

at one of these hotels and oh, yeah, we'll 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

367 

contact you. He'll be a good person to be able 

to give us some background about the rad lab 

and these kinds of things, and we hear from no 

one -- except more paperwork when I had to make 

the call, I might add. 

It's just frustration. I think that's what 

we're all speaking to. I think that's about 

really all I had to say is that I do feel 

terribly frustrated. I think that the money 

that they're speaking to as I'm hearing the 

figures -- I don't know how much money has been 

allotted to this program. I'm hearing now the 

consultants are being hired to have you all 

work together better, which is kind of a sad 

thing, and I've been hearing everyone say here 

this evening -- and I've only been here -- I 

wish I hadn't done my Christmas baking, I wish 

I'd been here earlier today -- that you're all 

doing a good job. Well, I'm going to share 

with you tonight, I've only been in here an 

hour and a half and you're not. That's all I 

can tell you. You're not. You're not working 

together. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Again, thank you for 

sharing your thoughts with us. It's probably 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

368 

difficult for us to appreciate the level of 

frustration many of you feel. 

 Peter Demires? 

 MR. DEMIRES: Yes. Hi. My name is Peter 

Demires. Last evening I get a call from Inga 

and I'm not prepared, and I was thinking I'm no 

going to talk, but I want to say some things. 

I hear all the speakers. All of them they 

(unintelligible) what they say. I have lived 

that picture in my life. I worked 20 and a 

half years for the Lawrence Livermore National 

Lab, machinist, worked with all toxics. I 

worked all the departments. I'm a -- diagnosed 

positive in the beryllium and asbestos. When I 

tried to get -- actually the DOE recommend to 

the Lawrence Livermore Lab to do the test for 

the beryllium and they said -- they got blood 

from me, they test it, it came positive and 

they take blood again and they sent them to 

Denver, Colorado and check it. It was a 

positive again. Now they have to send me to 

UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. The doctor 

in the lab, he tell me don't worry, and he's 

try to cover the thing, say I don't want you to 

say to anybody else what happens to you because 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

369 

from the first 20 we got two positives and was 

very bad for the Lawrence Livermore Lab, which 

have positive -- contaminate -- people exposed. 

After I go in the medical center in Los 

Angeles, they found there I have also asbestos, 

and I have the later X-rays from the lab and 

they found that in the X-rays. And when I came 

back I asked the doctor how come every year you 

get my X-rays and you don't have see I have 

asbestos? They say we can be mistake, but 

don't worry, maybe next year you are going to 

be healthy. I say what's the matter with you? 

I didn't have the flu. I didn't get no 

medicine. How I'm going to be healthy next 

year? So they try to cover those things. The 

Workers Compensation deny the claims right 

away. The letter say about they have 

representatives in the lab, Workers 

Compensation, who they work for the lab, they 

get money. These people they can't serve 

really fair and honest because they scared of 

their supervisors as much -- I never get what I 

deserve because I was outspoken. I see the 

discrimination. I see people they scared. 

know they are employees who they are sick. 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

370 

They have higher dosages of toxics of me and 

they're scared to talk. Myself, when I see 

there is no cooperation with the Workers 

Compensation, the management of the lab, I hire 

attorneys. I have three claims, back injury, 

asbestos and beryllium. I have radiation. 

There's no big amount. I don't how much going 

to affect me in the future, but one of the 

things I know, my wife, she get breast cancer 

and I was -- we are lucky because was 

(unintelligible) in the early stage and now she 

survive. 

There are a lot of things over there. If 

people doesn't go in, they don't know. There 

is no safety things because when I worked the 

toxic materials as a machinist, they tell me 

nothing wrong. I asked a mask to wear. I work 

dust beryllium, pure beryllium. They say don't 

worry, if you wear a mask, they other ones, 

they're going to scared to work on this. They 

have no good protection system. Now I hear --

I'm out of the lab for three years. Now I hear 

they have better equipments to work, but still 

is very dangerous, is a very much bad for 

everybody. Not only for the people they work 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

371 

there, for you, all you who are outside because 

beryllium is just a little bit, it could be 

outside and contaminate hundreds of people. So 

what I think is they should care better Workers 

Compensation system to be independent, not for 

the ones they had in the lab, because all this 

times they deny the claims, people they scare 

to go outside because the lab is going to fire 

them or they're no going to promote. 

Safety, the safety was little safety. The only 

thing was mechanical safety rules. They give 

us the classes. When they talk to us about 

radiation, the tell us don't be worry about 

radiation. If you sleep with your wife, 

already you produce radiation. Why, you guys 

don't want to sleep with your wife? Why you 

scared of radiation? That it was very cheap 

excuses, but that they give us. And they are 

hundreds and hundreds of them, who they are, 

they contaminate or they adding a danger to get 

in this, and they scared, or they affiliate 

with the galvination (sic) of the system. 

Don't say nothing, just keep it secret. And 

that's all I have to say, and thank you you 

listen. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

372 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Lorraine Spencer, is 

it? Spencer, uh-huh. 

 MS. SPENCER: I'm Lorraine Spencer. I'm 

involved in two claims. One is for my father. 

My brother and I are both in on that one. He 

was a mechanical technician at Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory. We came in the 

early '50's when the Laboratory just opened, 

and he was one of the many techs that used to 

put the beryllium in the warheads. Well, the 

final cancer that killed him was pancreatic 

cancer. And the beryllium -- did it come home 

to the family. My mom and dad died within five 

months of each other, both of cancer. We come 

from a huge Italian family and they're the only 

two on each side of their family with cancer. 

All right, put that one aside. 

I am representing my father-in-law. He died at 

54. He worked at General Electric Vallecitos. 

His case is 347. It has been in for four long 

years. My mother-in-law is still alive. I'm 

trying to get this done for her. All I ever 

get from NIOSH when I call -- and the gal who's 

out there, Linda, I believe, and she's oh, I 

know you -- okay, and all I get is, you know, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

373 

if your mother-in-law dies, which she's not in 

good health, it can go to the survivors. 

That's not what this is all about. I actually 

showed my father-in-law's radiation dose that 

was documented, he was chronically radiated for 

15 years. A health physicist said to me is 

this gentleman still alive? I said no. He 

said I wouldn't think so. Okay? So anyways, 

we're trying to get that done, but what you're 

hearing here is there is not one happy camper, 

and everyone just keeps getting put off. At 

this point we have dug up the dead. It's 

either yes or no. How long does this go on? 

And do you need help? I'm here to offer help. 

I'm willing to volunteer. Is there something I 

can do for you to help this thing move along, 

because I'd like to bury these people. Okay? 

I'd just like to put it to bed. So please, 

call us. I'd be willing to do anything. I 

imagine there's a lot of people here that would 

be willing to do that, too. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me go back to one 

that maybe had stepped out. Is it Gina LeMans 

or -- she's left? Okay. 

 Richard Miller -- back in the room? Yes. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

374 

 MR. MILLER: Good evening. My name is Richard 

Miller. I work for the Government 

Accountability Project in Washington, D.C. And 

I know it's late and I will not cause you to 

endure me for too long, but I do want to say 

that I am immensely impressed with the 

testimony, listening to people tonight, and I 

just want to thank all of you who came out to 

speak for coming out to speak and getting your 

issues on the record. There's a lot of senior 

decision-makers in this room who came from 

Washington for this hearing -- or from Atlanta, 

and so you may not know all the other people in 

the audience, but I was kind of watching their 

faces so I'm glad you got a chance to get -- 

get the issues on the record. 

I was one of the people who wasn't allowed in 

your meeting yesterday. See, there was a 

meeting that was held here yesterday, folks, to 

talk about the audit of the radiation dose 

reconstructions. And the point is, are you 

going to get a decision back from NIOSH which 

is believable and credible. Are you going to 

get an answer, whether you like it or you don't 

get money, the question is do you believe at 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

375 

the end of the day that the decision was wellvetted, that it's well-defended. And when you 

get this gibberish back in the mail with your 

NIOSH dose reconstruction report and the IREP 

input model -- everybody can tell us what IREP 

is -- and y'all look at this stream of dose 

inputs and you have no idea where those are 

derived from 'cause your dose reconstruction 

report is a little sketchy, and then you're 

somehow supposed to fathom whether you got a 

fair decision or not, under some efficiency 

method or worst case method, you don't really 

know. 

 Well, this Board has a key role in whether this 

program sinks or swims in terms of the 

credibility of the decisions that come back. 

And that is, they're supposed to audit the 

radiation dose reconstructions. They're -- the 

Congress told them they are supposed to audit a 

representative sample and to look at the 

methods that are used. 

Now they had a meeting here yesterday and they 

closed the door under the guise that they were 

going to be discussing these matters pursuant 

to the Privacy Act. And I had asked, before 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

376 

they went into Executive Session, to discuss 

these 20 radiation dose reconstructions which 

are under audit, whether or not we would at 

least see a transcript of what was discussed 

behind the doors. 

Now I happened to go out to dinner with some 

folks, and I heard y'all had a lot of fun 

behind closed doors yesterday, and that it was 

contentious. But I don't know what the 

contentions were. And I heard there was 

vigorous debate, but I don't know what the 

debate was about. I don't even know if it 

involved the Privacy Act. I don't know what 

went on. But if the process is going to have 

some credibility, there's got to be sufficient 

transparency, respecting the Privacy Act at the 

same time. So I'm going to restate my request 

that I made before you went into Executive 

Session, which is that I would like to see a 

transcript, with the appropriate redactions 

made, of what went on behind closed doors, and 

your discussion for three hours that looked at 

the credibility of the first 20 radiation dose 

reconstructions that were reviewed by your 

contractor. And I was very pleased that Cori 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

377 

Homer was to provide me with and refresh my 

memory on what the Government in the Sunshine 

Act says, and I just want to refresh my memory 

and perhaps yours, as well. 

It says that the agency has to retain its 

transcript for two years. It does not say you 

can't see it for two years. In fact, it says 

the opposite. It must be made available for 

inspection upon request -- no, not six months 

later like you do under FOIA, but upon request. 

And secondly, what it says is that it should be 

made available to the general public. And so 

I'd like to just restate that if one of the 

core underpinnings of the credibility of this 

program, which is derived from what you do, is 

please post the transcripts on your web site of 

your closed session with appropriate redactions 

at the same time you post the transcripts of 

this open session that's held here today and 

has been held for the last two days. I really 

think you need to do it. And if you're going 

to meet behind closed doors and you're going to 

debate process, and you're going to debate how 

you're going to resolve conflict, and you're 

going to make policy decisions about processing 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

378 

these dose reconstruction evaluations, and 

you're going to set up foregoing review 

processes, these aren't things covered under 

the Privacy Act. Those are policy issues you 

were discussing behind closed doors. But we're 

locked out while you do it behind there and I 

really think you need to have the light of day, 

sunshine come in and let everybody see what 

y'all were talking about behind closed doors. 

The second thing I would like to suggest is a 

process for how to resolve -- what was 

remarkable to me just sitting in the audience 

today was the debate going on over the site 

profile. This was not a polite exchange. This 

was people gritting their teeth at each other. 

What's going on here? And is that what's going 

on with the dose reconstruction audits, as 

well? People are gritting their teeth at each 

other? Is this how we're going to resolve 

disagreements or questions about the scientific 

credibility about what's going on? People are 

hunkered down in their bunkers, firing facts or 

mischaracterizing each other's positions so you 

can knock them down. Is it one straw man for 

one and one straw man for the other? Is this 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

379 

how we're going to get to the credibility of 

the issues? Is that -- is that what the tone 

is? 'Cause from me sitting here and the 

impression I've carried away from this meeting 

is that the tone of the debate seems to be 

quite adversarial, and I wish it wasn't. 

Because it makes me question if people are 

defensive about the facts or defensive about 

how they interpret the science or that people 

say one should not challenge whether or not it 

is sufficient claimant favorable because the 

law doesn't allow it -- I hear attacks about 

the very basis for this Board, which is to 

question NIOSH's application of science, 

NIOSH's application of its discretion and how 

it exercises its discretion. And when I see 

the Labor Department and the NIOSH teaming up 

to attack whether or not the audit can even 

evaluate whether things are sufficiently 

claimant friendly or not, I have to puzzle to 

myself what's wrong here. What's wrong that 

the Labor Department and NIOSH are teamed up 

attacking the very cornerstone of this program, 

which is that it's supposed to give the benefit 

of the doubt and supposed to be claimant 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

380 

friendly in the face of uncertainty, and in 

this sea of the absence of data one has to make 

a lot of value judgments. And what was so 

troubling to me was to read the written attack 

on the audit report from both agencies saying 

you have no legal right to even examine whether 

or not one can make claimant favorable 

decisions. That's not what the law says. 

What's wrong here? 

 I mean something from the outside looks funny, 

because I don't know whether you've done it or 

not, but I did a keyword search for the 

hundreds of times I've heard the word claimant 

friendly used by Dr. (sic) Elliott and by Dr. 

Neton and the rest of the staff, claimant 

friendly, claimant friendly, claimant friendly, 

and all of a sudden we can't evaluate that 

question. That's challenging the judgment, the 

discretion that's being exercised here. It's 

not a calculational error. We're not talking 

about that. We're talking about the exercise 

of discretion in the sea of uncertainty with so 

little data and so many hard questions to 

answer. 

I think one of the things that troubled me was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

381 

that the process seems to be, as Wanda so I 

think adeptly pointed out, the forest -- you 

know, the murk and the primeval ooze of trying 

to formulate a policy coming out of all these 

questions was you have a subcommittee that you 

conceived. You put the charter out. It had a 

task to review the dose reconstructions. That 

subcommittee we were told would meet between 

every Board meeting. The last time that 

subcommittee met to review dose reconstructions 

was in August. Here we are in December and 

none was scheduled in between. Why is it that 

NIOSH and the Chair have not scheduled meetings 

for this subcommittee to begin to vet and prevet this process? I mean I don't understand 

what the process is if you've got a 

subcommittee set up and you're not using it for 

the purposes -- the eight purposes for which it 

was delineated. 

I'd like to just make a comment about the cost 

of the audit. Today we heard a great deal of 

discussion and yesterday in the meeting chaired 

by Dr. Wade about contracting issues and 

whether or not the cost of the audit may exceed 

$3 million, and it seemed clear across the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

382 

spectrum that this was not going to be done for 

$3 million, given 400 audits that have to be 

done. And yet for all the people who are here 

today who want to know whether the answer they 

get is credible, we've got to do -- those 

audits have to be done. You know, there's -- 

this isn't going to get done on the cheap. 

Congress has not set a ceiling on the amount of 

funds available for the audit. That's a given 

fact. And yet I wondered when I heard the 

discussion about well, one needs to consider 

budget constraints. You sure do, but you also 

have to consider whether this program is going 

to fulfill Congressional intent. And if the 

issue is additional funds at the time you all 

deem appropriate to request those funds, I 

certainly hope the Labor Department's going to 

be there, willing and forthcoming, as opposed 

to the exchange we heard about well, you 

haven't asked me and I haven't said no yet, but 

you know, watch out. 

Finally I want to just talk a little bit about 

appeals. At GAP we receive a call or an e-mail 

almost every day from someone whose claim's 

been denied. It's the danger of having it on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

383 

your web site that you do this kind of work. 

And in the course -- I guess the thing that -- 

that people consistently say is how do we 

interpret these dose reconstruction findings? 

What is an administrative record? What are the 

bases of this gibberish that we get? I mean 

people -- as Francine mentioned here earlier, 

people are very much at sea. And I think they 

do deserve -- and I don't know what the 

mechanism is, and I know Larry's been very 

creative in trying to find ways to, you know, 

make this program as transparent as he can, to 

try to find ways to convey what the program is 

trying to do, your web site is just chock full 

of stuff. But when claimants get those -- 

those determinations back, I'm not sure whether 

it's in the exit interview process or where in 

the -- where in the final process it is, people 

need to decode that into English again for 

them. And I would just leave you with a 

thought. If you can do that and you can help 

people understand the product that you've 

produced for the Labor Department to 

adjudicate, it's going to help people have a 

much broader understanding of what they're 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

384 

dealing with. And I don't know whether that's, 

you know, the famed ombudsman or whether that's 

going to be, you know, a function within NIOSH 

or whether there's somebody that has to fill 

that function, but there really is a wellidentified hole here and I hope folks will 

think a little bit about how to fill that hole. 

Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

MS. OLSON: Dr. Ziemer, Gina --

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Richard. 

MS. OLSON: -- Gina LeMans had to leave 'cause 

she has yet another cancer and another surgery 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I was told that Gina -- 

MS. OLSON: -- but we have one other member 

that I -- he wanted to speak. Did you want to 

speak? 

UNIDENTIFIED: I've already spoken. 

 DR. ZIEMER: He's already spoken, yes. Yes. 

Thank you. 

 My battery has indicated that it's out. I hope 

you can hear me. Let me thank all of you for 

coming tonight and sharing your various 

stories. Maybe it is working. And sharing 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

385 

with us. 

Not all of the issues that you raise are 

necessarily ones that this Board can address, 

but there are others here, as Richard has 

already pointed out, who are in a position to 

address many of those issues. And they 

certainly have been heard. The Board, in many 

cases, is in a position at least to prod others 

to do certain things, as well. But we 

appreciate hearing both your frustrations, your 

concerns and your offers to assist as we move 

forward in some of these various areas, 

including the site profiles. 

If you have particular individuals you need to 

talk to afterwards, please feel free to do 

that. We will have a little bit of time I 

believe before we have to necessarily vacate 

the room, so you can hang around a bit, but 

again, thank you for coming tonight. This 

Board will be meeting all day tomorrow. All of 

you are welcome. Sometimes people say this is 

a board because that's how you feel when you 

sit in on the deliberations, and it's even too 

late in the evening to -- but in any event, you 

are welcome to be with us tomorrow, as well. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

386 

 Thank you, and goodnight. 

(Whereupon, at 9:45 p.m. the Chair declared an 

adjournment to Wednesday, December 15 at 8:30 

a.m.)