West Valley Demonstration Project Page 1 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

Worker Outreach Meeting for West Valley Demonstration Project 

Meeting Date: Thursday, August 23, 2007, 5:30 p.m.

Meeting With: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) 

Local 2401, Springville, New York 

NIOSH Worker Outreach Team: 

Grady Calhoun, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS), Health Physicist 

Laurie Breyer, NIOSH OCAS, Special Exposure Cohort Petition (SEC) Counselor 

Jackson Ellis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team, Health Physicist and West 

Valley Demonstration Project Site Profile Document Owner 

Mark Lewis, Advanced Technologies and Laboratories (ATL) International, Inc., Senior 

Outreach Specialist 

Mary Elliott, ATL, Technical Writer/Editor 

Proceedings: 

Mark Lewis opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. He thanked the union representatives for hosting 

the NIOSH Worker Outreach Team. He explained that the meeting was being recorded to assist 

NIOSH in accurately documenting their questions and concerns. 

Mr. Lewis is the Senior Outreach Specialist for the NIOSH team and coordinates worker 

outreach for the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Mr. Lewis described 

his background as a 30-year union member and safety officer of a United Steelworkers of 

America (USW) local union and a 30-year employee at a gaseous diffusion plant in southern 

Ohio. 

Mr. Lewis asked the union members and representatives to introduce themselves. The IAMAW 

District Representative and the other 10 union members briefly described their work histories at 

the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP). Many of them had careers spanning more than 

20 years. The union president stated that they had organized a committee to assist West Valley 

employees with EEOICPA. He thanked the NIOSH team for coming to meet with them. 

Mr. Lewis introduced Laurie Breyer, who is the NIOSH Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 

Counselor. Ms. Breyer stated that she assists people in filing petitions to add new classes to the 

SEC, as well as helping them understand the SEC process and keeping them informed of the 

petition status once it has been filed. She also communicates regularly with EEOICPA claimants 

who may be affected by a petition in process. Ms. Breyer distributed printed information on the 

SEC. 

Mr. Lewis introduced Grady Calhoun, a Health Physics Team Leader in the NIOSH Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support. Mr. Calhoun stated that he reviews most of the dose 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 2 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

reconstructions that come to NIOSH. He is also involved in the approval process for the 

technical basis documents that are used in the dose reconstruction process. He has been working 

on the NIOSH project for six years. Prior to that, he worked for 11 years as a health physicist at 

a DOE nuclear weapons facility in Ohio. 

Mr. Lewis then introduced Jackson Ellis, who is the document owner of the West Valley 

Demonstration Project (WVDP) Site Profile and a dose reconstructor for claims from West 

Valley. The Worker Outreach Team met with IAMAW Local 2401 in August 2006 prior to the 

preparation of the site profile to get information from workers regarding their daily work and 

safety practices. The information was reviewed and integrated into the document along with 

information from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and contractor records from the site. 

Mr. Ellis began the presentation on the development of the West Valley Site Profile, a technical 

document that contains site-specific technical information that is used in the dose reconstruction 

process. The site profile contains sections that describe the site, work activities and processes, 

sources of radiation, potential radiation exposure scenarios, and other important details that could 

affect a worker’s radiation dose. NIOSH includes worker input in the site profile because the 

“official” records may not always be an accurate representation of the actual working conditions 

and safety practices at a site. Site profiles are “living documents” that may be revised as new 

information becomes available. 

In addition to the site profile, dose reconstructors use the energy employee’s individual records 

to estimate his or her lifetime occupational radiation exposure. This information may include 

film badge readings, occupational medical X-rays, bioassay results, incident reports, 

environmental exposure records and coworker data. Each case also includes telephone 

interview(s) with the energy employee or his or her survivors. It is important to include specific 

work locations, incidents, and special circumstances in the interview. 

Mr. Ellis stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the West Valley Site Profile and 

the impact of worker input on the development of the document, and to answer any questions 

from the attendees. The WVDP Site Profile can be found on the NIOSH Web site at 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/wvdp-r0-p1.pdf. He noted that the presentation called 

out the areas where worker input from the August 2006 meeting had impacted the development 

of the site profile, including: 

• Inadequate monitoring and surveys were considered throughout. 

• An effort was made to emphasize the radiological working conditions in general and 

to itemize incidents and common routes of high exposure. 

• Incidents are included along with the discussions of plant facilities and processes 

responsible for chronic exposure problems. 

The West Valley Site Profile includes six sections: Introduction, Site Description, Medical Dose, 

Environmental Dose, Internal Dosimetry, and External Dosimetry. It also has two attachments. 

The Site Description contains historical information on the site, including activities, facilities, 

and major incidents or accidents, as well as sources of potential radiation exposure. He 

described the following time frame: 

• 1962: The State of New York Space Development Authority and Nuclear Fuel 

Services (NFS) partnered to build a privately owned nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 3 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

Construction began in 1963, and the first fuel was received in June 1965. 

Reprocessing began in April 1966. 

• March 1972: Reprocessing halted to complete improvements. Fuel shipments 

continued, but in 1977 NFS abandoned and released management of the facility to the 

State of New York. 

• 1980: U.S. Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Act. DOE took over the 

facility in 1982. DOE began shipping fuel back to owners, performed demolition and 

decontamination activities, and prepared for the construction of a vitrification facility. 

• 1996 to 2001: Vitrification activities were performed. Low level waste was cemented 

and stored onsite. Other waste from WVDP and other commercial sites was also 

stored onsite. 

The Medical Dose section provides information for the dose reconstructor about the amount of 

radiation dose to assign for occupationally required X-rays. Records of these X-rays are 

provided in the energy employee’s DOE records. This section discusses the frequency of X-rays 

during various time periods in the history of WVDP and gives default frequencies when the 

employee’s record is not considered adequate. 

The Environmental Dose section discusses ambient environmental levels of external and internal 

radiation doses. Sources of environmental exposure at WVDP include stack emissions, ground 

level facility releases (FRS vents, Low Level Waste Treatment Facility, etc.), and waste storage 

areas. This section also discusses the handling of “control badge” data. 

The Internal Dosimetry section provides information for calculating internal radiation doses 

based on bioassay results: in vitro bioassay (urine and fecal analysis); and in vivo bioassay (chest 

counts and whole body counts). Typical radionuclides of concern at WVDP include tritium, 

uranium, mixed fission products, plutonium, thorium, europium and americium. 

The External Dosimetry section of the site profile describes workplace radiation fields, dosimeter 

technology, dosimetry practices (whole body monitoring and extremity monitoring), and badge 

exchange frequencies throughout the history of the West Valley site. The “missed dose” 

component is also described in this section. “Missed dose” is a method of assigning a potential 

dose for radiation exposure under the minimum detectable limit (MDL) of the dosimetry badge. 

A brief discussion ensued on the topic of missed dose. An attendee stated that the badge 

readings often would come back “0.” NIOSH adds a measure of dose equal to half the minimum 

detectable limit for each “0” reading in the badging cycle in an effort to be “claimant favorable.” 

Mr. Calhoun added that the method for estimating the claimant’s radiation dose includes a 

distribution that brings that missed dose even closer to the MDL. 

The WVDP Site Profile also includes Attachment A, which was provided by workers from the 

site, and Attachment B. Attachment A was included in the site profile to help dose 

reconstructors understand the radiological conditions and hazards of 52 WVDP work areas. 

Attachment B contains dosimeter codes and information. 

As of August 21, 2007, 48 EEOICPA claims had been filed for the West Valley site. Nine of 

those claims were compensated and 18 were determined to be noncompensable. Twenty claims 

were awaiting dose reconstruction, including 9 unreconstructed claims and 11 that were being 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 4 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

reworked after the completion of the site profile. One claim was in inactive status at the time of 

the meeting. 

Mr. Ellis explained that there are many reasons why a claim might be reworked, including the 

claimant having been diagnosed with an additional cancer or a revision to the site profile that 

brings about an increase in radiation dose. 

Mr. Calhoun added that the EEOICPA program involves several government agencies as well as 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Board) that give oversight 

to the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project. When the determination is made that there may be 

good reason to add more dose in a certain area (for example, there may have been higher internal 

doses in a certain work area), any previously completed claim that may be affected by that new 

information will be evaluated by NIOSH to determine if a rework is necessary. 

Mr. Ellis concluded his presentation on the WVDP Site Profile by reiterating that worker input is 

important in developing a usable site profile. Because the site profile is a “living document,” it 

will change when important information comes to light that may affect dose reconstructions for 

the site. He gave the attendees contact information and the Web address for the NIOSH OCAS 

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.ocas. 

Mr. Lewis added that the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project only sees the Part B claims for 

radiation-induced cancers. Another EEOICPA subtitle, Part E, compensates for other illnesses 

resulting from exposure to radiation or toxic chemicals. 

Mr. Calhoun stated that it is important for workers or survivors who are eligible to file Part B 

claims to also file for Part E. Even if the dose reconstruction does not show enough exposure for 

compensation under Part B, the Department of Labor (DOL) could determine that the worker had 

enough chemical exposure to cause the cancer. 

Question: 

Does that explain the difference between the DOL statistics and those that you have here? 

Ms. Breyer: 

Claims go through a verification process when DOL receives them. Both employment and 

medical diagnosis must be verified. It is possible that DOL has received a number of Part B 

claims that are still going through this process and have not yet been sent to NIOSH. NIOSH 

only sees Part B claims for cancer. The DOL statistics you have may also include the Part E 

claims. Part E only covers DOE facilities. West Valley is considered a DOE facility for the 

period from 1982 to present. 

Mr. Ellis asked if there were any questions on the WVDP Site Profile. A brief interchange 

followed between attendees and the NIOSH Team regarding the importance of reviewing the 

document for any omissions or erroneous information. NIOSH encourages worker input to make 

the site profiles more accurate and complete for dose reconstructors. Ms. Breyer added that the 

“living document” policy ensured that claims that have been previously denied may be reexamined if information is added to the site profile that could increase a worker’s radiation dose. 

If WVDP workers review the site profile and find anything lacking, it could be beneficial to 

someone whose claim had been previously denied. Denied claims may also be reopened and 

reworked if an employee is diagnosed with additional cancer(s) and submits that information to 

DOL. Mr. Calhoun added that additional cancers increase the probability of causation (POC) 

that the cancer may have been caused by radiation. 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 5 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

Mr. Lewis asked whether the attendees had any questions about the SEC. The International 

Union Business Representative stated that he and Ms. Breyer had discussed the subject briefly 

before the meeting. 

Comment: 

Last November, I was having some problems and they told me that I had a bone infection and 

had something in my adrenal gland. The doctor said that the infection didn’t come from the 

adrenal gland – that it had to have come from a cancer at least Stage 4. So they looked and 

looked for it – did every test in the world – and they all came back negative. I still have a mass 

in my adrenal gland, but they couldn’t find any other cancers. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

Is it a cancer or is it just a mass? 

Response: 

They won’t biopsy an adrenal gland. I didn’t pursue why. It’s hard to be admitted to the 

hospital and told a few days later that you’re in Stage 4. That’s a hard thing to deal with. At the 

same time, my brother looked into the EEOICPA program and I started a claim. He did the 

paperwork for me and signed as my designated representative. Then all the test results came 

back negative for cancer. I spoke to the DOL representative again and asked her to put a halt on 

it. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

NIOSH has seen claims for secondary cancers with unknown causes. For example, if the 

secondary cancer is adrenal cancer, there may be 5 different organs where the primary cancer can 

be found. It doesn’t matter if they haven’t found the primary cancer anywhere else. NIOSH will 

do individual dose reconstructions for all five of those cancers and pick the one that gives the 

claimant the highest probability of causation. I cannot speak for your case, though. 

Mr. Ellis: 

You said earlier that you have multiple skin cancers. 

Response: 

But I just have never really gotten a specific diagnosis on the other. Yes, this is my second skin 

cancer. My doctor just biopsied this second one and said that it is basal cell again. I will have 

both pathology reports for the skin cancers. I am ready to go forward with my claim now. 

Question from the IAMAW International Union Business Representative: 

Would you mind going over the information about the SEC again? 

Ms. Breyer: 

Is everyone here familiar with what the SEC is? An SEC petition is a way for a class of 

employees to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort. The reason the SEC is different is that, if 

the petition qualifies and the class of workers is added, the workers in that class will be 

automatically compensated without dose reconstruction if they have one of 22 specific types of 

cancer and have 250 days of employment in the DOE nuclear weapons complex. Four SEC 

classes were established when the Act was written and several have been added since. 

Normally, a case is verified and DOL sends the case to NIOSH for the individual’s dose 

reconstruction. So as individuals, you may have filed and NIOSH is doing your dose 

reconstructions. But you might think that there is a reason that NIOSH cannot do dose 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 6 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

reconstructions for a certain class of employees; if so you could file a petition to add the class to 

the SEC so they can be compensated without having to have a dose reconstruction. 

There are four reasons that you can argue that the way NIOSH does dose reconstructions is not 

sufficiently accurate. One of those reasons is that there is no monitoring (F1). Another reason 

(F2) is that the monitoring records have been destroyed, lost, or falsified. (For example, “We all 

wore badges but management threw away the file cabinet that had all the dosimeter readings,” or 

“They took my badge and threw it away and I saw them take it out to a trash can and burn it.”) 

The other two reasons to argue the NIOSH process are that you have a technical report in your 

possession (F3) or one that is written on the subject (F4) that shows reasons why it is not 

possible to do a dose reconstruction. Affidavits from workers with first-hand knowledge can be 

submitted with the petition as proof. 

My role as the NIOSH Special Exposure Cohort Petition Counselor was created because many 

people felt that filing a petition was a very difficult, bureaucratic process. That is really not the 

intent. We have seen petitions that come in with nothing more than the form that you see here 

and a one page, one sentence letter. They have gone through the qualification stage and at least 

one of them has been added to the SEC. We also get some that may have 300-400 pages of 

supporting documents. The process can be as simple or as difficult as you want to make it, but 

my role here is to help you understand what it is. 

Let’s say that there was no monitoring between 1966 and 1970 when they first started processing 

fuel. So your definition for the petition class would be “all employees between 1966 and 1970 

because there was no monitoring,” or another example of the class definition could be “all 

employees from 1966 through the present because there was monitoring but those records were 

destroyed or falsified.” So you submit the petition with your affidavits. The first thing you will 

get is a letter that verifies the receipt of the petition. The next step is a telephone consultation 

with the petitioner(s) and the NIOSH contractor team that reviews the petitions. During the 

phone call they will verify the information that the petitioner(s) submitted. If there are any 

deficiencies in the petition or the affidavit(s), the petitioner(s) are given a chance to correct 

anything that may be wrong with the petition. The petitioner then has 30 days to correct the 

problem, or may ask for an extension if that time is not sufficient. The petition is then reviewed 

to see if the class qualifies to be evaluated. During the qualification stage, the site profile and 

other archive documents are reviewed to verify or disprove the qualification. For instance, if 

there are hundreds of monitoring records for the site, you would get a letter stating that NIOSH 

has conducted a review and does have monitoring records in possession for that time and that the 

petition does not qualify. 

Question: 

Could your affidavit state that you knew they were monitoring, but they were not monitoring for 

the right thing? 

Ms. Breyer: 

Yes. You could say, for example, that they weren’t monitoring for neutron dose. 

Comment: 

For four years, we did riser work where we were looking down a hole into a tank with the 

radioactive material in it. We used to wear finger dosimeters and dosimeters on our body, but 

we were always leaning over the hole and they would tell you to keep your hands back. So you 

were always taking a dose to your head, because there were beams coming up out of there that 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 7 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

would fry an airplane if it flew overhead. They would allow you to look in the hole, but they 

didn’t want you to get your hands over it. We used to do that routinely in the tank farm 

operations, too. We would be looking in this hole with all of the radioactive waste when we 

were installing the equipment. They were smart enough to keep our hands and our body 

dosimetry back, so they were using monitoring. It just wasn’t effective because it took three 

years for some of the radiation safety people to tell us to start wearing the dosimetry on our 

heads, so it was years that we were exposed in that way. They can say they had monitoring, but 

it wasn’t effective for the job. 

Ms. Breyer: 

That would probably come under F2, because they told you not to put your fingers near it but 

you weren’t monitored from the neck up. If that is already taken into account in the site profile, 

then it still may not qualify, but it may. They will let you know if it does not qualify, and if it 

does not, you can appeal that decision to a three person panel outside of OCAS. If it does 

qualify, it will go into evaluation at which point NIOSH will do a more detailed petition 

evaluation report (PER) stating the technical reasons why NIOSH can or cannot do dose 

reconstructions based on your petition. Once the evaluation report is completed, it will go to the 

petitioners and ABRWH and put on the NIOSH Web site for public viewing. The report will be 

presented to the petitioners at a public meeting of the Board so that they can attend or listen by 

phone. If NIOSH has found that dose reconstructions can be done, ABRWH will send the report 

to their contractor, Sanford Cohen & Associates (SC&A), to review. After that, the Board will 

make a recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Secretary 

looks at the recommended decision of ABRWH and a report from the Director of NIOSH. The 

Secretary will make a final decision at that time regarding whether to add the class. He then 

submits his final recommendation to the U.S. Congress and they have 30 days to either reverse or 

accept the Secretary’s decision. If Congress does not act, the Secretary’s decision becomes final. 

When a class is added to the SEC, NIOSH returns all affected claims to DOL. DOL makes all 

decisions on the claims eligibility. If the class does not get added, the petitioner has the right to 

appeal at that time as well. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

There are some important things to consider, though. Skin and prostate cancers are not eligible 

under the SEC; those two combined make up 30-40% of the cases that NIOSH gets for dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH still performs dose reconstructions for cases that are not covered by the 

SEC class. If there is an argument that the data cannot be used to do dose reconstruction, 

NIOSH cannot use the data to do the dose reconstructions for those cancers. You need to 

remember that when a class gets added to the SEC there can still be a large number of claims that 

are not covered. 

Ms. Breyer: 

Workers without 250 days employment are not included either. Another point is that a labor 

organization can be a petitioner, as well as an energy employee or survivor, or an authorized 

representative. An energy employee or a survivor must fill out a form to designate an authorized 

representative. 

Comment: 

I would like to say something else about working on the risers on the tank farm. There were 

corrosion coupons in the bottom of the tank that were the same material as the tank itself. We 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 8 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

had to pull them up periodically. I was in with a rad tech and had brought it up close within a 

foot. Then you had to reach in and take the corroded coupon off the thing. The rad tech said to 

me – and I am left-handed so my dosimeter was on my left hand – use your right hand to get it 

out. 

Comment: 

There is also a practice of turning off the electronic dosimeter alarms when you’re out. There is 

also the practice of turning your back. You’re still getting the dose, but it is just not being read. 

Ms. Breyer: 

After you read the technical basis document, if you don’t think that it addresses some of those 

concerns, you could consider some of those as the basis for an SEC petition. It seems that the 

sites where the workers are more organized sometimes have an easier time getting the 

information to get their petitions together and get them rolling. At some of the sites, there are a 

lot of people interested in filing but nobody knows what to do so they don’t work together to 

come up with the information. 

Comment: 

Another thing with working on the risers, the TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeters) are on our 

hands, but we’re standing on the floor where some places are really “hot.” If you have any 

reading on your ring dosimeter, it is “ghost” from your feet. I have been told to sit on a ladder to 

avoid the dose so that I’m up away from it. 

Ms. Breyer to Mr. Calhoun: 

Wouldn’t that be a point to be brought up in the claimant’s telephone interview during the 

original dose reconstruction? You could tell them then that you were exposed to a source on the 

floor and it would be considered in your individual dose reconstruction. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

That would be taken into account most of the time, if that is known, and we know that the source 

term was not just periodically, but mostly farther away from you than the TLD. If I have cancer 

on my knee, and the TLD is on my lapel, but the source is coming from the floor, the dose 

reconstructor would apply a geometric correction factor. NIOSH frequently considers a 

geometric correction for hands. For example, if someone routinely performed “hands-on” work 

with radioactive material and has hand or forearm skin cancers, and did not wear extremity 

dosimetry, the dose that is received at the forearm is higher than the dose received at the 

dosimeter, so a correction factor is applied. 

Comment: 

I guess without reading this site profile and belaboring that point, we brought up the issue that 

we raised to management in 2004 about non-uniform radiation fields. The rules were more 

stringent after they changed the definition of whole body in 1991 or 1992. We had none of that 

here at West Valley and they were not relocating the dosimetry on the basis of where the whole 

body was as of that point, between your knees and your head. That is not how they worked it 

here. The whole rad program here is flawed because of that. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

Where did they have you wear your dosimetry? 

Response: 

Mostly here (pointing to lapel). Every once in a while, you would wear extremity dosimeters, 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 9 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

but then you had the other things going on. They didn’t understand and it is documented. We 

went through several meetings with them – trying to hold their feet to the fire. They were going 

to train all the rad techs after the incident happened in December. But that didn’t happen and 

things didn’t change until the next September. They went another nine months. They didn’t 

even take us seriously after the issue was brought to their attention. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

When were the changes made? 

Response: 

Mostly, it was about when they were training the rad techs to do their pre-work surveys. 

Mr. Calhoun: 

So if you had something extreme, you would try to put the badge where the worker was getting 

the dose? 

Response: 

Yes. After that happened with that particular job, we raised such a fuss that they finally 

relocated the TLD to the knee every day. Prior to that, every other time we worked in the cell 

the dosimetry was at lapel level. There were two other cells that we cleaned completely before 

that, back in the 1980s. 

Response: 

Both of the surveys were done with the dosimetry here (indicating lapel). Basically, we worked 

for 15 years or more, with our whole body reading here on the chest where we wore our 

dosimeters. Aside from particular radiation sources, the floor was where it was “hot.” That is 

where everything spilled. Everything typically went to the floor. 

Comment: 

We were pretty upset when we were going through those meetings with plant management. We 

felt that when this incident happened, the supervisor slipped and let the whole body thing out of 

the bag. My mouth just dropped because I was thinking, “When did that happen?” Evidently, it 

had been 13 years before. During those meetings, when we were trying to get them to do the 

right thing, they even admitted that. 

Response from another worker: 

If they pull those surveys up, the surveys are not going to show that they did surveys that show 

the radiation for non-uniform radiation from the floor. There might be some, but not all of them. 

When we had those meetings, we listed several cells and rooms from that place where that type 

of survey should have been done. They can’t say they shouldn’t have been done. We crawled 

around vacuuming. 

Comment: 

There are probably a lot of people still there who don’t have this information about the nonuniform radiation and how the dosimetry should be monitored. 

Response from another worker: 

It might depend on who your rad tech is, too. Now we have contract techs that aren’t confident 

enough to do adequate readings in a lot of the areas. I don’t feel that they are. 

Comment: 

We did a reconstruction of the incident back in 2004 after they removed the box. We had to tell 
 

West Valley Demonstration Project Page 10 of 10 August 23, 2007 

Final minutes REDACTED 

the Dosimetry Department to check this and check that. We asked them why they didn’t do 

some of the monitoring before they removed the box. We said that it gave a dose to the eye and 

they looked at us like we were nuts. It gets back to the tank farm problem, like when they are 

telling us not to look down into the hole. After the union raised the question, they finally went to 

a different area to reconstruct the incident and the dose went up two full (inaudible). It gave a 

dose to the eye and the whole body from 300 to 650 millirem (mrem). The whole incident 

brought up a lot of questions that needed to be brought up. 

Mr. Lewis concluded the NIOSH program at approximately 6:30 p.m. by thanking the attendees 

for hosting the NIOSH Team.