THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 46 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


DAY THREE 


MAY 4, 2007 


The verbatim transcript of the 46th 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at The Westin Westminster, 


Westminster, Colorado on May 4, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

May 4, 2007 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

10 

DOW SEC PETITION 

MR. STU HINNEFELD, NIOSH, OCAS 

PETITIONER 

11 

CHAPMAN VALVE SEC PETITION 

DR. GEN ROESSLER, WORK GROUP CHAIR 

PETITIONER 

125 

ROCKY FLATS MOTION 156 

SCHEDULING 165 

MOTIONS FOR NIOSH TASKS 166 

SANDIA LIVERMORE SEC PETITION 

DR. SAM GLOVER, NIOSH, OCAS 

PETITIONER (LETTER TO BE READ) 

201 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 234 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

BEACH, Josie 


Nuclear Chemical Operator 


Hanford Reservation 


Richland, Washington 


CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


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 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


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 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


SCHOFIELD, Phillip 


Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 


Los Alamos, New Mexico 

6 

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS


 ABILA, EDMUND, MET OP. 


ABILA, JUAN, RF WORKERS 


ADKINS, LEONILA, SPOUSE 


ALBERG, JEANETTE, SEN. ALLARD 


ALLEN, WILLIAM, ROCKY FLATS 


BARKER, CARL, RF RETIREE 


BARKER, KAY, ANWAG 


BARNETT, WILLIAM, RFES 


BARRIE, GEORGE, ANWAG 


BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 


BLAKESLEE, JACK, ROCKY FLATS 


BLAKESLEE, JOANNE, ROCKY FLATS 


BOLLER, CAROLYN, CONG. MARK UDALL 


BRADSHAW, CHARLENE A., RADIATION ORG. 


BREYER, LAURIE, NIOSH 


BRITTON, CAKER J., WIFE 


BRITTON, LESSIE S., RFETS 


BROCK, DENISE, NIOSH 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC 


BUCHANAN, DENNIS, RCT 


BUFFO, RON, SON RF WORKER 


BUTZ, JR., REINHOLT, S.O.E. 


CALDWELL, NANCY, RF WORKER 


CARLSON, AUDREY, SPOUSE 


CARLSON, ROBERT I., RADIATION 


CARRELL, DENNIS 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, HHS 


CLARK, DEBBY, RFETS 


DEFORGE, CLIFF, RF RETIRED 


DELFORGE, DOUGLAS, ROCKY FLATS 


DIENST, JOHN, ROCKY FLATS 


DIGIACONO, RON, SELF 


DOBROVOLY, MICHELLE, ENGINEERING 


DURAN, BEA, DOE 


DURAN, SAM J., RF 


ELLIS, ANN, ROCKY FLATS 


ELMLINGER, RON, PCM 


EVASKOVICH, ANDREW K., ICUA LOCAL 69 


FINLEY, B., DPOST 


FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 

7

 FOX, CAREY, RFETS 


FOX, MARY, RFETS 


GADSON, CURZIE, ROCKY FLATS 


GAFFNEY, RICHARD S., RFETS 


GAHOR, PATRICIA A., RFETS 


GARRIMONE, YVONNE, DAUGHTER OF DECEASED 


GOMEZ, DELMA G., RFETS 


GOMEZ, ERNA, ROCKY FLATS 


GONZALEZ, JUAN, ROCKY FLATS 


GONZALEZ, NORMA, ROCKY FLATS 


HANKET, JOE, ROCKY FLATS RETIRED 


HANKINS, LARRY, RETIRED UNION 


HARLAN, RONALD A., ROCKY FLATS RETIREE 


HARLAN, S., SPOUSE 


HARRISON, CONSTANCE, NIOSH 


HARTMAN, ALAN, RF RETIREE 


HEWITT, JAMES, ROCKY FLATS 


HEWITT-BALLOU, CHERYL, DAUGHTER 


HILLER, DAVID, SEN. KEN SALAZAR 


HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 


HOFFMAN, GAYLE, RF WORKER 


HOLGERSON, ERIC, ROCKY FLATS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HUEBNER, LIZ, ROCKY FLATS 


IMSE, ANN, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS 


JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE, CONG. UDALL 


JENSEN, DIANE, ROCKY FLATS 


JOHN, PADIA, ROCKY FLATS 


KESSLER, MIKE, 5280 


KLOTZ, JIM, RF 


KOHLER, ROMAN, R.F. HOMESTEADERS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


KRULL, WARREN S., SAIC 


KUBIAK, MICHAEL S., ORAU/MJW 


LAHTI, ROSE, ROCKY FLATS 


LEVALLEN, BETTY 


LEVEN, TIM, PCM 


LINK, RICHARD A., ROCKY FLATS 


LOGAN, MICHAEL D., ROCKY FLATS 


LUCERO, GENNY, RADIATION ORG. 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MARQUEZ, MARK W., STEELE WORK 

8

 MARSCHALL, HANNA, RF WORKER 


MARTINEZ, LADONNA, RFLATS SPOUSE 


MARTINEZ, MATTHEW A., RFETS 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MAYES, CALVIN, RF WORKER 


MCALLISTER, ROBERT J., ROCKY FLATS 


MCCARTHY, BILLY, RETIRED 


MCCARTHY, DIANN, SPOUSE 


MCCLURE, ROB, KCNC-TV 


MCDONALD, SEAN, DENVER POST 


MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAUT 


MCKEEL, DAN, SINEW 


MEANEY, CHERYL, RFW & SPOUSE 


MEZT, RICHARD, ROCKY FLATS 


MILLER, DUANE R., ROCKY FLATS 


MILLER, HYMAN, ROCKY FLATS 


MILLETTE, RON, RF WORKER 


MILNE, CHARLES, MSU 


MILNE, LINDA, ROCKY FLATS 


MOBLEY, JERRY, ROCKY FLATS 


MOBLEY, WALTER M., CONSTRUCTION 


MOSELEY, HENRY, RF 


NEWBY, KEVIN, RF EMPLOYEE 


NEWBY SHERRY, SPOUSE 


NORMAN, JOAN, ROCKY FLATS 


OLDS, RICHARD, RF WORKER 


PADILLA, JUDY, FORMER RFP WORKER 


PALIZZI, TOM, ROCKY FLATS 


PAZIER, LARRY, HUSBAND OF RF 


RAMOS, LARRY, RF RETIRED 


ROMERO, DENNIS R., RF WORKER 


ROSE, WILMA, SELF 


RUIZ, HARRIET 


RUPP, MARYANN, SPOUSE OF DECEASED WORKER 


RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 


SABEC, DONALD, ROCKY FLATS 


SCHULTZ, JEFFREY W., ENGINEERING 


SCHULTZ, LAURA, RF CLAIMANTS 


SHEPARD, SALLY, SELF 


SHORT, DEBORAH, RF 


SINGER, GARY L., ROCKY FLATS 


SPENCER, BETTY, RF SPOUSE 


STEELE, MARYJO, ROCKY FLATS 

 

9

 STEPHAN, ROBERT, SENATOR OBAMA 


STICKERMAN, CHAD, RF ENGINEER 


THIELEN, JEREMY, RFETS 


THIELEN, JOHNATHAN, RFETS 


THIELEN, TODD, RFETS 


THIELEN, VAL, RFETS 


THOMAS, RHONDA, ROCKY FLATS WORKER 


TINKLE, ANN, ROCKY FLATS 


TINKLE, DALE, ROCKY FLATS 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 


VAUGHN, JIM 


VAUGHN, LINDA 


VIGIL, DENNIS E., ROCKY FLATS 


WEAVER, JACK, RETIRED RF WORKER 


WHITE, LIBBY, DOE 


WILLIAMS, RHONDA, FOR PARENT 


YEATER, JADYA, ROCKY FLATS 


ZIEMER, MARILYN 

10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(8:15 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to 


call the meeting to order. This is the third 


day of the Denver meeting of the Advisory Board 


on Radiation and Worker Health. 


As you may recall, we have a couple of items 


that are left over from yesterday's agenda, and 


the plan is to take those up here first, those 


being the Dow Chemical SEC petition and then 


the Chapman Valve SEC petition. 


Before we do that, I'll ask if our Designated 


Federal Official, Dr. Wade, has any preliminary 


comments. 


 DR. WADE: Just good morning, and thank you 


again for your service. This is sort of 


getaway day, so I always worry about losing 


members and losing quorum, so I guess I would 


ask if anyone has an inkling that they might 


not be here for the agenda as laid out, let me 


know. Again, there are important things to do 


in the beginning, middle and end of our 


meetings, and I don't want to lose a quorum -- 

11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

or in fact, those at the table -- so let me 


know. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Question --


 DR. WADE: He's going to tell us. 


DOW SEC PETITION
 

MR. STU HINNEFELD, NIOSH, OCAS
 

PETITIONER


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll do that off-line. 


Okay, let's begin then with the Dow SEC 


petition. We'll begin with the NIOSH petition 


evaluation, and Stu Hinnefeld at NIOSH is going 


to make that presentation. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. My 


name's Stu Hinnefeld. I'm the technical 


program manager for OCAS in the program. I'm 


presenting the petition evaluation report and 


some updated information, since the petition 


evaluation report was prepared, today -- I 


think probably because I let LaVon Rutherford 


go on vacation right before this was due, so I 


think that's why I'm up here. 


This is a -- an 83.14 petition. This is a site 


where we determined there was some aspect of 


the radiation dose that we did not have 


sufficient information to reconstruct and so we 


proceeded along the pathway of 83.14 SEC 


evaluation. 

1 

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 

So some of the slides your normally see, like 


the two-pronged test, I've taken out of this 


for brevity because there's some addi-- because 


of the update information I put in here. Well, 


I'm sorry, there is the two-pronged test that 


you've all seen before: Is it feasible to 


estimate radiation doses of individual members 


of the class. And if that is -- the answer to 


that is no, is there a reasonable likelihood 


that such radiation dose may have endangered 


the health of members of the class. So those 


are the -- that's the test we evaluate when we 


do one of these 83.14 petitions. 


This is about the Dow Chemic-- a site that was 


operated by Dow Chemical Company in Madison, 


Illinois. That's the site we're talking about 


now. This site is in Madison, Illinois. This 


site extruded uranium metal on a handful of 


occasions for the Atomic Energy Commission 


under a subcontract from Mallinckrodt Chemical 


Works, which was the operator of the 


Mallinckrodt St. Louis site and the Weldon 


Spring site, and they also straightened uranium 


metal rods under a -- this was under a purchase 


order agreement to Mallinckrodt for a couple 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 

13 

-- a couple of -- on a couple of different 


occasions. 


Now they also routinely handled thorium at this 


-- at this plant, and routinely incorporated it 


into their commercial metal al-- metal alloys 


plant. This was a -- a metal production plant, 


made magnesium and I believe some aluminum 


alloys, and -- and that was their main line of 


business. The -- the uranium work was just 


kind of something that they did -- they had a 


big extrusion press and the AEC was trying to ­

- they were studying the characteristics of 


what -- what works best when you're extruding 


uranium. 


I -- I -- now to get into this a little bit, I 


need to talk a little bit about dose that is 


included under EEOICPA for AWE facilities. And 


the original EEOICPA legislation was amended by 


the 2005 Defense Authorization Act in two ways 


that affect this question, you know, what dose 


is included. The -- the first aspect amendment 


or first amendment that affects this is that it 


added a second category to the definition of an 


AWE employee. Up until this amendment, only 


employees who worked during the contract period 

1 

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 

at an AWE were considered AWE employees and 


therefore could submit a claim under the law. 


This amendment amended that language and added 


-- by adding a second category of employee and 


saying that the second category of employee is 


a cate-- is a person who worked at an AWE site 


after the contract period but during a time 


when there was residual contamination from the 


contract period present during that time. So 


that's a second category and they're identified 


in the statute as subparagraph (a) and 


subparagraph (b) under one of the paragraphs. 


And the second amendment that occurred to 


EEOICPA by this Defense Authorization Act was 


that they provided a definition of radiation 


dose for the added category, interestingly 


enough. The definition of radiation dose -- 


this is for the purposes of such-and-such 


paragraph part (b), not such-and-such 


paragraph. Such-and-such paragraph part (b) 


radiation dose was defined, and this was the 


definition. I don't think I'll read it wordfor-word, it's on the slides and the handouts 


to the slides, but it's essentially dose 


received from work done by -- for AEC 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 

15 

produce, process, store, remediate or dispose 


of radioactive waste that was, you know, and 


for -- for the transportation and testing of 


nuclear weapons. So that was the work that -- 


this was part of the radiation dose. 


And then the second part of the radiation dose 


definition is if there's dose that's not 


distinguishable through reliable documentation 


from the doses noted above. So in other words, 


if there -- if the pers-- if an employee at a 


site fo-- in the residual period, remember 


that's the category of employee we're talking 


about, is -- if the residual radiation at that 


site can be distinguished from contamination 


that would have occurred from the AEC work, 


then that residual dose is not part of the 


radiation dose assigned to these workers. So 


what the -- the outcome of this -- and there is 


-- oh, by -- and that's the final point of 


this. There is no similar limitation or 


definition of radiation dose on the original 


category of AWE employee, so -- so you don't 


have that limitation, that definition, and the 


-- and the statute I think at some point 


originally said reconstruct all doses at 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 

16 

site. 


So during the covered period, the contract 


period, all doses have to be reconstructed for 


an AWE employee. After the contract period, if 


there's a residual contamination period, the 


dose that's included under EEOICPA is dose from 


residual contamination from the AEC work -- 


okay -- not from the commercial work. 


Now, summary of the information available for 


dose reconstruction -- and one other thing to 


remember on this, the thorium was used in the 


commercial operations at -- at Madison, and the 


uranium apparently was the AEC work. We know 


that they did uranium work for the AEC. We 


didn't have any individual monitoring, external 


monitoring results. We don't have any bioassay 


results, either in vitro or in vivo, for any of 


the employees at that -- you know, actually at 


this point for any employees at any time. 


In 1957 we have the copy of the contract that 


calls for 12 extrusion cycles, each one 


estimates there's going to be like essentially 


28 hours of work with an extrusion cycle. They 


were going to set up for six hours; run what 


they called testing, which was the extrusion, 

1 

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 

for 16 hours; and then clean up for six hours. 


So that was the estimate of how much time was 


going to be spent on each cycle, and the 


contract called for 12 cycles. 


We have documents from FUSRAP that describe two 


rod-straightening campaigns. We've also 


recently -- or at least we -- we know we now 


have the purchase orders from Mallinckrodt for 


the two uranium-straightening cam-- campaigns. 


And we had a 1957 paper by the Dow radiation 


safety officer who worked from Dow headquarters 


-- he didn't work at the Madison site, he 


worked from Dow headquarters -- that describe 


the use of thorium, and it contains about 20 


air sample results -- at the time we thought 


from a single sampling (sic) campaign -- and a 


handful of radiation surveys. 


We also had a 1960 AEC inspection report that 


refers to the 1957 air monitoring results. In 


other words, it -- it kind of presented this -- 


the air -- you know, the air quality is okay 


because we have these 1957 results. Even 


though it referred to them as recent air 


sampling results, it actually -- the collection 


had been '57 and even '56 when those 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 

18 

collected. And they had a handful more direct 


radiation measurements and it had the amount of 


thorium used up to that time. 


And we have the FUSRAP survey summary report 


that was -- this -- the survey was done in 


1989. I think the report was actually 


published in 1990, and that's -- that FUSRAP 


survey was done of only a limited portion of 


the facility, the portion of the facility where 


the uranium work had been done. So they didn't 


survey the entire Madison facility, they only 


surveyed that. They found really very little 


in terms of contamination or elevated dose 


rate, and they did -- but they did collect some 


dust samples that they analyzed for -- 


isotopically, and they found some uranium and 


thorium in those. 


Now our data capture attempts -- recognizing 


that, you know, at the start of, you know, this 


effort we hadn't necessarily completed all this 


regu-- all this data capture, we proceeded and 


-- and made these attempts at data capture. 


The NRC, of course DOE Germantown had provided 


us what they had. We have searched federal 


records repositories as part of our rou-- 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 

19 

part. We've had worker outreach -- we had a 


worker outreach meeting in Collinsville, 


Illinois and we received quite a lot of worker 


affidavits that also described how the work at 


the site -- described pretty harsh working 


conditions. 


We made a request to Dow Chemical and -- about 


do you have any records from the site; even 


though you haven't owned it for 35 years, 


roughly, do you have any records from the site. 


And we had a discussion with the state of 


Illinois about regulatory records they might 


have for this covered period, but Illinois was 


not yet an agreement state in 1960 and so they 


didn't really have anything for the period we 


were researching. 


So we determined that we had -- you know, this 


is late last year, we determined we didn't have 


sufficient information to complete dose 


reconstruction at the time. We notified the -- 


the -- a litmus tas-- litmus case claimant that 


his dose reconstruction could not be completed 


and we gave him a Form A SEC petition. He 


returned it on November 28th. 


This was about the time -- I think it was based 

1 

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 

on discussions at a Board meeting that we said, 


you know, we really need to make sure we've 


done, you know, the due diligence on data 


capture and see if we've really found 


everything we can, so we went down those aven-- 


those avenues. We wrote to Dow asking -- hang 

on a second. 

(Pause) 

I apologize, I'm out of sequence here. I don't 


think I have all my slides up here, but... 


yeah. 


There's a sequence of events and sequence of 


slides that are not on the screen. I think 


they're in the handout -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: They are. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got my handout here. 


Okay, we requested -- we wrote to Dow asking do 


you have any records about this. We didn't 


hear anything for about two weeks after we 


wrote to them, we -- so we called them and 


engaged them in a telephone call. It's the 


kind -- you know, a few people on our side and 


a couple of people on their side, and they said 


well, we actually have just -- responding -- 


we've just signed the letter responding 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 

21 

request and we are going to go search for 


records. And they warned us that, look, we 


haven't owned this site for a long time. We 


don't know we're able -- we'll find anything, 


but we'll go look, and they asked for a little 


mo-- from some more specificity about what it 


was we were asking for. So we provided more 


specificity. 


We sent an e-mail, trying to be more specific 


than we were in the letter request, about kinds 


of information we were asking for and what we 


were looking for. And we were looking for 


information related to thorium work from 1957 


to 1960, and any information about maybe 


uranium -- the uranium work or uranium 


contamination or the uranium -- the contracts, 


et cetera, with AEC about that. 


On Mar-- in March 13th, after Dow had been 


looking for maybe three weeks, we called them 


to find out the status. They indicated that 


they had compiled possibly responsive documents 


-- you know, essentially collected boxes from 


various records storage areas that they had, 


based on database searches and keyword 


searches. In other words, that's how 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 

22 

looked in the first place, and they retrieved a 


bunch of documents and they indicated that they 


would have to inspect those documents in order 


to tell for sure if there were things in there 


that were responsive to our request. So they 


brought back pretty much anything that would 


hit, based on their keyword searches that they 


made, any of those hits, and looked at those. 


But they did tell us at that time that they had 


no indication that they had any personal 


monitoring data. But they said that they would 


take some time to inspect those to tell them if 


they were -- and on -- based on that phone 


call, all of the OCAS participants on the phone 


call were under the understanding it would take 


about ten days to do this visual inspection of 


the records that they had collected. 


So we called them a little later, expecting 


them to be done, and they indicated at that 


time that the inspection hadn't started as 


intended because of weather issues and the 


person was going from Chicago to Midland to 


actually visually inspect these records hadn't 


been able to get out of Chicago because of 


weather, so it had only -- so the inspection 

1 

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 

was just starting on February -- on March 26th, 


whereas we thought it would be done. We --


still, we felt like another ten days and it'll 


be done. We were still under the impression it 


was going to be about a ten-day effort. 


So we called them about ten days later, and at 


that point we found out they were about 25 


percent done and it would take till the end of 


April to -- before they had completed their 


visual inspection and could tell us if they had 


responsive documents or not. 


So of course the end of April has just 


happened, and we didn't want to delay our 


presentation any more, and so we felt confident 


proceeding with the petition evaluation report 


with the information we had. And the reasons 


for that were that they had indicated that they 


had no indication of personal monitoring data, 


and we had -- at the time we had recei-- we had 


two documents that we had received from our 


search of NRC records, that '57 report from the 


radiation safety officer and the 1960 AEC 


inspection report. The AEC report in 1960 


referred to 1957 data for air sampling data, so 


we said it doesn't seem like they're 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 

24 

provide us any more air sampling data during 


this covered period. So we decided we would go 


ahead and so it was placed on the agenda for 


today's meeting. 


And then on Saturday they responded and sent us 


seven -- about 700 pages of documents that were 


responsive in some nature to -- to what we'd 


asked for. And so since Saturday we've -- 


we've read those documents. We've reviewed 


them in light of what we've -- what we had at 


ti-- what we had already, and there is -- so 


the information we received will cause us to 


change some of the details in our SEC 


evaluation report, like number of samples. We 


found maybe -- maybe there's another maybe 


dozen to 15 air samples that were collected. 


But those were also collected in the 1956 time 


frame. 


We found -- you know, we got many 


manifestations of the same data over and over, 


and we found very few samples actually were 


taken after the 1956 data that was cited in the 


1957 report by the RSO. The samples that were 


taken later generally were on a specifically 


limited activity, like they took some samples 

1 

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 

on sanding of an alloy, you know, and -- and 


some air samples that resulted from that. So 


there was actually very little additional data 


that we received that related to internal 


exposures to thorium over the weekend. 


We recognize that the ownership -- the data 


ownership change might be -- has to be revised. 


The evaluation report says that Dow sold the 


site to Consolidated Aluminum in 1969, but in 


fact that sale occurred in 1973. Dow 


discontinued its operation in 1969 and leased 


the -- leased the site to Phelps-Dodge, but the 


sale didn't occur until later. 


 So the additional information received over the 


weekend hasn't changed our -- our original 


recommendation that we don't have sufficient 


information to reconstruct the thorium dose 


from the 1957 to 1960 period. Because of the 


complexity of the process, the short duration 


of the samples -- I think probably the majority 


of these samples were of the duration of maybe 


five to 20 minutes -- we don't have repetitive 


samples over time of an operation to kind of 


figure out how the -- the operation changed 


over time, there are comments in -- during 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 

26 

of the collections about the normal ventilation 


was enhanced by opening the windows and turning 


on these fans. And so, you know, we don't feel 


like we can say with confidence that the 


limited sampling that we have from early on 


provides us sufficient information to really 


decide, you know, and bound what -- how 


conditions may have been during four years of 


operation with this material. 


We did get in -- over the weekend we did get 


some additional external radiation measurements 


that may in fact allow us to reconstruct an 


external component of the -- of the thorium 


dose, whereas before we didn't think we had 


enough data to do that, either, but we may be 


able to do that with the additional data. 


Now for the uranium work, the covered work, we 


have prepared sample dose reconstructions -- 


they've been on the O drive for a while -- that 


describes essentially an OTIB-4-like method. 


That is, the method we use for com-- you know, 


it's AWE-wide method for the -- describes 


airborne data that was encountered during the 


early AWE operations as -- and it's used as 


sort of a bounding -- this is a bounding 

1 

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 

estimate and it's used in many applications, 


and we've used that in many applications. 


It's likely that we can do a -- a more refined 


estimate (unintelligible) than that because now 


we have available to us a -- again, a multi-


site site profile that was prepared by Battelle 


that has operation-specific air monitoring 


data. For instance, it has a collection of air 


monitoring data that was taken during extrusion 


runs over time, for instance, at various sites. 


And it has data collected for straightening 


uranium at various times. And these -- since 


this is essentially a metal-forming operation ­

- I mean you know what they did. They took 


metal and they shaped it, either extruded it or 


-- or straightened it. That's a pretty, you 


know, well-understood -- you know, kind of a 


small variation in -- in the work that's done. 


Whereas the thorium worked seemed to be quite 


variable in terms of the kinds of things that 


were done and the extent of the -- of the work, 


and it just seemed to be a -- quite a -- a 


diverse set of activities that would not -- you 


know, you couldn't really confine to 


essentially a constant set of conditions. 

1 

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 

Okay, so I think I am now back to the point 


where the slides are on the screen. 


So our conclusion is that we lack sufficient 


information to estimate the internal doses 


resulting from exposure to thorium. At the 


time it was unlikely we had sufficient 


information to estimate the contribution from 


thorium; we may in fact have sufficient 


information to estimate the thorium dose. This 


would be applied during the covered period. 


We believe we have access to sufficient 


information to estimate the maximum dose that 


could have been incurred from the exposure to 


the uranium during the contract period and 


during residual contamination period using 


methods similar to OTIB-4. Like I said, OTIB4, we believe we can bound the dose with an 


OTIB-4-type approach, or we may be able to 


(unintelligible) a more refined estimate based 


on the operation-specific data that we have in 


the Battelle document. There is the more 


precise... 


And we believe we can estimate occupational 


medical dose using complex-wide approaches 


again. 

1 

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've determined that the members of the class 


were not exposed to extremely high radiation 


dose during discrete incidents like a 


criticality accident, but we believe there is 


evidence that workers suffered a cumu-- or 


accumulated chronic exposures that could in 


fact endanger their health. 


 So the proposed class definition is here. It's 


all AWE employees who were monitored, or should 


have been monitored, for exposure to thorium 


radionuclides while working at the Dow Chemical 


Company site in Madison, Illinois for up to 250 


-- or for a number of days aggregating 250 


between January 1st, 1957 to December 31st, 


1960, or in combination with -- in aggregate 


with other sites -- other classes. And our 


recommendation is to add that class definition 


because we feel like that we don't have enough 


information, it's not feasible to do accurate 


dose reconstructions from the thorium -- 


internal thorium dose during that covered 


period, and we feel like there was sufficient 


dose that it could have very well endangered 


their health. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Stu. Next 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 

30 

-- we'll hear from Dr. Dan McKeel who's 


speaking on behalf -- or is one of the 


petitioners. And Dan, we'll be pleased to hear 


from you at this time. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Let's see, can I get some help 


from somebody? I do have a Powerpoint to get 


started. Can you help me on... 


(Pause) 


Good morning to the Board and -- and I thank 


you for letting me make this presentation. I'm 


very happy to be here today. 


I am Dan McKeel. I'm a Missouri physician and 


a pathologist, and a former faculty member for 


31 years at Washington University School of 


Medicine in St. Louis. 


While there I published almost 200 scientific 


articles and abstracts and held 36 NIH federal 


grants. This year I published a textbook on 


dementia management and diagnosis. 


I have worked actively since 2000 on nuclear 


industry issues that affect human health. My 


remarks today are solely focused on Dow SEC 


petition 79. Arthur Wieder, is the NIOSH 


identified petitioner, and I am his designated 


SEC petitioner. This report is entirely my 

1 

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 

own. No one else has seen it or edited it. 


I represent members of the Southern Illinois 


Nuclear Workers, our acronym is SINuW. I have 


worked with the former Dow workers and ConAlCo 


workers and present-day Spectrulite workers for 


almost two years. I feel I know them and the 


Dow Madison site operations very well. 


 An overriding consideration here is we were 


very hampered by lack of access to primary site 


records. Two members of our SINuW SEC team, 


Robert Stephan from Illinois Senator Obama's 


office and Debra Detmers from Illinois 


Congressman John Shimkus's office, will make 


remarks that amplify mine. Congressman Shimkus 


and Senator Obama called to address the Board 


about this SEC previously. And they and 


Senator Durbin and Congressmen Jerry Costello 


of Illinois have also written letters in our 


behalf. 


As have other SEC petitioners, I want to 


express my appreciation to the Board, to SC&A 


and to NIOSH for their help in this complex SEC 


process. Laurie Breyer and Larry Elliott at 


NIOSH, and many others at OCAS, have provided 


assistance that I and SINuW deeply appreciate. 

1 

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 

There are five overarching issues that I will 


address in turn about the Dow SEC. The first 


is timeliness issues. I was first notified 


about a Dow 83.14 on 9/6/06 by LaVon Rutherford 


of NIOSH, and a litmus case candidate was 


tentatively identified. I was informed that 


ORAU would construct a class definition and 


select a final litmus case in the next 30 days. 


Sixty-two days later I was informed the first 


litmus case, a worker who first filed a claim 


in August of 2001, started after the end of the 


covered period of 1957-'60 and therefore had 


been rejected. 


Mr. Wieder received his Form A from NIOSH on 


November the 14th, 2006. Court reporter 


verbatim transcripts, McKeel Powerpoints and 


videotape recordings of three July through 


August, 2006 Dow worker meetings that included 


a NIOSH outreach meeting were delivered to 


NIOSH in November of 2006. Mr. Wieder returned 


his signed Form A with 37 affidavits to NIOSH 


on November the 27th, 2006. Affidavit seven of 


that batch refers to thorium shipments to Rocky 


Flats, and affidavit number nine of the same 


batch gives details about thorium source terms 

1 

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 

that differ markedly from the NIOSH evaluation 


report as listed on page 13 of the 18-page 


report. 


 The SEC evaluation report and presentation to 


the Board was postponed by NIOSH shortly before 


the December, 2006 Naperville, Illinois 


meeting. And then the SEC 79 petition was 


qualified on December the 14th of '06 and 


published in the Federal Register. 


Early in the next year, on January the 30th, 


NIOSH and Mr. Hinnefeld sent Dow Midland 


headquarters a request, and in the request the 


letter mentioned monitoring data, source term 


data, operations data and information related 


to magnesium/thori-- thorium alloy shipments 


from 1957 to 1998 relating to the Dow Madison, 


Illinois site. The Dow SEC evaluation report 


and presentation to the Board was postponed for 


a second time by NIOSH shortly before the 


February 7th to 9th Mason, Ohio meeting. Four 


new NRC reports had emerged. 


A Dow SEC update session was held February the 


8th, 2007 at the Board meeting, and a 7384W 


subpoena to obtain Dow Madison records was 


discussed, and the Board tasked SC&A to become 

1 

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 

familiar with Dow SEC records. 


After that time the delays in getting reports 


seemed to accelerate, if a delay can 


accelerate, but the rate of my receiving things 


late increased. For example, three redacted 


Dow worker meeting transcripts from July/August 


of 2006 were posted on the OCAS web site 


between April 17th and 19th of this year. The 


Dow SEC petition with the first 37 affidavits 


was posted on the OCAS web site after months of 


redaction. The Dow second set of 29 new 


affidavits was posted on the OCAS web site on 


April 18th. Those affidavits are extremely 


important because in them 11 additional workers 


testify that Dow shipped truckloads of 


magnesium/thorium allow to Rocky Flats in 


Colorado. NIOSH did not challenge the 


credibility of the second set of affidavits. 


The SEC 79 evaluation report was finally posted 


on OCAS web site April 19th, 2007. And Larry 


Elliott had kindly sent me an electronic copy 


on the 13th and a hard copy by FedEx on the 


19th. 


Four members of the Illinois Congressional 


delegation requested the Board extend the Dow 

1 

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 

SEC class definition to cover the 1961-'98 


residual uranium period on April the 27th. And 


on that same day, at midnight, Dow Midland 


posted a 52 megabyte zip-compressed archive 


with hundreds of documents on an FTP server at 


midnight, minus any index or explanation of 


what the documents represented. I was not sent 


that document. I got a copy by being alerted 


by Robert Stephan and Joe Cuzmarazak. What is 


-- was of great interest to us was the previous 


year, in 2006, SINuW had had independent 


negotiations with Dow for the same set of 


documents, and we had gotten no responsive 


records at that time. 


On February the 8th, 2007 the Board meeting 


transcript was posted that contained the 


records of the -- of the Dow SEC update 


session. That was posted on April the 30th in 


the afternoon. 


And then finally I got an e-mail from Larry 


Elliott that the new Dow files that NIOSH had 


received on the 27th of April might cause NIOSH 


to ask the Board to delay a vote on the SEC 


petition on May the 3rd. We strongly oppose 


that and I'm very happy to see that we have 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 

36 

brought the petition evaluation report to the 


Board today. 


The second issue that I want to mention about 


is some comments about the evaluation report 


itself that was posted on the web site on the 


19th of April. We developed 22 specific 


concerns with this report that translated into 


14 specific questions that were presented to 


Larry Elliott and NIOSH on the 16th. A copy is 


attached of these concerns and questions, and 


they should be carried as an integral part of 


this presentation. 


Eight of the 14 questions were treated by NIOSH 


as FOIA requests. SINuW has requested that 


this decision be rescinded for the air 


monitoring and the dose rate data and the 


references, and that these data and reports be 


sent to me immediately as part of the SEC 


petitioner openness process. I regret that I 


still have not had these records. 


The following points were most disturbing after 


the long wait and late arrival of the 


evaluation report: One was the limitation of 


the class to 1957-'60, and exclusion of the 


uranium residual period, which we 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 

37 

believe was adequately justified. 


Two, the important negotiations with Dow 


Midland and David Burnick* and Kirkland and 


Ellis for Dow Madison records was not even 


acknowledged or described as to outcome. 


Third, the crucial affidavit testimony 


regarding a close working relationship between 


the AEC, Rocky Flats and Dow Madison site for 


thorium allows was overlooked, an inexcusable 


oversight and rebuff to the workers and to all 


the people that carefully prepared the site 


expert testimony. Note that there is no Dow 


site profile, and that the Dow site-specific 


appendix to Badelle (sic) TIB-6000 which Stuart 


just mentioned will not be forthcoming. There 


won't be an appendix for uranium on TIB-6000. 


This was according to Larry Elliott in a 


conversation with Dr. Lewis Wade on April the 


17th where we were talking about the SEC 


arrangements. The rationale for not including 


a Dow-specific appendix to TIB-6000 does not 


make sense to me. We -- we disagree strongly 


with NIOSH that ORAU-OTIB-04 Rev. 2 -- we 


disagree with NIOSH that ORAU-OTIB-4 Rev. 2 is 


adequate to reconstruct uranium doses at Dow 

1 

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 

because this technical document does not 


adequately cover exposures to uranium extrusion 


and rod-straightening in the rolling mill 


section, or to uncharacterized known impurities 


and chemical composition shifts in the uranium 


ingots that Mallinckrodt produced. It does not 


cover exposures to collate -- co-located 


thorium-232 dust from the 1998 cleanup by USACE 


-- that's the Army Corps of Engineers. So 


although OTIB-4, which was mentioned in the 


report, does cover uranium, we would agree with 


Stuart and NIOSH that -- that there must be a 


document like OTIB-6000 that covers the 


extrusion and rod-straightening procedures. 


But unfortunately, as I just mentioned, there 


won't be an appendix specific for -- for Dow 


about this. 


Third item is the extension of the class 


definition period to cover the uranium residual 


period. As of 4/26/07 the Madison site has 


submitted 322 Part B and E claims, 278 cases 


representing 261 unique individuals, with 107 


cases having been referred to NIOSH. Only two 


dose reconstructions have been performed since 


2001, and one claimant has been paid. Claims 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

have been submitted for workers from all the 


owners, including Dow, ConAlCo and Spectrulite. 


OCAS acknowledged repeatedly that petitioner 


McKeel is interested in having the SEC cover 


the residual contamination period from 1961 to 


1998 in addition to the operational period, the 


contract period of 1957-'60 for Mallinckrodt 


experimental uranium extrusion and rod-


straightening work. Approximately 70 claims, 


41 of which have SEC cancers, will be covered 


under a 1957-'60 class definition; whereas the 


broader Dow class from 1957 to 1998 that I'm 


asking for would include at least 23 additional 


workers, including the candidate litmus 


claimant who filed in August 2001 and whose 


Part B claim is still pending. The exact 


number covered under a 1957-1998 extended SEC 


class is still unclear, and NIOSH is updating 


those figures for the Board. On February the 


8th, 2007 Larry Elliott acknowledges in the 


public session that EEOICPA does not preclude 


SEC coverage of the residual uranium period, 


and that this period is covered for ordinary 


dose reconstructions. The legal department 


opinion that restricts NIOSH to doing dose 

1 

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 

reconstructions under SECs to just the covered 


contract period and not the residual period is 


cited in e-mails and so forth, but has never 


been documented as being a written policy by 


NIOSH by a named person on a particular date 


that we have seen. The NIOSH SEC evaluation 


report admits that regular EEOICPA claims can 


be compensated for 1957 to 1998, but limits the 


SEC class definition to 1957-'60 with what we 


feel is a flawed and hard-to-grasp explanation. 


And as I've mentioned, both U.S. Senators from 


Illinois and two U.S. Congressmen from Illinois 


have joined in a bipartisan request to NIOSH to 


extend the class coverage out to 1998. 


Now we come to that very important -- the 


fourth point, which is Dow Madison 


relationships with the Atomic Energy Commission 


and thorium production and residual 


contamination thorium. The U. S. Army Corps of 


Engineers FUSRAP 2000 report contention that, 


quote, no Dow Madison site thorium work was 


AEC-related, end quote, cannot -- cannot be 


backed up by any primary document, as 


determined in a June, 2006 face meeting between 


USACE, SINuW members and Congressman Shimkus'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 

41 

office in the Army Corps of Engineers' St. 


Louis district office. The Corps did find 


uranium and uranium dust being colla-- colocated above the extrusion press rafters in 


building six, and the reason for that of course 


was that the same extrusion presses, the light 


press and possibly the heavy press, were used 


for both types of extrusion, so you expect to 


have a mixed contamination above the presses. 


We contend the AEC and commercial thorium 


streams at Madison site are not separable, and 


hence thorium should be calculated in dose 


reconstructions throughout both residual 


uranium and thorium contamination periods that 


extend at least up to 1998. In addition, 11 


Dow workers provided sworn notarized affidavits 


to the effect that the Madison plant shipped 


truckloads of thorium/magnesium metal alloy to 


Rocky Flats and the S-- and the AEC. These 


affidavits go unchallenged for credibility by 


NIOSH at the time of submission. SINuW 


strongly argues that the affidavits are both 


credible and were neither coached nor 


anecdotal, as characterized unofficially by 


NIOSH, but never in writing to the petitioners 

1 

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 

McKeel and Arthur Wieder. McKeel and SINuW Joe 


Cuzmarazak pro bono attorney strongly protested 


characterization of Dow affidavits as being 


coached or anecdotal. This was done in writing 


to the Advisory Board Chair and to Dr. Wade as 


the Designated Federal Official. The Illinois 


delegation agrees. Dow Midland documents 


received 4/27/07 -- and this is probably the 


most important thing I can say to you today, 


and I'll show you in the slide -- upcoming 


Powerpoint slide presentation that those 


documents that we got late on 4/27 prove that 


Dow Madison provided centered magnesium, slide 


number one, and magnesium/thorium allow, slide 


number two, to Mallinckrodt Chemical Works 


uranium divisions for their operations, and to 


the AEC, and I will show those slides in a 


short period. In addition, there is a Pangea 


Group May 25th -- I'm sorry, June, 2005 thorium 


inventory, slides three and four, that shows 


widespread residual thorium metal throughout 


former Dow plant buildings complex. Remember, 


the FUSRAP report and the uranium cleanup was 


restricted to building six. This report was 


generated as Dow Madison is commissioning its 

1 

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 

current thorium license, Illinois 01750, with 


the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. 


Finally, my fifth point is that there has been 


extreme harm to the workers, including 


beryllium exposure at the Dow Madison plant. 


Dow reports such as that by Silverstein* in 


1957 and the 1960 AEC inspection report, which 


we have not gotten but as reported in the 


evaluation report, suggest that the mouse -- 


Madison site had an active, well-honed 


radiation safety program. Nothing could be 


farther from the truth as revealed by extensive 


worker affidavits and meeting transcripts, 


including the NIOSH outreach meeting held in 


Collinsville, Illinois on 8/22/06. This was a 


session where workers passed the microphone 


down the rows and gave their testimony freely. 


The risk of handling uranium, and especially 


thorium and beryllium, were downplayed to the 


Dow Madison workers, and even to supervisors, 


by the plant management. There were numerous 


magnesium and numerous thorium-related fires 


and explosions, and worker injuries and even 


deaths. OSHA was called in for many of these 


incidents, and I'm sure will have appropriate 

1 

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 

reports. There were periodic special metal or 


what's called PE, metal extrusion and rolling 


mill runs -- and I should note that photo 


engraving plates were a major Dow product -- 


where workers asked but were not told the true 


nature of the metal they were working with. 


They guessed it was some sort of thorium 


compound based on the telltale behavior of the 


ingots in the heated extrusion process. There 


is, as Stuart mentioned, no individual 


dosimetry data for Dow that's been produced by 


-- by DOE or NIOSH. We've checked with 


Landauer, and Dow Midland could not provide 


any. The workers indicate that badges were, as 


they put it, cosmetic, being worn for certain 


inspections and then discarded without, 


according to the workers, being read. None of 


the workers ever had any feedback about any 


dosimetry to themselves. Badge use was rare 


before 1986. The workplace at Dow was dirty, 


with high amounts of thorium-rich fumes and 


smoke from the pot room that spilled over to 


other buildings and even led to plant shutdowns, the smoke was so bad at times. The 


workers handled large quantities of pure 

1 

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 

thorium and beryllium metal as alloy components 


from the 1950s through part of the 1990s. And 


very recently a worker wrote me and said that 


at least 20 pounds of beryllium were added to 


most all aluminum alloy runs, and those 


aluminum alloy runs continue today. Dr. Lar 


Fuortes at the University of Iowa is studying 


at least ten former Dow workers for respiratory 


illnesses to rule out chronic beryllium lung 


disease and/or pulmonary disease, especially 


fibrosis, that are related to thorium exposure 


that is apart from malignancy. The Dow plant 


produced lacalloy*, which is a 


beryllium/aluminum metal, starting in 1963. 


Besides the FUSRAP uranium cleanup in 1998 in 


building six, the affidavits and meeting 


transcripts record many private cleanups at the 


Madison site, and workers were involved in 


those private cleanups and got episodic high 


exposures during those cleanups. Two major 


cleanups were ones in 1993 when ERG of 


Albuquerque, New Mexico removed more than 850 


railcars of magnesium/thorium sludge off-site 


to Utah. And a second private cleanup includes 


the current Pangea thorium license 

1 

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 

decommissioning cleanup that is ongoing. 


Now if we can turn to the slides, let's see if 


we can get them going forward here. Let's see 


-- can somebody help me? 


(Pause) 


Okay. Now I -- the first slide I want you all 


to please look at, and you'll have to look at 


these on the screen, unfortunately -- oh, no. 


For some reason this Powerpoint won't display 


pictures, and that's going to be -- so what I ­

- can somebody help me with this projector, 


please? I have a PDF file which will show 


these with the pictures. I can't imagine that 


problem, but you must see the pictures, so -- 


so what I need is to get out of this... 


(Pause) 


All right. Sorry for the interruption. Now if 


I can get you to please turn to the slides, I ­

- I can just -- I can just -- can -- can you -- 


can you change these like this? Okay, that'll 


be good. 


(Pause) 


So I want to turn -- this is probably the most 


important slide on the screen. The Department 


of Energy has two major databases that 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 

47 

available to characterize EEOICPA sites. One 


is the considered sites database, and this is 


the database that contains all of the 


administrative record documents, for instance, 


on cleanup, the FUSRAP reports. But the other 


database, the Bible, if you will, is the 


facility list, Department of Energy, EEOICPA, 


and the listing in that database for the 


Madison site includes this facility description 


today, that's the point. 


 Facility description. The Dow facility in 


Madison, Illinois supplied the AEC with 


materials, chemicals, induction heating 


equipment and metal magnesium metal products 


and services. So I -- I must stress, Dow 


facility in Madison supplied the AEC with metal 


magnesium metal products. Dow received a 


purchase order from the Mallinckrodt in March, 


1960 -- well, that's an error right there 


because the uranium work was done between '57 


and '60, so this date is wrong, but that's 


relatively minor -- for research and 


development on the extrusion of uranium metal 


and rod. Note this description does not 


include anything about the thorium AEC 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 

48 

which I'm going to show you in the next few 


slides. 


(Pause) 


Okay. All right, the next slide is a purchase 


order, and as you can see, the date is October 


the 28th, 1957. This is on Mallinckrodt 


Chemical Works uranium division head. It's --


it's under -- it gives the AEC contract number. 


It's to the Atomic Energy Commission, and I'll 


show you the details of it, but it's about 


magnesium metal. 


This is a blow-up of that slide, so Dow Madison 


was supplying -- oh, and I -- to make sure you 


saw that. It's -- it's hard to read, but this 


is -- this is the Dow plant office in Brentwood 


Boulevard, but it's for the Dow Madison site. 


And what Dow is supplying to the AEC is cell 


magnesium. They give the type and here below, 


some more cell magnesium chipped to a coarse 


particle size, and there are 100 pounds of each 


of those. 


So that's the proof that Dow supplied magnesium 


metal to Mallinckrodt now, and -- but they also 


supplied magnesium alloy to -- to the AEC. And 


what I'm going to show you is the magnesium 

1 

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 

alloy was thorium-containing. So this is the 


direct link between thorium and the AEC. 


Again, this is Dow Chemical that we're talking 


about in Madison, Illinois. Mallinckrodt 


Chemical Works uranium division purchase order 


for the AEC under the AEC contract, and this is 


the same contract that covered the uranium 


work. I apologize that I -- you can't see that 


better here, but the -- the original documents 


are being submitted in writing to the Board as 


soon as I finish this presentation, so you'll 


have them. 


Now this is a blow-up of this -- of this second 


contract purchase order, if you will, and that 


shows that AEC was being supplied by Dow 


Madison with magnesium alloy plate. So this is 


not magnesium metal, this is magnesium alloy 


plate, and you can see here a number, and I'll 


show you that a little bit blown up down here. 


So it says magnesium alloy plate, and then 


there is a number. And the numbers of alloys 


are important because there's an ATSM (sic) 


standard nomenclature for metal alloys. 


And what you ca-- I -- I can't see what this 


is. I don't know what that is. What I can see 

1 

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 

here is 21A -- it looks like XA, and that looks 


like a T, so this doesn't mean anything to me, 


but the 21A means quite a lot. 


Now this is another document, and I should 


mention that those two documents just shown to 


you -- I apologize but I want to make sure you 


see this -- these are documents that were 


supplied to Robert Stephan, to Joe Cuzmarazak 


pro bono attorney and to NIOSH and to Stuart 


Hinnefeld on April the 27th of this year in 


that big 52-megabyte zip file. And notice that 


this number at the bottom, TDCC322, that's the 


Dow Midland document number, so this is a 


product of that long search that Stuart 


described. 


And this is another document in the same set 


from Dow Midland, document TDCC318, I believe. 


It's hard to see from this Powerpoint slide. 


Now this is a third document that we got from 


Dow Midland, and what this is is a table in one 


of their reports that shows the composition of 


the various alloys that the magnesium mill 


produced. And I want to draw your attention to 


these three right here in the middle with the 


red bar, and to the content of those man-- 

1 

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 

manganese, Mn percent, and Th, or thorium, 


percent, and that's blown up here at the 


bottom. And the one of particular interest -- 


all of these are thorium alloys. H in the 


standard nomenclature refers to thorium. And I 


want to draw your attention in particular to 


thorium/manganese/magnesium alloy 21A. The 


manganese maximum percent is .45 to 1.1 


percent, the thorium percentage as listed here 


is 1.5 to 2.5 percent, and the source of that, 


again, was Kirkland and Ellis who are the 


external counsels for the Dow Chemical Company. 


I mentioned to you, and I showed this in 


February to the Board, that there -- the Pangea 


Group of St. Louis has been cleaning up the Dow 


Madison site for the last two and a half years, 


and these are the -- these are just two pages 


from their June 2005 report showing the thorium 


inventory throughout many of the buildings at 


the Dow Madison complex. Building one, four, 


five, six, seven, eight, nine and the machine 


shop and building ten. And I would note that 


this is various forms of thorium metal, and 


they're all throughout the plant. 


 So the summary of this slide session is 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 

52 

follows: The Dow Madison site contracted for 


uranium work with the AEC via Mallinckrodt 


Chemical Works during 1957-'60, and the Dow 


Madison plant supplied the AEC and Mallinckrodt 


with centered magnesium and magnesium H21A 


thorium alloy during 1957 and 1958, and the 


commercial and the AEC thorium waste streams 


are inseparable in the still-contaminated 


sites. Therefore, we believe that the Dow SEC 


should cover 1957 to 8 (sic) throughout the 


uranium and thorium production and residual 


periods. 


Well, let's just -- let's just leave that up 


there. I don't know how to turn it off. 


So my final concluding remarks are the 


following: I believe the Dow Madison Section 


83.14 class should be extended from 1957 to '60 


to 1957 to '98 to cover at least the uranium 


production and residual contamination periods. 


Because of the AEC-related thorium work with 


Mallinckrodt and Rocky Flats, which I hope I've 


proven to you existed, and given the fact that 


commercial military and thorium waste streams 


cannot be separated, nor can the thorium be 


separated from the uranium dust during 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 

53 

residual period, we believe the SEC should also 


include both the uranium and thorium residual 


contamination period because they're all 


intermixed. Thorium contamination continues 


even today. The Dow Madison workers were 


definitely severely harmed at this site for 


decades related to their AEC work. They 


deserve to be honored by extending the SEC 


class to cover the full period of harm they 


have been subjected to for -- for decades. 


 And finally, I'll leave you with just two 


quotes from sworn affidavit number seven, from 


two long-time Dow Madison workers. One worker 


said I worked with the thorium from the first 


time they run it to the last time when I 


retired in 1990. I figure -- and the second 


quote is, from the second worker, I figure the 


thorium work started in '51 and it ended in 


about 1998, is when they had the last slabs 


over in the mill to be processed. 


So that's the end of my presentation and I 


thank you very much. And Dr. Ziemer, I'd like 


to give you a copy of the -- (off microphone) 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. McKeel, 

1 

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 

and we'll make sure the full script gets both 


to the Board members and onto the web site. 


Next we will hear from Deb -- Deb Detmers, and 


Deb, as was indicated previously, is a staff 


member from Representative Shimkus's office, 


and I think we're also going to read into the 


record something from Representative Costello? 


 MS. DETMERS: I -- I am, thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 


 MS. DETMERS: I'm going to do that first, 


actually. Congressman Costello sent a letter 


for the record, and Congressman Costello's our 


colleague from the metro east area, showing the 


bipartisan effort of this. 


(Reading) I want to thank Chairman Ziemer and 


the members of the Advisory Board on Radiation 


and Worker Health for the opportunity to submit 


testimony regarding the Dow Chemical Company 


Special Exposure Cohort 00079 petition under 


evaluation. I strongly support this petition 


and ask the Board to give it a fair and 


thorough review. 


As you are aware, the National Institute of 


Occupational Safety and Hazard (sic) submitted 


an SEC evaluation report on -- report petition 

1 

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 

on April 13th, 2007. The report addresses 


atomic weapons employees at the Dow Chemical 


Company in Madison, Illinois who worked at 


least 250 days from January 1st, 1957 through 


December 31st, 1960. This petition is a 


resource providing critical information in 


order to bet-- in order to better understand 


the full extent of the workers' exposure to 


chemicals and radiation. 


It is my understanding that NIOSH has 75 claims 


within this covered time period, and a total of 


116 active Dow cases. While I realize this 


meeting today is to examine the covered time 


period, the residual contamination period 


cannot be ignored. Therefore I urge the Board 


at some point in the near future to conduct a 


full examination of Dow Chemical petitions to 


ensure no employees are wrongly denied workers' 


compensation. These workers who are exposed to 


hazardous chemicals and radiation, as well as 


their beneficiaries, deserve quick action. 


Too many workers at Dow have waited years for 


help, and they deserve a comprehensive review 


without further delay. I look forward to 


working with the Advisory Board on worker 

1 

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 

compensation issues at Dow Chemical, and will 


continue to work with my colleagues in the 


House and the Senate to ensure our nation's 


atomic workers and their families receive the 


benefits they deserve. 


Jerry Costello, Member of Congress. 


You -- you heard from my boss yesterday, he's 


the one who called in from the airport, so I'm 


not going to repeat everything he said. And 


I'm only going to talk very briefly. 


I became involved in this six years ago when 


two men walked into my office, [Name Redacted] 


and Bill Hoppe. I didn't know anything about 


this program. I didn't even know what NIOSH 


was. But I've learned a lot in six years. I 


know these workers personally. I've been to 


all of their meetings. I have been to their 


reunions. I have been to their houses. I've 


been to their funerals. I have heard the same 


stories for six years. I've heard the same 


stories independently for six years. I've 


heard the stories of thorium for six years. 


These affidavits that these men have provided 


are credible and valid. These men -- even at 


the workers' meetings, if somebody says 

1 

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 

something and one of the other guys questions 


it, they will correct each other. These --


they do not know how to lie. These are not men 


who know how to lie. They are telling the 


truth of what happened at that plant. 


I don't want the Board to dismiss this because 


of lack of documentation. No stone's been 


unturned in trying to get to get to this 


documentation. Dr. McKeel and I sat at the 


state EPA and went through tons of dusty 


documents. We've sat with the federal EPA. 


We've sat with IEMA, which is the Illinois 


Emergency Management Association. We've been 


to the Corps of Engineers library. We've 


recently gotten -- went through 400 pages of 


Dow documents. We have FOIA requests that 


haven't been answered yet. Every effort to get 


documentation has been made. 


I think -- we have the scientific evidence that 


Dr. McKeel presented. We have very true 


affidavits from these men. And I urge you 


today to extend this SEC -- to the residual 


contamination period through 1998. 


And I want to -- or I urge you that the time is 


today. The time isn't the next Board meeting. 

1 

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 

The time isn't down the line. The time I think 


to do this is today. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Then we'll 


hear from Robert Stephan, who's from Senator 


Obama's office. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. First I 


have a statement from Senator Durbin's office 


that I would like to read into the record, if 


that's okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. STEPHAN: It's addressed to you. It says 


(reading) Thank you for your kind consideration 


of this matter before the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health in expanding the 


class to cover workers employed during the 


residual period, through 1998. I have met with 


the workers who provided the affidavits, and 


have listened to their stories. Especially in 


this case where there is little documentation 


to challenge their accounts, I hope you will 


give the affidavits provided their full 


consideration. 


In addition, I'm hoping for a prompt resolution 


of this matter and these workers' claims. The 


SEC process has been pending for months, 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 

59 

due to the health and age of many of the 


workers, it is imperative that the Board 


promptly consider the merits of the case. 


Thank you for permitting me to raise these 


issues, and for your service on this Board. 


Sincerely, United States Senator Dick Durbin. 


Dr. Ziemer, I just want to go into a little bit 


more detail in terms of how the Senator views 


this. You know, he called in the other day, 


but he just wants to kind of summarize this 


down to how he sees this. Okay? And hopefully 


-- I want to make it an assumption here, I 


supposed, but hopefully the 83.14 is going to 


be approved, so we're kind of focusing in on 


this residual period here. And I do want to 


give credit where credit is due to NIOSH. 


Certainly our office has been very tough on 


NIOSH at times, Larry and Stu and everybody 


else can attest to that. But we have to be 


fair and give credit when it's due, and they 


have done a good job in recognizing at least 


the '57 through '60 period, and in working with 


us on this issue. 


So to -- to square this up as to where we are 


now, let's -- let's go back to the February 

1 

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 

meeting that was in Cincinnati, Ohio -- okay? ­

- and just go through some of those comments 


there that -- that I think brings us to where 


we are now and we'll kind of focus this down, 


at least from the Senator's point of view, and 


hopefully we can come up with some sort of a 


resolution. 


Obviously the issue is did Dow Madison produce 


AEC-related -- deal with AEC-related thorium 


after 1960. Okay. So, and if they -- and if 


they provided it to Rocky Flats or Mallinckrodt 


-- mainly Rocky Flats is what we've been 


talking about -- then that, in and of itself, 


is pretty good evidence of AEC-related thorium 


at Dow Madison after 1960. So from the 


transcripts -- the meeting transcripts of the 


Advisory Board from February, quoting Larry 


Elliott, you know, let's be clear that this 


goes to the covered facility description. The 


covered facility description, that is DOE and 


DOL's responsibility to set in place. It is 


our understanding at NIOSH that the 


documentation that has been provided by the 


DOE, reviewed by DOL and reviewed by our folks, 


both in the general counsel's office and 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 

61 

technical staff, do not find any linkage of AEC 


work after the covered period of '57 to '60. 


We have to go by that unless there's another 


document produced that indicates otherwise. We 


are bound by the law and the regulations to 


only reconstruct the AEC portion of that dose. 


Then continuing to quote Larry, and we've been 


talking about these -- these affidavits, so 


this is NIOSH's position as I understand it, on 


the record, quoting the February transcripts. 


We do not question the veracity or the validity 


of the affidavit comments that have been 


provided to us. Again, we do not question the 


veracity of the affidavit testimonies about 


working on thorium. We understand they worked 


on thorium. This was a dirty place. It was a 


dirty operation. We don't quibble about the 


facts that these folks -- these fine folks were 


put in harm's way, et cetera, et cetera, et 


cetera. 


So if we're -- according to Larry Elliott 


still, so if we're going to take up a 


discussion about the covered facility 


description, I think you need to employ in that 


discussion Department of Energy and Department 

1 

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 

of Labor. NIOSH has no responsibility or 


authority in that regard. 


So what's the point. The point is, NIOSH has 


done their job. NIOSH -- NIOSH has done what 


NIOSH is bound to do. So -- and we -- and we 


appreciate that. So where do we go from there, 


and where we go is to the site description that 


Dr. McKeel went through. We go to the DOE and 


we say give us documents to show us how you 


came up with your site description for AEC-


related thorium from '57 to '60. You can't 


just tell us that's what it is. You have to 


give us something. It's not going to work just 


saying we're the Department of Energy and this 


is what it's going to be. 


So what did they give us. They gave us a 


FUSRAP report. The FUSRAP report references 


itself. There's nothing in the FUSRAP report 


that shows why they say that. So where does 


that take us? Well, that takes us down -- 


after all of this, after all NIOSH's work, 


after all the work that Dr. McKeel and SINuW 


and two Congressmen and two Senator's office 


and all of your work, where we are today is a 


he said/she said -- a he said/she said between 

1 

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 

the Department of Energy and -- unless I'm 


missing something, and I don't think that -- 


that we are, after Stu's presentation -- a he 


said/she said between the Department of Energy 


and, to a lesser extent, the Department of 


Labor and 11 affidavits from the workers, that 


NIOSH does not question, that say thorium was 


shipped to Rocky Flats. One of those workers 


worked in shipping and attested the fact that 


he saw the shipping manifest to -- sending 


thorium to Rocky Flats beyond 1960. So -- and 


that -- and that's what Dr. McKeel showed you. 


So that's where we are, and I just want to make 


sure that -- for the record, I think you all 


understand this perfectly, but for the record, 


that's what this is about. This is a he 


said/she said between the Department of Energy 


and at least 11 workers from Dow Madison and 


this -- in the Senator's view and this is why 


he wanted me to make this point -- this is a 


critical moment in the history of this Board. 


Do we take the statements of workers over 


statements of -- from the Department of Energy 


that cannot be backed up by documents. 


Now it has been said that the workers' 

1 

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 

testimony cannot be backed up by documents. 


The Department of Energy testimony can't be 


backed up by documents. They have a report 


that they wrote that -- FUSRAP, the FUSRAP 


report, that USACE wrote that -- that 


references itself, so they don't have a 


document, either. So in this -- in this whole 


dialogue of not having documents, they don't 


have any documents, so that doesn't count. The 


FUSRAP report doesn't count. So what are we 


going to do, is the question. What is the 


Board going to do? You can cover the residual 


period. Are we going to take worker testimony 


at face value or are we not going to take 


worker testimony because the Department of 


Energy references a document that references 


itself. 


So in the Senator's eyes, that's where we see 


things today. We really hope, as much as you 


possibly can, that you will act on this 


residual issue today and not put it off until 


August or -- or September or whenever the next 


Board meeting is. We -- we really want to move 


on this today, put this issue to rest. These 


are 23 additional workers we're talking 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 

65 

and move on. 


 So appreciate your time. We appreciate your 


efforts, Larry and Stu and everyone at NIOSH. 


I wish Libby White were here today to discuss 


this issue from the Department of Energy 'cause 


I presented this to her and so -- you know, I 


take the Department of Energy's absence to mean 


that they don't question what I just said about 


their report, so I just want to make sure that 


that's in the record. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Robert. And I'm -- I'm 


going to ask if there are any other petitioners 


or maybe -- maybe you know, Dr. McKeel, if -- 


is there anyone by phone that -- 


 DR. MCKEEL: I don't believe so. I -- I just 


had one sentence to add --


 DR. ZIEMER: Please. 


 DR. MCKEEL: -- and I apologize, but I forgot 


to say this. But on February the 23rd of this 


year I wrote Glenn Podonsky* at DOE a very 


detailed letter about just this issue of the 


facility description and the error that's on 


the -- that I just showed to you in the 


Powerpoint slide presentation. I have gotten 


back a -- what I would characterize 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 

66 

partial answer, but really that missed the 


entire point of the thorium connection that 


they themselves note on the facilities list. 


So just to make it complete, I really think 


we've tried to do what the Board admonished us 


to do, what Larry Elliott asked us to do. 


We've sought the guidance from the proper 


agencies. I sent copies of that letter to 


NIOSH. I've talked to Peter Turcic repeatedly 


about the facility description and he says go 


back to DOE. So we've really done that. We've 


tried in good faith to do what we can do, and I 


think Robert's right. He's describing --


that's where we are today. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, and I'll just double-


check. Are there -- is anyone by phone -- 


petitioners by phone representing Dow? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Representing Dow? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Could you speak up and give us 


your name again? 


MR. HOPPE: My name is Bill Hoppe. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Bill, right. Did you have 


some comments, Bill? 

1 

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 

MR. HOPPE: Yes, we have (unintelligible) more 


information, you know, than what they gave, but 


the whole thing is is a lot of it was kept from 


the (unintelligible) of the workers down there 


and they -- we didn't really know what -- what 


we were running in that, but the uranium, they 


were running uranium down there in '75 on 


(unintelligible) and they ran uranium 


(unintelligible) straightening the rods 


(unintelligible) put over in the 


(unintelligible) in the rolling mill and it was 


up in the (unintelligible) and safety 


(unintelligible) area -- era when they were 


doing that. And the (unintelligible) of that 


plant had thorium work done in it or stored in 


it in that, from the (unintelligible) office 


where they (unintelligible) all the metal to -- 


all the way through to the finished part when 


they shipped it out. But (unintelligible) 


since we've started on this (unintelligible) 


about six years ago now, we've got over 40 


people that's died of cancer and they hold out 


(unintelligible) longer, we'll all be dead. 


You know, that's the whole thing in a nutshell. 


If you've got any questions for me, I'll 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 

68 

more than happy to (unintelligible) answer 


them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill. 


 Now Board members, this -- this petition is 


open for discussion. There -- there appears to 


be actually two issues. We -- we have the 


evaluation report to react to or to act on. 


There is, in a sense, an additional request, 


which is the issue of extending the covered 


period. 


Now I think it's important and we need -- and 


there may be great sympathy toward that. I 


think there also is a legal issue and I need to 


have some definition, perhaps. I don't know if 


legal counsel can tell us. My understanding is 


that the -- the definitions of those are -- are 


not the prerogative of this Board; they are 


established by Labor. Is that correct, or -- 


maybe somebody could clarify that. I -- I want 


to clarify what authority this Board has on the 


issue of defining those periods. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: If you're talking about what 


periods are covered -- is that what you're 


asking? 


 DR. ZIEMER: The cov-- the covered periods -- 

1 

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 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Are defined by the 


Department of Labor and the Department of 


Energy. They are not the prerogative of this 


Board or of Health and Human Services. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So that if the Board -- the only 


thing the Board could do at that -- at this 


point would be, for example, to express an 


opinion to perhaps the Secretary of Health and 


Human Services to -- an opinion to convey 


something to those agencies. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, they -- the Advisory 


Board --


 DR. ZIEMER: But we do not have the authority 


to change --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, you do not have the 


authority to change it. The Advisory Board 


could provide a recommendation to the Health 


and -- the Secretary of Health and Human 


Services to contact the Department of Energy 


and the Department of Labor regarding whatever 


opinion you want to provide. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- and Dan, you -- you have a 


comment on that, too. 


 DR. MCKEEL: That really avoids the issue. 


What -- what we are saying, and we back this up 

1 

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 

by numerous statements, including [Name 


Redacted] opinion reading the Act, that there 


is nothing in EEOICPA, nothing, no wording, 


that forbids an SEC to cover the residual 


period. Now that's a flat statement, so I 


would think that what we need an -- a legal 


opinion on is is that statement correct or not. 


I don't think we are impeded -- I don't think 


you're impeded from covering the residual 


period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MCKEEL: If you believe that the things 


that I said were true, that that was AEC work ­

- intermixed AEC uranium and AEC thorium, that 


it originated in 1957 to '60 period and 


extended on up into the future. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think one of the practical 


outcomes, though, is that whatever this Board 


recommends goes to the Secretary and the 


Secretary probably gets back to that 


definition. So we -- we have to work within 


those boundaries, but I'm -- I'm trying to 


assess this myself. Thank you -- please. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Ju-- just as an aside here, we 


have to say for the record, it is insulting 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 

71 

the workers, it is insulting to you, it is 


insulting to us. The Department of Labor and 


the Department of Energy have known for months 


upon months upon months that we were going to 


discuss this today, and now no one is here 


except for possibly legal counsel -- your legal 


counsel for HHS. So it's just -- it's 


ridiculous that they left, absolutely 


ridiculous that they left and now no one is 


here to engage in this conversation when they 


knew all along how important this was to us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Robert. Lew, 


could you add to this? 


 DR. WADE: Well, let me try to deal with Dr. 


McKeel's question. And again, if I'm wrong, 


please jump up and correct me, counsel or 


Larry. I think that NIOSH had the ability to 


include the residual contamination period in 


its definition, but NIOSH is saying that if you 


refer back to the 2005 Defense Authorization 


Act, as amended, that the only radioactive 


material that we could consider in that 


judgment was the DOE or the AEC work. And we 


have determined that we feel we can reconstruct 


dose for the uranium, and that's what we start 

1 

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 

from. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, we proceeded with this 


with the understanding that the extrusion of 


the uranium and the straightening of the 


uranium was the AEC work that caused this site 


to be on the list. And you know, we don't -- 


we have not been a party or part of the 


selection -- you know, identification of Atomic 


Weapons Employers or what thought process or -- 


or procedure or whatever was employed in the 


selection of these sites from the outset. And 


so our -- our understanding was that it was the 


uranium work that was done that made this, you 


know, a site, that put it on the -- and so we 


proceeded along that, that that was the AEC 


work and that the thorium that was used in 


their commercial products was commercial work. 


I mean that's how we proceeded on this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, but it -- it seems pretty 


clear that there was thorium work going on in 


the early days --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- with the AEC. Do we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, usually --

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- do we have anything that 


establishes that uranium only was the basis or 


not? In other words, can one make the 


assumption that both uranium and thorium work 


were going on as part of the covered period and 


therefore carries forward? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't -- I don't know. 


I mean we didn't -- like I said, we didn't 


participate in the identification of -- of AWE 


sites and AWE lists, and so we're not really 


cognizant of the process of what was the 


thought process that put these sites on this 


list out of, you know, various companies -- 


 DR. WADE: But -- but more than the thought 


process, who has the responsibility for making 


the definitions and what are the definitions 


that we're operating to? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The Department of Energy is 


responsible for designating the sites that are 


-- that are AWE sites. Isn't that right? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So they are the ones who make 


that designation. 


 DR. WADE: And what is their designation 


relative to Dow Madison? 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: They describe, you know, what ­

- what -- I think Dr. McKeel even commented, 


you know, they describe they did these things. 


During the time they extruded uranium, they 


straightened rods, they sold other things, 


sometimes to the AEC. So that's -- that's what 


they said in their description. 


 DR. WADE: But the covered period for this 


facility is what? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 1957 to 1960. 


 DR. WADE: And within that covered period, what 


is the definition of the work that was the AEC 


work? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that the 


definition exists anywhere. I mean there's a 


description of -- of what was done during that 


period, but I don't know that it goes 


specifically -- it doesn't specifically say and 


this site is on the list because of something, 


so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- it appears that it's 


been established that both were going on. 
I 


think Dr. McKeel has established that. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Can -- can I have -- just -- I'll 


try to clarify 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 

75

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, please do. 


 DR. MCKEEL: -- 'cause I've wrestled with this 


and I -- I want to offer a simple explanation. 


What I've shown you is additional purchase 


orders to the purchase orders that the 


Department of Energy has included in all of the 


documents about this site as being evidence 


that Dow Madison did AEC uranium work for 


Mallinckrodt Chemical Company. I'm saying in 


that same series of purchase orders we got from 


-- from Dow Midland, the current company, more 


documents, more purchase orders that showed 


that some of the thorium -- some 


thorium/magnesium alloy work was done for the 


AEC and Mallinckrodt. So I think the problem 


here is either that the Department of Energy 


never got those thorium-related purchase 


orders, or they're not producing them, or 


they're lost, or something. But I must say, 


you know, Dow responded in 2007 to these 


requests. The program started in 2001. And 


before -- and to be honest about what's 


happened here, I don't believe anybody, 


including the Department of Energy, has thought 


about approaching Dow Midland until we brought 

1 

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 

it up and initiated those discussions in 2006. 


And so what I'm saying is I think, on the other 


hand, the Department of Energy clearly knew 


about these documents because they have on 


their facilities list that Dow supplied 


magnesium alloy. Now this is the simplifying 


explanation. Everybody who's in the metallurgy 


industry -- everybody -- knows about ATSM (sic) 


alloy designations. They know about the 


standard nomenclature of alloys. They know 


about Hm* and Hk* and all that. That would be 


immediate; that's a code word to them, thorium. 


 However, when Debbie Detmers and I, for 


instance, went to the Illinois EPA and we 


looked up the air pollution permits for the 


Madison company that -- Dow Madison, we found 


that their air pollution permit said that what 


they did at that plant was that they were 


secondary magnesium and aluminum smelters. 


Well, it's true that the va-- the -- the bulk 


of the alloy is either magnesium or aluminum. 


But what is omitted from the DOE facilities 


list and what was omitted from those Illinois 


EPA air pollution permits is that it wasn't 


pure magnesium, it wasn't pure aluminum. 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 

77 

were alloyed with things, and one of the things 


for which Dow was known countrywide was 


thorium/magnesium alloys. They made it in 


Bayside; they made it in Midland, Michigan; 


they made it in Texas City, Texas; and Dow 


Midland at the same time had a plant out in 


Walnut Creek, which is an EEOICPA covered site 


that processed thorium ores for the AEC. So 


they were doing a lot of thorium work and -- 


and Dow thorium at least Walnut Creek was AEC-


related. So I believe it's a nomenclature 


matter. I think that whoever wrote that 


federal facilities description, had they known 


anything much about metals, metallurgy, alloys, 


alloy nomenclature, that instead of saying 


metal magnesium metal products, they would have 


said metal -- they -- they -- what they should 


have said is magnesium and magnesium/thori-- 


thorium alloys for the AEC. I mean the -- 


clearly those purchase orders were AEC purchase 


orders. They were not merely commercial. 


Now it's also true that everybody now knows, 


you know, that magnesium/thorium alloys were 


particularly useful in the aircraft industry, 


in fighter planes, in rockets, in the space 

1 

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 

shuttle, in intercontinental ballistic missiles 


and -- and Dow provided thousands of tons of 


magnesium/thorium alloys for that point. So I 


think it's just a matter of somebody doing a -- 


a good job. What -- what can be faulted, 


however, I think is what Robert's alluding to, 


is we have brought that to the attention of the 


Department of Energy. Now maybe we need to 


bring it a little more forcefully with a little 


more evidence, and certainly what the 


Department of Energy has not seen are these 


purchase orders that I showed you on the screen 


from Dow Midland. And we -- we -- well, they 


need to look at those. But I -- I find it very 


hard to believe that they would obtain the 


purchase orders that relate to uranium but not 


the purchase orders that relate to thorium. 


 DR. WADE: But could -- could I ask you a 


question, just to --


 DR. MCKEEL: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: -- clarify this for the-- 


 DR. MCKEEL: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: Because we need to chart a course 


forward. 


 DR. MCKEEL: 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 

79

 DR. WADE: The facility description that you 


put in front of us --


 DR. MCKEEL: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: -- that facility description needs 


to be modified --


 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: -- you -- you propose. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: If it's modified, then NIOSH can 


start with that modified facility description 


and move forward, so that's the -- the core 


issue that we're looking at here. Correct? 


 DR. MCKEEL: I believe that's the core issue. 


The -- the exception that I would take to what 


you just said is I'm not sure -- if the Board 


accepts the evidence that I have shown them, 


then I don't see why the Board can't act on 


that evidence. 


 DR. WADE: I understand what you're saying. 


You're -- you're proposing that the Board could 


supersede this facility description based upon 


the evidence you've provided. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Right. If I was just saying this 


from my belief, that would be one thing. If 


I've shown it to you on the board 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 

80

 DR. WADE: From my point of view, you've made a 


very compelling argument. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Right. 


 DR. WADE: The question is, what is the 


authority of the Board --


 DR. MCKEEL: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- and that's something the Board 


needs to discuss. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask, is this 


description -- this is not an official 


description that is used for the EEOICPA 


program, is it? 


 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, it is, absolutely -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is the one --

 DR. MCKEEL: -- that is your --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's the one. 

 DR. MCKEEL: -- that is your King James -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's the one you're -- 

 DR. MCKEEL: -- Bible. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- using, Stu? 

 DR. MCKEEL: That is your King James Bible. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We refer to that web site, the 


facilities list web site on, you know, 


questions like this. It occurs to me as we sit 


here 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 

81

 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the sites were published in 


a Federal Register notice and there may be 


additional words in the Federal Register notice 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we probably --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but I don't know whether 


there are or not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- need to check that. I -- I --


I guess as I look at this, I think the door is 


open. Here in this description it already says 


metal magnesium products, and that term is 


pretty broad. It seems to me one could 


interpret that broadly. I'm wondering if NIOSH 


could not even interpret that broadly. Mayb--


we might have to get counsel's recommendation 


on that, but it seems to -- it seems to me that 


there's a foot in the door right there. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sure we'd have to seek 


counsel's advice on that. I want to add to 


what Stu just said in response to your 


question, that as we encounter these situations 


where we have questions about what the site or 


facility designation means for covered 


exposure, we are obligated to talk and 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 

82 

coordinated with DOE or DOL on that particular 


issue, and we've done that with Dow. And --


and what we hear back from them, DOE, is that 


they are basing their designation on the 


contracts that were engaged with this AWE, and 


they say those contracts do not show them -- 


only show to them that uranium is the issue -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- is the AEC work. Now I'm not 


saying I agree with that. I'm just saying 


that's what bounds us to only move forward and 


work on uranium outside of that covered period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So in -- in a sense, it appears 


that we're awaiting some additional response -- 


I know -- I've seen copies of Dan's -- McKeel's 


letters to Glenn Podonsky and a kind of 


preliminary response that sort of said we're 


looking into it, or something to that effect. 


So I don't think that DOE has closed the door, 


but it certainly will make a big difference if 


we can have them aboard officially on this. 


It's -- it's not obvious to me that they are 


denying that the thorium work took place. 
I 


think it has come to them probably as new 


information, as well, was my impression. 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 

83 

that your impression, too, Dan, that -- 


 DR. WADE: We're going to try --


 DR. MCKEEL: You know, I --


 DR. WADE: -- to get DOE on the phone. 


 DR. MCKEEL: -- I would be happy to agree with 


that, except where did they get the language of 


metal magnesium --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well --


 DR. MCKEEL: -- they're --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- exactly, and that's what I'm 


saying, it --


 DR. MCKEEL: What I'm trying --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- sort of leaves the door open 


anyway, it seems to me. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Here -- here's the key thing that 


I'm trying to say. I -- I actually have -- I 


mean all I have is a copy from an electronic 


file sent by Dow Madi-- Dow Midland, but it is 


-- it -- it names the AEC contract as being the 


same contract, that same ENG* contract that 


Mallinckrodt had for uranium. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MCKEEL: So --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I --


 DR. MCKEEL: -- all I can say is 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 

84 

Energy missed something. Now why, how, when -- 


I don't know, but you know, February 23rd is a 


long time --


 DR. ZIEMER: I understand. 


 DR. MCKEEL: -- and that's why we hope -- we 


hope that what you can do is say look, we have 


seen a thorium contract between Dow Midland and 


Mallinckrodt, the AEC, and that's sufficient to 


move forward and believe -- and believe this. 


Yes, it would be wonderful if we could get a 


confirmation from DOE, but I don't know how to 


do that today. I -- I don't think it's 


practical. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah, we're -- thank you, 


that's very helpful. I -- I think we'll get 


some additional comments here and then we can 


figure out a path forward from this point. I 


think Wanda and then Jim, then Jim. Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: A couple of clarifying questions. 


Was the SEC petition -- do we have an SEC 


petition that covers this extended period? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, the SEC petition was the 


one that we -- it's an 83.14, so we said we 


can't reconstruct the dose and we were, you 


know, working with the belief, you know, 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 

85 

covered -- the covered period '57 to '60, so 


you know, we essentially initiated -- we don't 


have an 83.13 petition that asks for it -- you 


know, the residual inclusion. 


 MS. MUNN: So are we not correct in assuming 


that, in the absence of a petition, the only 


avenue that's being asked of us today is to 


extend the existing petition. That's the 


request --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the existing period. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the request --


 MS. MUNN: I mean the existing period. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The request would be that our 


evaluation of in-- you know, inability -- 


infeasibility of doing dose reconstruction 


should be extended into the -- into the 


residual contamination per-- I mean that's the 


request that's being made. 


 MS. MUNN: I -- I guess from a simply process 


point of view, it would seem much more 


straightforward if we had an SEC petition that 


covered that residual period. It would -- it 


would --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this -- this can be done in 


a two-step process, but the issue will remain, 

1 

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 

one way or the other, to -- to address because 


there certainly can be claimants coming forward 


from that period, so -- Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think just to follow up on 


Wanda's question, I think -- we have -- there's 


actually precedent in -- on this Board for 


changing the period, the coverage period in 


relationship to an evaluation report that's 


given to us and changing -- both within NIOSH 


and within the Board for changing that from 


what was in the original petition. So I don't 


think that's problematic. I -- I do think it's 


a bit more problematic the fact that we don't 


have any evaluation be-- of -- of feasibility 


of doing dose -- individual dose reconstruction 


in front of us, at least from NIOSH, for -- 


other than for the time period that they -- 


they addressed in -- in the -- based on the 


original 83.14 petition. So whether or not 


they -- it's possible -- feasible to do dose 


reconstruction before or after, I'm not -- is 


not clear to -- or should say after for either 


uranium or thorium, it's not clear to me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, LaVon, can you -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually that's not correct. 

1 

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 

We've provided sample dose reconstructions for 


the residual period addressing only the 


uranium. 


 DR. MELIUS: Only the -- so -- so just -- it's 


just --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, but --


 DR. MELIUS: -- thorium. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- we did address the uranium, 


which we -- as Stu had mentioned, assumed was 


the only AEC covered. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: But not thorium. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But to your point, there has 


not been an evaluation of the feasibility after 


the -- in the residual period, that's true. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I -- I would expect 


that uranium would still -- yeah, I would 


expect that uranium would still be feasible. 


think the thorium is the -- one more question. 


I also have a pro-- procedural question -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- is that say if we took the step 


of moving forward and have the Board extending 


the -- the time period of -- of coverage as has 


been suggested, you know, what -- what then 


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 

88 

happens? I suspect that DOL then would not be 


willing to certify people in that class beyond 


that point. Don't they refer to the DOE 


definition in term-- of the site and the time 


period of coverage in terms of how they handle 


these? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that is correct --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but it may start sooner than 


that. I don't know if our Secretary would -- 


would say that -- well, I can make this 


designation based upon the Board's 


recommendation, given OGC's interpretation of 


the amendment language. 


 DR. WADE: That's where we -- that's where the 


issue would first ra-- if the Board was to 


decide to include the residual contamination 


period because of the inability to reconstruct 


thorium dose --


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: -- then the Secretary of HHS would 


have to evaluate whether or not that was within 


his authorities, given the -- the time period 


that's been covered and the facility 


designation. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: But in reality, as far as NIOSH is 


concerned in that extended period, the problem 


then would be the same on reconstructing 


thorium. You would not be able to. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we -- we didn't try to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right, so (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- demonstrate feasibility, so 


we haven't really tried, so today we wouldn't ­

- we wouldn't have that data. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You -- okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Now whether it's -- you know, 


there may be avenues that we didn't pursue 


since we were interested in '57 to '60, but I 


don't -- I don't know if there would be or not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you haven't actually looked 


at the issue. 


 Dr. Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I wanted to -- I wanted to ask you 


a question. 


What I'm hearing you say is that it's your 


thought, based on the affidavits, that after 


1960 thorium alloy production persisted at this 


facility. Is that correct? 


 DR. MCKEEL: No question about that. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And how long -- how long did it 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 

90 

on? Do you have any -- 


 DR. MCKEEL: It goes on at least till 1998, and 


there's some evidence from the workers -- for 


example, they say that the PE, the 


photoengraving work -- as you heard, some 


workers say the thorium runs persisted even 


after 1998, but well into the '90s, for sure. 


And I'm talking about production work now. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. And then that production 


was on behalf of AEC or non-AEC? 


 DR. MCKEEL: Not that we -- no, the only -- the 


only proof that we have of AEC thorium work was 


in the covered period, the 1957 to '60. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MCKEEL: And -- and all the subsequent work 


that I'm aware of was done for mili-- 95 


percent of it was military contractors. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. MCKEEL: DoD-type contractors, right. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Robert. 

 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Lockey, can I put into 

perspective here that on this Dow search -- 


document search that we've -- all went round 


and round on for months now, NIOSH asked Dow 

1 

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 

for documents under a certain set of criter-- 


for their criteria. The Senator's office asked 


Dow for documents under a -- a different set of 


criteria. Dow sent to us last Friday night at 


midnight 400 documents from Dow Madison, no 


documents from Rocky Flats, despite -- now not 


on Dow, but despite that they had -- their 


general counsel had told us they had thousands 


of boxes related to Rocky Flats. The question 


here is about thorium from Dow Madison to Rocky 


Flats. Dow Madison did a document search. 


They only sent us documents from Dow Madison, 


despite telling us they had documents from 


Rocky Flats. So it's important to keep that in 


mind, I think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Additional 


comments or questions? 


 DR. WADE: Could I just sort of summarize three 


issues? The first issue is you have a report 


from NIOSH in front of you that says grant the 


SEC during the covered period, based upon the 


inability to reconstruct thorium dose. Even 


though thorium was part of a commercial 


operation, that dose can be considered during 


the covered period. 

1 

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 

What's not stated in the recommendation that 


the Board can comment on is NIOSH claims it can 


reconstruct the uranium dose during the -- the 


residual period. That's an issue that's 


legitimate for the Board to consider and 


evaluate. 


And then the 700-pound gorilla is whether or 


not thorium work was AEC work. Now that's an 


issue that the Board can approach in a variety 


of ways, none of them directly, in my opinion. 


So I think those are the three things that you 


have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: One question. Is -- is it possible 


for us to get to the FUSRAP report personally? 


Is that on line anywhere? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly those are public 


reports. I'm not sure how helpful it will be ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: You're talking about the FUSRAP 


survey report? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I just wanted to have an 


opportunity to see for myself the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's --


 MS. MUNN: -- referencing itself time and time 

1 

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 

again. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's on the O drive. 


 MS. MUNN: It's -- okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in the document review -- 


and there's a Dow folder --


 MS. MUNN: Okay, if it's on --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it would be SE-- it's in 


the references for the evaluation report. 


 MS. MUNN: Fine, thanks. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Another comment? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, I'll say it on the record 


rather than trying to whisper it. At the last 


meeting the Board did ask SC&A to become 


familiar with the Dow SEC petition in 


anticipation of some downstream work. So I 


mean it's possible John Mauro might have a 


comment to make. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- John, this may be too 


early, but go -- if you have comments at this 


time or any input on -- from SC&A. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I could give you a summary of 


what we -- we were given the direction by the 


Board to perform a focused review and -- and we 


did. We reviewed all the documents that were 


in the folder, of course the evaluation 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 

94 

the petition. The team consisted of myself, a 


metallurgist with expertise in just this very 


subject, and a radiochemist with expertise in 


air sampling of thorium. And in fact we put 


together a working draft, I'm holding it in my 


hand, and -- to look at the issues as we've 


been discussing. None of -- none of these 


legal issues, but just simply the radiation 


protection, health physics, dose reconstruction 


issues. And we have come to certain 


observations in -- that we -- I'd be glad to 


offer. And of course, if so requested, we 


could deliver to you our written report. But 


this maybe constitutes a status report of what 


we found out to date. 


We have not looked at the 700 pages that showed 


up on Saturday, so that's -- so -- we looked at 


everything else before that. 


Bottom line. Uranium, the dose reconstruction 


during the covered period, '57 through '60, 


there is -- we agree with NIOSH that exposures 


to workers who were exposed to the uranium 


during the covered period while it was being 


rolled, extruded, is something that there is 


adequate information to perform dose 

1 

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 

reconstruction. 


 The residual uranium post, we believe that 


there is adequate information to reconstruct 


doses to the uranium. 


Now to move on to thorium, which we also looked 


at, is there sufficient information to 


reconstruct thorium exposures during the 


covered period. From what -- from the data 


that we reviewed, and we looked very carefully 


at this, we -- we believe we have a pretty good 


understanding of the alloying process that took 


place. It was -- the best way to describe it 


is it was a dangerous operation because you're 


working with molten magnesium, and there were 


explosions and fires that occurred, and air 


samples were taken at the time -- there were 


air samples, and we reviewed that data. Bottom 


line is that there was -- un-- under most 


occasions, they did not detect the presence of 


any thorium. Apparently there were some short-


lived radionuclides that became airborne and 


that were airborne, but it does not appear that 


the thorium was becoming readily airborne at 


high concentrations at -- because they bo-- 


were below the limits of detection. 

1 

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 

So we asked our radiochemist to do the best he 


can to figure out what the lower limits of 


detection were at the time, and that was -- and 


we did the best we can to come to grips with 


that. And the bottom line is that, depending 


on what assumptions you make on the type of 


sample that was collected, the duration of the 


sample, the volume of air, the counting time, 


what the lower limit of detection is, so we 


have a range of numbers but they were all low. 


That is, we're talking about concentrations on 


the order of one DAC following -- following 


these events. 


So -- now, that would be thorium that might 


emer-- come off from a -- an event, an 


incident. There's also a question regarding 


other types of activities that took place. Now 


here's where we don't have an answer for you. 


That is, beside those thorium measurements that 


were taken because of concern that there may 


have been some thorium becoming airborne during 


the alloying process and any transients that 


occurred during the alloying process, 


apparently there were lots of other activities 


going on that you may want to refer to 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 

97 

machining thorium or -- or handling in various 


ways. We do have data regarding various -- 


various thorium machining operations and in 


fact we discussed this in the past regarding 


Rocky Flats. So there is a lot of data related 


to what the levels of airborne dust loadings 


are associated with various machining 


operations. 


Now for tho-- now where we don't have 


information is there may have been certain 


unique activities associated with the 


management of the thorium metal, which was 


certainly there, that was different than the 


experience that -- that we have in our records 


-- for example, regarding the machining of -- 


or uranium and thorium that might be different. 


So we're at a place right now that's -- that 


says that from the information we have before 


us, the actual measured values, our 


understanding of the process, it -- it appears 


that the levels of thorium were not very high. 


They were below the limits of detection in 


general. And based on the literature for other 


operations that were reviewed from various 


publications where thorium was machined, 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 

98 

example, it appears that there's a way to place 


a plausible upper bound. 


What we don't know is that -- and we don't have 


an answer to is that there may have been 


certain types of activities related to the 


management, handling, machining of thorium, 


perhaps centering it, that we don't have 


information. So here's where I guess, to a 


degree, we're saying there's an unknown here 


that we did not research in depth, but -- so 


whether or not -- so -- so in a funny sort of 


way, we -- right now we can't say whether or 


not you could place a plausible upper bound on 


the thorium exposures. We -- we did not do 


enough research into it. But from the -- the 


literature that we did look at, it is not 


immediately apparent that there was a serious 


thorium problem, airborne, at the facility 


during the covered period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, John. NIOSH has 


indicated, however, an inability to reconstruct 


dose from thorium, perhaps because of some of 


those unknowns that you've identified, so that 


-- I'm trying to determine whether your bottom 


line is different -- it sounded like you 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 

99 

saying in general there may not have been 


serious thorium problems but you can't really 


pin that down and bound it completely -- 


DR. MAURO: At this time, that's correct, 


especially since we haven't looked at the 700 


pages that came in on Saturday. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, thank you. Dr. 

McKeel? 

 DR. MCKEEL: I just have one directly relevant 

thing. One of the issues about extrusion press 


operation is in some of the other sites that 


I've read about apparently it was -- it's 


fairly standard practice for radioactive 


extrusions -- radioactive metal extrusions to 


put a vacuum hood around the extrusion press 


where the metal extrusions come out and to 


collect it that way so it's completely 


important to know whether extrusion presses 


were or were not hooded, and the ones at Dow 


Madison were not hooded. And I think that John 


-- I mean I think that's something that must be 


clarified, because if you have the vacuum hood 


on there the dust concentrations are going to 


be way low compared to the others. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yeah -- 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 

100

 MR. STEPHAN: John, just as a follow-up -- Dr. 


Makhijani, I think you had a conversation with 


Bill Hoppe, one of the Dow workers, but have 


you been able to speak with any of the other 


workers of the -- at least of the 11 who 


testified about the shipments to Rocky Flats? 


Have you spoken to them about thorium? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) I have 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just to clarify, I -- I did not 


talk to Bill Hoppe about the conditions of the 


plant. I just talked to him about shipments to 


Rocky Flats and what he told me is part of our 


Rocky Flats report, although the interview was 


not published because of Privacy Act 


considerations. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps Bill Hoppe is still on the 


line. Are you, Bill? 


MR. HOPPE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have any additional 


comments on this? 


MR. HOPPE: Our (unintelligible) in shipping 


from '92 to -- I mean '62 to '75 is almost all 


thorium, Hk and Hm, went to like Rocky Flats, 

1 

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 

Martin Marietta or Lockheed -- there's others, 


I can't think right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


MR. HOPPE: But every time we put a label on it 


-- a shipping label, it had Department of Labor 


in care of, you know, like Rocky Flats, and we 


shipped a lot of metal to Rocky Flats 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Department of Labor, or do you -- 


did you mean Department of Energy? 


MR. HOPPE: -- (unintelligible) -- Huh? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Did you mean the Department of 


Energy or Department of Labor? 


MR. HOPPE: Department of Energy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Energy, okay, yeah, thank you. 


MR. HOPPE: It started out as DoD --


 MS. MUNN: It would have been AEC. 


MR. HOPPE: -- and then they went to DOE. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, okay. Thank you. 


MR. HOPPE: Down there. And then --


 MS. MUNN: But it would have been AEC or -- 


MR. HOPPE: -- Rocky Flats or Martin Marietta. 


Some of it would be (unintelligible) sheets and 


others would be real heavy (unintelligible), 


eight and ten inches, 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 

102

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Bill. 


 Board members -- okay, com-- 


UNIDENTIFIED: I'd like to make a comment 


myself. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Who is this? 


 MR. WIEDER: This is Art Wieder. I'd like to 


make a comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Art. Please go ahead. 


 MR. WIEDER: I -- I was a laborer, a painter 


and a brick layer at Dow Madison plant, and I 


was at the press when they was pushing the 


thorium, and some of the thorium, like when it 


was extruded, would come out and -- terrible 


(unintelligible), and they couldn't use that so 


they stored that in 2 building and that thorium 


stayed over there -- 2 building, which our 


paint shop was in 2 building, and it stayed 


over there for years and years and years and we 


worked around it, swept around it and 


everything else and it -- I don't know -- I 


heard just recently that they got it out of 


there. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. WIEDER: And that's my 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 

103

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: Can we assume that the petitioners 


have no problem with our parsing this question, 


because it clearly needs more definition than 


we have now, and moving forward with the 


petition that is before us now, with the 


understanding that we will further pursue an 


additional or extension of this SEC to cover 


additional dates for residual contamination. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I would like to say that the 


petitioners have very strong problems with 


that, and the reason why, Wanda, is that in 


February when we had the Dow SEC update, we 


clearly focused our concern on covering the 


residual period based on the 11 affidavits 


which I put on the record then and gave you a 


Powerpoint and gave you ex-- excerpts from the 


-- those sworn affidavits that said exactly 


what you heard from Bill Hoppe right now, that 


truckloads of thorium went to Rocky Flats. And 


so we've always contended from the outset that 


that was a major issue. Robert just read into 


the record again Larry Elliott's statements 


that he was well aware that a special aspect of 


this SEC was coverage of the residual period 

1 

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 

for the reasons that we stated. We -- we think 


-- we thought all along that those worker 


affidavits document that Dow Madison was 


supplying thorium to the Atomic Energy 


Commission at Rocky Flats. So now all we're 


doing today is giving you independent, 


additional conclusive evidence that some of the 


thorium work was AEC-related under a contract 


to the AEC, which we produced for you from 


Mallinckrodt. So I don't think this is a new 


issue that we're raising -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, I don't think --


 MS. MUNN: No, I don't --


 DR. ZIEMER: I think that's -- that's correct. 


We're trying to find a way forward that will 


try to address both of these, and -- and one 


possibility would be to take action on the 


immediate petition, and then take an additional 


action, perhaps to ask the Secretary to take 


what steps are needed within his purview to 


help move this definition forward in some way. 


What -- I think what we're trying to avoid is 


sabotaging the whole thing by providing a 


recommendation that can't be well implemented, 


so -- Robert, you have some additional comments 

1 

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 

on that? 


 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Ziemer, can -- can we 


condense down and maybe, you know, put in a -- 


I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a scientist. You 


know, I've heard the questions, but I haven't 


heard the answer as to why we -- we could not 


act on this residual period today. I mean I 


respect what you're charged with in terms of 


advising the Secretary and what you're -- what 


you're trying to accomplish and -- and 


certainly if we he-- if we hear an answer that 


precludes you --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, our con --


 MR. STEPHAN: -- from doing it, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- our concern --


 MR. STEPHAN: -- we haven't heard it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Our concern is implementing -- if 


the Board were to recommend that, the 


implementation goes back to Department of 


Labor, and -- and the change has to occur there 


in order for it to work. My -- the concern I 


just expressed was I don't want to sabotage the 


whole thing by having something that won't work 


that perhaps we can parse it in a way that says 


let's deal with the immediate petition 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 

106 

ask the Secretary -- and we can -- we can go on 


record as indicating the -- the Board's 


understanding of -- of -- or we could go on 


record as recommending that this period be 


extended and ask that the steps be taken so 


that it opens the way for the -- for it to 


happen. So I think that's what Wanda was 


getting at, to parse it out in a -- and we can 


do both steps here today, I think. 


 MS. MUNN: Exactly, and the second part of that 


would be also to further accommodate the 


process by -- by clarifying the definition from 


which the original concern -- as to what this 


facility was, and -- and identifying whether 


the word "products" in there adequately covers 


what we need. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think -- I think Dr. 


McKeel's made a compelling case to the Board 


for why it should be. Our -- our focus now is 


how can we accomplish this in a way that meets 


legal requirements and does not impede the 


whole thing. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Ziemer, just to clarify for 


Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Wieder, so on -- on your 


point, which I -- Deb and Dr. McKeel 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 

107 

just been discussing, we -- we think we 


understand it correctly. We agree, but I want 


to be careful not to speak for them in case I'm 


wrong. But Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Wieder, what -- 


what we're talking about here is if we lump in 


the residual period, because Mr. Hoppe is not 


covered under the current -- if we lump in the 


residual period with the current wording and 


the Secretary decides that doesn't work, then 


we lose --


 DR. ZIEMER: We lose time, right. 


 MR. STEPHAN: -- the 47 -- we lose the 47 


workers who are going to be covered under the 


83.14 and we have to start that process all 


over again. So we would be comfortable with -- 


I think what you're moving toward is the 83.14 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we're trying to find an 


expeditious way to --


 MR. STEPHAN: -- 83.14 today and I guess what 


you're saying -- an advisory opinion separately 


on the residual, we would be comfortable with 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to see -- to find a way to -- 


to get that definition changed so that Labor 

1 

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 

and -- and DOE actually will implement what we 


want done. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Right, we -- we agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm -- I say what we want 


done. We haven't taken any action yet so I 


don't want to -- and Liz, if you can add 


something from counsel here. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm not sure I can add 


something, I just want to clarify that it's not 


100 percent correct that just because -- if 


they were to agree to clump the whole thing 


together, the Secretary doesn't necessarily 


have to accept the recommendation of the Board. 


The Secretary could still parse it and say I'm 


adding this portion and not this portion, so 


it's not necessarily going to completely 


eliminate the 83.14 portion just because -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it may -- it may set that 


aside anyway if he doesn't feel that that's in 


the --


 DR. WADE: I think Jim has --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Robert. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Well, in light of that, then -- 


then our position would change and our position 


would be let's lump it together, let's put 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 

109 

in Labor's court -- who didn't bother to show 


up today -- and let -- let's see what we could 


do. If we're not going to lose the 83.14 and 


the Secretary can parse that out, then -- then 


we would encourage the Board to lump it 


together and see where we go. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure if -- Liz, is that 


what you were saying? 


 DR. WADE: I don't think we know that, and I 


don't think we want to make that judgment. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I can't say what the 


Secretary would do. I'm just telling you 


legally what his options would be. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: My recommendation would be 


that you give him the most direct guidance of 


what you want done. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Jim has --


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I just add -- I think there's 


another important reason to split this up, and 


that is the fact that we don't have before us 


information indicating that for the residual 

1 

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 

period that this group qualifies technically as 


an SEC. There's no -- NIOSH -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have an evaluation report 

--

 DR. MELIUS: -- NIOSH has not examined it, nor 

has SC&A, as to whether or not it's feasible to 


do dose reconstruction for that -- that time 


period. They've already made a ruling on the 


uranium finding, but they have not -- neither 


one of them has looked at the thorium issue. 


 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I would just like to -- I -- 


I -- I -- Jim, I -- with Dr. Melius, I 


certainly agree with what he says, but I would 


further add in the strongest possible way that 


we begged, we implored, we brought this issue 


up to NIOSH, and in fact I was quite shocked 


and dismayed when I saw the evaluation report 


on April the 13th and realized that after all 


our discussions there was not a more in-depth 


focused attempt to work out whether dose 


reconstruction was feasible during the residual 


period. I thought Larry and I honestly had a 


bargain about that and that would be 


forthcoming. And so when I wrote back my 


concerns about that evaluation report, 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 

111 

well represented in the list of concerns, why 


didn't you address this in a more comprehensive 


way. So given the fact that what we have 


today, I absolutely agree that residual period 


feasibility needs to be assessed, but I wish it 


had been done --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we understand. 

 DR. MCKEEL: -- in a more timely way. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you. 

 DR. MELIUS: And can I just add -- I mean I 

completely agree with you on that, and I was 


concerned also and I think to some extent the 


Board should have tried to follow up more 


vigorously to -- to try to address that, but we 


weren't -- we weren't aware of all that was 


going on, but -- but despite that, we're still 


stuck with -- that delay, we're still stuck 


without the necessary information and to put 


forward a recommendation that's -- doesn't have 


adequate justification would just be another, 


you know, potential avenue to delay this or for 


the Secretary to send that -- that back and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, 'cause the Secretary wouldn't 


have the full set of tools he requires then. 


 DR. MELIUS: And -- and I would add, 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 

112 

as part of our way of moving forward, that we 


need to ask NI-- you know, NIOSH to -- in a 


very timely fashion to address that deficit and 


-- deficiency and provide us with information. 


I think we should also ask SC&A to -- in 


parallel to -- to also get involved in -- and 


look at that residual period also and the 


question of dose reconstruction, and I would 


much prefer that we not have another informal 


presentation from SC&A, which I found to be 


extremely confusing and disturbing, but that we 


-- we actually have a formal report and a 


formal presentation at our next meeting about 


this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. In -- in order 


to move things forward, I think it would be 


appropriate if the Chair now called on -- if 


anyone wished to make a motion on the report 


that we have before us, which is the evaluation 


report on the petition. 


Okay, we've got Wanda and Jim both vying for -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well, go ahead, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, my only question -- it's 


sort of the prerogative of the Board, I have 


actually prepared a letter which I can read. 

1 

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 

It's not been copied yet 'cause I've been 


working on it --


 DR. ZIEMER: Please read your letter. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- during the presentation, so 


bear with me. If the computer works, we'll -- 


that deals with this first section and might 


facilitate us moving forward. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is a motion that is actually 


in the form of our usual motions then. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. MELIUS: And I will start reading. The 

Board recommends that the following letter be 


transmitted to the Secretary of Health and 


Human Services within 21 days so that should 


the Chair become of any issue which, in his 


judgment, would preclude the transmittal of 


this letter within that time period, the Board 


requests that he promptly informs the Board of 


the delay and the reasons for this delay, that 


he immediately works with NIOSH to schedule 


emergency meeting of the Board to discuss this 


issue. 


The letter. The Advisory Board on Radiation 


and Worker Health, parentheses, the Board, has 

1 

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 

evaluated SEC petition 0079 concerning workers 


at the Madison, Illinois -- let me -- at the 


Dow Chemical Company Madison, Illinois facility 


under the statutory requirements established by 


EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 


83.13 and 42 CFR Section 83.14. The Board 


respectfully recommends a Special Exposure 


Cohort, parentheses, SEC, close parentheses, be 


accorded to all AWE employees who were 


monitored, or should have been monitored, for 


exposure to thorium radionuclides while working 


at the Dow Chemical Company Madison site for a 


number of work days aggregating at least 250 


work days during the period from January 1st, 


1957 through December 31st, 1960, or in 


combination with work days within the 


parameters established for one or more other 


classes of employees in the SEC. The Board 


notes that although NIOSH found that they were 


unable to completely reconstruction radiation 


doses for these employees, they believe that 


they are able to reconstruct components of the 


internal dose, including uranium; external 


exposures from radi-- all radionuclides except 


thorium, and occupational medical doses 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 

115 

this class of workers and therefore individuals 


with non-presumptive cancers may be considered 


for partial dose reconstructions. This 


recommendation is based on the following 


factors: 


 Number one, people working at the Dow Chemical 


Company Madison site were involved in various 


industrial operations involving uranium and 


thorium. The NIOSH review of the available 


monitoring data found that there was -- there 


were not sufficient data available to estimate 


the internal and external doses from exposure 


to thorium. Therefore, NIOSH concluded that 


individual dose reconstructions are not 


feasible for working -- for people working in 


this facility during the time period in 


question. The Board concurs with this 


conclusion. 


Number three, NIOSH determined that health may 


have been endangered for workers at the Dow 


Chemical Company Madison site during the time 


period in question. The Board concurs with 


this determination. 


Enclosed is supporting documentation from the 


recent Advisory Board meeting held in Denver, 

1 

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 

Colorado where this Special Exposure Cohort was 


discussed. If any of these items are 


unavailable at this time, they will follow 


shortly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there a second to the 


motion? 


 MS. MUNN: (Indicating) 


 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we've got several seconds. 


Is there any discussion? 


 Yes, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I just want -- I don't know if 


Stu is still around, but I -- I think we need 


to maybe for the record understand a little 


more of -- of why -- and I know NIOSH concluded 


they couldn't reconstruct thorium dose. I just 


want to know specifically there's -- is it 


extent of operations -- I -- I want some 


reasoning -- rationale for why it's -- can't be 


bounded. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, he -- Stu did step out, but 


I'll try to do some justice to this question, 


and if he steps back in he can -- seek more 


from him. I believe Stu would say to you that 


-- that we feel that the thorium 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 

117 

operations were so diverse, they included a lot 


of different types of processing work and 


handling the -- the thorium-based materials and 


the alloys that were -- were created. There 


were -- there were chemistry proc-- related 


processes involved. It went beyond just -- 


just extruding metal or manipulating the metal 


itself, physically manipulating the metal. The 


data that we do have for thorium does not give 


us enough information about the -- the 


distribution of exposures from these various 


diverse activities. We can't be sure what type 


of internal dose could have been acquired in 


interacting with the diverse operations. There 


may be enough that we can look at external 


dose, but we haven't really, you know, sorted 


all of that out yet, so add on internal dose to 


thorium as an issue. But he can elaborate more 


if you want more. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe Jim can also step on that 


then. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I think there's a couple of 


other areas more specifically that -- that we 


were looking at. One of those is the -- and 


John I think did a pretty good job 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 

118 

how the chemistry of making mag-- 


thorium/magnesium alloy occurs, and we think 


those operations are fairly well covered, to a 


large extent, although Stu did mention the 


ventilations in the plant and stuff could vary. 


But there were also some indications that there 


were operations where the material congealed in 


the bottom of these vats and they were chipping 


away at these materials to remove them out of 


the vats, so this is a lot of thorium activity 


there, as well as some indication there may 


have been a -- fires that occurred when they 


were dumping in the thorium into the vats 


themselves. And in addition there's a thorium 


source term -- thoron source term associated 


with this of an indeterminate amount because of 


the degree of in-growth of -- of the -- of the 


daughter products from the thorium material 


that they received. And I think -- to my 


knowledge, there's only one thoron air sample 


available for this plant, so that -- that 


exposure pathway is -- is not able to be 


reconstructed with sufficient accuracy, as 


well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 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 

119

 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Jim. That's what I -- 

 DR. MCKEEL: Can I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MCKEEL: I just want one brief comment -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: You bet. 

 DR. MCKEEL: -- on the record. This -- this is 

very important. Ev-- everybody at NIOSH is now 


talking -- and we're bantering back and forth 


all the monitoring data that they have, and I 


just wanted to put on the record that I have 


not been given a single datapoint from that 


plant at all, and we've asked for it 


repeatedly. And the -- the -- the two 


documents we're talking about, the Silverstein 


'57 and the AEC '60, I've asked for those 


documents, too, and I think there's a fairness 


principle that the petitioner is supposed to be 


afforded the documents that NIOSH has, and I 


haven't gotten -- I have not seen that at all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MCKEEL: So I can't even react to this -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MCKEEL: -- in any way. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's make sure -- certainly the 


petitioner's entitled to that information. 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 

120 

not sure why we -- will someone follow up on 


that? 


 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I can -- I can tell you that 


I asked for all of that data on April the 16th 


in a letter to Larry Elliott, and it just 


hadn't been produced so I'd -- I'd appreciate 


getting that. 


 DR. WADE: We'll follow up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll follow up. Yeah, thank you. 


 I'm just noticing something in our wording -- 


in our boilerplate wording which we have been 


using where we say we are recommending a 


Special Exposure Cohort for these individuals. 


Now actually, technically, there is one Special 


Exposure Cohort, and all of these groups become 


mem-- classes of the cohort. This is not a new 


SEC. I think our wording, Jim -- and this 


would be a friendly amendment -- would be to -- 


we might say recommend Special Exposure Cohort 


status or something like that, but we are not 


recommending a new Special Exposure Cohort. 


There is only one Special Exposure Cohort and 


all the groups become mem-- classes in the 


cohort. So would -- without objection, can we 


modify that a little bit so that 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 

121

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's technically correct. 


We've been using this language right along and 


I suddenly realized it probably -- it -- the 


Secretary is able to understand what we really 


mean and give the right language to Congress, 


but perhaps we can modify that. 


 Any discussion on this motion? 


 (No responses) 


 Are you ready to vote? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. All in favor of the motion, raise your 


right hand. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


And there appear to be no noes and no 


abstentions. The motion carries. 


 DR. WADE: The motion -- yeah, the motion 


carries unanimously. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. It would be 


appropriate to have a follow-up motion dealing 


with the issue of the extension of time. Jim, 


are you prepared to make a motion or -- because 


what I was going to say, we may need some 


wordsmithing and if so we can move ahead and 


then return to this, but... 

1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: Depends on -- whatever people -- 


let me wri-- let's come back to it. That may 


be better. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What I'm going to suggest is that 


-- in -- in fact, let me ask if -- I'll do this 


in a general way. Does the Board wish to have 


a motion where we can deal with the issue of 


extending the covered period? Is there general 


agreement that we would like to have such a 


motion; and if so, it would include some 


tasking issues related to that. 


 Wanda, a comment? 


 MS. MUNN: Very much in favor of having such a 


motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- it seems to be -- 


 MS. MUNN: The wording of it seems to be 


critical and probably will take more than five 


minutes to do. Perhaps we could take a 20­

minute break and give Dr. Melius some -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, I was hoping we would 


plow ahead without breaks and people would take 


them as needed, but we may need to -- we may 


need to do that. Maybe a ten-minute comfort 


break, but we need a couple of people to 


develop some wording. Let me -- who's 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 

123 

volunteer --


 DR. MELIUS: I'll develop some. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim -- and Wanda can -- will help 


you, if needed. She's a word expert. But 


let's make sure we cover requesting the 


Secretary to do some things on behalf of -- or 


-- think about the Secretary's involvement, if 


we wish to make it a recommendation to the 


Secretary, and then whatever tasking we need 


for our contractors and whatever we request -- 


 DR. WADE: And NIOSH. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- NIOSH to do so that we can be 


prepared to take action. And so we'd have two 


things going on. One would be the change of 


the -- the definition of the covered period, 


and the other would be the evaluation of 


whether dose can be reconstructed during that 


period. 


 DR. WADE: Right. I need to say for the record 


that if the Board tasks NIOSH and SC&A to 


evaluate the question of whether thorium dose 


can be reconstructed during the residual 


period, that you're asking them to -- to 


evaluate a hypothetical at this point because 


at this point thorium dose during the residual 

1 

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 

period is not on the table. If our other 


actions are successful, then that issue could 


be on the table. And I don't want to create a 


situation where NIOSH could come back and say 


we cannot reconstruct thorium dose, and then 


the assumption be made that that immediately 


would qualify for an SEC. We have to deal with 


the issue of whether thorium dose is legitimate 


to consider during the residual contamination 


period. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes, but --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I just clarify? I mean I also 

think we need a -- need to make sure this is 


done in an expeditious manner, and -- and I 


think that's the -- I think it's understood 


that there are -- it's hypothetical, to some 


extent, but at the same time I don't think we 


want to have a sequential series of meetings to 


address this. 


 DR. WADE: I agree completely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So let's go ahead and take 


as brief a break as we can, ten-minute break -- 


comfort break, and we'll go from there. Thank 


you. 

125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. WADE: Come back to Chapman Valve. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then we'll come back to 


Chapman Valve, as well. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:43 a.m. 


to 11:00 a.m.) 


CHAPMAN VALVE SEC PETITION
 

DR. GEN ROESSLER, WORK GROUP CHAIR
 

PETITIONER


 DR. ZIEMER: Let’s get started again. We have 


the Chapman Valve petition to do. Maybe we'll 


go ahead -- are we ready to go ahead with that, 


'cause Jim is still working on the wording of 


the --


 DR. WADE: Jim is going to do a -- Jim Neton 


will do a brief presentation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. This is Chapman Valve, and 


between Gen Roessler and Jim Neton we'll come 


up --


DR. NETON: We'll tag-team here. I just have a 


few brief opening remarks to remind the Board 


as to a little bit about the history of what's 


-- what's gone on at Chapman Valve and what 


happened there during the AEC or AWE period. 


 If you recall, Chapman Valve evaluation report 


was presented at the Las Vegas Board meeting in 


September of 2006, and it was recommended by 


NIOSH that we can do dose reconstructions 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 

126 

this class, they were feasible, and essentially 


that the class would be denied based on the 


proposed definition. I know Dr. Roessler has a 


lot -- detail about all this behind us, but I 


just want to remind her that we had presented 


that in Las Vegas. 


And just a little brief sketch as to what 


happened -- transpired at the Chapman Valve 


facility, they had a two-year contract period 


to do AEC work to machine uranium slugs for the 


Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor. That is, 


they started with -- remember Sam Glover talked 


about the rods yesterday. They weren't 


necessarily those rods, but 12- to 15-foot 


length rods, nominally one-inch diameter. They 


were segmented into four-inch pieces and then 


machined to the exact specifications that 


Brookhaven Reactor needed. They took some 


outer dimensions off of them and machined in a 


little button and put a slot in them. That was 


the extent of their operations with the -- with 


the slugs. 


So as a machine shop, this involved, you know, 


lathe operations, grinding, cutting, that sort 


of thing that you'd normally experience in 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 

127 

machine shop. 


The operation was fairly small, as some of 


these sites go. It involved we believe less 


than 100 people who had Q clearances that were 


necessary to work on -- on this project. And 


we did have bioassay monitoring data and film 


badge data for a good portion of these workers. 


That's just a brief, thumbnail sketch of what 


went on there. We can discuss more in detail 


as we get into it, but I'll turn it over to the 


working group and Dr. Roessler. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay, thank you, Jim. The 


working group members are Dr. Poston, Brad 


Clawson, Mike Gibson, Mark Griffon and myself. 


Dr. Poston, as you know, can't be here today so 


he asked me if I'd make the presentation. I 


thought I'd give a little timeline here to show 


where the -- where we've been on this. 


In February, 2005 there was a worker outreach 


meeting at Western Massachusetts COSH office in 


Springfield, Massachusetts and at that time the 


TBD was approved. 


December, 2005 the Federal Register notice, 


Chapman Valve met the SEC minimum requirements 

1 

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 

for review and evaluation. 


Then in August, 2006 the SEC petition 


evaluation report was submitted. This is SEC00043. 


And as Jim mentioned, at the Board's September 


meeting in Las Vegas, the petition was 


discussed. NIOSH presented their information. 


SC&A was assigned to evaluate the site profile, 


and our working group was appointed. 


In October, 2006 the TBD revision was 


submitted. 


In November, November 28th, our working group 


chair, Dr. Poston, accompanied SC&A staff on a 


trip to the site and participated in a tour and 


interviews with the petitioners and workers. 


We held our first working group meeting. It 


was face-to-face in Cincinnati -- well, not 


really Cincinnati, but at the Cincinnati 


Airport, as everyone knows we do. That meeting 


was quite productive. At that time NIOSH 


mentioned that they had a good bit of data. 


think already at that point they felt they 


could do dose reconstruction, but a new report 


had been found that they felt would really 


support all of their work, and I'll mention 


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 

129 

that report in a minute. 


We got the report, I think it was in early 


April, and we held a working group 


teleconference on April 23rd, and I'll mention 


our conclusions to that. 


Just to amplify a little bit what Jim said, the 


petition -- I've just copied down here and put 


a couple of things in parentheses just to 


clarify some dates. It's all AWE employees who 


were monitored, or should have been monitored, 


for radiological exposures while performing 


Atomic Energy Commission work in Building 23 -- 


I added the bold -- at the Chapman Valve 


Manufacturing Company in Indian Orchard, 


Massachusetts from January 1st, 1948 through 


December 31st, 1949. 


And then in parentheses I've broken down that 


time period. The first 16 months, January 


through April 30th, 1949, was the produc-- 


production period. Production then stopped, 


and from May to the end of December -- we'll 


call it a residual exposure period. Then back 


into the official wording -- and from January 


1st, 1991 through December 31st, 1993, another 


residual exposures period. 

1 

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 

I mentioned this report that NIOSH had hoped 


they would get. They did receive it. It's the 


-- called the H. K. Ferguson Report, Machining 


of Uranium for Brookhaven Reactor; was 


published June 15th, 1949. All the -- the 


Board got copies of this, the petitioners got 


copies of it, and I think it's available for 


anybody who wants it. If anyone in health 


physics has read it, I think you'll see it's a 


very impressive report. It describes -- and in 


-- for 1949, this is pretty impressive, 


procedures that we'd be proud of today. It 


also, in detail, describes the production 


schedule, the rates of production, the 


quantities. It has details of the operation 


with photos, maps and so on. 


 And the important thing -- or one of the 


important things -- in this report, it was 


known that there were minor fires, but the 


dates weren't known exactly. NIOSH felt they 


could handle that with their data and their 


urine bioassay information. But the fact that 


this report gave the exact dates then makes the 


NIOSH bioassay information even better. Talked 


about cleanup and decontamination and waste 

1 

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 

disposal. 


As you've heard, and if you remember from the 


Las Vegas meeting, even at that time NIOSH felt 


that they had plenty of data to generate 


bounding estimates. Chapman Valve had a good, 


strong health physics program. The -- it was a 


small program, small number of people. They 


had -- they have 40 bioassay samples, but 


because of the Ferguson report NIOSH has 


concluded they can better handle those bioassay 


samples now that we know the dates of the fire. 


And also additional information is available 


regarding the process information that's 


important to dose reconstruction. 


The working group then, through their two 


meetings -- primarily in the teleconference on 


April 23rd -- decided we agreed -- and this was 


unanimous, everybody in the working group has 


read what I've written here; and in fact SC&A 


has read it and agrees with this conclusion -- 


that the data for the first 16 months, this was 


the time of production, it depends heavily on 


the 40 bioassay samples and other information 


from the Ferguson report, and then information 


they had previously. The data for the May 1st 

1 

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 

through December 31st period, the residual 


exposures period, depends on the FUSRAP data. 


And for the January 1st, 1991 to December 31st, 


1993, primarily the site characterization that 


was done in 1991 is the source of information 


to do dose reconstruction. 


So the conclusions from the working group -- 


and as I've stated, I feel -- we feel unanimous 


on this, have concurrence from the SC&A staff ­

- we conclude that the NIOSH approach to dose 


reconstruction will provide bounding but 


claimant-favorable estimates of dose to the 


workers at Chapman Valve over the periods of 


interest in this petition. 


So based on this conclusion, the working group 


does not recommend that SEC status is warranted 


for the Chapman Valve employees. 


So that's the end of our working group report. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I understand 


that possibly Portia Wu from Senator Kennedy's 


office may be on the phone --


 DR. WADE: She's not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not? Is --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 11:30. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: May be coming on (unintelligible) 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) and she'll be 


back on the call at 11:30. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. How about William 


Powers from Representative Neal's office? 


Okay. Thank you. This report is open for 


discussion and action. Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- I think just one thing 


to add. I'm not -- I think we ha-- we might 


need a motion similar to what we just talked 


about with Dow on this. We already -- in the 


workgroup process we brought up the question of 


operations outside the defined period of time ­

- outs-- outside the defined -- covered time 


period, sorry, and this came up because of a -- 


a potential enriched uranium sample, it's not 


completely sure if it's a -- it's a valid 


sample or whatever, but there was some 


potential that there might be some enriched 


uranium there, which led to -- there was also 


some interviews, or at least one interview of 


an individual that did identify some other 


potential work, possibly in another area, prior 


to the defined time period. 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 

134 

Larry already has this information. I think 


NIOSH did pass this along to DOL. I don't know 


if we need a formal motion to make sure we -- 


we consider time periods outside the defined 


time frame or if that's underway. I just 


wanted to make sure people knew about it. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: If I -- if I could, it's good to 


get it on the record, Mark -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and you -- the working group 


asked that NIOSH send a letter on this issue 


about Chapman Valve and the enriched uranium 


sample, et cetera. That letter went out -- it 


was sent to DOL and to DOE, asking them to look 


into this for -- for the Chapman Valve 


petition. We've not heard anything back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Phil? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes, I've got a question. 


Maybe somebody could answer this. On the 


second residual period, was there any bioassay 


samples? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton -- Neton? 


DR. NETON: No, there are no bioassay samples 


during the residual period. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: What kind of film badging 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 

135 

done, if any? 


DR. NETON: We have no -- no film badge data 


for the residual period, as well. We have no 


indication that workers were actually actively 


working in those areas, but we based it on the 


dose rates that were obtained during the FUSRAP 


characterization where they had gamma 


measurements about the facilities and what the 


levels of contamination were -- residual 


contamination was left in the building. So 


it's -- it's sort of our standard residual 


contamination model for those periods. 


There was a fairly concerted cleanup effort 


that's documented in the Ferguson report as to 


what levels they decontaminated the building 


to, so we have a fairly good handle on what was 


left there. And then we would use resuspension 


factors that we would typically do in those 


periods to estimate internal dose, and then 


first principle gamma dose rates coming off of 


what's left. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, one question for you, Larry. 


What was the -- when did you write to DOL and 


DOE about that issue? 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: The letter that I wrote to DOE 


and DOL spoke about what Mark just referred to, 


the --


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- the issue of one enriched 


uranium sample, questioning whether or not 


there was any other AEC-related work -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- beyond what we understand in 


the class -- or in the, excuse me, facility 


designation. 


 DR. MELIUS: And when -- my question was when 


did you write that. You said you --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, I'm sorry --


 DR. MELIUS: -- hadn't received a response and 


I was ask-- trying to figure out how long has 


it been, is it --


 MR. ELLIOTT: It was --


 DR. MELIUS: -- a week or --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- close to two or three days 


after the working group meeting when they asked 


me to do this. I don't have the letter in 


front of me. I don't know exactly what the 


date was. 


DR. ROESSLER: Is that the April 23rd -- 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: April 23rd? 

 MR. GRIFFON: No, it was the one before that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The one before that. 

DR. ROESSLER: February. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: So it's --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I asked Libby where they were at 


on this when I saw her day before yesterday, 


and she said they were still trying to explore 


whether there was any documentation to support 


such. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is there --


 DR. ZIEMER: Wait a minute, hang on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I'm sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: No, go ahead. Go ahead, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to ask -- and 


I'm on the workgroup, but we've got so many 


sites juggling around in our heads -- I thought 


there was a time period where you were looking 


for more information on the remediation 


aspects, or -- or is that -- just the '91-'93 ­

-


DR. NETON: That's correct, that's the reason 


that this class definition stops at 1993. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: I just wanted to make sure -- 


DR. NETON: There was a -- a --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- Phil knew that. Yeah. 


DR. NETON: There was a DOE remediation that 


was conducted in 1994 to 1995 -- I should have 


mentioned, that's a good point, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: We don't have -- we're still 


searching for information -- I believe that was 


Bechtel that was doing that remediation and 


we've got -- have requests for information in 


to them for those two years, and as soon as we 


find that out then we can weigh in as to 


whether or not we can do dose reconstructions 


for the '45 -- or '94/'95 time period, so we 


purposely truncated this at '93 because that's 


the extent of where we felt we had sufficient 


information to evaluate. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the '91 and '93 time frame 


was not the people that were doing the FUSRAP 


cleanup. That was --


DR. NETON: No, that was just the FUSRAP data 


that was used to estim-- to do the residual 


contamination model. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But why was that '91 to '93, why 

1 

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 

not before '91 -- I'm -- refreshing 


(unintelligible) --


DR. NETON: '91 is also covered. The petition 


-- the original proposed -- the definition 


proposed by the petitioners asked for us to 


look at '48, 49 and '91 to '95. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. NETON: So that's what we did, and then we 


said '91 to '93 for the reason that we just 


discussed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: It would seem unwise for us to 


continue to postpone action on this on the 


assumption that some other information may be 


developed. If some other information is 


developed for some other period, nothing 


precludes our taking that into consideration at 


that time. Am I incorrect? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Huh-uh. 


 MS. MUNN: Then if that's the case, I would 


move that we accept the recommendation of the 


working group and pass that recommendation on 


to the Secretary, recommending that the SEC, as 


stated, be -- not be accepted. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you've heard the motion. 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 

140 

there a second? 


 MR. CLAWSON: I second it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Further discussion? 

Dr. Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'll actually object to 

that. I think, given that there's at least two 


requests out for additional information, seems 


to me it's just easier to postpone and let's 


see if anything comes back. I think some of 


these requests are relatively recent and let's, 


you know, keep this open, get the information 


back -- unless I'm misunderstanding some of the 


time periods involved. 


DR. NETON: I'm sorry, I might've -- I had a 


sidebar conversation; I might have missed 


something. But I want to be clear that the 


requests for additional information are outside 


the current designated covered period on the 


DOE web site. This is a -- the -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


DR. NETON: -- the main impetus was the fact 


that a worker interview with one of the SC&A 


members had recalled that they -- they had done 


some work with -- what were they -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 

1 

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 

(Unintelligible) 


DR. NETON: Yeah, Arjun -- Arjun can explain 


better, but it gave some indications that it 


would have been maybe some -- some work from 


Oak Ridge involving enriched uranium 


operations, but it would have preceded the 1948 


period. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, during the interview there 


was a worker who'd worked in a different part 


of the project during the Manhattan Project, 


and the worker was very clear that this was 


during the Manhattan Project, that there had 


been equipment from Oak Ridge that appeared to 


be -- to me, when I researched it later -- from 


the electromagnetic separation project there 


during the Manhattan Project. And this worker 


was also reasonably clear that shortly after 


the end of World War II, sometime probably in 


early '46, that that operation had terminated. 


 The other relevant pieces of information are 


that this worker knew where that work was 


carried out. It was in a different facility. 


And the explanation for the enriched uranium 


sample at the site was that the equipment, 


which was rather large, came from Oak Ridge by 

1 

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 

train to the main site and then was transferred 


to -- by -- to a truck, so that if there had 


been contamination on this equipment of 


enriched uranium, you'd have an explanation for 


why there was only a little bit found at the 


main site. 


So those are the relevant details. 


DR. NETON: So not only is this outside the 


covered period, it would be also a different 


facility because, as Arjun said, this was 


shipped off to a -- sort of a small operation, 


I envision like a garage almost, somewhere 


where (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I mean I -- I think 


what -- what -- where I came down on this was 


basically that there's at least enough 


questions out there that we need to -- to look 


into this further, but everything that -- that 


we had in front of us suggested that for the 


time period of concern, they had it covered. 


And I -- I don't want to -- you know, this 


operation did -- was based on what Arjun said, 


that was the interview, but the U-235 sample I 


think was in the -- near the other building 


where we -- where we were -- you know, 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 

143 

building we're considering on this, you know, 


so I don't know, there -- there's a -- question 


marks here and I asked that -- that we -- we 


just explore that. I don't think it affects 


the covered time frame for this decision. And 


in that later time period, that was '91 through 


'95, as I understand it, was proposed by the 


petitioner -- the '91 through '95 time frame 


was proposed by the petitioner, and '93 through 


'95 is the -- is the question mark there. And 


I -- I asked -- I mean there should be -- if 


Battelle did the remediation, there should be 


Battelle reports. There -- the waste was 


shipped to Envirocare of Utah. There might be 


information there that at least gives us a 


sense of the magnitude of the operation, that 


sort of thing. So that -- that's what we want 


to pursue there. But everything we have 


suggests during that operational period, as 


defined by -- by the petition-- or by the-- by 


DOL that -- that they can reconstruct doses. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: I have one further clarification. 


My understanding from the web site is that SC&A 


did a report on -- is it a site profile 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 

144 

Did they ever put anything in writing regarding 


-- a report regarding the SEC, or do I have 


this wrong? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, we delivered to -- to the 


Board on December 6th an SEC, as you requested, 


review and I'm holding in my hands and you 


folks have already received it. I do note -- I 


do not believe it's on the -- on the open web 


because there are a lot of PA -- there are a 


lot of names in here, and I don't believe it 


has yet gone through P-- PA clearance. You 


have this -- but the Board has this report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- but -- but the petitioner 


probably doesn't have it. Right? 


DR. MAURO: The petitioner probably doesn't 


have this report --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- that's correct. 


 DR. MELIUS: In five months we can't get 


Privacy Act clearance on a doc-- I mean -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- it's ridiculous. 


 DR. WADE: I don't know. We'll have to 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to 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 

145

 DR. MELIUS: Well... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that the status of it, as far 


as you know? 


 DR. MELIUS: It's certainly not on the web 


site, I can tell you that. I looked, that's 


why --


 MS. MUNN: That's why. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: That's why. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I know, I... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Further discussion -- 


Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Do we have petitioners whose claim 


falls outside this time period that we're 


looking at? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Do we have claimants. I shouldn't 


say petitioners; do we have claimants? 


DR. NETON: No, if -- if they fall outside that 


time period, they're not eligible petitioner -- 


eligible claimants. 


 MS. MUNN: No, no, I mean claimants. I'm 


sorry, I used the wrong term. 


DR. NETON: But -- but we would only have 


claimants who are within the elig-- whose 

1 

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 

employment falls within the eligible period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Labor wouldn't send them forward. 


DR. NETON: Or are you talking about the 


'94/'95 time frame? I'm confused. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If they were outside the defined 


period, Labor --


DR. NETON: They're not coming --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- would not send them forward. 


DR. NETON: We would not have them in our 


possession if they're outside the covered 


period. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any further discussion? Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I -- I -- I mean -- I guess 


maybe, Wanda, what you're getting at -- I mean 


if in this investigation we find other 


activities, then DOL would expand that time 


period and then they may get other -- other 


people into the system. So right now, no, 


there's --


 MS. MUNN: No, that's what -- wasn't what I was 


asking. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 MS. MUNN: All I was asking is has -- do we 


have people who have presented claims to Labor 

1 

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 

whose claims -- whose -- whose employment 


period was outside --


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure we know what Labor 


has if Labor doesn't send them forward. 


 MS. MUNN: But we --


 DR. ZIEMER: We don't. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we do not have them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: By definition, we can't, yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We -- we only see the claims that 


DOL deems eligible under the -- 


 MS. MUNN: I understand. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- covered period. That's all we 


get. 


 MS. MUNN: I understand. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I have no idea what they -- what 


they turn away. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Sorry I (unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Further comments? We have a 


motion on the floor. Motion is to accept the 


working group's report and to recommend denial 


of the SEC. Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I just want to indicate that 


I am going to vote against the motion. I -- 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 

148 

really think -- it's the third example we've 


had at this meeting of, you know, significant 


delays and problems with petitioners and those 


outside this group getting access to documents 


that are -- are part of our deliberations. And 


we've had what we talked about today with the 


Dow site and Don (sic) -- Don's problems 


getting ac-- access to information. We had -- 


I mean which I thought was ever more egregious 


was with the Rocky Flats group not having the 


latest SC&A report. And now we have this 


report that hasn't been ab-- NIOSH hasn't been 


able to clear for Privacy Act consideration for 


six months -- excuse me, five months, don't 


want to exaggerate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen, do you know if the 


petitioners were involved in the discussions 


and whether or not they have -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes, as far --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the report? 


DR. ROESSLER: -- as far as I know, I think 


both at the meeting face-to-face and the 


teleconference, I'm pretty sure the petitioners 


were on the phone and they were aware of our 


discussions. And of course the petitioners 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 

149 

get that important Ferguson report. Board 


members got all of the reports from NIOSH and 


SC&A. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you know if the petitioners got 


the SC&A report? 


DR. ROESSLER: That I don't know. Maybe 


somebody --


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you know, John, if they did? 


DR. MAURO: It's my belief they have not, 


because I recall when I submitted the report it 


did have -- I did get some feedback that there 


-- to -- to the Board that there were -- there 


was information in there that was considered to 


be covered by Privacy and that it needed to be 


scrubbed, and I have not heard back since. So 


I'm not quite sure where the report is. I do 


not believe that it was distributed to the -- 


to -- to the petitioners at this point in time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Further comments 


or questions? Anyone wish to speak for or 


against the motion? 


Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I'm just wondering if, you 


know -- just, you know, should we allow time 


for that petitioner to rev-- I think it's only 

1 

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 

the one report from SC&A that the petitioner 


hasn't seen, and just postpone vote until -- 


we're -- we're going to have a June 12th 


meeting now, apparently. I don't think it -- 


it -- we have a -- a lengthy discussion, quite 


frankly, involved in Chapman. Maybe we could 


delay vote until that meeting, as well. I 


don't know. That's --


 DR. ZIEMER: Procedurally you could call for 


tabling the motion till a certain date. Mark ­

- Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: If we're going to have only a one-


day meeting in June, I think this -- what has 


transpired at this particular meeting makes it 


imminently clear to anyone who's paying 


attention that enough time has not been 


scheduled to adequately discuss these issues to 


the extent that the Board wishes to do so. So 


if we're going to have only a one-day meeting 


and we're talking about postponing first one, 


then two, now three issues for that particular 


time period, I believe we're fooling ourselves. 


It's -- from my perspective, these are never 


going to be easy decisions. We're never going 


to have full information. We're never 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 

151 

have the last detail that we would like to 


have, for many reasons. I believe it's 


incumbent upon us, it's part of our 


responsibility, to move forward with the 


information that we have. The working group 


spent a lot of time on it. They've reviewed 


the data that's there. Their recommendation 


appears perfectly valid. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Gen Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: Although I agree with what Wanda 


has said, I think this motion is kind of the 


opposite of what we're mostly dealing with. 


Quite often we want to act on a timely basis 


because we have petitioners who are hoping to ­

- to soon be compensated. In this case we say 


that the workgroup does not recommend the SEC 


status because NIOSH can do dose 


reconstructions. So I think it's a little 


different situation, so I don't really object 


to waiting. I think we could probably do it 


quickly at the June meeting. And I would like 


to have our workgroup chair present as we vote. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Michael? 


 MR. GIBSON: Are we tied into a one-day meeting 


in June? I mean could we make it two? 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 

152 

know, could we throw in our deliberations 


and... 


 DR. WADE: Once we get you together, might as 


well keep you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, my objection is not to the 


thoroughness of how we deliberated here, nor 


the -- the work of -- the actions of the 


workgroup. I think they've done fine. I --


there -- there is -- we have -- we have 


petitioners that have not been allowed to see a 


report that's been, you know, available for 


apparently -- should have been available for 


five months or some reasonable time period 


within that five months, and -- and to me, that 


just -- you know, blatantly unfair, the 


process. I mean I have more sympathy for some 


of the situations earlier where, you know, 


large amounts of information are -- come up in 


a short period of time or the -- with the Rocky 


Flats where there's a -- you know, a report 


that's done late because the workgroup's 


working very hard and SC&A to do a thorough job 


just beforehand. I think there's still some 


unfairness to that, but in this case it seems 

1 

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 

to me so blatant that people are -- and I think 


this has complicated -- my understanding is 


that at least one petitioner representatives 


died and so I think there's been maybe some 


problems on their end in terms of following up 


on this, but I -- I don't know that for sure, 


but it seems to me that to be fair, we -- we 


need to make all the information available that 


should be made available to the public and to 


the petitioners as part of this process -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and we haven't and -- and I 


agree with Gen, I don't see any problem with 


delaying this action. We're not -- we're not 


holding up claims and so forth. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Phil? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: I would definitely feel more 


comfortable putting this off for a little while 


until we find out a little more about the 


possible other residual period being added to 


this, plus the petitioners having a chance to 


go over what may be new information for them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim and then Gen, and again 


I'll remind you if the Board wishes to 


postpone, a motion to table would be in order. 

1 

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 

Okay, Jim. 


 DR. LOCKEY: You know, I agree with -- with Jim 


in that -- that I think the petitioners should 


have an opportunity to look at this. I'd like 


to ask NIOSH how quickly can you get it 


redacted? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: We have not received that 


report for redaction so therefore I cannot tell 


you how long it would take to redact it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I think we heard earlier 


that the report had been submitted for 


redaction. 


DR. MAURO: But -- but -- no, I submitted the 


report to the Board and to NIOSH, my 


distribution. I can't say whether or not it 


went on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well --


 DR. MELIUS: If I understand --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- regardless, it needs -- the 


process needs to occur. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Gen Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: I move to table. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 


 DR. MELIUS: I'll second. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: This is not a debatable motion. 


We will vote immediately. 


All in favor of tabling -- do you -- do you 


wish to specify when it comes off the table? 


That -- you -- you can include that as part of 


the tabling; otherwise it just goes on the 


table. It can come off at any time. You --


DR. ROESSLER: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) just leave (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, motion to table. All -- all 


in favor, raise your right hand. 


It's clear we have a majority. The motion --


motion --


 DR. WADE: It's unanimous. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Motion is tabled. 


 DR. WADE: Unanimous vote for tabling. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I make one additional comment, 


which I --


 DR. ZIEMER: You may. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- actually reiterate something I 


said before. I really think we need to 


straighten out -- I thought we had done it at 


the last meeting -- this whole sequence of how 


reports flow from SC&A through contracting 


office to NIOSH and so forth over this -- 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 

156 

Privacy Act and other considerations. We still 


seem to be having problems with them. I'm not 


sure if it's anybody's fault, but -- and some 


of it's simply I think some of the timing 


involved and so forth, but we really need to -- 


to get this straightened out, figure out what's 


out -- else might be out there that -- that has 


fallen between the cracks or whatever and -- 


and make sure that we have adequate timing on 


this. I know we put pressure on counsel's 


office to do things quickly, but same time, I 


think we -- we need to at least have some -- a 


better handle on this whole process so we know 


what's going on. 


 DR. WADE: I mean I'll take that as a 


responsibility. There is a procedure in place. 


My preliminary evaluation is the procedure in 


place went in place after the December report 


was submitted. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I suspect so, too, I -- 


 DR. WADE: But we'll look into it and we'll 


make sure that there's nothing else that's in 


that sort of limbo state. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


(Pause) 

1 

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 

ROCKY FLATS MOTION
 

I'd like to have Board members pull out the 


written copy of the Rocky Flats draft, the 


official motion. Let me ask you to make the 


friendly amendment in our boilerplate language 


where it says "the Board respec--" -- second 


paragraph, "The Board respectfully recommends a 


Special Exposure Cohort..." As I indicated 


before, this is not a separate cohort. It 


becomes part of the regular SEC, so I think the 


wording might be -- "Special Exposure Cohort 


status" --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- would cover it, I think, so 


just make that minor change. 


The Chair is also aware that the delegation 


from Colorado would like to have a chance to 


understand what the -- the definition of 


"monitored or should have been monitored for 


neutrons", who that actually covers. And they 


have asked that the submission to the Secretary 


perhaps be delayed from my usual 21-day time 


period which is imposed in -- by directive of 


this Board, and perhaps to speak to the 


proposed friendly amendment we can have input 

1 

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 

from the delegation. 


 MR. HILLER: Thanks, Dr. Ziemer. Again, I'm 


David Hiller from Senator Salazar's office, and 


our concern with the language of the -- of the 


current motion is regarding the -- the 


definition of the -- the group of workers that 


is subject to the -- the inclusion in the 


cohort, this 1952 to '58 group of workers, 


because we don't want the Board to recommend 


inclusion of a group and have the Secretary 


approve inclusion of a group of workers, only 


to have later confusion about which individual 


workers are -- are truly eligible for the 


inclusion in the cohort. And we don't want 


them to face another lengthy or difficult 


process to prove their eligibility. So what we 


request is the Board consider an amendment to 


the -- the current language here, as Dr. Ziemer 


indicated, number one, so that the -- the 


letter to the Secretary won't actually go out 


until after your June meeting; and secondly, 


that the Board in the meantime ask NIOSH and 


SCA to provide some guidance in terms of a 


description or definition of this group of 


workers who -- who would be eligible for 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 

159 

cohort. 


 Obviously our interest is that this be -- this 


group be defined or described in a way that is 


claimant friendly. But as I said, more than 


anything we want to make sure that these -- the 


workers that you intend to be eligible for this 


class don't end up facing yet another long 


administrative process down the road when they 


are actually applying for benefits as members 


of the cohort. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And as I indicated to David, the 


21 days is part of our standard procedure. It 


is not really part of the -- doesn't change the 


intent of yesterday's motion. It just is a 


procedural thing that assures that we don't 


delay in getting the materials to the 


Secretary. But that's a proc-- an internal 


procedure that, by agreement with the Board, we 


can readily change and modify that, so we can 


do that. 


 An additional comment here. 


 MS. ALBERG: Just really quickly, I'm Jeanette 


with Senator Allard's office, and based on the 


intent of the Congressional delegation letters 


-- letter yesterday, I think it might be safe 

1 

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 

to say that -- the other members aren't here, 


but they would be supportive of that request 


and -- and just to clarify, it's not 


necessarily asking for a delay as -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. ALBERG: -- as was mentioned. It's more 


along the lines of let's clarify -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Clarify who --


 MS. ALBERG: -- just to make sure that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- who is covered by this, we 


understand. 


 MS. ALBERG: -- we can expand this or -- or 


keep it as claimant friendly as possible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. ALBERG: So thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And -- okay, go ahead, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I suggest that we -- if my 


mathematics is correct -- we change it to 42 


days, which I think takes us past the next 


meeting -- and so forth. And then if it can be 


addressed, you know, in a shorter time period, 


fine, and then -- you know, if you receive 


communication --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- that people are satisfied -- 

1 

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 

this does -- as I think, you may have talked to 


Larry and -- Elliott and so forth, I mean -- 


involve some discussions with Department of 


Labor and so forth to -- to work this out and ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Without objection, we'll 


simply change this to 42 days. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: And for the record, I have a letter 


-- I won't read it -- a memo from Pete Turcic. 


We sent Pete the definition -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- he writes back raising certain 


questions. I think those questions would be 


best resolved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that will give an 


opportunity to resolve those questions. 


Board members, any other concerns with this 


wording? Yes, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Not necessarily concerns with the 


wording, since I helped draft it, but I -- I 


just wanted to, for the record, clarify that 


when we wrote this language, "monitored or 


should have been monitored for neutron 


exposures", the intent was to be as broad 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 

162 

possible. I think we -- we need to be clear -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think the delegation is -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for the record here --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- simply asking --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- who -- who exactly --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, I know, I know, and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- does that cover, and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I think we -- you know, I 


think we need to task --


 DR. ZIEMER: We also want to make sure it's -- 


it's enforceable in terms of how Labor would 


administer that, as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and we want to understand 


how Labor is going to interpret and -- and 


apply it, right, right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I also want to remind the Board 


that this motion, as it was approved yesterday, 


left open the other time periods. And this 


could leave a question in the Secretary's mind, 


since the main petition covers a much broader 


period. And one way to handle this would be to 


add a sentence at the end that would say 


something like this, and I'll offer t his up 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 

163 

a friendly amendment. "The Board is still 


considering the possible addition of workers to 


the class for the time period from -- the time 


period beyond 1958, and expects to make an 


additional recommendation to you -- the 


Secretary -- in the near future." It simply 


says, you know, we have not -- I'm trying to 


avoid the -- the idea that we're -- we're not 


dealing with the rest of this. It simply tells 


the Secretary we are going to continue to look 


at the other time periods and may have 


additional recommendations. 


 DR. MELIUS: I think -- I think the -- in 


general I agree with that. I think there may 


be a problem -- Mark, you can help me -- about 


before 1958 'cause --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- do any of these other areas -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think it's -- I think it's 


considering other classes. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The two things, thorium and the 


881 prior to 1960, obviously that's '52 through 


'60 so --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, 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 

164

 MR. GRIFFON: -- that would be in that period, 


sort of --


 DR. MELIUS: That's what I'm saying, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Adding other workers to the SEC 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I agree with the intent, I 


don't think we should put that time in there 


yet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But -- but anyway, that -- that 


would be -- we could add that if -- if you 


wish, just as a heads-up to the Secretary that 


there is more to come. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I'd accept that as a 


friendly amendment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So I would just add that at the 


end. And again, this is going to come back to 


us now, since we're holding it for basically a 


month till we get that definition, and at the 


next meeting I guess we would have a chance to 


affirm or determine whether any wording changes 


need to be made to -- to describe that -- that 


class that we've already designated. 


Any questions on that? 


 (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 

165 

Okay. Thank you. 


SCHEDULING


 DR. WADE: You want to try and deal with dates 


while people are still here? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: We have a call scheduled for the 


12th of June. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: One solution is a face-to-face 


meeting the 12th. Another solution is a faceto-face meeting the 11th and 12th. So I mean I 


ask for your consideration. Wanda makes a 


powerful point: To do justice to these complex 


issues takes time. A face-to-face meeting June 


11th and 12th --


 MS. MUNN: 11th and 12th. 


 DR. WADE: -- in Colorado? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay --


 MS. MUNN: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- shoot for that. 


 MS. MUNN: -- the question then arises whether 


-- if we're not going to be addressing the 


Rocky Flats issues --


 DR. WADE: Well, now we move to the second 


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 

166

 MS. MUNN: -- so roughly --


 DR. WADE: -- now that we have the 11th and 


12th on the calendar, does the 11th and 12th 


serve the purposes for Rocky Flats? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's the question. 


 DR. WADE: Now we have to ask that question. 


Robert? 


 MR. STEPHAN: We just wanted to make sure that 


-- oh, are we coming back to the second Dow 


Madison petition before everybody leaves? 


Motion, I mean -- Dow Madison motion? 


 DR. MELIUS: (Unintelligible) yes, we are. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, yeah, a 

separate --

 DR. MELIUS: Well... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Comment, Jim? 

MOTIONS FOR NIOSH TASKS


 DR. MELIUS: I don't know if this is the right 


timing on this, but there's this other piece of 


paper which (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, that's -- that's the -- 


 DR. MELIUS: -- (unintelligible) that may -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's the follow-up on this. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and whether the 11th and 12th 


is now realistic. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: We have the issues of tasking our 


contractor and also asking NIOSH to do some 


related things. And Board members, you have a 


document and -- is this a motion? 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Who's presenting this motion? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Jim (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, are you --

 DR. MELIUS: Mark and I also did this. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Would you read the motion? 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. It's in front of everybody. 

Thorium issue, SC&A has concluded that the 


NUREG.1400 -- 1400 approach is not appropriate 


or bounding. NIOSH contends that they have 


other process-specific data that could be used 


to bound worker doses. NIOSH needs to 


demonstrate this by documenting this new 


approach and completing example dose 


reconstructions. 


Building 881, there is no Building 881 external 


monitoring data the 1950s. NIOSH has provided 


information about the processes along with the 


data from the early 1960s, suggests that their 


coworker model may be used to bound gamma and 


beta doses for Building 881 workers. 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 

168 

needs to demonstrate this by documenting this 


new approach and completing example dose 


reconstructions. In addition, the possibility 


of plutonium exposures in this building needs 


to be addressed. 


Number three, neutron doses 1959 to 1970. The 


current NIOSH approach relies on application of 


a central estimate of a building-specific 


neutron/photon ratio to estimate doses. The 


workgroup has remaining questions whether this 


approach will be bounding for all workers. 


NIOSH has additional data that may be used to 


estimate a bounding neutron/photon ratio which 


could then be applied to bound worker doses 


during this time period. NIOSH needs to 


demonstrate this by documenting this new 


approach and completing example dose 


reconstructions. 


That -- that would be the motion in terms of 


giving instruction to NIOSH, trying to be as 


specific as possible without sort of tying -- 


tying their hands on this. And my -- my 


understanding from discussions was that I think 


there wa-- the first two I don't think were 


necessarily problematic in terms of timing by 

1 

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 

June. I'm not sure about the third one, the 


neutron dose issue. I don't know if anybody 


from NIOSH is here to speak to that, but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yes? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: What was the third issue? 


 DR. MELIUS: The neutron doses '59 to '70, 


whether --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: I thought Brant -- in 


discussions, just casual discussions, he seemed 


fairly confident they could address the issue 


in a reasonable time frame, so -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: But that's -- I can't speak to 


him. 


 DR. WADE: Where's Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: La-- Larry, in equally -- 


 DR. WADE: Get Jim Neton. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- Larry, in equally casual 


discussions, wasn't sure, so... 


 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


style, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well, this is the motion. 


Here's Jim, let's relay the question to Jim. 


 DR. WADE: And then John Mauro needs to be 


heard 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 

25 

170 

Jim, what we're doing is we're trying to deal 


with the issue of June 12th as a target date 


for the Board to be able to deal with the three 


open technical issues on Rocky Flats. There is 


wording that I'm sure you've seen -- 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- that tasks NIOSH with certain 


activities. Again, we want to -- what we're 


hoping for is the ability for NIOSH to do its 


work in a timely way that will allow for a 


review by SC&A and the Board leading up to a 


June --


 DR. ZIEMER: And the petitioners. 


 DR. WADE: -- and the petitioners, leading up 


to a June 12th decision. 


DR. NETON: I think two out of the three are 


doable in fairly short time frame. The 


neutron/photon ratio re-evaluation, though, 


could take some time. It's my understanding 


that's in an access database, so Brant would be 


in a better position to answer that, but -- is 


it -- is it going to follow that we would have 


a working group meeting in between to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I would assume we have to and -- 


and I -- I'm trying to estimate backwards -- 

1 

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 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I also don't want to get 


into a position where we deliver or don't 


deliver a -- you know, some kind of additional 


materials or report --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to the petitioner the day 


before we show up in Denver, you know -- 


DR. NETON: And one of my other concerns is I 


think there's a --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so... 


DR. NETON: -- the last sentence instructs us 


to evaluate potential plutonium exposures in 


881. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


DR. NETON: That -- of course you know that -- 


that could take more time than -- than we'd 


like. Sometimes these searches aren't, you 


know, immediate, but -- it -- it's hard -- it's 


hard to determine --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- if we could really meet the June 


12th deadline. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean maybe -- can I ask Joe 


from -- 'cause you've been the program director 

1 

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 

for this project from SC&A, what's your 


thoughts on the... 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think, you know, when 


we laid out this issue in the report, you know, 


we indicated that '59 to '70 would be a 


challenge. We raised a number of issues that 


would have to be addressed. I would share some 


reservations about not just simply the analysis 


from NIOSH, but whether we would in fact have 


the time and back-engineering -- you know, 


given the fact that the experiences we need a 


week to inform the Board and the Board having a 


chance to digest, if you back-engineer that 


time, it seems like we probably have a couple 


of weeks, literally, to be able to come up with 


some kind of resolution and have time to then, 


you know, bring that to the Board and then get 


the information out to the petitioners. So 


looking at that time frame -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was --


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- for that one issue, anyway. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- be -- trying to be 


realistic but also, you know, pushing this, I 


was thinking of a workgroup meeting in early 


June. But then that doesn't give us time 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 

173

 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- like you said, assess and get 


final report and get it to the petitioner for 


June 12th -- or 11th/12th, so... 


 MS. MUNN: Ought to be late in May, I think. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. But I mean I -- you know, 


I don't know if Jim has enough front time to -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's true. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So we have that issue. We 


also have the -- the interchange on the -- the 


definition of what is the exposed -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- should have been -- monitored 


and should have been monitored neutron worker ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- issue, so there's several 


issues that have to be resolved in a timely 


fashion so that we have the materials -- 


everyone has the materials, Board members, 


petitioners and our contractors -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, I think the lesson -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in a timely fashion. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- from this last time is even 


though everybody I think did everything 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 

174 

could, the process time is such that you just 


need that week, maybe week and a half, in order 


to accomplish at the end, and I think that's 


where the squeeze is going to happen -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- just back-engineering. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew's pulling out the schedule 


here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think --


 DR. WADE: The next meeting --


 DR. ZIEMER: We don't want to -- we don't want 


to come to a meeting and not be prepared, 


that's --


 DR. WADE: June 12th is a call; July 17, 18, 19 


face-to-face, September 4 a call; October 3, 4, 


5 face-to-face. So the next face-to-face is 


July 17, 18 and 19. 


 MS. MUNN: And then we skip all the way to 


October. Right? 


 DR. WADE: Right, July to -- then the next is 


October, with a call in September. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a long stretch. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's much -- much 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 

175 

realistic. I mean, you know, I know we have 


the timeliness issue on the table, certainly. 


But I -- I don't want to come back unprepared, 


you know, on these items, so -- you know, we 


have to have -- and we have to give -- we have 


to get this report to the petitioner at least a 


couple weeks in advance. To do that July 17th 


seems much more reasonable. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, what is your 


pleasure on this? The -- the motion is -- is 


to examine these issues, but we need to tie it 


in with a -- a specific action time. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, should -- well... 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm certainly hearing many 


reservations about the ability to accomplish 


this in a timely fashion so that we can act on 


it. Jim. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, I think just have an update 


in -- in the June call-in meeting about where 


we are in this process so we know we're on -- 


our -- our time line's suitable, and deal with 


it in July. That's what I propose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that certainly makes 


sense. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, if everything is ready by -- 

1 

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 

we sti-- you still need a couple of weeks. We 


have to make Federal Register notices and so 


on. 


 DR. WADE: Right, I -- I can do things in a 


couple of weeks. I mean -- what are you 


thinking of, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if -- if we -- if we find 


out, you know, by June 12th that things'll be 


ready in two weeks or something, do we -- do we 


still wait for five or six weeks? That's what 


I'm asking. How -- how rapidly can we get 

together? 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I raise a concern I -- we did 

publicly indicate to the petitioners and other 


people that are interested that we would deal 


with this on June 12th --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and we would be back here in -- 


in Denver, and -- and I'm concerned that we at 


least make some effort -- I think in order to 


be able to, you know, miss that deadline, I 


think one is we should talk about it with the 


petitioners; and secondly, we -- we ought to 


have good reason to, and -- but I -- and a 


sound rationale, and I frankly don't 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 

177 

have the information in front of us right now 


to be able to make that decision. I think 


NIOSH needs to think of -- look at what exactly 


needs to be done and how long that will take to 


do, and then work out a schedule, talk to SC&A 


and then maybe talk to Mark as chair of the 


workgroup to see what kind of schedule could be 


-- could be established and if June 12th is 


going to be feasible. And then are there 


alternatives for -- you know, June 19th or 


something. I mean we all -- we all have crazy 


schedules. I know that, and I'm not sure other 


days will -- what other dates would be 


feasible, but I think we -- we ought to first, 


you know, really take a look at -- at what -- 


whether June 12th can be met or not, and I 


don't think speculating on it without people 


having a time to (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me simply point out 


further that if that can't be done, you almost 


by default are making the case for -- that you 


can't move in a timely fashion -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to reach the decision -- 

 DR. MELIUS: 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 

178

 DR. ZIEMER: -- which is, certainly for the 


petitioners, is one of the main issues. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And if decision cannot be made in 


a timely fashion, then you -- it forces the 


Board, in a sense, to a default -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- position where you go with what 


you have and --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and -- because we'll never have 


100 percent of the information -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we know that, and what -- at 


some point you have to say enough is enough. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- okay. 


 DR. WADE: Also on the 12th it's not necessary 


that you do all of this. Possibly you could 


get together -- you do have the issue of the 


thorium definition. That's important. I don't 


think you want to wait for that beyond June 


12th. And possibly you can resolve one or two 


of these issues --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: -- and then schedule the other -- or 


as Paul said, face the fact that you can't do 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, David. 


 MR. HILLER: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. None of 


the leading representatives of the petitioners 


are here today, but I just want to echo Dr. 


Melius's comments that at -- at yesterday's 


meeting the motion that was passed, the 


decision that was made, indicated that this was 


going to be put off until June 12th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I think there's a 


commitment that was made and we need to honor 


that. 


 MR. HILLER: And -- and I want to ratify your 


comments that, again, timeliness is a crucial 


issue at this point, more then two years after 


this petition was filed. And sooner or later 


you have to make a decision based on available 


information, and if it -- if -- if the 


information isn't available, then that probably 


directs the Board's action. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, let's act on 


this motion then, and the motion then will -- 


if passed, would ask NIOSH and our contractor 

1 

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 

and the working group to follow up on these 


items in preparation for next month's meeting. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion? 

 (No responses) 

Okay, all in favor say aye. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 Motion carries. Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, and we have a quorum of the 


Board at the table. 


Now I'm going to schedule a face-to-face 


meeting of the Board for 11-12 June? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Full days, 11-12 June. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: And then I would suggest that when 


we have subsequent meetings, we plan on them 


being three full-day meetings from the 


beginning of the day to the end of the day. 


 MS. MUNN: The beginning perhaps being 9:00 


rather than 8:00, but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: The -- very quickly I just want to 


make sure -- oh, Portia, is Portia on the line 

1 

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 

now? 


 MS. WU: Yes, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, thank you. You -- you may -- 


may have already learned, or perhaps you 


didn't, that we have delayed or tabled action 


on the Chapman Valve -- 


 MS. WU: I heard that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. WU: And I don't -- I don't know if this is 


an appropriate time for me to (broken 


transmission) Senator Kennedy or if I can 


(unintelligible) later meeting or 


(unintelligible) but (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: We're having great difficulty 


hearing you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you're breaking up a little 


bit. Are you still on the line, Portia? 


 MS. WU: Yes, yes, I am (unintelligible) hear 


me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you're -- yeah, go ahead 


with your comments and -- can you hear us? 


 MS. WU: (Unintelligible) hear me on the phone, 


can't you? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, yes, we hear you, Portia. Go 


ahead. 

1 

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

 MS. WU: Okay, 'cause I think the phone people 


can hear me okay. I don't know 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. 


(NOTE: The audio was not properly connected 


and only random words were clearly 


understandable for transcription.) 


 MS. WU: (Unintelligible) Board recognize me, 


I'm sorry, I got (unintelligible) appreciate 


all the work (unintelligible) understand 


(unintelligible) some discussion about the H. 


K. Ferguson report which we also found very 


illuminating. (Unintelligible) not clear about 


is whether this report has also been provided 


the petitioners and --


DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MS. WU: -- (unintelligible) either, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Portia, the Ferguson report 


has been provided. The -- the question was on 


one of our --


 MS. WU: The SC&A report. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, the SC&A report. That needs 


to be redacted and we have delayed, for one 


reason, to make sure petitioners get that 


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 

183

 MS. WU: Okay. And another question I guess 


(unintelligible) so much detail, I guess it's a 


question for NIOSH. I know the site profile 


has been, you know, (unintelligible) and I know 


these are sort of living documents. Is there 


any sense of which further revision is 


contemplated based on subject knowledge or was 


that incorporated previously? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Your question is to NIOSH 


as to whether they will be updating the site 


profile based on the Ferguson report -- 


 MS. WU: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and here's Jim Neton. 


DR. NETON: Yes, we -- we will be looking at -- 


at the site profile in light of the information 


contained in the Ferguson report. Although I 


would say, based on our first pass through, it 


looks like it -- our site profile is either 


right in line with -- with what we would 


expect, or in some cases may be a little overly 


claimant favorable. So we wouldn't expect 


exposures to increase as a result of the 


Ferguson report, I guess is the bottom line. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MS. WU: I'm sure we (unintelligible). 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead, Portia. 


 MS. WU: And finally (unintelligible) 


discussion of the enriched uranium situation 


and (unintelligible) information 


(unintelligible) how that's being taken into 


account. And finally I guess (unintelligible) 


response -- a letter that we're still waiting 


for a response from DOL and DOE about this 


or... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, yeah, let's see, Jim Neton 


perhaps can answer part of that, at least. 


DR. NETON: We have not heard back from the DOE 


or the DOL on our letter that we sent out, 


probably several months ago now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, just -- just to -- and -- 


and to cover your first question, Portia, that 


-- that that letter was requesting more 


information about activities prior to the 


covered time frame, which might involve that 


enriched uranium, you know, question or... 


DR. NETON: Well, the letter actually requested 


DOE and DOL to evaluate if the covered period 


should be modified based on the new 


information. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I meant, yeah, 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 

185 

yeah. 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Go ahead, Portia. 


 MS. WU: Well, I guess I -- maybe I 


(unintelligible) out there. Senator Kennedy is 


very concerned about (unintelligible) and their 


exposures but appreciate the work -- work 


(unintelligible) been done and continue going 


back (unintelligible) about -- about the nature 


of the evidence that isn't available and 


(unintelligible) appreciate your taking the 


time to (unintelligible) questions about 


(unintelligible) certain about that, but I know 


(unintelligible) very hard. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, 


Portia. 


 MS. WU: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And is William Powers, has he come 


on the line yet from Representative Neal's 


office? 


 (No responses) 


 Apparently not. Phil, a question? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: 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 

186

 DR. ZIEMER: No? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Not anymore. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, make sure you also 


have a copy of the wording on the Los Alamos 


draft. It parallels the others. Are there any 


questions on it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have a Rocky question? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have a Rocky question? Oh, 


a question here --


UNIDENTIFIED: I just wanted to point out that 


the SC&A final report is still not available, 


either on line or in this room. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which -- which report? 


UNIDENTIFIED: The final SC&A report, the one 


that you didn't get to the petitioners. 


 MR. GRIFFON: For Rocky Flats, the sup-- sup-- 


UNIDENTIFIED: It's -- for Rocky Flats. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The supplemental --


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- or the final, yeah --


UNIDENTIFIED: The -- the last one, that you 


did not get to the petitioners. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that --


UNIDENTIFIED: It's not available anywhere 


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 

187

 DR. MELIUS: Because NIOSH sent out a -- I got 


an e-mail yesterday saying it was up on the web 


UNIDENTIFIED: I just looked and I didn't see 


it. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- okay, yeah. I haven't looked 


today, so -- yeah, thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Could we -- is there someone from 


NIOSH -- Jim, could you verify that, please? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I know that when they send out 


those e-mails about posting, there's usually a 


time delay of a few hours, at least. 


 MS. HOWELL: I know that I checked a couple of 


days ago and, to my knowledge -- but the 


supplement -- the supplement that was issued 


last week, is available, as well as the 


original report with the executive summary. 


What I'm not sure is available that has been 


returned to OCAS as of -- by SC&A because there 


was an SC&A formatting problem, and I believe 


it was returned to OCAS Monday or Tuesday of 


this week, is the 500-page attachment portion 


of the document. But the actual report and the 


supplement are on line and were on line as of 


Wednesday night because I checked. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. Well, we can 


resolve that separately off line here. 


 DR. WADE: If someone -- possibly we could get 


with you and verify that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. What do we have to cover? 


 DR. WADE: Now we have --


 MS. MUNN: Looking at Los Alamos. 


 DR. WADE: -- (unintelligible) the Sandia 


Livermore (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're ready for Sandia 


Livermore. Sam, you're still here, so take us 


through that, please. 


 DR. GLOVER: (Off microphone) Do you know the 


(unintelligible)? 


 DR. WADE: We expect to have a quorum of the 


Board for one hour, until 1:00 o'clock. 


(Pause) 


DR. ROESSLER: Five minutes to 1:00. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, wait a minute now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hold on just a moment. 


 DR. GLOVER: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: The Dow motions. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: We need -- we need action on the 


Dow --

1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: We -- we -- we have -- excuse me, 


Dow, Los -- Los Alamos -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Los Alamos -- I think copies 


were distributed. I just asked whether anyone 


had any wording problems. I'm going to take it 


by consent, since we approved it, that -- 


unless there's issues on the wording -- that 


that's okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, well, there -- there's 


another issue that the petitioners have asked 


us to raise -- I think (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: On Los Alamos? 


 DR. MELIUS: On Los Alamos. I think first, the 


letter stands by itself. It doesn't have to -- 


does not involve the letter, but there's 


something else I've --


 DR. WADE: Let's deal with it. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- been asked to bring up. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, go ahead. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. And this refers to the -- 

the issue of the changes that were made in the 


SEC evaluation report regarding non-covered 


buildings. And if you remember from 


discussions yesterday, they -- that NIOSH is 


going to give further consideration to a number 

1 

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 

of -- to evaluating a number of the -- these 


buildings in terms -- and I think the 


petitioners were concerned about if this were 


put in the report or part of the definition, 


then whether there had been full consideration 


and whether it would somehow un-- you know, 


unfairly limit who was eligible for the -- 


eligibility for -- for the class. 


So the motion would be that the Advisory Board 


-- Radiation and Worker Health recommends that 


NIOSH do -- provide further consideration -- 


locations listed -- it's in Table 5.1 in the 


report -- which is LANL -- number of LANL 


technical areas, operational dates and 


radionuclides, and there's listing TA-1, TA-1­

Z, TA-17-19-28, 34, 38, 57, 64, 65, 69, 70 and 


74, which were excluded from the current SEC 


recommendations. NIOSH should report any 


findings regarding these locations and consider 


any new information -- report these findings to 


the Advisory Board at our next meeting, 


hopefully in July, 2007. And also requesting 


that SC&A also review these designations and 


this new information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that is a motion. 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 

191 

there a second? 


MS. BEACH: I'll second it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now basically that doesn't 


preclude proceeding with what we have, it would 


simply -- it -- at a later date, it would 


expand the class. 


 DR. MELIUS: Right, and NIOSH has already 


agreed to do this. I -- I think that what -- 


the petitioners felt more comfortable if we -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Proceed on this and -- 


 DR. MELIUS: -- sort of formally recognize that 


'cause we aren't recognizing it as part of the 


letter. I don't think it's appropriate for the 


letter, and I think the only thing that may be 


different is having SC&A take a look at this. 


But SC&A's already evaluating the site profile 


so I don't think it's asking for a lot be done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Andy, you have an 


additional comment on this? 


 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yes, during our discussions 


with Larry Elliott yesterday I was -- one of 


the recommendations he made to us was that we 


ask the Board to direct NIOSH to do this 


evaluation of those particular areas, so that's 


the reason why I approached the Board. I just 

1 -- 

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. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Any discussion? Jim. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Just one -- just one question. 

Jim, is it necessary -- is this going to tax 


NIOSH -- I'm concerned about Rocky Flats and 


getting as much done as we can before July -- I 


mean before June. Can -- could this be -- is 


this going to stress them, that's what I wanted 


to know. 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, I think if NIOSH reports 


back to us in July now, they may say we've 


resolved four buildings, we're not sure about 


these five and we'll report back to you at the 


next mee-- you know, I don't think we're asking 


for a complete resolution necessarily by July, 


but let them report back. My understanding 


it's -- you know, they -- they have contractor 


staff. I think that contractor staff that 


deals with Los -- Los Alamos is different from 


that that's involved with Rocky Flats, and 


let's see what progress they make. 


 DR. WADE: We don't have a quorum at the 


moment. We need to wait for Mark to return. 


 MS. MUNN: Question in the interim. Has 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 

193 

decision been made with respect to location of 


our July meeting? 


 DR. WADE: I'm going to get whispered at, which 


is one of my favorite things. 


(Pause) 


Okay. So I'm -- I'm informed that we can do 


the Los Alamos vote because there are two 


members who are not eligible, but we can't vote 


on anything else. 


So let's take your question first. The July 


question I have penciled in Hanford, but I'm 


open to suggestions. 


 DR. MELIUS: The Ju--


 DR. ZIEMER: July. 


 DR. WADE: The July meeting. The June meeting 


will be in Denver. July meeting I have 


penciled in Hanford. 


 Let's vote on Los Alamos now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so this -- the motion that 


was just given is -- can be voted on. Any 


discussion? 


 (No responses) 


All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any 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 

194

 (No responses) 


Abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


 Motion carries. Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Hurry back, Phillip. Now we do have 


issues on Dow. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have anything in writing on 


Dow at this --


 DR. MELIUS: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, okay. Go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: We -- we've already -- we approved 


verbally a letter --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- that -- that I read. I have 


something that -- on my screen that Wanda has 


worked with me to edit -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and approve. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, if you would; read it to 


us. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, okay. Dow Madison 


recommendations. The Board authorizes our 


Chair to write a letter to the Secretary of 


Health and Human Services asking him to 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 

195 

with the Secretaries of Energy and Labor -- 


address the issue of EEOICPA coverage for 


workers at the Dow Chemical Company Madison 


site during the period from 1961 through 1998. 


The Board has recently received information 


indicating people working at this facility may 


be eligible beyond the current covered period. 


This new information on -- this new information 


included information on continued exposures to 


thorium in this time period. Extension of the 


covered period is necessary for the Board to be 


able to consider Special Exposure status for 


this group of workers. 


The Board also requests that NIOSH extend its 


evaluation of the Dow Madison site to evaluate 


the ability -- its -- the ability to conduct 


individual dose reconstructions for the time 


period from 1961 to 1998. Board also requests 


that SC&A evaluate the ability to conduct 


individual dose reconstructions for this time 


period. The Board requests that both NIOSH and 


SCA provide these updates at our next meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me get this on the 


floor first. Is there a second? 


 MS. MUNN: Second. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Now it's on the floor. 


Yes? 


 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. We would 


just ask that we -- we clarify that the task to 


SC&A includes speaking to the -- at least the 


11 Dow workers -- I mean this is the crux of 


the argument -- who have testified to the 


thorium shipments. Ju-- ju-- just a document 


review without speaking to the workers, you 


know, we feel is relatively useless, so we just 


want to make sure that SC&A is clear that -- 


that that is part of their purview and what 


you're tasking them with on this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Generally we don't get to 


that level of specificity in the -- in the 


tasking. We allow a fair amount of 


flexibility, but they've heard your point. 


That certainly is open to them in -- generally 


we wouldn't mandate, for example, speak to 


these 11 people. But --


 MR. STEPHAN: That's clear to you. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. STEPHAN: We're clear. 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 

197

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we're -- we're fine. Any 


comments or -- or questions? And if we can do 


anything to -- and -- and Dan, I'm wil-- quite 


willing to have you help me on this, if we -- 


'cause I'll prepare the letter and I'll 


probably copy you on it before I send it in, 


but I want to make sure that in making this 


case to the Secretary that we make him 


cognizant of the -- the documents that -- that 


seem to indicate the eligibility, so -- 


 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I guess that was my comment. 


Unless the words "AEC thorium" are added into 


Jim's letter, as I heard it just now, I don't 


think the Secretary is going to be persuaded. 


I mean -- so I think that language -- I -- I -- 


we need to provide the documents, for sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, without the --

 DR. MCKEEL: We need to provide some kind of 

rationale. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think if the Board's in 

agreement, we will ask that we get Dan's 


assistance on getting some wording into that. 


Is that --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean Wan-- Wanda and I 


specifically added the mention of thorium to 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 

198 

able to make sure we captured those documents 


and --


 DR. MCKEEL: I'd be happy to --

 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah, I mean --

 DR. MCKEEL: -- happy to do that. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- that was the intent. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But Dan, I will -- I will send you 


a draft and --


 DR. MCKEEL: That'd be great. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as you to --


 DR. MCKEEL: That'd be terrific, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Just for the record, I don't think 


there's any question in anyone's mind that 


thorium was on the property. The question is 


was it AEC thorium. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. Yes. 


 DR. WADE: That's the issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we want to refer to those 


documents, if necessary, to -- to make that 


case. 


Okay, you ready to vote, Board members? 


 Okay, Dan, an additional comment? 


 DR. MCKEEL: No, I -- I just want to make it 


simpler for everybody. I mean the -- the 


documents that I showed -- here is 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 

199 

Powerpoint -- a printout of each slide in the 


Powerpoint in what I gave you, so that -- that 


-- that's all I'm going to have for those 


documents. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, understood. 


 DR. MCKEEL: But --


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, thank you. 


All in favor of this motion, say aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 And all opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 And abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


 Motion carries. 


 DR. WADE: Unanimously by those present. We 


should take a deep breath. Is there any other 


business that we --


 DR. ZIEMER: We have Sandia yet. 


 DR. WADE: Right, but is there anything -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Did we do W. R. Grace? 


 MS. MUNN: We didn't do that yet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We did --


 DR. WADE: No, we didn't do W. R. Grace. 

1 

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. MELIUS: We have a letter -- a W. R. Grace 

letter. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, okay, we have the W. R. 

Grace draft, don't we? I thought we --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: We have the letter. 


 DR. WADE: It was distributed. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Did we have a quorum on that 


last vote? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We did. 


 DR. WADE: A quorum is seven, and I -- I see 


seven up here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Four, five, six, seven -- we're 


good, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer counts. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, don't forget the Chair. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. WADE: And here comes eight. 


 DR. MELIUS: Eight. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you have the wording and 


it's parallel wording on the W. R. Grace draft. 


Are there any -- any concerns or objections? 


I'm going to take it by consent that this is 


agreeable, unless we hear otherwise. 

201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Standard wording. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Without objection now, this 

will be the letter for W. R. Grace. I will 


make that minor change in the description of 


the SEC again on each of these. 


 DR. MELIUS: I will -- there's a couple of 


other typos. I'll e-mail these to you -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- with --


 DR. ZIEMER: With that change. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


SANDIA LIVERMORE SEC PETITION
 

DR. SAM GLOVER, NIOSH, OCAS
 

PETITIONER (LETTER TO BE READ)


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We're ready, I think, for ­

- who are we ready for? 


 DR. WADE: Sandia. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: And again, I don't have the 


expectation we'll finish this, but I think we 


need to begin it in case the Board wishes to 


task some work to be done, we can do that. So 


Sam, if you would broach the issue to us. 


 DR. GLOVER: Thank you. So we're going to 


discuss the Sandia National Laboratory 

1 

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 

Livermore Special Exposure Cohort petition 


evaluation, SEC number 59. This is probably 


what the first ori-- the concept of SEC 


petitions may have started out in -- to be 


added. This is a class of three people. It is 


a very small, very well-defined cohort. 


 Site history, Sandia Livermore -- Sandia 


National Laboratory Livermore, SNL-L, 


established 1956, provide support to Livermore 


regarding nuclear weapon design. Its primary 


mission from '56 to '89 was the design and 


testing of non-nuclear components for 


Livermore. 


 The petition was submitted to NIOSH on behalf 


of a class of employees on May 5th, 2006, and 


the class definition provided was all X-ray 


technologists and materials scientists who 


worked in the X-ray diffraction and 


fluorescence laboratory, Building 913, Rooms 


(sic) 113; Building 913, Room 128; and Building 


941, Room 128 from December 1st, 1967 through 


December 31st, 1990. 


Petition was qualified October 4th, 2006 and 


the Federal Register notice published on 


October 20th, 2006. Evaluation report 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 

203 

issued March 29th, 2007. 


The pro-- the proposed class definition was 


modified by removing Building 941, Room 128 


because X-ray diffraction activities in that 


building began after 1992, which is outside the 


time period proposed by the petition. 


 NIOSH evaluated the following class: All X-ray 


technologists and materials scientists who 


worked at Sandia National Laboratory Livermore 


in the X-ray diffraction and fluorescence 


laboratory, Building 913, Room 113; and 


Building 913, Room 128, from December 1st, 1967 


through December 31st, 1990. 


 Sources available for the -- the evaluation 


report included a draft site profile for Sandia 


National Laboratory Livermore. This has 


actually just got finalized. It finalized I 


believe on Wednesday or Thursday and was put to 


the web, so the document was not available to 


the petitioner nor yourselves until very 


recently. 


 Technical Information Bulletins include maximum 


internal dose estimates for certain DOE complex 


claims, Techni-- TIB on diagnostic X-ray 


procedures, and internal dose reconstruction 

1 

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 

procedure TIB-60. 


 Telephone interviews with former workers 


include X-ray and fluorescence lab employee on 


January 9th, 2007; another interview on January 


8th; and we also discussed this with the health 


and safety on January 15th, 2007; ES&H manager 


at Sandia on the 22nd of January; and also 


tritium research laboratory January 30th, 2007. 


We reviewed 148 documents as part of this, and 


over 250 documents are currently undergoing 


classification review at Sandia Livermore. 


 Documentation and affidavits also submitted by 


the petitioner were reviewed. 


As I said, this is a very small class. Right 


now there is one case which meets this class 


definition, of which no -- zero -- dose 


reconstructions have been done. The case 


includes internal dosimetry and it includes 


external dosimetry. A CATI was also performed 


as part of this. 


I want to be -- there's -- there's going to be 


some discussions and I -- there's going to be a 


letter read into it. At Sandia we ha-- we are 


still undergoing, you know, additional work. 


When they -- when they sent in their data to us 

1 

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 

-- before 19-- the data before 1989 was not 


included in those submissions, so that's be-- 


based on how they updated their records. ORAU 


is working with them to get a complete 


submission. However, during data capture 


efforts, internal and external dosimetry 


through this time period was captured by ORAU 


for this class of workers. 


 The petition basis was proposing one or more 


unmonitored and unrecorded ex-- exposure 


incidents occurred that can be demonstrated by 


citing two incidents that occurred in the 22 


years that Sandia Livermore operated. One 


incident occurred in 1978 and another in '79. 


Both incidents were due to violations of 


procedures, and actually probably a more 


correct way of saying was actually an equipment 


failure in one instance using a X-ray 


diffraction generator. 


 Petitioners provided evidence of potential 


unmonitored exposure with no personal or area 


monitoring data for that first exposure 


incident. 


And Sandia Livermore did not provide 


permanently mounted instrumentation 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 

206 

recording ionizing radiation that was emitted. 


In supporting documentation an affidavit states 


that we checked the Geiger counter -- checked 


using a Geiger counter to be sure there wasn't 


any significant radiation leakage, but the 


health and safety people insisted on using a 


scintillation counter to check for scattered 


radiation. 


 So radiological operations for this facility 


included X-ray diffraction and fluorescence 


laboratory in those stated rooms in that 


building. The operation included sample -- 


sample preparation and testing with X-ray 


diffraction and fluorescence equipment. Some 


radioactive sources included depleted uranium, 


small sealed sources and X-ray equipment, 


beta/gamma but no neutron. 


Bioassay data, all three individuals had 


uranium bioassay from 1975 to 1984. All 


results were below detectable. External data 


for the class was obtained. Incident 


information, shallow dose to the extremity was 


not recorded in dose of record. However, it 


was determined in the incident reports, and 


that's discussed in the sample dose 

1 

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 

reconstructions. 


Internal sources of exposure include depleted 


uranium. External sources of exposure include 


deep dose from mixed sources -- they were 


badged; shallow dose, which also they were 


badging for; extremity dose; there were no 


neutron sources. 


 Sample dose reconstructions were performed 


using the following -- male; birth, '92 (sic); 


diagnosed in 2000; former smoker; they had a 


continuous employment during the continued 


(sic) period; bioassay for uranium; they had 


continuous external dosimetry data and they 


were involved in the X-ray diffraction 


incidents. 


So the uranium exposure can be reconstructed 


using the actual recorded bioassay data. These 


are the -- for those various time frames, 


either the minimum detectable activities that 


were basically for the bioassay measurements. 


If you use those, you can determine what was 


the missed dose, and this would be for various 


target organs. As we discussed yesterday, if 


the organ doesn't concentrate uranium, a very 


small dose is going to be incurred. 

1 

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 

So for renal cancer, .228 rem, whereas for lung 


cancer you have up to 111 rem; and for a 


lymphoma, using thoracic lymph node, 515 rem. 


 External deep dose can be reconstruction (sic) 


from reported dosimetry results, and obviously 


if all results are less than LOD, we use the 


missed dose concept, depending on the badge 


exchange frequency and what the detection limit 


was at the time. 


Shallow dose can also be reconstructed using 


actual reported dosimetry results. If all 


results are less than detectable, again we 


could look at the missed dose. 


From '72 to '82 entire recorded value is 


assigned in both shallow and deep dose at 


Sandia Livermore. 


Dose assessment was performed by Sandia 


Livermore for the 1979 exposure incident and is 


bounding for a similar incident that was 


alleged to have occurred in '78 but which for 


no documentation exists. Based on this 


incident exposure report, an exposure of 23 and 


a half rad shallow dose was assigned and .09 


rad deep dose assigned. These are very low-


energy X-rays. Primarily you're going to 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 

209 

shallow dose. 


So if you -- looking at the example DRs that 


were performed, if you're involved in the 


incident, a cancer located in the beam for a 


BCC or an SCC, you would see a POC of about 41 


percent for basal cell carcinoma, 13 percent 


for squamous cell, and lung cancer of about 


28.4 percent using that data that was 


previously discussed -- the uranium bioassay 


and the external and internal dosi-- other 


internal dosimetry. 


If you were not involved in the 1978 incident, 


you can see a dramatic drop in the BCC, down to 


4.95 percent. 


NIOSH evaluates the petition using the 


guidelines in 42 CFR 83.13, submits a finding 


in a petition evaluation report to the Board 


and the petitioner. NIOSH issued this report 


on March 29, 2007. 


 They evaluated whether -- is it feasible to 


estimate the level of radiation exposure to 


individual members of the class with sufficient 


accuracy, and is there a reasonable likelihood 


that the radiation dose may have endangered the 


class. 

1 

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 

NIOSH found that it has available information ­

- or available monitoring records, process 


descriptions and source term data that are 


adequate to complete dose reconstructions with 


sufficient accuracy for the proposed class, and 


therefore health endangerment determination is 


not -- is not required. 


So summarizing this that we believe dose 


reconstruction is feasible for uranium and 


external beta/gamma and occupational medical X-


rays. 


 Additional documentation may be obtained from 


the Document Review \ AB Document Review Board 


(sic) \ Sandia National Laboratory, a sub-


folder. 


So with that, I'd take any questions from the 


Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sam, is -- this is just one 


individual or did you say three? 


 DR. GLOVER: There's actually three 


individuals. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are they alleging -- was the 


incident a diffraction incident -- was the 


person getting in the beam? 


 DR. GLOVER: They -- it was a failure 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 

211 

shutter, and so they walked in front of the -- 


it's actually described in detail in an 


incident report. There was a request by the 


petitioner to have a -- a letter read in. He 


had some dis-- some comments on the -- on the 


evaluation report. 


 DR. ZIEMER: X-ray diffraction units give 


terrifically high doses and they're highly 


localized. I -- I've seen some skin burns -- 


if you're in a diffraction beam like one 


second, you will have a -- a skin burn, but 


it'll be very localized. It'll be -- almost 


immediate effect. 


 DR. GLOVER: There was actually some -- a 1968 


document in Health Physics that desc-- you can 


get up to 10,000 R per second dose rates. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, right --

 DR. GLOVER: And it's a very narrow beam. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Very narrow beam, so on 

diffraction units you have that, and -- and you 


have scatter stuff. The scatter stuff of 


course is much lower and should be picked up by 


a film badge. But even that, energy-wise, is 


very low energy since it's already low to start 


with and then it's scattered. So it would 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 

212 

be shallow dose, I assume. 


 DR. GLOVER: It was a very large proportion to 


shallow dose, that's correct. It would be very 


minimal deep dose. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So on -- on this incident with the 


41 percent POC, that's specifically for cancer 


later on, not for some immediate somatic 


effects, I guess. 


 DR. GLOVER: That is correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. Gen has a question. 


DR. ROESSLER: Not a question. On your second 


to last slide, on the summary, just for the 


record, I changed Fernald to Sandia. 


 DR. GLOVER: I'm sorry? Oh, that would be an 


excellent point. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think you took an old slide -- 


 DR. GLOVER: Unfortunately, we use a template 


and I missed -- I -- I did miss the -- 


DR. ROESSLER: See, I'm an editor, you know. 


have to pick up things like that. 


 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, and I apologize for 


that error. 


 MS. MUNN: That might be a good idea. I didn't 


see that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? So the 


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 

213 

recommendation from NIOSH is that the petition 


not be granted, that the --


 DR. GLOVER: That's correct. 


 DR. WADE: I've distributed to you a letter 


from -- I assume it's a petitioner, Gerald 


Giovanchi (sic) --


 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: -- vanchini (sic). 


 MS. HOWELL: I have the letter to read into the 


record on behalf of OCAS and Laurie Breyer, who 


had to leave early. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that a pretty extensive letter? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, it is, but he asked for it to 


be read into the record. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: After this we can. 


 MS. HOWELL: This letter has been redacted for 


Privacy Act material, but the Board has in 


front of them an unredacted version. 


(Reading) My name is Gerald M. Giovanchi and I 


am the petitioner. I would like to open by 


saying thank you to all those who dedicated 


their time and effort in providing the research 


so that this SEC claim could be adjudicated. 

1 

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 

However, as I read the 35-page document I felt 


compelled to state for the record some 


corrections and comments. Please note that 


these statements pertain to the time 1971 to 


1978, the time I worked in this X-ray 


laboratory. After discussions about the work 


environment with others employed there, my 


tenure was apparently distinctly different from 


others' tenures. 


As I will not be un-- as I will be unable to 


attend the meeting or to participate by 


telephone on the assigned date and time, I 


would like to request that this submission be 


distributed to all attendees, including the 


Board members and the Secretary of Health and 


Human Services, and be read out loud during the 


course of the meeting. I am also requesting 


that the contents of this submission become 


part of the evaluation process for this SEC 


00059. 


The following paragraphs demonstrate that my 


ionizing radiation exposures for the six-plus 


years of working in this X-ray laboratory 


cannot be feasibly calculated to any degree of 


accuracy when using assumptions, estimations 

1 

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 

and correction factors when exposed -- when 


exposures went unmonitored, unrecorded, and 


an/or inadequately monitored. 


First and foremost, my dosimetry records for 


the period in question have not been found. 


Even if my dosimetry records were to be located 


it is highly unlikely that they would be -- 


that they would accurately reflect the 


radiation dose my body received. The radiation 


produced from these Phillips X-rays -- X-ray 


generators was not emitted uniformly. They 


were more directional in nature. It is 


therefore highly unlikely that the X-ray beam 


emitted would strike a tiny target like a 


dosimeter chip. Furthermore, I frequently wore 


my security badge and dosimeter at the 


waistline to prevent them from interfering with 


tabletop work. In this case the dosimeter was 


totally blocked by the tabletop of the X-ray 


generator itself. It is therefore highly 


unlikely that -- that a reconstruction of the 


dose would accurately reflect the radiation I 


was exposed to. 


The next topic that I would like to elaborate 


on is the work environment. As appropriate 

1 

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 

shielding was not provided, we had to devise 


our own shielding. This shielding was utilized 


whenever oversized and classified samples had 


to be characterized by X-ray diffraction and 


fluorescence analysis techniques. The 


shielding consisted of flat pieces of Lucite 


wrapped with lead tape. The X-ray 


diffractometer consisted of a scintillation 


counter whose detector rotated part-way around 


the sample chamber. Once the oversized or 


classified sample was inserted in the sample 


chamber, the sample chamber cover plate could 


not be installed. Therefore this Lucite 


shielding was placed around the chamber and 


scintillation counter, levering -- I'm sorry -- 


and scintillation counter, leaving numerous 


openings by which X-rays could and would be 


emitted. The leakage was checked and verified 


with a Geiger counter. Since the scintillation 


counter leakage was -- I'm sorry -- since the 


scintillation counter rotated, it was virtually 


impossible to capture all of the emitted 


radiation. As the counter rotated, it left a 


moving opening. From these known leakage 


points the ionizing radiation was emitted 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 

the room and toward those in the vicinity, 


depending on where they may have -- may have 


been standing. This was no secret. The Health 


and Safety Department provided oversight. As 


stated in another affidavit attached to the SEC 


petition, the comment from Health and Safety 


was "You work with X-rays. That's your job. 


You need to be willing to take your turn in the 


barrel." I believe a comment of this nature 


testifies to the fact that employees who worked 


in the X-ray lab, especially in my tenure, were 


indeed exposed to the ionizing radiation 


present not only from everyday activities but 


from accidental exposures as well. Lawrence 


Livermore National Laboratory employees in 


comparable job categories and who also utilized 


Phillips X-ray machines had similar exposure 


problems with their X-ray equipment. As a 


result, Lawrence Livermore adopted their own 


custom-made --made shielding plus installed 


safety interlocks. Sandia Health and Safety 


never saw the need for commercial shielding, 


safety interlocks, or the perm-- or 


permanently-mounted X-ray monitoring and 


recording instrumentation. What Sandia'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 

218 

Health and Safety finally did provide was a 


visual illumination device that was 


automatically energized whenever the X-ray tube 


was energized. Unfortunately, it wasn't an 


interlock device to protect the operators from 


unplanned events. These X-ray illumination 


devices were finally installed after my 


incident. 


Regarding my 1978 incident, the NIOSH SEC 


petition evaluation report states that both 


incidents were due to violations of procedure 


and standard industry practices. This is 


stated in paragraph 3.0 and again in paragraph 


7.4.1.1. For the record, I would like to state 


that my incident was an unplanned event that 


resulted from an X-ray shutter interlock 


failure while calibrating a diffractometer, 


following a standard operating procedure. The 


SOP was not violated. Furthermore, I remember 


that calibrating a diffractometer was quite a 


lengthy task, taking on the order of two to 


three hours to complete. The X-ray generator 


was energized at 40 kilovolts and 20 milliamps. 


During the course of this calibration procedure 


the X-ray shutter interlock failed. 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 

219 

failure went unnoticed for approximately 20 to 


30 minutes. During this 20 to 30-minute period 


I was progressing through the calibration 


procedure. I was therefore in the vicinity of 


the X-ray generator. To summarize, I was 


exposed to the scattered radiation that was 


being emitted from the sample chamber for that 


20 to 30-minute period, plus the direct 


radiation exposure when I placed the 


fluorescent screen in the sample chamber. 


Although X-rays were collimated, my exposure, 


as compared to the incident in 1979, had the 


potential of being longer -- of being of longer 


duration and more severe due to the longer 


exposure period. In paragraph 7.1.2 NIOSH 


states that they are still attempting to locate 


individual dosimeter data, if it exists. In 


paragraph 7.4.1.3 the evaluation report further 


states that exposure data may be available on 


microfiche records. Apparently my exposure 


records were still not available for this 


evaluation report. I have tried on four 


occasions over the past five years to retrieve 


these records. Sandia told me that they do not 


exist. 

1 

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 

In paragraph 9.0 NIOSH states that assumptions 


have been utilized. In paragraph 7.4.1.2 NIOSH 


states that appropriate correction factors will 


be applied, and other paragraphs state that 


exposures can be estimated. NIOSH used 


assumptions, correction factors and estimates 


to determine that it would be feasible to 


reconstruct my individual dose and have it 


accurate. For the six-plus years that I worked 


in this X-ray laboratory, I do believe it would 


be fair to say, without my thermoluminescent 


dosimeters TLD dosimeter data, without any X-


ray monitoring and recording instrumentation, 


and without my incident report, the dose that I 


received went unmonitored and unrecorded. 


There appears to be insufficient information to 


calculate my dose to any degree of accuracy or 


preciseness. 


I've been informed that the X-ray generator was 


subsequently removed from service because the 


X-ray generator and faulty shutter could not be 


relied upon. I do remember providing a 


security escort for a Phillips service 


representative who, on several occasions, came 


to Sandia to work on this particular X-ray 

1 

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 

generator. Due to an unreliable X-ray 


generator, additional unknown exposures could 


have occurred prior to my documented exposure, 


thus adding more undocumented and unmonitored 


exposures. 


During my tenure in this X-ray laboratory the 


generators were energized over long periods of 


time, hours and even days, to collect data. 


would often return to work in the evening time 


to closely monitor the analyses. On top of the 


normal influx of clients with their unique 


samples, one of my tasks was to create a 


standard file. This involved doing sample 


preparation and X-ray analyses on nearly every 


element in the periodic table of elements. 


When I left this position in February of 1978 


this type of workload began to diminish, 


resulting in less X-ray generator use. I 


mention this because if my workload involving 


energized X-ray generators was greater than my 


successor, it would make sense that my 


exposures would have been greater. If my 


exposures were greater, there would have been a 


greater likelihood of developing cancer. 


have been stricken with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 


I 

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 

222 

one of the 22 listed cancers, five times since 


1989. 


I would like to correct another statement in 


the evaluation report regarding sealed sources, 


paragraph 5.2. During my tenure I do not 


remember performing any X-ray analyses on 


sealed -- sealed sources. Sample preparation 


was performed using a mortar and pestle and was 


performed in other than a glovebox, as working 


with gloves would not have been conductive 


(sic) when handling the fragile glass capillary 


tubes that hold the ground powder. As stated 


in another affidavit, we were exposed to 


numerous toxic materials, including heavy metal 


compounds, calcogenides, beryllium, beryllium-


containing compounds, various form of silica, 


as well as experimental compounds that had not 


previously been synthesized, radioactive 


materials, and numerous agents now considered 


carcinogenic. 


It should also be noted that during my tenure 


in this X-ray lab, 1971 to 1978, Sandia 


California did not prohibit eating and drinking 


in the same laboratory where I ground the (sic) 


powder in mortars and pestles these radioactive 

1 

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 

and toxic nuggets. I remember eating my lunch 


in this laboratory on a regular basis. 


 The evaluation report states that there is a 


recommendation of another employee being 


considered for compensation, but the report 


failed to mention that his occupational 


exposures to ionizing radiation and other 


unique hazards associated with his employment 


at Sandia National Laboratory in California 


were at least as likely as not to have had a 


detrimental impact on his immune system and 


overall health. Since 1989 my non-Hodgkin's 


lymphoma has spread to five different parts of 


my body, has progressed from an acute to a 


chronic disease, has transformed from a low-


grade to an aggressive type of cancer, and has 


attacked the cortex of my bone. With each 


episode I have had radiation, chemotherapy, and 


a combination of the two. With each episode 


the treatment placed the cancer in remission. 


Unfortunately, the cancer keeps returning. 


 On October 4th, 2006 I had the pleasure of a 


personal conversation with an associate 


professor from the Department of Epidemiology 


at the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

1 

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 

Hill when he came to Livermore for a 


conference. He told me that he concluded from 


one study that estimating the magnitude of the 


risk of radioactive exposure revealed that the 


relationship was ten times greater than 


originally thought. I became ill with nonHodgkin's lymphoma at the age of 39. He did 


not think my cancer was genetically contracted. 


He also informed me that cancers from 


occupational exposures are characteristic of 


latent manifestations. I contacted nonHodgkin's lymphoma -- I contracted nonHodgkin's lymphoma 11 years after leaving the 


X-ray lab. In addition, all five of my cancers 


have been located on the upper part of my body 


and on my right side, which coincides with my 


occupational exposures. 


 These corrections and comments pertain mostly 


to myself and the years 1971 to 1978. My 


objective is to provide sufficient proof to 


establish eligibility for the above-mentioned 


Special Exposure Cohort 00059. I am in contact 


with many former workers and other sick 


applicants. I am therefore in constant 


reminder of what employment exposures 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 

225 

incurred. If any further documentation or 


clarification would be needed to adequately 


support the evaluation process of Special 


Exposure Cohort 00059, I would appreciate 


another opportunity to provide additional 


supporting information. 


I believe there is another claimant on the 


phone who would like to make a comment. I'm 


not sure if they're still there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, is there an individual on 


the phone representing this facility? 


 (No responses) 


Hello? 


 MS. HOWELL: They might not have been able to 


join us today. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: It sounds like maybe -- is 


somebody there? 


 MS. CARTER*: My name is Mary Carter. I am the 


facilitator for (unintelligible) in which [Name 


Redacted](unintelligible) is a member and 


basically I'm just here to over 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. So you have 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 

226 

additional comments at this time? 


 MS. CARTER: No additional comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Board 


members, do you have any questions for NIOSH or 


-- or the petitioners? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. 


 DR. WADE: We need to talk about a path 


forward, obviously. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have a recommendation from 


NIOSH if the Board wishes to take action on it. 


Is -- is there -- did I -- did I understand 


that there -- this class -- that there may be 


others added to this class or is this the 


extent of the individuals that would -- 


 DR. GLOVER: This cl-- it is a -- it is three ­

- there were three people who worked in that 


facility. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. GLOVER: That letter was just received -- 


that was read into the record. That was not 


part of the ER process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Three people that ever worked or 


three claimants? 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 

227

 MS. MUNN: Three claimants. 


 DR. GLOVER: We have only -- there's only one 


claim in the system, so there's only three 


people, yes. 


 DR. WADE: Sam, do you have a -- what is your 


intent, relative to this letter now? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or is there anything new in the 


letter that needs to be evaluated I guess is 


the question. 


 DR. GLOVER: You know, you certainly -- as 


we've discussed, it is a narrow-focus beam, and 


he added some information. The Sandia profile 


was not available until yesterday, and so I -- 


I don't know what the -- that was our 


evaluation report to the date. Certainly we'd 


be willing to take that additional information 


and make sure that -- that there's no change to 


our ER report. I think that would be fair to 


the claimant -- or to the -- not claimant, to 


the petitioner. 


 DR. WADE: We have two -- Wanda's first and 


then --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Wanda and then Jim. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd like to move to table this until 


NIOSH has had an opportunity to review the 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 

228 

that's just been received. I suggest that 


hopefully that could be done prior to our next 


meeting in June. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, a motion to table. Is there 

a second? 

 DR. MELIUS: I would be glad to second that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. 

 DR. MELIUS: Took the words from my mouth. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's a very unsanitary way of 

speaking, but... 


All right, a motion to table. All in favor, 


say aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 Motion is tabled and will come from the table 


after we receive additional information. 


 DR. WADE: And we're (unintelligible) June -- 


and the expectation is that NIOSH will take the 


material, submit it and, as appropriate, modify 


their evaluation report. 


 DR. GLOVER: And we'll give that to the Board 


in a timely fashion before the June 11-June 12 


meeting. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 

1 

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

 DR. GLOVER: Okay. 


(Pause) 


 DR. WADE: The only thing that I would suggest, 


if we could impose upon Dr. Melius, we had 


working group reports from all of the working 


groups. Dr. Melius chairs two, the SEC issue 


group and the Hanford. These are one-sentence 


summaries of the status of the working group. 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, actually I have about 50 


slides on each and -- 


 DR. WADE: And let us know how they turn out. 

Okay? 

 MS. MUNN: I'll be here. 

 DR. MELIUS: Hanford, I actually think I have 


no -- nothing to -- tormenting me with 


questions, I'm sure. The Hanford group I think 


I actually reported on in the conference call 


and there's really no update from that, and I 


hadn't heard nor was I expecting to hear 


anything from our meeting. 


On the -- and I actually -- well, on the SEC 


workgroup, which is the really -- mainly 


dealing with the 250-day issue, there -- the 


only change I think from what I reported last 


time was that we have received a -- a 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 

230 

regarding the Iowa lab, Ames, from SEC -- SCA 


about that, which was sort of formalizing some 


of their earlier presentation, and we've -- are 


making progress with NIOSH on some of the 


issues related -- the informational issues 


related to Nevada Test Site. Maybe Arjun or 


Jim can update. 


DR. NETON: We have proceeded down the path of 


polling those cases that were in those 


different categories of materials, and I 


actually received -- shortly from the Board 


meeting, from the person working on it -- the 


list of test cases and I have not had a chance 


to go through them. But when I get back to the 


office I think I should be able to pull out 


ones and forward them to the working group and 


SC&A in a fairly timely fashion. 


 DR. MELIUS: And -- and I would expect that we 


would -- not by the June meeting, but possibly 


by July meeting -- have made some progress, 


have another meeting of the workgroup. But 


some of that depends on how mu-- how much 


material there'll be for Arjun and everyone to 


review, so I don't want to commit yet. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we've -- we've -- 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 

231 

mostly been awaiting the information from 


NIOSH, but we also would -- under your 


direction, initiated some work on Pacific 


Proving Ground --


 DR. MELIUS: Right, yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- but that's in a preliminary 


stage still. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: We're done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- Lew indicates we're done. 


I want to point out that there -- there is one 


item that hangs free, that's Bethlehem Steel. 


Now we -- we had on the schedule a presentation 


on data -- use of data from other sites. Board 


members, you actually should have in your 


packet Liz's presentation, but I think -- and 


we -- we will need to delay that till our next 


meeting, but I also want to make sure -- 'cause 


I think, Dr. Melius, you had some specific 


questions on the use of data from other sites, 


and we -- I -- I want to make sure that what 


we're getting is information that answers the 


questions -- I mean you -- your question was 


only framed out in a very general sense, 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 

232 

you had questions about the use of data from 


other sites, and maybe -- maybe some 


specificity is needed on -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what -- what are the issues 


that need to be addressed by the Board vis a 


vis Bethlehem Steel. 


 DR. MELIUS: It may be more a question -- how ­

- how does the Board address that. Let me talk 


to Liz a little bit and see. There -- there 


may be some policies on the part of the 


Department that they don't want to talk about 


some of these issues, so it may be a waste of 


our time to have a presentation on this and -- 


at least --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 DR. MELIUS: -- in terms of addressing what's 


in the law and how it got -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- into the regulation and -- let 


me talk to her and see what we can work out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and in any event, the effect 


is that -- the practical effect is that we -- 


we end up I would say tabling Bethlehem work 


until the next meeting -- 

1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- is the practical effect. Liz, 

a comment? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just wanted to clarify 


that I believe some of the questions that Dr. 


Melius has would lead us to violate attorney-


client privilege, which I'm not sure that HHS 


is willing to do, although we may -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you may want to get together 


and at least --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- be able to work out a 


closed meeting or something like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- learn -- learn the nature of 


those questions and then, as relevant, we can 


raise them at the next meeting and -- and try 


to bring closure on the Bethlehem Steel issue. 


Is -- are there any other items to come before 


us then? 


 DR. WADE: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: I would like to thank those hardy 


few that remain, and appreciate your work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, everyone. This meeting 


is adjourned. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 12:52 

234 

1 p.m.)


2 
______________________________ 

235 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of May 4, 2007; 


and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 


testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


15th day of July, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102