1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

URANIUM REFINING AWE WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MEETING

+ + + + +

MONDAY,

NOVEMBER 21, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group met in the Zurich 

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395 

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00 

a.m., Henry Anderson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

HENRY ANDERSON, Chairman

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member
 2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVID ALLEN, DCAS

TERRIE BARRIE*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

ANTOINETTE BONSIGNORE*

CLARISSA EATON*

MARY GIRARDO*

LARA HUGHES, DCAS*

JOSHUA KINMAN, DCAS Contractor*

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

BILL THURBER, SC&A*

*Present via telephone
 3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Call to Order.............................. 4 

Hooker Electrochemical 

Surrogate data review (SC&A paper) ... 5 

Petitioner issues (October 2 email) . 10

WG Recommendation to Board ......... 44

Electro Metallurgical

DCAS progress report ................ 44

United Nuclear

Air concentration data .............. 48

(1961-62) (DCAS paper)

Exposure potential ................. 114

to transuranics (DCAS paper)

Petitioner issues (DCAS paper) ..... 122

Thorium intakes (DCAS paper) ....... 150

Path forward/action items .......... 163

Baker-Perkins

Summary of SC&A .................... 168

Site Profile Review (SC&A paper)

Path forward/action items .......... 175

WG Plans................................. 179

Adjournment.............................. 183
 4 

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

2 9:01 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: All right. Well, let's 

4 get started.

5 Let me remind everyone on the 

6 line, except when you are addressing the 

7 group, would you please mute your phone? If 

8 you don't have a mute button, press *6. That 

9 will mute your phone. Press *6 again and it 

10 will unmute your phone. And please do not put 

11 the call on hold at any point, but hang up and 

12 dial back in, if you need to leave the call 

13 for a bit.

14 Much thanks.

15 And, Andy, it is your agenda.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 First on our agenda is a 

18 continuation of the Hooker Electrochemical. 

19 For those on the line and others, you may 

20 recall at the last Board meeting we made a 

21 presentation on the SEC petition. And the 

22 evaluation by the Subcommittee, as reported 
 5 

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 out to the Board, was a recommendation that a 

2 special cohort petition be denied, that it was 

3 feasible to reconstruct doses.

4 One of the major issues on the 

5 reconstruction of the doses was the use of 

6 surrogate data. There was some discussion at 

7 the Board meeting, and the overall Board 

8 tabled the motion to deny the petition and 

9 asked our Work Group to expand upon the 

10 surrogate air-sampling use by NIOSH. And we 

11 tasked SC&A to draft a memo detailing the 

12 approach that they had used and how the 

13 surrogate data was used and why this was 

14 feasible and an appropriate application of the 

15 Board's surrogate data criteria. That memo 

16 was sent around. I believe that was on the 

17 website, isn't it, as well?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That was 

20 completed September 22nd and posted then.

21 And then, there had been not 

22 enough time for the minutes from the previous 
 6 

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 Subcommittee meeting to be posted so that the 

2 petitioners had adequate time to review and 

3 comment.

4 And so, we really have two issues 

5 on the agenda today. One is to have SC&A give 

6 a brief update on their draft memo, and then 

7 to respond to the emails that we got from the 

8 petitioners and respond to any other 

9 petitioner issues that they may wish to raise.

10 John?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, Bill Thurber 

12 prepared a memo dated September 22nd, where he 

13 details explicitly the data that he compiled 

14 on the various sources, surrogate sources, and 

15 compares that data to the data that was used 

16 by NIOSH.

17 And I will turn it over to Bill to 

18 give the details. Hopefully, everyone has a 

19 copy of the September 22nd memo. That might 

20 be helpful.

21 But, Bill, could you take it from 

22 here?
 7 

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 MR. THURBER: Okay. In NIOSH's 

2 original document, they went through the 

3 available literature from sites that were 

4 performing similar operations to the operation 

5 at Hooker, which involved handling this so6 called C2 slag. The sites included Electro 

7 Met, Mallinckrodt, and Fernald.

8 They determined, based on their 

9 review of a number of documents, that there 

10 were, as I recall, about 18 samples that they 

11 felt were appropriate surrogates to be used in 

12 calculating what the likely exposure was at 

13 Hooker. So, they took this cohort of samples, 

14 they calculated the 95th percentile value, and 

15 they came up with a number of 806 dpm per 

16 cubic meter, which is a key input parameter to 

17 estimating the internal exposures.

18 In our review of the Hooker data, 

19 we had a somewhat different take on what data 

20 was relevant and what data was not. Again, 

21 these are somewhat subjective technical 

22 judgments. And so, we were not necessarily 
 8 

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 criticizing the dataset that NIOSH selected, 

2 but, rather, saying we have looked at the data 

3 and we think there are some additional samples 

4 that should be included.

5 And so, we came up with a dataset 

6 of 67 samples initially. From that dataset, 

7 we calculated that the 95th percentile was 555 

8 Dpm per cubic meter, which was lower than the 

9 NIOSH number, and suggesting that the number 

10 that NIOSH had come up with was certainly 

11 claimant-favorable.

12 When the Board asked that this 

13 matter be reviewed back in September, we went 

14 back and looked through the data again and 

15 found a couple more pieces of information that 

16 we thought should be included. We determined 

17 on the basis of our revised dataset that the 

18 95th percentile value was 759 Dpm per cubic 

19 meter as compared to the NIOSH value of 806 

20 Dpm per cubic meter. We concluded that the 

21 95th percentile wasn't terribly sensitive to 

22 what we characterized as reasonable, but 
 9 

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 differing technical judgments in sample 

2 selection. So, we felt that the NIOSH value 

3 was appropriate.

4 And that kind of summarizes it. We 

5 did provide some arguments as to why we felt

6 it was appropriate to include particular 

7 samples and not, but I won't belabor you with 

8 all those details unless you want to discuss 

9 them.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I think 

11 one of the issues at the Board meeting was 

12 NIOSH's original use of a relatively small 

13 number of samples. I think your redo, as well 

14 as the first look, even if you expanded that 

15 to be 67 or more samples, as you say, the 95th 

16 percentile seemed to be relatively stable. So, 

17 I think that was very helpful and gives 

18 greater credence to the use of this surrogate 

19 data.

20 Bill, do you have any questions?

21 MEMBER FIELD: No. I think it was 

22 pretty clear. It looked like the impact of 
 10

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 using various samples is not that great.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Anyone 

3 else have questions?

4 (No response.)

5 So, pretty much, as I understand 

6 it, we now have a better record and 

7 documentation as to the surrogate data 

8 available and its applicability to Hooker 

9 Electrochem. I think that has certainly at 

10 least increased my confidence in the use of 

11 that.

12 The other issue we have is the 

13 petitioners' issues. We got an email, and 

14 then I don't know if we want to respond to 

15 that first, if one of you, NIOSH, want to 

16 answer? A number of questions were raised. I 

17 think that we can answer them, but if you 

18 would maybe go through that? And then, we 

19 will ask the petitioners on the phone if they 

20 have additional questions.

21 MR. ALLEN: Okay. You want to go 

22 through --
 11

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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. ALLEN: -- just one after 

3 another?

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure.

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes. This is an email 

6 from October 2nd, is that correct?

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes. And do you want 

9 me to read the petitioners' --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure. It is 

11 relatively short.

12 MR. ALLEN: Okay. She bulletized 

13 this and numbered them 1 through 10.

14 On the first one, it was, "We, the 

15 petitioners, do not accept NIOSH's 

16 presentation which claims that there was not 

17 enough exposure of uranium to cause illness 

18 and death."

19 In response, we would just like to 

20 say that is not NIOSH's position.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 MR. ALLEN: Our position has been 
 12

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 that the dose can be estimated, not whether it 

2 is high or low.

3 And the second one, it is, "We, 

4 the petitioners, do not accept SC&A's 

5 participation in the presentation. We are 

6 convinced by the matter in which this was" --

7 or, I'm sorry -- "We are convinced by the 

8 manner in which this was handled that none of 

9 those tasks had their hearts in what they were 

10 doing. This is no way to do an independent 

11 study.

12 "True research would demand that 

13 any new research being done would start from 

14 scratch and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to 

15 all that NIOSH (Allen) had done in favor of 

16 their own study. Once accomplished, then the 

17 two would be compared showing differences and 

18 similarities. This was not done. Instead, 

19 SC&A kept saying that they were not told to do 

20 this or that. This shows that they simply 

21 went through the motions and the Work Group 

22 fell in line."
 13

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 I don't know if it is best for 

2 NIOSH to respond to this one or not, but, I 

3 mean, that is essentially what they said. SC&A 

4 was not tasked to do that. And primarily, I 

5 think the law itself basically says that we 

6 will evaluate petitions and the Advisory Board 

7 will review those evaluations and make a 

8 recommendation to the Secretary. And this is 

9 all part of that process. I don't think there 

10 is anything anywhere that mentions or even 

11 suggests an independent study.

12 MR. KATZ: I mean, I would just 

13 add to that, SC&A was tasked with evaluating 

14 NIOSH's petition evaluation, reviewing it 

15 independently and coming to its own 

16 conclusions, as it does for many, many, many 

17 petitions that the Board considers. And SC&A 

18 conducted that work independently and brought 

19 its conclusions to the table, and those 

20 conclusions are a matter of record in the 

21 transcripts as well as in the SC&A reports.

22 Jim?
 14

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 DR. NETON: I just have a quick 

2 question. I am a little confused as to which 

3 document Dave is working from because I have 

4 an October 2nd email that is very different 

5 from that one.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I do too.

7 DR. NETON: Which --

8 MR. ALLEN: Maybe I have got the 

9 wrong one here.

10 DR. NETON: I mean, I think you 

11 have answered some that need to be 

12 addressed --

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

14 DR. NETON: -- but not the ones I 

15 thought were going to be discussed.

16 MR. ALLEN: This one had a title 

17 on it. It was from the petitioner. This has 

18 the title, "Response to Work Group denial of 

19 SEC petition for all workers in all locations 

20 of Hooker Chemical."

21 DR. NETON: What is the date on 

22 it?
 15

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 MR. ALLEN: This was submitted to 

2 the Advisory Board August 24th, 2011. So, I 

3 have got the wrong one here.

4 DR. NETON: Well, there is another 

5 one here.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

7 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Let me 

8 find the right one.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, the one I have 

10 was actually sent to Josh.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, by Mary.

12 DR. NETON: Yes.

13 MR. ALLEN: Okay, I have got that 

14 one here.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I think 

18 we addressed some of those points before. But 

19 the petitioners are on. If they want us to 

20 respond, I mean, to your 10 points, we could 

21 do that.

22 MR. ALLEN: We can do them all.
 16

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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. ALLEN: Sure.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But that isn't 

4 what I had here.

5 MR. ALLEN: Okay. My fault. I'm 

6 sorry. I had the wrong one here.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. ALLEN: The October 2nd email, 

9 it is an email to Josh Kinman. He is our SC&A 

10 or SEC -- what do we call him?

11 MR. KATZ: Petition counselor.

12 MR. ALLEN: Petition counselor, 

13 yes.

14 Do you want me to read the email 

15 here? It is an email that points to a couple 

16 of different links. I can read it because it 

17 is short.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. That's 

19 why I said, "Read it."

20 (Laughter.)

21 Then, when you started this other 

22 one, I thought that sounded like an earlier 
 17

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 one that was quite a bit longer.

2 MR. ALLEN: Okay. This email 

3 says, "Hi, Josh. I would like some answers. 

4 Found the following links which showed that 

5 there is a possibility that Hooker employees 

6 were exposed to other harmful substances in 

7 addition to uranium.

8 "Hooker was involved in the 

9 cleanup of a storage dump in suburbs close by

10 here." And this was coming from near Niagara 

11 Falls. "The University of Rochester used this 

12 area as a burial waste material" -- "for 

13 burial of waste material." Sorry.

14 "Since this SEC includes all 

15 workers in all Hooker locations, this part of 

16 its history must also be included for 

17 consideration. NIOSH is using surrogate data 

18 from Mallinckrodt because supposedly 

19 Mallinckrodt performed a similar process. 

20 However, Mallinckrodt also had thorium 

21 exposure. Since Mallinckrodt had thorium 

22 exposure and performed the same operation as 
 18

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 Hooker, it is reasonable to assume that the 

2 workers at Hooker would have been exposed to 

3 thorium.

4 "Was Hooker responsible for 

5 thorium waste listed in the report?"

6 And then it says, "The first link 

7 is as follows," and it provides a web address.

8 And then it goes on to say, "In 

9 this link above, Hooker is mentioned all over 

10 the place and, in addition to thorium, the 

11 exposure to cesium, strontium, and a host of 

12 other radionuclides are considered."

13 "Secondly, it goes to the Advisory 

14 Board approval of SEC for Lake Ontario 

15 Ordnance Works located in a suburb close to 

16 here. The reason for the approval was that 

17 there was no record and dose reconstruction 

18 could not be done."

19 And then, it provides another web 

20 address.

21 Then it goes on to say, "Please 

22 advise me if this new information can be 
 19

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 included in a discussion of Hooker 

2 Electrochemical by the Advisory Board Work 

3 Group and SC&A. 

4 "I would appreciate it if you 

5 would forward this email to NIOSH, the Work 

6 Group, and SC&A. Since the Advisory Board has 

7 already considered the Work Group's denial of 

8 the SEC petition, it would also be appreciated 

9 if they were advised of this new information.

10 "Thanks for your assistance."

11 I don't know if I can say the name 

12 or not.

13 That's it for the email.

14 I have looked through the two 

15 links in this email and read through this, and 

16 I think there is some confusion that there was 

17 a -- I'm not sure of the first burial site 

18 that she is talking about. Hooker was 

19 involved with two distinct burial sites. One 

20 was Love Canal. And through searching, we 

21 have never found any information that any 

22 radionuclides were buried at Love Canal. 
 20

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 Plenty of chemicals, but we haven't found any 

2 radionuclides associated with Hooker or 

3 anybody.

4 The other burial site in that 

5 vicinity that Hooker was associated with was 

6 Lake Ontario Ordnance Works, and Hooker was 

7 actually the prime contractor for some period 

8 of time there at Lake Ontario Ordnance Works. 

9 Under EEOICPA that is a separate site and, as 

10 she mentions in the email here, that was made 

11 a Special Exposure Cohort for all the 

12 different radionuclides buried there with no 

13 dosimetry data and not a lot of information as 

14 to exactly what was there and how much and how 

15 it was contained, et cetera.

16 I didn't see anything in these 

17 links that pointed towards the Hooker chemical 

18 plant in Niagara Falls itself, the one that we 

19 are interested in.

20 Perhaps petitioner is on the 

21 phone; maybe she can point us to that or 

22 describe what she is looking at here.
 21

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 But it also says, it started off 

2 with something about exposure to other harmful 

3 substances in addition to uranium. She goes 

4 on to mention strontium, et cetera. I don't 

5 know if she is completely talking about other 

6 radionuclides or she is talking about other 

7 chemicals.

8 Right now, this program, at least 

9 the NIOSH part of this program does not handle 

10 the chemical exposures. It is purely 

11 radiation dose reconstruction. So, I didn't 

12 dig into the chemical exposures in any of 

13 these documents. It is outside of our 

14 authority.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And the 

16 thorium issue? I mean, the use of surrogate 

17 data is really used for specific activities in 

18 handling --

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- rather than 

21 the overall facility, which at Mallinckrodt 

22 was somewhat different than --
 22

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 MR. ALLEN: Right. At Hooker 

2 Electrochemical, they were essentially 

3 shoveling or unloading drums of mag fluoride 

4 and digesting it and redrumming the 

5 concentrate after they had dissolved it. And 

6 we used that type of work at Mallinckrodt, but 

7 there were many other things they did at 

8 Mallinckrodt we didn't use.

9 Any questions?

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Not from me.

11 MR. KATZ: Why don't we see, if no 

12 one here has questions, why don't we see if 

13 the petitioners have questions --

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure.

15 MR. KATZ: -- about what they just 

16 heard from Dave?

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, it is 

18 open to those of you on the phone, if you have 

19 questions or comments. 

20 MS. GIRARDO: Hello.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, we hear 

22 you.
 23

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 MS. GIRARDO: I am curious if you 

2 read the article.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we did.

4 MS. GIRARDO: Yes, you read the 

5 article, and you still don't see that there is 

6 a connection to Hooker?

7 MR. ALLEN: There is mention of 

8 Hooker in burial, but primarily it was talking 

9 about Lake Ontario Ordnance Works. It was 

10 talking some about the chemical burials in 

11 Love Canal.

12 MS. GIRARDO: I know, but it was 

13 Hooker employees who were the cleanup crew.

14 MR. ALLEN: Yes, at Lake Ontario 

15 Ordnance Works. That is a covered --

16 MS. GIRARDO: No, but the petition 

17 specifies the workers in all locations.

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but --

19 MS. GIRARDO: So, you can call it 

20 a technicality if you want, but this does 

21 prove that they were in that location. They 

22 were Hooker employees. They were getting paid 
 24

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 from Hooker.

2 MR. ALLEN: And --

3 MS. GIRARDO: So, just to discount 

4 them and say that that was Ordnance, that 

5 doesn't make sense.

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, it wouldn't make

7 sense if we were to just discount them, but we 

8 are not. If they were working at Lake Ontario 

9 Ordnance Works, then DOL can verify their 

10 employment at Lake Ontario Ordnance Works. It 

11 is already -- whether they were working for 

12 Hooker or somebody else -- it is already a 

13 Special Exposure Cohort. So, they are already 

14 covered under that.

15 And we are not allowed to combine 

16 sites into one petition. We have to have 

17 these separated. Lake Ontario Ordnance Works 

18 has already been settled quite a while back, 

19 and this is for the Hooker chemical plant on 

20 Buffalo Avenue.

21 MS. GIRARDO: Oh, man. It still 

22 doesn't make any sense.
 25

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 MR. KATZ: So, Mary --

2 MS. GIRARDO: If they are Hooker 

3 people and they are working at a location and 

4 getting paid by Hooker, then they should be 

5 all part of the same complex.

6 MR. KATZ: Mary, Mary, what Dave 

7 is trying to tell you -- this is Ted Katz --

8 is that those people you are concerned about 

9 are covered. In fact, they are part of an SEC 

10 Class already, and were they to apply, make 

11 claims to the Department of Labor, they would 

12 be categorized as covered by that Class and 

13 they would be compensated if they meet the 

14 conditions for being covered by that Class.

15 So, those people you are concerned 

16 about, they are covered already. They are not 

17 losing out here. They are already covered by 

18 an SEC Class.

19 MS. GIRARDO: Divide and conquer.

20 I would like to request that, 

21 since I have been having difficulty getting a 

22 response from Freedom of Information regarding 
 26

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 emails -- it has been three months now -- that 

2 no decision be given to the Advisory Board at 

3 this point, until that is cleared up.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, the Advisory 

5 Board had this on the agenda for December. 

6 This Work Group will report out to the 

7 Advisory Board. And certainly, we can notify 

8 the Advisory Board that you have a Freedom of 

9 Information request in and that it is your 

10 desire that the Advisory Board not take action 

11 until you have responses to that. We can 

12 certainly make the Advisory Board aware of 

13 that.

14 MS. GIRARDO: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay?

16 MS. GIRARDO: And I am not 

17 understanding this information on the 95th 

18 percentile where it is favorable to the 

19 claimant. What do you mean by "favorable to 

20 the claimant?"

21 MR. ALLEN: I think that was 

22 Bill's report, but favorable to the claimant 
 27

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 just meant -- and Bill can correct me if I am 

2 wrong -- he pulled up the data and added some 

3 additional air samples, eliminated some 

4 others, using a slightly different 

5 professional judgment, and found that the 

6 numbers are fairly similar, that he ended up 

7 with this new dataset, but they were actually 

8 a little bit lower than what we used in the 

9 TBD. And by lower, he said that the TBD was 

10 claimant-favorable since it gave a slightly 

11 higher number.

12 MS. GIRARDO: When you say 

13 "claimant-favorable," do you mean for dose 

14 reconstruction or for SEC?

15 MR. ALLEN: For dose 

16 reconstruction.

17 MS. GIRARDO: I think the needle 

18 is stuck. Okay. All right.

19 MR. KATZ: Let me just ask NIOSH, 

20 for when we have the Board meeting, could you 

21 just update the Board when Hooker comes up on 

22 the status of the FOIA, just so that they know 
 28

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 when it was received and where it is in the 

2 process, and a sense of what the FOIA covers, 

3 too, so that they understand what information 

4 is being sought that the petitioner hasn't 

5 received?

6 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton.

7 I will take that on.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Jim.

9 DR. MAURO: Mary, this is John 

10 Mauro.

11 When we review NIOSH's strategy 

12 for surrogate data and the use of data, 

13 whether it is on the real site with real 

14 measurements or it is surrogate data from 

15 other sites, one of our greatest concerns 

16 always has been, when you use that -- let's 

17 say it is air-sampling data, dust loading 

18 data. And you're saying, well, we're going to 

19 assign some person exposure to a certain level 

20 of airborne radioactivity. Our concern always 

21 has been that, when there is any uncertainty 

22 as to what level a person might have 
 29

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 experienced, we like to see them assigned the 

2 high-end value. That is, we don't want to 

3 assume they are exposed to the typical value. 

4 It is possible that he had a job that put him 

5 in a place where he experienced high-end 

6 values.

7 And the 95th percentile simply 

8 means that they are really taking the highest 

9 of the various values that were observed and 

10 they are assuming that that person was exposed 

11 to that high level day-in and day-out every 

12 day, which we consider to be quite a bounding 

13 analysis. In other words, we are really 

14 giving the claimant the benefit of the doubt 

15 and assigning an exposure that is at the high 

16 end of the distribution.

17 So, SC&A is very comfortable with 

18 that strategy when you have the data. Now SEC 

19 issues arise when you don't have the data. As 

20 you probably heard from around the table, we 

21 are in the world of surrogate data, and the 

22 Board is very, very concerned that when you do 
 30

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 use surrogate data, data from another site, 

2 that you do it very carefully.

3 So, we were tasked to look very 

4 carefully at both.

5 MS. GIRARDO: Well, I don't deny 

6 that you were very careful, but the use of 

7 these three companies that you have got, the 

8 rule of three, these people are all over the 

9 place as far as location.

10 And Mallinckrodt is so far away. I 

11 don't understand where the basis comes for 

12 using these companies, how you determine which 

13 companies you are going to use. Do you just 

14 draw them out of a hat? Or do you go all over 

15 the country to find somebody?

16 All of these examples that were 

17 used were the rule of three, and they had to 

18 be within a certain location and within the 

19 same state. That was the farthest that they 

20 went. They didn't go into Missouri.

21 I mean, how can you use 

22 Mallinckrodt on that basis? What is the rule 
 31

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 for surrogate data? How do you determine 

2 which companies you are going to use? Is it 

3 the rule of three? And if one is only good, 

4 what happens to the other two? Fernald is 

5 still not kosher. Electro Met, you're still 

6 deciding that today.

7 I just don't understand how you 

8 operate. I mean, how can you pick these 

9 companies out and then base Hooker with these 

10 companies when Hooker did not have any records 

11 whatsoever, and you're picking it out from the 

12 air? I know you are very scientific people. I 

13 know you are educated. I don't doubt all 

14 that.

15 But the point is, what is the 

16 rule? Is it the rule of three? 

17 MR. KATZ: Mary?

18 MS. GIRARDO: If it is the rule of 

19 three, you don't have three.

20 MR. KATZ: Mary, Mary?

21 MS. GIRARDO: Yes?

22 MR. KATZ: Folks are trying to 
 32

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 respond to you, if you will give them a 

2 chance.

3 DR. NETON: Ms. Girardo, this is 

4 Jim Neton.

5 The rationale behind how we apply 

6 surrogate data has been described in an 

7 Implementation Guide that we wrote some time 

8 ago. I think it is IG-004, yes.

9 And the Board also has our own 

10 criteria, but at the end of the day, both the 

11 Board's and NIOSH's guidance are very similar. 

12 They are very prescriptive in the sense that 

13 we have to have data from a similar operation. 

14 In this particular case, it is the dumping of 

15 drums of uranium during a similar time period, 

16 which in this case these are contemporaneous, 

17 in a similar operation, I mean with 

18 ventilation and everything like that 

19 considered. So, they are prescribed. I would 

20 encourage you -- it is out there on our 

21 website -- to read the Implementation Guide.

22 But I am confused as to what you 
 33

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 mean by this rule of three. I don't know 

2 where that is coming from.

3 MS. GIRARDO: Why do you have 

4 these three companies? Why not six? Why not 

5 seven? Why not one? Why not three? I mean, 

6 I don't understand. It's called the rule of 

7 three.

8 DR. NETON: Well, there is no --

9 MS. GIRARDO: I'm sorry. I'm 

10 sorry, but if you have these companies that 

11 are still up for grabs here, and you are only 

12 basing it on Mallinckrodt, then you don't have 

13 three companies. So, which is it? Must you 

14 have only one? Must you have three? I am 

15 saying if it is the rule of three, you only 

16 have one because you can't point out the other 

17 two.

18 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, but there 

19 is no rule of three. If you look at the 

20 Implementation Guide, one needs to find a 

21 facility that is very close in its operation 

22 to what we are trying to use the data --
 34

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 MS. GIRARDO: I'm sorry, I 

2 disagree. That is not what it says. They 

3 used the thing about the railroad, the mines, 

4 all this stuff, and that wasn't what they 

5 said. It had to be, the farthest they could 

6 go was within the same state; they couldn't go 

7 out of the state. And you've gone all over 

8 the place with these things.

9 DR. NETON: I'm not familiar with 

10 what document you are talking about. If you 

11 can cite it, maybe we could --

12 MS. GIRARDO: Well, it is 

13 surrogate data. It is the stuff that was 

14 supplied to me. I found it on my own and it 

15 was supplied to me by your NIOSH people.

16 DR. NETON: Do you know the name 

17 though?

18 MS. GIRARDO: You check it out. It 

19 is called the rule of three.

20 DR. NETON: Well, I wrote the 

21 Implementation Guide.

22 MS. GIRARDO: What I want to know 
 35

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 is, why do you have three people, three 

2 companies, and two of them haven't even been 

3 decided on yet? How can you judge Hooker on 

4 material that hasn't even been evaluated yet; 

5 no decision has been made?

6 So, I'm sorry, I'm going to cut 

7 out of this because I don't want to get a 

8 heart attack.

9 Thank you very much.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Are there 

11 other petitioners on that have questions or 

12 would like to make comments?

13 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie 

14 Barrie.

15 Am I allowed to ask a question?

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, of course.

18 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Has thorium 

19 presence at this site been absolutely ruled 

20 out, that there was no exposure?

21 MR. ALLEN: We have found no 

22 evidence that they ever worked with thorium. 
 36

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 We have the contract for what they did do, and 

2 it was contaminated magnesium fluoride for 

3 about, if I remember right, an 18-month period 

4 when they were trying to concentrate it with 

5 some waste hydrochloric acid they had from 

6 another process.

7 So, they essentially took the mag 

8 fluoride, dissolved what they could of the 

9 magnesium fluoride, thus, concentrating the 

10 uranium slightly. And then, they packaged 

11 that up and shipped it back off.

12 MS. BARRIE: So, thorium wasn't 

13 involved with this place at all?

14 MR. ALLEN: Definitely not with 

15 that operation, and we haven't found any other 

16 operation with the Atomic Energy Commission or 

17 MED.

18 MS. BARRIE: Okay. And the other 

19 thing, I want to follow up with what Mary 

20 said. I do have a concern about using Electro 

21 Met and Fernald data because what Mary said 

22 was that data has not been signed off by the 
 37

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 Work Group as being valid.

2 So, I would consider, I question 

3 the use of that data until, well, your Work 

4 Group and Fernald's Work Group has made a 

5 decision on the SEC petition.

6 And that is all I really have to 

7 say, and thank you for allowing me to talk.

8 MR. ALLEN: Well, in response to 

9 that, the mag fluoride at Electro Met and at 

10 Fernald and even at Mallinckrodt were very 

11 small operations compared to what they did on 

12 the site, and the exposures are much smaller 

13 than handling pure uranium compounds. This 

14 was a uranium-contaminated mag fluoride. It 

15 had about .2 percent uranium in it.

16 So, all we really have to do is 

17 look at those particular operations. In this 

18 case, it was just handling of this stuff, 

19 emptying drums, filling drums, shoveling 

20 stuff, et cetera. And I don't think that the 

21 Work Groups on those sites are actually 

22 looking at those operations as something they 
 38

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 cannot estimate the dose for. They are 

2 looking at the bigger picture on those sites 

3 and uranium bioassay, et cetera, that covers 

4 everything, of which this would be a very tiny 

5 amount of what the uranium intakes they would 

6 get at those sites.

7 MS. BARRIE: Okay, I understand 

8 that, but can you guarantee that the data that 

9 you are using from these two sites is 

10 accurate?

11 MR. ALLEN: I don't know about 

12 guarantee, but the comments that Mary made 

13 were actually that these are different sites, 

14 over a course of several years, similar 

15 material, and they are all coming up with 

16 roughly the same airborne activity, kind of it 

17 is almost like a QA on their programs and on 

18 their samples, that they are all relatively 

19 similar, even though it is different people, 

20 different sites, different operations all 

21 handling this type of material.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is the Fernald 
 39

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 committee going to meet before --

2 MR. KATZ: No.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No? Because 

4 one thing would be to query them. I mean, we 

5 have heard about the reliability of the 

6 Fernald data. At least indirectly we have 

7 been told that these particular samples and 

8 these activities are not the type that are 

9 potentially questioned.

10 And it would be helpful if the 

11 Committee actually could respond and say this 

12 particular set of surrogate data that we are 

13 using from Fernald are not the types of 

14 samples that they are questioning. I think it 

15 was mostly the biomonitoring that they were 

16 concerned about, wasn't it?

17 MR. ALLEN: No, I think it was the 

18 air sampling. They never addressed it much in 

19 that Work Group because there was so much 

20 uranium bioassay that the air samples were 

21 irrelevant.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Were 
 40

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 irrelevant.

2 MR. ALLEN: They weren't really 

3 taking that.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, you have 

5 looked at the reliability of that and --

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we looked at what 

7 the allegation was --

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. ALLEN: -- where it came from, 

10 et cetera.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. ALLEN: And it was actually an 

13 affidavit from a particular guy at Fernald 

14 that took air samples, and he said he was 

15 required by his boss to go back and redo a 

16 sample that came out high, he remembers on one 

17 occasion, and it was with the F-machines, 

18 which was plant 5.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

20 MR. ALLEN: These air samples here 

21 were taken at plant 8 that we dealt with. That 

22 guy, the allegation was one time, and it was 
 41

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 green salt, plant 5.

2 DR. NETON: But it was a much 

3 later time period.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, a later time 

5 period.

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, the affidavit 

7 didn't actually have any time period on it.

8 DR. NETON: It wasn't in the 

9 fifties.

10 MR. ALLEN: Well, this guy worked 

11 there in the fifties on into the seventies. 

12 So, I don't know the timeframe. That 

13 particular document didn't mention what the 

14 timeframe was that it had, but definitely 

15 wasn't a similar situation.

16 And like I said, the air samples 

17 are very similar to what they are getting in 

18 different states and different companies with 

19 this material. For the dataset that is used 

20 for the appendix, if you simply remove the 

21 Fernald data and analyze what is left, the 

22 numbers actually go down. It is virtually the 
 42

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 same number, but it is a slight decrease.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: I think it is useful 

4 for either the Work Group or NIOSH to report 

5 out on that too.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: That was a question.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, we will 

9 include that, yes. So, the whole Board can 

10 decide whether they want to put this on hold, 

11 yes.

12 DR. NETON: Well, a lot of this 

13 may have to do with the FOIA request status.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Exactly.

15 DR. NETON: But it is good to get 

16 this on the table at the same time.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

18 MS. BARRIE: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you.

20 Yes, we haven't resolved it here, 

21 but we will discuss it further.

22 MS. BARRIE: I appreciate it. 
 43

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 Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 Any other comments, questions? 

4 Feel free to speak up. You don't even have to 

5 identify yourself. We want to get all of the 

6 questions because I will carry these forward 

7 to the full Board since our Committee is only 

8 three individuals.

9 (No response.)

10 MR. KATZ: Any other questions 

11 from Bill Field?

12 MEMBER FIELD: No, I'm good. 

13 Thanks, Ted.

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bill.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, I think, 

16 again, Bill, I don't know if you have heard 

17 anything here that would change your view on 

18 the petition, but at this point I think we now 

19 have further documentation on use of the 

20 surrogate data, which I think actually 

21 strengthens this as an example of how one can 

22 use surrogate data.
 44

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 At least in my mind, I am still 

2 comfortable with going back to the Board with 

3 our recommendation of denial of this portion 

4 of the Hooker site. Are you in agreement with 

5 that?

6 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, Andy, I am in 

7 agreement. It sounds like there's just a few 

8 issues that need to be clarified.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MEMBER FIELD: I am in total 

11 agreement with you.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank 

13 you.

14 So, next up is Electro 

15 Metallurgical, and there has been a 

16 reassessment of that site. We got an email 

17 about that.

18 DR. NETON: Yes, Jim Neton.

19 I think everyone has probably seen 

20 the email that was distributed --

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: -- I think it was 
 45

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 November 16th.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: But we have sort of a 

4 rationale behind our reassessment of the 

5 Electro Metallurgical facility. It is a 

6 covered site from 1942 to 1952, I believe, 

7 that timeframe, 1953.

8 And originally, our position was 

9 that we could reconstruct the internal 

10 exposures for all years for that facility. It 

11 was primarily based on our use of some fairly 

12 abundant air sample data that was taken after 

13 1947, I believe around the 1948 timeframe.

14 Even though we did have bioassay 

15 in the earlier time period, it was somewhat 

16 limited. We didn't have job titles associated 

17 with any of those bioassays. So, we were, by 

18 and large, relying on a backwards 

19 extrapolation from the 1948 timeframe, the 

20 earlier years.

21 Part of the rationale, of course, 

22 was that the processes would be similar. In 
 46

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 our subsequent review of documentation that we 

2 obtained, it became clear that in 1947 there 

3 was a health and safety assessment facility 

4 and various improvements were made in the 

5 processes. Presumably, they would lower 

6 exposure. So, we could no longer rely on the 

7 post-1947 data to back-extrapolate in those 

8 time periods.

9 That is where it left us. So, at 

10 this point, we are proposing that a Class be 

11 added from 1942 to 1947. We still can 

12 reconstruct doses from 1948 until the 1952 

13 timeframe.

14 So, at this point, we will be 

15 revising the Evaluation Report for Electro 

16 Met.

17 Are we going to have this ready 

18 for the next Board meeting? I don't recall 

19 that --

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.

21 DR. NETON: No, we won't have this 

22 ready for the next Board meeting, but as soon 
 47

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 as we can, we will have --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: -- a revision put out. 

4 At that point, it will to be presented to the 

5 Board --

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

7 DR. NETON: -- with our 

8 recommendations. So, that is where we are 

9 with Electro Met.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Are there any, 

11 Bill, do you have any questions?

12 I think we will wait to see your 

13 presentation, but it is good to have this 

14 update. We will certainly not do anything 

15 further here until we get what that is.

16 Bill, do you have any questions?

17 MEMBER FIELD: No, I agree with 

18 your thinking, Andy.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, okay.

20 MR. KATZ: Do we have any Electro 

21 Met petitioners on the line?

22 (No response.)
 48

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 Okay. If we do have any Electro 

2 Met petitioners, and you have any questions 

3 about this, this is a good time to ask.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Just as far 

5 as, for those of you who are, for a timeframe 

6 this won't be on the agenda at the meeting in 

7 Tampa in December.

8 So, the earliest would be 

9 February.

10 DR. NETON: There will be an 

11 update.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, 

13 right, just an FYI, an informational update.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Next is 

16 United Nuclear, and we have a number of White 

17 Papers that have been developed on this.

18 Take it away.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon 

20 Rutherford.

21 I'll start with the air22 concentration data for 1961 and 1962. This 
 49

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 issue was brought up, the concern that we 

2 extrapolated -- we had bioassay data post-1962 

3 and we had bioassay data pre-1961. We 

4 developed a distribution, and we extrapolated 

5 back through 1961 and 1962.

6 The question that was brought up 

7 was whether the air-concentration data really 

8 supported what we were doing, extrapolating 

9 through that period. So, what we did was we 

10 went back and we looked at the air 

11 concentration. We actually went back and we 

12 took the data and looked at the available data 

13 in 1961. We found there were 310 samples 

14 taken during that period.

15 We looked at locations that they 

16 were taken, the red room, green room, blue 

17 room, item 1 plant, pellet plant, laundry 

18 area, warehouse area, the blender room, the 

19 guard station, and the office area. So, we 

20 looked at all those locations to ensure that 

21 we were covering a broad scheme with the air 

22 sample data.
 50

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 We looked at various studies that 

2 were done, integrated dust exposures for 

3 workers for that period. We looked at actual 

4 dust studies done at the pellet plant. We 

5 went through all of those.

6 Actually, if you have the report 

7 in front of you, you can go through this as 

8 well. Table 1 actually identifies air sample 

9 data points for each location, and it 

10 identifies the number of data points that we 

11 had.

12 The red room was called out 

13 specifically because it was the workers that 

14 worked in the red room were the workers who 

15 were identified as potentially having high 

16 exposures, and that caused the reinstitution 

17 of the bioassay program in 1962. So, we 

18 looked at the number of points that we had 

19 there. We had quite a few air data points in 

20 the red room.

21 We also had the green room. You 

22 can see the data points all the way through 
 51

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 each one of those stations.

2 So, we wanted to make sure that we 

3 had adequate data points for each of those 

4 locations where we had the higher 

5 concentrations.

6 Then, we looked to see if the air 

7 sample data correlated with the plant 

8 activities. Again, the red room was chosen as 

9 a potentially high area because it was the one 

10 where the individuals were noted to have 

11 contaminated themselves, and we had high urine 

12 bioassay samples from those individuals, once 

13 the bioassay program was reinstituted.

14 Again, if you go through the 

15 report, Table 2 actually has locations and 

16 air-concentration values. These are actually 

17 sample points that were above. There was an 

18 administrative control level of 110 Dpm per 

19 cubic meter for low enrichments, and for high 

20 enrichments it was 220 Dpm per cubic meter.

21 These are actually sample points 

22 and concentrations for areas that were above 
 52

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 that administrative control level. You can 

2 see that, if you went through, the red room 

3 actually makes up about 27 percent of the 

4 exposures that are above the ACL that they 

5 were using. However, there are some high 

6 concentrations in the blue room as well, if 

7 you look through that.

8 Then, we took those and we 

9 actually looked at, we developed a 

10 geometric -- we actually did a distribution on 

11 those. The entire dataset had a geometric 

12 mean of 20.3 Dpm per cubic meter with a GSD of 

13 4.8. The red room by itself had a geometric 

14 mean of 32.2 Dpm per cubic meter with a GSD of 

15 3.4.

16 And there was also, as I 

17 mentioned, integrated air data, worker 

18 exposure air data. We did a geometric mean on 

19 that of 35.8 Dpm per cubic meter, which kind 

20 of correlates well with the red room, with the 

21 low GSD.

22 And then, ultimately, if you come 
 53

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 back onto Table 3 in the back, we actually did 

2 a comparison of the data points, the geometric 

3 means, the 95th percentile, and then to the 

4 intake numbers that we have identified in TBD 

5 -- it is on TBD now. It is not 6001.

6 But if you look at the 95th 

7 percentile air data for all locations, the red 

8 room and the worker data, and then you compare 

9 those intakes to the intakes that we have in 

10 6001, which are derived based on the bioassay 

11 data, it fits right in between the Type M and 

12 the Type S. But if you assumed it was Type S, 

13 it would be much less; the 95th percentile of 

14 the air data is much less than the Type S. If 

15 Type M, the air data is a little bit above 

16 that. So, you can see that, anyway, by 

17 looking at that.

18 Also, something we sent out late 

19 in the game is a graph that we put together. 

20 We wanted to actually take and compare the 

21 intakes. We wanted to graphically show this. 

22 Instead of just putting it down in numbers, we 
 54

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 wanted to graph out the air data we had from 

2 1960, which is when we still had -- or 

3 bioassay data stopped at the end of 1960. So, 

4 we wanted to include 1960 in this and then go 

5 through the period when we have no bioassay 

6 and then include the first year when we get 

7 bioassay again in 1963, late 1962/early 1963 

8 period.

9 And so, we graph that out. If you 

10 look at that graph, you will see we have the 

11 Type S geometric mean bioassay line and then 

12 we have the Type M as well. You can see how 

13 the air data for the most part runs right 

14 along the line with the Type M and actually 

15 mostly is below -- there are some data points 

16 above the Type S, but not many.

17 And really, actually, in 1963, the 

18 actual numbers of air sample data points we 

19 have significantly increased because when they 

20 recognized they had that concern with higher 

21 intakes than what they had thought they were 

22 getting, they actually increased the amount of 
 55

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 air sampling further in 1963. So, we have a 

2 lot more data points in 1963. That is why you 

3 see that.

4 All right, that's about it. Do 

5 you want to add anything to it, Jim?

6 MR. KATZ: Dave?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, we had a chance 

8 to look this over on the weekend. Hans 

9 Behling and I both looked at it.

10 What we see are some problems. 

11 Ultimately, when you say, so what are we 

12 looking at, well, we have got these couple of 

13 years where we don't have bioassay data, the 

14 argument being made that, well, but we have 

15 got lots of bioassay before and afterwards, 

16 and we have air-sampling data that is 

17 continuous across.

18 And the process you went through 

19 is to look at the air-sampling data. At the 

20 back-end of the process, you conclude that the 

21 geometric mean of the air-sampling data with a 

22 standard deviation of 5 is probably a good way 
 56

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 to assign.

2 Hans took a fairly close look at 

3 it. Quite frankly, his original look at it 

4 goes back to 2009, the report.

5 And I would like to turn it over 

6 to Hans, and he could explain some of the 

7 reasons why he has some concerns with this.

8 Hans, are you available?

9 MR. KATZ: You may be on mute, 

10 Hans, *6 if you are on mute to come off mute.

11 DR. BEHLING: Okay, you're right, 

12 I was on mute.

13 Just to give you an overview, we 

14 agree pretty much with what you stated in your 

15 summary as well as in your White Paper 

16 regarding the issue of what data is most 

17 claimant-favorable.

18 As I pointed out in my original 

19 review of the United Nuclear facility -- and 

20 this goes back to September 2009, so it is 

21 more than two years old -- I identified the 

22 fact that, in comparing the air-sampling data 
 57

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 with bioassay data, there was in many 

2 instances very, very poor correlation. So, I 

3 do agree with the need to look at the bioassay 

4 data urinalysis as a way of trying to fill in 

5 the gaps.

6 But among the things that we had 

7 previously discussed was, if there is bioassay 

8 data available, that should be used because 

9 oftentimes that may very well be empirical 

10 data for a given individual, may supersede the 

11 values that were provided as part of the 

12 cohort model in Table D-1.

13 One of the things that I had done 

14 in assessing the usefulness of that data was 

15 to actually go back and identify among some of 

16 the workers what their exposure was in terms 

17 of their urinalysis data and then compare that 

18 to what the cohort model would predict would 

19 be a usable number if you didn't have the data 

20 for them.

21 And in my initial write up, I 

22 looked at two particular individuals. For 
 58

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 those who may have access to the original 

2 write up that, as I said, goes back to 

3 September 2009, I had identified two 

4 individuals who were operators and they were 

5 identified not by name, but by code. The 

6 first operator was AAA and the other one is 

7 BBB; in other words, A-A-A and B-B-B.

8 I looked at the actual data that 

9 was available in their behalf that included 

10 bioassay data, urinalysis data, before the two 

11 timeframes or before the timeframe of June 

12 1963 and after June 1963. If you look at, if 

13 you have access to that report, under Table 3, 

14 there was a large number of bioassay data 

15 available for both time periods.

16 And so, what I did was I used 

17 their actual empirical bioassay data, and 

18 using IMBA, I calculated what would have been 

19 the expected inhalation data for those two 

20 individuals for the two timeframes, prior to 

21 June 1963 and post-June 1963, and then 

22 compared the actual values that I generated 
 59

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 from IMBA and compared that to the recommended 

2 values that are identified in Table D-1. And 

3 I came up with the following:

4 Again, those numbers were 

5 summarized in Table 3 of my report. Actually, 

6 no, I'm sorry, not Table 3, Table 4.

7 In Table 4, the recommended daily 

8 inhalation dose based on the cohort model that 

9 NIOSH generated, the inhalation for an 

10 operator would have been 12,590 Dpm per day. 

11 If I actually used the empirical urine data 

12 for that individual prior to 1962 and 1963, 

13 and put that into the IMBA model and calculate 

14 what IMBA would have calculated for Type S, I 

15 would have calculated 42,670 as opposed to 

16 12,590. So, we are talking about a full 

17 factor of 3.4 higher values that you would 

18 generate from actual data, if you had that 

19 data available.

20 If you actually, then, decided, 

21 no, it is not Type S, let's go for Type M, the 

22 recommended value out of Table D-1 would have 
 60

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 been 13,490. No. No, I'm sorry. If you 

2 calculate the value based on the empirical 

3 urine data, I would have calculated an intake 

4 of 13,490 Dpm per day as opposed to the 

5 recommended value from Table D-1 of 872. That 

6 would mean that I would underestimate that 

7 individual's exposure by a factor of more than 

8 15-fold.

9 And the same thing applies to 

10 operator BBB, B-B-B. I did the same thing 

11 there. I looked at the empirical urine data 

12 prior to June of 1963, and I calculated what 

13 his intake would have been based on empirical 

14 urine data, and compared that to the 

15 recommended value, as defined in Table D-1. 

16 And again, for Type S, you would have 

17 underestimated the dose by a factor of 1.7. If 

18 you go for Type M, the underestimate would 

19 have been a factor of 7.6.

20 And what it comes down to, just to 

21 put everything in a nutshell, is that, for 

22 those people for whom you may not have 
 61

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 urinalysis data, the use of the surrogate data 

2 or cohort data, as defined in Table D-1, may 

3 very well underestimate the actual inhalation 

4 dose by a substantial margin. In the case of 

5 the two operators I calculated, it could be as 

6 high as 15-fold.

7 And so, when we use the GM, that 

8 is, the geometric mean of the distribution, we 

9 may, in fact, underestimate the dose to a 

10 given person for whom we have no empirical 

11 urinalysis data by a substantial amount.

12 As NIOSH did concede, if there is 

13 urinalysis data available, it would obviously 

14 be used as opposed to the values defined in 

15 Table D-1.

16 The question, however, now -- and 

17 I guess John will talk about that -- is the 

18 use of a geometric mean appropriate for those 

19 individuals where there may be an insufficient 

20 or no available data to assign an intake that 

21 is based on the geometric mean? And I think I 

22 will pass that discussion onto John.
 62

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 DR. NETON: Well, before John 

2 goes, I have a question, though, Hans, or Dave 

3 maybe does, will go first.

4 MR. ALLEN: I was just going to 

5 point out that, again, we are comparing, we 

6 are assigning a full distribution, and he is 

7 comparing the 50th percentile, the geometric 

8 mean, to one of the higher people, which is at 

9 the far end of the distribution that we used. 

10 We use those urinalyses for determining the 

11 distribution. Yes, 95th or 99th percentile is 

12 higher than the 50th percentile. We will give 

13 you that.

14 DR. MAURO: Well, you know, we 

15 have been in this position before. When you

16 are in a situation where you have airborne 

17 activity, you have your distribution, and you 

18 are going to say I am going to place someone 

19 in that environment and we are going to 

20 reconstruct his dose, and we know that there 

21 is variability in time and location; you pick 

22 the geometric mean or capture the distribution 
 63

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 with your standard deviation.

2 I guess this goes to the heart of 

3 really a philosophy. Now when you do that, 

4 the reality is the real person could very well 

5 have been exposed for time periods and 

6 locations where the airborne activity was 

7 substantially higher than the geometric mean. 

8 And I have to tell you this is one of those 

9 problems that sort of tied my brain into a 

10 knot.

11 For that particular person, who 

12 you don't really know where he was, when he 

13 was in a particular location, but one would 

14 argue that, yes, it is very likely, there's a 

15 50 percent probability that his real geometric 

16 mean was higher for him by a factor of --

17 well, there's a 50 percent chance that the 

18 real number that he experienced was higher, 50 

19 percent that it is lower.

20 Now does somehow assigning a 

21 geometric standard deviation of five solve 

22 that problem? Something about that disturbs 
 64

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 me. See, I would say that now, if you were to 

2 run a PoC or, say, we could run a case, in one 

3 case we say, okay, let's go with a fixed value 

4 of 95th percentile.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And that's 

6 95th percentile of the geometric mean or --

7 DR. MAURO: Exactly. Of the full 

8 distribution.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

10 DR. MAURO: In other words, for 

11 the full distribution. For the full 

12 distribution, and the full distribution is a 

13 bunch of measurements, many different times, 

14 different places. And we have a guy that we 

15 don't know where he is, you know, when he was 

16 there.

17 All right. So, the reality is, if 

18 I was going to come up with a best estimate of 

19 what I think that guy might have experienced, 

20 I certainly would pick the geometric mean. And 

21 if I was to assign an uncertainty on what I 

22 think a guy's best estimate is, I would do 
 65

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 exactly what you did. In other words, for the 

2 typical person that worked in that facility 

3 over that time period, I would do exactly what 

4 you did.

5 However, that is not what we are 

6 asking. We are asking, no, we want to make 

7 sure that we place a plausible upper bound for 

8 everyone. In other words, we want to make 

9 sure that we don't underestimate anybody, or 

10 there is a high level of confidence we are not 

11 underestimating.

12 So, I find myself in a place where 

13 I say I would have used the 95th percentile of 

14 the distribution put in there, unless I know 

15 otherwise, unless I know, no, no, no, he was 

16 not in the work zone, based on knowledge of 

17 his job. And if we don't have that knowledge, 

18 then I would ask myself -- but let me go 

19 further.

20 If I were to run a PoC on a guy, 

21 and in one case I were to assign him a 

22 geometric mean with a geometric standard 
 66

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 deviation of five on that airborne activity, 

2 as opposed to, no, I am just going to fix him 

3 at the 95th percentile and hit him with that 

4 as if the entire time period he was at the 

5 upper 95th percentile, I suspect that we are 

6 going to come up with a higher PoC.

7 DR. NETON: Yes, we have been 

8 through this before, John.

9 DR. MAURO: We have, and I don't 

10 think we resolved it.

11 DR. NETON: Oh, we had. I thought 

12 we had. And maybe this one is a little

13 different twist on the same old issue. And 

14 that is, if we have a complete bioassay record 

15 over a long period of time for a lot of 

16 workers, we are assigning the 50th percentile 

17 with full distribution. We agreed to that a 

18 long time ago, unless there is some indication 

19 in the guy's file that he should be at the 

20 95th percentile.

21 We made some exceptions in the 

22 past. For example, Rocky Flats, when there 
 67

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 were questions about the adequacy of the data 

2 that we had, we went for the 95th percentile. 

3 But, by and large, where we have a complete 

4 set of bioassay records, we would use the 50th 

5 or the full distribution, recognizing that 

6 most of the workers, the workers that weren't 

7 monitored weren't usually the ones that had 

8 the high-end exposure.

9 Now this situation is a little 

10 different because you've got a gap with no 

11 monitoring results. And so, I will 

12 acknowledge that this is a somewhat different 

13 situation.

14 So, I guess I need some 

15 clarification of what are we assigning here 

16 exactly, then, because I am not --

17 MR. ALLEN: Well, the numbers Hans 

18 mentioned from the table in the appendix or in 

19 the TBD or the geometric mean, we are 

20 assigning a GSD, we are assigning a log-normal 

21 distribution with a GSD that was calculated --

22 DR. NETON: Well, the numbers that 
 68

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 I am seeing here are like 12,590 dpm.

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that is one of 

3 the numbers he mentioned.

4 DR. NETON: Now that is pretty 

5 darn high.

6 MR. ALLEN: Oh, yes. In fact, If 

7 you use the air samples, there was a problem 

8 that -- LaVon, you can correct me if I am 

9 wrong -- the red room was the green salt? Is 

10 that correct?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, the red room 

12 was the highly-enriched uranium.

13 MR. ALLEN: Was it the green salt? 

14 Or am I thinking of a different --

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think you are 

16 thinking of --

17 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Never mind.

18 (Laughter.)

19 DR. NETON: Well, the 12,590 

20 represents what? Is that the --

21 MR. ALLEN: The geometric mean 

22 intake dpm per day.
 69

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 DR. BEHLING: For the operator.

2 MR. ALLEN: Right, for the 

3 operator.

4 DR. NETON: Hans, when you did 

5 your reconstruction, how did you do that? 

6 Because I am confused. You had data at the 

7 beginning and data --

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I had data 

9 which are defined in Table 3. Admittedly, 

10 there were only a limited number of urinalysis 

11 data for both the operator AAA and BBB. I 

12 think for the AAA operator, I had a total of, 

13 let's see, seven urinalysis data that predate 

14 June of 1963. And on the basis of those seven 

15 urinalysis data, I used the inverse 

16 calculations that would end up with an intake 

17 of 42,670 dpm per day, which is about 3.4 

18 times higher than the --

19 DR. NETON: Assuming a chronic 

20 exposure over a long period of time?

21 DR. BEHLING: Well, there were, 

22 obviously, many more exposures post-June of 
 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

1 1963.

2 DR. NETON: No, no, let's go back 

3 to the beginning, the pre-1963 timeframe.

4 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

5 DR. NETON: You said you had seven 

6 or so samples.

7 DR. BEHLING: Yes, an they start 

8 on December 10th, 1962 and then go to, the 

9 last one of the seven ends up on May 29th, 

10 1963.

11 DR. NETON: And you fit a chronic 

12 exposure function through all of those 

13 samples?

14 DR. BEHLING: I don't recall 

15 exactly. It goes back two years now.

16 DR. NETON: This is very 

17 important, Hans, because if you did anything 

18 with acute, I can understand why you are 

19 getting what you did. Because if I am seeing 

20 these people having intakes of 12,590 dpm per 

21 day, the urine concentrations on a chronic 

22 basis would be pretty large. I am curious as 
 71

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 to what those urine concentrations were in the 

2 1963 period that you are saying --

3 DR. BEHLING: Well, I actually 

4 used the urine concentrations, and they are a 

5 part of Exhibit 3 in my write up. So, you can 

6 actually look at the dates and the --

7 DR. NETON: I haven't looked at 

8 this for a while, but I am not skeptical; I 

9 guess I am just confused as to how you could 

10 get such high numbers, given the type of 

11 intakes that we are seeing, we are applying 

12 here. There may be a difference in the way we 

13 would apply a chronic exposure model to this 

14 person versus the way you did your analysis. 

15 That is all I am saying.

16 DR. BEHLING: Well, let me just 

17 give you an example. For instance, the second 

18 urine sample for that individual, the AAA 

19 operator, that was taken February 11th, 1963, 

20 he had 2,125 dpm per liter in his urine. And 

21 that is a very, very high excretion rate.

22 DR. NETON: Right. Okay.
 72

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 DR. MAURO: I think the fair 

2 question here is that, when we went through 

3 our calculations for these two people, if you 

4 were to use the surrogate model for these two 

5 people, you would have underestimated the

6 intake, using the model that Hans used, 

7 whether that was some combination of acute or 

8 chronic or just all chronic. Granted, that is 

9 unknown right now. We would have to go back 

10 and look at that calculation.

11 So, I guess we are not 

12 disagreeing. What we are saying is that, to 

13 the extent to which we researched this paper 

14 over the weekend and went back to our original 

15 work that we did quite a while ago to see if 

16 it rang true, namely, does it appear that by 

17 using the chronic approach with your 

18 distribution, you would be giving the benefit 

19 of the doubt to all these workers that don't 

20 have bioassay data?

21 And from the work that was done 

22 before, it appears that, at least in those two 
 73

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 cases, it wouldn't. And so, we are left in a 

2 place where we are not seeing parity between 

3 some people that we did look at before. It 

4 appears that they would have been assigned a 

5 much higher intake for them.

6 Now, of course, you are going to 

7 actually do it for them because you have the 

8 data. But let's say you didn't have the data

9 for them.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: I've got a 

11 question. So, is the question really solely 

12 tied to the two years when we don't have data?

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. And I just 

15 wanted to make sure that was --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Because 

17 everybody else has --

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right, right. I 

19 just wanted to make sure that that is the only 

20 thing you are questioning right now.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. And this 

22 business of the geometric mean, I know we have 
 74

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 discussed this before, and there's judgments 

2 made on when do you use -- and certainly, we 

3 are in full agreement when there is good 

4 reason to believe the 95th percent to not 

5 applied to a particular category of worker. 

6 But we are talking about the worst workers 

7 right now.

8 DR. NETON: Yes. No, I 

9 acknowledge that this is somewhat different 

10 because we have got a gap with no monitoring 

11 data.

12 DR. MAURO: Right, right. So, I 

13 guess, like I said, we did this over the 

14 weekend. Hans I know did put some time in and 

15 think about it and talk about it, to say, how 

16 should we represent our concerns? I think we 

17 have done our best to communicate that. Maybe 

18 we ought to sniff this out a little further.

19 MR. ALLEN: I think there's two 

20 big points here that you are not mentioning or 

21 I am thinking about different than you are 

22 anyway.
 75

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 Point No. 1 are the highest 

2 monitored guys that you looked at or some of 

3 the highest ones.

4 DR. MAURO: They were cherry5 picked.

6 MR. ALLEN: They were cherry7 picked, sure.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. No question.

9 MR. ALLEN: I mean, they are the 

10 high-end of the distribution. But the key 

11 point is they were monitored.

12 DR. MAURO: Right, I agree.

13 MR. ALLEN: And they are at the 

14 high-end of the monitored people.

15 DR. MAURO: Right.

16 MR. ALLEN: And many other people 

17 were monitored and got considerably lower 

18 numbers, meaning the odds of finding somebody 

19 not monitored that was in that high operator 

20 position routinely all the time is almost --

21 DR. MAURO: That is one of our 

22 classic presumptions.
 76

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 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: The guys that were 

3 monitored were the bad actors.

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean, why 

5 would you monitor people if you are going to 

6 ignore the high ones?

7 DR. MAURO: Well, see, here's the 

8 dilemma we ran into, too: usually, you pick 

9 the people that are in the area with the 

10 highest. In other words, the reason you are 

11 monitoring these guys is you expect them to be 

12 routinely in the place with the highest 

13 airborne activity and, therefore, let's keep 

14 an eye there.

15 But in the very same report that 

16 Hans wrote, usually we couldn't even find a 

17 correlation between airborne activity and 

18 urine sample concentrations. I mean, if you 

19 go back to the September 2009, we are 

20 concerned that --

21 DR. NETON: But usually the 

22 airborne way over predicts intakes because you 
 77

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 are not taking a particle size distribution. 

2 You are oftentimes defaulting on very 

3 insoluble materials when it is not. 

4 Respiratory protection is oftentimes used, 

5 which we never take credit for.

6 So, I am not surprised that we 

7 don't find correlations between airborne and

8 urine samples. I would submit that it is most 

9 often the case that the high values are the 

10 ones that you are over predicting intakes 

11 using air concentration data.

12 MR. ALLEN: Because of the short 

13 duration --

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. I have to say, I 

15 recall -- and, Hans, you have to help me -- I 

16 recall your graph with the lines and the 

17 circles in one of the reports. And it was 

18 sort of all over the place. It wasn't that it 

19 was consistently that the bioassay was under 

20 the air. In other words, the air always 

21 overestimated it.

22 Hans, if you are on the line, I am 
 78

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 trying to find the graph that I remember 

2 reviewing, and it is not in the actual report 

3 that I am looking at right now.

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, John, if that is 

5 true, you are just saying the airborne has a 

6 higher uncertainty.

7 DR. BEHLING: No, John, there was 

8 no graph. In fact, you have to go back to, if 

9 you have my report, go back to page 13 and 

10 look at Exhibit 2, where I have a series of 

11 operators, and they also provide you data with 

12 regard to what their excretion rates were for 

13 various timeframes.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes.

15 DR. BEHLING: And then, I looked 

16 at those and compared those against the air17 sampling data that were reported, and I 

18 selected two cases where the air 

19 concentrations were high that were assigned to 

20 them and the urine excretion rates are very 

21 low, and the opposite was true, where you had 

22 low air concentrations assigned to them and, 
 79

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 yet, there were urine data that suggests there 

2 was substantial exposure due to excretion 

3 rates. And I concluded that the air 

4 concentration and urine data had a very, very 

5 poor correlation.

6 DR. MAURO: Well, that is part of 

7 the story, too.

8 DR. BEHLING: And that's on Table 

9 2 where I identify four operators, Operator 

10 No. 19, 33, 34, and 36.

11 DR. NETON: I just wanted to take 

12 a look at that, the data in the report. 

13 September 2009, it looks like.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Can we proceed 

15 and do an update of this? I mean, it is a 

16 good discussion, but I don't see us heading 

17 toward a resolution on the 1961-62 without 

18 having you drill down what are these issues.

19 Yes, I haven't looked at that. So, 

20 I don't remember it, either.

21 MR. ALLEN: Well, maybe we can 

22 push the discussion into a slightly different 
 80

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 direction here because, I mean, this whole 

2 95th percentile, et cetera, all we are talking 

3 about here are the numbers that we would 

4 assign to unmonitored workers.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I mean, 

6 I think what would be helpful to me is to try 

7 to break these out as to what because it 

8 doesn't apply to everybody here.

9 MR. ALLEN: What I was going to 

10 say is, is it an SEC issue? Can't it be done 

11 and we disagree on the value?

12 DR. MAURO: I would say no. I 

13 mean, I jump to that pretty quickly, as you 

14 know, but it seems to me we have got a 

15 tractable situation here. It is just a matter 

16 of judgments on what are you going to assign.

17 The other thing that I was going 

18 to ask that I would be interested in seeing 

19 is, when you fill in this little hole where 

20 you only have air-sampling data, do we have a 

21 continuation of air-sampling data to go pre22 1962?
 81

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 MR. ALLEN: That's what we do 

2 have.

3 DR. MAURO: Go right through it 

4 and go through 1962 and then on.

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, actually, what we 

6 did at that last, yes, if you look at that 

7 last graph, we actually wanted to include the 

8 year prior to when bioassay stopped; 1960 is 

9 included in this, and then the year after 

10 bioassay, it was kicked back in.

11 And if you look at that data, I 

12 mean, the air sampling, it looks pretty --

13 DR. MAURO: That was one question 

14 I had.

15 MR. ALLEN: Well, that was the 

16 question we had.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. So, there is 

18 nothing unusual about 1962. It was just like 

19 every --

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right. The 

21 facility was operating just like it did 

22 before.
 82

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 MR. ALLEN: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, that being 

3 the case, that puts you in a very stable 

4 situation. What that means is that there's 

5 nothing about those years that are weird. 

6 Therefore, if somehow we could feel confident 

7 that we could place a plausible upper bound on 

8 before and after, well, the same plausible 

9 upper bound would apply to the ones in 

10 between.

11 DR. BEHLING: You know, John, I 

12 disagree to some extent.

13 DR. MAURO: Sure, Hans.

14 DR. BEHLING: Again, I want to go 

15 back to my initial report. If you look at 

16 page 11 of my report, I take direct quotes 

17 from letters that were written and memoranda 

18 that were written. And it turns out that 1960 

19 was a very, very unusual year for high 

20 airborne exposures. At the same time, it is 

21 also that timeframe, 1960-61, during which we 

22 have no bioassay data.
 83

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 So, what it comes down to -- and 

2 again, I want to wrap everything into a single 

3 story here -- there was poor correlation 

4 between bioassay data in years before and 

5 after these two years. So that, when you only 

6 have air concentrations, you can't really make 

7 any strong conclusions about what they would 

8 really turn into or translate into with regard 

9 to intake. And that is really where we are.

10 We are basically looking at urine 

11 data pre and post those two years and trying 

12 to establish what the exposure might have been 

13 during those two years when we only had air 

14 concentration. But it turns out that those 

15 two years, 1960 and 1961, were unusually high 

16 air-concentration data. And yet, we have no 

17 bioassay data, and the correlations between 

18 air and bioassay data are very poor. And that 

19 is the dilemma we are in.

20 MR. ALLEN: That is not really the 

21 dilemma we are in because we do have bioassay 

22 data in 1960. It didn't stop until 1961. 
 84

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 Right?

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that is 

3 correct.

4 MR. ALLEN: And I thought you said 

5 you had compared them, actually.

6 DR. BEHLING: No, I only compared 

7 the two operators, AAA and BBB. I only had a 

8 very limited amount of data that predates June 

9 of 1963. In other words, the tail-end of 1962 

10 and the first five months of 1963.

11 MR. ALLEN: Okay. That is when 

12 they started it back up, but they did have 

13 bioassay data up until 1961. So, in 1960 they 

14 actually had bioassay data.

15 And as far as the correlation 

16 between urinalysis and air samples, anytime 

17 you have a facility that has multiple 

18 operations where you get a short-term high 

19 airborne in one area and long-term lower 

20 airborne in another area, and somebody is 

21 going between areas, you do get a wide 

22 uncertainty in the values you would detect. 
 85

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 And that is why bioassay is inherently an 

2 integrated intake, and that is a much better 

3 analysis.

4 DR. MAURO: I guess --

5 MR. ALLEN: But the air sample 

6 graph that Bomber put out here, the key thing 

7 isn't so much to estimate the intake from the 

8 air samples as to show is there a trend up or 

9 down from 1960 through 1963, and it is a 

10 fairly straight line.

11 DR. MAURO: Well, apparently, what 

12 is important in these situations is making 

13 sure we agree on the facts.

14 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: And then, of course, 

16 interpreting what is important.

17 Right now, we do have a 

18 disagreement on the facts, right?

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We should be 

20 able to resolve that.

21 DR. MAURO: We have failed to 

22 resolve. Hans makes a point, no, it looks 
 86

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 like they had a couple of years that are 

2 pretty nasty and they may have fallen in the 

3 time period that is of concern. But you are 

4 saying, no, that is not the case. That is 

5 easy enough to find out. Let's get that 

6 straightened out.

7 Then, just another think piece 

8 related to this is that, if I were doing this, 

9 I would say, listen, let's assume, one, that, 

10 yes, the nature of the operations were such 

11 that they were continuous and nothing unusual 

12 about those years. Because if there was 

13 something unusual about those years, there is 

14 a problem. But if there is nothing really 

15 unusual about those years, where we don't have 

16 the bioassay data, then I ask myself the 

17 question, well, what would I do?

18 I would say, well, I would go 

19 collect the bioassay data of all those workers 

20 around those years. Let's have a lot of 

21 bioassay data. And I would estimate the upper 

22 95th percentile intake rates, chronic intake 
 87

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 rates, for those workers, and I would say I am 

2 going to use that for the years -- I wouldn't 

3 even look at the air data. I would go 

4 straight to the bioassay data and say here are 

5 the chronic intake rates or the intake rates 

6 for hundreds, or whatever the number of 

7 workers you have, just before and maybe just 

8 after the time period where you don't have 

9 bioassay data and say, listen, one thing is 

10 for sure, if I assign all the workers I don't 

11 have bioassay data for those two years, I am 

12 going to give them the upper 95 percentile 

13 intakes for the workers that I do have 

14 bioassay data for around those years. And I 

15 know that the air dust loadings were basically 

16 the same continuously through.

17 I'm done. That is how I would 

18 have come at it. I mean, no one could argue 

19 with that.

20 Now I don't know where we would 

21 come out on that, but that seems to be -- you 

22 know, you need to get away from the air-
 88

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 sampling data. You go straight to the 

2 bioassay data. That is the stuff we kept.

3 Anyway, I am going to say, this is 

4 how conceptually I would have come at the 

5 problem. I may have also done it the other 

6 way to see how they compare. There is almost 

7 like two ways at coming at the same problem.

8 But I guess this is the thinking 

9 that we would do over the weekend.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think some 

11 examples would be useful.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, see, Hans' 

13 example, I agree. Now Hans picked two 

14 examples that show that, if it turns out those 

15 people were not bioassayed --

16 DR. NETON: That is my question. 

17 How robust are the bioassay data sets on 

18 either side --

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, we have 

21 got numbers. I can tell you.

22 DR. NETON: There's large numbers 
 89

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 of people being monitored.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now just give me 

3 one minute here.

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, if I remember 

5 right, it started up in --

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: 1957, yes.

7 DR. NETON: I am not worried about 

8 1957 --

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: But they were 

10 coming towards the end of the startup phase or 

11 `59 issue --

12 DR. NETON: But what I am saying 

13 is, let's say we have very robust monitoring 

14 data, large sections of the workforce on both 

15 ends.

16 DR. MAURO: Both ends.

17 DR. NETON: And then, they didn't 

18 monitor anybody in the intervening period. And 

19 if we do what you suggest, that means we 

20 construct their exposures in the middle. You 

21 really have reconstructed exposures of the 

22 most highly-exposed people, you know, if you 
 90

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 have very robust datasets. And then, we are 

2 in the same situation as we are at other sites 

3 where I think the 50th percentile is probably 

4 reasonable.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. So, 

6 if you go -- I am going to just roughly start 

7 at 1959 because we had 138, 60, 106. The 

8 period between 1961 and 1962, actually, at the 

9 end of 1962 when they kicked back in, they 

10 jumped up and they did 196 just in that end 

11 period. Then, in 1963, we get a huge increase 

12 to 1730 bioassay samples, and it stays all the 

13 way --

14 DR. MAURO: So, you've got those 

15 samples?

16 DR. NETON: Yes. Yes, we have 

17 those.

18 DR. MAURO: So, you've got the 

19 data. See, to me, you have got the bioassay 

20 data. So, let's, right off the bat, I would 

21 say, given the bioassay data, there is no SEC 

22 issue here. You have got a little hole in the 
 91

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 bioassay. What are we going to do about that?

2 Now you would argue that you would 

3 go with the geometric mean. And I would say, 

4 well, why would you do that? In other words, 

5 I am saying, what about some of those people 

6 in there that you have bioassays year after 

7 year and then you skip, then there is a hole, 

8 and then --

9 DR. NETON: You don't know, 

10 though.

11 DR. MAURO: Why would you use --

12 DR. NETON: I mean, let's take a 

13 hypothetical example where you had everybody 

14 monitored that were the highest-exposed 

15 workers on one end and everybody that was 

16 highly exposed monitored on the other end. Why 

17 would you give the unmonitored workers the 

18 95th percentile?

19 DR. MAURO: Well, I am saying, 

20 let's say it turns out within that population 

21 of highest-exposed workers, the operators, and 

22 you have got, let's say, 100 measurements, 
 92

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 okay, for workers. And we go Worker No. 1, 

2 and we rack them up. Here's the intake for 

3 the highest guy, the intake for the second4 highest guy, the third-highest guy, all right, 

5 now all the way down. And here is our 50th 

6 percentile, right? Forget about running the 

7 log normal. Just right smack dab in the 

8 middle.

9 Let's say, well, you are saying 

10 now along comes a guy that we don't have data 

11 for. You know, we don't know what his intake 

12 was. But we do know that here's the rank 

13 order of 100 people. Why would you give him 

14 the one in the middle?

15 DR. NETON: Because what if it was 

16 an administrative person?

17 DR. MAURO: If he was, then I 

18 would agree with you, right.

19 DR. NETON: What if it was a 

20 security guard?

21 DR. MAURO: But I am saying it 

22 wasn't.
 93

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 MR. ALLEN: But we are not giving 

2 him the guy in the middle. We are giving him 

3 the distribution. That gives him a 

4 possibility of the high-end and a possibility 

5 of the low-end.

6 DR. MAURO: No, but what you 

7 didn't -- see, it is just like the external 

8 that you do it with. I mean, the reality 

9 is --

10 DR. NETON: But we're not --

11 DR. MAURO: Maybe we will never 

12 agree, and that is okay.

13 DR. NETON: The nice thing about a 

14 probabilistic model, which is the whole risk 

15 models are based on that, we don't give high16 end values for all the individual exposure 

17 parameters in the risk model.

18 What you are arguing is that we 

19 should behave differently when the 

20 dosimetry --

21 DR. MAURO: But you kick off the 1 

22 percentile upper end.
 94

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 DR. NETON: That is what we do 

2 with --

3 DR. MAURO: To account for the 

4 fact that there is individual variability in 

5 the risk coefficient.

6 DR. NETON: And the same logic 

7 applies to the dose models.

8 DR. MAURO: Well, now we are 

9 getting into the regulatory interpretation. I 

10 am going to look over here.

11 (Laughter.)

12 I see it as this: the way I read 

13 the rule is that, when you are reconstructing 

14 the person's dose, you have to err on the side 

15 of the person to give him the highest16 plausible dose that applies to that person.

17 MR. ALLEN: Absolutely not. You 

18 are definitely misinterpreting it.

19 DR. MAURO: Then, for nine years I 

20 have been off-base.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

22 (Laughter.)
 95

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 DR. MAURO: See, to me, when you 

2 don't know, you don't say, "I am going to" 

3 -- because what that means is there is a 50 

4 percent chance that you have underestimated 

5 his dose.

6 MR. ALLEN: If you point to the 

7 rule and read that section again, read the 

8 section around it, et cetera, it is saying we 

9 can end our research by giving worst-case 

10 conditions. That is the thing we are pointing 

11 to. And it says that we can consider the 

12 research done if we consider worst-case 

13 conditions. Plausibly-bounding worst-case 

14 conditions I think is what --

15 MR. KATZ: If that is the only 

16 information you have.

17 DR. MAURO: Right. Isn't that 

18 what I just said?

19 DR. NETON: But the law says we 

20 should provide reasonable estimates of dose. I 

21 mean, that is what it says.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, but --
 96

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 MR. ALLEN: We are saying that 

2 that is only a reason to end the research. You 

3 can't then do more research to say we could 

4 have made it higher. More research means it 

5 is almost got to go lower.

6 DR. MAURO: I will do it. I mean, 

7 I am just trying to be clear. I am thinking 

8 about, I have got 100 guys that work in these 

9 rooms, I've got 100 of them, and they are all 

10 the operators. These are the bad actors, 

11 okay? We will grant it.

12 And then, I say, all right, and I 

13 look at their average intakes based on 

14 bioassay data, becquerels per day, over a 

15 period of a year or two, whatever. And I have 

16 numbers that start over here, the highest, and 

17 go down. All right, now I have got that, and 

18 everybody is in pretty good shape. And for 

19 those people, when you reconstruct their dose, 

20 you are going to use the one that applies to 

21 him because you have the data.

22 Then, along comes two or three 
 97

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 guys that worked in that time period. I don't 

2 have any bioassay data. I say, "Well, but I 

3 want to assign some number to him." Or I'm 

4 going to say some intake. What is the intake 

5 I am going to assume that they had in that 

6 time period?

7 According to your argument, you 

8 would use the geometric mean, the guy in the 

9 middle. You pick the 50th guy. But you would 

10 try to take him into consideration, but we 

11 will assign him the standard deviation on him 

12 because we don't really know. He could have 

13 been --

14 DR. NETON: We're not assigning it. 

15 It is calculated.

16 DR. MAURO: No, no. The one based 

17 on the distribution that you see from your 

18 rank order.

19 Now I would say that is one way to 

20 deal with the uncertainty. The other way to 

21 deal with it is simply say: well, listen, we 

22 don't know where that guy worked. We don't 
 98

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 know where he would fit in from the highest to 

2 the lowest. I am going to give him the 95th 

3 percentile.

4 DR. NETON: I think we are in 

5 agreement here because at other sites where we 

6 have said, if it is clear that a person was, 

7 say, a chemical operator at a facility --

8 DR. MAURO: Right.

9 DR. NETON: -- and they lost the 

10 bioassay record, we would assign the 95th 

11 percentile.

12 DR. MAURO: Now that is where I am 

13 on this. I don't think -- we have no argument 

14 there. If you know this guy was an 

15 administrative assistant and never went into 

16 the operation area, you don't give him the --

17 DR. NETON: That is where we have 

18 measurement.

19 DR. MAURO: Well, but it appears 

20 that you didn't do that here.

21 DR. BEHLING: John, just to remind 

22 everybody, we are segregating the workers 
 99

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 based on their job classification. So, when 

2 we look at these numbers that are identified 

3 of 12,590 as a GM value to be assigned, we are 

4 not assigning that to an office worker or a 

5 secretary. These are operators.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The issue is 

7 it is not a generic -- it is assignment of the 

8 50 percent to everybody. That is what it says 

9 in this thing.

10 DR. MAURO: You understand what I 

11 am saying? I don't think we are being 

12 unreasonable, but you understand our concern?

13 DR. NETON: Yes, I understand. I 

14 think we need to go back. I need to refresh 

15 myself a little more with Hans' original 

16 analysis and how he did it.

17 DR. BEHLING: And let me also 

18 point out something else. I think Jim Neton 

19 made a comment that I think is appropriate, 

20 but potentially flawed. When you said we only 

21 really focus our attention on those people 

22 that are potentially likely to have the 
 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

1 highest exposure, that may be due to air 

2 sampling.

3 And as I said, if you look at 

4 Table 1 in my report, I identified air5 sampling data for 1960 for a whole bunch of 

6 operators. And then, on the far end of the 

7 page there in the last column, I identified 

8 urinalysis data that was also available.

9 And you find, based on the 

10 correlation between air concentrations to 

11 which these people were exposed and that were 

12 assigned an air concentration value, if you 

13 compare that to their actual empirical 

14 urinalysis data, you find very poor 

15 correlation, which means potentially the 

16 following:

17 They may have identified workers 

18 in areas where there are known measurements of 

19 high air concentration and said, "You will 

20 submit to a urinalysis because we think you 

21 may be the maximum-exposed individual." But, 

22 as that table also shows, there may be poor 
 101

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 correlation, meaning that a person may have 

2 had high exposure that involved areas where 

3 the air concentrations apparently were not at 

4 a level that would raise a red flag.

5 And yet, as it turns out, as I 

6 pointed out in one of the tables, when I 

7 compared them, they identified four 

8 individuals, two of which had high air 

9 concentrations and, yet, had low urine 

10 excretion, and the reverse was they had high 

11 urine excretion and low air concentration. So, 

12 they may have selected people for urinalysis 

13 on a basis of air concentration that turned 

14 out to be a poor indicator for exposures.

15 MR. ALLEN: But you admittedly 

16 picked the high guys to analyze there.

17 DR. BEHLING: Of course. Yes, I 

18 took the extremes. No, there is no question 

19 about that.

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I understand 

21 that, and I would, too, you know, to try to 

22 test the limits there. But if we could go 
 102

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 through and show a relatively-consistent 

2 urinalysis on the majority of these people, 

3 would that not prove that they knew what they 

4 were doing as far as picking the high guys?

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes, on average, 

6 yes, always. I mean, if we always look at 

7 what is representative of a population, an 

8 average value with a standard deviation might 

9 be appropriate. But, as I pointed out, there 

10 may be individuals such as our AAA and BBB 

11 operators whose exposures, based on empirical 

12 urinalysis, would suggest a much higher intake 

13 than are being assigned by the geometric mean.

14 MR. ALLEN: But I am saying, if 

15 AAA is relatively consistent throughout time 

16 and BBB is relatively consistent and Employee 

17 A, B, C, they are all consistent with 

18 themselves across time, then we do have the 

19 high guy, and he is AAA and BBB. The other 

20 guys that are sampled by the company are 

21 lower. So, presumably, the ones that are not 

22 sampled would be even lower yet.
 103

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 DR. BEHLING: Well, this is 

2 exactly the point I just made. You may not 

3 have sampled everyone that should have been 

4 sampled because you may have falsely assumed 

5 that air concentrations are necessarily a good 

6 indicator for expecting them to submit urine 

7 samples.

8 MR. ALLEN: But you have already 

9 said that doesn't correlate with AAA and BBB. 

10 So, they couldn't be consistent with everybody 

11 across time if air samples is what they used.

12 DR. MAURO: Wait. You said 

13 something that is very important. The people 

14 that are of concern that you are going to 

15 reconstruct the doses for this two-year time 

16 period where you don't have bioassay data, do 

17 we know who they are and do we have their data 

18 for 1959, 1960, 1961, bioassay data?

19 DR. NETON: It is probably a 

20 mixture.

21 DR. MAURO: I mean, if you know 

22 who they are. I mean, when you think about 
 104

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 it, see, the way I look at it is forget about 

2 the air-sampling data. I mean, you have 

3 bioassay data. And if you have bioassay data 

4 for a guy for 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 

5 then, all of a sudden, you don't have anything 

6 for 1961 and 1962, then you have got it for 

7 all. You're done. So, I don't know why you 

8 even go to the air data.

9 MR. ALLEN: Well, we don't for 

10 guys with the bioassay data.

11 DR. NETON: In the bioassay data, 

12 you are never going to be --

13 DR. MAURO: I thought the problem 

14 was --

15 DR. NETON: It is the people when 

16 there is no one with any monitoring data at 

17 all.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, then, I 

19 misunderstood. So, they are a different group 

20 of people that were not monitored. So, it 

21 wasn't that you have -- I thought it was a 

22 time period that was gone. So, now you have a 
 105

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 group. Okay, right.

2 DR. NETON: See, we would do what 

3 Hans did to calculate a guy's intake, if he 

4 had bioassay data before and after.

5 DR. MAURO: Right. Okay. So, now 

6 you say, okay, now we have got a group of 

7 people that, for some reason, don't have 

8 bioassay data, and they didn't have any before 

9 and after.

10 DR. NETON: There you go.

11 (Laughter.)

12 DR. MAURO: Not only is it 1962 

13 and 1963, they don't have any.

14 MR. KATZ: They are unmonitored 

15 workers.

16 DR. MAURO: The unmonitored 

17 workers.

18 DR. NETON: That has been my point 

19 all along.

20 DR. MAURO: Believe me, I am 

21 trying to understand. Your position is that, 

22 well, this group of people that don't have any 
 106

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 bioassay data for this time period, I am 

2 assuming that they don't have any bioassay 

3 period for an earlier time period or they 

4 don't have any bioassay data -- that is what 

5 you are saying -- or very little. So, they 

6 are a special group of people.

7 And your argument is maybe the 

8 reason they didn't have that bioassay data was 

9 they were people that didn't really have much 

10 potential for exposure. I didn't see that 

11 case made.

12 DR. BEHLING: Well, you know, I 

13 still have a problem with us making that 

14 assumption, John. It would be okay if you 

15 were talking about the secretary or the office 

16 worker. But when you have a chemical operator 

17 and that is his job justification, if there is 

18 no bioassay data, you would have to question 

19 why. Is it data missing or is there an 

20 oversight that says he should have been 

21 monitored but somehow or another he was not? I 

22 don't know how to answer that question when 
 107

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 you have someone who is --

2 DR. MAURO: That is a great 

3 question. That is a reasonable question.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is that a 

5 hypothetical?

6 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't know. 

7 That might be a hypothetical. There may be 

8 none. I don't know. We need to follow up.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think we are 

10 really trying to come to closure on this in a 

11 way that we are all comfortable with. And I 

12 understand where the holes are now. Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, moving 

14 forward, yes, the action item is, John, you 

15 guys are going to redo the --

16 DR. MAURO: Well, I don't know if 

17 there is anything to do. I think it is in 

18 Jim's court.

19 DR. NETON: Not me, but someone 

20 else is going to look at the analysis. Yes, 

21 we need to go back and reexamine Hans' 

22 original analysis --
 108

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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: -- of September 2009, 

3 his bioassay analysis.

4 DR. BEHLING: And I would just 

5 like to ask Jim, or whoever is going to do 

6 that, take a look at the operators because 

7 they are obviously the --

8 DR. NETON: Yes, I agree. Yes, we 

9 will look at the operators and we will look to 

10 see if that really does apply, yes.

11 MR. KATZ: So, it is more than 

12 just Hans' analysis, the discussion here, too. 

13 It is the issue of who is this set of workers.

14 DR. NETON: Exactly how it is 

15 going to apply.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Especially in 

17 the context of the SEC, I guess.

18 DR. NETON: We have got a handle 

19 on what we need to do, to look at.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. The 

21 next issue, then -- I think we have got what 

22 is going to happen.
 109

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 MEMBER FIELD: Andy, can I ask a 

2 question?

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, sorry, go 

4 ahead, Bill.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, looking at 

6 this, now one of the items that we are looking 

7 at is nuclear air-concentration data, correct?

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. If you look

10 at Table 1 there, the first two rooms there, 

11 the red room and the green room, it is my 

12 understanding these are the rooms that had the 

13 highest potential exposures.

14 MR. KATZ: Right.

15 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. What I am 

16 trying to figure out is, why in 1962 is there 

17 one-fifth less sampling and one-ninth in 1962, 

18 but yet other rooms, where I am assuming there 

19 is less exposure, the number of air samples 

20 went up? I am just trying to figure out why 

21 there are so few in 1962 as compared to 1961.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think part of 
 110

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 that just may be the data available to us, but 

2 I am not sure other than that.

3 DR. MAURO: When I was reading the 

4 text with this, I remember that the argument 

5 was made that we wanted to save some money. 

6 This was back in the DOE days. They said, 

7 "Listen, let's cut back on the bioassay 

8 program." There were actually some worries 

9 there. They said, to conserve resources, 

10 maybe we could cut back on the amount of 

11 bioassay data because we have a whole lot of 

12 bioassay data. And then, of course, that 

13 turned out to be a problem because, after that 

14 hiatus, they realized that there were some 

15 really significant intakes.

16 But what I didn't know is that it 

17 had to do with particular rooms. That is 

18 interesting.

19 DR. NETON: Well, if you look, it 

20 is most interesting as well -- I am just sort 

21 of reading this on the fly -- the number of 

22 integrated personal dust exposures went up by 
 111

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 an order of magnitude. It may be that they 

2 supplanted the six monitoring stations with 

3 these combination BZGA samples that they put 

4 on the workers.

5 Because it is a tremendous 

6 increase. It went from 132 in 1961 to 1847 in 

7 1962. And based on the footnote I see here, 

8 we are not exactly clear what they calculated, 

9 how they calculated those values.

10 MEMBER FIELD: It is just 

11 interesting, in some of the rooms the sampling 

12 actually went up.

13 DR. NETON: Yes, the pellet plant 

14 went up.

15 MEMBER FIELD: But it is 

16 surprising to me that in the green room for 

17 1962 there are only four observations.

18 DR. NETON: Right, but 1962 is 

19 where they quit taking bioassays, though, 

20 right?

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: So, 1961 they 

22 quit taking and restarted back in late 1962.
 112

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 DR. NETON: For some reason -- and 

2 maybe this is something we can dig out of the 

3 records -- what these integrated personal dust 

4 exposure samples were. I mean there is a 

5 tremendous number of samples.

6 MEMBER FIELD: I think that would 

7 be really helpful to know.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I agree.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean, because 

10 if you have got 1800 personal air samples that 

11 include a large part of BZ samples --

12 DR. MAURO: So, they kicked in 

13 this big BZ program and knocked down on the 

14 bioassay program.

15 DR. NETON: Yes, and the 

16 individual fixed-station samples, as Bill 

17 points out.

18 DR. MAURO: That is an interesting 

19 story.

20 DR. NETON: Yes, yes. So, we need 

21 to figure that out a little better.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, that is 
 113

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 another action item for DCAS. I've got it.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Let's 

3 maybe take a break --

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- for about 

6 10 minutes, yes. Then, we will go through the 

7 transuranic material.

8 MR. KATZ: So, I am just putting 

9 the phone on mute while we are on break.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 10:42 a.m. and 

12 resumed at 10:56 a.m.)

13 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

14 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the 

15 Uranium Refining Work Group.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And we are 

17 still discussing United Nuclear. We have the 

18 second White Paper by Chris regarding 

19 transuranic from recycled uranium buried at 

20 United Nuclear.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, this is 

22 LaVon Rutherford.
 114

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 One of the issues brought up by 

2 the petitioner was the potential for 

3 transuranics from recycled uranium buried at 

4 United Nuclear. We went back and we actually 

5 looked at that a little more in-depth. We 

6 also looked at how we handled that in OTIB-4.

7 If you look at the White Paper, 

8 the White Paper actually identifies in Section 

9 3 some site sampling and analysis that we did 

10 or that was done during the decommissioning 

11 project, a characterization report, and a 

12 number of different surveys and such that were 

13 done to determine the activity concentrations 

14 of various radionuclides at this site.

15 If you go to Table 1 in the 

16 report, you can see that the average soil 

17 concentrations from groundwater surface --

18 they actually did a radionuclide analysis on 

19 that. They had americium, neptunium, 

20 plutonium, tech-99, thorium-232 and 

21 uranium-234, -235, and -238. And they had the 

22 concentrations from those. That was from a 
 115

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 Westinghouse August 2009 report.

2 If you follow along in the report, 

3 you will actually look at the activity 

4 fractions relative to the total uranium. We 

5 did a comparison of that in Table 2.

6 And then, we took OTIB-4 and we 

7 compared the activity concentrations 

8 recommended from OTIB-4, which is based on, I 

9 think, depleted uranium, if I remember 

10 correctly, and those concentrations, and we 

11 compared them and recommended the use of 

12 OTIB-4 concentrations and showed that the 

13 OTIB-4 concentrations are significantly higher 

14 than the actual activity concentrations that 

15 were derived from, or activity fractions that 

16 were derived from the soil concentrations.

17 I would point out that the report 

18 points out that, when you are dealing with 

19 higher-enriched UF6, the recycling project or 

20 the actual production of that UF6 drops the 

21 recycled contaminant significantly through 

22 that process, and that is confirmed in a DOE 
 116

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 report as well, and it is also cited on the 

2 front of the White Paper.

3 That is pretty much it.

4 John?

5 DR. MAURO: I just had one 

6 question. I agree with you regarding you are 

7 working with the back-end of processing that 

8 started with ore.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: But you are not 

11 starting with material on that --

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: But is there any place 

14 where, if you had some RU in the material that 

15 showed up and you were working with whether it 

16 was UF6 or UF4, whatever it is you are working 

17 with, and I guess you are mainly reducing it 

18 here --

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: You are bringing it 

21 down to a metal. Is there any part of the 

22 process which would result in side streams, 
 117

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 not with separated out in concentrate, any RU, 

2 you know, the way that happens in other 

3 places?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. Yes, we 

5 didn't identify any, but what we did point out 

6 was the fact that the concentrations that we 

7 found in the soil -- and we also recognize 

8 that some, we do believe that there was 

9 material sent from Mallinckrodt that was 

10 buried on the site that actually had a higher 

11 concentration of the recycled contaminants. 

12 And those were buried on the site as part of 

13 that as well.

14 And the fact that dealing with the 

15 high-enriched material, as I mentioned, it 

16 drops those contaminants significantly, to the 

17 point. So, we didn't identify a specific 

18 process that could have concentrated those.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. And so, the 

20 main philosophy is that the place where you 

21 can have the highest amount of RU material 

22 that might have shown up is at Mallinckrodt.
 118

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 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. And that 

2 was buried.

3 DR. MAURO: And that was buried. 

4 Any other RU that might have been associated 

5 with the actual product that was processed, if 

6 anything, is going to be lower than that.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

8 DR. MAURO: First of all, it 

9 started off lower as a product --

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

11 DR. MAURO: -- when it started in 

12 the system. And second, you don't know of any 

13 process whereby the process reduces UF4 and 

14 UO2 that would be a way in which that stuff 

15 would be extracted out and generate 

16 concentrations which might have been higher 

17 relative to uranium, higher than what you 

18 actually saw in the Mallinckrodt? I mean, 

19 that is the only place where I see an 

20 ultimate --

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: You understand what 
 119

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 I --

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I know where 

3 you are going with it. The same thing with 

4 Fernald, I believe.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: I mean, I wasn't 

7 involved in that. But, no, I think we haven't 

8 identified anything.

9 Now I do want to point out, you 

10 will notice I think the thorium numbers were 

11 higher, the activity fractions of thorium were 

12 higher in the burial than the OTIB-4 values, 

13 but that is because of the thorium process 

14 that actually occurred onsite.

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, thorium is --

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: -- that's another 

18 White Paper, a different one, right?

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Oh, yes, I 

20 would just point out, if you had a question, 

21 why one of those was higher. Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, at the 
 120

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 very end, you talk about the thorium 

2 processing. Is there going to be another 

3 White Paper on that?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, we are going 

5 to talk about that one.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: There is?

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: There is a White 

8 Paper on the thorium.

9 DR. MAURO: The Casey-Davis White 

10 Paper.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, okay.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. Okay, fine. I 

13 have to say, as far as SC&A is concerned, I 

14 mean, I have got to tell you I didn't look at 

15 that one paper. I don't know if anyone else 

16 did in the group. I understand what you are 

17 saying.

18 We agreed with the fundamental 

19 idea that when you are starting with UF6 and 

20 UF4, you are not starting with something that 

21 is going to develop an upper value, and that 

22 the Mallinckrodt waste would certainly be 
 121

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 bounding.

2 And that is your plan, to go with 

3 that ratio?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, OTIB-4 

5 ratio, which is actually significantly higher 

6 than the ratios we had in the soil.

7 DR. MAURO: All right. Then, I 

8 have to say, I mean, I jumped to the 

9 conclusion pretty quick. I like it.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Bill, do you 

13 have any comments on this White Paper?

14 MEMBER FIELD: No, I don't.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, 

16 that takes us, do we want to do thorium before 

17 petitioner issues or the petitioner issues?

18 MR. KATZ: So, is that closed?

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I think 

20 we got the detailed discussion that we wanted.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: It doesn't matter 
 122

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 to me, whichever one you want to go to.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Well, 

3 we may have petitioners still on. So, let's 

4 do the petitioner issues.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. Now do you 

6 want me to go through each one of these in 

7 here, because there's about six pages of them? 

8 But I'll tell you what we did.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: And if there are 

11 specific ones we want to talk about, we can 

12 talk about them.

13 The question came up -- and I 

14 think it may have been Hans, it may have been 

15 somebody else within SC&A -- and identified 

16 that they were concerned that it wasn't clear 

17 from the Evaluation Report that we'd actually 

18 pulled out all the petitioner issues and 

19 addressed all the petitioner issues.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: So, what we did 

22 was we went back and we took the petition, 
 123

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 broke it down, and we pulled out everywhere 

2 where we saw a place in the petition that had 

3 an issue, and then we tried to address each 

4 one of those.

5 I mean, you can look at the first 

6 one, recycled uranium. We put a White Paper 

7 out on that one. There is a number of these. 

8 There are issues of workers working with bare

9 hands. There are issues associated with 

10 whether we had bioassay for everyone. There 

11 are some issues about the chemicals and people 

12 being exposed to a number of different strong 

13 mineral acids, and so on. And we pointed out 

14 that we do not dispute that chemical exposures 

15 occurred at the site. However, that is not 

16 part of what we are dealing with here.

17 It talked about workers 

18 potentially taking contamination home, and we 

19 addressed that as well.

20 So, there's a number of issues in 

21 here. If anyone has any specific one they 

22 would like to discuss, we can discuss those.
 124

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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I guess what I 

2 would do is, since this really is responding 

3 to the petitioners --

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I would ask, 

6 if there are petitioners on the phone, if they 

7 have specific comments or would like 

8 clarifications of any of your comments.

9 MR. KATZ: Bill, do you have any 

10 questions about the responses to these?

11 MEMBER FIELD: No, I don't.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think it is 

13 helpful to have broken out the issues as you 

14 saw them. And now, if something has been 

15 missed or there are new issues, if the 

16 petitioners have them, it would be helpful to 

17 hear.

18 MR. KATZ: So, for petitioners, if 

19 you have seen the responses from DCAS, do you 

20 want to raise additional questions or 

21 questions about their responses?

22 MS. EATON: This is Clarissa Eaton 
 125

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 on behalf of the petitioners. Can you hear 

2 me?

3 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thank you, 

4 Clarissa.

5 MS. EATON: Thanks.

6 Yes, real quick, I only wanted to 

7 mention the chemicals. I made mention of that 

8 to make a point that this site was so badly 

9 contaminated, not only onsite but offsite as 

10 well.

11 And how do I know that? I know 

12 that because I was one of the twenty-two homes 

13 that had my well, my private well, impacted 

14 with about two pages of five-syllable 

15 chemicals that I couldn't even pronounce.

16 The site's monitoring records, as 

17 Hans has so graciously interpreted, that the 

18 poor correlation of what little data they 

19 have, it doesn't make sense.

20 There's a lot of things I would 

21 like to say. I am a little hesitant to say 

22 them right now.
 126

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 But I think there is a reason that 

2 the monitoring data ended in 1960. We know 

3 when things are in a process of being done to 

4 protect one's own entity, that business 

5 practices so easily go astray.

6 Westinghouse, who is also the 

7 administrator of the documents, at first were 

8 stated that didn't exist, and then truckloads 

9 come into the picture. Westinghouse, being 

10 the administrator, who has been cited in other 

11 states for falsifying documents, that is an 

12 issue.

13 We have already got one source 

14 deemed unreliable, but now we are dealing --

15 thank you, Westinghouse. Anyway, to make a 

16 long story short, we have a lot of unreliable 

17 people.

18 What is that noise?

19 MR. KATZ: Somebody was doing 

20 something with their phone. All we know --

21 MS. EATON: I am not surprised.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, it is someone on 
 127

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 the line here, most likely a person in the 

2 public's phone because it is probably not a 

3 government phone. But, please, if you are 

4 listening in, please mute your phone.

5 There it goes. Thank you, 

6 Clarissa. Go ahead.

7 MS. EATON: Well, back to what I 

8 was saying --

9 This is unbelievable.

10 MR. KATZ: It's okay, Clarissa. We 

11 are here. We hear you.

12 MS. EATON: I think at this point 

13 I am going to turn it over to any employees. 

14 Are there any employees on the line?

15 MALE PARTICIPANT: Yes, ma'am.

16 MR. KATZ: Do you want to, whoever 

17 that is who said, yes, ma'am, do you want to 

18 identify yourself? You are welcome to make 

19 comments as well.

20 MALE PARTICIPANT: Well, I got 

21 back from break a little late. But I don't 

22 know where you took from break and where you 
 128

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 are now.

2 But, yes, I was an employee of 

3 United Nuclear from 1962 to 1966. I have 

4 submitted a petition.

5 And there are several -- I don't 

6 know exactly -- I would like to talk a little 

7 bit about bioassay reports. On my report, 

8 they took my bioassay results and did my 

9 reconstruction from that. Then, I got my 

10 report back, and they said they had a total of 

11 nine bioassay samples taken in that four-some12 odd years and that, of that, six were over the 

13 limit.

14 And so, they were going to include 

15 the other three. They would conclude and give 

16 me those higher results that I had gotten from 

17 my previous one, previous high ones, and they 

18 would use that to calculate that.

19 And my point being, I am not sure 

20 that is a good practice of just assigning, out 

21 of the air, numbers to fill in holes. That is 

22 one of my concerns.
 129

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 And there were, along the lines of 

2 what Clarissa was saying, there were many, 

3 yes, many practices -- and I am not a 

4 complaining employee, believe me -- but the 

5 company treated me good.

6 The old Atomic Energy Commission 

7 days were a lot different than they are now, 

8 and the practices were a lot -- the companies 

9 were treated a lot differently. We had no 

10 surprise inspections, for example. We always 

11 knew they were coming in. The AEC always 

12 cleaned everything up.

13 I know this is all just 

14 speculation. It is not complaining, believe 

15 me. But the practices are different now than 

16 they used to be, and I am well aware of that 

17 fact.

18 I do believe what Clarissa is 

19 saying, that in all honesty, that the company 

20 were CYA a little bit when it came to the 

21 1962-1963, the air sampling and the missing 

22 portions of certain records. You just have to 
 130

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 think that, from what you see and what you 

2 hear and what you know personally.

3 What I haven't heard discussed 

4 here a lot today is the item plant. The item 

5 plant is where I worked for three years. The 

6 item plant was high-enrichment. It was of 

7 Navy nuclear fuel. It was a confidential 

8 nature. I don't know whether I can discuss 

9 that here or not. I assume -- I don't know. 

10 But it is hard to discuss something in detail 

11 when you don't know whether you are limited to 

12 that or not for security reasons.

13 But we made high-enrichment fuel 

14 for nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, and so 

15 forth. It was all in one place. It was 

16 called the item plant. I don't hear a lot of 

17 discussion about the item plant. I hear red 

18 room. That was high-enrichment scrap 

19 recovery. I hear green room and blue room. I 

20 am familiar with all of these. But those were 

21 lower enrichments.

22 They were segregated by 
 131

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 enrichments, as you go up the line. The red 

2 room and item plant were the most critical 

3 high-enrichment areas.

4 And then we had the thorium 

5 problem in the pellet plant during 1964. I 

6 was there for that also.

7 But the item plant, it seems that 

8 nobody wants to discuss item plant: the 

9 practices and the exposure rates. In the item 

10 plant, they were supposed to monitor your 

11 intake. If your exposure came up, they would 

12 move you to the blue room or the green room or 

13 out in the yard, or so forth, which made 

14 sense. I mean, I am not complaining about 

15 that.

16 But there were some of us who 

17 spent our whole time there because we were the 

18 QA portion, we were the QC portion, we were 

19 the sampling portion, we were the monitoring 

20 portion, and the item plant technicians. We 

21 were one per shift.

22 We stayed there. We never got 
 132

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 moved, except if we didn't have an order. For 

2 example, we went over into the pellet plant in 

3 1964 for a little while and helped them with 

4 their pellets and the thorium process. Lucky 

5 us, I guess, but we were just fortunate.

6 But the item plant I never hear 

7 really discussed. And I would like to hear 

8 more about the item plant, and the workers 

9 there had to be highly exposed. We had the 

10 green uranium dioxide of a certain enrichment, 

11 high enrichment. It went all the way up to 

12 the finished, processed product for the 

13 reactors. We were exposed to it all.

14 And the red room, yes, I hear 

15 about it. That was probably because the three 

16 or four employees who were exposed highly to 

17 this red room made all the headlines as far as 

18 the AEC is concerned and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

19 And these people were taken down for whole 

20 body counts and all that.

21 But, there again, the item plant 

22 was never really openly discussed that I hear 
 133

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 in any of these meetings. Maybe I am just 

2 missing something here.

3 But there are a lot of loopholes 

4 in our process of monitoring in the item 

5 plant, I can guarantee you.

6 But I listen to your conversations 

7 about -- I know you have the statistics and 

8 you have to put probabilities and all this in 

9 your background investigations, but it doesn't 

10 account for everyday workers. It doesn't 

11 account for someone who has been there, 

12 exposed. It didn't account for an uptake, for 

13 example, in -- we worked 12-hour days, 10- and 

14 12-hour days. When we had a project for the 

15 Navy, we wouldn't get a weekend off for eight, 

16 ten weeks.

17 But when they calculate your 

18 exposure record, it is done on a day basis, a

19 40-hour workweek. That don't make sense to 

20 me, either, but it is just another thing that 

21 I know here.

22 I am not faulting any of you 
 134

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 gentlemen for your background analysis and all 

2 your extrapolations and all, but I don't think 

3 it takes into consideration the physical 

4 locations of the furnaces and the pots and the 

5 process of acid leaching and the process of 

6 making this material as an exposure for each 

7 individual little area in that item plant.

8 If we take the exposure records 

9 of, for example, the people in the item plant 

10 and the red room, lump them together -- and I 

11 was, on my evaluation, by the way, I was 

12 classified as an operator because they did 

13 that. They allowed that, and that's great. 

14 That's fine. That was, I understand, the 

15 greatest exposure that they had assigned to 

16 me.

17 That did allow for that 12,000, I 

18 think, Dpm per cubic centimeter that the 

19 previous gentleman had talked about. He 

20 calculated that it was 42,000 potentially 

21 instead of 12,000. So, I was at least given 

22 the 12,000 there on that part.
 135

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 But I think I would like to hear 

2 more discussion and more looking into the item 

3 plant and red room, where the high exposure 

4 rates were. It is a matter of record. Or 

5 excuse me. It should be easy to find that 

6 those two areas were absolutely the highest 

7 enrichments, so they had to be the highest 

8 exposure, internal exposures especially.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you.

10 Go ahead.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, this is 

12 LaVon Rutherford. I will respond to that.

13 And you make a good point on the 

14 item plant; there's not a lot of discussion. A 

15 lot of that has to do with its classified 

16 nature, as you know.

17 What we do have, I do want to 

18 point out, we do have air-monitoring data from 

19 the item plant. In fact, one of our reports 

20 we put out -- and I know Clarissa got it and 

21 the other petitioners got the reports -- you 

22 will notice on our air-concentration report 
 136

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 that we have on Table 2 it identifies the 

2 different rooms that had samples that were 

3 above administrative control level. And one 

4 of those samples is from the item plant. 

5 Actually, I think a couple of the samples are 

6 from the item plant.

7 And so, we do have air-monitoring 

8 data from that plant. Also, as you pointed 

9 out, we do have bioassay data from individuals 

10 that worked in that plant. So, we do have 

11 that data to reconstruct that internal dose as 

12 well as the external monitoring data from 

13 those individuals as well.

14 And I think we have enough 

15 information that we could, I mean if it became 

16 necessary, we could identify a lot of 

17 individuals that specifically worked in the 

18 item plant through their CATIs and their 

19 bioassay data and through their claimant 

20 records.

21 But I do understand your 

22 frustration there. Because of its being a 
 137

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 classified nature, we haven't discussed it a 

2 lot.

3 DR. MAURO: Bomber, I have a 

4 question for you.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

6 DR. MAURO: On this window where 

7 we don't have the bioassay data, do we know 

8 that it includes workers that worked at the 

9 item plant?

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we have --

11 oh, do we know if -- actually, we have air 

12 monitoring. That is actually part of this.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay, so part of the 

14 data.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, is in there, 

16 yes. Yes.

17 MALE PARTICIPANT: They quit the 

18 air sampling because of financial. It was 

19 financial. I mean the bioassay.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

21 MALE PARTICIPANT: They would say 

22 they didn't need it. The air sampling was 
 138

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 okay to do. And then, they got in trouble in 

2 a very short period of time when they found 

3 out they should have had it because they were 

4 getting some exposure rates that just didn't 

5 match up in the air sampling. So, they went 

6 back to it.

7 They were forced to go back to it. 

8 That was part of an agreement they had with 

9 the AEC and the government, that they had to 

10 go back to that. They had to -- they were 

11 getting in trouble.

12 And they came out and they 

13 inspected. I wasn't privy to the meetings, 

14 but I do know, as a result of that, we 

15 initiated that back in.

16 But, yes, it is frustrating when 

17 your topic can't get discussed. I don't know 

18 how to get around that, to tell you the truth, 

19 but I just want to make sure that the item 

20 plant is part of the situation that is of a 

21 separate classification than an office worker 

22 or a guard or one of, I call them, non-exposed
 139

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 people.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Not to interrupt, 

3 but, you know, if you think it would be very 

4 helpful, we could set up a classified 

5 interview with you where you could freely 

6 speak about the item plant and speak -- in 

7 fact, I could do that interview and be a part 

8 of that interview. I am cleared to do that.

9 So, if you think it would be 

10 helpful, we could set that up.

11 MALE PARTICIPANT: Well, do you 

12 think it would be helpful?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I think, 

14 sure, any more information is always helpful. 

15 So, yes.

16 MALE PARTICIPANT: Because I can 

17 walk you step-by-step through that process 

18 from the time it comes in the door until it 

19 goes out the door.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, that 

22 would be very helpful.
 140

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 MALE PARTICIPANT: I can tell you 

2 the tech specs on it and everything else you 

3 want to know.

4 (Laughter.)

5 Then, you would be in the same 

6 boat I'm in.

7 MR. KATZ: So, what is the best 

8 way, LaVon, for this fellow to contact you?

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, can 

10 you --

11 MR. KATZ: Let's not do it on the 

12 line --

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.

14 MR. KATZ: -- an open line.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, but if I can 

16 get his --

17 MS. EATON: I will forward you the 

18 information.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Clarissa.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you. I was 

21 hoping you were going to jump in there.

22 And then, I will contact you, and 
 141

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 we will work it out. We will get it set up.

2 MALE PARTICIPANT: Okay.

3 MS. EATON: If I could interject 

4 for a moment, that is another good point. I 

5 wonder how many sources have you used to get 

6 this information. I mean, it just seems like

7 we went from no information to a host of 

8 information, but do we really have all the 

9 information? Because if there's people like 

10 him, I am sure there's 20, 30 more. Have 

11 these people been contacted?

12 And Ed's private cases, you know, 

13 with the adjudicator, they were very 

14 understaffed and they didn't even contact some 

15 of the people that he listed as references. 

16 Those people were never contacted. Or at 

17 least Ed was told by those people they never 

18 once got a phone call on his behalf.

19 And then, I found out from the 

20 adjudicator that they were understaffed 

21 somewhat, which I get. You know, that's the 

22 times we're in.
 142

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 But do we have all the sources? 

2 What sources do we have? Because we know the 

3 data is insufficient.

4 MALE PARTICIPANT: Well, Clarissa, 

5 this is Brian again, but you are talking about 

6 Ed. I was one of the people who he put down 

7 as someone who would know the process and the 

8 facts of the area, and I was never contacted.

9 MS. EATON: Yes. See, so I don't 

10 know. I hate to be a skeptic, but at this

11 point, I am just thinking about all the time 

12 and resources wasted on something that is so 

13 clear.

14 The housekeeping was terrible. I 

15 mean, it was so terrible it went offsite, you 

16 know. I mean, the cards are all on the table 

17 here.

18 I just feel so bad for

19 ‘identifying information redacted’. 

20 ‘identifying information redacted’, my 

21 petitioner ‘identifying information redacted’, 

22 who has prostate, kidney and now liver cancer, 
 143

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 you know, he is not in a good place. I think 

2 we should get this together, all of us.

3 MALE PARTICIPANT: For one 

4 example, Clarissa, let me just say it happened 

5 to me, and, believe me, I am not a complainer. 

6 It is that, if you look back over your career, 

7 we used to have a Geiger counter, and you guys 

8 may have heard this before. As we would come 

9 through to leave, we would take our smocks off 

10 and our clothes off, and then we would wash 

11 our hands and we put our hand under the Geiger 

12 counter. It was permanently mounted on the 

13 door to the exit to the guard station.

14 Well, if you pegged that Geiger 

15 counter, if it alarmed, you washed your hands. 

16 You washed your hands in the sink right next 

17 to you. You would try it again as soon as you 

18 dried your hands off. If it rang it the 

19 second time, you washed your hands again. If 

20 the third time, you went on home and signed 

21 your name. That was it.

22 I mean, times were different then 
 144

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 than they are in a nuclear facility now, 

2 gentlemen. I'm 69 years old. I am sure you 

3 guys are a lot younger. But I can remember 

4 those days.

5 And there were air-line masks on 

6 occasion, and there were some respirators on 

7 occasion, but it wasn't nothing like today.

8 If you are going to recalculate, 

9 if you are going back into dose 

10 reconstruction, in my opinion, just my 

11 opinion, you have got to mentally put yourself 

12 back in the time in which it occurred, in the 

13 sixties, not in 2011.

14 And I know you guys are educated 

15 in 2011 times with the Nuclear Regulatory 

16 Commission, but you have to put your mind 

17 back. And I think that is what I hear people 

18 saying, there's frustration. We are hearing 

19 you say, well, we can monitor all this from 

20 20, 30 years ago and we can tell you that, 

21 yes, this was your exposure and to a 50 

22 percent probability that your cancer was not 
 145

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 caused by this.

2 Okay, I am sure you can 

3 mathematically justify that number maybe, but 

4 you didn't live in those times under those 

5 conditions, under those rules and regulations. 

6 And those companies at the time were wanting 

7 to survive. They were wanting to make money.

8 And to be honest with you, we 

9 didn't know any different. We did what we 

10 thought was the best.

11 But I don't see how you can 

12 reconstruct something -- I just don't see how 

13 you can reconstruct something when the rules 

14 were so loose. If you could put that in 

15 today's timeline, then, yes, I agree you could 

16 reconstruct it, but you couldn't in those 

17 days.

18 I know guys that took pellets 

19 home, for crying out loud, because they put 

20 them in their pocket and walked home with 

21 them. They brought them in the next day. 

22 There was no monitoring.
 146

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 And they say, yes, your 

2 urinalysis. Well, in four years and 

3 something, I had, they say, they say that I 

4 had nine records. Well, six of those were 

5 over the limit, and they gave me credit for 

6 those and they brought three up that weren't 

7 and said, okay, you're fine. Here's what 

8 you've got.

9 That doesn't -- how many thousands 

10 of hours were put in the place, and how do you 

11 account for the air sampler that may have been 

12 up in the corner in the item plant? We knew 

13 it was there, had that little air sampler 

14 running 24 hours a day. Your HP guy would 

15 come and take his little sample, smear sample. 

16 But his face wasn't on the side of that air 

17 hood eight hours a day, six days a week, or 

18 whatever it was, at all times. You might get 

19 the influx of a spike, but not, I say under 

20 normal conditions, there was no monitoring 

21 done like there is today.

22 I will get off my soapbox, but I 
 147

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 wanted to make a point. I am not hearing all 

2 that. I am hearing mathematics and 

3 calculations, and I don't hear about rules and 

4 relaxation of the rules. And that I think is

5 what people are so frustrated with your 

6 Committee about, is they lived it; you guys 

7 have the tough choice of coming in later and 

8 trying to make sense out of some of this.

9 Some of the sense out of this, 

10 guys, is that they were just lax. I am not 

11 saying they need to be sued or nothing else. 

12 All I am saying is, because I worked there 

13 voluntarily, all I am saying is you couldn't 

14 believe how lax these places were, and there 

15 are very extreme, high-radiated circumstances. 

16 We dealt with them the best we had, the best 

17 this country could put out. We dealt with it, 

18 and we used it, and we made stuff out of it.

19 But you guys have the unfortunate 

20 task of trying to come years later and say, 

21 well, you do qualify, I'm sorry, you've got 

22 only one cancer and it really don't count as 
 148

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 much, well, you've got two cancers, and one of 

2 these is a high probability, so, yes, we are 

3 going to let you be taken care of.

4 I wouldn't want your job, and I 

5 feel sorry for you. But, at the same time, I 

6 think you need to put your mind-frame back in 

7 time. That is all I am saying.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

10 MS. EATON: Thank you.

11 And I just want to apologize for 

12 being so emotional. I am a little frustrated. 

13 However, SC&A, I am not frustrated at all. I 

14 appreciate everything that you are doing.

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Clarissa.

16 MS. EATON: Thank you.

17 DR. MAURO: Bomber, when you make 

18 these arrangements, can I have one of our 

19 guys --

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

21 DR. MAURO: I have got to say, I 

22 don't recall SC&A mounting an interview 
 149

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 campaign on this. I don't recall if that --

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we actually 

3 interviewed a number of individuals for the 

4 evaluation. And then, we actually did some 

5 additional interviews when the neutron issue 

6 came up. So, we have interviewed, I am 

7 thinking, around 15 to 20, if I can remember. 

8 I am counting the three additional that we 

9 did. So, we have interviewed, but obviously 

10 this additional interview will only help us.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It is some 

12 more fruitful --

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right, right, 

14 right. We actually had, during the 

15 evaluation, we had a group of workers on the 

16 phone at one time.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Are 

18 there any other individuals who would like to 

19 comment or weigh in?

20 (No response.)

21 Okay. Let's go to the last paper, 

22 the thorium intakes.
 150

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 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. We 

2 can jump on this one.

3 A little background: 1964, United 

4 Nuclear, as was mentioned by the operator, 

5 that United Nuclear did some pelletizing of 

6 some thorium material. And for that 

7 operation, there was no specific -- it was 

8 roughly a nine-month period in 1964. For that 

9 operation, there was no bioassay done.

10 They controlled it based on air 

11 sampling. They had a maximum allowable 

12 concentration identified for the thorium work

13 of 2 to the minus 11 microcuries per 

14 milliliter.

15 We went through and we felt --

16 previously, during our evaluation we looked at 

17 the air-monitoring data and determined that we 

18 felt the air-monitoring data was sufficient 

19 for us to reconstruct the thorium exposures.

20 At one of the Work Group meetings, 

21 it was brought up, the question whether the 

22 air-sampling data was representative enough 
 151

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 for us to reconstruct the thorium exposures. 

2 So, we went back and we did some additional 

3 work here.

4 If you go through the White Paper, 

5 it talks a little bit about the process and 

6 the enrichment that you are dealing with. The 

7 air monitoring that we have, we had 210 air 

8 samples over that period. Of those 210 air 

9 samples, 75 were general area samples. The 

10 other samples were breathing zone samples.

11 We went back and we looked at --

12 we had a drawing. If you look in Figure 1, 

13 there is a drawing of the pellet plant in 1964 

14 with the locations. The air samples, the 

15 numbers are for breathing zone samples and the 

16 letters are for general area sample locations. 

17 And so, you can see where those are laid out.

18 And then, we looked at the 

19 representativeness of that. Again, we said we 

20 had 143 of those were breathing zone samples, 

21 I believe.

22 We also looked at how they were 
 152

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 analyzed. They were only analyzed for gross 

2 alpha. And then, we looked at, if you go on 

3 later in the report, in Table 1, you look at a 

4 breakdown.

5 We wanted to look at what mixtures 

6 would possibly give the highest exposure 

7 concentration based on the alpha activity, 

8 whether it is the low U-234, the mixture. We 

9 looked at just natural thorium, and then we 

10 looked at what we thought would be the highest 

11 exposure potential, which was recently12 produced thorium oxide. Mainly, it was 

13 thorium-232 or -238 -- -228, and equilibrium. 

14 We laid those out in a table.

15 Then, if you go on to Table 2, we 

16 actually took those comparisons further into 

17 just different solubility.

18 And then, ultimately, what we 

19 concluded was the air sample data that we had 

20 was representative enough for us to 

21 reconstruct dose, and we would use, the urine 

22 bioassay data would be used for the uranium 
 153

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 intakes, to define uranium intakes. And then, 

2 we used the distribution that we developed 

3 based on these air samples to define a thorium 

4 intake. And then, we would use the mixture 

5 that would provide the highest dose to the 

6 organ of concern for that.

7 And that's it. Do you want to add 

8 anything on that or did I hit it all?

9 MR. ALLEN: I guess you did.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

11 DR. MAURO: Hans and I read 

12 through this, and we find the report mainly, 

13 the bottom line, two engine 10 air samples, a 

14 large portion, breathing zone, and you are 

15 using the 95th percentile.

16 DR. NETON: Yes, for the 

17 operators.

18 DR. MAURO: For the operators. 

19 Yes.

20 When you know, but if there is any 

21 ambiguity, yes, we default to the operator. 

22 This is, what I would say, the classic 
 154

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 approach that we always agree with. We didn't 

2 think that is what you did on the other one.

3 (Laughter.)

4 DR. NETON: I just want to make 

5 you understand.

6 DR. MAURO: You are being 

7 consistent. And so, now, yes, this all looks 

8 -- we find it favorable.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: This detail is 

10 very helpful.

11 Bill, do you have any comments?

12 MEMBER FIELD: I think it is very 

13 fair, very helpful.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, and I 

15 didn't realize there were that many samples. 

16 That is really helpful. Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: That has been closed?

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think that 

19 issue is closed.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: One issue we 

21 didn't put a White Paper out on -- and I hate 

22 to jump forward --
 155

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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes?

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- but one issue 

3 was the neutron issue that was brought up.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: If you remember, 

6 one of the questions that was brought up was 

7 whether we could say that workers were 

8 potentially exposed for the 2,000 hours; is 

9 that sufficiently accurate or is that way too 

10 high? Are we giving people too much time, 

11 which is throwing the neutron dose out?

12 And what we committed to, we would 

13 go back and do additional interviews. We 

14 interviewed three additional individuals who 

15 specifically were working with the enrichment, 

16 enriched material. They indicated that the 

17 six to eight hours of their day was spent 

18 working with enriched material, which 

19 ultimately kind of followed with what we gave 

20 them. So, we really felt that, based on that, 

21 that the 2,000 hours that we were giving them 

22 was good.
 156

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 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes, then we 

2 were looking at too much.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. That is 

4 exactly what you were looking at, yes.

5 MR. KATZ: So, that sounds 

6 plausible?

7 DR. MAURO: That is plausible.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: So that issue is 

10 closed?

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 DR. BEHLING: Can I just make a 

13 comment? This is Hans again.

14 I think this last one with regard 

15 to thorium does point out an interesting 

16 discrepancy where it was acknowledged that for 

17 thorium we used the 95th percentile 

18 distribution as a constant for operators. This 

19 comes in the same document that involves the 

20 other issue of uranium. And so, I am not 

21 quite sure I understand why we would not want 

22 to use a 95th percentile value in Table D-1 
 157

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 just to be consistent.

2 DR. NETON: We are looking into 

3 it, Hans.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

5 DR. NETON: One thing I --

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, go ahead.

7 DR. NETON: It is not clear to me 

8 whether that issue that Hans just discussed 

9 was considered at the end of the day to be an 

10 SEC issue or a Site Profile issue. I thought 

11 John thought it was. Hans, I am not sure 

12 where you came --

13 DR. BEHLING: No, I fully agree 

14 with John; it is not an SEC issue.

15 DR. NETON: Okay. Sure.

16 DR. BEHLING: It should be a TBD 

17 issue.

18 DR. NETON: Well, the reason I am 

19 asking is because we certainly will address 

20 it. But when it becomes a Site Profile issue, 

21 all the SEC issues that we need to follow up 

22 on will move to the top of the list for our 
 158

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 efforts.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: I mean, we have to 

4 prioritize things somehow.

5 DR. MAURO: I know I find myself 

6 sometimes in the embarrassing position where I 

7 say something is not an SEC issue. I know 

8 there are many Members of the Board who really 

9 don't make that distinction.

10 I don't know if I am overreaching, 

11 but very often just saying let's put that in 

12 the parking lot and we can make our decision 

13 based on this, I am not sure if all Board 

14 Members would agree.

15 DR. NETON: Well, I think what 

16 happens, though, is when the Working Group 

17 provides their report to the full Board, they 

18 put it all there --

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 DR. NETON: -- what was discussed 

21 and how they weighed-in on each of the 

22 different issues.
 159

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 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: At least that is the 

3 way it normally works.

4 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I only say 

5 that because, if it turns out when you do 

6 appear before the Board --

7 DR. NETON: Right.

8 DR. MAURO: -- I understand they 

9 will be at this meeting -- the degree to which 

10 you could -- anyone who may have concerns 

11 along those lines, if you have some answers by 

12 that time --

13 DR. NETON: Right, right.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And they will 

15 have to address this window, a two-year 

16 window.

17 DR. NETON: Yes, that's true.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Can that be 

19 dose --

20 DR. NETON: We will look at it.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And that is 

22 where we need --
 160

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 DR. NETON: But, like I say, there 

2 are competing other SEC issues that are still 

3 on the table that we need to prioritize those 

4 first. We will work this issue.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I didn't know 

6 if there were -- I don't think there are 

7 any --

8 MR. KATZ: So, we don't have any 

9 more, we don't have any SEC issues per se left 

10 unclosed, do we? Or have I missed some?

11 DR. NETON: I don't know.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I thought 

13 these three papers covered the areas that we 

14 had questions or we wanted elaboration on. And 

15 I think we have --

16 DR. NETON: Yes, fair enough.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, I mean, 

18 notwithstanding John's comment.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: So, if we have another 

21 Work Group meeting prior to not this Board 

22 meeting, which it is not on the agenda, but 
 161

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 the next one, we can wrap up --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: -- the matter that has 

4 been opened about the two-year period --

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: -- that has remained 

7 open. And then, you would be ready to report 

8 out?

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I think 

10 so.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: One other thing, 

12 I want to have time to have that interview.

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely, that 

14 should definitely come in advance.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: He may provide me 

16 information --

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We are not 

18 done today.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: If there is any 

21 vulnerability, when I heard the item plant --

22 I never heard of it before -- the first thing 
 162

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 that comes to mind, I always think of these 

2 boxes. I said, wait a minute, is this a box 

3 where we are missing data, whether it is 

4 bioassay or it is air-sampling data, and are 

5 there other practices and operations?

6 And I have to say that when SC&A 

7 was reviewing this, I don't believe we did any 

8 interviews. I'm not sure. We didn't, and I'm 

9 surprised. I don't know why.

10 And usually, that is the kind of 

11 probing we do. Are there any places where 

12 there is a surprise? So, this is a very 

13 important opportunity to close that hole.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I agree. I 

15 agree.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, and they will 

17 coordinate with you on this.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And if, on the 

20 basis of the interview, it would be worthwhile 

21 to go back or do additional --

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Additional work, 
 163

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 right.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- we can 

3 consider it at that time.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely. 

6 Absolutely.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: But if it opens 

9 questions, then --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Exactly, yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, we 

13 have really got two things we are going to try 

14 to iron out the baseline information on, the 

15 two years, as to how this is dealing with just 

16 the operators.

17 DR. NETON: The 95th percentile --

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

19 DR. NETON: -- or 50th percentile.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, so that's 

21 an issue that we will discuss at the next 

22 meeting.
 164

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 Then, next would be the 

2 interviews, which you should be able to get 

3 done before too long. And how we can report 

4 out those, I don't know.

5 MR. KATZ: So, we will have a Work 

6 Group -- I mean, if these are it --

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: -- a Work Group 

9 teleconference.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: It just depends on the 

12 rest of the items.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Electro Met, you know, 

15 once they produce a report --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: -- they are going to 

18 report out to the Board. Electro Met is under 

19 the Work Group. They could report out to the 

20 Work Group, either way, the Evaluation Report. 

21 And then, it is just a timing question really.

22 DR. NETON: But the Board would 
 165

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 have to take up the vote.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes.

4 DR. NETON: I mean, we have 

5 already presented this to the Board one time.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And they moved 

7 it to us.

8 MR. KATZ: No, I understand.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And then, we 

10 were going to come back, and then this --

11 DR. NETON: Well, I think this 

12 would proceed similarly to what Linde is 

13 doing.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, exactly.

15 DR. NETON: We would provide you 

16 the revised Evaluation Report.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. That is what I 

19 am saying.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: So, if we have a Work 

22 Group meeting in advance, once that report is 
 166

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 produced, we can take up that report in the 

2 Work Group meeting. You will still present to 

3 the full Board, absolutely.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: But the Work Group can 

6 then be ready to address the Board on that 

7 topic, is all I am saying.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: So, that is Electro 

10 Met, United Nuclear; we have these open items. 

11 And then, we are going to hear about Baker12 Perkins.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: But this is not an SEC. 

15 This is Site Profile review.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Site Profile, 

17 yes.

18 Okay. Shall we just keep going? 

19 DR. MAURO: Baker-Perkins, that is 

20 next. That's not going to take long.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, I 

22 think we have got our work list. 
 167

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 MR. KATZ: Yes, and it sounds 

2 like, then, we probably can meet by 

3 teleconference the next time --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

5 MR. KATZ: -- is my guess.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Unless 

7 this new one that you sent in --

8 DR. MAURO: Well, Du Pont we 

9 haven't talked about.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We haven't 

11 talked about that.

12 DR. MAURO: We may want to; just 

13 as a reminder, we have had Du Pont since 

14 August. When you have a chance -- I don't 

15 know if you have looked at it, but it is 

16 there. It is not a lot. It is an AWE that is 

17 straightforward stuff. No big surprises. We 

18 should be able to deal with that easily.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, 

20 let's do Baker-Perkins.

21 Bill, any other comments on what 

22 we just talked about or United Nuclear issues 
 168

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 that you think you would like to see prepared 

2 before our next meeting?

3 MEMBER FIELD: No, I think 

4 everything has been covered pretty well.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good.

6 Okay. Take it away.

7 DR. MAURO: Baker-Perkins, okay, 

8 Baker-Perkins is one of the simplest. There 

9 is a five-day period where they were asked, 

10 the company, to do a special project for the 

11 government to use a kneading machine. It is 

12 almost like when you do dough, when you knead 

13 dough, automatically some kind of machine.

14 And apparently, they ran some five 

15 days' worth of experiments. And they 

16 collected air sample data and breathing zone 

17 data. So, they have got data on the airborne 

18 exposures that workers during those five days 

19 might have experienced.

20 So, this is just a Site Profile 

21 review. It is not an SEC.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It has moved 
 169

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 out of 6001.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, a little bit of a 

3 history.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, sure.

5 DR. MAURO: We did do a review of 

6 it originally way back when it was part of 

7 6001.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: Then, when it was 

10 extracted, it became a standalone document. We 

11 reviewed it as a standalone document and 

12 issued that review in November, just this 

13 month. So, it is relatively recent.

14 And I guess all we can do is pass 

15 on to you two comments, two findings. They 

16 are troubling, but nothing monumental.

17 One is you have all these data, 

18 breathing zone, general air sample data, and 

19 you have these workers. And you have elected 

20 to say, well, what we are going to do is 

21 assign the 50th percentile -- this is a 50th 

22 percentile issue again -- to the workers, the 
 170

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 argument being that there was knowledge that 

2 they wore some type of respirator protection, 

3 some kind of mask, nothing sophisticated, to 

4 reduce the dust.

5 And on that basis, the judgment 

6 was made that, well, because of that, we don't 

7 have to go with the 95th percentile; we will 

8 go with the 50th percentile as the dust 

9 loading that these workers that worked during 

10 those five days would be exposed to.

11 So, in a funny sort of way, you 

12 are sort of taking credit for respiratory 

13 protection in order to knock down the amount 

14 taken in. And usually, you don't take credit 

15 for respiratory protection. So, that was the 

16 first comment, which is pretty 

17 straightforward.

18 Everything else about your 

19 calculations, your geometric means, I mean all 

20 of your data processing, we matched and agree. 

21 It is how you use the data is the issue.

22 The same thing goes -- and I am 
 171

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 almost done -- with external. We agree with 

2 the radiation fields that you calculated 

3 external to these drums. And I guess the only 

4 strange question we have is, apparently, there 

5 were two drums that were produced, that were 

6 handled. And when you did your dose 

7 calculation, you did it only as if the person 

8 was standing next to one drum as opposed to 

9 two drums.

10 So, those are two. We have a 

11 number of observations, which are just clarity 

12 comments, just to make things clearer. I am 

13 not going to go through the observations. 

14 Those are just things that could clear up the 

15 explanation.

16 So, the two questions are: the 

17 50th percentile dust loading, and the second 

18 one, when you do the external dose, you know, 

19 the business of external exposure to a single 

20 drum rather than two drums, which could 

21 increase the dose a little bit, nothing great.

22 And of course, the overriding 
 172

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 thing is you will be sorting people, I 

2 believe, by their job categories. As always, 

3 we always are a bit concerned that that is 

4 sometimes hard to do. A person is labeled as 

5 a laborer or as a supervisor or the different 

6 categories, or an operator, and then on that 

7 basis you decide whether you are going to --

8 the way you guys have done it is that, for the 

9 operators, we are going to use the breathing 

10 zone data as the basis for the exposure and go 

11 with the 50 percentile. For the laborers, you 

12 assume it is a mix of breathing zone and 

13 general. And for supervisors, you are going 

14 to go with only general. All of which, in 

15 principle, makes lots of sense, but in 

16 practice sometimes you can run into trouble.

17 Again, this is purely a Site 

18 Profile. There is nothing about this -- and 

19 even if it was an SEC, there would be no SEC 

20 issues. You know what I am trying to say? So, 

21 these are just classic Site Profile issues, 

22 and our report is relatively -- well, zoning, 
 173

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 there probably should be, but those are the 

2 two findings that we had.

3 I don't know if you guys have had 

4 a chance to think about it or what your 

5 position is, but that is Baker-Perkins.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, with 

7 five days --

8 MR. ALLEN: Well, that is almost 

9 the point.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Now you get to 

11 225 days for --

12 DR. MAURO: That's right. There 

13 is no SEC because --

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, there 

15 couldn't be.

16 DR. MAURO: Of course, of course, 

17 of course.

18 MR. ALLEN: The TBD didn't go into 

19 a lot of great detail. We didn't think we 

20 really needed to for this operation.

21 What there is as far as 

22 information on this, I mean, it is a five-day 
 174

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 thing. It was really more like two days of 

2 actual testing of this Ko-Kneader.

3 There is a test report out that 

4 gives actually second-by-second, not just 

5 minute-by-minute, listing on what they were 

6 doing while they were running the Ko-Kneader 

7 for each of the three tests, the day, what was 

8 going on, including the rate, the rate of dry 

9 material coming in and the rate of the mix 

10 coming out.

11 Between the times and the mix, you 

12 can find out how much material they had. It 

13 was one drum.

14 DR. MAURO: One more drum? Okay.

15 MR. ALLEN: The one to two drums 

16 came from a FUSRAP document that said, based 

17 on the air sample data sheets, there could 

18 have been one or two drums or it might have 

19 been up to two.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay.

21 MR. ALLEN: But, also, from the 

22 air samples, they have dates and they have 
 175

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 times on most, but they are all sequentially 

2 numbered. So, you can get, between these two, 

3 a pretty significant timeline on exactly what 

4 was going on, when they were scooping, when 

5 they were running the Ko-Kneader, when they 

6 were deconning. And you can almost come up 

7 with essentially daily weighted averaged.

8 What I am proposing, that this is 

9 not -- if this is all right with the Work 

10 Group, that I can put together some sort of 

11 White Paper to put this stuff together. It 

12 can answer the findings, I think, like the one 

13 drum, the submersion dose, the --

14 DR. MAURO: Well, erase the 

15 submersion dose question.

16 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

17 DR. MAURO: I mean, that should 

18 have never have made it in there. That is not 

19 an issue.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. ALLEN: And as far as 

22 distribution for the operators as far as what 
 176

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 they were actually doing, you know, you can 

2 come up with an airborne concentration. You 

3 had three different air samples while they 

4 were scooping. You can come up with airborne 

5 concentrations while the Ko-Kneader is 

6 running, and you can come up with airborne 

7 concentrations while they are deconning, and, 

8 essentially, come up with somewhat if a time9 weighted average.

10 It is applicable to a very small 

11 number of people, like one or two, probably 

12 one scooping, two or three deconning type of 

13 thing, and compare that with the TBD, and just 

14 deliver this White Paper to the group.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That sounds 

16 good, yes. Yes, don't --

17 MR. ALLEN: Go hard-core into 

18 it --

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I don't 

20 think it needs to be too extensive. If you 

21 can respond, that would put it on the record, 

22 so we would have it closed out.
 177

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 I am assuming we haven't any 

2 claims from here, have we?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Have we what?

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We haven't had 

5 any claims?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we have had 

7 claims.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, we have. 

9 Okay.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Only a few. 

11 It might have hit double-digit.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't recall.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. We might even 

15 close out a TBD. That would be an unusual --

16 (Laughter.)

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Well, 

18 you know, I think if we can respond --

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- it will be 

21 a nice, relatively-tight package; it would be 

22 helpful, unless -- I don't know, do we have 
 178

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 any petitioners on the line?

2 MR. KATZ: Do we have any 

3 petitioners or interested parties on Baker4 Perkins on the line?

5 (No response.)

6 MR. ALLEN: No, we don't have any 

7 petitioners.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, no, not 

9 petitioners, of course. Sorry. Sorry.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But if there 

11 is anyone, we should probably reach out, if we 

12 are going to potentially close this out, and 

13 be sure that if there are some folks, that --

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, that they are 

15 aware of it because we would know if there are 

16 any people that have been interested in Baker17 Perkins.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, the only 

20 person is the former petitioner.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, just so 

22 that they don't -- they wouldn't necessarily 
 179

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 be tracking this.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Mostly, since 

4 it came up fairly quickly --

5 MR. KATZ: I think that is good, 

6 yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, let's 

8 just be sure that they have had a chance, 

9 before we say fine, that they have had a 

10 chance to look all this over and comment, and 

11 they haven't.

12 Okay. Bill, any comment?

13 MEMBER FIELD: No. I would just 

14 echo what you just said.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thanks, 

16 Bill.

17 MEMBER FIELD: You're welcome.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any other 

19 issues or comments that people have?

20 (No response.)

21 I think we have got our Work Group 

22 plans. Any ideas when some of this will be 
 180

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 done?

2 February is our next meeting?

3 MR. KATZ: So, the next full Board 

4 meeting is at the very end of February.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: So, I guess we can 

7 shoot for getting this stuff done in the 

8 January or early February timeframe.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I think 

10 that is reasonable, yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Then, that will work 

12 out, and we can have a teleconference before 

13 the full Board meeting.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: We can put those items 

16 on the agenda.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It would be 

18 nice if we could have it early enough so that 

19 there is time for the minutes to be 

20 transferred onto the website for the folks.

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, the minutes --

22 oh, for the Work Group, the last 
 181

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 teleconference?

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: That can be difficult 

4 because that's generally --

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: I mean, sometimes they 

7 are much quicker, but it is up to 30 days.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: And it has to be 

10 cleared before it goes on the website. But we 

11 will do our best on that. It is just that it 

12 is hard because folks have use-or-lose in the 

13 federal system.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, 

15 I've got it.

16 MR. KATZ: So, December is a tough 

17 month.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

19 And back to the Hooker issues, was 

20 the 2009 review that Hans did, was that 

21 cleared? Were we talking about any 

22 documents --
 182

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 MR. KATZ: All the documents are 

2 all up.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. I just 

4 want to be sure that we haven't been talking 

5 about documents here that petitioners or the 

6 public haven't had access to.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And then, it 

9 comes back later - 

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 DR. MAURO: I was referring to the 

12 memo regarding the data where it details --

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

14 DR. MAURO: I don't know if that 

15 has been cleared or not.

16 MR. KATZ: That's cleared. 

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good. I 

18 thought it was, but since we go in, I don't 

19 necessarily know.

20 MR. KATZ: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I want to be 

22 sure that they are all up-to-speed.
 183

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 MR. KATZ: No, that is taken care 

2 of.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. With 

4 that, I think we are good to go.

5 MR. KATZ: We are adjourned?

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any other 

7 comments people have?

8 (No response.)

9 Hearing none, we are adjourned.

10 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone who 

11 has been with us on the line.

12 (Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the 

13 meeting was adjourned.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
 184

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