1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

TBD-6000 WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY,

APRIL 23, 2014

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened telephonically at 

10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Paul L. 

Ziemer, Chairman, presiding.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH

WANDA I. MUNN

JOHN W. POSTON, SR.
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

MONICA HARRISON-MAPLES, ORAU Team

DeKEELY HARTSFIELD, HHS

JOSH KINMAN, DCAS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

LaVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Welcome and Roll Call ..................... 4

Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co.

SEC Petition......................... 5

Site Profile........................ 45
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:31 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Let’s get started. It’s 

4 time.

5 This is the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health, TBD-6000 Work 

7 Group, we’re here today to talk about the Joslyn 

8 SEC and some Site Profile issues as well. 

9 And the agenda for the meeting is 

10 posted on the NIOSH website under the Board 

11 section, today’s date for a meeting, as well as 

12 the papers that are going to be discussed today. 

13 They should be all posted there, too. And all 

14 of the Board Members and staff should have all 

15 of those papers as well.

16 So let’s begin with roll call. I 

17 already know I have all of my Board Members, but 

18 we’re speaking about a specific site -- Joslyn 

19 -- so please speak to conflict of interest and 

20 let’s just run down the Board roll call please.

21 (Roll call.)
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then that’s it. 

2 Just remember, everyone, when you’re not 

3 speaking to mute your phones. It will improve 

4 the audio.

5 Paul, it’s your meeting.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

7 very much. Welcome, everyone.

8 As was already indicated, our focus 

9 today is on Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply. We 

10 are going to begin -- well, we will go down 

11 through the agenda. The first item, of course, 

12 is going to deal with the surrogate data issue 

13 report issue. And I think on this one we need 

14 to be prepared to make a recommendation to the 

15 Board at the upcoming meeting.

16 Then, we have the -- also the White 

17 Papers, two White Papers, from NIOSH, and I 

18 think everyone is aware that we don’t have 

19 official comments back from SC&A on those White 

20 Papers, although we just received some 

21 preliminary comments from John Mauro, and John 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can discuss those. And I think it’s fairly 

2 clear that SC&A would like a little more time 

3 to evaluate those White Papers, just to confirm 

4 some things. But we’ll go ahead and have an 

5 opportunity to discuss them to the extent we’re 

6 able today.

7 So let’s begin with the surrogate 

8 data report, and that report was prepared by Jim 

9 Neton and Dave Allen. And which of you is going 

10 to give us the overview on that?

11 DR. NETON: Actually, Paul, I think 

12 it was Sam -- Sam Glover is the lead author on 

13 that. I think --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Yes. 

15 Sorry, Sam. I’m hearing a lot of beeps here for 

16 some reason. That’s right. Sam, looking at 

17 it again, I see the three of you were on there. 

18 Sam, your name is first, so --

19 DR. GLOVER: You never know, first 

20 or last, right? Which one of them you --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I’m used to being 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 last. Okay.

2 DR. GLOVER: Exactly.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thanks, 

4 Sam. Please proceed.

5 DR. GLOVER: It depends on how much 

6 -- you know, I didn’t prepare a specific 

7 presentation. We certainly can walk through 

8 the main points. As you know, an SEC was -- two 

9 SECs were essentially done for this site, and 

10 it goes through 1943 up through mid-1948. And 

11 those were because of the types of machining and 

12 the location of the rolling mills and the 

13 thorium use at Joslyn.

14 Beginning in 1948, August 1st of 

15 1948, we believe that at that point in time the 

16 facility is -- we had data in ‘52. We believe 

17 that the data can be used to show that TBD-6000 

18 approaches are bounding. So that’s what -- we 

19 have prepared a report on surrogate data. We 

20 did use the Advisory Board format for this.

21 Let’s see. I probably should have 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- I figured that Bill would be online and would 

2 be kind of giving us the details. But let’s go 

3 through this and hit some of the high points and 

4 see what we can do. So, in ‘43, up until 

5 July 31st, 1948, that whole beginning of ‘48, 

6 they were Hanford’s main production. Simonds 

7 Saw and Steel did not come into play until after 

8 July 31st, 1948, as a serious production 

9 facility.

10 And so Joslyn actually rolled most 

11 of their uranium in that first half of ‘48. 

12 They did a substantial amount early in ‘43/’44 

13 for the Hanford reactors, and then they did 

14 machining and some rolling operations in the 

15 ’44/’45/’46 timeframe. In ‘48, they had a 

16 large, very high capacity, and they did a lot 

17 of stuff on the finish mill. And so they will 

18 finish rolling as well as using other mills, and 

19 they were doing these simultaneously; in some 

20 cases, three mills at the same time. They had 

21 three mills co-located. 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A nine-inch finishing mill was shown 

2 to be the very highest exposure point that was 

3 measured at Joslyn, even in the ’43/’44 

4 studies. We didn’t believe that the data was 

5 of good enough quality to really use for dose 

6 reconstruction. It was an electrostatic 

7 precipitation method. But even then, that 

8 nine-inch mill showed itself to be the bad 

9 actor.

10 And so we looked very carefully at 

11 the conditions that were detailed in all of the 

12 post-1948 data, August ‘48 data -- what kind of 

13 mills they were doing, what kind of work they 

14 were doing, what kind of measurements they had.

15 They continued throughout its 

16 entire history to do machining and rolling 

17 operations, and we detail that in the White 

18 Paper. We get into the surrogate data. We 

19 have no bioassay monitoring at the facility; we 

20 have only a handful of their samples on hand. 

21 But we have a significant study in ‘52. But up 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 until 1952, we really don’t have a lot of 

2 analytical data, and that is a HASL study that 

3 was done in the beginning of 1952, the 

4 time-weighted average studies.

5 So would you like me to walk through 

6 each of the different criteria, Paul? Would 

7 that be the best way to sort of walk through 

8 this? And then you guys can ask questions as we 

9 go or ask questions when we get to the end?

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We all have 

11 copies of the paper, and I think -- I don’t know 

12 that you have to read in detail the criteria, 

13 but you can just go by title, such as hierarchy 

14 of data and give your bottom line. And then I 

15 think we want to also hear back from SC&A when 

16 you finish and after we have taken questions 

17 from the Work Group to see if SC&A agrees with 

18 your conclusions.

19 I don’t know specific --

20 MR. KATZ: Paul, we just lost you. 

21 It’s your magical cell phone I think.
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I am back.

2 MR. KATZ: Go ahead.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was just saying 

4 that I think all we need to do is identify the 

5 issue, like hierarchy of data, and then briefly 

6 discuss your bottom line there. I also want 

7 SC&A to have a chance to comment on these. I 

8 don’t know that they’ve formally reviewed it, 

9 but we need to make sure that there is no issues 

10 that -- where there is disagreement.

11 So go ahead, Sam.

12 DR. GLOVER: Very good. We did 

13 certainly review the document that SC&A 

14 produced. They did have a -- sort of an 

15 evaluation of surrogate data, and so we did 

16 carefully look at that and the concerns that 

17 they still had, and made sure that did address 

18 everything.

19 So for hierarchy of data, as we 

20 discussed, there is no individual monitoring 

21 data for uranium, either external or internal, 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at Joslyn. We do have two -- after this 1948 

2 date, we have two data sets that were collected 

3 by HASL, a 1951 that is focused on machining 

4 operations, which is a fairly small study, and 

5 then in January of 1952 they had a substantial 

6 time-weighted average study where they really 

7 looked at a lot of machining and rolling 

8 operations.

9 And so we looked at that and decided 

10 that what we felt for a hierarchy of data, while 

11 we do have some air monitoring data, it would 

12 be more appropriate to use and evaluate where 

13 the TBD-6000 data can be extended back. Is it 

14 claimant-favorable? Is it -- does it provide 

15 the right range? And all of the other pieces. 

16 So that we want to make sure that we provide a 

17 reasonable but claimant-favorable intake 

18 assessment for the employees back to August 

19 1st, 1948.

20 So I think that summarizes where we 

21 left hierarchy of data.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any 

2 questions from the Board on that, or the Work 

3 Group?

4 (No response.)

5 SC&A?

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. Hi. It’s John. 

7 Yes. We agree, in fact, that this -- the date 

8 of I guess it was August/September ‘48 forward;

9 it is your classic TBD-6000 surrogate data 

10 approach. And we in our report that we put out 

11 -- I believe it was December of last year --

12 found favorably regarding that aspect of the 

13 surrogate data work. So, yes, we are 

14 supportive of that. We certainly will be 

15 getting to the question of the January 1st to 

16 I guess August ‘48 as being probably the heart 

17 of the matter that -- you know, to listen more 

18 about.

19 And before I -- there is a bit of a 

20 housekeeping question that maybe Ted or you 

21 folks could help me with. We put out a matrix 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a while ago with just our listing of our 

2 findings and our original review, but that’s 

3 where it stopped. SC&A -- I don’t believe 

4 NIOSH responded. So there was some question 

5 about having a matrix at this meeting, and all 

6 we really had was the original -- what I call 

7 the original matrix where only SC&A’s original 

8 findings are listed.

9 Am I correct that -- Sam, that the 

10 matrix itself was not filled out by NIOSH to 

11 sort of add in your comments on our comments? 

12 Or did I miss something?

13 DR. GLOVER: It became a bit, I 

14 believe, confusing in that we had a discussion 

15 in January where we -- we had some discussion 

16 back and forth and where pieces were and what

17 was left. So I guess from our side it wasn’t 

18 clear what things were still open when we had 

19 the Board meeting. Go ahead.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We closed Issues 

21 6 through 10 previously. Eight and 11 I 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe were also closed.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean -- this is 

3 Ted -- we don’t need to really discuss this 

4 right now, the matrix bit. But we did have --

5 made a lot of progress at that last meeting, and 

6 that was what was asked to be updated for the 

7 matrix.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes, my 

9 apologies. I did not do that. We will 

10 certainly catch up now and get all that 

11 straightened out. But I just want to --

12 because I was a little uncertain about where we 

13 stood there, and I know there was an expectation 

14 that we would have a matrix for today. Perhaps 

15 all for the best because so much has occurred 

16 with the amendment to the TBD and the two White 

17 Papers. That probably has a bearing on the 

18 matrix also. So in any event --

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, of course. We can 

20 just carry on. It’s not a --

21 DR. MAURO: Very good. Now, I just 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- I’m really doing it for myself, so I can get 

2 my bearings. But as far as where we are right 

3 now, yes, we agree with NIOSH’s position 

4 regarding the August 1948 and forward as being 

5 able to be reconstructed appropriately using 

6 surrogate data from TBD-6000.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 

8 I have a quick question.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, Josie.

10 MEMBER BEACH: For Sam, I guess. 

11 The surrogate data, how much did you guys 

12 utilize the Christafo -- I’m not saying that 

13 right -- and Harris, 1960 study?

14 DR. GLOVER: That is exactly what --

15 so that is the basis of the TBD-6000. I was a 

16 little less nonspecific than I should have 

17 been. We used the roller and machining 

18 operator categories, the operator --

19 specifically, the operator from each of those, 

20 to look at -- there are days where they only 

21 rolled. There are some days where they only 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 machined. There’s days where they did both.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

3 DR. GLOVER: Used the most 

4 favorable. But those -- as we will discuss 

5 here shortly, this was in the exclusivity 

6 constraints. Those are from the Christifano 

7 and Harris study in 1960, which looked at more 

8 than 60 complete surveys at over seven 

9 different AEC facilities, more than 20,000 dust 

10 samples, including operator breathing zone 

11 samples, and those go back all the way to the 

12 Simonds Saw, 1948. The very highest 

13 measurements for the rolling mill were from 

14 that. 

15 As we discussed with Bill and 

16 everyone last time, we did validate that those 

17 measurements -- the average -- the daily 

18 weighted averages are from the Simonds Saw and 

19 Steel, uncoated uranium directly from a --

20 basically, a heat -- a furnace, which is, you 

21 know, unlike some of the others that started 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 using lead.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: Sam, this is John. 

4 Again, you may be able to help me out a little 

5 bit here. Christifano and Harris, the 1960 

6 document has always been a document that we went 

7 to when you were dealing with uranium refining. 

8 And we always went to Harris and Kingsley, 1959, 

9 for when you are doing machining -- and I have 

10 to say that I thought -- in fact, one of our 

11 comments in our original report was we thought 

12 you may have misstated the reference you used.

13 So it may turn out there is more than 

14 one. I mean, so I just want to -- help me out 

15 a little bit. When you say you use Christifano 

16 and Harris, when I hear that I hear refining, 

17 not machining.

18 DR. GLOVER: It’s the machining 

19 document. If I made a mistake, then that was 

20 my fault, grabbing the reference that was -- it 

21 was -- carry-on.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay.

2 DR. GLOVER: So it may -- it very 

3 well could be a mistake on my part. We 

4 certainly used the Kingsley document.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think you may 

6 want to just confirm that I think it is Harris 

7 and Kingsley. Unless there is -- you know, 

8 there is a lot more to the Christifano and 

9 Harris, but I always thought of Christifano and 

10 Harris as the refining, you know, study. It 

11 might be worth checking that out.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 Christifano and Harris, the reference itself 

14 says uranium refining.

15 DR. MAURO: Right. That’s right, 

16 that’s right. And that does not apply to this 

17 circumstance. Joslyn is machining, which is 

18 Harris and Kingsley.

19 DR. GLOVER: That is correct, and I 

20 apologize for that mistake. That is certainly 

21 my -- my error as I pulled a reference from a 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 separate document. So that is certainly my 

2 error, because TBD-6000 is based on a specific 

3 reference. That was a summary from the HASL 

4 studies, not the refining base. That is 

5 correct.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, Sam, in the 

7 exclusivity constraints, which you kind of 

8 moved into anyway where you’re citing 

9 Christifano and Harris, what you’re saying is 

10 that that reference on page 4 should actually 

11 be Kingsley. Is that correct?

12 DR. GLOVER: Harris and Kingsley, 

13 yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. It’s actually 

15 on page 3 in the fourth paragraph, where I had 

16 a question.

17 DR. GLOVER: There was a change on 

18 -- the document that was posted to the website 

19 has a front page. The document that was 

20 provided to the Advisory Board does not. And 

21 so if you pull it from what we provided you, 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there could be a slight shift in page numbers. 

2 So I do apologize for any confusion that might 

3 be caused by that.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Josie, I 

5 think the paragraph -- we may be looking at the 

6 same paragraph.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Probably.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In any event, 

9 what that -- the paragraph starts, As discussed 

10 above --

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- A HASL -- yes, 

13 that’s the same -- yes, right. So that’s the 

14 reference that should be changed.

15 DR. GLOVER: It was unfortunate. 

16 What I -- there was a format, and I have -- this 

17 was -- you know, you’re trying to follow some 

18 pieces that Dave Allen had used, and I grabbed 

19 from his piece. He actually used the refining 

20 discussion, which is from Electro Met, which he 

21 used the appropriate reference. This is my --
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unfortunately, I was very sick last week, and 

2 I missed this error and --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

4 DR. GLOVER: So this is certainly my 

5 -- that was certainly my mistake in what the 

6 appropriate reference is. That is -- and 

7 TBD-6000 is certainly based on a particular 

8 document set, and that is really -- this 

9 certainly uses more than seven different 

10 facilities. They have Joslyn and many others, 

11 which now I recognize as I read that carefully. 

12 That was an extraction error on my part, though, 

13 when I was doing a formatting piece.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

15 Regardless, it’s --

16 DR. GLOVER: TBD-6000 basis for all 

17 of the studies that we have discussed over the 

18 last four or five years in TBD-6000, and the --

19 you know, the many, many thousands and 

20 thousands of dust samples and breathing zone 

21 samples that was part of that. We did confirm 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that that data set, the appropriate data set, 

2 the Kingsley study, doesn’t go back -- does go 

3 back to the Simonds Saw measurements of 1948.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 

5 Sam.

6 Well, let me ask you if there is any 

7 other questions on -- or, Sam, do you have any 

8 other comments on this second criteria, 

9 exclusivity constraints?

10 DR. GLOVER: Just a couple of 

11 points. You know, because it is a -- a range 

12 of data where there is actually a geometric mean 

13 and a distribution, so it’s not a singular 

14 number, but actually if you look at the -- the 

15 breadth of the -- you know, the 5th through the 

16 95th percentile, it ranges all the way up to 

17 35,000 picocuries per meter cubed, which vary. 

18 If you look at some of the other graphs that we 

19 had in the Evaluation Report, and even in the 

20 White Paper, you’ll see that the range of data 

21 covers all of the measurements that were 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conducted at Joslyn.

2 The time-weighted average for the 

3 nine-inch mill is higher than the geometric 

4 mean. And so -- but only for the nine-inch 

5 mill, and we discussed later that the finishing 

6 mill, this nine-inch mill, really saw a lot less 

7 use based on the type of work that they did in 

8 this post-August 1st, 1948, timeframe.

9 We believe that the range is well 

10 covered. However, between that -- the range 

11 covering, as well as the lesser usage, helps to 

12 provide that feeling that it is an appropriate 

13 process. And all of the other data matches up 

14 very well and is bounded by these operator 

15 categories.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. John 

17 Mauro, do you have any other comment on this 

18 issue?

19 DR. MAURO: Well, yes. Now we are 

20 in the one area where you may have noticed in 

21 my little -- that was actually -- the email that 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I distributed to everyone was actually an 

2 internal think piece by me to John Stiver and 

3 to Bill Thurber letting them know that I read 

4 the two papers, and I did have some places where 

5 I thought we needed to do a little homework.

6 This time period, January 1st 

7 through I guess the end of August ‘48, clearly 

8 was -- it sounds like it was an unusual time 

9 period, and right now I can’t say with 

10 confidence that there was -- as was just 

11 described, I would like to look at the data from 

12 TBD-6000, which I would be the first to admit, 

13 our experience with TBD-6000 is that it has 

14 always been high end. In other words, we have 

15 always found that, you know, whenever you have 

16 some real data from a real facility doing this 

17 kind of work, and you compare it to TBD-6000, 

18 TBD-6000 is always way above, at the high end, 

19 always claimant-favorable, deliberately.

20 But this sounds like a little bit of 

21 an unusual circumstance, and with regard to the 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 level of intensity of the rolling and perhaps 

2 machining operations that took place in that 

3 six-month, seven-month period, that I’d like to 

4 take a closer look at, because we never really 

5 got our magnifying glass out and looked at that 

6 pretty closely. That was one of our comments 

7 in fact in our original report. When we 

8 originally wrote it, we said, you know, we’re 

9 not too sure about, you know, whether TBD-6000 

10 really will do the trick for that time period.

11 So right now, where we are right now 

12 is that we would like to get a little closer look 

13 at that.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So from 

15 your point of view -- I’m trying to separate out 

16 the other White Papers from a surrogate data 

17 paper per se. And you’re saying that you still 

18 are -- you have some concerns about Criteria 2 

19 and whether it meets surrogate data criteria 

20 for that time period.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. There’s an 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 overlap of course between the White Papers and 

2 the surrogate data. So, I mean, we’re really 

3 killing two birds with one stone. In my mind, 

4 out of all of the things that we’re talking 

5 about whether it’s surrogate data or the White 

6 Paper, there is that window of time from January 

7 to I guess August 1948 where originally, as you 

8 recall, there was a sense that that should be 

9 covered in the SEC. But now, with the new 

10 material that we have, the White Paper, it says, 

11 well, when you take a real close look at it, it 

12 looks like that, no, the TBD-6000 data, coupled 

13 up with the 19 -- I guess some of the data that 

14 was collected from Joslyn, and you take a real 

15 close look at it, and your -- some is a 

16 time-weighted average, some is breathing zone. 

17 In other words, there is a richness here. I 

18 would hate to just walk away and say that that 

19 window is adequately covered, that time period, 

20 by TBD-6000. 

21 So right now, based on my review, as 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you saw in my little memo, that’s one area that 

2 I think SC&A needs to take a little closer look 

3 at. And that goes for the surrogate data 

4 issue, and of course when we talk about the 

5 White Papers.

6 DR. GLOVER: Can I make a brief 

7 clarification in that?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

9 DR. GLOVER: We added -- the 

10 Advisory Board added -- it will become official 

11 -- up through July 31st, 1948, for the exact 

12 reasons that you just mentioned, the very high 

13 rolling that happened, the very large 

14 production, and the multiple use of rolling 

15 mills. And also, still not properly changing 

16 over to AEC oversight. We still had Hanford 

17 oversight.

18 That entire high production period, 

19 up through July 31st, 1948, has been added to 

20 the SEC, which will become official in a few 

21 days. So August 1st, 1948, begins an entire 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 new period where we do not have any of this very 

2 high rolling. The largest annual production 

3 was 30 tons, and those were associated with the 

4 Canadian rolling processes that only used the 

5 18-inch mill specifically. I certainly 

6 appreciate your need to review those documents 

7 and look at those.

8 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim. I 

9 think you’re somewhat confused.

10 DR. MAURO: I am. I am confused, 

11 because I thought that you were reversing your 

12 position on that.

13 DR. NETON: No, no, no. We can’t. 

14 We already added the SEC -- we are specifically 

15 talking about after August 1948 now.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh. You know, I saw --

17 help me out a little bit here. In reading 

18 through the sequence of events, you know, the 

19 original SEC PER, and then there was this 

20 addendum, now it was my understanding that your 

21 latest White Paper, the one that just came out 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I guess on the 14th, was saying that you thought 

2 you could reconstruct the doses from January 

3 through August of 1948. Did I misunderstand 

4 that?

5 DR. NETON: Yes, definitely.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 DR. NETON: What we really need to 

8 accomplish here today is, after 1948, the Board 

9 specifically asked us to justify the use of 

10 surrogate data for the period after ‘48, after 

11 August of ‘48. That’s all we really need to 

12 focus on to put this issue to rest.

13 DR. MAURO: And I could tell you 

14 that we looked at that, even the original, and 

15 we felt that you had a strong position. It was 

16 the time period before August that we were 

17 questioning. And I have to say, you know, I 

18 read -- I read the addendum, and I read those 

19 White Papers. I’ve got to say, take another 

20 look at that, because it sure sounded to me that 

21 you were recommending that the -- that you not 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 grant the SEC from the 1st of January through 

2 the -- through August of --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, the Board 

4 already did that, though. The Board already 

5 granted that at the last meeting.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 DR. GLOVER: I would clarify what --

8 in the White Paper --

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. I --

10 DR. GLOVER: -- you could see the 

11 entire dose reconstruction process, including 

12 the period we added as an SEC. So that way you 

13 could see how we were using the thorium dose. 

14 Bill and you guys had expressed at the last 

15 discussion in January to see how we did business 

16 the whole time.

17 So what we provided you in the White 

18 Paper is dose reconstruction beginning in 1943 

19 with -- as best as we can. We are doing 

20 external dose. We’re doing the thorium

21 external dose. But we are not doing any 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal dose for uranium until August 1st, 

2 1948.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Yes. I did 

4 not -- when I read this over the weekend, I did 

5 not get it right.

6 DR. NETON: I was concerned that 

7 might happen. What you have here is a 

8 justification for surrogate data after ‘48. 

9 The other papers are Site Profile issue papers. 

10 They have nothing to do with the SEC at all.

11 DR. MAURO: Oh. I see where you’re 

12 going. I see. So are you saying that where 

13 you feel that, though the SEC has been granted 

14 up through August of ‘48, you still feel that, 

15 you know, when you do have to do a dose 

16 reconstruction, because the person isn’t 

17 covered -- skin cancer, et cetera -- you’re 

18 saying that the method -- that you do plan to 

19 assign the doses using TBD-6000.

20 DR. NETON: Well, external doses.

21 DR. MAURO: But not internal, for 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium.

2 DR. NETON: No. It can’t be 

3 uranium. You can’t do it.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. Because I got 

5 that from thorium, but I did not get that 

6 message for uranium. 

7 DR. NETON: I don’t think we ever 

8 talked about reconstructing uranium in the SEC 

9 period, unless we have bioassay data, which we 

10 don’t.

11 DR. GLOVER: We specifically said 

12 it was only if we had specific records would we 

13 reconstruct internal dose.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 DR. GLOVER: If we happen to find a 

16 worker with bioassay records, which we don’t 

17 believe ever occurred at Joslyn. Otherwise, 

18 we would not be allowed to.

19 DR. MAURO: So those White Papers 

20 which I read, I guess I’d better take another 

21 look at it, are -- in fact, what I thought I 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 read, I got it wrong you’re saying. I thought 

2 I read that you felt that you could reconstruct 

3 internal doses from uranium now -- not thorium, 

4 from uranium, you know, for January through 

5 August. You’re saying that I misread it.

6 DR. NETON: Absolutely.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you.

8 DR. GLOVER: And I will tell you 

9 where you can just real quickly see the summary, 

10 John. If you look at the dose summary from the 

11 example DR, it talks about the internal dose and 

12 none is assigned up until you get to 1948.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: So, you know, that 

15 was really to provide a couple of things. I 

16 basically -- Jim told me I took 20 pages to say 

17 we are using the machining operator category 

18 for everybody, and to make sure that we were 

19 very clear that -- on how we were going to dose 

20 reconstruction the whole time.

21 DR. MAURO: And that begins in 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 August of ‘48.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: For internal dose, 

3 yes.

4 DR. MAURO: For internal dose. Oh, 

5 okay. Good. I’m sorry for any confusion I 

6 caused.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I understand 

8 in the memo that you sent out that was 

9 distributed this morning, in your third 

10 paragraph now I understand that you -- you 

11 refreshed my memory what that was about. Okay. 

12 Got you.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now, so 

15 let me rephrase then. So returning to the 

16 hierarchy of data criterion, did that change 

17 what you’re saying then? Because you were 

18 focusing on this seven-month period I think.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. No, no, 

20 everything changes now. I mean, we are --

21 right now we are very supportive of the 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 surrogate data, TBD-6000, beginning in August 

2 and going forward. The only time I brought up 

3 the issue was earlier than that, but obviously 

4 that’s a non-issue.

5 We are not going to be -- so that is 

6 not an issue that is on the table. So, you 

7 know, my concerns in my email there just please 

8 disregard that.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, let 

10 me see if I can streamline things. Let me ask 

11 about the other three criteria, then. Is there 

12 already agreement then on the other two 

13 criteria, or do we need to go through them in 

14 detail, and do Board B Work Group Members have 

15 questions on them?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 

17 I’m just --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

19 MEMBER BEACH: -- because I reread 

20 that paper twice trying to find out the dates 

21 John was talking about, so I feel much better 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 now.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Right. 

3 Okay. The other three criteria are the site 

4 and process similarities that are under 

5 consideration, and plausibility. SC&A, did 

6 you have any issues with any of those?

7 DR. MAURO: No. No. Quite 

8 frankly, we are only left with one matter that 

9 probably needs to be looked at, and that has to 

10 do with external dose from thorium and the MCNP 

11 runs.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

13 DR. MAURO: And things reduce down 

14 to something very simple now.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

16 DR. NETON: John, we’re not doing 

17 external -- that’s not part of the SEC 

18 determination.

19 DR. GLOVER: We only did thorium in 

20 1946 and ‘47. So it’s already covered in the 

21 SEC --
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: That’s a Site Profile 

2 issue, John.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So, I 

4 thought we were covering the full -- you know, 

5 the full --

6 DR. NETON: Well, I would like to 

7 focus first on getting this SEC determination 

8 closed, if we could. And then we can move on 

9 to the Site Profile, as to whether or not to --

10 DR. MAURO: No problem. I covered 

11 the full territory. I’m fine with that. I see 

12 where you are right now regarding these 

13 matters, and it’s only SEC. And as far as I 

14 understand it, you have agreed that the SEC goes 

15 up through I believe August 1948 and the reasons 

16 have to do with inability to reconstruct 

17 internal doses, both from thorium and uranium, 

18 up to that time period. Is that a correct 

19 statement? 

20 DR. GLOVER: Yes, certainly up to --

21 you know, there is only two operations that used 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium, and we have stated at those times that 

2 we cannot reconstruct those doses for internal 

3 dose.

4 DR. MAURO: One issue -- we are okay 

5 there. One issue -- bear in mind that I got 

6 this on Friday, and I did the best I could. 

7 Obviously, it wasn’t good enough, but it -- I 

8 do have a question on thorium residual. 

9 Now, thorium operations that took 

10 place in ‘47 was an AWE operation, covered by 

11 the SEC of course, because it covered that 

12 period. It was thorium and AWE operation, and, 

13 therefore, would not you have to also 

14 reconstruct the thorium residual period? I 

15 believe your White Papers are silent on that.

16 DR. GLOVER: I believe we mention --

17 and I have to -- first, there was only two 

18 operations; they used like five bars each, 

19 about 200 pounds, versus the 600 tons of uranium 

20 that went through this facility.

21 There is no measured thorium at the 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 site in the residual contamination stuff. 

2 They have done isotopics. You don’t see 

3 anything compared to uranium.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay.

5 DR. GLOVER: But there is very 

6 little dose or very little uranium either. But 

7 it was also they were done in a centerless 

8 grinder, which is a wet process. And so it just 

9 really doesn’t produce that kind of 

10 contamination, John.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. So your position 

12 is that from a residual period -- I understand 

13 that there are these in-between time periods 

14 when there is no rolling that you have -- that 

15 you have exposures during operations, you have 

16 exposures when -- when there are no rolling 

17 going on. And as I understand it, you used a 

18 classic OTIB-70 approach.

19 The only question I guess I had is, 

20 because I think you were silent on this, is that 

21 there were -- the thorium operation ceased in 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ‘47. Therefore, there -- you know, and it’s 

2 your position that there really is no residual 

3 thorium subsequent to that based on the 

4 argument you just made.

5 As best I can tell from reading the 

6 White Papers, I did not notice -- I didn’t see 

7 where that argument was made. I may have 

8 missed it. But your position is --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It’s in there, 

10 John. The argument -- those were wet 

11 operations. I think it’s in the report.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. And they were 

13 small operations, and there was nothing 

14 residual. In other words, there was no need to 

15 reconstruct internal thorium post-1948.

16 DR. GLOVER: That is our position, 

17 yes.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me get back 

20 now to this surrogate data report. Are we all 

21 in agreement that we have met the criteria on 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the surrogate data?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 

3 I just want to say that the -- in my opinion, 

4 the report was very detailed and it did meet all 

5 of the criteria, and so I have no questions on 

6 it.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I want to 

8 make sure SC&A -- I think I heard you say, John, 

9 you’re fine with that.

10 DR. MAURO: I’m fine with that. 

11 Right. It was my misunderstanding regarding 

12 that early time period in ‘48 that caused the 

13 confusion.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda or 

15 John Poston, do either of you have any concerns 

16 or questions on the surrogate data issues? 

17 Remember, if you’re both on mute, I’m not 

18 hearing anything.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Can you hear me now?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There you are.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Hello?
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I’m sorry.

3 Yes. I have no questions at all. 

4 In my view, these papers, as well as the 

5 previous discussions three days ago, cover the 

6 issue very thoroughly, and there is no question 

7 in my mind that TBD-6000 certainly is 

8 claimant-friendly, almost to a fault. And by 

9 taking the position that every individual that 

10 is going to be reconstructed is going to be 

11 considered to be an operator is extremely 

12 claimant-favorable. I think it has been well 

13 done, and, yes, I have no -- no problems with 

14 the positions that have been taken.

15 MEMBER POSTON: I’m fine, Paul. I 

16 have nothing to contribute. What’s been done 

17 is great.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Then, I 

19 believe we have consensus. We can go on record 

20 to the full Board indicating that the Work 

21 Group, in conjunction with NIOSH and SC&A, 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe that the surrogate data criteria have 

2 been met in this case.

3 Let me ask, Ted, do we need to get 

4 formal Board action, or simply report that?

5 MR. KATZ: So, Paul, I’m just 

6 thinking -- I mean, Sam is going to make --

7 right, Sam is going to make a presentation to 

8 the Board about the surrogate data analysis. 

9 And it seems to me you don’t -- Paul, you don’t 

10 need a formal presentation in this case, 

11 because it’s --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. I’m just 

13 asking if we have to make a recommendation.

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, you absolutely do. 

15 Yes, please.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So after Sam’s 

17 presentation, it will simply suffice if I say 

18 that it has been reviewed also by SC&A and the 

19 Work Group, and we agree that the criteria have 

20 been met and we recommend that the Board approve 

21 that.
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. Absolutely. And 

2 then the Board will have a motion before it. 

3 Right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That’s 

5 what we will do.

6 Okay. We’re ready to go on to the 

7 Site Profile and the White Papers. I believe 

8 we are, unless there is any further questions 

9 on that. We have had two White Papers. We’ll 

10 start with the first one on external dose from 

11 thorium metal machining. Sam, are you doing 

12 that one as well? Or is Dave going to do that 

13 for you?

14 DR. GLOVER: Dave and I sort of --

15 if Dave Allen is on, he certainly can talk about 

16 what was done. He actually started this 

17 process, so --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, you guys --

19 DR. NETON: Sam, I think you ought 

20 to take charge on that one. I don’t know if 

21 Dave is available right now.
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. GLOVER: Very good. So what 

2 Dave did, you know, we said that as part of our 

3 TBD-6000 approach to doing dose construction 

4 during the SEC, that we could do the external 

5 dose for thorium. I believe we could do the 

6 internal as part of the SEC. 

7 So what Dave -- he looked at the 

8 record, what kind of thorium rods that were 

9 used. There’s only two instances. And looked 

10 at those actual measurements, which turned out 

11 to be -- shows a -- you know, there’s a couple 

12 of different variations. A 50-inch rod with a 

13 radius of 1-7/8 inch, thorium metal has a known 

14 density of about 11.7 grams. And then you have 

15 to make a decision on equilibrium and so Dave 

16 chose to use 100 percent equilibrium with all 

17 of the progeny. So that’s all the way through 

18 thorium-228, radium-228, all those things in 

19 complete equilibrium, which obviously takes, 

20 realistically, 50 years to happen. But 

21 because you don’t know the chemistry, what 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 might have went through the system, it’s not 

2 going to get any worse than 100 percent 

3 equilibrium.

4 So this is full equilibrium with all 

5 of the progeny, and we used essentially a 

6 TBD-6000 external dose approach where you have 

7 the rod and you model that at the different dose 

8 -- you know, the doses from electrons and 

9 bremsstrahlung and photon dose from those --

10 from all of those different progeny and 

11 thorium-232, and determine what the various 

12 dose categories are.

13 And so we used the latest and 

14 greatest, MCNP-6, to do that, so that was 

15 actually just redone recently. And we have 

16 provided all of the input files and output 

17 files.

18 And one of our assumptions was part 

19 of the issue they -- they -- when they did this 

20 was it was difficult to exactly tell how many 

21 days they were onsite. They were sort of 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 learning how to deal with this. It wasn’t as 

2 straight as they were hoping. They were making 

3 these for I believe Hanford, and so they -- they 

4 straightened and centerless-ground these 

5 things repeatedly to get the -- basically the 

6 dimensions and the straightness they were 

7 looking for.

8 And so the other consideration is we 

9 chose to use two and a half days of being onsite, 

10 so they did take a lot of time working through 

11 this to try to figure out exactly, you know, how 

12 to handle it. So we were -- for these six rods, 

13 even though they were done multiple times, we 

14 chose to do it for two and a half days. Again, 

15 this is only 1946 and 1947, just one instance 

16 in each year, so very limited campaigns.

17 It turned out to be about -- if you 

18 look at the whole body dose, on Table 3, and so 

19 about 52 millirem in a 24-hour period. It 

20 turns out that two and a half days at the number 

21 of work hours per day from those time periods 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 equates to 24 hours of actual operations. So 

2 that’s why you will see that 24-hour dose rate.

3 So in that time for each -- for both 

4 1946 and 1947, there are 52 millirem dose whole 

5 body, beta whole body was 16 millirem, and beta 

6 hands and forearms was 120.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me see 

8 if -- let’s focus on just this particular paper. 

9 John Mauro, to what extent do you feel like you 

10 are okay on this one, or have -- do you need to 

11 confirm any of the runs, or where do you guys 

12 stand on this?

13 DR. MAURO: You know, the situation 

14 we’re in is we haven’t run thorium. So I guess 

15 my reaction is that we’d like to check the 

16 numbers. On two levels, one, that we get the 

17 same flux and, you know, exposure rate for beta 

18 and gamma as a function of distance from these 

19 different geometries, and also the assumptions 

20 you’ve made regarding exposure duration.

21 You know, we really are not in a 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 position where we could -- certainly what I’m 

2 hearing is you ran MCNP and that is exactly what 

3 we would do. But it’s up to certainly the Work 

4 Group whether you would like us to check those 

5 numbers to see if we get the same values.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, there is 

7 two parts to this. One is very mechanical, you 

8 know, so did they plug them in right. That can 

9 always be checked. I would be more concerned 

10 if you had issues on any of the assumptions that 

11 are made in terms of the distances, or 

12 certainly, worst case, on the equilibrium have 

13 been taken, but, you know, any of the underlying 

14 assumptions raise concerns.

15 DR. MAURO: I can’t say they do, but 

16 I have to also admit that, you know, as I said, 

17 I just read through them and I see what was done. 

18 I cannot speak to whether or not the distances 

19 and durations of exposures -- and also MCNP is 

20 not that straightforward. I know that our 

21 folks are very specialized that do those runs, 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and, you know, so I’m afraid I really cannot say 

2 that, you know, oh, we could agree that, yes, 

3 that’s a reasonable analysis without actually 

4 checking it.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Hey, Paul, this is 

7 Josie. A question for John Mauro. Does the 

8 dust loading play into this also, or is that 

9 strictly on the other -- the other White Paper?

10 DR. MAURO: The dust loading 

11 related to thorium would be part of the SEC 

12 period. What -- so, in other words, right now 

13 there is an SEC granted up through the time 

14 period where the thorium was being machined and 

15 handled.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: So it’s covered by the 

18 SEC. In fact, I believe it’s one of the reasons 

19 an SEC was granted. As far as now we’re talking 

20 external exposure, that is a completely 

21 different problem, a much simpler problem, 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which is very amenable to classic physics 

2 calculations of the type MCNP does.

3 So to answer your question, I don’t 

4 think dust loading is an issue, because it’s 

5 covered by the SEC. And the plan from a Site 

6 Profile point of view is there is a protocol 

7 being put forth for doing external exposure 

8 from the thorium rods. And we’d have to check 

9 that. I mean, I just cannot say here that we 

10 agree with those numbers.

11 I would say that it is -- the actual 

12 mechanics of running MCNP, we’d have our 

13 specialists run it, but the bigger question of 

14 course would be, do we agree with the duration 

15 of exposures and the distances from the various 

16 I guess rods or whatever was being handled? 

17 And that’s something we normally would check 

18 out in a typical review of this type.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is really 

20 what I was asking. I think the bottom line here 

21 right at the moment is you guys haven’t had 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really a chance to look at this in any detail 

2 yet, since you just got it a couple --

3 DR. MAURO: That’s correct. We 

4 just received this.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. But at 

6 least you are seeing the approach here, and 

7 we’re going to have the same thing on the other 

8 one but we’ll go through it. I’m just kind of 

9 looking ahead here. I think, Ted, in terms of 

10 reporting to the Board, we are -- it is clear 

11 we are going to have to report that we have --

12 SC&A hasn’t had a chance to fully review these 

13 White Papers. So we can’t take any specific 

14 action at this point, or it’s going to have to 

15 be delayed.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. And I don’t 

17 think the Board is even expecting the Site 

18 Profile work to be finished.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So right now it’s 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a matter of making us aware of what the issues 

2 are and much more detailed on how everybody is 

3 going to look at the other paper, which is the 

4 dose reconstruction methods. 

5 Is Mutty on the line? I didn’t 

6 catch whether he was. Or who is going to 

7 present this one?

8 DR. GLOVER: I’ll walk through it, 

9 Paul.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

11 DR. GLOVER: So it’s -- you know, 

12 it’s a pretty classic TBD-6000 approach. We --

13 you know, basically using the rolling -- or it’s 

14 probably easiest to look at -- I’m going to 

15 revert back to for you guys -- let’s see, it will 

16 just take a second while I go back to the right 

17 tables.

18 If you look at Table B.2, which would 

19 be on page 16, I think that summarizes things 

20 fairly well. I’ll give you guys a second to get 

21 to that. And just let me know, Paul, when you 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 might --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I have it. Let’s 

3 see if the others have it.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You’re not 

7 putting it up on the --

8 DR. GLOVER: No. Unfortunately, 

9 we are not in a Live Meeting. At least --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh.

11 DR. GLOVER: So I’m just going to 

12 walk through this, but I think it’s pretty --

13 if you look at the inhalation and ingestion 

14 rates from ‘43 through July 31st, 1948, you can 

15 see that there is no intakes. There is no --

16 this is certainly in the SEC period.

17 The nice thing about this table, 

18 there is a lot of information in this White 

19 Paper that describes what days we chose and, you 

20 know, how many days, different this and that. 

21 This sort of summarizes when we have -- or how 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 many rolling days are there that are rolling 

2 days, how many machining days, and how many days 

3 are paired? So like in 1945, there were 54 

4 days. They were rolling and machining in all 

5 of those.

6 And so for those we would choose a 

7 machining operator category. Obviously, 

8 there is no internal dose and so both the 

9 machining and rolling operator, if you go to 

10 TBD-6000, have the same external dose.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

12 DR. GLOVER: So this is -- we are 

13 using the surrogate data from TBD-6000 to 

14 assign intake. So if you have a rolling day, 

15 and only rolling happened, we would assign a 

16 rolling day, because you would have had to have 

17 been in a rolling mill to get exposed. That 

18 would have had to have been part of that.

19 If there is only machining going on 

20 -- this is after August 1st, 1948 -- if there 

21 is only machining on those days, well, then you 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had it in a machine shop to get exposed. And 

2 if both are going on, then we would have used 

3 the higher of the two internal -- internal 

4 estimates, which would be machining. 

5 Machining operator gets a higher dose than a 

6 rolling operator in TBD-6000.

7 We would also -- from a consistency 

8 standpoint, they have the same external dose. 

9 You then have to calculate how many 

10 non-operational days occurred during that 

11 timeframe. And based on the values from, you 

12 know, the generation of dust from the -- because 

13 you have to be consistent. It becomes awkward 

14 to go back and forth between the machining and 

15 rolling operations. You have to generate 

16 dust, which contaminates the facility.

17 The residual is not the correct 

18 term, but between rolling days, we certainly 

19 account for those, and we can talk about what 

20 those numbers are. But that is -- in general, 

21 we assign dose for both the -- between rolling 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and machining days, as well as, you know, 

2 ingestion, inhalation, and external dose from 

3 the contamination at the facility in addition 

4 to the operating days.

5 So I think Table B.2 gives you a nice 

6 summary of the flavor of things. And 

7 subsequent to that, you can see -- let’s go to 

8 -- let’s just walk through some of the different 

9 pieces. Let’s go back to the beginning, after 

10 we sort of talked about things backwards. 

11 Let’s kind of go through internal dose at 

12 Joslyn. I’m going to start with page -- I think 

13 everybody has the same copy of this. Page 2. 

14 So we have, you know, used, as we discussed, the 

15 operating -- the operator as the dose 

16 reconstruction category for both rolling and 

17 machining. 

18 We haven’t chosen to subcategorize 

19 because we had back-extrapolated that we are 

20 able to do dose reconstruction, and then we sort 

21 of discussed that in the surrogate data. We 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make sure that we emphasize that there, so that 

2 there is no question on how we are going to do 

3 dose reconstruction. Obviously, we do not do 

4 internal dose until August 1st, 1948. 

5 On page 3, we summarize the method 

6 of dose reconstruction. You can see in Table 

7 B.6 what the rolling and machining operations 

8 -- they are based on a single shift per day. 

9 And based on all of our reading, there are some 

10 long days where they did 16 hours’ straight 

11 operations, but they were in multiple shifts.

12 So we certainly do recognize that, 

13 but the employee was also only present during 

14 that time. And TBD-6000 contamination is 

15 essentially at I think 30 days, 24 hours a day, 

16 they take the air concentration, and so it 

17 accounts for even those long days that happen 

18 at Joslyn.

19 As we discussed, the employment 

20 period, we look at the number of days that was 

21 rolled and machined, and we assign then the 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 intake rates from TBD-6000, Table 7.8 and 7.9. 

2 And though they have to be converted -- you guys 

3 are very familiar with this -- from 365 to 251 

4 work days per year, so -- and then they have to 

5 be assigned as intakes. We are assuming 

6 operator -- go ahead.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I have a question 

8 on that particular one. So where you have the 

9 intake rates based on a 365-day year, and maybe 

10 I’m understanding this incorrectly, but it 

11 looks like the conversion factor should be the 

12 other way around. Am I missing --

13 DR. GLOVER: You have to convert it 

14 twice to make it complicated. But it isn’t 

15 365-and -- it’s per day for 365 days right now. 

16 But because we have to account for operating 

17 days versus -- machining and operating days 

18 versus non-operating days, you have to be in the 

19 250-day period, and then you have to convert it 

20 back to a per 365-day intake. But we do need 

21 to come back to a --
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, wait a 

2 minute. 

3 DR. GLOVER: -- how much --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So --

5 DR. GLOVER: -- on an operating day, 

6 which is per 250 work days.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you’re taking 

8 -- well, you’re taking the intake rate and 

9 you’re increasing it by a factor of one point 

10 something. Is that correct? In the 365 over 

11 250 --

12 DR. GLOVER: That is correct. You 

13 know, in the actual days when an intake occurred 

14 on that operating day, they actually -- that’s 

15 when they got that intake.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

17 DR. GLOVER: The actual work day. 

18 And then you say, A-Okay. Let’s say he only 

19 worked 50 days in that timeframe. At almost 50 

20 days, his exposure rate was whatever TBD-6000 

21 says times 365 divided by 250. So that would 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 give us this 50-day intake.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, I --

3 DR. GLOVER: And then we would then 

4 have to divide that over a 365-day period, so 

5 we could apply that to IMBA.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

7 DR. GLOVER: So you are basically 

8 converting it twice just to get it --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I gotcha.

10 DR. GLOVER: -- in the right units.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Gotcha. Okay.

12 DR. GLOVER: Yes. I’m sorry. 

13 That’s -- it’s an area that actually -- you’ve 

14 got to be very careful with it. It’s an easy 

15 thing to flip when you’re trying to go through 

16 an Excel sheet.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

18 DR. GLOVER: Which, of course, we 

19 did provide. So SC&A has access to all of that 

20 in the --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We’ll double 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 check that. It wasn’t obvious when we looked 

2 at that originally.

3 MEMBER MUNN: It is really 

4 confusing.

5 DR. GLOVER: It absolutely is. 

6 Absolutely.

7 I did want to make sure we point out 

8 that we -- we did use the resuspension factor 

9 of one times 10 to the minus fifth. I know that 

10 was a -- sort of a change to the historic 

11 TBD-6000 approach, and so we have used a more 

12 conservative value for resuspension.

13 It results, for Joslyn, in an intake 

14 rate for inhalation of 558 picocuries per 

15 non-operational work day based on the 

16 contamination of the facility, calculated --

17 the calculated contamination of a facility.

18 Now, for each non-operational day, 

19 the ingestion rates are equal to the ingestion 

20 rates for machining during the operational 

21 period. I guess this is also a TBD-6000 change 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that has occurred. So this results in an 

2 intake of 588 picocuries per non-operational 

3 work day prior to '51 and 539 from ‘51 forward. 

4 Obviously, there is a change in 

5 TBD-6000 in the assumptions on the number of 

6 hours that are worked, as you break into 1951. 

7 MR. SHARFI: Sam, this is Mutty. I 

8 just wanted to correct -- that’s a change to 

9 OCAS TIB-9.

10 DR. GLOVER: Okay.

11 MR. SHARFI: Not 6000. This is 

12 Mutty Sharfi.

13 DR. GLOVER: Thanks, Mutty.

14 MEMBER MUNN: It certainly ought to 

15 be bounding.

16 DR. MAURO: This is John. I do have 

17 an observation here that -- I noticed that you 

18 are developing this application of TBD-6000 at 

19 a level of granularity that I haven’t seen 

20 before. Let me explain.

21 TBD-6000, as you all know, is this 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matrix that allows you to identify job 

2 category, whether he’s an operator or a 

3 supervisor or a clerk, and the kind of 

4 operation, whether we’re talking rolling 

5 operations or machining operations. So you 

6 have this matrix. And there is also I think a 

7 time element in there also, when was it done. 

8 Now, our experience in reviewing 

9 many, many AWE applications where TBD-6000 is 

10 used, I noticed that whenever there was any 

11 question you always went to centerless grinding 

12 operator. In other words, the worst possible 

13 case. You get the highest dust loading and the 

14 highest potential for inhalation exposure when 

15 you assume it’s a centerless grinder, which is 

16 the machining -- it’s called machining, but 

17 what Harris and Kingsley does is it -- in the 

18 end, they say, AWell, there’s a lot of different 

19 kinds of machining. We’re going to use the 

20 centerless grinding machining, which is 5,000 

21 dpm, per cubic meter,@ on that order. It’s a 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very high number. That represents what you 

2 could say is a plausible bounding associated 

3 with machining operation, because it’s 

4 actually dealing with centerless grinding 

5 machining, which is limiting.

6 Now, in the past, SC&A has always 

7 found very favorably with the way in which you 

8 have been applying TBD-6000 to the myriad of AWE 

9 operations, because you have always -- you 

10 know, unless it was an unusual circumstance, 

11 you have always defaulted to that bounding 

12 circumstance, and we felt that was always 

13 claimant-favorable, quite claimant-favorable.

14 But here we have a circumstance 

15 where you are developing a level of 

16 granularity, as I understand what you just 

17 described, where you start to parse people and 

18 time periods between, let’s say, rolling 

19 operation versus cutting operation versus 

20 machining or centerless grinding operations 

21 and saying, you know, who is going to get what 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when.

2 It seems to be -- now, you may very 

3 well have good reason to be able to feel that 

4 you could parse it at that level of granularity, 

5 and that’s fine, if you can. But I’m just 

6 surprised to hear that you are taking it to that 

7 level. You usually keep it fairly simple, 

8 without trying to, you know, gild the lily so 

9 to speak.

10 DR. GLOVER: I think, John, part of 

11 it is, you know, if you go after ‘48, if you go 

12 back to that Table B.2, you’ll note that we do 

13 have very -- it’s very specific on what days 

14 we’re machining. You know, they only machined 

15 on those days. After 8/1/48, you have not a lot 

16 of machining going on. They were doing very 

17 specific rolling operations mostly for the 

18 joint stability program with the AEC and AEC 

19 Canada.

20 And so it was very specific, and it 

21 seemed appropriate to -- you know, that they are 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 rolling -- that they are doing both. We 

2 assumed, worst case, go ahead, yes, absolutely 

3 use -- this is the machining operation and --

4 but if we know it’s only rolling contractually, 

5 and they describe it very clearly that’s all 

6 they did, it seems appropriate to use the 

7 rolling mill.

8 DR. MAURO: But there was always 

9 cutting going on. And I noticed cutting 

10 operation was worse than rolling, but not as bad 

11 as centerless grinding. And I presume cutting 

12 was always going on, you know, cutting the ends.

13 So did you factor that in, or do you 

14 just go strictly rolling versus machining?

15 DR. GLOVER: You know, none of the 

16 operations, from cutting or any other, were 

17 even close at Joslyn to what the rolling mill 

18 produced. The centerless grinders were wet. 

19 We sort of back-extrapolated and said, A-Okay. 

20 We’re going to take that claimant-favorable 

21 approach and use the machining operation as a 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bounding.@

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 DR. GLOVER: And so when we 

4 considered it, it didn’t really -- I don’t think 

5 any of those operations met with the centerless 

6 grinding -- met our straightener kind of 

7 numbers.

8 DR. MAURO: And I agree with you. 

9 In looking at your material, for those on the 

10 phone, you know, when you look at Harris and 

11 Kingsley, and they talk about machining and

12 centerless grinding and rolling, they have 

13 always picked the worst-case circumstances 

14 where you had very little controls over 

15 ventilation, over cooling. In other words, 

16 they drove it to a position where it certainly 

17 couldn’t be much worse.

18 And, clearly, the kinds of 

19 descriptive material of both your rolling and 

20 your machining operations at Joslyn did have a 

21 degree of coolant, ventilation, so you -- so I’m 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 trying to, you know, be fair-handed here. I 

2 agree with what you’re saying. That is, even 

3 when you did assume, let’s say, centerless 

4 grinding, machining, and you did use the 

5 default values in TBD-6000, that probably is 

6 quite claimant-favorable, given that there was 

7 quite a bit of controls implemented, which 

8 would have reduced the dust loading as compared 

9 to what TBD-6000 defaults to.

10 All I would say is -- from SC&A’s 

11 perspective is, again, after reading it, and 

12 the way in which you parse things, it would be, 

13 I feel more comfortable saying let’s take a look 

14 at that, you know, the story that’s being told, 

15 how the parsing is done with regard to 

16 operations and the different kinds of 

17 operations. 

18 And I also -- when you dealt with the 

19 accumulation on the time periods when there 

20 were no operations, this in-between time, where 

21 you have the accumulation of dust. I realize 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that that contribution is generally small 

2 compared to the actual operation, did you 

3 assume the dust loading in the air that’s 

4 responsible for the deposition and 

5 accumulation on surfaces, did you assume that 

6 that dust loading -- did you parse that, too? 

7 That is, okay, this time period for, 

8 let’s say, inactivity, the dust loading we have 

9 there would be due to a rolling operation, while 

10 there might be another one that might be due to 

11 machining operations. So it would be -- was 

12 the residual resuspension scenarios also 

13 parsed at that level of granularity?

14 DR. GLOVER: I’m going to let Mutty 

15 -- because I -- we wore him out. I think he did 

16 these calculations three times in the last week 

17 after we went through some minor changes. So, 

18 Mutty, do you want to go ahead and respond to 

19 our residual --

20 MR. SHARFI: Sure. The 

21 non-operational period is all based on 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 machining, since the machining is the most 

2 claimant-favorable. And because you’re going 

3 back and forth, it would be hard for us to say 

4 which area of non-operational period that that 

5 worker would have been in. So all of the 

6 non-operational period is based on machining.

7 And on top of that we didn’t even 

8 take in account for any kind of OTIB-70 

9 depletion of the material, so it’s all assumed 

10 to be -- once it’s there, it’s the constant over 

11 time.

12 DR. MAURO: And you hold that, and 

13 you let it accumulate for 30 days.

14 MR. SHARFI: Yes. We’ll building 

15 it up over 30 days, and then holding it constant 

16 for the rest of the time period. We’re --

17 DR. MAURO: I like it a lot. Thank 

18 you for answering the question. And it is the 

19 way to do this to keep it simple and 

20 claimant-favorable. So that part of parsing 

21 you didn’t -- you went with the limiting 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scenario, which I -- I can say right now that, 

2 you know, we -- I think we should probably check 

3 the numbers, you know, make sure the arithmetic 

4 is right and that it does follow OTIB-70 

5 philosophy. But that sounds like the right --

6 you know, I would agree that that’s the right 

7 way to go.

8 MR. SHARFI: We didn’t use OTIB-70. 

9 No depletion was applied in here.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, no. I’m just 

11 talking about the .00075 meters per second 

12 accumulating for 30 days.

13 MR. SHARFI: Okay. Yes, that’s 

14 more 6000 than OTIB-70.

15 DR. MAURO: Okay. I may have 

16 crossed the wires there. Okay?

17 DR. GLOVER: They are both 

18 interrelated so much, John, that there is a lot 

19 of crossover there.

20 DR. MAURO: So on that respect, I 

21 guess just to react from SC&A’s perspective, I 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really like what I’m hearing regarding 

2 residual. I also like what I hear regarding 

3 the operations post-, you know, 1948, August.

4 I would -- but I do think we have an 

5 obligation, due diligence, to take a look at how 

6 you did break it up, because you did go to a 

7 level of granularity that we haven’t seen 

8 before, and certainly if the evidence is there, 

9 the records are there, that -- as you pointed 

10 out, you have good information on when it was 

11 rolling, when it was machining, et cetera. On 

12 that basis, you know, we could confirm that and 

13 walk away.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, I think one 

15 of the reasons they can go to this level of 

16 granularity on this particular facility is the 

17 specific information that you are going -- you 

18 have on the facility where in this case we have 

19 specific days on each of these particular -- I 

20 don’t know if you’d call them jobs, but we don’t 

21 often have that in the other facilities. We 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just know they have been working over a period 

2 of time with different materials. This is a 

3 very specific case, and I think it allows more 

4 granularity than we are used to seeing.

5 DR. MAURO: I completely agree. 

6 And, really, it’s up to you folks there. If 

7 you’d like us to go check that, we could check 

8 that.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think we 

10 still need a chance to review this. I think --

11 I assume the Work Group Members would be 

12 comfortable having SC&A have a chance to review 

13 the document in more detail. I’ll leave that 

14 up to other comments. I certainly think it’s 

15 appropriate to have it reviewed.

16 Are there other comments or 

17 questions on the document at this point, either 

18 from SC&A -- anything that you need clarified 

19 before we leave the document? Or Work Group 

20 Members?

21 MEMBER MUNN: No. We’re good.
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 

2 I agree that it should be reviewed by SC&A, but 

3 I have no questions.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

5 MEMBER POSTON: No questions.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I’m going to take

7 it by consent that we all agree that both the 

8 White Papers should be reviewed by SC&A and then 

9 report back to the Work Group and we can reach 

10 a final decision on them.

11 MR. KATZ: Right. Paul, and I 

12 actually -- I formally tasked them with 

13 reviewing them anyway before we proceed, so --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I knew we 

15 had. I just wanted to make sure the Work Group 

16 was on the record with --

17 MR. KATZ: That’s good. Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Well, 

19 let’s --

20 DR. GLOVER: Would that still be 

21 specific to -- would that still be an SEC or a 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 TBD consideration? I just want to make sure.

2 MR. KATZ: TBD.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, TBD, because 

4 the SEC actions have been taken, right?

5 DR. GLOVER: I just want to make 

6 sure we -- that it came out clear to everybody 

7 this was a TBD, that we were making sure the TBD 

8 approach is correct and appropriate --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Exactly.

10 DR. GLOVER: -- to SEC.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. The 

13 other thing on -- I don’t know if we 

14 specifically have it on the agenda, but is the 

15 -- the matrix. I know that SC&A distributed 

16 their copy of their latest matrix maybe this 

17 morning or last night. I’m not sure, but --

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. I just sent out 

19 what I had. I wasn’t sure if that was the 

20 latest. I just -- it --

21 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. It’s the 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 old version. It’s not updated. But they’ll 

2 update it for the Work Group for the next time 

3 it meets, right?

4 DR. MAURO: Is that something that 

5 -- how do we do that? Is that something that 

6 NIOSH will fill in each one and their response, 

7 and then we will fill in? How do we go about 

8 this?

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me just 

10 -- again, I’ll give you a quick update of at 

11 least from my records -- eight of the 11 matrix 

12 issues have been closed. And the only ones 

13 remaining are -- according to my records, are 

14 Issues 6, 10, and 11. And those are --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 

16 I think what we talked about in January was that 

17 the matrix would be updated to show what was 

18 done --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

20 MEMBER BEACH: -- for a record.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Right. Right. But so 

2 at this point, you know, John, just -- well, 

3 bring it completely up to date with what has 

4 transpired in this meeting as well.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. So you’d like me 

6 to take care of that.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. And if you need 

8 information or inputs from NIOSH, absolutely. 

9 Just ask Sam for them, and I’m sure he’ll 

10 provide.

11 DR. MAURO: That would be great. 

12 And having access to the transcripts, I guess 

13 -- of course, the previous one I have. I 

14 haven’t done it, as you could tell. I will 

15 certainly do my best to flesh out the matrix, 

16 get it up to date, including everything we have 

17 talked about today.

18 And my guess is it would be a good 

19 idea for me to, you know, pass it by Sam, make 

20 sure I got it right, and -- before we reissue 

21 it.
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, that sounds 

2 perfect. Thank you.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And, John, 

5 just as a reference point, I’m just looking 

6 here, I sent an email to Sam on February 26th, 

7 with a copy to you, which summarized, at least 

8 from my notes, where we were on the matrix in 

9 terms of what has been closed, those three open 

10 issues, and some related comments. So you 

11 might take a look at that as well.

12 DR. MAURO: Will do.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let’s 

14 see. Are there any other issues relating to 

15 Joslyn that we need to discuss today?

16 MR. KATZ: I don’t think so, Paul.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Apparently not. 

18 In which case we will adjourn and look forward 

19 to seeing a number of you next week. 

20 Wanda, I assume that you won’t be 

21 able to travel, and we wish you well as you try 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to recover from that knee problem.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. No, they

3 don’t want me on airplanes. And that’s too 

4 bad, because airplanes and I get along very well 

5 ordinarily. But no, enjoy Augusta.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, 

7 thank you. We are adjourned.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

9 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the 

10 meeting was adjourned.)

11

12

13

14