This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

 SAFETY AND HEALTH

 + + + + +

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

 WORKER HEALTH

 + + + + +

 WORK GROUP ON TBD-6000

 + + + + +

 WEDNESDAY,

 FEBRUARY 16, 2011

 + + + + +

 The Work Group convened via

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard

Time, Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH 

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

BILL THURBER, SC&A
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

1. Roll Call and Call to Order 4

 (Ted Katz and Paul Ziemer)

2. Introductory remarks and overview of 7

 Agenda

 (Paul Ziemer)

3. NIOSH reply and clarification for 13

 Findings 6 & 7 of the Findings

 Matrix. Summary of final NIOSH

 recommendation on Bliss and

 Laughlin 

 (Sam Glover)

4. Discussion and recommendation of WG 15

 on Bliss and Laughlin for upcoming

 Board meeting

5. GSI Update: 89

 a. Overview of recent documents 89

 received from GSI petitioner

 (Paul Ziemer)

 b. Status of NIOSH Path Forward on 100

 GSI
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 (11:01 a.m.)

3 1. ROLL CALL AND CALL TO ORDER

4 MR. KATZ: Let's get started. 

5 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and

6 Worker Health, the TBD-6000 Work Group. This

7 is Ted Katz. I am the Designated Federal

8 Official of the Advisory Board.

9 Roll call. Let's start with Board

10 Members, and since this is site-specific --

11 we're basically addressing Bliss & Laughlin

12 today. GSI we're just giving some updated

13 information. And I'm also going to read a

14 letter into the record, but there won't be

15 deliberations about GSI per se.

16 So let's get started with Board

17 Members. Let's speak to conflict of interest

18 as well with respect to the site beginning

19 with the Chair.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Paul

21 Ziemer, Chair of the Work Group. No conflict.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5 1 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, Member. 

2 No conflict.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, Board

4 Member. No conflict with either Bliss &

5 Laughlin or GSI.

6 MEMBER POSTON: John Poston,

7 Member. No conflict.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. And any other

9 Board Members? Do we have Mark Griffon?

10 (No response.)

11 MR. KATZ: Zaida, would you please

12 give Mark Griffon a call --

13 MS. BURGOS: I will.

14 MR. KATZ: -- just to see that he

15 didn't forget about this? Thanks.

16 MS. BURGOS: Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. And let's carry

18 on, then, with NIOSH, ORAU team?

19 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. No

20 conflict.

21 DR. GLOVER: Sam Glover, NIOSH. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6 1 No conflict.

2 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen, NIOSH. No

3 conflict.

4 MR. KATZ: Very good. SC&A team?

5 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. No

6 conflict.

7 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber, SC&A. 

8 No conflicts.

9 MR. KATZ: Very good. Federal

10 officials at HHS or other agencies or

11 contractors to the feds?

12 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

13 MR. KATZ: Members of the public

14 who wish to identify yourself?

15 (No response.)

16 MR. KATZ: I'm sure if Mark joins

17 us, or Zaida will let us know. If he's not

18 planning to join us, we'll hear then. But

19 it's your agenda, Paul.

20 Everyone on the phone please mute

21 your phones except when you are speaking, *6
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7 1 if you don't have a mute button, *6 to take

2 yourself off mute. Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks

4 very much. I appreciate everybody being

5 available this morning.

6 2. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND

7 OVERVIEW OF AGENDA

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I did want to do

9 a quick overview of the agenda and make sure

10 we're all on the same line there. I had a

11 strange thing this morning when I was pulling

12 my copy off the email to get a hard copy.

13 I found on my computer my original

14 email said it was never sent. It was sitting

15 here in the out box, but it must have been

16 sent because people have a copy of it. Is

17 that correct?

18 MEMBER BEACH: I got one, Paul.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Pardon me?

20 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I

21 got a copy.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is there anyone

2 who didn't get a copy of the agenda? I guess

3 that's my question. I don't know why it's

4 sitting on my computer with a note that it was

5 never sent because I was sure it went out. 

6 And I know a copy got on the website as well.

7 You will notice that the main

8 thing we are going to focus on is Bliss &

9 Laughlin. And Sam Glover will be leading us

10 through that. We will determine after the

11 discussion whether or not we are ready for

12 recommendations to the Board.

13 And then with respect to GSI,

14 we're not going to have any technical

15 discussion there, just record some documents

16 that have been received and also briefly give

17 you some information on what has to be done in

18 terms of prioritizing the path forward in

19 terms of timetable. So that part should go

20 very quickly.

21 So let's focus now on Bliss &
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9 1 Laughlin. And just as backup material, let me

2 -- well, first of all, I appreciate Sam having

3 sent us the document which summarizes a number

4 of previous documents that you can refer to as

5 well as the transcript of our last meeting in

6 October.

7 And in that transcript, if you had

8 a chance to look through that, you will see

9 that we thought at the time that we were

10 pretty well through with Bliss & Laughlin. In

11 fact, we were debating whether or not to take 

12 a recommendation to the Board at the Santa Fe

13 meeting.

14 And we decided that since NIOSH

15 had agreed to put in writing some responses

16 that had to do more with the issues of how a

17 dose would be constructed, as opposed to the

18 issue of whether or not there should be an

19 approval of the special cohort petition, we

20 thought we were pretty close to closure.

21 In fact, as I looked at the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10 1 transcript, the question that was raised

2 toward the end of the meeting was are we

3 prepared to recommend to the Board in Santa Fe

4 that we concur with NIOSH and SC&A on Bliss &

5 Laughlin? And that was that dose could be

6 reconstructed.

7 And then we decided to wait until

8 we got everything in writing in terms of

9 details on dose reconstruction since the

10 recommendation would have been to deny the

11 petition. And that meant that dose would have

12 to be reconstructed. And there were some

13 details that we didn't have in writing.

14 So we decided to defer a

15 recommendation. And the focus at that time

16 was on findings 6 and 7, which needed more

17 clarification. Although there were a few

18 minor things on 1 through 4, we had closed

19 issue 5. There were seven issues. And you

20 might want to refer in that regard to the SC&A

21 report.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11 1 They had seven findings, the first

2 four of which we had minor comments on, the

3 fifth of which we said was closed. And 6 and

4 7 we wanted some additional clarification on.

5 But in going through this, I

6 realize that -- and Sam has fleshed all of

7 these out better because there were some

8 questions on all of them. And I think it will

9 be helpful, Sam, if you want to go through

10 your sort of bottom line on the seven issues

11 and any other materials you want to present. 

12 And then we can discuss them one by one if

13 needed.

14 Is Sam on the line there?

15 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir, however you

16 would like to do it. I mean, I am happy to

17 walk through the summary that we prepared.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I think

19 that would be helpful. And maybe the best way

20 to do that if everyone has the summary

21 document, it might be good if we went through
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12 1 them individually. And I know that SC&A had

2 a comment, sort of an overall comment, a day

3 or two ago.

4 I think Bill Thurber sent out an

5 email and indicated that SC&A may wish to have

6 some comments on your responses and we need to

7 allow time for them to do that perhaps. So

8 that's why I sent out another email yesterday

9 indicating that, if necessary, we could

10 postpone final action if we deemed the need

11 for SC&A to respond more fully to some of

12 these issues.

13 So why don't you start, Sam, with

14 the first item and take us through that or

15 were you wanting to go through your slides at

16 all? You distributed slides, which you had

17 presented to us like a year ago or more. And

18 I think you updated those a little bit.

19 DR. GLOVER: Yes. I was just

20 going to maybe briefly -- where we are on a

21 couple of things.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

2 3. NIOSH REPLY AND CLARIFICATION FOR

3 FINDINGS 6 & 7 OF THE FINDINGS MATRIX.

4 SUMMARY OF FINAL NIOSH RECOMMENDATION ON

5 BLISS AND LAUGHLIN

6 DR. GLOVER: I sent you an email,

7 Dr. Ziemer. We did present. The details were

8 not given at the meeting. We didn't include

9 those in the Evaluation Report. But we did

10 prepare as part of basically the dose

11 reconstruction the examples, the example DRs.

12 What we would use for a best

13 estimate method, we included sort of a

14 TBD-6000 overestimating approach, but we also

15 included basically what was going to be the

16 more fine-tuned method. And I have changed

17 that a little bit because there are some

18 changes to the documents. And so over the

19 year and a half, a few things have changed.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. GLOVER: I summarized those. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14 1 And hopefully everybody got that email. And

2 I saw some back and forth. I thought maybe it

3 was a good time to perhaps remind us of some

4 of the things that did change.

5 When we first did Bliss &

6 Laughlin, it started in '48 to '52. 

7 Department of Labor has changed the covered

8 period to only be '51 and '52. So cases that

9 were done with that four years of exposure,

10 they were done with -- and I gave you the list

11 of cases that were done -- it's in the folder

12 -- using TBD-6000 or probably the TIB-4, TIB-2 

13 approaches. They would have been done 365

14 days a year with those large exposure

15 estimates.

16 And so now that we understand more

17 about Bliss & Laughlin, the best estimate

18 method is going to be for the six days, the

19 one day in '51 and the 5 days in '52 -- and so

20 there's a very large change in the dose that

21 would be used for best estimate methods in the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15 1 future. So I wanted to, you know, kind of

2 point out some of the changes that have

3 happened.

4 TBD-6001 has also gone away. And

5 so what I prepared for the Board had some

6 references to handling of drums. And so

7 because that reference is no longer really

8 useful, the information that I prepared for

9 you in the Excel sheet and in the Word

10 document uses the metal-handling exposure, the

11 same that would have been used for handling

12 the metal when they did the surface work and

13 they ground off the surface rods before they

14 went to Bethlehem Steel or before they were

15 then transported to LOOW. I used the same

16 metal-handling figures, instead of the

17 drum-handling, to update that.

18 So, for the most part, most of

19 this data is very, very close to what you saw

20 in the presentation in July of 2009.

21 4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF WG ON
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16 1 BLISS AND LAUGHLIN FOR UPCOMING BOARD

2 MEETING

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Let me

4 ask if there are any general questions on that

5 before we proceed.

6 (No response.)

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Although there

8 were a number of people for whom dose

9 reconstructions were done based on an extended

10 period, the Department of Labor subsequently

11 reduced the eligible period. Isn't that

12 correct, Sam?

13 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But on those for

15 whom -- and I don't know if there were such

16 cases. I presume there were. Those who had

17 successful claims that might not be successful

18 under the new time scope, those still don't

19 get changed back, do they?

20 DR. GLOVER: No. The general

21 rule, DOL does not send those back to us for
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17 1 dose reconstruction.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

3 So there are a number of claims that were

4 based on an extended time period, which had

5 they been done now would probably be much

6 less. I assume that would be the case, or are

7 the assumptions somewhat compensating?

8 DR. GLOVER: The example DRs

9 included lung cancers. And I think the one

10 that used the best estimate method had an 83

11 percent PoC. So certainly it is not -- we'll

12 walk through that.

13 Whole day exposure is at 5,480 dpm

14 per meter cubed. And so that's about a little

15 over 70 MAC air.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

17 DR. GLOVER: And so those would

18 have been -- you know, that would be assigned

19 for five exposure days --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. GLOVER: -- type S material
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18 1 that will make a compensable case depending on

2 your claims.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Under the

4 previous assumptions, what would it have been,

5 though?

6 DR. GLOVER: It would have been

7 40,000 dpm per day times 365 days a year --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, times --

9 DR. GLOVER: -- times 4 years.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right. 

11 Okay. No questions apparently. So maybe we

12 should proceed then. Do you want to go

13 through each of these individually, Sam, and

14 just flesh out your comments?

15 DR. GLOVER: Yes. Go ahead and

16 walk through the responses to the findings?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

18 DR. GLOVER: And then would you

19 like to walk through the calculations very

20 quickly?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think we can
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19 1 do that as well, but let's go through the

2 responses first and then also give SC&A a

3 chance to react to any of these.

4 DR. GLOVER: Certainly.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We'll do them

6 one by one. So let's start with the first

7 one, which out of the SC&A report would be

8 identified as section 7.1.1, which is the

9 internal monitoring data pedigree review.

10 DR. GLOVER: So I extracted these

11 directly from the SC&A report. The

12 description of the finding was NIOSH should

13 describe reference procedural standings for

14 performing individual dose reconstruction.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

16 DR. GLOVER: And the response I 

17 provided is largely included in the appendix

18 in the Excel sheet, the details. Our response

19 to NIOSH was "Develop a stand-alone appendix

20 for TBD-6000 for Bliss & Laughlin. As all TBDs

21 these change with time. However, based on the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20 1 information available, NIOSH has prepared a

2 more detailed summary document," which is

3 attached, "provide additional details which

4 were not presented in the Evaluation Report. 

5 This material is attached as an appendix to

6 this response in an Excel sheet," I believe

7 which all of the members of the Board and SC&A

8 have received.

9 DR. MAURO: Sam, is this the

10 material that came out on Friday?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. It was on

12 the 16th, I believe.

13 MR. THURBER: Monday, yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or no, today's

15 the 16th. No, it was -- it was before that.

16 MR. THURBER: It was on the 14th,

17 I believe.

18 DR. MAURO: The 14th, on St.

19 Valentine's Day? Okay. I just wanted to make

20 sure what you were referring to and with the

21 revised spreadsheet. Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21 1 MR. THURBER: This is Bill

2 Thurber. Let me just make a brief comment

3 here. Our original finding was that the NIOSH

4 Petition Evaluation Report says that they had

5 standards for doing this work. And all we

6 said was, "Please advise us what the standards

7 were." So it was more of an informational

8 finding.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And I

10 double-checked that against the transcript. 

11 And the statement, I think, that was made was

12 that you weren't questioning the procedure so

13 much as saying, "What is the procedure?"

14 MR. THURBER: Exactly right.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: "Tell us what it

16 is."

17 MR. THURBER: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: "We agree you

19 have a procedure, but you didn't tell us what

20 it was."

21 MR. THURBER: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22 1 DR. GLOVER: And that is why I

2 have tried to be very -- I shouldn't say

3 rigorous in the calculations of how to walk

4 through where they came from, TBD-6000 or

5 TIB-70 approach, and try to make reference to

6 that in the attached documents so that would

7 be relevant, directly relevant, or observable.

8 I hope I am answering the question

9 that is asked.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And, Bill, Bill

11 Thurber, have you -- I know you haven't had

12 too much time to look at this, but have you

13 had a chance to sort of determine, does that

14 answer the question for SC&A for --

15 MR. THURBER: I think it does.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you --

17 MR. THURBER: The one thing that

18 would be helpful for me to have some

19 clarification on is this. What we had up

20 until Monday was a Petition Evaluation Report,

21 which we reviewed on its merits. And these
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23 1 findings, which Sam is going over, are a

2 result of that review.

3 Now we have a new document which

4 is more in the way of a Site Profile. And

5 it's not clear to me whether one document

6 supersedes the other or how that question is

7 going to be dealt with or if it's going to be

8 dealt with because in regard to this first

9 finding, I could certainly say, "Well, it's

10 irrelevant if we're looking at how the

11 procedures are provided in the new material

12 that NIOSH has prepared." So I am confused a

13 little bit about that.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, can you

15 respond to that, or do you understand the

16 question?

17 DR. GLOVER: I believe in the

18 email I tried to make a little bit of

19 reference to that. In the Evaluation Report,

20 we provided a bounding method. At the time we

21 presented this to the Board, we indicated that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24 1 here was the bounding method but also we had

2 best estimate dose reconstruction abilities. 

3 And those would be used for dose evaluation.

4 In the ER document, the Evaluation

5 Report is not going to be used long-term as a

6 Technical Basis Document for dose

7 reconstruction. And, you know, I believe what

8 we were asked was to provide the details on

9 the calculations that would be used to

10 determine dose. And I hope that I have done

11 that.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So basically

13 this new document, which looks a little more

14 like a Site Profile, is the basis for what you

15 would use. The Evaluation Report simply is

16 that. It's saying what you will do. But, in

17 essence, you have to go to this second

18 document. Is that correct now?

19 DR. GLOVER: We have those, the

20 Site Profile reference, for some of the

21 history.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

2 DR. GLOVER: An actual separate

3 appendix for actually doing dose

4 reconstruction will be prepared. The dose

5 reconstructors will use that. They won't

6 reference the Evaluation Report.

7 DR. MAURO: Just so that I

8 understand, so, in effect, the explicit

9 protocol that is going to be used to do your

10 dose reconstructions for, I guess the

11 realistic cases is the material that's laid

12 out in the spreadsheet and other materials

13 contained in your Monday -- what would we call

14 this, a supplement to the ER or is this the

15 site -- you know, Bill looked more closely at

16 it than I did, but we did have a chance to

17 talk about it. And I guess it's our

18 understanding is this to be considered an

19 appendix or a supplement to the ER to be a

20 little bit more explicit about exactly how

21 we're going to go about doing these dose
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26 1 reconstructions?

2 DR. GLOVER: In the interest of

3 not creating a very long document that may be

4 off topic, I didn't include some of the

5 material that would go into the final

6 appendix. These calculations would serve the

7 basis for the appendix.

8 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. For

9 the TBD-6000, not for the ER, correct?

10 DR. GLOVER: Yes. I guess this is

11 not an -- it is listed as a supplement. This

12 was basically as the predecessor for what

13 would be the development of the appendix and

14 also to show you basically how the example DRs

15 were done in 2009.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think

17 Josie is asking if this is going to be sort of

18 analogous to appendix BB. In other words,

19 it's the appendix for Bliss & Laughlin under

20 TBD-6000, correct?

21 DR. GLOVER: That is exactly
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27 1 correct.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. And that has 

3 not been developed but you are working? You

4 have got it partially completed?

5 DR. GLOVER: That is correct.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

7 DR. MAURO: So this material that

8 came in is almost like a preview of -- as I

9 understand it, it's quite a bit of information

10 there in terms of how you plan to do these

11 dose reconstructions, but it's almost a

12 placeholder for an eventual appendix to

13 TBD-6000. I just want to understand --

14 DR. GLOVER: I would say it's an

15 outline, yes. 

16 DR. NETON: Yes. This is Jim

17 Neton. The question, though, is does that

18 full appendix need to be fleshed out in order

19 to determine whether this is either an SEC or

20 a Site Profile issue.

21 DR. MAURO: Fair enough. Okay. I
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28 1 think I understand.

2 DR. NETON: That is where we are

3 going here. We are saying, here is how we

4 propose to do all of these calculations, but,

5 you know, is that enough information to make

6 a determination that we can do it --

7 DR. MAURO: Got it, yes.

8 DR. NETON: -- one way or the

9 other.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. That is

12 exactly the question. And, in fact, that is

13 sort of the reason we postponed it last time,

14 was that I think both NIOSH and SC&A as well

15 as the Work Group Members last time based on

16 the discussion, we were sort of in agreement

17 that dose reconstruction could be done based

18 on the information we had, but we didn't

19 actually have the details on how that would

20 come about. So we were a little reluctant to

21 say, "Well, we'll just go ahead and not
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29 1 approve a Class for the SEC." You know, in

2 the absence of those details, it does leave

3 one a little uncertain that okay, we're pretty

4 confident we can do this, but we haven't

5 really seen it yet. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: And seeing the

7 material that we were just sent, it was my

8 assumption that beginning on page 5 of the

9 material we had, which is clearly titled as an

10 appendix on details of dose reconstruction

11 methods, it has been my assumption that that

12 material or something very like it would serve

13 as exactly that, as an appendix.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, or, as

15 Sam described it, it's kind of an outline of

16 what -- you know, there may be some additional

17 detail in it, but that would be the basic

18 technical content is my understanding. Am I

19 correct, Sam?

20 DR. GLOVER: Absolutely, yes, you

21 are.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It appeared fairly

3 thorough to me. I wouldn't anticipate much in

4 the way of --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, as

6 far as item 1 is concerned, in one sense, that

7 has been answered. Now, the question is going

8 to be I think at this point, SC&A, your level

9 of comfort in sort of saying we're okay with

10 that now or are you going to need some time to

11 look at those spreadsheets and look at that

12 methodology in a little more detail?

13 MR. THURBER: Well, as far as this

14 first finding is concerned, I am comfortable,

15 and we can move on. Now that -- when we get

16 to some of the other ones --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Right. 

18 Well --

19 MR. THURBER: -- we may have a

20 little --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- I am trying
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31 1 to get a feeling for --

2 MR. THURBER: -- higher level of

3 concern or maybe not. But I think that I am

4 comfortable with that this new approach

5 circumscribes a need for this to be resolved

6 in the context of the Petition Report,

7 Petition Evaluation Report.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I am sort

9 of trying to get a feel for which of these

10 things we can actually close at this point.

11 MR. THURBER: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And am I reading

13 it correctly? SC&A is okay on this one. Work

14 Group Members, anyone have concerns at this

15 point? Unfortunately I guess we don't have

16 Mark on the line. So I'm a little concerned

17 about that. 

18 But let's see. Work Group

19 Members, at this point on this first item?

20 MEMBER MUNN: No. I thought your

21 initial summary was pretty good. It was my
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32 1 thought that the only two action items that we

2 had truly outstanding at this point were those

3 6 and 7 items.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Josie or John?

5 DR. MAURO: Well, I guess -- this

6 is John.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Poston --

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- or Josie

10 Beach, if they had any issues on this first

11 one at this point.

12 MEMBER POSTON: I don't have any

13 concerns at this point, Paul.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

15 MEMBER BEACH: And, Paul, this is

16 Josie. I just got a text from Mark. He's

17 looking at Deepwater evidence, so not going to

18 make the call at all.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

20 MEMBER BEACH: As far as this

21 goes, I would prefer to have it all spelled
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33 1 out, not what is going to be done but that is

2 just me.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That's

4 good to have that on the record. Okay. I

5 think just in terms of sort of consensus at

6 this point, this one we can probably indicate

7 is probably close to closure, if not closed,

8 but we do -- well, I think -- let me say this.

9 I think the technical material is

10 basically spelled out. I mean, all you would

11 add to what we already have, Sam, I think are

12 some additional sort of background words and,

13 what, additional detail or -- I mean, I don't

14 see anything you would add in terms of the

15 technical content, is there?

16 DR. NETON: Yes. This is Jim

17 Neton. I don't know that we need to do that

18 at this point, though. I mean, it's always

19 been sort of established that these are proof

20 of principle-type calculations that we would

21 offer and not have the complete, approved,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34 1 authorized appendix in order to move the SEC

2 petition evaluation forward. I just don't

3 think that serves any purpose at this point.

4 I don't know what else, like you

5 say, would go in there other than some

6 explanatory text and some formatting.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I think

8 the proof of principle part you have provided

9 for.

10 DR. NETON: Right. That has

11 always been sort of the criterion under which

12 these were judged.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So okay. 

14 I think we can sort of look at the total

15 picture when we're done, but in terms of where

16 we are now, both NIOSH and the contractor,

17 SC&A, seem to be in agreement on this

18 particular one. I think at least three of the

19 Work Group are comfortable in perhaps closing

20 this one.

21 We don't have a category called
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35 1 "Tentatively Closed," but I am going to take

2 the Chair's prerogative and indicate that

3 we're basically at closure on this.

4 Let's go to number two.

5 DR. GLOVER: Okay. A brief

6 description was "NIOSH should ensure" -- this

7 is section 7.2.3.1. That's for bounding

8 operational period internal dose. The

9 description was "NIOSH should ensure the text

10 of the SEC petition evaluation was consistent

11 with spreadsheet 2009." The tariff test

12 correctly describes the analyses that were

13 done.

14 I left it as open. I didn't think

15 we'd closed any others. It's kind of similar

16 to the other. I mean, we were pretty much

17 just trying to show that the data support dose

18 evaluation, not the final material that would

19 be used for dose reconstruction.

20 I did review it. And I hope I

21 captured what Bill was trying to do there. I
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36 1 did look at our Excel sheet. I compared what

2 we put in the report.

3 And they talked about some of the

4 samples. I looked at the samples that were

5 used. There were 20 samples that were used. 

6 The others were not used because a fan was

7 used or that there was no operation in

8 progress.

9 So of the process samples,

10 obviously we don't use process samples when we

11 have BZ and GAs identified. The BZs and GAs,

12 which indicated when an engineering control

13 was in place, they were lower. And so we

14 chose only to use the BZs and GAs when a fan

15 was indicated not being on.

16 And when I compared those 20

17 samples, 13 of which were BZ samples, we

18 generated this geometric mean of 2,603 with a

19 GSD of 2.04, which seems to be substantially

20 the same as what we indicated in the

21 Evaluation Report.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37 1 And then we chose because of the

2 limited number of samples to use 5,480 dpm,

3 which is the centerless grinding value from

4 TBD-6000. We felt that that is obviously a

5 more claimant-favorable number. And we chose

6 to use that to do these dose calculations. 

7 That's what we used for the cases.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, I think

9 based on, again, my review of what we talked

10 about at the last meeting and Bill Thurber can

11 clarify this as well, but the concern had to

12 do with consistency between what was on the

13 spreadsheet and what was in the written text. 

14 Is that right, Bill?

15 MR. THURBER: That is exactly

16 right. That is exactly right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it was not so

18 much the methodology as consistency within the

19 document as to what was said and what was on

20 the spreadsheet. And so I guess the question

21 now is has that been clarified sufficiently?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38 1 MR. THURBER: This is Bill. It is

2 my impression that NIOSH has developed a new

3 spreadsheet with new assumptions as to which

4 sample should be included and which samples

5 should be excluded.

6 And so in a sense, that makes a

7 discussion of what we referenced and, I think,

8 NIOSH referenced as spreadsheet 2009 as

9 irrelevant. The numbers are all in the same

10 ballpark. The point that we originally made

11 is, gee, we can't take what you, NIOSH, say is

12 the source of your information and determine

13 that it gibes with what you said in the ER. 

14 So that was the comment, which is exactly what

15 Dr. Ziemer said a minute ago.

16 Now we've got a new spreadsheet,

17 which comes up with very similar numbers. 

18 NIOSH -- Sam explained here that the new

19 numbers took, excluded the process samples,

20 which is the same as before. And they

21 excluded certain breathing zone and general
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39 1 area samples this time around that were

2 excluded on the basis that in some cases,

3 there were no machining operations being

4 conducted. And in some other instances, there

5 were some fans blowing across the turning

6 machine, which would create some results that

7 would be misleading.

8 And conceptually I think that's

9 fine. Unfortunately, I can't count the same

10 number of samples as Sam did. So, you know,

11 we can maybe sort that out on the side because

12 it isn't going to substantively affect the

13 results, but some of the samples that NIOSH

14 excluded as being taken with the equipment

15 turned off, we don't read the data sheets the

16 same way. And, similarly, some of the samples

17 that were involved with whether the fans were

18 turned on or not, we don't read the data

19 sheets the same way.

20 But, that aside, which is a

21 detail, we understand how the new calculations
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40 1 were done. And they are different from the

2 ones that were presented as in support of the

3 ER a year or so ago.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So in a sense,

5 the original finding becomes moot --

6 MR. THURBER: Exactly.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- because it's

8 not a matter any longer of having the old

9 spreadsheet and text agree since we now have

10 the new spreadsheet and sort of basically the

11 new narrative in a sense.

12 Now my question, though, is you

13 still apparently have some different

14 interpretations on how you interpret those

15 data sheets. Is that correct?

16 MR. THURBER: Yes, which samples

17 are included and which samples are excluded.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Yes.

19 MR. THURBER: And, as I say, I

20 don't believe that we'll --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The methodology
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41 1 looks okay?

2 MR. THURBER: Yes, the methodology

3 looks fine. And I don't believe that if you

4 put in a few more results or take out a few

5 more -- it's actually put in a few more

6 results -- that the geometric mean of the

7 distribution is going to be significantly

8 different than the 2,603 number that NIOSH

9 quotes. I haven't done it, but I don't think

10 it's going to change it substantively.

11 MEMBER MUNN: About how large is

12 your perceived difference in the number of

13 items --

14 MR. THURBER: Specifically NIOSH

15 included -- I'm sorry, excluded four samples,

16 which they said, "We exclude them because the

17 equipment was not running." We look at the

18 data sheets and we say, "Gee, we think two of

19 those samples were taken when the machine was

20 running." And those were quite low numbers. 

21 So if you add two more low numbers in, it
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42 1 would push the geometric mean down a little.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes. So we are

3 only talking less than a half-dozen items,

4 then?

5 MR. THURBER: Yes. And there were

6 three samples which NIOSH said were involved

7 with -- I'm sorry. NIOSH, I believe, limited

8 five samples because the fans were running. 

9 We think that the evidence only points out

10 that the fans were running for two of the

11 samples, not all five. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

13 MR. THURBER: So our reading --

14 and, as I say, I may have totally missed

15 something, that there should be a few more

16 samples included, but, as I say, I don't think

17 it will change the numbers.

18 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't sound

19 likely.

20 MR. THURBER: No.

21 DR. MAURO: But, Wanda and Paul
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43 1 and the other Board Members, by way of

2 process, you know, it sounds to me that there

3 is fundamental methodology and the data out

4 there, and it's really a matter of which data

5 you use, how do you use it.

6 And in this particular case, it

7 sounds like there might be some differences of

8 opinion on what data should be used and how it

9 should be used. And maybe there isn't. And,

10 even if there is, it -- there is a difference,

11 it sounds like it has potential to have a

12 small effect.

13 I think it is important to realize

14 that we're -- you know, right now we are just

15 -- we are really -- SC&A has not responded; in

16 other words, has not checked this what I would

17 -- let's call it a new or revised Site Profile

18 with any comments.

19 But what I am hearing is that we

20 are not dealing with an SEC issue here. And

21 I think it's important that the judgments be
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44 1 made right now that -- you know, SC&A has not

2 weighed in on whether or not the details have

3 been all ironed out, but it certainly sounds

4 to me that we're not dealing with an issue

5 that is unresolvable. We're dealing with the

6 matter of just what's the best way to do a

7 calculation.

8 And I think the Work Group needs

9 to make a judgment that though maybe there are

10 matters like this that still need to be

11 resolved, can you move forward with a

12 determination regarding SEC status or not

13 without the so-called official resolution of

14 these matters? 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, John. 

16 That is exactly right that the final

17 adjudication of that is not an SEC issue. 

18 It's a detail which is a technical detail that

19 could be worked out between SC&A and NIOSH in

20 terms of, you know, were the samplers on or

21 not?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45 1 And, again, as you said, it has

2 very little effect on the bottom line, but

3 either way we need to agree on that for dose

4 reconstruction, but it doesn't affect the SEC

5 issue.

6 See if there are other comments or

7 questions from other Board Members?

8 (No response.)

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A folks, as

10 far as an SEC issue, you're willing to close

11 this one?

12 MR. THURBER: Absolutely.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And Board

14 Members?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Was that Wanda?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it was.

18 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I'm

19 okay with closing that also.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46 1 MEMBER POSTON: Yes from John.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We will

3 close that. Item three. Now this one ties in

4 to some extent, maybe a lot of extent, to the

5 first item, but, Sam, do you want to go ahead

6 on this one?

7 DR. GLOVER: This, they want to be

8 prescriptive on how we performed the -- see,

9 this is number 3. This is for --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bounding.

11 DR. GLOVER: -- bounding

12 operational internal dose. They asked that we

13 be prescriptive on how calculations were

14 performed for a bounding analysis. And that's

15 what we've really tried to lay out in the

16 appendix, is the prescription of how -- you

17 know, just like Bethlehem Steel or any of

18 these things, once you have determined your

19 prescriptive method, you really aren't in a --

20 you aren't trying to use bounding methods

21 anymore.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47 1 You have really laid it out pretty

2 concisely. And there's not much sense in

3 doing one and then the other. You know, it

4 was kind of left bounding previously because

5 of how the cases had been done in the past,

6 but I went through the calculations.

7 As you said, we'll talk about that

8 at the end on how we perhaps go through the

9 contamination calculations for the floor

10 loading and then how that -- I'm sorry. This

11 is for the operational period, so how we

12 determine using the 5,480 dpm per meter cubed,

13 how we assign the intakes with 8.8 hours per

14 day for the operating, the days of operation

15 that they actually conducted.

16 And then we, of course, then used

17 a very long-term residual contamination factor

18 found in the FUSRAP study to include in the

19 operational period as well. So the first day

20 was in, I believe, February 24 -- April 24th,

21 1951. And they didn't have subsequent
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48 1 operations until September or October of '52. 

2 So we looked at that as well.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Sam, this is Josie. 

4 One of the other issues that came up was that

5 the document didn't provide any guidance on

6 how to treat the periods in between the

7 operations. Does that cover that also?

8 DR. GLOVER: Actually, in the

9 Excel spreadsheet, I actually show how the

10 averages and including in the documents, the

11 appendix how you calculate the averages

12 between the different operating episodes.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

14 DR. GLOVER: And so we generate on

15 the first day floor loading from that 8.8-hour

16 day of 5,480 dpm per meter cubed, what would

17 be your floor loading from that. And that is

18 used for the time from that '51, that March --

19 or April 24th until the next operating time,

20 that 10 or 12-month period what was the

21 contamination of the facility, what would they
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49 1 have ingested, what would they have breathed

2 in, what would they have been exposed to from

3 that surface contamination, from that single

4 day of operation. And then it would have

5 started back up. And we would have again

6 added additional contamination on top of that.

7 So the calculations are very

8 detailed for how those all add together. At

9 least I hope they are. I've tried to make it

10 very detailed.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bill Thurber?

12 MR. THURBER: Yes?

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you want to

14 weigh in on this, answering the initial

15 question of --

16 MR. THURBER: I will make a couple

17 of comments. I agree with what Sam said, that

18 indeed they have now provided something that

19 is prescriptive. And, in particular, it does

20 deal with the question that was just

21 discussed. What do you do during the periods
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50 1 between the -- how do you treat the periods

2 between the machining operations? Because the

3 ER was silent on that. And so I think in that

4 sense, this finding has been dealt with.

5 I had a couple of questions for

6 Sam. One, what is the basis for the extra

7 day? Is there some documentation in the

8 literature that says that there was another

9 machining day at the end of October of 1952?

10 DR. GLOVER: There was a separate

11 weekly report that discusses an activity on

12 that date. It's unclear to me if they --

13 because it wasn't a -- it was a LOOW report,

14 if I remember correctly. So it was a summary

15 of another facility. It's unclear to me if

16 they made a mistake or if that was an

17 additional activity that we don't have

18 documentation elsewhere.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have assumed

20 that it was?

21 MR. THURBER: Yes. And that is
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51 1 good. It was just a matter of technical

2 curiosity that I asked that question.

3 The other comment or question I

4 would ask is this. You looked at and analyzed

5 the dust sampling data for the four days in

6 1952. And from that, you calculated geometric

7 mean and geometric standard deviation. And

8 then you chose to use the data from TBD-6000,

9 instead of the actual data from Bliss &

10 Laughlin.

11 And you point out that that is

12 more claimant-favorable, which on an apples to

13 apples comparison it is, but I just wondered

14 why you chose to go that way given the fact

15 that surrogate data is getting a lot more --

16 the proper use of surrogate data or how

17 surrogate data is being used is getting a lot

18 more attention than it was perhaps two or

19 three years ago.

20 DR. GLOVER: Well, you know,

21 TBD-6000 still is an approved appendix or
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52 1 methodology. I thought with 20 samples, that

2 this would give us a little more confidence

3 that we were clearly bounding the dose for

4 this activity. You know, with operations

5 limiting, we certainly removed some of those.

6 This is what I presented a year

7 and -- basically July of 2009. And so these

8 calculations are, as I said in my email, are

9 really identical. I know there was a

10 spreadsheet sent out earlier, and I -- that

11 may have been some -- which vintage that was,

12 these numbers match up with what I presented

13 at the Board meeting and what we used to

14 support our -- bound our example dose

15 reconstructions. There's been very little

16 change in that.

17 So I used the 5,480 dpm per meter

18 cubed data to do that. And I felt pretty

19 confident that was a good number to use.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, this is

21 Ziemer. Is the thought there that, even
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53 1 though you have actual data that, in fact, the

2 actual data may not be all-inclusive of what

3 might have been there in terms of the overall

4 area or if you use the overall data, obviously

5 you have uncertainties in terms of variations

6 through the facility or breathing zone levels

7 and so on? 

8 Now there has to be a -- I think

9 in a sense, Bill was asking for the rationale

10 for why not use the actual data. Is there a

11 reason? Obviously it tells you that had it

12 been much higher, you would know your initial

13 bounding was way bad, but it's the opposite.

14 DR. GLOVER: The one thing when I

15 looked at the data at the time, the first

16 operations weren't supportive of Bethlehem

17 Steel. And in that case, they actually

18 machined out the outside edge of the material

19 called conditioning the billet so that they

20 wouldn't roll those lapses into the first

21 rolling at Bethlehem Steel. They wanted to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54 1 see what Bethlehem Steel was going to do with

2 that continuous rolling. And so those details

3 were provided in a document. And so it's a

4 little different than what they did later,

5 which was more of a straightening operation.

6 And they don't have any air data

7 in that first operation. So I thought, you

8 know, it's not all completely apples and

9 apples. There is a slight difference in that

10 initial operation.

11 And so I felt justified in using

12 that 5,480 dpm per meter cubed.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, Bill

14 Thurber, does that answer that?

15 MR. THURBER: From my perspective,

16 yes. You know, as I say, I think that, you

17 know, certainly we at SC&A have been

18 sensitized lately to the need to validate,

19 carefully validate, the use of surrogate data.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Well, I

21 think what you are saying, then, Sam, is that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55 1 although we have the actual data, it's not

2 necessarily complete. Certainly from that

3 first run that you were talking about, you

4 don't want to necessarily assume that the

5 other runs represent that one by itself

6 because that also becomes a sort of surrogate,

7 even though it's at the same place. 

8 Some would argue in terms of both

9 time and operation that it may not be the

10 right surrogate either. You would otherwise

11 be assuming that that run for which you don't

12 have data is the same as the other runs.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And it was not.

14 DR. MAURO: This is John. I like

15 the idea that when you are at this type of

16 decision, that it's thoughtful. And you say

17 under these -- even though there's a hierarchy

18 of data in 42 CFR Part 82, that sort of lays

19 out what you give preference to.

20 I also think that when you are

21 looking at the data that you do have and you
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56 1 have perhaps some other information that leads

2 you to one you feel more technically

3 comfortable with.

4 So we are very comfortable with

5 the concept of not only using, for example,

6 TBD-6000 data, which might be more

7 claimant-favorable and perhaps a better

8 umbrella of what might have occurred. We also

9 believe that there are times when models are

10 better than scarce data.

11 So I just want to -- SC&A's

12 perspective is these kinds of decisions in our

13 mind are appropriate, but it's very important

14 that the rationale for when you decide not to

15 use the actual data and why -- and certainly

16 this case it's clear that you're bounding, but

17 what you just described, no, I didn't read the

18 details. What you just described, it was not

19 only -- was TBD-6000 limiting, but, in

20 addition, there were reasons why there were

21 certain aspects of the existing data that may
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57 1 not have been as complete as you would have

2 liked. So, I mean, we accept that rationale - 

- 3 

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank

5 you, John.

6 Board Members, any questions on

7 that?

8 MEMBER MUNN: No. It appears to

9 be perfectly valid use of surrogate data --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And it is more

11 claimant-favorable.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it's not an

14 arbitrary choice. There is a rationale for

15 it. John Poston, Josie, questions, comments?

16 MEMBER BEACH: None here, Paul.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A, are you

18 comfortable closing this one?

19 MR. THURBER: I am.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Board Members,

21 any objection to closing it?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58 1 MEMBER MUNN: None at all.

2 MEMBER POSTON: No.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Good. 

4 Thank you.

5 Let's move on to the fourth one.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I thought we

7 moved the fourth one to the Procedures Work

8 Group.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hang on. Was it

10 the fourth one or the fifth one?

11 MEMBER BEACH: I believe it was

12 the fourth.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me look at

14 my notes here. That's correct. The fifth one

15 is the one we closed before. Number four,

16 that's a TIB-70 issue, right, and moved to the

17 Procedures?

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, that is correct. 

19 This is John. The one percent per day is a

20 generic issue that we are engaged in right now

21 on OTIB-70.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59 1 MR. THURBER: This is Bill. 

2 Indeed, what John said is correct. But I

3 would note that in the proposed appendix to

4 TBD-6000 covering Bliss & Laughlin, NIOSH has

5 set that method aside and gone to a method

6 that in the past SC&A has indicated that they

7 much prefer, namely by fitting an exponential

8 function to an initial point and a measured

9 endpoint.

10 So from the perspective of Bliss &

11 Laughlin, this comment is moot because they

12 have changed the way they are doing it to a

13 technique that we believe is superior.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, do you have

15 a comment on that?

16 DR. GLOVER: Just to say that we

17 detailed the calculations to show that we use

18 a longer half-life than one percent. It is

19 part of TIB-70. And, you know, they're using

20 the surface-loading calculations and then the

21 values from modern day measurements to see
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60 1 what the surface values were.

2 So yes, we did use a different

3 number, much longer half-life in the facility,

4 as discussed.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In this

6 particular case, the reason for not using

7 TIB-70, then, is that you have some numbers. 

8 Is that correct?

9 DR. NETON: The TIB-70 is used. 

10 It's just a different approach. There are

11 seven prescribed approaches in TIB-70.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Yes.

13 DR. NETON: The one that is under

14 discussion at the Procedures Subcommittee

15 level is the one percent per day depletion

16 factor, but here I believe from what I have

17 heard, we have initial or operational surface

18 contamination and post-operational surface

19 contamination. And that is used as a basis to

20 determine the depletion rate, which is a

21 superior value.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61 1 I would say, though, that I think

2 the 1 times 10 to the minus 6 was probably

3 used in that calculation. It's also -- at the

4 Procedures Subcommittee level.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So half

6 of it is and half of it isn't, then, in a

7 sense, right?

8 DR. NETON: Exactly.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. So it's

10 either -- the 1 times 10 to the minus 6

11 definitely came out of the TIB-70 thing. And

12 then you have actual values for the rest,

13 which means you don't have to assume a

14 different model. So it's kind of a

15 combination.

16 Just checking the transcript, we

17 had previously agreed to pass this on to

18 TIB-70. And in a sense, that is correct for

19 the one value that you -- referencing that. 

20 Then you're using actual values for the rest

21 of that calculation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62 1 So I think what I am hearing is

2 that SC&A agrees that this meets their

3 concerns. And it certainly seems to me that

4 it would close the issue. It's a combination

5 of closure and transfer, but it seems to me we

6 can go ahead and close this in that regard.

7 Board Members, are you in

8 agreement on that?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Wanda.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Fine with me.

11 MEMBER BEACH: That is fine with

12 me also.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Very

14 good.

15 Item five we had already closed. 

16 Actually, it wasn't even, really -- I think we

17 agreed it wasn't really a finding. It said

18 that the original statement was just a

19 statement of concurrence originally. So it's

20 just a comment.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Number six was

2 bounding the residual period. And, actually,

3 six and seven now are the ones that originally

4 we had sort of focused on as wanting more

5 detail.

6 So, Sam, why don't you talk about

7 -- you can talk about them individually or

8 together, if you want.

9 DR. GLOVER: They are highly

10 linked. Number six is bounding the internal

11 dose during the residual period. And so we

12 did use -- it's highly linked to number four. 

13 We developed a surface contamination loading. 

14 And then you deplete that as a function of

15 time.

16 And so that data is then used to

17 -- I used the 1 times 10 to the minus 6

18 factor, which is out of TIB-70, probably

19 TBD-6000 as well, to take that decay corrected

20 value and then just in each interval because

21 I had to come up with 1952 averages, 1951.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64 1 So you'll see all of the details

2 between the different operations -- that into

3 the residual period, but you'll see those

4 surface loading and then depletion

5 calculations using that very long half-life to

6 determine what was the floor loading, how much

7 then it would be resuspended in air, which is

8 based on 1 times 10 to the minus 6 factor, and

9 use those with the tabled values for how much

10 dose you would get from handling or being in

11 a contaminated area, floor loading, how much

12 dose would you get from the air contamination,

13 how much dose would you get.

14 Obviously in the residual period,

15 there's not any handling of direct metal. 

16 You're only dealing with contaminated

17 surfaces. And so those are highly linked

18 because then that also then will drive.

19 So that's your external component

20 and your internal component together, how much

21 is in the air, how much is on the floor. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65 1 Ingestion came from TIB-9. And that's the

2 document. So it's basically straight from

3 that, develop the ingestion factors.

4 And so essentially 6 and 7 are

5 highly linked because you have to develop the

6 floor loading. And it's air contamination

7 from that floor loading values. And then they

8 both support external and internal dosimetry.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I do have

10 one question in that regard. And, Bill

11 Thurber, help me on this. You guys raised the

12 issue last time of a 16-hour day. And I

13 think, Sam, you're using -- what was it, eight

14 and a half or a different value?

15 MR. THURBER: This is Bill. What

16 you said, Dr. Ziemer, is correct, but I

17 believe in looking at the calculations that

18 NIOSH provided, although we haven't looked at

19 them exhaustively, that the use of -- I think

20 they used, actually, an 8.8-hour day --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I knew it
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66 1 was eight something.

2 MR. THURBER: -- is appropriate to

3 the nature of the work that was done at Bliss

4 & Laughlin. So that is one of the several

5 things that was changed in the new work.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Did you

7 have any other comments on 6 and 7, Bill?

8 MR. THURBER: I might make this

9 comment. We talked a little bit about the

10 fact that some of this, the one percent per

11 day and the resuspension factor of 10 to the

12 minus 6 are things that are being reviewed by

13 the Procedures Work Group.

14 And one of the things that was

15 discussed in some detail here a few weeks ago

16 with that Work Group is the fact that if you

17 use a depletion factor of one percent per day,

18 that is inconsistent with assuming a

19 resuspension factor of 10 to the minus 6.

20 And we made the point, and I

21 believe that NIOSH generally concurred, that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67 1 when you're dealing with resuspension factors

2 and depletion rates, that the numbers should

3 be compatible, if you will. And a second

4 point is that in the past, SC&A has frequently

5 argued that a resuspension factor of 10 to the

6 minus 6 may be too low.

7 We have kind of refined our

8 position over the last year or so. And we

9 believe that if there is some evidence that

10 the workplace was cleaned up after a

11 particular operation, that a value of 10 to

12 the minus 6 is probably -- for the

13 resuspension factor is probably not

14 unreasonable.

15 And there is evidence here in the

16 case of Bliss & Laughlin, I believe, -- and I

17 think Sam mentioned it or maybe it was

18 mentioned in the document -- that the stuff

19 was cleaned up and the oxide was carted off

20 the same day or the day after the machining

21 operations were done. So my feeling is that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68 1 the use of 10 to the minus 6 for the

2 resuspension factor of Bliss & Laughlin is

3 reasonable.

4 And the other point I would make

5 is this. And, Sam, correct me if I am wrong,

6 but the surface deposition from which -- to

7 which you apply the resuspension factor, was

8 calculated using this air concentration from

9 TBD-6000 that we talked a little bit out

10 earlier of 5,400 dpm per cubic meter.

11 And that is a high number relative

12 to the air concentration that was actually

13 measured at Bliss & Laughlin. So that

14 certainly appears to be a claimant-favorable

15 approach.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that correct,

17 Sam?

18 DR. GLOVER: That is correct.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What is the

20 bottom line on these two then? Bill Thurber

21 or John Mauro, has SC&A seen enough on this to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69 1 be comfortable, or do you need to look at

2 anything anymore?

3 DR. MAURO: This is John. I just

4 have one question with regard to the residual

5 period dust loading. So it's not that you --

6 I wasn't quite sure because Bill looked more

7 closely at this. And, Bill, maybe you could

8 help me, too.

9 Is the 10 to the minus 6 used as

10 the way to get the slope? In other words, are

11 there air concentration measurements during

12 operation that then after that is over, then

13 that air dust loading is assumed to decline at

14 a rate consistent with the resuspension factor

15 of 10 to the minus 6 per meter, or is it the

16 residual activity on the surface after cleanup

17 that is used to get the airborne concentration

18 -- I'll call it the residual period and apply

19 the 10 to the minus 6? So I wasn't quite sure

20 how the 10 to the minus 6 per meter

21 resuspension factor was being used.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70 1 DR. GLOVER: So real quickly, I

2 took the air concentration data, that 5,480

3 dpm per meter cubed, let that run 8.8 hours

4 all day long, and used the deposition value

5 that we generated for floor loading.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 DR. GLOVER: I used that for five

8 days, the last five days of operation, so I

9 could accumulate how much stuff would be on

10 the floor.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay.

12 DR. GLOVER: And then said, "Okay. 

13 Let's run that to what they found in the

14 FUSRAP. When they did the FUSRAP

15 measurements, what data did they have then?" 

16 And I took the highest smearable data that

17 they had for surface loading. So this is

18 based on surface contamination limits.

19 DR. MAURO: I've got it. So

20 you've got a beginning surface based on the

21 deposition model, which we already reviewed
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71 1 and approved and accepted. And then you

2 actually have some measurements of surface

3 contamination at the end of the FUSRAP period. 

4 And so now you have got a beginning and end. 

5 And it is to those values that you applied the

6 10 to the minus 6 resuspension factor to get

7 the airborne dust load.

8 DR. GLOVER: That's correct.

9 DR. MAURO: Got it. All right.

10 And, Bill, what I heard from you

11 is that during the time period after the

12 operation was over, that there was a cleanup

13 that immediately followed. So your sense is

14 -- and we all have come to the same place on

15 this. If you do have a cleanup, the 10 to the

16 minus 6 is a reasonable thing to do as

17 recommended in NRC NUREG documents. And so

18 that is the fundamental strategy you guys have

19 adopted.

20 MR. THURBER: That is what I

21 understand, yes, John.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72 1 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you.

2 And with that approach, I mean, I

3 can just speak that what was just described to

4 me and as I understand it, that is entirely

5 consistent with our position here and in many

6 other places where we have discussed these

7 matters.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank

9 you, John and Bill.

10 Board Members, any questions on

11 this? It appears to me that we have agreement

12 between both NIOSH and SC&A on this approach. 

13 And if that is the case, unless we have

14 questions ourselves we would be in a position

15 to recommend closure on these two items.

16 MEMBER MUNN: My position is that

17 this is more than adequate for the limited

18 amount of exposure that these folks had in a

19 few days of operations. It is very

20 well-documented. I don't see how we could

21 possibly ask for more data.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Poston,

2 Josie, comments, questions?

3 MEMBER POSTON: I am fine with it,

4 Paul.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Are you

6 okay to close, John?

7 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Josie?

9 MEMBER BEACH: I don't have any

10 questions right now.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now what

12 I am seeing here now based on what we have

13 covered is that we would be in a position to

14 recommend or make a recommendation to the

15 Board that we have substantial agreement

16 between NIOSH, the contractor, and the Work

17 Group on the issues that have been raised on

18 the contractor review of the Evaluation Report

19 -- SEC class.

20 My question would be are we all

21 comfortable with making that recommendation at
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74 1 the upcoming meeting. And if we are, what we

2 would need to do, I think, Sam, we would

3 probably have to re-present the petition

4 evaluation as it now stands.

5 And then I would report that SC&A

6 had reviewed all of the items and has looked

7 at the modifications or the responses and that

8 we have agreed that all items are closed and

9 that the recommendation would be that we agree

10 that NIOSH can reconstruct dose and,

11 therefore, would not recommend an SEC Class

12 for this facility.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is

14 Josie. I have a quick question.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Are you by any

17 chance going to try and get a hold of Mark to

18 let him know where we're at?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I will certainly

20 be glad to do that. I have tried to get a

21 hold of Mark recently just on closing out the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75 1 TBD-6000 itself. And Mark is very busy, but

2 I certainly would do that. And, again, this

3 would only be a recommendation.

4 And, actually, we have a majority,

5 even though Mark isn't here, but I don't know

6 what else to do at this point. I mean, I

7 can't guarantee that I can actually reach him

8 before the meeting.

9 DR. NETON: Dr. Ziemer, this is

10 Jim Neton. We've got sort of just a process

11 question here. You mentioned something about

12 NIOSH presenting or re-presenting the Petition

13 Evaluation Report.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I was

15 looking at just thinking about for refreshing

16 the Board's memory on this whole facility. We

17 need to have the description of the facility

18 and what the recommendation is. That was

19 presented, I think, a year or so ago.

20 And there have been a few changes

21 since then, but I was thinking that there
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76 1 would be kind of maybe an abbreviated version,

2 Sam, of what you presented before, just your

3 slides and the final recommendations.

4 DR. NETON: The problem is Sam is

5 not going to the Board meeting.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

7 DR. NETON: But, you know, we

8 could do something. And that's why I'm trying

9 to get a handle on what really we need to do

10 here.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sam, you

12 distributed or you sent me this morning --

13 were those revised slides, or was that the

14 exact slides you presented before?

15 DR. GLOVER: Those were what was

16 presented. There were no changes to those.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Would

18 those change any based on this material? Has

19 anything in there changed?

20 DR. NETON: I was just talking to

21 Sam about that. And I don't think so. You
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77 1 know, mostly what Sam has done has --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, has just

3 responded to the question --

4 DR. NETON: -- more detail.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, yes.

6 DR. NETON: I think there's one

7 reference in here to TBD-6001 that would be no

8 longer applicable, but other than that, I

9 think nothing has really changed.

10 MR. KATZ: Paul, this is Ted.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: My only point is

12 if we're going to make a recommendation to the

13 Board, they need to have something to refresh

14 their memory on what do they do at Bliss &

15 Laughlin, what are the years, and --

16 MR. KATZ: Paul?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

18 MR. KATZ: Paul, this is Ted. Can

19 you hear me?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I just want to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78 1 make a suggestion here. Why don't we -- I can

2 distribute the PowerPoint that Sam sent along

3 that is from the last presentation to all the

4 Board Members.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

6 MR. KATZ: And I think, Sam, if

7 you will be available by phone for questions,

8 then we can have that piece in place, too. 

9 But they can read the PowerPoint. They have,

10 of course, the SEC Evaluation Report as well. 

11 Sam can be available for questions. And

12 otherwise I think the Work Group can sort of

13 bring people up to date on what the Work Group

14 did.

15 DR. GLOVER: I certainly would

16 make myself available. And from the

17 presentations, there are very minor changes

18 perhaps on the tables that had some specific

19 values. They may have increased very slightly

20 with the change in the TBD-6001 going away. 

21 So, again, very minor changes to this -- so I
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79 1 think that would be fine. If you re-present

2 that or resend that out, I will make myself

3 available. And certainly Dr. Neton and --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then I would

5 make a brief presentation to cover what issues

6 had been raised by SC&A. And, of course,

7 John, you would be there or who is going to be

8 there for SC&A?

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. I will be there,

10 but hopefully Bill will be on the phone.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. And then

12 we would just present what the issues were and

13 how they were resolved and then make a

14 recommendation.

15 Now, Ted, let me ask you this. 

16 The Board has asked recently that if we are

17 going to take action on a site, that the Board

18 know that in advance. Do we have enough -- I 

19 don't think we actually showed it that way. 

20 Did we in the --

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, we did.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80 1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We show it as an

2 action?

3 MR. KATZ: We did.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Then

5 we'll --

6 MR. KATZ: Pretty sure. Let me --

7 before -- yes, I did. I'm just checking the

8 annotated agenda. Yes, I did show it as an

9 action.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. We

11 don't want to spring this on anybody --

12 MR. KATZ: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- if there's

14 not enough --

15 MR. KATZ: No surprises.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that would

17 be the plan. Let me see if there are any

18 objections to that. In other words, we re19 show the NIOSH presentation. Sam, do you have

20 time to tweak those if there are some number

21 changes?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81 1 DR. GLOVER: I think the change 

2 would be minor.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

4 DR. GLOVER: If Jim and them will

5 let me. There is a certain time frame that

6 they try to hold me to.

7 DR. NETON: Yes. I think we will

8 give it a shot. I think we can do it.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, if not,

10 can we just verbally say that those numbers

11 have changed slightly based on the technical

12 discussions, or do we --

13 DR. NETON: Yes, we can do that. 

14 I'm getting a sense that we want to have this

15 loaded up, though, and available for viewing. 

16 Is that what I'm --

17 MR. KATZ: This is Ted again. I

18 guess, Paul, my only worry about that, about

19 having them -- is we are already here on

20 Wednesday. And I would like to get this

21 information, both the PowerPoint and the copy
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82 1 of the Evaluation Report, out to all the Board

2 members right away because I don't know. I

3 mean, some of them probably are starting now

4 preparing for next week.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think

6 there is sort of a practical process issue and

7 it's sort of within the agency. We do have to

8 allow them time to do what they have to do. 

9 And if there's not enough time, then we

10 postpone the action. We could probably even

11 act on this one by phone at the next phone

12 conference.

13 But, you know, NIOSH and even the

14 Board members just -- I don't want to be in

15 the position of saying that we're just going

16 to railroad this through. Actually, for this

17 facility, as a practical matter, most of the

18 dose reconstructions have already been done,

19 number one.

20 I believe there's only like two

21 outstanding ones at the moment. So I'm not
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83 1 sure if there's a great sense of urgency on

2 this in terms of actually coming to closure

3 but that, if we're able to get it off the

4 Board, that's fine. If not --

5 DR. NETON: Dr. Ziemer, this is

6 Jim. I just talked to Sam offline here a

7 little bit. He thinks that we can get any of

8 the changes that need to be made done today. 

9 And if we can get our review process out

10 through today and early tomorrow, we can get

11 this available to the Board by tomorrow

12 sometime. Do you think that is sufficient

13 time?

14 MEMBER MUNN: That should be

15 sufficient time. It's not as though this is

16 new information that anyone has to absorb from

17 the beginning. It's been presented.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is not

19 really a very complex site either.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the operation
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84 1 is fairly straightforward. It's a small site. 

2 It was limited work there. It's not like many

3 other sites we've handled.

4 MEMBER MUNN: No. We're talking

5 about --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I would say if

7 you can do that, fine. You know, again, I

8 don't think there's a great sense of urgency. 

9 If we can't do it within the framework, we

10 just postpone the action until the next time.

11 Ted, what do you think on that?

12 MR. KATZ: I mean, that is true. 

13 It sounded to me like what we are doing in

14 terms of analysis is very minor. And, you

15 know, if we postpone it to the next time, that

16 just adds one item to the next Board's

17 meeting. So just personally, where we can

18 knock these things off, I think it would be

19 good.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let's see

21 if we can do it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85 1 DR. NETON: This is Jim. When we

2 get this done, how do you want this

3 distributed: from us directly to the full

4 Board or --

5 MR. KATZ: Given the timing, that

6 would be great if you just -- and you are

7 talking about revising the Evaluation Report?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No.

9 DR. NETON: Just the --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just the slides

11 I think, right.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, I mean, if

13 you just -- okay. I mean, yes, absolutely --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are only

15 talking about a couple of numbers on a couple

16 of slides I think, aren't you?

17 DR. NETON: The Evaluation Report

18 doesn't change. It is just a couple of

19 numbers on I think maximum three slides.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

21 DR. NETON: Then we can reissue it
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86 1 to the Board.

2 MR. THURBER: This is Bill

3 Thurber. I would urge you to look at the last

4 slide in the package. It says, Feasibility

5 Findings to the Bethlehem Steel SEC Petition. 

6 You might want to change that.

7 DR. NETON: You're right.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. That doesn't

9 sound like a problem at all.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Can you get that

11 through the approval process?

12 DR. NETON: I think we can handle

13 that.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

15 DR. NETON: We'll try to get this

16 done today and out the door by tomorrow

17 sometime. Sam, I guess you --

18 MR. KATZ: That's fine. Sam, you

19 can send it to me. And I'll distribute it to

20 the Board.

21 DR. GLOVER: That is good. That
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87 1 is great.

2 DR. NETON: Because then maybe you

3 can give him a little of couple sentence as a

4 heads up as to why they're getting --

5 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

6 DR. NETON: Okay. Great.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

8 DR. NETON: We will try to get

9 that done by tomorrow as soon as possible. 

10 And I've got to talk to Chris Ellison about

11 that, but --

12 MEMBER MUNN: Should the slides be

13 accompanied by a note from either Paul or Ted 

14 about the results of the Work Group

15 deliberations today?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Say it again,

17 Wanda.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Should the slides be

19 accompanied by a note from either Ted or you

20 indicating the results of the deliberations we

21 have had today?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88 1 MR. KATZ: Wanda, I'm not going to

2 summarize the deliberations today. I'm just

3 going to let them know that this will be

4 presented by the Work Group but that the

5 slides were revised as a result of the Work

6 Group's interactions with SC&A and DCAS.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I wasn't suggesting

8 a summary. I was just suggesting that a note

9 indicate that all of the action items have

10 been closed by the Work Group.

11 MR. KATZ: I mean, I will let the

12 Work Group report out. I'm not going to

13 report out for the Work Group. I will just

14 let them know that they know this is on the

15 agenda and that these materials, we have to

16 prepare them.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That is fine.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Have we normally

19 done that? I don't think the work groups have

20 normally notified us in advance, have we?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Not ordinarily, no.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89 1 MEMBER BEACH: No. I think, Paul,

2 that would be something you would do, right?

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I don't

6 think that has been done in the past, has it?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Not often.

8 MR. KATZ: No, no.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am not sure

10 they ever have.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, on one or two

12 occasions. One occasion I can remember some

13 information was provided. But it was not a

14 formalized thing. No, no. It's just fine.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I

16 need to prepare a presentation myself. I can

17 do that over the weekend. And then whatever

18 I prepare, I will try to get out to the Work

19 Group members. And I also will try to reach

20 Mark and try to summarize for him, see what

21 concerns he may have as well.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90 1 5. GSI UPDATE:

2 A. OVERVIEW OF RECENT DOCUMENTS

3 RECEIVED FROM GSI PETITIONER

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's

5 proceed. We have one final item, and it's a

6 GSI update, General Steel Industries. And we

7 are not going to have any technical

8 discussions on this.

9 But for the record, I want to make

10 sure that it's in the record that this past

11 week we received a document. And you should

12 have all received it, actually a reference to

13 a paper on air activation related to high14 energy accelerators. And I sent that

15 reference to the Work Group. And I want to

16 make sure. And that came from Dr. McKeel, the

17 petitioner.

18 And then I think also we had

19 another document. I believe, Ted, you agreed

20 you would read it into the record. Isn't that

21 correct?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91 1 MR. KATZ: That is correct, Mr.

2 Ziemer.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Why don't you go

4 ahead and do that?

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let me just

6 preface this. This is a little bit lengthy,

7 but I will try to read quickly. I have given

8 the letter to James, our court reporter, so

9 that if I am reading too quickly for his ears,

10 we should be okay. But I'll try to do this

11 clearly, even though quickly.

12 So this is dated February 9th,

13 letter from Dr. McKeel to Dr. Ziemer, Dear Dr.

14 Ziemer. 

15 I ask that this letter be read

16 into the Work Group official record and made

17 part of the transcript for the February 16,

18 2011 TBD-6000 Work Group meeting.

19 Several points I wish to make to

20 the Work Group as they consider making a

21 recommendation on the General Steel
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92 1 Industries.

2 One, sensitivity to greater than 1

3 MeV photons of Landauer GSI badges has not

4 been sufficiently discussed by NIOSH. GSI

5 site expert Ron Kobiske, physicist and former

6 head of the Physics Department and Betatron

7 program at Milwaukee School of Engineering,

8 indicates the higher energy 1 to 25 MeV

9 betatron photons are not captured and measured

10 by standard Landauer film badges.

11 I wrote to Dr. Ziemer asking for a

12 thorough technical discussion of this topic at

13 the TBD-6000 Work Group level on 2/16/11. The

14 meeting agenda has not been issued as I write.

15 Number two, betatron component

16 activation. Elements with a t1/2 greater than

17 15 minutes, IMRT article sent to the Board and

18 circulated to TBD-6000 Work Group members,

19 have been identified in this new article and

20 in many publications the GSI co-petitioner and

21 site expert John Ramspott have previously
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93 1 brought to the attention of the Work Groups. 

2 Internal component chronic activation can

3 account for betatron residual radiation after

4 the beam is turned off. See reference 1.

5 Number three, Allen path forward. 

6 The co-petitioner requested a progress report

7 to define what, quote, information reviews,

8 unquote and, quote, calculations, unquote,

9 that NIOSH has been doing the past 3.5 months

10 since the October 12, 2010 TBD-6000 Work Group

11 met have not yet been answered as of 2/9/11.

12 Four, Appendix BB. SC&A findings

13 in a cover letter dated April 21st, 2008, of

14 a 92-page report to contract officer Mr. Carl

15 Staudt of CDC included the following, italics

16 and bolding added for emphasis.

17 A) According to Appendix BB,

18 betatron operators, who had the limiting

19 exposures of all GSI workers, spent two hours

20 per shift at a distance of six feet from the

21 activated betatron apparatus and in the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94 1 vicinity of irradiated steel. Our finding is

2 that they spent over four hours per shift at

3 distances of three to six feet from the

4 betatron, during which time they were exposed

5 to the irradiated steel.

6 As a result, their external doses

7 per eight-hour shift were more than four times

8 as high as those calculated in Appendix BB.

9 B) The recollection of a group of

10 former workers was that overtime work was the

11 norm and that a 65-hour week was a reasonable

12 estimate of their work hours. We, therefore,

13 conclude that they worked approximately 3,250

14 hours per year, as opposed to the 2,400 hours

15 per year assumed in Appendix BB. This would

16 result in an additional 35 percent increase in

17 their radiation exposures.

18 C) We identified several errors in

19 the calculations of external dose rates from

20 irradiated uranium that were furnished to us

21 by OCAS. As a result, we found that the dose
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95 1 rates were overestimated by a factor of 16.

2 According to our models, the daily

3 external rates from the radiography of steel

4 and of uranium were about equal. Therefore,

5 we found that the annual external dose rates

6 were relatively constant from year to year,

7 rather than varying with the amount of uranium

8 radiographed each year.

9 D) We estimated annual external

10 exposures of the betatron operators of about

11 12 rem per year for 1952 through 1963, when

12 only the 24-MeV betatron was in operation and

13 about 14 rem per year for 1964 through 66,

14 after the 25-MeV betatron was installed. One

15 half of the annual dose was received in 1966,

16 since the contract ended on June 30th.

17 These exposures are two to six

18 times the external exposures listed in

19 Appendix BB.

20 E) According to Appendix BB,

21 workers who did not perform betatron
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96 1 radiography or handle the metal within two

2 hours of irradiation are to be assigned

3 exposures of .72 millirem per hour.

4 Our analysis identified locations

5 on the foundry floor, to which such workers

6 had unrestricted access, that had exposure

7 rates as high as 50 millirem per hour while

8 the betatron was in operation. Locations on

9 the roof, accessible to maintenance workers

10 servicing ventilation equipment, had exposure

11 rates of up to 1,000 millirem per hour.

12 Contrary to the assertion in

13 Appendix BB, radiography employing the 60

14 cobalt sources could produce higher dose rates

15 than the betatron radiography. In the absence

16 of detailed information on the locations of

17 their work stations and the time spent on

18 various tasks, we were not able to arrive at

19 bounding estimates of external exposures of

20 workers maintaining ventilation equipment, nor

21 of those in the vicinity of the 60 cobalt
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97 1 radiography sources, unquote.

2 SC&A thus identified very

3 important findings in Rev 0 of GSI Appendix BB

4 that was issued on June 25th, 2007 and not

5 revised since then. The parent document,

6 Battelle TBD-6000, that was issued 12/13/06

7 has also not been revised. About 96 percent

8 of the 276 GSI dose reconstructions have been

9 completed by NIOSH based on the technically

10 flawed Appendix BB.

11 DOL, parentheses, DEEOIC, Director

12 Rachel Leiton, unparentheses, has informed the

13 GSI co-petitioner that his perceived efforts

14 to have denied GSI claims reopened cannot

15 happen until all appendix issues have been

16 resolved and the Board has certified the new

17 information is valid and the SC&A findings,

18 such as those referenced in A through E have

19 been also resolved.

20 Five, the SRS Work Group on

21 September 3rd spent 1.5 hours discussing
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98 1 sparse bioassay results as being too few to be

2 representative of the entire workforce. The

3 TBD-6000 Work Group apparently believes that

4 NIOSH's total lack of urine bioassay

5 individual monitoring data in the GSI workers

6 is unimportant.

7 Six and last, SECs are being

8 handled in a non-uniform way and wildly

9 different criteria and lengths of time

10 considering individual SECs are being used by

11 the Board to recommend them for approval or

12 denial. See item 5.

13 As but two examples from sites on

14 which I am co-petitioner, NIOSH claims it can

15 validly use very limited surrogate film badge

16 data from 108 of 3,000 GSI workers,

17 parentheses, 3.6 percent, unparentheses, to

18 bound external exposures during the residual

19 period.

20 At Dow Madison, NIOSH used very

21 limited surrogate film badge data from another
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99 1 Dow plant that NIOSH has failed to justify as

2 being similar to the Dow Madison.

3 For GSI and Dow, in contrast,

4 NIOSH lacks any workforce urine bioassay

5 samples for uranium or thorium while claiming,

6 nevertheless, that they can reconstruct intake

7 internal photon doses with sufficient

8 accuracy. Yet, this fact has raised nary a

9 question from any member of the Board.

10 This petitioner wonders why

11 different criteria are being applied to large

12 DOE sites, such as SRS, as compared to GSI,

13 which, with up to 3,000 employees, is one of

14 the larger AWE sites based on the numbers of

15 claims, question mark.

16 Respectfully submitted, Daniel W.

17 McKeel, Jr.

18 That concludes the letter. He

19 asked that it be read into the record.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you

21 very much, Ted.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100 1 And, as I indicated before, we are

2 not going to actually discuss that record, but

3 we assured Mr. McKeel we would read it into

4 the record. This could be part of the

5 discussion in our face-to-face Work Group. 

6 This phone call today was directed primarily

7 at Bliss and Laughlin, and I indicated to Dr.

8 McKeel we would not be discussing actual

9 technical issues for GSI today.

10 The other item that I referred to

11 on GSI, the paper I referred to, just for

12 being more specific, the paper by James Welsh

13 and coworkers from the University of

14 Wisconsin, it's called High Energy Photons in

15 IMRT. That's an acronym, IMRT, intensity

16 modulated radiation therapy. And the rest of

17 the title is Uncertainties and Risks for

18 Questionable Gain. It has to do with

19 activations or includes discussions of

20 activation of accelerator components and that

21 sort of thing.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101 1 So I just want to make sure that

2 everyone got that and has a chance to

3 familiarize yourself with that prior to the

4 next meeting.

5 B. STATUS OF NIOSH PATH FORWARD ON GSI

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The final thing

7 relating to GSI, which I put on the agenda, is

8 the status of the NIOSH path forward. At our

9 face-to-face meeting in October, Dave Allen

10 presented a White Paper, which was referred to

11 as the path forward. And it indicated a

12 number of steps that were going to be taken by

13 NIOSH to come to closure on dose

14 reconstruction approaches at GSI.

15 One of the questions that arose

16 was, when will this be done? And where is it

17 on the priority list with all of the other

18 things that NIOSH is doing?

19 And we don't really have the

20 answer to that, but I want to make you aware

21 that we hope to have a timetable clarified in
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102 1 the near future with NIOSH as to when they

2 will be done with the path-forward materials

3 for the Work Group to review and for SC&A to

4 review and when we might come to closure

5 overall or on the GSI.

6 So that is sort of the question. 

7 I don't think we have an answer to that at

8 this point and probably won't for a little

9 bit.

10 But I would ask Ted, if you can

11 speak to the issue, in terms of what has to

12 happen for us to get sort of a timetable.

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

14 sorry. There is another phone ringing at the

15 same time. I hope it is not disturbing here.

16 I have spoken or traded e-mails

17 and so on with several of the parties. Stu

18 Hinnefeld is out of town until the end of the

19 week. And I am hoping that there is time to

20 have a discussion with Stu and Dave Allen and

21 others who are involved prior to the Board
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103 1 meeting so that we can discuss what resources

2 are available because that is going to affect

3 the timetable that they produce.

4 So that's why we don't have an

5 answer right now. And I hope to get it. You

6 know, best case, I hope to have at least some

7 indication that I can tell you about at the

8 Board meeting but if not, soon thereafter.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I will just

10 add to that, that the ability of this Work

11 Group to come to closure on GSI is very

12 dependent on those documents in terms of when

13 we get them and also SC&A in terms of what

14 review needs to be done by them.

15 So there is kind of a domino

16 effect sort of thing here. We need to know

17 how far out we're talking in terms of when

18 documents will be available.

19 And one of the concerns I have as

20 Chair is if that time horizon stretches too

21 far into the future, if we're going to be sort
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104 1 of marking time for an extended period, what

2 the implications are of that in terms of

3 decision-making.

4 GSI is one of those sites that we

5 have been dealing with for a fairly long time,

6 measured in years. So we need to come to

7 closure on it, in my mind, as soon as we can. 

8 It is stretched out. Clearly there have been

9 some changes in terms of information and

10 documents available that have affected this,

11 but, nonetheless, the time has stretched out. 

12 And we do need to come to closure.

13 So I just wanted to have that on

14 the record that we are trying to get the

15 commitment from NIOSH as to when we might

16 expect the documents and how they are

17 prioritized with respect to other sites and

18 other issues that are being handled and,

19 again, being aware there are limits to both

20 resources in terms of time and personnel.

21 So that is all I can say on that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105 1 at this point. I would ask other Board

2 members if you have questions or comments

3 relating to that.

4 (No response.)

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In the silence,

6 I assume not.

7 MR. KATZ: Let me just say, Paul,

8 when I say your perspective on the need for

9 finalizing this at this point with GSI and

10 from that perspective, I'm bringing to the

11 discussion with DCAS, whenever I can have it,

12 with Stu and Dave Allen and others.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank

14 you.

15 That completes our business for

16 today. I'll give an opportunity for any other

17 final comments that anyone might have.

18 (No response.)

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If not, I thank

20 you all. And we stand adjourned.

21 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106 1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

2 matter went off the record at 12:47 p.m.)

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14