NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 + + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

 AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 OFFICE OF COMPENSATION ANALYSIS AND SUPPORT 

 + + + + + 

 BLOCKSON CHEMICAL SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT 

 PETITION WORK GROUP 

 + + + + + 

 FRIDAY, 

 DECEMBER 12, 2008 

 + + + + + 

 The work group convened via 

teleconference at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard 

Time, Wanda I. Munn, Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON 

JAMES M. MELIUS 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

LARRY ELLIOTT, ORAU 

JIM NETON, OCAS 

TOM TOMES, OCAS 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A 

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A 

CHUCK PHILLIPS, SC&A 

LIZ HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS 

JEFF COATES, DOL 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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

2 9:01 a.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Let's just start with a 

4 roll call. 

5 We have Charles Morrison to be the 

6 court reporter. That's great. 

7 This is Ted Katz. I am the Acting 

8 DFO for the Advisory Board on Radiation for 

9 Good Health, and this is the Blockson Chemical 

10 Special Exposure Cohort Petition Work Group, 

11 chaired by Wanda Munn, and let's begin with 

12 roll call beginning with Madam Chair. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda Munn, Chair of 

14 the Blockson Work Group. 

15 MR. KATZ: And, please address 

16 conflict since this a site-specific work 

17 group. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: No conflicts. 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, 

20 Member of the Advisory Board of the Blockson 

21 Work Group. No conflict. 

22 MEMBER MELIUS: Jim Melius, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

1 Advisory Board Work Group. No conflict. 

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, 

3 Advisory Board Work Group. 

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

5 Advisory Board Work Group. No conflicts. 

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, sorry, I'm 

7 forgetting alphabetical order here. Gen 

8 Roessler, Advisory Group, Member of the Work 

9 Group. No conflicts. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, and I think, Brad, 

11 you already spoke, right? 

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I did. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. 

14 And now, let's go with the NIOSH 

15 ORAU team. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

17 Director of the Office of Compensation 

18 Analysis and Support. No conflicts. 

19 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, OCAS. No 

20 conflicts. 

21 MR. TOMES: Tom Tomes with OCAS. 

22 No conflicts. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 MR. KATZ: Okay then, and SC&A? 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, John Mauro. No 

3 conflict. SC&A. 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, 

5 SC&A. No conflicts. 

6 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Bob. 

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Thank you. 

8 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, SC&A. 

9 No conflict. 

10 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Steve. 

11 MR. OSTROW: Good morning. 

12 MR. PHILLIPS: Chuck Phillips, 

13 SC&A. No conflict. 

14 MR. KATZ: Chuck -- welcome, Chuck. 

15 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay then, let's go to 

17 other Federal officials on the phone. 

18 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus 

19 with HHS. 

20 MR. COATES: Jeff Coates, 

21 Department of Labor. 

22 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Jeff. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 MR. COATES: Good morning. 

2 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. No 

3 conflict. 

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Emily. 

5 Okay then, and now representatives 

6 of congressional offices and members of the 

7 public, if any of you would like to identify 

8 yourselves on the phone that would be great. 

9 Okay then, just to remind everyone 

10 who is not speaking to mute your phone when 

11 you are not, *6 if you don't have a mute 

12 button, and please do not put the call on 

13 hold, hang up and call back in if you need to. 

14 Thanks. It's all yours, Wanda. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Ted. 

16 This morning, as my notes tell me, 

17 we have, primarily, one issue that we need to 

18 address. 

19 Jim, if I am misstating this, Jim 

20 Melius, if I'm misstating this please be sure 

21 to call it to my attention. 

22 We have gone through each of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 items that have been brought to us as a 

2 concern with respect to calculation of doses, 

3 and being able to bound them with the Blockson 

4 size. 

5 At this juncture, the outstanding 

6 issue, as my records show, has to do still 

7 with one item relative to radon, that item 

8 having focused, primarily, on the air exchange 

9 capability within the building where we have 

10 the most concern about potential exposure for 

11 workers. 

12 Am I stating that reasonably, or do 

13 we have other outstanding issues that we need 

14 to address directly? 

15 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

16 There's one other area which I would say is a 

17 minor difference of, I guess, in terms of -- 

18 there are really two parameters in the 

19 distribution, one was the air exchange rate, 

20 and the other was the radon partitioning from 

21 the digester, where we have a minor difference 

22 in our distributions. So, I would say, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 certainly though, the air exchange rate is the 

2 one area where there is somewhat of a 

3 difference of opinion, but there's also this 

4 issue of the partition factor. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Dr. Melius, is there 

6 any other item, other than these two, that you 

7 feel need to be on the table this morning? 

8 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I don't know 

9 about the table this morning, but I think the 

10 overall issue is broader, and that's the 

11 ability to reconstruct radon doses. And so, I 

12 think it's more than an issue of whether 

13 specific technical issues related to air 

14 exchange, whatever, those are part of it, but 

15 it's the overall issue of whether that part of 

16 the dose can be reconstructed. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: My question then is 

18 whether there are any portions of that issue 

19 that you feel have not been addressed, or 

20 whether you simply feel that what we have done 

21 has not been adequate in your view. 

22 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, I'm waiting 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 to see whether it's adequate or not. NIOSH 

2 and SC&A have been going back and forth, and I 

3 don't still see that being synthesized in a 

4 way that, you know, to see whether it meets 

5 the criteria for dose reconstruction. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right, I just wanted 

7 to be very certain that we were not missing 

8 some specific agenda item that I should have 

9 in front of me, because this is one on which 

10 we have focused, and which you've broadened 

11 here in this exchange, is, according to my 

12 notes, where we are, and the only issue really 

13 in front of us right now. 

14 So, that being said, I am at a loss 

15 to point to either one of our recent 

16 communications or the other in order to kick 

17 this discussion off. 

18 John, do you, or Jim, want to begin 

19 our discussion here? Have you discussed this 

20 at all, because I have not given it much 

21 thought. We need to try to focus on what the 

22 most recent exchanges have covered, and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 identify where there are discrepancies that we 

2 might be able to close in on today. 

3 DR. MAURO: This is John. I would 

4 be happy to start, and I'll be relatively 

5 brief. 

6 I believe, but I would like to 

7 start with, in effect, both SC&A and NIOSH 

8 have been looking at the use of a model to 

9 place a plausible upper bound on the dose in 

10 the radon exposures experienced by Blockson 

11 workers in Building 40, as opposed to measure 

12 dose -- since there is no measurements for 

13 that time period of radon levels in the 

14 building. 

15 Now, I think that's where Jim -- 

16 Jim, if I may, I think that you did -- you 

17 raised a question, I do think that probably 

18 needs to be -- it sounds to me that SC&A has 

19 come to the conclusion that using a model, 

20 such as the one that we've developed, is one 

21 way to estimate doses. So, we have accepted, 

22 and this is really an interpretation of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 regulations, and so, it sort of transcends the 

2 science, it moves more into a regulatory 

3 issue, which I guess we have been operating 

4 under a premise that it is within the realm of 

5 the regulations that one way to come at a 

6 problem like this is to develop a model. 

7 So, we are operating from that -- 

8 in that framework. I think that's important 

9 for everyone to understand, that, in effect, 

10 what we are, essentially, saying is, SC&A is 

11 saying, is that, well, I guess we did have a 

12 concern with the measurement values that were 

13 from Florida, that were used originally for 

14 the -- and don't want to reiterate those. 

15 And, we did have some concern with the 

16 measurement values for Building 40 that were 

17 collected, I believe, in around 1980. 

18 And so we - SC&A - in this 

19 protracted process that we've been involved 

20 in, developed a model, and we've gotten to the 

21 point now where the model is is coming to the 

22 place that we are focusing in on. And, I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 think it's important to keep that in mind, 

2 that now we are moving into a realm where the 

3 model is becoming a primary trust, as opposed 

4 to these other measurements. 

5 Now, given that one accepts that, 

6 okay, let's take a look at the model. SC&A 

7 has come to a point where we believe this is a 

8 scientifically robust and technically sound 

9 model to characterize mathematically, to 

10 simulate exposures. And then, it becomes a 

11 matter of, okay, given that you believe you 

12 can use a model, and that this model is robust 

13 and appropriate, what parameters do you use 

14 for the model. 

15 And we - SC&A - has come up with 

16 its model and its approach, and has its 

17 results, where we come out. There has been -- 

18 SC&A and NIOSH have had a technical 

19 discussion, and we are pretty close in terms 

20 of where we come out independently on what the 

21 parameters should be for the model. In fact, 

22 we had a technical conference call, and we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 discussed the matter. There are minutes of 

2 those that have been distributed, and I 

3 believe they've been PA-cleared. There have 

4 been a couple of technical white papers that 

5 accompany that particular memo that was 

6 issued, I guess it was -- well, basically, it 

7 summarized the conference call on December 

8 3rd. 

9 I want to give you the SC&A's, I 

10 guess you would say, bottom line. We, I will 

11 actually read it. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: John, I don't want to 

13 interrupt you, but I do want to make one thing 

14 certain. 

15 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Do all of the members 

17 of the work group have those documents to 

18 which John has just referred, very 

19 specifically, the minutes from the technical 

20 call? 

21 Everyone has that? 

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: I have them. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 MEMBER GIBSON: I have them, I have 

2 not had a chance to review them. I've been 

3 traveling all week. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just got them, 

5 Wanda. I'm just reviewing -- going through 

6 them right now. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: They are pretty short, 

8 you can pull them up, probably, and glance 

9 over them quickly. 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, they are 

11 brief. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: They are brief. I 

13 would ask all of the board members if you have 

14 not absorbed these most recent exchanges, very 

15 specifically, the technical call minutes, 

16 which are, I think, illuminating in 

17 themselves. If you haven't had a chance to 

18 really absorb those, if you would pull them up 

19 and at least take a quick look at them while 

20 John continues, it would be helpful, I think, 

21 for all of us. 

22 I'm sorry to interrupt, John. Go 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 ahead. 

2 DR. MAURO: No, thank you, and I do 

3 think it's important that the minutes and the 

4 accompanying white papers that go with those 

5 minutes be, you know, before us, because that 

6 really captures where we are right now 

7 regarding this matter. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: As well as the very 

9 recent e-mail exchanges between Tom and Bob. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, there have been 

11 recent further discussions. I think -- and 

12 they do bear on this -- I would say that the 

13 discussions and the further analysis sheds 

14 further light on the matter, but SC&A still -- 

15 I mean, we still support -- let me give you 

16 the bottom line. I think it's easier this 

17 way. And then, we can back away from that. 

18 SC&A, basically concluded, and I'll 

19 read the statement, it's the very last 

20 sentence in our memo, SC&A stated, give that 

21 you could select the appropriate parameter 

22 distributions, we believe you could place a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 plausible upper bound on the radon exposures 

2 experienced by Blockson workers. So, we 

3 believe this is a tractable problem. 

4 It becomes a matter of judgment, as 

5 to what the best distributions are for 

6 characterizing what the possible range of 

7 exposures might have been. 

8 SC&A, the way I view it is, there 

9 are only -- there are two parameters that are 

10 important, and both SC&A and NIOSH have 

11 independently studied in depth these two 

12 parameters. One is the air exchange rate, the 

13 turnover rate in the building, that has a 

14 strong bearing on what the concentrations 

15 might be in the building, and the other is 

16 what's call the partition factor, that is -- 

17 and the way to think about that is that radon 

18 is going to emanate from the digester and 

19 become airborne, and the degree to which it 

20 bleeds this liquid acid solution and becomes 

21 airborne. 

22 Bottom line is that we came up with 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 a distribution and NIOSH came up with a 

2 distribution for each of these parameters. In 

3 my opinion, they differ, but they only differ 

4 in a small manner which is, I consider, to be 

5 reasonable differences that independent 

6 investigators would come to. Quite frankly, I 

7 would go as far as to say, I'm surprised how 

8 much in agreement they are, given that we both 

9 reviewed the literature independently, and 

10 came to our own judgments regarding these 

11 distributions. And, the bottom line is this, 

12 our distribution for the air turnover rate 

13 ranges from about .25 air changes per hour up 

14 to one -- I'm sorry, up to about five air 

15 changes per hour. 

16 NIOSH came up with their 

17 distribution, which their lower end, instead 

18 of .25, about .25, is one air change per hour. 

19 So, on the bottom end of the distribution our 

20 number is a bit more conservative, that is, we 

21 think that a good starting point, we believe 

22 it's possible that the real but unknown air 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 change per hour in the building could have 

2 been as low as .25. NIOSH's position is the 

3 air change over -- air change rate per hour 

4 could -- that the real but unknown value, and 

5 this is the average annual over the course of 

6 a year, is about one air change per hour. This 

7 difference does make a difference in the 

8 distribution, but it's not an unreasonable 

9 difference of opinion. So, there's the one 

10 place where we have a difference. 

11 The other place we have a 

12 difference is the partitioning of the radon 

13 from the digester to become airborne. We 

14 believe that the actual partition, the amount 

15 of radon that leaves the digester and becomes 

16 airborne, could be close to zero, and there's 

17 a real number that's unknown. There's a real 

18 but unknown number, we believe that could lie 

19 anywhere between -- as low as close to zero to 

20 as high as .7, which means that 70 percent, 

21 it's possible that as much as 70 percent of 

22 the radon that's in the liquid form in the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 digester, as it moves through the building, 

2 could, in theory, become airborne because of 

3 the -- you know, the open tanks, and it could 

4 actually partition. 

5 So, there's a real but unknown 

6 number for what that partitioning was, and we 

7 believe fit lies someplace -- a value 

8 someplace close to zero, but, perhaps, as high 

9 as 70 percent. 

10 NIOSH's number, interestingly 

11 enough, that they came to, is they believe the 

12 right range is someplace close to zero and as 

13 high as .5. 

14 So, here are differences, they 

15 believe that, really, the upper bound of what 

16 the partitioning could be is only 50 percent 

17 of the radon might emanate, while SC&A 

18 believes, well, we think it might -- it could 

19 even be a little bit higher, and these are 

20 judgment calls based on our review of the 

21 literature. 

22 Again, I believe that difference is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 small, and I believe it's not an unreasonable 

2 difference, that we are two different groups 

3 of individuals looking at the same problem. 

4 So, we walk away saying, I think the 

5 concluding remark -- statement would be, SC&A 

6 believes that the approach used by -- the 

7 distribution selected by NIOSH are 

8 scientifically sound and claimant-favorable, 

9 except if we were to do the analysis we would 

10 probably use the slightly different 

11 distribution, which is a little bit more 

12 conservative, a little bit more claimant13 favorable, so we come down in a somewhat 

14 different place in the end than NIOSH does, 

15 but I think both sets of values are 

16 reasonable. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Before we ask NIOSH to 

18 address these same issues, there's one other 

19 point which probably should be made at this 

20 juncture, based on your introductory comments, 

21 John. 

22 I have a direct question for the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 members of the board. John prefaced his 

2 comments by pointing out that a model has been 

3 developed from which all of the scientific 

4 approaches to determination of dose has been 

5 predicated. 

6 My question to the board members 

7 is, do you have any problem with the 

8 development of a model of this type, as being 

9 an appropriate approach? Is the approach 

10 itself acceptable to us? 

11 MEMBER GIBSON: Wanda, this is 

12 Mike. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MEMBER GIBSON: I disagree with the 

15 approach. Basically, I think it's not 

16 consistent with the intent of the Act. I 

17 don't disagree with their scientific 

18 philosophy, but I just feel that this whole 

19 path we are marching down is not consistent 

20 with the intent of the legislation. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: So, unless we can come 

22 to some other conclusion during this phone 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 call, you will not be accepting the approach 

2 that's taken here, regardless of what we 

3 decide with respect to these two concerns 

4 we've just discussed. 

5 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Wanda, that's 

6 correct. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Jim? 

8 MEMBER MELIUS: I would echo that, 

9 and I'm trying to keep an open mind on what's 

10 going on, but, certainly, the inability of 

11 NIOSH and SC&A to reach agreement on this, and 

12 I still don't -- I still don't know what NIOSH 

13 is proposing to do. 

14 I mean, we've gotten this, to me, 

15 pretty odd situation where SC&A is proposing 

16 the methods and NIOSH is critiquing them. I 

17 thought it was supposed to be the reverse. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it was the 

19 reverse as we started out, I think this is the 

20 point where, from my perspective, this is what 

21 we've developed to with respect to this very 

22 fine point. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 But, before NIOSH has an 

2 opportunity to go forward with their response 

3 to John's comments, I wanted to get a feel for 

4 whether the people who are going to be having 

5 to make the decision on this were going to be 

6 accepting of whatever decision comes along in 

7 any case, with respect to the application of 

8 these data to a model that has been proposed 

9 and been operating on. 

10 And, I guess I'm hearing from you 

11 and from Mike that you are still out on that, 

12 and you are waiting until you hear something 

13 from NIOSH on it. 

14 MEMBER MELIUS: It's fair to say I 

15 am skeptical, and I don't have the opportunity 

16 -- I don't have the opportunity to review the 

17 notes from the technical conference call, I 

18 can't access them now, I can't do anything 

19 about the weather. 

20 So, I'm trying to listen and be 

21 fair minded about this, but it's certainly a 

22 confusing situation, and all I've seen 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 proposed from NIOSH has been, you know, one 

2 outside critique of the SC&A model or some 

3 version of that, and I believe there's a note 

4 from NIOSH staff, but it's also dealing with a 

5 particularly technical point. 

6 Now again, I can't look through my 

7 computer and see what else may have been sent, 

8 but that's all I've heard so far. So, I 

9 really would like to hear what NIOSH intends 

10 to do and what their interpretation is going 

11 forward. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I anticipate that 

13 to be the bulk of our call here. I just wanted 

14 to touch base. Again, I'm trying very hard to 

15 make sure that we are not missing an issue 

16 that's likely to be raised when we discuss it 

17 in full board. 

18 Gen, did you have a comment? 

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, I would like 

20 to make a comment. With regard to the 

21 procedure that we are following on this 

22 particular issue, I think we are doing it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 exactly right. 

2 After all, this is why we have our 

3 independent contractor, and all of us know 

4 that they do a very critical and detailed 

5 evaluation of everything. 

6 We just heard John say that SC&A 

7 has approved the model approach. I certainly 

8 feel it's a scientifically valid way to do 

9 this, and I think that it fits with the rules. 

10 I think, too, that we have the fact 

11 that SC&A came up with an approach, and I 

12 assume, and we'll hear from NIOSH, that they 

13 have agreed upon the approach. I think we 

14 have to talk about the details, but overall I 

15 think we are in close agreement, and I think 

16 we have reached a solution. 

17 DR. MAURO: Wanda, would you -- Jim 

18 brought up a very important point that I think 

19 we need to put out on the table, and that is, 

20 we are in an unusual circumstance, in that, in 

21 effect, all of a sudden we are talking about a 

22 model that SC&A developed, sort of the kind of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 thing that normally would have been done by 

2 NIOSH, and, of course, SC&A would have 

3 critiqued it. And, we backed into this -- and 

4 this is a first. 

5 The reason the model was developed 

6 originally was, we were exploring ways of 

7 determining whether we felt that the approach 

8 that originally was developed by NIOSH, to 

9 represent the air concentrations of radon, 

10 namely, using the surrogate data from Florida, 

11 and they came up with 2.33 picocuries per 

12 liter, and we were asked to look into that. 

13 And, it's important to point out 

14 that the modeling approach, in a funny sort of 

15 way, was the tool that we decided to use to 

16 determine if the 2.33 number that was being 

17 proposed seemed to be reasonable. 

18 So, we ended up doing some 

19 modeling, as a way to check NIOSH's approach. 

20 What happened in time was, the 

21 model took a life of its own and became the 

22 primary focus, and then all of a sudden the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 model developed by SC&A is -- we are talking 

2 about it now as if it's the approach that's 

3 going to be used to reconstruct exposure. 

4 So, Jim, you are correct, there is 

5 something unusual about this, but it did 

6 happen in a way that was a natural outcome of 

7 the process that we normally follow. 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, can I -- this 

9 is Bob Anigstein -- I would like to clarify -

10 - substantiate what you were just saying, and 

11 that is, at the St. Louis board meeting, it 

12 was either during the board meeting -- the 

13 full board meeting, or, I think it was during 

14 the full board meeting, we had proposed this 

15 very rudimentary, preliminary model sort of 

16 like, you know, our version zero, or maybe the 

17 version -1, and we were specifically asked by 

18 the board, by one board member, who was 

19 critical of that and said, I want to see some 

20 equations, I want to see some more 

21 documentation, basically, wanted to see a more 

22 detailed model. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 And, that was, to my understanding, 

2 our point of departure and our marching orders 

3 for developing a more detailed technical model 

4 than we had started off with. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

6 Before we continue this discussion 

7 any further, I would really like to have NIOSH 

8 have an opportunity to respond to where we 

9 are. I think we have a feel of where the 

10 concerns lie among board members, and we 

11 haven't had an opportunity for the agency to 

12 speak at all. 

13 Jim or Tom, do you want to respond 

14 to John and Bob's comments here? 

15 DR. NETON: Yes, Wanda, this is 

16 Jim. 

17 A lot has been discussed, and I 

18 would like to say a few things, I guess. 

19 I'd like to start off by first 

20 talking about the model itself, and how we 

21 believe that it's consistent with the dose 

22 reconstruction regulation. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 This is really, we haven't used the 

2 term, but it's what I would call a source term 

3 model. In other words, we know a lot about 

4 the material that was processed, the amount 

5 that was moved through, the processing 

6 equipment, all that sort of thing, the 

7 building sizes, and we've used that, or SC&A 

8 has initially used that, although I would say 

9 in the very early development of the model Tom 

10 Tomes and SC&A were sort of jointly involved 

11 before this became a Monte Carlo model and, 

12 sort of, spec-ing out how this might be done. 

13 But, it's consistent with the 

14 regulations when we talk about using a source 

15 term model, that's part of our hierarchical 

16 approach to reconstructing doses. So, I 

17 believe it is very consistent with the 

18 regulations. 

19 With regard to what John and Bob 

20 Anigstein were saying, I'm in complete 

21 agreement with their characterization of the 

22 situation. This model has sort of taken a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 life of its own. 

2 If you remember, NIOSH originally 

3 put forth, I think it was something like 2.3 

4 picocuries per liter as a bounding value. 

5 That value was scrutinized quite heavily after 

6 we put it out, and in looking at that we 

7 recognized -- NIOSH recognized that there is 

8 more uncertainty about that value than we 

9 really thought, and the model, I thought, was 

10 a good way to get about that uncertainty. 

11 And, in fact, when the material is modeled, as 

12 we saw -- when the parameters are used, that 

13 is, the air exchange rate of one per hour, and 

14 the 50 percent release fraction for the radon, 

15 in fact, the 50th percentile comes out not too 

16 far off from what we had originally proposed. 

17 I think it's somewhere in the vicinity of 3 

18 picocuries per liter, the median best value 

19 estimate, versus the 2.33, which we believe 

20 tended to confirm our original analysis -- our 

21 original value. 

22 But, there is uncertainly about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 that value, and we felt that the use of the 

2 Monte Carlo approach, to put uncertainty 

3 bounds around that distribution, made some 

4 sense, and, certainly, you know, took full 

5 advantage of the information that was 

6 developed during our research. 

7 And, we discussed this at the last 

8 technical call, and I believe it's captured in 

9 the minutes of the working group -- of the 

10 technical call, that NIOSH is proposing that 

11 we use this model in tact, as it's been 

12 developed, for reconstructing radon doses at 

13 Blockson Chemical. 

14 The only difference that we talked 

15 about would be, NIOSH still believes that the 

16 lower bound air exchange rate, based on our 

17 research and consulting a subject matter 

18 expert, would be more appropriately one air 

19 change per hour versus, I think, .24 or .25, 

20 something of that nature, proposed by SC&A. 

21 We are not necessarily going to 

22 quibble about the release fraction of between 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 50 and 70 percent. Frankly, that makes not a 

2 lot of difference at the end of the day, and, 

3 you know, we would be -- we are okay with, you 

4 know, we'll get it down to one issue, and I'm 

5 okay with saying 70 percent. I mean, I'm not 

6 going to quibble about the difference between 

7 50 and 70. 

8 So, really, it comes down to 

9 NIOSH's position that the air exchange rate 

10 lower bound should be one, and that drives the 

11 upper 95th percentile with distribution. 

12 If we adopted an air exchange rate 

13 -- I mean, a release fraction of 70 percent, 

14 the 50th percentile, the best estimate for our 

15 model, or our model using one air exchange 

16 rate per hour, would be 4.56 picocuries per 

17 liter, and I believe SC&A's current 50th 

18 percentile is 5.97, very little difference in 

19 the median values, and at the end of the day 

20 the difference is at the tail of the 

21 distribution 95th percentile, where they would 

22 be a factor of two higher than NIOSH. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 And, that's where we are right now. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Jim. 

3 Dr. Melius, does that give you any 

4 better feeling with respect to accepting the 

5 model and where we need to focus our attention 

6 appears to be on the air exchange? 

7 MEMBER MELIUS: The answer is no. 

8 I mean, it's helpful to know what -- where 

9 NIOSH is coming from, extremely helpful. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: But, you have concerns 

11 with respect to the model still. 

12 MEMBER MELIUS: I would need to 

13 review the technical call. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I see. 

15 And, Mike, your thought with 

16 respect to accepting the model? 

17 MEMBER GIBSON: You know, again, I 

18 don't agree with all -- I don't disagree with 

19 all the scientific effort that's put into 

20 this, I just still think this is a little far 

21 reaching for the intent of the program. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: So, you still have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 issues with using the model as well. 

2 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Wanda, I do. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Gen? Gen, are you 

4 still with us? 

5 Brad, do you have thoughts? 

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wanda, can you 

7 hear me? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, now I can. I 

9 couldn't hear you before, Gen. 

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, I pushed the 

11 wrong button. 

12 I'm here, so whenever you are ready 

13 I can respond. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes, would you 

15 please. 

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, as I hear 

17 all of this, and I appreciate John Mauro's 

18 review of where we are at, I think that was 

19 very succinct and right to the point, and I 

20 appreciate Jim Neton's response, too. 

21 My conclusion is that we do not 

22 have a technical or scientific disagreement, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 that we -- and, I would agree with NIOSH's 

2 approach, and I think what John is saying is 

3 that we can do dose reconstruction. 

4 I think our disagreement now is, 

5 really, maybe the word is philosophical, and 

6 it has to do with whether it's valid to use 

7 the source term approach to calculating doses. 

8 This is -- and I think the science 

9 around it is very solid, when we use the 

10 distributions we allow for ample uncertainty. 

11 It seems like for those of us who are in 

12 health physics, this is something that we 

13 accept, that we do, that it is a very good 

14 approach to dose reconstruction. I'm not sure 

15 that we can go any further on this. 

16 I'm sort of concerned that people 

17 feel they still need to read the minutes and 

18 so on. I'm not sure, in my mind, that that's 

19 going to help. I think that the disagreement 

20 here is more of a philosophical one. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

22 Brad, do you have some comments? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I'm trying to 

2 figure out how to turn on my mic. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I'm kind 

5 of right there with Gen and stuff like that. 

6 I don't think this is really what the intent 

7 of the law was and stuff, and I think, you 

8 know, I'm not disagreeing with NIOSH or SC&A 

9 on how they perform this or anything else like 

10 that. I think, you know, on both sides we are 

11 splitting hairs on things of the stance of 

12 what was the true intent of it and so forth. 

13 And, like anything, like Gen said, 

14 it could be philosophical, but I just -- I 

15 don't think that we are meeting what the 

16 intent of the law was myself, but that's my 

17 personal opinion. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have the 

19 feeling there's anything we can do that would 

20 meet that intent? I'm not sure what you 

21 perceive the intent to be. 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you know, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 it's like -- it's interesting, and I like to 

2 listen to the scientific end of it, but, you 

3 know, there's a difference between the 

4 scientific approach and the true approach. 

5 All of us that have worked in these 

6 industries know that there's a lot of things 

7 that went on that were not nor can be 

8 captured. And, you know, we can throw a lot of 

9 numbers at it and so forth like that, but 

10 what's really there. 

11 And, I think the intent of the law 

12 was to be able to make sure that, you know, 

13 and we've heard this from many standpoints, of 

14 do we, in dose reconstruction be claimant15 friendly, everything else like this, but in 

16 some of this I don't think we are going to be 

17 able to capture everything that really, truly 

18 was there, or how it was done, or any abnormal 

19 conditions that arose. I just -- we've gone 

20 to great lengths on this, and I realize that, 

21 but I still just don't think that it's quite 

22 what it was intended to be. But, that's just 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 my opinion. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well -- 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: We've all got them 

4 on both sides, too. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: -- I guess I have to 

6 add something to that. 

7 It would behoove us all to remember 

8 that when we talk about intent, especially, we 

9 need to recognize the fact that we are looking 

10 at a facility here which bears little or no 

11 resemblance to what we can, I think, 

12 justifiably assume most of the individuals who 

13 created this statute had no concept of at the 

14 time that this law was constructed. 

15 It's highly unlikely that when you 

16 talk about nuclear facilities, the 535 men and 

17 women who make law, that any one of them would 

18 assume that a phosphate plant had anything to 

19 do with what they are thinking in terms of 

20 nuclear facilities. 

21 So, caution in terms of 

22 interpreting the meaning of laws is, I think, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 the watchword for any group like ours. 

2 I'm not disagreeing with what you 

3 say at all, Brad, it's just that it's, I 

4 think, incumbent upon all of us to remember 

5 that facilities like Blockson are no where 

6 near what most individuals would think of in 

7 terms of radiological facilities, that you 

8 wouldn't think of this as being a nuclear 

9 facility at all, and that at periods of time 

10 during which it handles materials which fall 

11 under the purview of the Act was a relatively 

12 short one, the number of people involved is a 

13 relatively small one, and the circumstances 

14 are those which will occur again in our 

15 deliberations in various sites. 

16 The real concern appears to be 

17 assurance that we are doing a scientifically 

18 feasible and scientifically reasonable job at 

19 being able to determine whether or not we can 

20 make dose reconstructions that are fair and 

21 equitable. 

22 The comment that Gen had to make 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 with respect to the bearing that philosophy 

2 has on what we are doing here is certainly 

3 well taken. 

4 I want to make sure that we have an 

5 opportunity to have the issues that we came to 

6 this particular phone call with addressed in 

7 such a way that everyone feels that they have 

8 been properly addressed. So, that brings us 

9 back to the issues of air exchange and radon 

10 partitioning. 

11 I believe I've heard that NIOSH 

12 agrees it is -- that the 70 percent 

13 partitioning factor that could be airborne is 

14 not a major issue in their minds, or nor would 

15 it affect the final results of dose 

16 reconstructions in a truly significant way, 

17 but that the issue of air exchange still has a 

18 difference that needs to be addressed. 

19 Am I stating that properly, Jim and 

20 John. 

21 DR. NETON: Yes, Wanda, I think it 

22 would make a slight difference in the 50 to 70 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 percent value, it wouldn't make no difference, 

2 I think. So, but, yes. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: I understand. 

4 DR. NETON: But, yes, we are in 

5 agreement with what you are saying. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: John? 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree that's the 

8 difference. I do believe, though, that the 

9 real heart of the matter is the points, I 

10 believe, that Brad, and Mike, and Jim raised, 

11 and that Jim Neton raised, and that Jim Neton 

12 responded to, that has to do with the very 

13 idea that using a source term model in a 

14 situation like this is a reasonable and 

15 appropriate approach to coming at the problem 

16 of dose reconstruction. 

17 DR. NETON: John, to that end, I'm 

18 reluctant to do this, but I would like to just 

19 read the section of the regulation that deals 

20 with this, because I think it's very relevant 

21 at this point. So -- 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Please do. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 DR. NETON: I'll read the little 

2 section of the paragraph, it's Section 82.2(C) 

3 of the dose reconstruction regulation, and 

4 this part of the hierarchical approach. It 

5 says: If neither worker nor workplace 

6 monitoring data are available, the dose 

7 reconstruction may rely substantially on 

8 process description information to 

9 analytically develop an exposure model. For 

10 internal exposures, this model includes such 

11 factors as the quantity and composition of the 

12 radioactive substance (the source term), the 

13 chemical form, particle size distribution, the 

14 level of containment, and the likelihood of 

15 dispersion. 

16 And, I would suggest that that's 

17 exactly what we've done here, and so I'm a 

18 little concerned about people -- folk's 

19 impression that, you know, this is not in 

20 keeping with the regulation, or I guess I 

21 heard what the intent of the law, but the 

22 regulation is certainly written to implement 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 the law. 

2 MEMBER GIBSON: The law states, 

3 Jim, that it has to be dose reconstruction 

4 with sufficient accuracy. 

5 DR. NETON: I understand that, but 

6 I mean, the source term model is provided for 

7 within our regulations, so I guess my opinion 

8 would be that we could argue or discuss the 

9 various points of the source term model being 

10 sufficiently accurate, but I think using a 

11 model would be allowed under the regulation. 

12 And, I think I heard that the 

13 modeling approach was -- people had some 

14 discomfort with in general. 

15 MEMBER GIBSON: I think the 

16 discomfort is, is whether it lends itself, or 

17 can be done with sufficient accuracy. 

18 DR. NETON: Right, which I think 

19 speaks to the values of the parameters in the 

20 model more likely than anything else. I mean, 

21 that's -- 

22 MEMBER GIBSON: And, the amount of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 available information. In this particular 

2 situation, we've taken several terms here, and 

3 I believe today was the first -- you know, I 

4 was on the tech call, so I believe you said on 

5 the technical the first time I heard NIOSH say 

6 that they were going to approach it in this 

7 particular way, in this particular perform. 

8 So, that's something new to me. 

9 DR. NETON: Okay, and that's 

10 summarized in the minutes of the technical 

11 call, too. 

12 MEMBER GIBSON: I haven't had a 

13 chance to read those yet. 

14 DR. NETON: I understand. 

15 MEMBER GIBSON: I still need to do 

16 that, and so, that's something new now, and 

17 take that into account, and I need to read the 

18 minutes of that and see what was discussed 

19 then. I don't think it helps to have 

20 everybody repeat that. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So, if I 

22 am interpreting what I think I'm hearing 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 correctly, can we move ahead to focusing 

2 solely on the air exchange rate? I think 

3 we've defined what concerns may exist among 

4 the board members. 

5 Jim Neton has brought us back to a 

6 good starting point with respect to what basis 

7 exists for an evaluation of this type and a 

8 model of this type. 

9 Am I correct in stating that that 

10 leaves us with the discussion of the air 

11 exchange to resolve, or am I missing something 

12 key? Please tell me if I am. 

13 If not, let's see what we can do to 

14 address the air exchange issue, and Jim Neton 

15 or Tom Tomes, do you have something that you 

16 need to say in order -- especially, since not 

17 everyone on the call has had an opportunity to 

18 read the recent exchanges, would you care to 

19 address what those exchanges have contained in 

20 brevity? 

21 DR. NETON: Yes, specifically, with 

22 regard to the air exchange rates, Wanda? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

2 DR. NETON: Yes, there's been some 

3 e-mails back and forth between Tom Tomes, I 

4 think, and Bob Anigstein to the board, and the 

5 working group has been copied on. 

6 Those related to our sort of review 

7 of the most recent white paper, or I'm not 

8 sure what it's called now, but the paper that 

9 Bob Anigstein put out that sort of responded 

10 to Dr. Harley's analysis of the ventilation 

11 rate possible, lower bound of the ventilation 

12 rate. 

13 There's a couple things we'd like 

14 to raise, and one was that we believe that the 

15 worker interviews actually did support our 

16 contention that there was ventilation within 

17 the building, and that was documented in the 

18 exchange that Tom Tomes put out yesterday. 

19 The person who spoke about the 

20 ventilation was a maintenance person, who had 

21 worked at the plant starting in 1951, and had 

22 been actively involved in maintenance 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 activities, and was aware of the upgrade in 

2 the ventilation, which he spoke as an upgrade, 

3 not an addition to ventilation. 

4 So we are pretty comfortable with 

5 that, the fact if one looks at pictures of 

6 Building 55 there appear to be ventilation 

7 structures on the surface of that, on the roof 

8 of that building, that's not Building 40, but 

9 it was a picture taken in 1955 which one would 

10 assume that the buildings were consistent, you 

11 know, were outfitted similarly. 

12 Other issues that we can bring to 

13 bear, I think, to this discussion are, some of 

14 the analyses that were presented in the SC&A 

15 paper, not the analyses, but the references 

16 that were cited, we think are not exactly 

17 appropriate or representative of the 

18 ventilation rates of a chemical factory. A 

19 number of the structures that were cited in 

20 the papers, in the brief chance I had to 

21 review, appear to be office buildings and/or 

22 unventilated warehouses, which I don't think 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 really supports the lower bound rate for a 

2 chemical factory that has a significant heat 

3 source in it. 

4 One has to remember that there were 

5 large, vast tanks of sulfuric acid that I 

6 think by workers' account went the entire 

7 length of the building. These were heated to 

8 70-80 degrees Centigrade, and agitated, and 

9 generated, you know, definitely, some aerosol. 

10 There's hydrofluoric acid generated, some 

11 various other substances in the chemical 

12 processing, that would be unlikely that there 

13 would be no infiltration of -- or no -- very 

14 low air exchange as presented by SC&A and 

15 supported by Dr. Harley's opinion. 

16 Finally, I'd just like to point 

17 out, and this is something new, but I went and 

18 looked at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works site 

19 profile, which if we are all remembering, 

20 Mallinckrodt processed large qualities of 

21 Belgian Congo ore that, especially, in the 

22 early years contained 60 to 70 percent uranium 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 by weight. Now, that's a value 5,000 times 

2 more concentrated than the .014 percent 

3 uranium by weight that was processed at 

4 Mallinckrodt. 

5 And if we look -- I looked at the 

6 site profile, and I don't expect anybody to 

7 pull this out, but if you want to refer to 

8 this, page 71 of the site profile has a table 

9 that reports an analysis done by ORAU in 1989, 

10 where they looked at 184 Plant 6 workers at 

11 Mallinckrodt, and Plant 6 was, essentially the 

12 refinery where the radium was processed, or 

13 the ore was processed, including the radium. 

14 And based on all the radon surveys 

15 that they had collected between 1946 and 1957 

16 the highest working-level month recorded on 

17 their analysis was .138 working-level months. 

18 If you convert that, based on some 

19 equilibrium values, that comes out to about 55 

20 picocuries per liter. 

21 If you look on the table as well, 

22 there's an ore digester job category, which 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 is, presumably, an ore digester will be near 

2 the digestion tanks, of .042 working-level 

3 months in a month, which would convert to, by 

4 my calculations, 16.8 picocuries per liter. 

5 That value is, roughly, half of the 

6 value that SC&A submits as a plausible upper 

7 bound for the radon concentrations at 

8 Blockson, and remember that this is 5,000 

9 times more concentrated than -- or up to 5,000 

10 times more concentrated than the Blockson 

11 rate. 

12 So I believe that that supports -- 

13 that also supports the fact that the 

14 ventilation rates must have been higher than 

15 the lower bounds suggested by SC&A. 

16 I think with that, that's about all 

17 I have to say right now. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any other 

19 comment with respect to air exchange? 

20 John? Bob? Steve? Chuck? 

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, my response 

22 to what NIOSH has put forth, in both their 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 presentations now and the correspondence, is I 

2 just go back to the whole nature of the Monte 

3 Carlo uncertainty analysis, and that is, we do 

4 not maintain that the derived value of .243 

5 air exchanges an hour is the most plausible, 

6 or the most likely, it's simply the rate that 

7 it is not plausible that it will be any less 

8 than that, and that is the whole purpose of 

9 the Monte Carlo analysis, because then at the 

10 upper end we have the very high of about 4.8, 

11 I think, so there is a very wide range, and it 

12 reflects the uncertainty. 

13 And the fact that there was some 

14 testimony that there were fans, ventilation, 

15 remember, I think there's also a distinction 

16 between ventilation and forced ventilation. 

17 Obviously, there's air exchange, if there's no 

18 ventilation the air exchange would -- our 

19 lower bound would be zero. 

20 The fact that the photograph of -- 

21 the Building 55 at Blockson, indicates there 

22 are some structures on the roof. According to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 the records, to the TBD, Building 55 was 

2 built, specifically, for the AEC contract. As 

3 a matter of fact, there was correspondence 

4 where AEC is paying for the Building 55, and 

5 Blockson is submitting cost estimates for it. 

6 Now, Building 40 had been in 

7 existence from the beginning, from the time 

8 the Blockson Plant was built, or at least it 

9 was in existence, presumably, as much as 

10 decades earlier than 55, and was in a 

11 different portion, maybe 1,000 feet away. So 

12 it's in a different location. Unfortunately, 

13 we know next to nothing about the building. 

14 As a matter of fact, until one of the workers 

15 was kind enough to send us, to fax to us a 

16 drawing of the plant, and then handwritten on 

17 it was identified where Building 40 was, we 

18 had no idea which of those buildings was, in 

19 fact, Building 40. 

20 So I'm still saying that -- I'm not 

21 saying there could not have been forced 

22 ventilation. My point was, if we are not 100 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 percent certain that there was forced 

2 ventilation the prudent thing to assume as the 

3 end of the Monte Carlo analysis. That is the 

4 most likely value, is that it could have been 

5 none. And the warehouse on which this was 

6 derived did have roof vents, just no forced 

7 air. It specifically says there were 

8 mechanical -- there were vents in the roof 

9 that could be mechanically operated and 

10 mechanically opened. There were large doors, 

11 12x25 feet, at either end of the building, 

12 which would allow for some natural ventilation 

13 if there's any air currents whatsoever. 

14 So that was not a sealed building. 

15 As a matter of fact, there were air exchanges 

16 measured in that same building overnight when 

17 everything was sealed, and there were tiny 

18 fractions of the ones measured in the daytime. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Bob, I need to 

20 interject here. When you are describing the 

21 building, the workers, during our exchanges 

22 with them, made the point on more than one 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 occasion, I believe, I can't substantiate that 

2 immediately, but I believe I heard from more 

3 than one worker that this was an old drafty 

4 building, and that it was common for them to 

5 leave the doors open completely -- 

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: -- certainly during 

8 all but the coldest of the winter months. 

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And that's 

10 consistent with the comparison with the 

11 warehouse, where they said the doors were 

12 normally open, 12x25 foot bays for trucks to 

13 move in and out. So that's consistent, and 

14 again, I was personally not in on those 

15 interviews, but I do have Tom Tomes' summaries 

16 of them, and one worker said it was 

17 ventilation, and according to Tom Tomes' 

18 interview notes one of them said there was no 

19 forced ventilation. 

20 So again, when we are split like 

21 that, again, that's the Monte Carlo. You say 

22 at one limit you have worker A who says there 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 is ventilation, and at the other limit you 

2 have worker B who says there is no 

3 ventilation. So I think that the range is 

4 reasonable. Again, if we were -- if we had 

5 been somehow -- someone pointed a gun and 

6 said, you must give me your best estimate of 

7 -- then I would say no, the best estimate is 

8 higher than .243. But it's not -- the whole 

9 philosophy, excuse me if I'm being too 

10 lengthy, in my mind was to make sure that all 

11 possible, or at least plausible, scenarios are 

12 captured, not to decide, not to discriminate 

13 and say, worker A's recollection is better, 

14 and we believe him, and worker B doesn't know 

15 what he's talking about, putting it bluntly, 

16 say give them all equal credence and that's 

17 why you have one recollection at one end of 

18 the distribution and the other recollection 

19 going higher. 

20 And then, the final point is, 

21 again, my .243 is a derived value, two 

22 measurements in this warehouse during 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 operation, whereas if they had measurements 

2 overnight it would be non-applicable because 

3 the warehouse was sealed. During the day, 

4 took two measurements, took the mean of those. 

5 Again, those varied, in the same warehouse, 

6 morning and afternoon, when there was low wind 

7 they had .05, when there was more wind they 

8 had .2. Nothing else changed. 

9 So I took the mean of those, and 

10 then I scaled it, because I reasoned, well, 

11 the air exchange, obviously, is through the 

12 doors, windows, leaking walls and so forth, so 

13 I prorated the wall area of the warehouse to 

14 the wall area of the Building 40, assuming the 

15 heights were about the same, and then that's 

16 how I derived the .243, which is a number that 

17 we can state in front of the public, say this 

18 is how we got it, we can document it, this is 

19 the calculation. Anyone with a calculator, 

20 given the same information, could reproduce 

21 this number. 

22 The value of one is a judgment 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 call, and one person could say, well, it seems 

2 like one, or another person could say it could 

3 be two. It's not -- it's not a firm number, 

4 that's my problem with that. 

5 And for instance, well, I'm not 

6 going to repeat my analysis of Dr. Harley's 

7 report, because that's stated, it was based on 

8 small rooms, I don't know what the size of 

9 them was, and the smaller the room the lower 

10 the air flow in terms of, say, liters per 

11 second, but the higher the air exchange rate 

12 in terms of liters per second divided by the 

13 volume of cubic meters, or liters if you want 

14 to keep the same consistency. 

15 So the small rooms would always 

16 have higher air exchange rates, in the large 

17 building this is. At first sight, it seems 

18 contradictory, because well, the big building 

19 has more windows, yes, but it has much more 

20 volume. 

21 So that's the end of my big spiel. 

22 DR. MAURO: I'd like to add 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 something that Jim had mentioned, and it's 

2 something that we hadn't discussed before, are 

3 these measurements that Jim pointed to, and I 

4 think that also goes toward the weight of the 

5 evidence, and how it affects the distribution. 

6 So I do appreciate that Jim's 

7 information regarding Mallinckrodt 

8 measurements, and it does play at, you know, 

9 the distribution issue. 

10 And I'm starting to think a little 

11 bit more in terms of what Jim Neton had said, 

12 the idea of assigning a Monte Carlo where 

13 there is some fairly large ranges of 

14 uncertainty in the parameters. 

15 Jim Neton -- I'm sorry, Dr. Melius' 

16 question is probing, and it's very thoughtful. 

17 I hadn't thought in those terms, where 

18 there's a question of sufficient accuracy, in 

19 other words, I think we all agree that 

20 modeling, and Jim Neton very -- I'm glad he 

21 read that section, I think it really does -- 

22 it's very clear the approach that we are 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 taking, modeling, is very consistent, exactly 

2 follows what the regulations say. 

3 But then, I have to say it was 

4 interesting that as Dr. Melius pointed out, 

5 well, okay, let's for a moment just say that 

6 we accept the idea that the regulations allow 

7 one to model. Then the next question is, 

8 okay, now when the model is such that you have 

9 a lot of uncertainty in the distributions, is 

10 one solution to that that's still considered 

11 to be within the intent of sufficient 

12 accuracy, the application of a Monte Carlo 

13 simulation. Interesting question. 

14 We have interpreted, and we are 

15 using it as if yes, that is consistent with 

16 the intent of the rule where we have applied a 

17 Monte Carlo simulation to deal with the very 

18 large uncertainty. 

19 I don't -- and I think Wanda 

20 correctly points out, I don't know if anyone 

21 ever anticipated that one of the modeling 

22 approaches that might be adopted might be a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 Monte Carlo simulation to deal with 

2 uncertainty, some of the parameters of which 

3 could be very -- distribution could be very 

4 wide, and is that compatible and consistent 

5 with the intent of sufficient accuracy. 

6 I think that's -- I mean, it's an 

7 interesting question, and I think that we are 

8 here now confronted with that, and I think, 

9 Jim, the information you just gave us, 

10 regarding the measurements made, does have 

11 some bearing here, and it is -- I did listen, 

12 and I do take that very seriously, it does 

13 show that if you wanted to go to other sites 

14 where the -- you know, where you are concerned 

15 about airborne levels of radon, and if you 

16 were to say, well, let's just take a look at a 

17 uranium ore processing facility, and if you 

18 are seeing radon levels -- now, of course, 

19 there are a lot of differences in ventilation, 

20 there are a lot of differences -- but just 

21 again, it's another piece of information that 

22 I think is important to put on the table to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 allow people to make informed judgments on, 

2 you know, where -- we are getting away from 

3 the air turnover rate question, but what you 

4 are really saying is, listen, we actually have 

5 some measured values from places where the 

6 potential for radon elevated levels were very 

7 much greater than they were at Blockson, in 

8 theory, because of the concentration of the 

9 uranium and the ore. 

10 And even there, you are not seeing 

11 levels as high as the upper bound of our 

12 levels. So I guess I just want to point out 

13 that did strike me during this discussion, and 

14 I think it's important that we take that into 

15 consideration. 

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wanda, may I make 

17 a comment? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Please do, Gen. 

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

20 To me, it seems where we are going 

21 on this is that we do have two concerns by 

22 some of the work group members. Their 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 concerns seem to center on the use of a source 

2 term to do dose reconstruction, that's number 

3 one. And the second one is then, is it being 

4 done with sufficient accuracy. 

5 With regard to the use of the 

6 source term, I think Jim Neton's reading of 

7 the regulations to me, and I would hope to the 

8 others, says yes, this is acceptable. In 

9 fact, I think the exact wording was used 

10 there. I think SC&A agrees that this is an 

11 appropriate approach with regard to what the 

12 regulations say. 

13 So in my view in looking at it 

14 right now, it seems like, perhaps, we've 

15 answered that concern. 

16 The second one then is sufficient 

17 accuracy, and what we are talking about here 

18 is, that we've been discussing the whole time, 

19 does the parameters in the model, the Monte 

20 Carlo model, which again, to me, to use Monte 

21 Carlo seems to be the best scientific approach 

22 to deal with any uncertainty. It certainly is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 very conservative with regard to these upper 

2 and lower bounds, so I think we are really 

3 focusing on these parameters, and what I'm 

4 hearing, you know, throughout our discussion 

5 is very good agreement between SC&A and NIOSH 

6 that we have the appropriate parameters, and 

7 Jim Neton even has come through in his last 

8 comments to support that. 

9 So I'm not sure that any more 

10 detailed discussion of the exact parameters, 

11 or whether exactly what the ventilation was, 

12 is too productive. I think we need to hear 

13 from our working group members what they think 

14 about this approach with regard to sufficient 

15 accuracy. 

16 Am I right on this, Jim, and Brad, 

17 and Mike? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: I think you've done a 

19 good job of summarizing where it appears that 

20 we are. 

21 My simplistic observation would be, 

22 what this really boils down to is the question 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 of are we or are we not able to do a decent 

2 dose reconstruction with the Blockson Chemical 

3 Company's workers? That's really the bottom 

4 line as I see it. 

5 Do the other board members want to 

6 respond to Gen's question? 

7 MEMBER MELIUS: First of all, I 

8 don't know what you mean by a decent dose 

9 reconstruction, but we can do that. I mean, I 

10 think a couple things. I mean, I think if, 

11 you know, Monte Carlo simulation was the Holy 

12 Grail either Congress would have put it in the 

13 Act or not, would have put it in the 

14 regulations, I think, and you know, it's not, 

15 you know, we can always pick an upper bound 

16 with a dart board, but I mean, I don't think 

17 that's, you know, the intent, nor appropriate 

18 under the law, nor under the regulations. 

19 I think that in judging whether one 

20 can do a dose reconstruction with sufficient 

21 accuracy under a source term model, I think 

22 the issue comes down to how well can -- you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 know, there are a number, a lot of potential 

2 parameters involved, but you know, how well 

3 can one, you know, assess the source term, how 

4 well can one assess and evaluate going back in 

5 time many years, based on often sketchy and 

6 minimal information, what the appropriate 

7 values for a number of the other, you know, 

8 factors that will affect how that source term 

9 leads to doses for the people working in the 

10 facility, and can that be done, you know, with 

11 sufficient accuracy in a way that is 

12 supportive of dose reconstruction? 

13 And so I don't think, you know, the 

14 discussion of, you know, ventilation issues 

15 and so forth, is irrelevant, I think we need 

16 to see whether, you know, there's agreement, 

17 and given the problems with the sketchiness of 

18 the information going back in time, and some 

19 of the, apparently, disparate memories of the 

20 different workers there, or descriptions, 

21 which is all understandable, you know, it 

22 raises doubts in trying to figure out if we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 are able to do it or not, and able to 

2 appropriately characterize all of the 

3 parameters that may affect that, and does 

4 that, you know, sufficiently cover the 

5 workforce that was exposed in that facility at 

6 that point in time? 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Jim, your language is 

8 much more precise than mine, and my apologies 

9 for the use of the term decent. You've -- 

10 MEMBER MELIUS: We certainly 

11 wouldn't want an indecent one. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: -- characterized it 

13 much more appropriately. 

14 And the questions that are before 

15 us here really are ones relative to bounding, 

16 and whether in the absence of perfect 

17 information, which to the best of my knowledge 

18 we will never have in the vast majority of 

19 these sites that we approach, can we, with an 

20 adequate degree of accuracy, assess an upper 

21 bound? 

22 Am I categorizing that correctly? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, I mean, 

2 there's more to it than that, but that's fine. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: That's the bottom 

4 line, right? 

5 So Mike, do you have anything to 

6 add to that? 

7 MEMBER GIBSON: No, I think Jim 

8 summed it up real well. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Brad? 

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I don't. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right, then, I see 

12 two problems here. 

13 One, we want to make sure that Dr. 

14 Melius has had an opportunity to delve into 

15 the exchanges that occurred during and 

16 following the technical call, which was our 

17 charge to SC&A and to NIOSH, following our 

18 last work group meeting. 

19 We are now in extremis with respect 

20 to time and the upcoming full board meeting. 

21 I had hoped that we'd be able to 

22 get a little further along with this, but as 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 Dr. Melius points out, there is no dealing 

2 with Mother Nature, there's no way we can 

3 second guess that. 

4 I am uncomfortable with saying that 

5 we've reached any conclusion here today. We 

6 have narrowed the issues, I believe, but we 

7 still have major concerns based on our 

8 inability to reference some of the material 

9 that we have just been discussing over this 

10 past week. 

11 So I am open to suggestions with 

12 respect to where we go at this juncture. I 

13 have been looking -- I would very much like to 

14 make sure that all of us have had an 

15 opportunity to look at the material before the 

16 final question is placed before the board, but 

17 I see very little opportunity for us to do 

18 that between now and the time that we are 

19 scheduled, which is mid-morning on the second 

20 day of the board meeting itself. The only 

21 opportunity I would see is either after public 

22 comment on Tuesday, which is a dangerous time 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 for us to look at, since we have no way of 

2 identifying when that might occur, and we'll 

3 all be exhausted at that time anyway. 

4 The only other opportunity that I 

5 would see is, perhaps, breakfast meeting the 

6 morning of Wednesday, December 17th, prior to 

7 the opening of that day of the board session. 

8 Does anyone see that differently 

9 than I, or does anyone have any other 

10 suggestions? 

11 MR. KATZ: Wanda? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

13 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

15 MR. KATZ: I've been thinking about 

16 this throughout this dialogue. I mean, first 

17 of all, I just would like to applaud, you 

18 know, everyone, the board members, NIOSH, 

19 SC&A, everyone, I really think this has been a 

20 sort of extraordinary dialogue for its clarity 

21 and for the depth in which you went into the 

22 issues. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 You know, and with that in mind, 

2 I'd just offer a suggestion for this work 

3 group to consider, which is, I mean, I think 

4 not only the materials that have been 

5 prepared, but really, the transcript of this 

6 dialogue I think is an important one, but I 

7 don't think you really want to -- or really, 

8 you would have the time during the board 

9 meeting to replicate this dialogue. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

11 MR. KATZ: And do it justice. 

12 And so I'm thinking anyway, and I 

13 know the transcript can't be produced quickly 

14 enough to be provided and for people to absorb 

15 it before the board meeting, I mean, it won't 

16 even -- it can't even be produced in that 

17 time. So I mean, I guess I would just throw 

18 up for all of you to consider the idea that, 

19 let's get this transcript of this dialogue 

20 produced, you know, which, you know, takes 30 

21 days or what have you, but we can maybe rush 

22 it so it could be a little faster than that, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 and that also, obviously, would give time for 

2 Jim to absorb the other materials that have 

3 been provided, and maybe put together a 

4 package then that could be considered by the 

5 board, and presented in the February meeting, 

6 instead of trying to sort of rush this and 

7 deal with it in this upcoming meeting. 

8 I mean, I think at this upcoming 

9 meeting, certainly, I mean, there's plenty to 

10 say in just giving a status update on where we 

11 are, but again, I think this dialogue has been 

12 extraordinary, and it's very useful thinking 

13 on a lot of levels, and I think it would be 

14 great for the board to -- all the board 

15 members to have the opportunity to read that 

16 dialogue and to think about these issues 

17 prior. 

18 But then, you know, that's just a 

19 suggestion. 

20 DR. MAURO: This is John, just one 

21 thing I'd like to mention, that I'd like to 

22 clarify something I said earlier, as we were 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 discussing. I mentioned earlier that one of 

2 the overarching issues related to sufficient 

3 accuracy had to do with the fact that, not so 

4 much the modeling, but the distributions. 

5 I want to -- I think I was wrong 

6 about that. The idea that there are 

7 distributions, in a lot of the parameters that 

8 we use when we do our, ultimately, the 

9 probability of causation at the end of the 

10 process, we don't, but the process does, 

11 that's done all the time. 

12 Distributions are assigned, Monte 

13 Carlo methods are applied, it is the 

14 fundamental basis upon which all judgments are 

15 made regarding compensation on this program. 

16 So I would like to retract 

17 something I said earlier, that we have before 

18 us something new. We don't. 

19 The very fact that SC&A and also 

20 NIOSH has used Monte Carlo to simulate the 

21 airborne activity, and in that simulation 

22 there are a number of parameters which have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 fairly wide uncertain distributions, this is 

2 not something new to the process, this is -- 

3 in fact, it's quite routine to the process. 

4 So I'd like to just make it clear 

5 that I don't think there's anything about the 

6 use of a Monte Carlo simulation, even ones 

7 with relatively large uncertainties in their 

8 distributions, is unusual for this program. I 

9 said that earlier, and I think I was wrong. I 

10 think it's very common that this kind of thing 

11 is done. 

12 MEMBER NETON: John, this is Jim. 

13 Thanks for clarifying that. I was going to 

14 say something as well, that's the fundamental 

15 basis, of course, as everyone recognizes, of 

16 the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

17 that we use, the NIOSH IREP, which includes 

18 distributions for, not only all of the risk 

19 models, but also allows for distributions to 

20 be applied to the dose reconstruction. 

21 DR. MAURO: Right, and one other 

22 last point that I'd like to get on the record, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 because I think it's important, Jim has cited 

2 certain numbers related to Mallinckrodt of 

3 maximum or concentrations of radon observed in 

4 that setting, and I think it's important that 

5 that become part of the record and be taken 

6 into as part of the weight of evidence of 

7 where you'd like to -- if, in fact, we go -- 

8 whatever route we go down, those numbers are 

9 important in terms of, I guess, affecting the 

10 landscape of the problem and where the 

11 boundaries are. 

12 So Jim, perhaps, you could even put 

13 out an e-mail just to say, to cite those 

14 numbers. I didn't write them down, but I 

15 think they are important numbers. 

16 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim, I 

17 just want to clarify, those were not maximum 

18 values measured in the plant, those were 

19 established time-weighted average values for 

20 the workers in those job categories. 

21 DR. MAURO: Which is exactly the 

22 kind of numbers we want. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 DR. NETON: Yes, and I certainly 

2 would be willing to put out an e-mail 

3 outlining what I just discussed to the working 

4 group. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: That would be helpful. 

6 With regard to Ted's suggestion, 

7 that's very tempting, and it's very 

8 reasonable, but I want every person on this 

9 call to recognize the fallout of such a 

10 decision. We all are aware of the fact, we've 

11 been at this for almost three years now, and 

12 we have a significant amount of information, 

13 we have discussed very fine details of what we 

14 are doing with respect to Blockson, and 

15 understandably the claimants will not be happy 

16 with the idea that we are suggesting another 

17 two months of deliberation on their account. 

18 That being said, I see a great deal 

19 of merit in Ted's suggestion. We certainly do 

20 not want to short cut the opportunity for all 

21 of the decision makers to have an opportunity 

22 to digest the information. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 It would be very helpful if we 

2 could bring a stronger consensus of thinking 

3 to the board as a whole than we have been able 

4 to do in the past, but whether we can or 

5 cannot do that I'm open to suggestion and 

6 reaction with respect to Ted's suggestion. 

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wanda? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, I guess I'm 

10 off mute. This is Gen -- I very much support 

11 Ted's suggestion, even though I hate delaying 

12 this any further. I think there are two 

13 reasons to do that. 

14 First of all, I really think Jim 

15 should have a chance, Jim and Brad and Mike, 

16 have a chance to look over all of the 

17 documents in detail, so they can, you know, 

18 see some of the points that we've been 

19 discussing. 

20 And I think even more important, to 

21 me this issue is broader than just Blockson. 

22 We are looking at some fundamental concepts 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 here when we talk about sufficient accuracy, 

2 and source term, Monte Carlo, these things 

3 apply, really, to the whole program. And I 

4 think it's the responsible thing for us to do, 

5 to get all of the board involved in some of 

6 that discussion in some way, and I think that 

7 by giving this a little bit of time we can 

8 come up with a way that would achieve getting 

9 more input on this, what I think is a rather 

10 broader issue. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Gen. 

12 Dr. Melius? 

13 MEMBER MELIUS: I have no further 

14 comment. I mean, I just -- I don't think we 

15 are going to be ready at the board meeting to 

16 deal with this. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: So I'm taking that as 

18 agreement with Ted's suggestion. 

19 MEMBER MELIUS: And I would also 

20 agree with Gen's point, I mean, I think this 

21 has a number of other implications. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there's no 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 question. 

2 MEMBER MELIUS: I think -- I'm not 

3 disturbed by having to delay it two months 

4 because of those other implications. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Mike? 

6 MEMBER GIBSON: I agree. It's more 

7 broad than just Blockson, this is 

8 programmatic-wide. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: And do you feel okay 

10 with delaying our activities by another two 

11 months? 

12 MEMBER GIBSON: I believe we owe it 

13 to the claimants of Blockson, in my opinion. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

15 Alternate Brad? 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I agree with 

17 what's been covered, and I think Gen covered 

18 it very well. 

19 I think -- and we need to get, like 

20 she said, the other board members in this, 

21 because this is going to affect many other 

22 site profiles or whatever that we are getting 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 into. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: We've tried very hard 

3 to get material available so that all of the 

4 board members can see where we've gone and the 

5 machinations through which we've all taken 

6 ourselves during the time we've been looking 

7 at this site, and the issues before us. 

8 I'm certainly in agreement with 

9 Ted, that it appears to be the logical thing 

10 to do. I just do not want to find ourselves 

11 in a situation where in full board meeting we 

12 are unwilling to say we still have to do this 

13 one additional step. We keep saying we have 

14 one more step. We've been saying that for 

15 over six months. 

16 But it is incumbent upon us to be 

17 absolutely as thorough as possible. As has 

18 already been pointed out, this is not simply 

19 an issue of what transpired at Blockson. Our 

20 decision here is going to overlap into a 

21 variety of other similar kinds of facilities 

22 throughout the program. So it's key. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 Unless I hear any objection right 

2 now, I'm going to indicate that we will, in 

3 fact, provide only a status report at the 

4 board meeting this time, and that we will 

5 pursue the minutes -- excuse me, the 

6 transcript that is being generated here. 

7 Do we have any concept of when we 

8 might be able to see these specific transcript 

9 notes, whether they have been -- 

10 MR. KATZ: Wanda? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

12 MR. KATZ: I'll take care of that, 

13 you know, once the meeting is adjourned, with 

14 Charles, I'll talk with Charles and with the 

15 folks at his company, but I mean, I'll be 

16 aiming to get a transcript, and I want it to 

17 be PA-cleared because it's an important one, 

18 and that doesn't take any real time. There's 

19 been no PA information in all this discussion, 

20 I don't think. So we'll take a look. 

21 But anyway, I mean, I'll aim to 

22 have that, you know, ready, early in January, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 so that, you know, that there's plenty of time 

2 for everyone to read it, digest it, and think 

3 about the broader issues as many of you have 

4 discussed, as well as the particulars with 

5 respect to Blockson. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: That's much 

7 appreciated, and I think adequate time prior 

8 to a meeting is absolutely crucial to assuring 

9 that every member of our group has an 

10 opportunity to absorb this material. 

11 If it is -- if it's possible for us 

12 to do so, I think we need to try to establish 

13 a date when we will address this again before 

14 the February board meeting, and yes, I'm open 

15 to suggestion as to whether we can do this by 

16 telephone, or whether we need to try to 

17 incorporate it with some of the meetings that 

18 are already going to take place in January in 

19 Cincinnati. 

20 My instinct is to lean toward a 

21 telephone meeting, but the question is whether 

22 that's amenable with, and meets the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 conclusions that the rest of the board members 

2 have. 

3 Is there any objection to 

4 scheduling a telephone meeting, in January? 

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: Wanda, I think 

6 that would be a good approach, because there 

7 might be other board members with sufficient 

8 interest in this who would want to come into 

9 it. Of course, I guess we have to be 

10 concerned about having too many board members 

11 on the call. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do, we have to 

13 make sure that we do not have a full quorum. 

14 But in the past we've been in the unfortunate 

15 circumstance of having to ask board members, 

16 who were not a member of the working group, to 

17 leave, because we had too many board members 

18 on line. 

19 MR. KATZ: Wanda, can I just 

20 innocently raise a question about this? I'm 

21 just not clear, I mean, it seems like you've 

22 taken this dialogue, you know, pretty much to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 the end as a working group, but do you really 

2 -- I mean, it's just unclear to me what the 

3 working group is going to resolve further 

4 versus, you know, a board-wide dialogue about 

5 both the broad issues in Blockson, but you 

6 know, I'm not interfering with this, I just -- 

7 again, I'm trying to imagine what that working 

8 group meeting is going to discuss in addition 

9 to what's already been discussed today, and 

10 it's hard for me to see that. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it is difficult, 

12 and I don't think that it's going to be any 

13 different than this dialogue. The only issue 

14 that I see is that not all of us have had an 

15 opportunity to absorb the cross-cutting 

16 information that has been exchanged just in 

17 the past two, three weeks, and we want to make 

18 sure that all of -- certainly, all of the 

19 members of the working group can say that 

20 they've had an opportunity to do that. 

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: But that's only 

22 one of the issues, it seems like, I think Ted 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 is looking at the broader issue that we may 

2 not, as a work group, be able to address, the 

3 broader issues. 

4 And I really don't have an answer 

5 for this, but perhaps, we need a little time 

6 to consult with our board Chair, or for NIOSH 

7 and the Chair to get together to see just 

8 exactly where we, as a board, need to go with 

9 this. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: There is one other 

11 item also, other board members have expressed 

12 extreme interest in what we have done, and 

13 have a mistaken notion about how thoroughly we 

14 have addressed the issues that have been 

15 brought to us. 

16 It is very beneficial for us to 

17 have as much information as possible, either 

18 posted or transmitted to them by e-mail, so 

19 that all of the board members can be privy to 

20 as much of the discussion as possible. 

21 I think we've tried to follow that 

22 line since our meeting prior to our last board 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 meeting, at which time there was some concern 

2 expressed about other board members having 

3 access to what our deliberations have been. 

4 But most of those, I believe, are available to 

5 them now. 

6 I'm not sure, I don't believe 

7 that's true of any of the most recent 

8 information. So one of the items is, in my 

9 view, making sure that all of the available 

10 information that is desired by other board 

11 members is accessible to them. 

12 MR. KATZ: I'm just -- I think Jim 

13 was trying to get a word in, but just along 

14 that thought before he does, Dr. Melius, is 

15 what I was saying before about packaging 

16 together, I mean, the transcript of this 

17 meeting, and I would think you may want to 

18 sort of attach to that for the working group, 

19 or maybe, you know, the NIOSH OCAS folks can 

20 attach to that, some of the other supporting 

21 dialogue of these past couple weeks, 

22 materials, et cetera, that that would all be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 packaged together, I think, because I think 

2 that all needs to be considered, you know, 

3 together by other board members who haven't 

4 been privy to this discussion. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: I agree. 

6 MEMBER MELIUS: Can I just make one 

7 comment? I would like to leave open the 

8 possibility of a work group meeting, simply 

9 because -- and I will read the -- I'll try to 

10 catch up on the reading before we get to 

11 Augusta next week, presumably, I'll be able to 

12 print off e-mails and attached documents. 

13 And then, if I have technical 

14 issues that I would like to have answers to, 

15 that are sufficient to warrant, you know, a 

16 work group meeting, I'd like to leave that 

17 possibility open. I think we can decide that 

18 next week. We'll also know when the 

19 transcript will be ready, and that will give 

20 us a better idea in terms of scheduling. 

21 MR. KATZ: That sounds good to me, 

22 Jim, and I will do my best to have, you know, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 a pretty close estimated date of arrival, in 

2 terms of the transcript, for then, for that 

3 discussion, and we have, you know, board 

4 working time to do scheduling. So that makes 

5 a lot of sense. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Let me ask that we do 

7 some preliminary thinking in that regard. We 

8 have, at this juncture, if we think in terms 

9 of 30 days from now, I'm trying to choose a 

10 point between now and the Albuquerque meeting 

11 that would be essentially midway, so that we'd 

12 have an opportunity to have the documents that 

13 we are talking about put together, and also 

14 give more than adequate time from that time to 

15 the February meeting for us to agree on what 

16 is our next step forward past that January 

17 meeting. 

18 It appears to me, looking at the 

19 calendar, that that point is somewhere around 

20 January 15th. Is that -- the last day of that 

21 week is January 16th, that would give us a 

22 full four weeks prior to the Albuquerque 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 meeting in which to absorb or deliberate 

2 further -- is that a good target date for us 

3 to consider aiming for? And is Friday a good 

4 day to do that? 

5 MR. KATZ: That Friday, Wanda, 

6 happens not to be very good for me. I mean, I 

7 will change things if I have to. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, well, it doesn't 

9 have to be a Friday. 

10 MR. KATZ: But I mean, that week or 

11 the following week, I think either of those 

12 weeks gives, you know, a good deal of time for 

13 the rest of the board to then read materials 

14 and so on that this work group wants to 

15 provide them. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have specific 

17 conflicts during that week from any of the 

18 board members? 

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Are you speaking 

20 of the week of the 19th? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I was looking at 

22 the week of January 12th, but the week of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 January 19th would do as well. 

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, and just to note, 

3 the 19th is Martin Luther King Day. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's a holiday 

5 for many people, so we'd want to stay away 

6 from that, and I would prefer to stay away 

7 from the day following that. 

8 MR. KATZ: But I'm presuming that 

9 this would be a call, not a present meeting? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's my 

11 assumption at this moment. 

12 MEMBER MELIUS: I don't have a 

13 calendar, so I -- 

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, you don't have 

15 electricity. 

16 MEMBER MELIUS: -- it's hard for me 

17 to -- 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: I am open the 

19 week of the 19th, and I'm thinking the week 

20 before might be a little soon after the 

21 transcript comes out for people to have time 

22 to absorb them. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: But the week of 

3 the -- any time the week of the 19th works for 

4 me. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: At this juncture, is 

6 there anyone who has a calendar -- I'm sorry 

7 about that, Jim -- you see, this is the reason 

8 why I still carry around a retrograde kind of 

9 calendar, it helps to be able to write it down 

10 from time to time. 

11 Wednesday, the 21st, which would be 

12 -- the holiday would be on the 19th. This 

13 would be mid-week of that week. 

14 MR. KATZ: Wanda, can I just 

15 suggest, I mean, we have the scheduling 

16 opportunity next week, if everybody just would 

17 look at these two weeks and figure out then, 

18 because again, Jim just said he can't even 

19 look at a calendar. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. KATZ: If we'll just look at 

22 these over, you know, we can sort this out and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 actually schedule it then during the board 

2 meeting, during the meeting scheduling time. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: That will be fine with 

4 me. 

5 Does anyone have anything else that 

6 would be instructive or would help us in any 

7 way with where we are going here? 

8 MEMBER GIBSON: The 20th is bad for 

9 me because of the inauguration. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, there's that, 

11 isn't there? Yes, that week would be bad for 

12 anyone who is going to be involved in the 

13 inauguration. 

14 MEMBER GIBSON: The week may be 

15 okay for a phone call, but that day is, 

16 obviously, not good. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, well, we wouldn't 

18 choose the 20th anyway. We'd start with the 

19 21st. 

20 All right, let's then follow Ted's 

21 suggestions. If we have nothing to add to 

22 this, we are going to -- we are going to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 adjourn the call. Anyone who has any thoughts 

2 one way or the other that come to you after we 

3 have signed off, please let me know, and I'll 

4 rely upon NIOSH, SC&A, and Ted, to get 

5 together a package, as it were, of the 

6 materials that we need to have available, our 

7 references that we need to have available, for 

8 the board to take a look at. 

9 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, I'll leave 

10 that, if we are going to have a work group 

11 meeting, I mean, the work group can decide 

12 what materials it wants to put before the 

13 board. You have all the materials except for 

14 the transcript of today. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

16 MR. KATZ: So I would just suggest 

17 -- but if the work group is going to decide 

18 it's going to meet at the board meeting next 

19 week, that it's going to meet in January, then 

20 I would like to have the direction of the work 

21 group in terms of exactly what materials it 

22 wants, you know, put before all the board 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 members. 

2 Certainly, we will do that, we will 

3 put that material together and get that to 

4 everybody. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Then should I request 

6 that all of us who have such concerns, if 

7 there are specific items that you want to make 

8 sure are included in that package, would you 

9 like me to be the point of information for 

10 that list, or would you prefer that it go 

11 directly to Ted? 

12 MR. KATZ: That's fine, why don't 

13 they just send it to you and I, and we'll make 

14 certain that it gets done. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Is that 

16 amenable with all the board members? 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, this is 

18 Brad. 

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, Brad? 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good. 

22 Not hearing anything to the contrary, we'll 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 move forward as we have discussed. 

2 Any additional information? Any 

3 additional concerns? Please let me know. One 

4 of the things I would like to hear from each 

5 of you is a very short, specific statement of 

6 what you feel to be any outstanding issue. If 

7 you have it, please give it to me, because I'd 

8 like that to be part and parcel of what I say 

9 to the board in full session, and what we want 

10 to address in as great a specificity as we 

11 can. 

12 That being said, unless anyone else 

13 has additional comments or thoughts, we are 

14 adjourned. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you all. 

17 MR. KATZ: I thank everyone for all 

18 of your great work. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, gentlemen 

20 and ladies. We'll talk to you later. 

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter was concluded at 10:43 a.m.) 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14