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

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 SURROGATE DATA WORKGROUP 

 + + + + + 

 FRIDAY, 

 MAY 8, 2009 

 + + + + + 

 TELECONFERENCE 

 + + + + + 

 The workgroup convened at 1:00 

p.m., Dr. Jim Melius, Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

 JIM MELIUS, Chair 

 JOSIE BEACH 

 MARK GRIFFON 

 WANDA I. MUNN 

 PAUL ZIEMER 
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

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS PRESENT: 

 THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated 

 Federal Official 

 NANCY ADAMS, Contractor to NIOSH 

 EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

 ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 

 JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

 ROBERT McGOLERICK, HHS 

 DAN McKEEL 

 JIM NETON, NIOSH ORAU 

 JOHN RAMSPOTT, General Steel Industries 

 BILL THURBER, SC&A 

 TOM TOMES, NIOSH ORAU 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

 (1:04 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: This is the Surrogate 

Data Working Group. And this is Ted Katz. 

I'm the acting designated federal official for 

the Advisory Board. We'll start with roll 

call, beginning with the Chair of the Working 

Group or all members of the Working Group. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim Melius. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach. No 

conflicts. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. And I know Dr. 

Poston is out of the country and not joining 

us. Everyone else, since we're talking about 

a site today, if you could just address 

conflict as well, as Mark did. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer. No 

conflicts. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Munn. No conflict. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim Melius. No 

conflicts. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And Mark Griffon. 

 No conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. On to NIOSH ORAU? 

 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. No 

conflicts. 

 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. I 

have no conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: And SC&A team? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro. No 

conflict. 

 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber. No 

conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought I heard 

Arjun on the phone before. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun. No 

conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. All right. And 

then let's have other HHS or other federal 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

either employees or contractors. 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. No 

conflicts. 

 MR. McGOLERICK: Robert McGolerick, 

HHS. No conflict. 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

contractor. No conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Nobody from DOL 

or DOE. And then members of the public who 

want to self-identify? 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I 

am the Texas City SEC petitioner. And I have 

notified [Identifying Information Redacted], 

who is the other petitioner, that this meeting 

was being held. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott in St. 

Louis representing General Steel Industries. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, John. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then are there 

any staffers of congressional offices who 

might want to self-identify? 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I would just 

remind everyone on the line, I know you are 

familiar with this, but please, everyone who 

isn't speaking, mute your phone while you're 

not speaking. And use star 6 if you don't 

have a mute button. 

 MEMBER MUNN: John, I don't know if 

my phone is the only one that's doing this, 

but you sound quite muffled. I'm not hearing 

you. I hear you, but I don't hear you 

clearly. 

 MR. KATZ: Sorry. Okay. Jim, it's 

your agenda. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes. 

Today I wanted to focus on the Texas City 

Chemicals special exposure cohort. And that 

report had been referred to the Workgroup on 

Surrogate Data in order for review because 

much of the SEC evaluation report is based on 

surrogate data. 

 So we are doing the meeting today. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 There were some difficulties with scheduling 

of the workgroup. And Wanda is on, but 

originally she didn't think she would be able 

to participate on this particular date for 

personal reasons. 

 So our only focus today is going to 

be on the Texas City. We are not going to 

talk directly about criteria for the use of 

surrogate data in a more general sense and so 

forth. 

 Actually, I have one sort of 

procedural question because my understanding 

was that Jim Lockey was the representative on 

this workgroup, not you, Dr. Ziemer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I will go back and 

look at the list here. I believe that's 

correct. I was just listening in. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine. I 

just wanted to note for the record that Jim 

Lockey is not in attendance. And, actually, I 

never heard back from him about whether he 

would be able to attend. I was actually at 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

his university last week on another matter. 

And he was out of town then. And he may not 

be back yet. 

 MR. KATZ: Jim, you are correct on 

both counts. And I think I did hear from 

Lockey that he cannot attend. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: I probably said Poston, 

but I meant Lockey. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. You did 

say Poston. 

 MR. KATZ: Sorry about the 

confusion. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I was trying to 

make sure that either the Web site was wrong, 

my memory was wrong, or what. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just for the 

record, I am on our official list, which I 

just opened up here. It's Melius, Beach, 

Griffon, Lockey, and Munn are the members. So 

that is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, anyway, 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 

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

focus on the Texas City Chemical SEC report. 

What I thought we would do is sort of briefly 

because these are in documents, at least the 

first two items. 

 One is just a brief summary from 

NIOSH about their evaluation report, a summary 

from SC&A about their review of that 

evaluation report, and then I would like to 

give Dan McKeel a chance to sort of speak 

about from a petitioner's perspective on are 

there other outstanding issues. 

 And what I really hope to do in 

this meeting is to try to identify issues that 

need to be dealt with and make sure that: 

one, there are no other issues that might have 

come up that haven't been identified yet or 

where we need more information before the 

Workgroup and the Board could take action on 

this SEC evaluation. So that's the intent. 

And I hope we can work through that relatively 

efficiently. 

 So starting with NIOSH? And, Jim, 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I don't know who is presenting. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I am going to 

start off if that is okay. Tom Tomes is here 

for some more detailed technical support if we 

get into it beyond my current level of 

recollection. 

 Just to refresh everybody's memory, 

we issued the evaluation report in January of 

2008 for Texas City Chemicals. And I believe 

that I presented our evaluation report to the 

Board at the Tampa meeting in April. 

 As Dr. Melius pointed out, our 

approach to reconstructing doses at Texas City 

relies solely on the use of surrogate data. 

We have no individual monitoring data at all 

from the site. 

 We relied on a number of reports in 

the literature. Notably there was an EPA, I 

believe, 1978 report that we relied heavily 

on. And to some degree, maybe the Florida 

Institute for Phosphate Research reports. 

 The surrogate model 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 

 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstructed or we believe plausibly 

demonstrates a reconstruction of an upper 

bound for the uranium intakes that were there. 

 As we all remember, Texas City is very 

similar to Blockson Chemical in the sense that 

they were making phosphate products and they 

were as a side issue pulling off uranium for 

the AEC. 

 So we developed models to assess 

the uranium intakes, all the other progeny 

associated with uranium in the uranium DK 

series as well including radon. So it was a 

fairly straightforward model. We put 

plausible upper bounds on the exposures for 

the covered time period. 

 Just briefly, SC&A had some 

findings. And I'm sure John Mauro will get 

into that in more detail. There were eight 

findings that were recognized by SC&A. They 

broadly fell into several categories. 

 And the most notable ones were the 

exposures we modeled were either too highly -- 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and, actually, three of the findings were in 

that category. One was too low. And the 

other findings tended to center around whether 

we needed to do more work to prove or to 

demonstrate that the plausible bounds were 

actually appropriate by looking at some other 

references that may have been available at the 

time. 

 NIOSH had prepared draft responses 

to these findings. The report, I believe, 

came out in July of 2008. But a number of 

developments occurred since the time we wrote 

the evaluation report or around the time we 

wrote the evaluation report that really will 

tend to change the focus of the report itself 

and probably address some of the findings of 

SC&A. 

 Those developments include the 

issuance of a surrogate data position by NIOSH 

in August of 2008, so a good seven months 

after we wrote the report. We have a position 

out there now. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It was also almost at the same time 

that we were drafting the evaluation report, 

very shortly before the report was released, 

we received some new information from the 

Department of Energy that helped define the 

covered activities that were there and 

specifically the very time periods that needed 

to be addressed, which would tend to narrow 

the covered period substantially and more than 

likely reduce the amount of internal exposure 

to uranium, at least uranium, possibly other 

nuclides. 

 And then the third major issue that 

arose was the Advisory Board or the Working 

Group challenge at Blockson, the adequacy of 

the radon model. It indeed was the one and 

the same model we have applied to Texas City 

that we used for Blockson. 

 So that leaves open the issue as to 

how we go about reconstructing radon at Texas 

City because, as we know, the Blockson 

approach is still undergoing discussion. In 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fact, I am giving a presentation on that at 

the upcoming Board meeting in Amarillo. 

 So, in a nutshell, I think that 

enough things have changed since we wrote the 

individual evaluation report that we feel the 

need to have an update of the report itself. 

 But, having said that, I'm not sure 

that we can at this point come up with an 

approach to the radon because, like I say, it 

is directly tied to how we do Blockson. So 

that kind of remains a sticky issue with us 

right now as to how we are going to move 

forward with Texas City. And that's what I 

have in a nutshell. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. And 

that was I think helpful clarification, on 

that issue. 

 Anybody have any questions for Jim? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I just have one 

question to make sure I understand the report, 

frankly. Basically you had no data at all on 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Texas City to utilize production data or 

otherwise? 

 DR. NETON: I'm sorry. We do know 

what they did and the production quantities of 

uranium and those types of things, your 

typical source terms. I'm sorry. I didn't -- 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: We had no individual or 

area monitoring information is what I should 

have said. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Just an extremely low 

production number. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have one other 

question. You mentioned eight findings, Jim. 

 I'm just glancing back at the SC&A report. I 

find that they have nine findings listed. 

 DR. NETON: Oh, there are nine? 

I'm sorry. I made a mental error there. One 

of the findings was related to the class 

definition. I guess I kind of -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. The others 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were the technical ones. 

 DR. NETON: The others were 

technical. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. Okay. 

Gotcha. 

 DR. NETON: The class definition 

issue. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thanks. 

 DR. NETON: We can certainly talk 

about what I was trying to address, the 

technical. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John, are you 

presenting the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I will give you 

the overview. And then, of course, we can go 

into more detail. Bill Thurber is the author, 

principal author, of this document. 

 But I think, Jim, you did a great 

job in summarizing it. I would like to add a 

couple of over-arching findings related to our 

work. And that is we did heavily focus in 

this particular review on the degree to 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 

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the approaches taken to external/internal 

exposure, pre-operational/operational 

exposures, and the methods you used -- and we 

evaluated them against not the draft criteria 

that the Surrogate Data Workgroup developed. 

 We did have some significant 

findings in that area; that is, we felt that 

the surrogate approach for many of the 

exposure scenarios and the radionuclides 

really did fall short of selecting surrogate 

data that was indeed appropriately applied to 

the Texas City facility. So we have quite a 

bit of discussion on that matter in this 

report. 

 I think that is one of the issues, 

that certainly if you are revisiting some of 

these exposure models and assumptions, we do 

have certain suggestions in our report as to 

other sources of data that might be more 

appropriate in time and in operation, nature 

of the operations. So I wanted to add that. 

 There is the issue of plausibility. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I think that is an important issue. You will 

notice that in the process of discussing the 

selection of the surrogate data, in some cases 

the surrogate data that was selected ended up 

with exposures that we found to be plausible 

and seemed to be appropriate, but in other 

cases we found the assumptions that were used 

and the surrogate data that were used really 

-- I think is a very important over-arching 

issue with regard to the question of 

plausibility. 

 Certainly in many cases they were 

bounding to the point where they may have been 

bounding to the extent that one would consider 

it to be unrealistically high by one to two 

orders or magnitude. 

 We also found in other places where 

the doses, the surrogate data that was used 

resulted in underestimates. That is, we 

believe that the data set that was drawn upon 

as applied to this problem resulted in an 

underestimate for a particular radionuclide 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

scenario. 

 So that sort of couches the 

over-arching issues. Of course, we are 

prepared to go into the details, if necessary. 

 And if we do move down that road, I certainly 

would go to Bill Thurber to address some of 

the more specifics. 

 I think between the summary that 

Jim just gave and I just provided, that gives 

you a pretty good picture of where we are in 

this particular review. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks. Any 

questions for John? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. This is Wanda. 

 I do have a couple of questions, John. Even 

though, admittedly, I didn't read and reread 

the body of your report as thoroughly as I 

would have liked to, it is not clear to me why 

you feel that the FIPR study in 1998 might be 

a better reference for this particular site 

than the EPA study that was done 20 years 

before. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It would seem that the earlier 

study might have more reverence, more 

relationship to the then defunct plant than 

one that was done 20 years later. I'm not 

clear in my mind about what the difference of 

the content of those two references was. 

 DR. MAURO: I will give you one 

reason why we were critical of the data. In 

many cases, at least two of the scenarios, 

there was only a single measurement. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And the Florida data, 

there was a much more comprehensive set of 

values upon which to draw. And we found that 

it's very difficult, you know, to take single 

measurements and say that we are being 

claimant-favorable. 

 There are other places where the 

measurements that were made were made for 

conditions. For example, I will use one 

example -- and, Bill, certainly please add to 

this -- where the measurements that were used 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were for operations that did not apply to 

Texas City. 

 So there were two aspects of, I 

believe, the Idaho work that we felt were 

problematic. One was they were very limited. 

 I think in some cases it was just single 

measurements. And in another case, the 

measurements that were made were for 

associative operations that really didn't 

apply to Texas City. 

 Bill, do you want to add a little 

bit to that? 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is the 

Chairman. Bill? 

 DR. MAURO: Is Bill Thurber online? 

 I know we signed in. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, he did. 

 MR. THURBER: I had the stupid mute 

on. John, yes, that captures it very nicely. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. NETON: I don't know how 

technical we want to get, but this 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 

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

generally I just want to maybe make a few 

points there, that I think the EPA data had 

more than just one pointer. We chose to 

report the ones that we used. 

 But since SC&A had made that 

comment, we have since gone back and evaluated 

our values against the FIPR data. In fact, 

they're somewhat comparable. They are not 

very different. And this is the kind of stuff 

we get into when we really sit down and go 

back and forth on the issues. 

 MR. THURBER: I don't disagree with 

that, Jim, but we felt that in applying the 

draft criteria on surrogate data that were 

available to us when we did this review, that 

one of the criteria spoke specifically to if 

you had to use surrogate data, to very 

strongly justify it. 

 And so we felt that it would have 

been more helpful if you had said, "Well, we 

looked at the FIPR data. And we looked at the 

Idaho data. And this is how we came to our 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

position." And that seems to be a more robust 

approach and more consistent with how we were 

reading these draft guidelines. 

 DR. NETON: That is a good point. 

We would certainly be prepared to flesh out, 

therefore, in that level of detail. 

 To get back to John's other issue 

with where we were too high, I think this new 

information that we have from the DOE will 

help immensely resolve that issue. I think 

that the main issue with being too high 

centered around NIOSH assigning or assuming 

that the work occurred over an entire work 

year when, in fact, it was limited to a very 

short period of time within a year. 

 We weren't convinced of that that 

we could prove that at the time. Now with the 

new DOE information, we will shorten that work 

period considerably and bring it more in line 

with what SC&A thought the values should be. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Which will bring us 

much closer to the question of plausibility. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I think so. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And plausibility is, 

without any question, a viable issue and one 

that needs to be addressed. I take some issue 

with SC&A's having lumped plausibility in with 

fairness. 

 And, speaking of fairness, we all 

know that fairness is the end "Gotcha" for all 

of us who would like to be politically correct 

and make sure that everyone in the world has a 

fair deal. 

 But where the truth is, fairness is 

almost impossible to evaluate even from one 

person to the next, much less across the kind 

of incidents that we are speaking of in these 

sites and in these specific activities. 

 Plausibility? Yes, with no 

question, a better job needs to be done in 

that regard. But I don't think you can lump 

that in with fairness and maintain that there 

is a serious fairness issue here. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questions or comments for John? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Can we 

hear from Dan? Do you have any comments or 

issues to raise? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. Hi, Dr. Melius 

and members of the Board and NIOSH and SC&A 

and everyone. First, I want to thank you for 

allowing me to participate in this Workgroup. 

 I guess I have a comment first 

about Dr. Neton's revelations today or at 

least revelations to me. He mentioned 

receiving new data from Department of Energy, 

information that would shorten the work 

period. This is the first time that I have 

had any inkling of this. 

 DR. NETON: Dr. McKeel, I would 

just like to comment quickly there. I believe 

this was discussed in a March conference call, 

with the petitioners, with Tom Tomes, where we 

brought this up. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I am 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 

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

petitioner. And I have repeatedly said to Dr. 

Ziemer and Ted Katz, you know, this is the 

real problem because the 3-11 transcript has 

not yet appeared on OCAS. So I really don't 

have access to that. 

 So, anyway, I certainly would say 

that I want that information shared with me. 

And I am presuming that that information, Dr. 

Neton, was given to the Board. Is that 

correct? 

 DR. NETON: The transmittal letter 

was put on our Web site a long time ago, but 

just recently we put the information on the O: 

drive. So it's out there. 

 DR. McKEEL: The transmittal letter 

from DOE was put on the OCAS Web site? 

 DR. NETON: Not the Web site. The 

O: drive. Sorry. And then we -- 

 DR. McKEEL: So it really -- well, 

I guess I am interested. When you say "the 

transmittal letter" and you "put" something 

"on the O: drive," do you inform SC&A or 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Board that new information is posted about a 

site, Texas City or another one? I'm just 

talking about general procedures now. 

 In other words, how would they be 

aware? 

 DR. NETON: In general, we do. And 

this is all part of the Working Group process. 

 We will inform them as new information is 

added. 

 I can't recall from a year ago or 

more now that if we actually notified them. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: But it is our general 

practice to notify the Working Group of new 

information that is posted. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Second comment 

is that the general thrust of the over-arching 

points that John Mauro mentioned were that 

some of the surrogate data in the evaluation 

report was not appropriately applied to Texas 

City. And that seems to me to be a huge 

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 

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The second huge point is that the 

evaluation report, which recommends denying 

the Texas City SEC, states that you all can 

accurately bound intakes and external doses. 

And now we learn that the radon model used 

does not bound it and, in fact, has to be 

re-thought through for Blockson and in the 

same way has to be thought through for Texas 

City. 

 So here is a point that is an old 

issue about timeliness, but it also applies to 

surrogate data. NIOSH admits that it has 

absolutely no real data about Texas City. 

 And in my recent letter to 

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee trying to get 

her to help locate some documents, I mentioned 

that we have had tremendous difficulty getting 

real data from the Texas Health Department and 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 

TCEQ. So we are asking her to help us. 

 The point I want to bring out is 

this evaluation report was in January of 2008. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And it's now May of 2009. You can't 

reconstruct the radon doses. There have been 

no dose reconstructions done in that 17 

months. 

 So my point is -- and it sounds 

like the deliberations about this are going to 

go on for a very long time. So I would just 

like to state again that it seems to me not 

just the fair but the appropriate thing to do 

is to admit that this fight, the doses cannot 

be reconstructed based on SC&A's findings, Dr. 

Neton's admission that they have not got a 

valid radon model. 

 And my challenge also is that 

although the source term is somewhat defined, 

now we know that there is new information from 

DOE that changes the production period. So 

possibly that information changes the source 

term mask, for instance, that was processed. 

 I would also note that if you 

carefully look at what has been offered as 

definitions of source term, it is very 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

incomplete. We know the plant stopped. And 

then it was slow starting. And, you know, 

there is very scant information that defines 

the source term. 

 There are no pictures of the 

recovery building. There are no descriptions 

of the recovery building, no way to tell how 

that building was constructed with respect to 

air flow and air exchanges and so forth. I 

know those discussions well at Blockson. 

 So to me this is a situation where 

you have an AWE site with no monitoring data 

at all. And it deserved at the beginning, a 

long time ago, an 83.14. And now as this long 

period of time after the evaluation report was 

rendered, we still -- I mean, we're saying 

this morning we cannot correctly bound those 

doses in a way that satisfies SC&A. And the 

Board still has to make its deliberations. 

 Then the final point I want to make 

is that although we say we are going to 

concentrate just on TCC, I think it is heavily 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dependent on getting surrogate data criteria 

that, number one, are finalized by the Board 

and that are reconciled with the NIOSH set of 

OCAS IG-004 surrogate data criteria, which 

were put out months after the evaluation 

report was made. 

 So I just think it is extremely -- 

I am going to try to stay away from the 

"fairness" word because I don't think that's a 

good word. But I don't think it's 

scientifically defensible. Why don't we put 

it that way? That's the word that seems to 

resonate. I don't think it's scientifically 

defensible to keep on going forward with an 

opinion that NIOSH recommended against the SEC 

being awarded in January of 2008 when new data 

that's come casts a large doubt on that. 

 And also I would say today that I 

would like Dr. Neton to tell us exactly what 

the new data is from Department of Energy and 

how this could decrease the work period. I 

don't understand that at all. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I guess that is what I want to 

say for this portion of the talk. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

Dan. 

 Jim, do you want to respond to the 

last question or -- 

 DR. NETON: About the new 

information? 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I think Tom Tomes 

is here. He could provide a brief summary of 

what we have and what changes it might 

produce. Tom? 

 MR. TOMES: We received the new 

documentation in January of 2008. And I think 

at least three of those documents we hadn't 

seen before. And they were reported written 

by the AEC of activities that were ongoing in 

Texas City Chemicals during 1955 and '54, in 

that time frame. 

 And it describes the problems with 

the uranium recovery facility, how it never 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

really went into full operation because of 

problems with the fertilizer plant. There 

were design flaws with it. And there was a 

lawsuit, as a matter of fact, over the people 

who constructed it. 

 And so at the same time, they had a 

research contract with the AEC. That contract 

was for researching the leach zone phosphate 

material to try to find a way that they could 

economically recover the P-205 from that. And 

the assumption was that they could recover the 

P-205, that the uranium would come with it. 

 And that research centered 

basically on the phosphate. And they did 

analyze for uranium on a number of samples. 

There are some results in those records. 

 Basically, to summarize that, it 

just shows that the uranium recovery plant 

started up and failed and never started back 

up again. And there was some research going 

on at the same time. 

 When we wrote the evaluation 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

report, we knew there was some development 

work going on. We didn't know what it was. 

And we didn't know the full story of the 

recovery plant. 

 So the implausibly high doses that 

had been mentioned were mainly a result of 

assuming that there was some work going on 

that could have been that high of a dose. And 

that's what we did not address in the 

evaluation report because when it was drafted, 

we didn't have that information. 

 DR. NETON: So, Tom, the total 

period of time the uranium was produced, do we 

have a handle on that now, like what period? 

 MR. TOMES: The last quarter of 

1953. 

 DR. NETON: So one quarter of 

uranium production, which we believe produced 

approximately, what, 300 pounds of uranium? 

 MR. TOMES: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: So that was the total 

production in that last quarter, which this 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

new information allows us to speak pretty 

confidently about now. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, my comment would 

be so we have gone from 12 tons for the 

well-defined source term in the evaluation 

report now to 300 pounds in one quarter. 

 So I would say that any reasonable 

person, scientist or not, would listen to this 

and say that the evaluation report of January 

2008 is completely invalid and needs to be 

rewritten. 

 I would then say to me it simply is 

not reasonable, it is not consistent with the 

spirit of EEOICPA to continue to try to get 

better numbers to develop a new radon model 

that what you need to do is to say we don't 

know even the barest fact, which is a good 

solid definition of the source term. That is 

the minimum that you should need. And there 

are many things that are not known about this 

plant, in addition to that. And we have the 

findings from SC&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 

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I would say that you have laid 

out an excellent case why the only appropriate 

thing to do under the Act is to award an 83.14 

to that site. 

 And I want to just state again for 

the record, there have been two dose 

reconstructions done before the evaluation 

report was issued. The evaluation report 

comes out and says, "We can reconstruct dose." 

 So my question still remains, why 

didn't you do that? Why didn't you do a 

single dose reconstruction in those 17 months 

since January 2008? 

 And I hope the answer will be that 

NIOSH can not do what it says is to be done 

and that, honestly, before going into a months 

and months and months longer deliberation on 

Texas City, that the Workgroup would recommend 

to the Board to pass a sense of the Board that 

the evaluation report has been presented to 

the Board, it's been researched by SC&A, and 

the Board could make a vote in Amarillo 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 

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

if the Workgroup would recommend it, that 

there should be an SEC awarded for Texas City. 

 And I think that is the only appropriate 

action. 

 So thank you again for letting me 

say my thoughts. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, Dan. 

 I have a question for John Mauro. 

Were you or your staff aware of this new 

information from DOE when you wrote your 

evaluation report? 

 DR. MAURO: No. We based it on -- 

the records that were available to us at the 

time indicated that the 300 pounds were 

produced over a 3-month period. 

 So we felt that assuming that 

exposures, the basic approach used for 

external exposures, for example, was, I 

believe, the individuals were exposed for a 

three-year period. 

 And the amount of the uranium was 

the amount that would fill up a 55-gallon 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

drum, which is much more than would be 

associated with 300 pounds. So they basically 

used the Blockson approach to external 

dosimetry that we felt was inappropriate as a 

surrogate and also not plausible. 

 But no, we did not have this more 

recent information that Jim made reference to. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I am just trying 

to understand the critique you made in your 

evaluation report and sort of exactly what 

information it was -- 

 DR. NETON: Dr. Melius, I think I 

might be able to clarify a little bit. We did 

believe all along that this 300 pounds was 

what was produced, but, as Tom mentioned, 

there were other developmental activities that 

were under contract with AEC during that whole 

year. 

 And we had no knowledge at the time 

we wrote the evaluation report as to what 

those development activities were. We assume 

they could have been related to the 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 

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

production or something of that nature. 

 And so then we assume an entire 

year's worth of production of uranium just to 

be conservative. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I thought I 

understood that. And then I was a little 

confused when I looked at the SC&A report and 

some of their -- 

 DR. NETON: This new information 

essentially just clarified in our mind that it 

would be totally appropriate to do what SC&A 

suggested, and it is to bound the exposures 

using 300 pounds in that one quarter, which is 

what we are prepared to do. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else on 

the Board have any questions about this issue? 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. It seems fairly 

obvious we have to wait for the additions to 

the evaluation, which incorporate the more 

firm information that we now have. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. And any 

other comments on 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 

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I have, I guess, 

a question for Jim Neton. What would your 

time frame be on that for issuing a revised 

report? 

 DR. NETON: Well, I don't think a 

revised report would take too terribly long 

because it's a fairly simple source term. I 

have a concern, though, about getting out a 

report that would address the radon issue 

because of the current ongoing discussions 

about Blockson and the appropriateness of that 

approach. It would be not the exact Blockson 

approach calculations but a very similar 

probabilistic model that we would use. 

 So we could reissue the report, but 

I would like to have some final resolution on 

the radon issue with the Advisory Board, 

rather than just go ahead and incorporate our 

current version into the evaluation report. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Jim's not alone in 

wishing to see 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 

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I am sure. 

 DR. NETON: Maybe to move things 

forward, we could issue the report. If the 

radon is not resolved at the Amarillo meeting, 

we could issue it just to move discussions 

forward on all the pieces except the radon. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I guess one 

of my questions back to the radon, I sort of 

hesitate to raise it, but my understanding was 

that I asked a more generic question about, I 

think, either at the Board meeting or one of 

the Workgroup meetings on Blockson. Was your 

policy going forward to apply the what's 

called, the so-called Blockson model at all 

other, you know, the similar sites involving 

radon exposure? 

 At that time I believe the answer 

was you weren't sure. You might would take 

the approach that is most suited to that 

particular site now. I may not be quoting -- 

 DR. NETON: I remember the 

question. I think I said something to 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 

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

effect that we would reserve the right to use 

that where we felt it was appropriate -- 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. That sounds 

-- 

 DR. NETON: -- the Florida 

Institute of Phosphate data -- Phosphate 

Institute -- Florida Institute of Phosphate 

Research data. But in looking at the Texas 

plant, it is more of a Southern plant. So 

that criteria is sort of fulfilled, but the 

data tend to be more contemporaneous. 

 These are back in the same era as 

Blockson. So you run into the same issues 

with building ventilation rates and such, but 

we feel we know enough about the source term 

and the building footprint and such or the 

size of the building that we could, you know, 

use the same analytical approach that we 

developed for, well, that SC&A developed that 

we are adopting for the radon, bounding radon 

concentrations. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Now, 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that's a -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: And, Dr. Melius, 

this is Josie. I have a question. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Page 7 of SC&A's 

report reminds us that we had only assigned 

them to do a focus review and only step one of 

a two-step process was actually completed. 

 Do we need to assign them to look 

into that further? 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks for 

bringing that up. I would think that SC&A 

probably should not do anything more until 

NIOSH issues a revised report unless I am 

missing something that would be sort of worth 

doing. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Short of that -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: It would put us in 

the position of having to have SC&A then look 

at yet another document after NIOSH has 

revised the one that we used as the basis for 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our discussion so far. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. I mean, 

I think we could make a decision on that when 

we see the revised report. It's a fair 

statement not to prejudge that and as to 

whether it would be necessary or not, but I 

guess I wouldn't necessarily see any need for 

any work between now and the time that that 

revised evaluation report is published by 

NIOSH. 

 I don't know of anybody else from 

the Workgroup or Board has a difference on 

that or a comment. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No, it seems logical 

that until you get some of the uncertainty 

that has existed in the original report at 

least addressed by the forthcoming corrections 

and additions, that we have no basis for 

reevaluation. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. I guess 

the only possibility -- and I'm not sure this 

is necessary, but were there a technical issue 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that SC&A raised in their evaluation report 

that NIOSH didn't understand or had questions 

about. And it might be facilitated by having 

sort of a technical call or consultation. I 

think that kind of activity might be 

appropriate, rather than have to revisit the 

issue a second time with a revised report. 

 But other than that, I can't see 

any need for anything else. John Mauro, do 

you have any comments on that? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I fully agree 

that to initiate step two at this time would 

be premature. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think after the 

revised work comes out, at that time what the 

Workgroup would like us to do will be dictated 

I guess by the extent and complexity of 

changes. It may be something that when you 

read, it's very straightforward. 

 And maybe some technical call will 

suffice after the report is issued or it may 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

turn out that the Workgroup may decide that 

no, they would like us to do some more. It's 

hard to say right now. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I had, I hoped, 

correctly assumed that any technical exchange 

that felt was needed by either party would, in 

fact, take place without actual further urging 

from the Workgroup. Am I correct in that, 

John, Jim? 

 DR. MAURO: Usually we get approval 

by the Workgroup for a technical call if one 

is deemed needed. So what I am hearing is 

SC&A asserted we would be more than happy to 

talk to Tom Tomes and Jim about our findings 

if there's any question about any of it. 

 And as long as that is okay with 

the Workgroup, we will certainly do that if 

need be. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I mean, I 

don't see any problem with that. I would just 

I think request that you would notify the 

Workgroup or at least the Workgroup Chair. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. This is 

Ziemer. I think the practice is raised on the 

side of the Workgroup members because 

Workgroup members have the option of listening 

in on those technical discussions anyway. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I will try to listen 

in and keep quiet. 

 DR. MAURO: Fine. Absolutely, Jim, 

if there is anything, Tom, if there is 

anything, you would like to discuss regarding 

our findings, any of the more detailed stuff, 

let us know. And we certainly will inform the 

Workgroup when that is scheduled. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. We would be happy 

to do that. Right now I can't think of 

anything that, you know, we need to discuss, 

but it may come up once we start doing our 

revision. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. I have one 

question. I think this is for Ted Katz. Dan 

McKeel mentioned the -- I guess it's the 

transcription related to a March 2008 call 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

with the petitioners that has never appeared 

on the Web site. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: Dr. Melius, I think 

that was a NIOSH and a petitioner call, which 

those aren't transcribed. Those are typically 

just -- I don't know, Tom. They're just 

meetings to discuss the evaluation report 

itself with the petitioners to answer any 

questions they might have. That's when this 

discussion about the new data came up. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Well, I am 

just responding to what I think I heard you -- 

 DR. McKEEL: I was talking about 

the March 11th, 2009 Surrogate Data Workgroup. 

 And that's what I thought Jim was referring 

to. I mean, I am not sure about the March 

technical call. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think Jim, Jim 

Neton, -- too many Jims here -- Jim Neton was 

I guess referring to a call with the 

petitioners. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I am the only 

petitioner besides [Identifying Information 

Redacted]. There are two of us. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: And Tom Tomes is 

sitting here. He recalls discussing this with 

you during that conference call. 

 DR. McKEEL: And what was the date 

of that conference call? Maybe I can look 

that up? 

 MR. TOMES: March 13th, 2008. 

That's what I recall. 

 DR. McKEEL: Oh, March 13th, 2008? 

 MR. TOMES: Yes, correct. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, okay. So I 

guess since your question is to Ted Katz, 

then, you know, I will just mention I assume 

to get that report from DOE, I will have to 

file a FOIA request. Is that correct under 

the current -- that it's not available to me 

through FACA section 3(b), that because it was 

not given to the Board directly, I have to 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 

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a FOIA? Is that correct? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Dan? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes? 

 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. These 

interactions that OCAS has with petitioners, 

yes, you have to FOIA for that. That's 

correct. 

 DR. McKEEL: But the question I 

don't understand is, will there even be a -- 

there won't be a transcript of that meeting. 

So all I request is some DOE documents that I 

don't even know the name of that was discussed 

at some meeting on March the 13th, 2008 for 

which there are no minutes, summary, or a 

transcript. 

 I guess what I would ask, Dr. 

Neton, it seems to me that things have gotten 

far out of kilter when NIOSH can't even write 

me an e-mail and tell me the name of the 

document because that would greatly facilitate 

making a FOIA request for a specific document, 

rather than some vague request that the FOIA 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

office would have no idea what I was talking 

about and I don't have any idea what I am 

talking about. 

 MR. KATZ: Dan? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes? 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. This is Ted. 

 I don't know of any reason why you can't be 

given the name of a document to FOIA. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, you may say 

that, but I can tell you that I have written 

Larry Elliott about Texas City. The first 

time I ever wrote him I asked him -- this was 

before the evaluation report. I asked him, 

could he please inform me what information 

NIOSH had or OCAS had about Texas City 

Chemicals. 

 And he and Laurie Breyer assured me 

that they had three documents for Texas City. 

 And after much urging, they sent me the SRDB 

database listing, which gives the SRDB number. 

 And then I wrote back and said, you 

know, "This is not helpful because I don't 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know what those numbers mean. Can't you at 

least give me like a basic bibliographic 

citation, the name, the title, the year, the 

report number, pages?" 

 And he refused. They refused. 

They said they would not do that. So you may 

not know a reason why I shouldn't get it, but 

all I can tell you is that, practically 

speaking, NIOSH has refused to divulge that 

kind of information. 

 And I also don't see any reason why 

they couldn't and shouldn't do that. 

 MR. KATZ: Jim or Tom, do you have 

the date of the memo from DOE or whatever the 

documentation was that was sent over that you 

can -- if you have it available, of course, 

you can just state it for the transcript and 

he can -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes, Ted. It is a 

Department of Energy letter dated January 7th, 

2008 from Dr. Pat Worthington to Larry 

Elliott. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: And the subject? Can 

you just give the subject or whatever it has 

as the subject line or whatever it might have 

accordingly as identifier? 

 DR. NETON: It's a response to our 

request for further research into Texas City. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I think that is 

very exact identifying information. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

Did you say earlier, Jim, that that material 

was on the O: drive? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, it is. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. TOMES: Just recently added. 

And I haven't notified any of the Workgroup 

that we put it on there yet. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was looking in 

the OCAS updates. And I didn't see any 

reference to it or any notices that it was put 

on. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. We need to get 

the e-mail to the Working Group and SC&A 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 

 54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

well. It's in the Texas City folder. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know on some of 

the workgroups, the -- your liaison person, 

like Mark Rolfes or one of the others for the 

various workgroups will tell the workgroup 

when they are putting various documents on the 

O: drive. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think it's 

a formal procedure, but it's certainly done as 

a matter of general practice if there is a 

liaison person. 

 So I think in this case it would be 

appropriate if, Tom, you would do that as a 

regular thing for this particular case, it 

would be helpful. 

 MR. TOMES: We certainly will. The 

letters have been on there for some time. 

Just the documents themselves were just 

recently added. And I will send an e-mail 

out. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, again, 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

although the petitioners don't have access to 

the O: drive, I don't see any reason why they 

shouldn't be made aware that something has 

been placed there. Is that a problem so they 

know of its existence? 

 DR. NETON: I don't see that that 

would be a problem, no. 

 DR. McKEEL: I would certainly 

appreciate that. And, again, I would say 

about this particular set, even though the 

comment was that there was a letter from Pat 

Worthington to Larry Elliott January 7th, 

2008, there's also mention that there were 

documents -- 

 DR. NETON: Right. That's -- 

 DR. McKEEL: -- accompanying the 

letter. And that's really what I want, of 

course, is the letter and the document. 

 DR. NETON: I understand. The 

letter had attached to it these documents. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I don't know 

whether the letter referred specifically 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 

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the names of the documents. If it's in the 

body of it, that would be fine. Eventually I 

would have to send a FOIA for the documents 

and the letter. 

 DR. NETON: I think if you could 

just send and say we want the documents that 

were listed in that letter would be sufficient 

in my mind. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Sure. That 

would be fine. All right. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

comments or questions? 

 MR. KATZ: I would just like to 

clarify because there was also the question 

about a Surrogate Data meeting. I thought it 

was set on March 11th, but I don't see a 

record of a March 11th Surrogate Data meeting, 

not to say that that's not correct but -- 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't believe 

there was one. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay. Thanks. 

All right. 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: Maybe it was another 

meeting. Maybe it was the other workgroup on 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The workgroups -- 

 MR. KATZ: I don't see a March 11th 

meeting at all of the Board, of any workgroup 

of the Board. But, again, something could be 

wrong with the Web site listing. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. I'm probably 

incorrect. 

 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John 

Mauro. I'm just looking at my calendar. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And I noticed that I 

marked on my calendar for March 11th there was 

a TBD 6000 Workgroup meeting. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: You are talking about 

2009. Sorry. I'm looking at 2008. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I am talking about 

2009. Yes. I'm sorry. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You want to go back 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a year. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. I am talking 

about there was a 3-11-09 I guess it was a TBD 

6000 Workgroup. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. There was. I 

have that in my calendar. 

 DR. McKEEL: Oh, okay. Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. If it's not up 

there yet, that may be just getting a Privacy 

Act review. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm sorry, but 

that is not relevant to today. So that's 

okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anything else 

before we confuse ourselves all further? We 

can barely tell what year we are all in, 

right? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, then 

thank everybody for participating. And some 
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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

of you I will see in Amarillo next week. 

 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)