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-6001 WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

NOVEMBER 4, 2010

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Henry A. Anderson, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

HENRY A. ANDERSON, Chairman

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor*

DAVID ALLEN, DCAS

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A*

JAMES EAST, SC&A*

MARY GIRARDO, Hooker Chemical*

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

RICHARD LEGGETT, SC&A*

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

GERALDINE PAGE, Hooker Chemical*

EDWARD PATTERSON, United Nuclear*

JOE PROVECCHIO, SC&A*

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS*

BILL THURBER, SC&A

*Participating via telephone
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Page

Introductions ............................. 4 

United Nuclear ........................... 11

Electro Met ............................. 158

Hooker Chemical ......................... 208

Baker-Perkins ........................... 251

Adjournment ............................. 271
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:05 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz of the 

4 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

5 This is the TBD-6001 Work Group, 

6 and we will begin with roll call before we go 

7 on the record, starting with Board Members of 

8 the Work Group in the room, with the Chair.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Henry 

10 Anderson.

11 MR. KATZ: And please speak to --

12 we have four different sites that we're 

13 discussing today.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I have no 

15 conflicts.

16 MR. KATZ: Speak to conflict, 

17 thank you. you don't have to list them 

18 individually, and then on the line for Board 

19 Members.

20 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill Field, 

21 no conflict.

22 MR. KATZ: Thank you, okay, and no 
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 Mark yet. The NIOSH-ORAU team in the room.

2 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton, 

3 NIOSH, no conflicts.

4 DR. GLOVER: Sam Glover, NIOSH, no 

5 conflicts.

6 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen, NIOSH, no 

7 conflicts.

8 MR. KATZ: And NIOSH-ORAU team on 

9 the line? Are you expecting any folks on the 

10 line?

11 (No response.)

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. SC&A team in 

13 the room.

14 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

15 conflicts.

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

17 no conflicts.

18 MR. KATZ: SC&A on the line.

19 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A.

20 MS. BRIGGS: I'm sorry, Nicole 

21 Briggs, SC&A, no conflict.

22 MR. PROVECCHIO: Joe Provecchio, 
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 SC&A, no conflict.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, 

3 SC&A, no conflict.

4 MR. EAST: James East, SC&A, no 

5 conflict.

6 MR. KATZ: Can you say that again?

7 MR. EAST: James East, SC&A.

8 MR. KATZ: James East. Welcome 

9 all of you, and then HHS or other federal 

10 officials or contractors to the feds in the 

11 room.

12 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

13 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

14 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS, no 

15 conflict.

16 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

17 contractor, no conflicts.

18 MR. KATZ: Very good, and then 

19 there are no members of the public in the 

20 room. Are there any members of the public on 

21 the line?

22 MS. PAGE: Yes.
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Do you want to identify 

2 yourself or --

3 MS. PAGE: Geraldine Page, Hooker 

4 Chemical.

5 MR. KATZ: Geraldine Page, 

6 welcome.

7 MS. PAGE: Thank you.

8 MS. GIRARDO: Mary Girardo, 

9 Hooker, Niagara Falls.

10 MR. KATZ: Mary Girardo. 

11 MS. GIRARDO: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you. 

13 Welcome. Any others from the public?

14 (No response.)

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, and the Hooker, 

16 where's Hooker on the agenda?

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Hooker is 

18 third on the agenda.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. So for Geraldine 

20 and is it Mary? So Hooker is the third item 

21 on the agenda. It will probably -- it's hard 

22 to judge how long it will be, but it will 
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 probably be an hour or more before you get to.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, I think 

3 United Nuclear is going to --

4 MR. KATZ: Or many hours before we 

5 get to Hooker. Do you have a sense John?

6 DR. MAURO: UNC is probably going 

7 to be a little more busy than the others.

8 MR. KATZ: You think that's a 

9 couple of hours' worth?

10 DR. MAURO: And after that, maybe 

11 things will get settled into one hour each.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it may be a 

13 couple of hours before we get to Hooker. 

14 You're most welcome to stay on for the entire 

15 Work Group meeting. I just wanted to give you 

16 that sort of heads up.

17 MS. GIRARDO: What should we do if 

18 we don't want to stay on?

19 MR. KATZ: So, you can sort of --

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Should we do 

21 that right after lunch maybe?

22 MR. KATZ: We could set a time, to 
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 make it easy for them, since --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: So we could say that 

4 we're going to get to that at 1:00.

5 MS. GIRARDO: For sure, 1:00 p.m.

6 MR. KATZ: Is it one or we'll say 

7 -- we could break at 12:00 and get to it at 

8 one.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, 1:00 

10 would be fine.

11 MR. KATZ: All right. Would that 

12 make it easier on you folks?

13 MS. GIRARDO: That would be great, 

14 and what should we do when we return call, do 

15 the same thing?

16 MR. KATZ: Oh, you do the same 

17 thing. You call in just the way you did.

18 MS. PAGE: If we don't call back, 

19 we can obviously read the agenda, correct?

20 MR. KATZ: If you don't call back 

21 - 

22 MS. PAGE: We can read the --
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 MR. KATZ: Oh, the transcript, 

2 absolutely. There will be a transcript to 

3 this. You'll get that when it gets posted.

4 MS. PAGE: Okay. All right. 

5 Thank you very much.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, you're welcome.

7 MS. GIRARDO: Thank you. 

8 Everybody have a good day.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, Henry. It's your 

10 turn.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: United 

12 Nuclear.

13 MS. ADAMS: Ted?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes Nancy.

15 MS. ADAMS: This is Nancy. You 

16 might just want to make the announcement about 

17 noise in the line, because there was a --

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you for reminding 

19 me, Nancy. So everyone listening on the line, 

20 when you're not speaking to the group, would 

21 you please put your phones on mute. Use your 

22 mute button. If you don't have a mute button, 
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 press * and then 6, and that will mute your 

2 phone, and then press * and 6 again unmute 

3 your phone.

4 And also please don't put the call 

5 on hold at any point, but hang up and dial 

6 back in if you need to, because the hold will 

7 disrupt the call for everyone else. Thank 

8 you.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So we have the 

10 matrix that was sent out for United Nuclear. 

11 I guess SC&A, you want to begin with your 

12 review of the --

13 DR. MAURO: Well there's, I guess, 

14 some development from the last meeting, and 

15 the matrix, everyone has it. Bill put 

16 together the updated matrix. It is dated 

17 October 20th, 2010.

18 Everyone should have that, and I 

19 believe the second package in there, so if you 

20 go a little ways in, begins the United Nuclear 

21 series of findings and our understanding of 

22 the -- what came out of the last Work Group 
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 meeting, so it's summarized that way.

2 Bill, you put this together. You 

3 want to MC this, or you'll help me out as I go 

4 through, okay. 

5 MR. THURBER: The fifth column 

6 over represents the three items that SC&A was 

7 tasked by the Work Group at the last meeting 

8 to examine, and we subsequently did that, and 

9 issued a report on -- in September, addressing 

10 these three items. 

11 Our response to the three items 

12 that we were tasked by the Board to look at is 

13 in the last column on the matrix. 

14 DR. MAURO: The way in which we 

15 organized this, and it's sort of -- it's good 

16 for me to get back, is that we broke the work 

17 up until a number of parts, different people 

18 work in different parts. The very first part 

19 we did, was as you recall, there was a 97 page 

20 SEC petition, a big one.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And it had a lot of 
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 important points that needed to be addressed, 

2 and we collected all that and tried to 

3 summarize it. 

4 So the very first item, and we 

5 actually don't have it here on the findings, 

6 but I think it's going to be important some 

7 place along the line, that we go over --

8 I think we boiled them down to six 

9 items that are of concern to the petitioners, 

10 and the degree to which we felt the Evaluation 

11 Report addressed those items directly or 

12 indirectly in the report.

13 So that's going to be -- so that's 

14 going to be like an overarching as we move 

15 through these things.

16 Okay. So with that, let's see if 

17 we could just catch up with -- the first one 

18 is a fairly straight -- we'll get there. I 

19 figure let me just start from the first box.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Finding 1.

21 DR. MAURO: Finding 1, Finding 1. 

22 Finding 1 has to do with X-rays. We've been 
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 there before, and this has always been in that 

2 little bit of ambivalent situation. Whenever 

3 you have a site, an AWE site, typically you 

4 folks assign the classic chest X-ray as being 

5 the dose, one per year, and do your dose. 

6 Use OTIB-6 and come up with 

7 numbers, and we always match them. But we 

8 always ask the question, because it looks like 

9 it's a little unclear. Well, what about 

10 fluoroscopic examinations, photofluoroscopic 

11 examinations, which sometimes could be very 

12 high, I mean ten times or higher.

13 All we, I guess we're saying is 

14 there any reason to believe there were none. 

15 I guess I still have -- the position, NIOSH's 

16 position is basically a position that for 

17 AWEs, by definition, they're not there unless 

18 you see them, or by definition no, we're 

19 going to give them, unless we know they're not 

20 there. I guess we've been in that limbo state 

21 for a while. 

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Did they have 
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 the equipment at the -- if they didn't have 

2 the equipment, I think it's a safe bet, and 

3 some of these smaller sites are --

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, that would be an 

5 answer. I don't know whether that would be 

6 available, but it certainly won't be in the 

7 medical record when probably whether they had 

8 it or not.

9 MR. ALLEN: It usually just ends 

10 up if we get any information and that's what 

11 we use. The question has always been, I 

12 think, the default, when we have no 

13 information and it's not unusual we get no 

14 information about medical from a lot of these 

15 small companies.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, right.

17 MR. ALLEN: And the default had 

18 been that the photofluorography was 

19 essentially set up for like a mass production, 

20 scanning. I think it was really kind of for 

21 TV scanning is what it is mostly used for. 

22 But some DOE sites started using 
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 it for their routine scanning of people, and 

2 for a smaller site, we generally assume that 

3 they would invest in that equipment or just 

4 mass training, when they just don't have that 

5 many people. Plus as far as United Nuclear, 

6 we don't have a lot of detail, but we do know 

7 it was Mallinckrodt.

8 It grew out of Mallinckrodt, and I 

9 don't believe we have any information that 

10 they had any photofluorographic, and in all 

11 odds, they probably would have sent people 

12 from the Hematite plant down there if they 

13 invested that much money into 

14 photofluorographic.

15 So the default right now is what 

16 you said, the standard PA chest X-ray, and 

17 unless we find out something different.

18 DR. MAURO: I think that in some 

19 capacity, having that written down as policy, 

20 this is it.

21 MR. ALLEN: I agree.

22 MR. THURBER: You know, this has 
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 been the issue on a number of sites, that the 

2 language in the OTIB is fuzzy as to whether 

3 one should assume or what one should assume 

4 for non-DOE sites. 

5 It's just unstated. It says for 

6 DOE sites, you ought to assume 

7 photofluorography in the absence of anything 

8 else. It's kind of silent on the other, and 

9 that's one of the reasons this issue keeps 

10 coming up.

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and we know that 

12 and I think there is a revision of TBD, TIB-6 

13 in the works, but I'm not -- it never seems to 

14 get to be a top priority.

15 DR. NETON: I thought we had that 

16 already documented, but we'll take a look.

17 MR. ALLEN: It just doesn't seem 

18 to get to the top of the priority list on that 

19 particular one.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. You know, I go 

21 in, I do my reviews, I pull out my -- I get my 

22 box. I go pull out my TBD 6, I read it, and 
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 that may not be the latest version. So I'll 

2 still saying the same things. But if there's 

3 a later version. If there is --

4 DR. NETON: We'll look. If not, 

5 we certainly could clarify that. 

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It's worth 

7 noting, but I think we'll just pass on it 

8 probably for now, and see what you have. The 

9 other thing would be potentially if you were 

10 reconstructing, and you got close, then you 

11 might want to go into further effort to see if 

12 there might have been fluoroscopies.

13 MR. KATZ: Bill, were you trying 

14 to say something?

15 DR. NETON: I think Bob was trying 

16 to say something.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob 

18 Anigstein. I have a question about that. 

19 I've been working with that in other cases. 

20 Is it not plausible that at a small site, it 

21 would not have an X-ray unit, and that they 

22 would send the workers for their annual 
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 physical to a doctor's office or to a nearby 

2 hospital, which might have employed 

3 photofluorography?

4 MR. ALLEN: It is possible, but 

5 under EEOICPA, the radiation dose has to be at 

6 the facility.

7 DR. NETON: We have sort of a 

8 legal ruling that it has to be -- the exposure 

9 has to have been incurred at that facility.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Even if an 

11 examination was required as a requirement of 

12 employment, it wouldn't count?

13 DR. NETON: Yes, yes. 

14 MR. ALLEN: Right.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, okay.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, the 

17 assumption is that it was at the site.

18 MR. ALLEN: The default without --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So even if 

21 they were sent off site, the assumption is 

22 that they were de facto assigning that does.
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 DR. NETON: It's one of those --

2 MR. KATZ: Sam is shaking his 

3 head.

4 DR. GLOVER: If we know that they 

5 went off site, we do not assign it.

6 MR. KATZ: Right, right. No, no.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, okay.

8 MR. ALLEN: By default we're 

9 saying if we don't know. 

10 MR. PATTERSON: Is there any 

11 chance I can get in this conversation?

12 MR. KATZ: Who's speaking?

13 MR. PATTERSON: Edward Patterson. 

14 I was an employee at United Nuclear.

15 MR. KATZ: Oh absolutely.

16 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. There was 

17 no X-ray at the site, no equipment. I was an 

18 X-ray technician at the hospital before I was 

19 an employee at United Nuclear and we never --

20 all of the X-rays were taken at the hospital. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. So what you're 

22 saying is that the X-rays shouldn't be 
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 counted, because they're not done on site.

2 DR. NETON: If that's true, yes.

3 MR. KATZ: If that's the case. 

4 Thank you, Mr. Patterson.

5 MR. PATTERSON: Okay.

6 DR. MAURO: As we do in the 

7 procedures, we have basically resolved this 

8 issue. Do we close it or do we say it's in 

9 abeyance until some words are changed --

10 DR. NETON: Well, we can't close 

11 it. The Working Group - 

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I mean I 

13 would -- 

14 DR. MAURO: You're okay?

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I'm okay with 

16 closing it. Yes, I think that --

17 MR. KATZ: Bill Field.

18 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. I think it's 

19 fine from what we know.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's an 

22 unusual batting average.
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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Finding 

2 2 we've got. 

3 DR. MAURO: Now this Finding 2 has 

4 to do with external photon and electron 

5 dosimetry, and there's bit of a history here, 

6 which led up to a point where some data were 

7 provided to us. Nicole, are you on the line? 

8 Nicole Briggs?

9 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, I was --

10 DR. BEHLING: John, I'm also on 

11 the line, in case you didn't realize it.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay, both. I know 

13 that you've both been involved in compiling 

14 lots of data on film badge data for photon and 

15 electron, because that was an issue. There 

16 was -- in the process of going through this 

17 particular finding, one of the steps along the 

18 way was we were asked to look at some data, 

19 and then see how it speaks to us.

20 The issue had to do with selecting 

21 the basis for, I guess it was some ratios of -

22 - well maybe it's more than that, photon to 
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 data exposures. In fact, there's a large 

2 attachment to the -- I believe so, to the Site 

3 Profile or review of the ER, it goes on for 

4 many pages, where all that data has been 

5 compiled and reviewed.

6 Do any of you want to tell the 

7 story on where we come out regarding that 

8 particular issue?

9 DR. BEHLING: Well, let me talk 

10 about briefly the history. In the initial Rev 

11 0, the assigned values were -- the data was 

12 contained in the 1960 AEC compliance 

13 inspection report, and that probably 

14 represents 1959 data.

15 It was to be used for the entire 

16 11-year period. That was really the basis of 

17 the original finding, in the sense where you 

18 were talking about a single AEC summary 

19 report, which really did not talk about 

20 primary dosimetry data. That was probably a 

21 reflection of the year 1959, and that was to 

22 be used for the full 11 years.
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 As a result of that finding, I 

2 believe the Rev 1 of Appendix B changed that, 

3 and they identified data that was in essence 

4 data that they were able to uncover for the 

5 period of 1958. They extended the period to 

6 1973, and that apparently was now the basis 

7 for the revised data that is to be used under 

8 Rev 1 for the assignment of beta doses, as 

9 well as the penetrating doses.

10 And so as far as I'm concerned, 

11 they resolved some of the issue, but I 

12 personally did not look at one of the things 

13 that was identified in the last Work Group 

14 meeting, as for SC&A to review that data that 

15 had been uncovered, that represents 58 to 73.

16 Now I don't know if Nicole was 

17 able to look at that data. I personally did 

18 not. In fact, I wasn't aware that NIOSH had 

19 provided us with that data.

20 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. Actually, I did 

21 go into the data. All the data wasn't 

22 provided in the report, either in the TBD or 
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 the Evaluation Report. But they did have all 

2 of the references, and I tracked down all the 

3 references.

4 For the most part, there was one 

5 sort of external exposure report for each 

6 year, that listed film badge data by worker, 

7 and I guess the -- 

8 What it comes down to is we were 

9 able to put together a big table, and we've 

10 got -- and I think it's Attachment B and C of 

11 our report, where we've got each individual 

12 that was in the data, their employment, 

13 whether or not they had film badge data, their 

14 position and where they worked.

15 I guess I'll try -- what it really 

16 boils down to is, our findings for that is a 

17 lot of the data -- well actually each, for 

18 whatever reason each year, the data was 

19 presented in different ways. So each year 

20 sort of had to be addressed on their own.

21 But for many of the years, the 

22 data is given as a cumulative, as a beta-gamma 
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 together, and NIOSH used beta-gamma ratios in 

2 order to break out the gamma exposure. One of 

3 our findings, there's sort of two steps 

4 involved in that. One is it wasn't clear if 

5 the -- in order to develop those ratios, if 

6 the values that were below the LOD divided by 

7 two, if they were used as part of the ratio, 

8 in order to develop those ratios. So that 

9 wasn't particularly clear, because those 

10 values shouldn't have been included.

11 The other thing is while we wanted 

12 to see a little bit more of an explanation as 

13 to how those beta-gamma ratios were developed. 

14 For example, we thought it would have been 

15 important to include a correlation 

16 coefficient, to see exactly how robust the 

17 relationship was.

18 So that's sort of a brief 

19 description of the data that we've got here. 

20 There's a lot of it. But other than that, 

21 there was, you know, there was a lot of data 

22 here. The data did seem to be a cross-section 
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 of different types of workers with different 

2 types of job titles.

3 There also seemed to be a pretty 

4 good cross section across all of the different 

5 work locations, particularly the work 

6 locations that seem to be more potential for 

7 higher exposure, where enriched uranium was 

8 handled. I guess it's the blue room, the 

9 green room, the red room and the item room, 

10 were identified as areas where enriched 

11 uranium was handled.

12 So other than the issues we have 

13 with the beta-gamma ratios, it seems that the 

14 data that is used is really is a cross section 

15 of -- seemed to be a cross section of all the 

16 workers and all the work locations.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So are you 

18 saying it can be used to -- it's adequate to 

19 build a coworker model, that the ratios are?

20 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, it seems to be 

21 that way.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.
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 DR. MAURO: The way I read it is 

2 the data are there. They seem complete. So 

3 perhaps in my parlance it means more of a Site 

4 Profile kind of issue, where a little bit more 

5 work needs to be done to justify the beta6 gamma ratios that were derived when you have 

7 to go to those, when you have deficiencies. 

8 But it appears that there 

9 certainly is enough data there to build that, 

10 and I guess we were having a little trouble 

11 with the data documenting how you did it. 

12 I think Nicole, is this one -- I 

13 read. There are four reports we're covering 

14 here. I read the four over the last couple of 

15 days. Is this the one where we have more data 

16 than they do, or is this -- am I referring to 

17 -- in other words, when we went into the 

18 database, did we uncover additional data that 

19 was not reported by NIOSH, or am I crossing 

20 wires right now?

21 MS. BRIGGS: I think you might be 

22 crossing. This is -- NIOSH did actually 
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 listed each and every exposure report that was 

2 listed, and I went and tracked down each one. 

3 So it was pretty complete. I didn't find 

4 anything that NIOSH didn't use.

5 DR. MAURO: Now with respect to 

6 this issue of beta-gamma ratios, what is it 

7 about that that was troubling to you?

8 MS. BRIGGS: It's just it wasn't, 

9 it really wasn't explained. The beta-gamma 

10 ratios weren't given and their methods for 

11 driving those ratios weren't explained in the 

12 report.

13 That's simply what it is. It's 

14 not necessarily that they were wrong, it's 

15 just it would have been better if there was a 

16 little bit more transparency.

17 DR. MAURO: Now in doing that, I 

18 know there's always this discussion of leading 

19 into less thans.

20 MS. BRIGGS: Right.

21 DR. MAURO: And you're saying that 

22 it's not apparent whether the less thans were 
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 left in or not, in order to come up with the 

2 ratios?

3 MS. BRIGGS: Right, not at all. 

4 Like I said, they really are -- there's really 

5 no description at all as to how the ratios 

6 were described. 

7 MR. ALLEN: As far as the 

8 description in there being weak, you know, 

9 I'll agree. You know, I basically just said 

10 we took an average of these for those years. 

11 As far as the less than, the LOD over 2, 

12 that's the only thing I disagree with right 

13 now at this point.

14 It is possible to determine a 

15 ratio using those or not using those, just 

16 using the positive ones. But if you determine 

17 using the positive ones, it should only be 

18 used on the positive coworkers.

19 What we did was added in the 

20 missed dose that would be associated with 

21 those readings, determined the means or the 

22 median from both beta and gamma and determine 
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 that ratio, and used it on, in higher data set 

2 rather than just the positive readings.

3 I think it's two ways of doing 

4 essentially the same thing, is what it amounts 

5 to.

6 DR. MAURO: I know a lot of folks 

7 bring this up, and I have to say it's one of 

8 those things I didn't spend too much time 

9 thinking about. So let's say I have a 

10 population of workers where I have lots of 

11 gamma data, and let's say 20, 30, 40 percent 

12 of it is below the limits of detection. 

13 Here's your basket of data, and 

14 for those same workers, I also have data, and 

15 the same situation exists. There's some 

16 that's below. So that's my data, which is 

17 probably very common. Now I have some workers 

18 where I don't have measurements but I want to 

19 build a coworker model and relate one to the 

20 other.

21 I guess it's not immediately 

22 apparent to me when and why you would not or 
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 you would leave the less thans in, and 

2 determining the means, the standard deviation 

3 and the 95th percentiles. Doesn't the less 

4 than somehow mess up your ability to assign a 

5 mean to the distribution, because you've got 

6 all these zeroes? They're not part of the 

7 distribution. They sort of flattened it out 

8 on you.

9 I know you folks have worked this 

10 problem before. 

11 MR. ALLEN: And I mean that's 

12 right. They are part of the distribution. 

13 They are part of the population of monitored 

14 workers, and as you said, that would be used 

15 for a population of unmonitored workers, the 

16 analysis of this. 

17 If you were leave out the zeroes 

18 essentially, you would -- I mean it's hard to 

19 explain the math and all.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 DR. MAURO: You've driven the 

22 whole distribution off.
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 MR. ALLEN: Right. I mean you're 

2 going to assigning to home monitored workers 

3 that, you know, if had a site that stayed 99 

4 percent zeroes, then you're going to end up 

5 assigning the monitored workers the highest 

6 one percent you've got, and the guys that were 

7 actually monitored and got zeroes are going to 

8 get less. They're probably unmonitored for a 

9 reason.

10 DR. MAURO: But there are 

11 categories of workers where you would say I 

12 want to assign to assign a geometric mean. 

13 Now very often, when you have lots of zeroes, 

14 geometric means zero. 

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. ALLEN: -- for a missed dose 

17 first.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. So the zeroes 

19 you assign the missed dose and you give it 

20 some number, and then -- and that becomes part 

21 of the distribution, and then you'll be 

22 basically for the population of workers where 
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 you don't have data, you're effectively 

2 assuming I'm going to get missed dose, as if 

3 they were badged. 

4 Stay with me, as if they were 

5 badged but you saw something less than a 

6 particular level.

7 MR. ALLEN: Right. So essentially 

8 the mid, the median becomes the sensitivity of 

9 the system.

10 DR. MAURO: And I guess I would 

11 argue that that's okay if the population of 

12 workers that you have zeroed out, either are 

13 unmonitored and you're assigning zero to or 

14 missed dose, you have good reason to believe 

15 that's probably right for them, you know. 

16 And there's where I guess the case 

17 comes in. When that happens, for example, by 

18 the nature of the job or whatever limited data 

19 you might have for them, to reinforce it, that 

20 yes, it's reasonable to do it this way for

21 that group. Now there may be other groups 

22 where you are developing a coworker assignment 
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 where maybe you wouldn't do that.

2 MR. ALLEN: Other sites.

3 DR. MAURO: Other sites, other job 

4 categories. For example, even within a given 

5 site there are lots of jobs, these different 

6 rooms, for example. Now I'd imagined if there 

7 were some workers in the red room or the blue 

8 room that don't have any measurements, and you 

9 know, you say to yourself well, what do we 

10 assign to them, I'm not sure. I'm just saying 

11 that this is has always been there, and to 

12 this day, I'm not quite sure what the right 

13 thing to do is.

14 MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean each one, 

15 any time you do a statistical analysis of a 

16 set of data, essentially you've got to realize 

17 that it is that set that you're analyzing, and 

18 then what you make of that set is the 

19 question. That's essentially what you're 

20 saying.

21 DR. MAURO: That's all I'm saying 

22 really.
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 MR. ALLEN: And that's very site2 specific. In this particular case, as they're 

3 saying on the phone it seems to be a pretty 

4 good cross-section of the population, of the 

5 external dose here.

6 DR. MAURO: So in this particular 

7 case, I guess the answer to the question is on 

8 the right-hand corner. You're recommending 

9 that you use the full set of data for coming 

10 up with the coworker. Is that where you are 

11 on this one?

12 MR. ALLEN: Are you on the --

13 DR. MAURO: I'm on Finding 2 on 

14 the right-hand side. Finding 2 under the 

15 response. So it's Finding 2 of Finding 2.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Finding 2 of 

17 Finding 2. 

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MR. ALLEN: Finding 2 of Finding 

20 2, it is a little different story, and that 

21 is, as I read this, it's essentially 

22 questioning what we're doing for 1961 and '65. 
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 DR. MAURO: Yes, again now zeroing 

2 in.

3 MR. ALLEN: 1961-1965 was the time 

4 frame where we had the beta and the gamma 

5 rating separate. So we developed separate 

6 coworker for Dose 2. There is no ratio used. 

7 It's the data. 

8 DR. MAURO: Okay, okay. Nicole, 

9 do you feel as if you've gotten the 

10 information you need to understand where the 

11 rationale for the position that's being taken?

12 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, yes. I'm just 

13 trying to follow along with the data too. 

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 MS. BRIGGS: There's a lot of data 

16 to look at, so I'm just trying to --

17 DR. MAURO: Well I guess, right 

18 now my sense is after reading this, I'm not 

19 sure that -- I just want to make sure you're 

20 comfortable you have what you need.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So for an 

22 individual who worked prior to that or after 
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 that, and this period, you would calculate it 

2 differently?

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and the Appendix 

4 right now has different values for each year.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, okay. 

6 That's what I thought.

7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, based on data, 

8 and you have to remember that is for 

9 unmonitored workers. The monitored workers 

10 were using the actual dosimetry data you have?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes, yes. Okay. 

12 So are we -- I'd like to hear from Nicole. 

13 Do you feel this issue's been closed to your 

14 satisfaction?

15 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, I think so. I 

16 was just reviewing. I think what ended up 

17 happening, I was looking at the matrix and I 

18 was looking at our report, and I think there 

19 may have been -- I think that there's a little 

20 bit of a confusion between the findings and 

21 the report, and now it translated into the

22 matrix.
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 So yes, it really boils down to 

2 just that ratio issue, and it's really just, 

3 you know, more of an explanation than anything 

4 else. There's really no deficiencies in the 

5 data.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay, good.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So do we want 

8 to -- I mean is this a document that, for the 

9 -- you know, we've talked about it here, but 

10 it's not going to be captured in the document. 

11 So I mean is it -- is this something that 

12 could easily be -- 

13 DR. NETON: Well, I think what 

14 we're saying is that this is not a SEC issue. 

15 I mean so we don't necessarily have to 

16 correct it at this exact moment to satisfy an 

17 SEC concern.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, okay.

19 DR. NETON: At least that's my 

20 impression of what we're saying.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, SEC deals with 

22 that, but we are undergoing a revision to this 
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 Appendix as part of cancelling TBD-6001.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I gotcha.

3 MR. ALLEN: And the resolution of 

4 it here, essentially the explanation --

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. It's not 

7 a difficult thing, but it's the kind of thing 

8 that gets slipped through the cracks. A year 

9 from now we'll forget.

10 DR. NETON: No. It will talked 

11 about in a Site Profile review.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, okay.

13 MR. KATZ: So in the new Appendix, 

14 that they're revising the Appendix, that 

15 explanation will be added.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Better 

17 documentation. Okay. That's right. So are 

18 we comfortable? I'm comfortable closing it. 

19 Bill?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Henry?

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark 
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 Griffon.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh good, Mark. 

3 You have any thoughts?

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I'm trying 

5 to -- I know where you are now on the matrix, 

6 and the only question I would have before you 

7 close it, it's just my -- probably I'm just 

8 reading up on United Nuclear.

9 Did they only do uranium work at, 

10 pretty much exclusively uranium, or was there 

11 any thorium work that was done there?

12 DR. BEHLING: There was thorium 

13 there.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: There was some 

15 thorium work done there?

16 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it was.

17 MR. THURBER: For a brief time 

18 they did some thorium work.

19 DR. BEHLING: In fact, that's 

20 discussed in the next finding. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

22 DR. BEHLING: Okay.
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 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think I'm done 

2 trying to catch up, but I think I am still 

3 comfortable with this, and I just was reading 

4 the Appendix.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So that we'll 

6 close it out with the proviso that --

7 MR. KATZ: Bill, are you okay too 

8 with closing this?

9 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I think that's 

10 fine.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 DR. MAURO: We'll go on to Finding 

13 3, which I believe is the neutron dosimetry 

14 work which was done by Bob Anigstein, and he 

15 had a number of technical findings regarding 

16 the simulation. This is the one we talked 

17 about yesterday Bob, is that right?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Do you want to give a 

20 brief description of some of the concerns you 

21 had with the approach taken.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Basically,. 
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 they can be broken down into three categories. 

2 The first one is a technical issue that we 

3 had. I mean the neutron dose was assigned on 

4 the basis of OTIB-24, and we reviewed, SC&A 

5 reviewed OTIB-24 in 2005, and we had a number 

6 of scientific issues with it.

7 I won't go over all of them, but 

8 what it boils down to is that in some cases, 

9 as in the present one, the OTIB overestimates 

10 the dose slightly, like we -- the independent 

11 calculation that we did for uranium 

12 hexafluoride, was that the dose could be 27 --

13 the OTIB-24 overstated the dose by 27 percent, 

14 which was not a major thing.

15 But I would like to mention 

16 incidentally that the same OTIB overstates 

17 some doses by 400 percent, and others, 

18 understates them by a factor of 16. So it's 

19 just not a reliable guide. 

20 Now that aside, the second issue 

21 was that the dose is not bounding. The second 

22 issue is that the extrapolation from natural 
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 uranium to U-230 to this highly enriched 

2 uranium is not done correctly, because the 

3 neutron generation is not simply a matter of 

4 the total alpha activity of the uranium, but 

5 of the energy distribution of these alphas.

6 And even in OTIB-24, you see that 

7 the uranium-234 is much more efficient at 

8 generating neutrons than uranium-238, and 

9 since in highly enriched uranium almost all 

10 the activity is from U-234, on an activity 

11 basis, then this assumption is not correct. 

12 You could understate, significantly understate 

13 the U-230, the neutron generation.

14 And then finally, we questioned, 

15 this again is the second order, this is 

16 probably the biggest effect. The second 

17 order, again, is smaller effect, is the 

18 limitation to 50 kilograms. I believe the 

19 numbers were reversed.

20 The analysis assumes 50 kilograms 

21 of -- assumes 50 kilograms of highly enriched 

22 uranium, and 100 kilograms of 20 percent 
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 enriched. Now the documentation shows at 

2 least there was one case where the site 

3 requested a shipment of 100 kilograms of 

4 highly enriched, and I believe they only 

5 requested 50 kilograms of the 20, 20 percent.

6 So there again is a potential for 

7 understating the dose. It could be as much 

8 100 kilograms, and the analysis of criticality 

9 is not applicable here. Assuming that the 

10 uranium is in a metal sphere with optimum 

11 reflection yes, then the criticality, critical 

12 mass is a little over 50 kilograms.

13 But when the uranium is in the 

14 form of uranium hexafluoride in different

15 shapes, the critical mass would be much higher 

16 most likely, with the uranium just by the 

17 lower density will be more spread out and 

18 greater chance of neutrons to escape.

19 So, we do not accept that the 50 

20 kilograms is a limitation based on 

21 criticality, where we can't say that 100 

22 kilograms is possible but we require 
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 criticality analysis to show that. Probably 

2 the simplest thing to do is to be to assume 

3 the 100 kilograms as a possibility.

4 Then finally, on flipping the 

5 coin, the assumption that the worker, that the 

6 organ in question would be one foot away from 

7 that source actually will be from the centers, 

8 since it's modeled as a point source.

9 That means it would be one foot 

10 away from the center of this 100 kilogram 

11 source or 50 kilogram source, if you will. 

12 Also, it just does not seem realistic. It's 

13 an upper bound, but first of all, we question 

14 whether it's a plausible upper bound, and also 

15 it would be a reasonable to use this scenario 

16 to deny a claim, by saying well, it can't --

17 if the corrections were made, the technical 

18 corrections that I testified which would 

19 mostly result in a higher neutron dose.

20 Then one could say okay, this case 

21 seems like a candidate for denial, and let's 

22 give him the maximum neutron dose, and with 
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 that, if you still do not meet the criteria 

2 for compensability, then you can deny with a 

3 clear conscience.

4 However, in the cases where that's 

5 not the case, and a realistic dose assessment 

6 is required, we question whether this meets 

7 that threshold of plausibility. That's about 

8 -- I mean that's it in summary.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: This is beyond 

10 me, this is not my area.

11 MR. ALLEN: Well, I agree with the 

12 ratios of uranium for enriched, that the U-234 

13 would be more effective at producing neutrons, 

14 and that wasn't considered in that analysis 

15 there, so that should be slightly higher 

16 there.

17 I haven't done the calculations to 

18 verify or anything, but I believe Bob when he 

19 says that the doses were started off at 27 

20 percent too high and I think that it would 

21 probably cancel out to a decent amount, to 

22 where it's a small difference with the two 
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 effects combined.

2 So then it comes down to just the 

3 -- essentially the scenario, of how much you 

4 can be, you can have in one place and how 

5 close you are to it, and we agree. We tried 

6 to make it a bounding scenario. Bob's opinion 

7 is implausibly high. Our opinion is that it's 

8 bounding, but it's not unduly high.

9 It's not a high enough dose that 

10 would warrant compensation for, you know, 

11 everybody. So it's essentially, is not unduly 

12 high in that manner.

13 DR. NETON: This is not 

14 inconsistent with exposure scenarios we have 

15 used for other non-neutron exposures, 

16 exposures to drumming operations, that sort of 

17 thing.

18 DR. MAURO: We're in an area where 

19 we -- it's not a difficult area, but it's an 

20 area that we encounter time and again. When 

21 you have a fairly simple physics problem, 

22 persons working with a glove box, there's a 
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 neutron source, and we don't have very much 

2 information from the workers exactly what 

3 transpired, what the size of the source was or 

4 the distance was, how long they spent there.

5 There's no doubt that people could 

6 come up with some reasonable scenario that 

7 says we are fairly confident that this 

8 scenario would probably bound most workers 

9 that might have been in the vicinity of the 

10 source. Here's where it's a judgment call. 

11 One could come up with some 

12 heuristics, saying listen, based on my 

13 judgment, I think this does it. On 

14 heuristics, that someone could argue well, 

15 maybe that's not that plausible.

16 It's just a little bit too 

17 conservative, and it's something that given 

18 that, especially if you use a point source, 

19 which is really not realistic, and you combine 

20 that with a lot of other assumptions, you're 

21 going to come up with a dose that perhaps is 

22 too high, implausibly high.
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 In other words, to use the 

2 language in the rule, you know, as a plausible 

3 circumstances. Are those circumstances 

4 plausible? I don't know if we're gilding the 

5 lily, but perhaps they're not.

6 Now what do you do when you 

7 confront something like that? You go talk to 

8 the workers and get a better sense of well, 

9 what did you do there; how long did you spend; 

10 what kinds of things did you work with.

11 And eventually you come up with 

12 well, here's the range of kinds of things that 

13 people did, based as best we can tell, and 

14 this is what we're going to model, as opposed 

15 to let's say selecting a scenario which 

16 intuitively seems to be a pretty bounding 

17 scenario, notwithstanding the mass issue that 

18 Bob brought up, the 100 versus the 50. That's 

19 something that you guys could fix. That's no 

20 big deal.

21 So I say to myself just about 

22 everything Bob brought up is a Site Profile 
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 issue, for you folks to deliberate on, whether 

2 or not you can polish the apple and let's 

3 maybe fix some of these things. 

4 The other half is questions of the 

5 scenarios that they're using that you decide 

6 to model. Do you feel that that meets the 

7 test of plausible circumstances regarding 

8 time? Is it distance, time to the critical 

9 organs, geometry, or perhaps is it too 

10 conservative? 

11 And now -- in my world, what 

12 you've done is those assumptions represent 

13 what I consider to be bounding, once the other 

14 problems are fixed; bounding with regard to 

15 the energy distributions and the mass. And 

16 certainly one could say yes, it does place an 

17 upper bound.

18 The only question is, is it a 

19 plausible upper bound, and I mean this is 

20 really -- now this word "plausibility" is our 

21 plague, you know, what's plausible, and that's 

22 very much a judgment call. One could argue, I 
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 think Bob would argue that well, you know, 

2 it's not necessarily plausible. He doesn't 

3 know. 

4 I mean we talked about this 

5 yesterday. I don't know if this is plausible. 

6 What do you do within that circumstance? You 

7 go talk to the workers, and I guess that's 

8 where we -- that's where Bob and I walked away 

9 from it, and we said okay, we both agree.

10 DR. NETON: What I'm hearing you 

11 say though is that you think the dose is 

12 implausibly high. That's what you're saying?

13 DR. MAURO: No, I'm saying it 

14 could be. We don't know.

15 DR. NETON: Right, but you don't 

16 know.

17 DR. MAURO: We don't know.

18 DR. NETON: I'm not sure. This is 

19 a tricky -- I mean this is not -- by virtue of 

20 the physics, it's a plausible dose. What 

21 you're talking about is a worker --

22 DR. MAURO: Circumstance.
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 DR. NETON: Circumstance 

2 relationship, which I think is pretty squishy, 

3 and where we would always land on the side of 

4 being more conservative I'm not. So you 

5 interview workers, "Were you ever a foot from 

6 the source?" Maybe, maybe not.

7 DR. MAURO: For four hours a day, 

8 a new organ of concern, you know, his kidney, 

9 his heart.

10 MR. KATZ: I don't think you need 

11 to go to those kind of extremes at all.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But that's a 

13 thought. Mark, do you have any, or Bill, do 

14 you have any thoughts on this?

15 MEMBER FIELD: I guess it's just 

16 based on whichever's, you know, various 

17 situations. So it's kind of hard to tell if 

18 there's any here.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. 

20 DR. MAURO: You're using a 

21 convenient shortcut.

22 DR. NETON: To me that is almost 
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 like a Site Profile issue. You're really 

2 trying to find the circumstances surrounding -

3 - it is plausible to have neutron exposures. 

4 We think we can agree as to what the sources 

5 were. Now it's a matter of where the worker 

6 was positioned in relation to the source.

7 DR. MAURO: Well, also I believe 

8 it was a point source.

9 DR. NETON: Well, okay.

10 DR. MAURO: So no attenuation. So 

11 --

12 DR. NETON: Well, that can be 

13 modeled.

14 DR. MAURO: Oh yes, that's a Site 

15 Profile.

16 DR. NETON: All you want to talk 

17 about is the distance, the time and distance 

18 of the worker from --

19 DR. MAURO: From the source, to 

20 the organ of concern.

21 DR. NETON: I believe that is 

22 something that would not prevent dose 
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 reconstruction. In fact, if you don't know, 

2 you would assume something very conservative,

3 which is what we've done in a number of 

4 instances.

5 I think there's sort of a 

6 precedent set for this for a number of cases. 

7 This is the first time this has ever come up 

8 in relation to a model, to model a situation 

9 like this. I would argue that it's a 

10 reasonable approach to bound the dose.

11 DR. MAURO: I guess the question I 

12 would have is when you come to these 

13 boundaries -- let's say first of all, given 

14 that whatever modeling assumptions regarding 

15 the size of the pit or whatever the source is 

16 -- I'm not sure it was the pit, but whatever 

17 it is, is you go with a realistic, as opposed 

18 to a point, because the point, of course, is 

19 going to give you, for the same quantity, 

20 you're not going to have self-attenuation.

21 So that's going to be an 

22 overestimate if you go with the point. The 
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 distance is an overestimate. Maybe the 

2 neutron spectrum, I think Bob pointed out, may 

3 not be an overestimate. The time period that 

4 you're going to assume the person's there is 

5 an overestimate. So you've got these --

6 DR. NETON: We don't know that. I 

7 mean I think, it's a reasonable estimate. I 

8 think this is sort of the same situation that 

9 we assume 2,000 hours exposure at the highest 

10 MAC measured in a plant for the entire year. 

11 I don't know why that's any different here, 

12 and no one has suggested that's an implausibly 

13 high value. 

14 It's a conservative, bounding 

15 value that we've applied, that is based on the 

16 physics of a situation or the exposure limits 

17 that have been measured.

18 DR. MAURO: And in your mind, 

19 those are plausible circumstances --

20 DR. NETON: Yes, otherwise we 

21 wouldn't have used them. The implausible 

22 takes you in a value where you've sort of 
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 violated some basic --

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, one too far.

3 DR. NETON: Could the person have 

4 been laying on top of the source or I don't 

5 know. I guess something, something very out 

6 of the ordinary.

7 DR. MAURO: Texas City, the 

8 original Texas City, where you know, that's 

9 what happened.

10 DR. NETON: Yes.

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

12 my inclination is to agree with you. I know 

13 Bob, I know that, you know, you have some 

14 thoughts about this too. I don't want to take 

15 the wind out of your sails. Do you feel that 

16 these are circumstances that could be 

17 plausible or we don't know?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Again, I'm 

19 agnostic on this. I don't know. It sounds --

20 I think it needs to have some factual 

21 information behind it, and since there are 

22 surviving workers, and we have one on the 
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 line, I would think that some in-depth

2 interviews could help refine the procedures, 

3 could help refine what was there.

4 I know my own experience over the 

5 past several years with GSI, General Steel 

6 Industries was we got a ton of information 

7 from them. There was a group of workers who 

8 were very willing to cooperate.

9 We got a ton of information, where 

10 we could practically write a book about just 

11 what really happened there, and even though 

12 there were some minor differences owing to 

13 different accounts. But I don't see that that 

14 has been done for UNC.

15 DR. MAURO: Would you agree this 

16 is a Site Profile issue?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I don't 

18 think it's my place. I'm not even sure if 

19 it's SC&A's place to decide, you know, to 

20 recommend a SEC. That's up to the Board. I 

21 guess in principle, if we came up with a new 

22 Appendix B and had, based on some realistic 
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 assumptions, which SC&A would presumably then 

2 review.

3 I could see that this could be 

4 resolved, let's put it this way. I can 

5 certainly see that, NIOSH could, may be able 

6 to resolve this issue, if that answers the 

7 question. But if in fact will it be resolved 

8 is another, is something else. 

9 MR. KATZ: Can I just ask a 

10 clarifying -- I mean do we not know what this 

11 basic handling process was at this? Do we 

12 know nothing about what they did at this 

13 plant?

14 MR. ALLEN: They were making 

15 commercial fuel, and get the basic idea. I 

16 mean most of it, I believe, was glove box or 

17 you know, close-in work that, you know, 

18 somebody would be at arms length with, you 

19 know, smaller quantities.

20 But the 100 kilograms was 

21 essentially a quarterly order for the enriched 

22 uranium. But there was other things they did. 
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 We don't know for sure; we did some scrap 

2 recovery, which is what they did for AEC.

3 We got the general idea of how all 

4 that's done, we don't have the details on how 

5 all that's done or what their work assignments 

6 were with somebody chained to a table, you 

7 know, eight hours a day or did they switch out 

8 jobs type of thing. So the four hours at a 

9 foot seems like a bounding estimate that we 

10 could --

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It seems to be 

12 a little thin, you know, the general 

13 information --

14 MR. ALLEN: Well, the detailed 

15 information, yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That is there 

17 by detail is ---

18 MR. ALLEN: You're talking work 

19 assignments and everything else then. So I 

20 mean what we normally get in these meetings is 

21 how do you know somebody wasn't there four 

22 hours a day, rather than the opposite of what 
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 we're getting right now.

2 DR. MAURO: In NIOSH's defense, I 

3 know that we've worked on other sites where 

4 they were dealing with rods and billets, and 

5 without very much discussion they said well, 

6 we're going to assume they were four hours a 

7 day, three hours a day at the rod, three hours 

8 a day at the billet, one foot away and I guess 

9 another hour or two in the lunch room, and on 

10 that basis calculated the exposure, and we had 

11 no problem with that. It seemed to be, well 

12 that's the guy's job. So he's going to be 

13 there.

14 So I have to agree that, you know, 

15 what we're doing here is a little bit 

16 different than what we've done before, in 

17 terms of the threshold of acceptability. At 

18 the same time, given a little bit more 

19 richness to the story, that is yes, we spoke 

20 to workers; we started to get a little better 

21 understanding of what they did, what was their 

22 daily routine like and how variable it might 
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 have been, you know.

2 If that could be done, it raises 

3 the, I guess the credibility of the scenario. 

4 Yes, the scenario certainly was one that 

5 could be plausible.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I don't see a 

7 worker interview stuff, but I'm not very good 

8 yet at tracking stuff down and then -- so do

9 we have, has that, you know, has that been 

10 tried? Maybe we have one worker --

11 MR. ALLEN: I could not tell you 

12 for sure on this one where we stand. I think 

13 there was some that weren't enlightening on 

14 details of the operation, but I could be 

15 wrong.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark 

17 again. Dave, do you know -- the only question 

18 I would have is, you know, I agree with John's 

19 statement that we've sort of done this 

20 approach before, but for this, the question I 

21 would have is this enriched material.

22 Was there a limited number of 
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 persons or was it more of a special operation, 

2 or was it throughout the general operation all 

3 the time? Did everybody sort of have equal 

4 potential to be working with the enriched or 

5 the natural material, or you just don't have 

6 enough information? Is that the --

7 MR. ALLEN: Well, they were making 

8 commercial fuel and my --

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: But then they 

10 have -- yes, they have the 93 percent enriched 

11 some time too. 

12 MR. ALLEN: Right and --

13 MR. PATTERSON: They had 97 

14 percent.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, they did go -

16 - okay. I didn't see that.

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and Mark, I mean 

18 to answer your question, no, I don't have a 

19 good idea of whether that was scattered about 

20 the plant or whatever it is. I think they had 

21 more than one customer and they did different 

22 things with different customers.
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 MR. THURBER: Didn't they make 

2 fuel for the Navy?

3 MR. ALLEN: That was one of their 

4 customers.

5 MR. THURBER: And that certainly 

6 would have been the highly enriched, and 

7 knowing how the Navy does things, I would 

8 presume that that's done in a special area 

9 that would be --

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Blind, yes.

11 MR. THURBER: Physically divorced 

12 from the commercial fuel, which is only, you 

13 know, UO2 is only two or three percent 

14 enriched. I would think there would be a 

15 significant physical separation.

16 DR. NETON: But I don't think 

17 we're going to be able to ferret out who 

18 worked where on what projects. That's 

19 typically not possible. In fact, when you 

20 grant an SEC, you grant for all workers on top 

21 of that --

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob 

2 Anigstein. I was suggesting that we find out, 

3 you know, identify specific workers. I mean 

4 that would certainly add another degree of 

5 reality to it.

6 But to at least figure out, you 

7 know, the maximum exposed worker, is that 

8 plausible, and then if you can't distinguish 

9 among the workers, then you give them the dose 

10 of the maximum worker.

11 DR. NETON: What I'm hearing is, 

12 you know, you're suggesting we go back and try 

13 to lower these doses. I mean --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, no. Just 

15 that we try to find a basis, a realistic basis 

16 for it. That's all.

17 MR. ALLEN: Part of the issue is, 

18 and I wasn't saying it, but as Bill said, some 

19 of this was for the Navy, and they seem to be 

20 somewhat tight-lipped on the process of making 

21 Navy fuels. It's not something they really 

22 want to discuss with us and or that we can 
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 discuss in an Appendix, if we can get the 

2 information. 

3 DR. NETON: Well, I don't know. I 

4 think we can commit to maybe trying to go back 

5 and talk to some workers. We're not going to 

6 resolve it, but I mean there's options you 

7 can't share. We feel it's bounding. I'm 

8 hearing SC&A saying they'd like to see a 

9 little bit of investigation. If the 

10 investigation --

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think Jim, I 

12 don't -- I'm going to say, I mean I think it's 

13 -- I think it is bounded. I think if you add 

14 a little more information into it, it can add 

15 to the description or the basis for the 

16 plausibility argument, you know. 

17 Then I think it is, and here's a 

18 word I don't think I've ever used this word, 

19 John, except to make fun of you.

20 DR. NETON: It's a tractable 

21 issue.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: A tractable 
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 issue.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Tractable 

3 issue, yes.

4 DR. NETON: And see, that was what 

5 my point, original point was going to be, is 

6 that I don't know if this is really an SEC 

7 issue. We've got the physics down. We know 

8 the source term. Then it's a matter of doing 

9 as best job as we can of documenting the 

10 exposure circumstance.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I would agree 

12 with that.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So what do we 

14 want to do with this finding? 

15 DR. BEHLING: Can I weigh in here 

16 on this one, because I was originally the 

17 person who made the finding. Obviously, Bob 

18 Anigstein refined his assessment. But again, 

19 going back to everyone's comment, I too agree 

20 with Mark Griffon here. I think you're never 

21 going to find the real answers, and I believe 

22 that the model that NIOSH used is reasonable.
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think we're never going to have 

2 a definitive understanding of the issues, even 

3 if we do identify specific workers who may 

4 have had exposures. But in the end, it's just 

5 anecdotal recall of what they may have been 

6 doing, and in the end, we're probably not 

7 going to do anything more than what we've 

8 already done.

9 I believe the bounding values, as 

10 we've done so many times in the past, are 

11 oftentimes estimates, reasonable estimates 

12 that are conservative. I think this is 

13 resolved in my mind.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It's not an 

15 impossible estimate. I mean --

16 MR. ALLEN: It's physically 

17 possible.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, it's 

19 physically possible. So you know, I think it 

20 is a bounding. So Board Members on the phone, 

21 what are your thoughts with this one? Bill.

22 MEMBER FIELD: Well, I guess I 
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 kind of agree somewhat with what Mark said. 

2 It seems like some more information on some of 

3 the workers would really address the issue of 

4 plausibility. 

5 It sure looks bounded, but I guess 

6 support for that, it would kind of be nice to 

7 have a little bit of support by worker 

8 interview, that this is surely plausible and 

9 represents, in fact, worst case.

10 MR. ALLEN: We can make an 

11 attempt, if that's what you want, to try to 

12 get these details from workers, et cetera, the 

13 high end risk. Like I said, I think we are 

14 going to be unsuccessful. The more moderate, 

15 20 percent enriched or something, there is --

16 we might be able to find, get some details 

17 from workers on that.

18 DR. NETON: I've got to ask the 

19 question. If we can't find any additional 

20 information, where does that lead us? Is it 

21 this issue that it's an implausibly high 

22 value, or is it just, you know, we're stuck 
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 with what we have, which is a reasonable, a 

2 physically possible upper estimate of the 

3 dose?

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean my 

5 sense is that the intent is can we come up 

6 with a little bit more justification for it. 

7 If we can, that would strengthen the case when 

8 we go.

9 MR. ALLEN: We can say we can 

10 attempt. Whether we're successful or not, I 

11 have no clue.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I don't 

13 want to drag the thing on for something that 

14 really is just augmentation of --

15 MR. ALLEN: This is for the 

16 purpose of revising the estimate, not as Jim 

17 said, not tractable or as Mark said, it's a 

18 tractable issue. It's just a question of what 

19 the number's going to be.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I mean -

21 - 

22 MR. ALLEN: We are in the process 
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 of revising, so we'll see if we can get some 

2 interviews and go from there.

3 DR. NETON: We're going to go back 

4 and revise these physics numbers anyways, so 

5 we're in there doing that. We're going to 

6 reevaluate those physics calculation, while 

7 we're in the process of doing that. I don't 

8 see that it's a big deal for us to attempt to 

9 go back and talk with the workers.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Let's make an 

11 attempt at that then, is what I would say.

12 MR. KATZ: It doesn't sound like 

13 you need, even if you were to speak to folks 

14 related to the Navy work. I mean you're not 

15 asking for detailed process knowledge. You're 

16 talking about very general issues of 

17 proximity, I mean which I don't think would be 

18 held secret, you know, by workers, that sort 

19 of thing.

20 MR. ALLEN: Whether it's actually 

21 secret or not, they usually don't tell them 

22 exactly what is, what isn't and some of them -
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 - 

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. They 

3 don't want to say anything.

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 DR. NETON: Part of me is almost 

6 hoping that the actual film badge data itself 

7 might be somewhat informative.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, if you 

9 have some --

10 DR. NETON: Really high film badge 

11 data, the only way you can get that high is to 

12 be in fairly close proximity to these sources.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, let's 

14 ponder on that a bit, but let's not ponder it 

15 too long. If you're going to redo the physics 

16 numbers and come back and say that all looks 

17 good, that I think would bring it --

18 MR. ALLEN: There are several 

19 things to do. We'll see, you know, it's a 

20 different group that will do some interviews 

21 or track some people down, and if they come up 

22 with something, they'll use it. 
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 If they don't we'll -- they 

2 should. We should know whether we're going to

3 have any success or not before we get to the 

4 point of needing those numbers in the 

5 revision. So it should not slow anything 

6 down.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well that is 

8 really my point. I don't want to drag on this 

9 any longer than we have to.

10 MR. ALLEN: You and me both.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So 

12 we've kind of got activities we're going to do 

13 on Finding 3. Hopefully, we can do that 

14 before we would have our --

15 MR. KATZ: Next meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Which is in 

17 two weeks. I'm kidding you. No, but you know, 

18 we do want to not -- okay. Let's go on to 

19 Finding 4.

20 DR. MAURO: I'll try to capture 

21 that. I went over it, and Rich Leggett is the 

22 author of this. In fact, he wasn't able to 
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 join us. But I just called him and he said 

2 "Listen, if you think you might need me, give 

3 me a call," and he's going to call in. But 

4 nevertheless I know enough about it.

5 I could sort of get it rolling, 

6 and then hopefully he'll sort of come in and 

7 maybe enrich the discussion.

8 What we have here is -- the way I 

9 look at it is there are two issues or three 

10 issues, three issues. First of all is that 

11 you're dealing with the concerns about 

12 inhalation of airborne uranium while they were 

13 doing what they do with this fuel, and there's 

14 a lot of -- apparently, there was a

15 considerable amount of air sampling data, and 

16 there was a considerable amount of bioassay 

17 samples for some time period, I guess in the 

18 early 60's.

19 And then in '62, for some reason, 

20 around that time period, it dropped 

21 substantially, the amount of bioassay samples 

22 and the air samples, and there's a lot of 
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 discussion in our report of what happened. I 

2 think in a nutshell it was looking to save 

3 some money, you know, and trying to back off 

4 from that.

5 So they cut back. So we actually 

6 have this hole in the data for occupational 

7 internal exposure, and then eventually the AEC 

8 came in, it was inspection and said "Hold the 

9 presses, Jack. We're seeing, we came in for 

10 an inspection and we're seeing bioassay 

11 samples, urine samples that are above the 

12 allowable limits for occupational exposure."

13 Which sort of belie the limited 

14 air sampling data, which said you're probably 

15 okay. So this is like one of the times when 

16 they said well, if you depend on air sampling 

17 data to let you know whether or not everything 

18 is okay, you might have a problem, because 

19 sometimes there's not a good correlation 

20 between the two.

21 So as a result, UNC went back in 

22 and reinstituted a more aggressive bioassay 
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 sample program. So one of our, and now the 

2 concern that comes up is okay, so now you have 

3 yes, if you've got lots of bioassay data you 

4 can reconstruct the doses to the workers. You 

5 could build coworker models from that.

6 But there's this time period. I 

7 think there were a couple of time periods 

8 where the bioassay data was sparse, and there 

9 are some air sampling data. In our report, 

10 Rich -- Rich, are you on the line?

11 MR. LEGGETT: I'm here.

12 DR. MAURO: Very good. You stop 

13 me when I go off track, okay.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Welcome.

15 DR. MAURO: Rich explained that 

16 well, one of the -- okay. If you're going to 

17 resort to air sampling data, he showed some 

18 graphs in here that say you know, there's a 

19 very poor correlation between air sampling 

20 data and bioassay data.

21 So on those occasions when you do 

22 have both, they said well, how good is that 
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 air sampling data as a way to predict 

2 bioassay, which is a true measure of intake? 

3 He showed that it's pretty poor.

4 So when I walk away, my, you know, 

5 my 30-second sound bite on this issue is you 

6 know you really -- you've got a problem. 

7 There are time periods when you are lacking 

8 adequate bioassay data.

9 All you've got is some limited air 

10 sampling data, and we're questioning whether 

11 or not you really can reconstruct the doses to 

12 those workers at that time period using air 

13 sampling data, because of the lack of 

14 correlation.

15 This is further confounded by the 

16 fact that the workers, as represented in the 

17 Site Profile or the ER, the workers are 

18 represented as working with Type M and Type S 

19 uranium, which is something that it doesn't 

20 change very readily over time.

21 So if you're doing a bioassay 

22 sample, you know, you don't really have to 
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 take a sample every month or every week, you 

2 know. It's pretty robust. But if you're 

3 dealing with Type F, you've got a problem, 

4 because you can have a real high spike of an 

5 intake of Type F.

6 And if you don't take a urine 

7 sample in the relatively short period of time 

8 after that occurs, it's gone. The time 

9 integrated dose over that period where it 

10 clears to the bone, I believe, is a limiting 

11 factor, could be pretty important.

12 That's the depth of my 

13 understanding of the fundamental issue we have 

14 with the internal dosimetry program and the 

15 methods being used. Rich, please correct or 

16 expand upon anything I may have just said.

17 MR. LEGGETT: You're doing very 

18 well.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, if that's 

20 it, that's our story, and we're not quite sure 

21 whether or not how NIOSH plans to deal with 

22 those time periods where there is a paucity of 
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 bioassay data and air sampling data, and also 

2 the fact that it's more than just S and M. 

3 It's also F, and how we're going 

4 to deal with that, in light of the fact that 

5 you have certain limitations in the bioassay 

6 and air sampling data.

7 MR. LEGGETT: John, I would like 

8 to add, to emphasize that by far the weakest, 

9 the thorn in their whole program was started 

10 when they decided to end the bioassay program, 

11 starting in early 1961, and for some reason 

12 they decided to reduce the sampling program at 

13 the same time.

14 I guess, you know, I guess saving 

15 bucks was the key, but we don't know for sure. 

16 But it's really just a black box in that 

17 period, and it was -- their letters from UNC 

18 management suggest that they rediscovered --

19 they discovered that they had a problem in 

20 late 1962, but it was in fact the AEC who had 

21 come in and done an inspection and said you 

22 have a problem, and you need to restart your 
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 bioassay program and increase your air 

2 sampling program.

3 And when they did, they discovered 

4 that they had some workers in the red room, 

5 where they were working with highly enriched 

6 uranium, they had urinary excretion rates 

7 above a thousand dpm per day. So they had a 

8 real problem there.

9 And you would think this, in the 

10 highly enriched room, they would have a more 

11 intense air sampling program than anywhere 

12 else. So that suggests they may have had a 

13 general problem.

14 DR. MAURO: I also noticed that --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So that's the 

16 SEC period, right, '61 to '65 wasn't that?

17 MR. ALLEN: I don't know. I'd 

18 have to look. That's the period they stopped 

19 doing the bioassay.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes. 

21 DR. MAURO: But it's a covered 

22 period?
81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes. That covered 

2 period goes well beyond that, on all sides.

3 DR. NETON: '58 to '69.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: '58 to '69.

5 MR. LEGGETT: I'll add one more 

6 point here, that even before that, like in 

7 1958, their air sampling program was really 

8 sparse. They described it as they would do 

9 complete sampling in the plant at least twice 

10 a year, and they would do some sampling 

11 somewhere at least one week out of every 

12 month, and that's pretty sparse too.

13 DR. MAURO: Was the bioassay 

14 sampling at that time also weak?

15 MR. LEGGETT: Well, it was a 

16 systematic program, where they did either -- a 

17 worker either twice a year or four times a 

18 year, depending on his job, and that's enough 

19 to give you a general idea of the conditions 

20 in the plant, perhaps.

21 But if you find a worker who's had 

22 elevated exposure, and you've got only two 
82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measurements a year, four measurements a year, 

2 you're going to have a hard time using that to 

3 reconstruct his dose.

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think that's 

5 where we disagree. Uranium, I mean especially 

6 where you're talking bone surface, et cetera, 

7 the integrated urinalysis over time is 

8 directly proportionate to bone and every other 

9 systemic organ.

10 The question is lung dose that 

11 you're talking about, which is the -- you can 

12 miss a super-high Type F intake if it was --

13 if you routinely got an acute intake the day 

14 before urinalysis, the day after a urinalysis 

15 samples, so that you have a long time for it 

16 to clear before your next sampling. You can 

17 miss a bunch.

18 Like I said, for systemic organs, 

19 the urinalysis is good. Three months is at 

20 various cuts an acceptable time frame for the 

21 systemic. For the lung, Type F, you just 

22 don't get any dose. It has about a ten minute 
83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 half-life in the lung, absorption half-life 

2 for Type F. It's very fast. So we don't 

3 think quarterly is sparse.

4 DR. MAURO: So quarterly is good 

5 for S and M, but maybe not good enough for F?

6 MR. ALLEN: It is good enough for 

7 F, because the only thing getting any dose is 

8 the systemic organs, and --

9 MR. LEGGETT: Well, if you're not 

10 worried about dose to systemic organ, then 

11 that's true. But I assume you are at some 

12 point worried about systemic organs.

13 MR. ALLEN: No. I'm saying it is 

14 good for systemic organs. The biokinetic 

15 model in the system is the same for S, M and 

16 F. That's purely a lung absorption rate.

17 MR. LEGGETT: Well now if you've 

18 got -- if your measurement, if you have 

19 somebody who's being measured twice a year, 

20 and you routinely and you come up with three 

21 becquerels per day in his urine, and he got a 

22 Type F you don't know when, then it could be a 
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 huge dose to his bone surface, or it could be 

2 a very small dose.

3 MR. ALLEN: Only if you assume 

4 that it is an acute intake the day after the 

5 last urinalysis, and you have to basically 

6 keep assuming that where you get into 

7 implausible, you know. That's where you're 

8 really getting into implausible scenarios, 

9 where a guy has to continuously get a big 

10 intake on a particular day every time.

11 It's just as likely he got it, a 

12 big intake the day before the sample, in which 

13 case your sensitivity is very good. The 

14 standard approach when you don't have incident 

15 reports, you don't know of anything that's 

16 unusual like that is to assume a chronic 

17 exposure.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. We've been 

19 through this before. You're refreshing my 

20 memory. So what we're really saying is Type F 

21 is a challenge from the point of view of if 

22 it's spikes, depending on when the urine 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sample is relative to when the spike occurred, 

2 it gives you a little bit of grief.

3 But if the spike occurs, would the 

4 argument be that there are records that say 

5 well, we know some kind of transient occurred. 

6 Would this fella experience such a spike and 

7 therefore follow-up investigations would have 

8 been done. 

9 If it's chronic, does it really 

10 matter? You pick them up during the routine 

11 sample, and because there's no evidence that 

12 there was a spike and you are picking up, and 

13 you believe he's being exposed to F, you just 

14 simply assume that he's chronically being 

15 exposed to F all along. 

16 That would result in that 

17 picocurie per liter in the urine and into the 

18 calculation, and this is the protocol that you 

19 would adopt. Is that in fact the protocol 

20 that's adopted?

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it is, and then 

22 the one issue we have, as has been pointed out 
86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in 1961-1962, where they stopped doing the 

2 routine sampling, as was I think it was 

3 already pointed out, had a few samples towards 

4 the end of that that showed very high, more 

5 than they were expecting, and that created a 

6 whole investigation and restart of the 

7 urinalysis program.

8 DR. MAURO: Right, that triggered 

9 that.

10 MR. ALLEN: What we did was 

11 essentially assume the chronic, based on those 

12 analyses, those high ones, come up with an 

13 intake rate and gave them that or all the time 

14 frame up to that point, and it does seem to 

15 overestimate the earlier bioassay. So we 

16 think it is a bounding estimate at that point.

17 If there was something more going 

18 on, it should show up in those high samples 

19 when they did restart the program.

20 DR. MAURO: And you had tried it 

21 for S, M and F at that point?

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and in all 
87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reality, when you do, do it from urinalysis, 

2 that's the one that's going to give you the 

3 higher dose. For the systemic organs it's 

4 going to be close, but S generally gives you 

5 the higher one.

6 And as far as the air sampling 

7 that you were mentioning, the Appendix didn't 

8 do any uranium intakes by air samples.

9 DR. MAURO: So even those years 

10 that there was this window of two years, 

11 lacking bioassay data, at the end of that 

12 window, when AEC came in and said uh-oh, 

13 you've got a load here.

14 You've got to get that program 

15 back online again, you're saying that you 

16 could recover from that, because the big 

17 readings you'll get, I would say two years 

18 later, can be used to reconstruct the intakes 

19 that occurred for those two or three years 

20 before. 

21 I'm just trying to think. 

22 Conceptually the way you do that is you see 
88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the high numbers, and you ask yourself what 

2 would the chronic intake have been over that 

3 time period, to give you a continuous, and you 

4 step in at the end, and there it is. If you 

5 stepped in earlier, that's what you'd see too.

6 MR. ALLEN: Right.

7 DR. MAURO: Is there any concern 

8 that if you did step in early it could have 

9 been ten times higher, or that cannot happen 

10 for S and M?

11 MR. ALLEN: There's no indication 

12 they had a program for those two years, so 

13 there was nothing that would have caused them 

14 to reduce the airborne levels.

15 DR. MAURO: Well no. We know they 

16 reduced the airborne --

17 MR. ALLEN: Is because they 

18 started finding high urinalysis.

19 DR. MAURO: Well, the NRC stepped 

20 in and found it.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: So at some time in '61 
89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or '60, UNC decides --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do we have 

3 those, when they came in and did their --

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We have those 

6 results?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: The reality is, the 

10 history is it's the AEC in its inspection 

11 role.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But we have 

13 the inspections, they came in and they did 

14 biomonitoring.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, and found the 

16 problem, and we have that. They handled it. 

17 So it's written up in the report.

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes, yes, okay.

19 DR. MAURO: Rich Leggett did a 

20 nice job, and that -- you know, so they were

21 forced back in to all right, we'd better get 

22 the program up and running again, right.
90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 What I'm hearing is even though 

2 they were deficient for a few years in the 

3 amount of bioassays that should have been 

4 taken, I think there's general agreement that 

5 -- even the management agrees no, we should 

6 not have cut back on the program.

7 You're saying that notwithstanding 

8 that, when did data start to come in again 

9 later on in '63 or whenever, '64, whenever it 

10 started up again.

11 MR. ALLEN: Late '62.

12 DR. MAURO: '62. You're in a 

13 position where you feel confident you could 

14 place plausible upper bounds on the intake of 

15 uranium for that window of time that you don't 

16 have, and the basis for that, and I would 

17 agree, is if you have a combination of two 

18 things.

19 One, good records of incidents and 

20 transients, where people might have 

21 experienced acute exposures over short periods 

22 of time, and knowing that they didn't occur, 
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and if they did occur, there were follow-ups 

2 for those particular circumstances.

3 You know, so you've got that, and 

4 you could make a case that we didn't 

5 experience this unusual circumstances. Then 

6 all you really have is a chronic, ongoing 

7 program with people being exposed, and when 

8 you pick it up at the end of that program, you 

9 just pick it up and you really didn't miss 

10 anything.

11 I'd have to agree. That model of 

12 those years seems to convince me that you've 

13 got a tractable problem. Rich, did I do a 

14 disservice in my generalization of that?

15 MR. LEGGETT: Well, I don't think 

16 that's a realistic situation for plants. I 

17 think if that were the case, we could change 

18 all the bioassay programs in the uranium 

19 plants in the world and save a lot of money.

20 There's a reason that they do 

21 bioassay every week when they deal with high 

22 levels of uranium, and I don't think you can 
92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 skip a couple of years and assume everything 

2 was continuous or assume that you always knew 

3 when there was an incident, when there was a 

4 leak, when there was a high exposure.

5 MR. ALLEN: Well I mean I've 

6 worked at a uranium plant, and I've never 

7 heard of a weekly bioassay sample for uranium. 

8 I mean I've seen every two months or 

9 quarterly in order to detect your 100 millirem 

10 committed effective dose monitoring.

11 But and a two-year gap is more 

12 than that, but we're not talking about having 

13 a sensitivity of 100 millirem. We're talking 

14 about estimating what the dose was and if it's 

15 a rem, it's still a reasonable estimate. But 

16 weekly analysis for uranium, I have never 

17 heard of.

18 DR. MAURO: What I'm hearing --

19 MR. LEGGETT: Well, I've dealt

20 with a lot of them.

21 DR. MAURO: What I'm hearing is 

22 here's the point of disagreement. It's good 
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to get to a place where it's clean. 

2 DR. NETON: Well, let me -- this 

3 is another situation where we've been through 

4 this, a number of sites, and this has been our 

5 approach.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 DR. NETON: So if now we're 

8 hearing that incidents at relevant to all of 

9 these situations, this a new finding.

10 DR. MAURO: I'm not saying it is.

11 DR. NETON: Well, I'm just saying 

12 that's what Rich was saying. I'm saying that 

13 this is not something that -- it's something 

14 that we hammered out very early on, about use 

15 of chronic exposures versus incident-based 

16 exposures.

17 Because like Dave said, the fact 

18 is you might have one or two sparsely 

19 occurring incidents in there, but it doesn't 

20 add to the dose that much. If you have 

21 multiple acute incidents, you essentially end 

22 up having a chronic exposure scenario.
94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes. It's the old 

2 question of how many acutes does it take to 

3 make it chronic.

4 DR. NETON: Exactly.

5 DR. MAURO: Except if it's F, I 

6 guess. 

7 DR. NETON: Well, but the dose 

8 through the F from the lung, I mean you're 

9 going to bound that with a more insoluble. 

10 The dose to the lung from Type F is very 

11 small, with higher lung doses, assuming acute

12 exposures to more insoluble material.

13 DR. MAURO: I agree. I remember 

14 three or four years ago, where you've done a 

15 number of cases --

16 DR. NETON: We went through this.

17 DR. MAURO: And you showed that --

18 if we assume it's spike-spike-spike, as 

19 opposed to chronic. Or but the only place 

20 where I think we, there wasn't that, and this 

21 is, and you need to correct me if I'm wrong, 

22 is let's say the spike occurred right after 
95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the last bioassay sample, and it may have been 

2 a year before. 

3 A spike occurs, intake occurs, and 

4 it's going to gradually go down. A year 

5 later, you pull your sample. Now --

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but even then, 

7 you're talking one acute intake versus a long, 

8 chronic. You typically end up with more 

9 intake on the long chronic, unless you have 

10 multiple acutes, and then you're talking has 

11 to be multiple times, the day after the 

12 sample, and it gets to be very unrealistic. 

13 At some point, you have enough --

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I don't 

16 remember. But I do remember there was the 

17 back and forth, and I don't think it was 

18 really ever resolved. We just moved on. 

19 Let's, just a question here. You 

20 have on the next page Finding 6 under the 

21 response on the poor correlation with air and 

22 biologic samples. Isn't that true of most of 
96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the sites? I mean isn't -- I mean that's just 

2 -- I mean that's pecking order. You want 

3 biomonitoring.

4 DR. NETON: And usually --

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, go ahead.

6 DR. NETON: Well, I think that 

7 they suggested earlier, that we really didn't 

8 rely on the air samples in this analysis.

9 But oftentimes, most of the poor 

10 correlation goes the other way, where the air 

11 samples will show a higher exposure than the 

12 bioassay samples, because air samples are not 

13 particle-size selective. I mean so they pick 

14 up everything that's in the air, not just the 

15 respirables.

16 There was an analysis done at 

17 Fernald that pretty clearly demonstrated that 

18 in uranium. But that's a different issue. 

19 We're not using it here.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, so it 

21 doesn't apply.

22 DR. MAURO: It's not relevant.
97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So that 

2 Finding 6 there is interesting, but --

3 DR. NETON: I guess I'm not sure 

4 where to go with it. I personally have not 

5 read the analysis that Rich Leggett did in the 

6 write-up, and I don't know whether -- do we 

7 maybe just want to go back and respond to this 

8 --

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 DR. NETON: I don't sense that 

11 we're going to solve it talking here.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim, did I 

13 understand correctly that you're not relying 

14 on air sampling here?

15 DR. NETON: That's what Dave's 

16 just said.

17 MR. ALLEN: Not for uranium, no.

18 DR. NETON: Not for uranium.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: You just used it 

20 as sort of a check, a reality check kind of 

21 thing?

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

2 DR. MAURO: We'll get to it --

3 thorium is going to be, that's next.

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 DR. NETON: You know, I guess I'd 

6 feel more comfortable if we went back and 

7 looked at that write-up and responded.

8 DR. MAURO: You know, yes. I 

9 agree. If it turns out that the way in which 

10 you deal with this class of problems, and 

11 we've hashed it out before --

12 DR. NETON: And if we need to go 

13 back and do our analyses again and drag out 

14 the old stuff from three or four years ago, we 

15 can do that.

16 DR. MAURO: Maybe that's needed 

17 every so often, every two or three years. 

18 DR. NETON: I mean Joyce was 

19 involved in the early go-round on this. 

20 MR. KATZ: It was more than three 

21 or four years ago.

22 DR. NETON: You know, Joyce 
99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Lipsztein was involved with this, and this was 

2 her exact point early on, and we went through 

3 several iterations of discussions on this. I 

4 think we ended up where we are. 

5 DR. MAURO: So here we have a site 

6 where there's two or three years went by, 

7 where there's no bioassay or limited bioassay 

8 samples, and the question becomes how are you 

9 going to deal with those guys? I mean that's 

10 all it really comes out to, are you being fair 

11 to them?

12 DR. NETON: Right, and the 

13 question is really, is the chronic exposure 

14 model appropriate and does it bound doses for 

15 this Class of workers. You get into this 

16 situation, though. How many acutes, how many 

17 multiple acutes consist of chronic exposure.

18 MR. KATZ: What was the beginning 

19 date where they cut the bioassay program?

20 DR. MAURO: '61. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it's less 

22 than two years we're talking about total, 
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right?

2 MR. ALLEN: I don't know the exact 

3 date in '61.

4 DR. NETON: Did Hematite have Type 

5 F material? I mean was it --

6 MR. ALLEN: They had some UF6, but 

7 that's not something you're going to get 

8 people acutely exposed to generally, because -

9 - I mean if you release that into the 

10 atmosphere in Missouri with the humidity, 

11 you're going to produce some hydrofluoric 

12 acid. 

13 MR. ALLEN: U02F2 plus 

14 hydrofluoric acid.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: People will 

16 know if that happens.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 DR. MAURO: It's the HF.

19 DR. NETON: The HF is very 

20 irritating.

21 DR. MAURO: But you see where we 

22 are.
101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Yes. We'll go back. 

2 I mean we have -- I think we need to develop a 

3 little more formal position, rather than have 

4 a verbal discussion. 

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. That I 

6 think, especially of that, we could just go 

7 back the historic seven or whatever years ago, 

8 bring it up. We can update everybody on -- if 

9 we have all of our copies.

10 DR. NETON: I mean putting what we 

11 just discussed in writing would be helpful, 

12 and have some considered discussion.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So any of your 

14 other SC&A responses under 5 here you want to 

15 talk about?

16 DR. MAURO: Let's see. Is thorium 

17 there?

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. It's the 

19 last one.

20 DR. MAURO: It's the -- okay, so 

21 it's later on. So let's see if we --

22 DR. NETON: I'm confused. These 
102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are findings under number five, and now 

2 there's an eight listed here. How does this

3 work?

4 DR. MAURO: I think --

5 MR. ALLEN: The findings on the 

6 left are the original Appendix review, and 

7 then there's some new findings with what we 

8 call a targeted review.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: But does this -- okay.

11 MR. THURBER: The findings on the 

12 column on the right are the new findings, 

13 based on the September 2010 review?

14 DR. MAURO: We went through two 

15 rounds, when the ER came out.

16 DR. NETON: But then we go back to 

17 Finding 5 on page 13.

18 DR. MAURO: Right.

19 DR. NETON: Which is not Finding 5 

20 on page -- oh.

21 MR. ALLEN: Essentially, we're 

22 discussing the findings on the right-hand 
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 side.

2 DR. MAURO: The right. That's 

3 where we are, on the right-hand side.

4 DR. NETON: I understand. Okay. 

5 So Finding 6 on the left-hand column is 

6 irrelevant. Well, we've got two Finding 6's 

7 now, because Finding 6 stands on page 13. We 

8 also have a Finding 6 on page 12 that is 

9 different than the Finding 6 that stands on 

10 page 13. I mean I'm a little bit confused.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But it's 

12 Finding 6 under discussion of your initial 

13 Finding 4.

14 DR. NETON: Well, I understand. 

15 But we have two numbering systems here. It 

16 doesn't say which column it came out of.

17 MR. THURBER: Well, but the 

18 findings follow the documents.

19 DR. NETON: Yes, I understand.

20 MR. THURBER: Now we could have 

21 renumbered them and make it conveniently 

22 traceable back to the documents. That's the 
104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reason we did it this way.

2 DR. NETON: I would have called it 

3 Finding 4A, B, C, D or something like that. 

4 But we have two Finding 6's right now. That's 

5 my point.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we do. We're 

7 doing essentially the right-hand side. We're 

8 just looking at the right-hand side as the 

9 findings of the new targeted review.

10 DR. NETON: No, because the 

11 targeted review has a Finding 6 that stands 

12 from the earlier review.

13 MR. ALLEN: No. The targeted 

14 review is the ones on the right. 

15 MR. THURBER: The targeted review 

16 is the last column.

17 DR. NETON: Right.

18 MR. THURBER: There were other 

19 findings that were still open, but the new 

20 work that we were asked to do at the last Work 

21 Group meeting is covered in the last column. 

22 That reflects the new work we were asked to 
105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do. It doesn't mean that there were other 

2 things that were not closed.

3 DR. NETON: But so we have 

4 findings, the original findings and the new 

5 findings?

6 MR. THURBER: That's correct, yes.

7 DR. NETON: But some persist from 

8 in the first group. I would suggest that we 

9 renumber all these when we're done, and make 

10 them one.

11 MR. ALLEN: I'm following it. 

12 (Laughter.)

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, if we 

14 renumber, since we've been talking, the 

15 transcript is going to reflect the numbers 

16 you're talking about here. So let's not 

17 change them until after that.

18 DR. NETON: We're down to Finding 

19 8 on page 12.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Eight, yes.

21 DR. MAURO: Thorium, I think and 

22 just to start it off, I think that thorium was 
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstructed based on air sampling data, and 

2 the assumption that the gross alpha activity 

3 that was observed in the air samples at the 

4 time of the thorium and the location of the 

5 thorium operations I understand was somewhat 

6 limited, can be assumed to be thorium 

7 exposures, and on that basis, you can 

8 reconstruct doses.

9 At that point, I'd like to turn it 

10 over to Rich to add to that, and maybe give it 

11 more nuance.

12 MR. LEGGETT: I couldn't hear you.

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

14 simply introduced the idea that now we're 

15 moving on to thorium, and it's my 

16 understanding that the issues we raised 

17 related to thorium have to do with that it's 

18 all based on air sampling data.

19 MR. LEGGETT: That's right.

20 DR. MAURO: And whether or not you 

21 can reconstruct thorium-232, I believe it's 

22 232, inhalations, based on the air sampling 
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data that's available through NIOSH.

2 MR. LEGGETT: Yes. Well, that's 

3 another running battle between us and NIOSH. 

4 Joyce Lipsztein and I said "No, you've got to 

5 have better than that." 

6 But I think you have to have 

7 better data than what they have to reconstruct 

8 doses. They don't even -- I don't think the 

9 information is available to say exactly what 

10 radionuclides were monitored, but I couldn't 

11 find it. But maybe it exists.

12 DR. MAURO: When you say what 

13 radionuclides, do you mean that the -- I know 

14 that the air samples were gross alpha, and the 

15 presumption was that that was thorium that 

16 we're looking at. When you're saying perhaps 

17 it was uranium also?

18 MR. LEGGETT: Yes. I don't -- I 

19 mean as far as I know, they didn't measure any 

20 daughters. You know, we've had this 

21 disagreement before. If all they're measuring 

22 is gross alpha, which is probably the case, 
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and if they're actually also measuring some 

2 uranium, they're probably okay if it's a large 

3 uranium in there. I don't they know that 

4 either.

5 DR. NETON: So why would that not 

6 be conservative, though, if it included 

7 uranium and daughters from thorium?

8 MR. LEGGETT: No. I say if it 

9 does include uranium, that helps you out. I 

10 mean that's -- you're overestimating.

11 DR. NETON: But even the 

12 daughters, if they were in there, it would 

13 overestimate the exposure of the thorium. I 

14 mean we're assuming the gross alpha is 

15 entirely related to thorium-232, and 228 I 

16 guess, which is in there. 

17 But I don't understand why that 

18 would not be an overestimate in all cases? 

19 It's at least representative. If it's only 

20 thorium, it's an overestimate if there's 

21 uranium and thorium daughters in the air. 

22 MR. LEGGETT: I don't know. I 
109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean I don't know from that little bit of 

2 information where it could be overestimating 

3 or underestimating if it's daughters.

4 DR. NETON: Well, if you're 

5 measuring gross alpha and you're attributing 

6 every alpha emission to thorium-232 and 

7 there's more in there, more alphas than just 

8 from thorium-232, it would overestimate the 

9 air concentration, would it not?

10 MR. LEGGETT: I don't know that 

11 that's the case.

12 DR. NETON: Why not? If I measure 

13 daughters and include them as thorium, would 

14 that not overestimate the amount of thorium in 

15 the air?

16 MR. LEGGETT: I don't know the 

17 answer to that.

18 DR. NETON: Why not? You're 

19 counting more alphas than are really there. I 

20 don't understand why you can't agree to that, 

21 but I mean that's why you wait for --

22 MR. LEGGETT: I don't know. 
110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There's little information.

2 DR. NETON: That's why you wait 

3 for filters to decay for thoron and radon 

4 progeny, so you don't overestimate the amount 

5 of long-lived in the air. I mean that's a 

6 standard practice in air sampling.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Jim, I mean 

8 I certainly can agree with that. But I would 

9 more have the question, can Dave, just to step 

10 back for a second, can you just give me an 

11 overview of what the air monitoring program 

12 consisted of?

13 Was it general area samples, how 

14 many do you have, and you know, just a 

15 general, just to step back a second, just 

16 because I haven't reviewed all this as -- I'm 

17 not as prepared as I should be probably, but 

18 just to step back a moment. I don't know what 

19 kind of data we're dealing with even.

20 MR. ALLEN: I can give you just a 

21 short one, because honestly I didn't go back 

22 and look at it that closely myself. But it 
111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was some 200 air samples, 212 rings a bell, 

2 but that's probably wrong.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Over the course 

4 of the ten years or so?

5 MR. ALLEN: No. Over the course 

6 of the thorium project. The thorium project 

7 was short-lived. I think it was in one 

8 particular year or a portion of that year. 

9 They did some 200 samples during 

10 that time frame, and it was a thorium-uranium 

11 mixed fuel, very much thorium. I think it was 

12 like a few percentage points of uranium added. 

13 It was a strange mix.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do you know if it 

15 was process samples, general area or - 

16 MR. ALLEN: I believe there were 

17 general area, but I don't have it off the top 

18 of my head. I can find that out. I'm not 

19 sure I can find out while we're talking 

20 though. I don't know if I have that 

21 reference.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that's 
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 helpful. I'd just like to know --

2 DR. NETON: Yes. I think that's a 

3 relevant issue here.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

5 DR. NETON: I would agree, that 

6 that's a topic of discussion, whether or not 

7 the gross alpha can be used to bound thorium I 

8 think is a non-issue personally.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, your point. 

10 Jim, I agree with you on the gross alpha 

11 issue.

12 DR. MAURO: Is the issue related 

13 to the poor correlation between air sampling 

14 and bioassay data, you know? This undermines 

15 the use of air sampling data in general.

16 Now you had mentioned that and 

17 this would be interesting. I didn't know 

18 this, that when you use air sampling data to 

19 reconstruct internal dose, it tends to 

20 overestimate. I thought it was the other way.

21 DR. NETON: It can, it can. You 

22 have to be careful. If you're using only 
113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 general area samples, you would probably 

2 overestimate. When you have enclosed process3 type samples, you know, near the operation, it 

4 will overestimate intakes, because again 

5 you've got the entire spectrum --

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: There's a lot of 

7 things going on there. I mean I think Jim's 

8 point was that if you used gross output, 

9 you're assuming more alphas than are really 

10 thorium. Therefore, you're overestimating 

11 from that standpoint. But the location of the 

12 sampler is so much more critical, I think.

13 DR. NETON: Yes. You've got to 

14 look at the sampling. But if you have an air 

15 sampling program that is fairly representative 

16 of the workplace, it will typically 

17 overestimate the intakes because again, you're 

18 not particle-size selective. You have a 

19 spectrum of particles in there.

20 MR. LEGGETT: Agreed.

21 DR. NETON: And then there's a 

22 paper on -- Fernald did a paper on this a 
114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 while ago, I mean in the 60's, I think, or 

2 even late 50's, that compared urinary output 

3 versus what was being measured in the air. 

4 I'm reasonably certain, I hope I'm not -- on 

5 this, but I'm reasonably certain that the air 

6 samples, as they took them, overestimated the 

7 inputs.

8 DR. MAURO: There's actually a 

9 graph in this report that shows the 

10 correlation between air sample and bioassay 

11 sample. I wanted to open it up to see if it 

12 goes the way you said. In other words --

13 DR. NETON: Yes. It could go a 

14 number of different ways. I'm saying if you 

15 have a representative air sampling program, it 

16 will overestimate.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. If everybody 

18 has, I mean because this goes toward the 

19 issue. If everybody has the report, the 

20 United Nuclear report dated September 30th on 

21 the top of the page there, I'm looking at page 

22 24. You are? Maybe Bill will share it. Now 
115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this was important to me. I think it's 

2 important in the broadest of senses.

3 DR. NETON: What page are you on 

4 John?

5 DR. MAURO: I'm on page 24. 

6 MR. THURBER: Figure 1.

7 DR. MAURO: Figure 1.

8 DR. NETON: Just give me a chance 

9 to bring it up here.

10 DR. MAURO: Sure. Now is for UNC. 

11 This is when they had both data, and it seems 

12 that it's a scattergram, whereby the best 

13 example, I would imagine, is if you look along 

14 the X axis and you see 50 picocuries per cubic 

15 meter as the dust loading in the air, the 

16 uranium, and you say okay, how does that 

17 correspond to concentrations in urine.

18 Well, in one case it goes to 400. 

19 But then in another one, in the same general 

20 vicinity, it's 100. Now a factor of four. 

21 I've got to tell you, a factor of four doesn't 

22 give you too much grief, but it's a factor of 
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 four.

2 And so you know, things are 

3 scattered in a way, and this is in the eye of 

4 the beholder, how bad is that, what this --

5 you know, there really is not a nice trend. 

6 You know, you would like to say oh, it's a 

7 straight -- the fact that the best fit is a 

8 flat line says a lot. 

9 DR. NETON: Yes, and again, it 

10 depends on which air samples you're measuring 

11 in here or using in this analysis, and where 

12 they were.

13 DR. MAURO: I think they're 

14 coupled. I think it's the breathing -- in 

15 fact, I remember reading this a few months 

16 ago.

17 DR. NETON: These are breathing 

18 zone air samples?

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. They were taking 

20 -- well, I don't know if they're called 

21 breathing zone. The samples were taken from a 

22 header where the worker was, for the time 
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 while he's working there, and then the urine 

2 sample was taken and they're sort of coupled. 

3 I think that that's what their --

4 please, it's good to read it, though. I don't 

5 know. Rich, am I representing this correctly?

6 MR. THURBER: It says they're 

7 time-weighted averages, John.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, and they're 

9 coupled. The exposure --

10 DR. NETON: Time-weighted 

11 averages. Well, we'd have to look at it. I 

12 can't tell from there.

13 DR. MAURO: In other words, here's 

14 the intake estimated for this guy for some 

15 time period, and here's the urine sample 

16 that's supposed to represent -- that's used. 

17 Now the question becomes if you didn't have 

18 the urine sample, would you be able to trust? 

19 This says maybe not.

20 DR. NETON: In this particular 

21 case, it appears that way.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, and there is 
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where -- so I think this kind of issue, and it 

2 goes to the thorium question, was the thorium 

3 question. You are using air samples.

4 DR. NETON: Right, and that's 

5 fine. That's, we need to get with those 

6 samples and look at them and see what the 

7 developed spread and distribution of those 

8 were. 

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: But I have to go look 

11 at the particular data that was analyzed and 

12 see what.

13 MR. ALLEN: Well, in this 

14 particular case, you've got -- it does point 

15 out something Jim was saying about there is 

16 often a lack of correlation, because the air 

17 samples tend to go high, and that can happen 

18 because of the exposure scenarios where you 

19 don't know.

20 So you're assuming the guy is 

21 there, whereas people actually tend to draw an 

22 air sample when the work is going on, and not 
119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when it's not, and you've got to expose it at 

2 all times. Also, air samples don't inherently 

3 take into account the PPE, you know, the 

4 respirator where --

5 DR. NETON: Exactly. That's a big 

6 issue, where we had no account of respirator 

7 protection at any of these sites.

8 DR. MAURO: So you don't know.

9 DR. NETON: And so you don't know 

10 which one time the guy was wearing a 

11 respirator and which time he wasn't. There's 

12 a lot of issues here.

13 MR. ALLEN: Then you toss an 

14 outlier in there and it can screw up any kind 

15 of correlation. If you look at Figure 1, if 

16 you throw out the one outlier that's at 400 

17 dpm per liter of urine, it almost looks like a 

18 straight line going up there, with some low 

19 ones to the right that were probably --

20 DR. NETON: Where there may be 

21 PPE?

22 MR. ALLEN: Respirators. So if 
120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you have to look at that one outlier, and as 

2 it is, it's 406 dpm per liter. Two months 

3 later, he's got 45 and four months before he's 

4 got 44, and routinely he's showing 10 and 20.

5 It is possible, and it has been a 

6 problem in some of these, where a guy can 

7 contaminate the sample, you know, not his 

8 internals but actually his sample while he's 

9 leaving.

10 DR. NETON: And not just 

11 contaminate. You've got chronic exposure 

12 scenarios ongoing at the same time. So a spot 

13 sample taken during a monitoring campaign 

14 could represent an accumulated body burden 

15 that he's been excreting from --

16 There's a lot of issues here that 

17 I think point to air sample data is not as 

18 bad at predicting as -- based on looking at 

19 straight analysis of urine data. You've got 

20 to take in a lot of confounding - 

21 DR. MAURO: The air sample is 

22 point in time; the urine sample is time-
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 integrated. 

2 DR. NETON: It's time-integrated, 

3 and then you've got PPE usage that's not taken 

4 into account.

5 DR. MAURO: And so here we have a 

6 perfect case. We have a guy here where he has 

7 the air sample is up there, the 150 to 200 

8 picocuries per cubic meter, but there's 

9 nothing in the urine, right. Now what does 

10 that mean? It's the highest of all the 

11 measures --

12 DR. NETON: Because he was wearing 

13 a respirator.

14 DR. MAURO: And there's nothing in 

15 the urine. 

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: He was off on 

17 vacation for two weeks.

18 DR. NETON: I would expect the 

19 higher the concentration, the more likely it 

20 is that he's wearing a respirator. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, and there you go. 

22 so what do you do with that?
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Yes, exactly. 

2 DR. MAURO: Well now that being 

3 the case. Okay, let me just play this out, to 

4 untangle the knot.

5 MR. ALLEN: Well in general then, 

6 we don't account for PPEs when we're doing air 

7 samples, and in general, that ends up being 

8 considerably higher than what you would get 

9 from urinalysis. This is always an outlier 

10 here, an outlier there.

11 DR. NETON: I think we saw this at 

12 Simon, Simon Saw and Steel. The urine data 

13 didn't track with the air concentrations that 

14 were being measured.

15 It was much higher in the air than 

16 in the urine. So it's really a case-by-case 

17 basis. I mean I don't think you can pull one 

18 air sample series of measurements off the 

19 shelf and compare them and go "Oh, look at 

20 this. There's no correlation." 

21 There are a lot of papers that 

22 have been published on this, and I think 
123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 frankly that you can go both ways, although I 

2 would say most of the publications you're 

3 going to find out there show these types of 

4 uncorrelation.

5 DR. MAURO: What do we do here? I 

6 mean given our thorium story.

7 DR. NETON: I think it's incumbent 

8 upon us to demonstrate that we -- why we 

9 believe that the thorium samples that were 

10 taken were representative of the workers' 

11 exposure.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, and can be used. 

13 DR. NETON: And it's going to be 

14 an overestimate, because we've included 

15 uranium and all the daughter products in the 

16 air.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But is it --

18 you know, I mean it's easy to do an 

19 overestimate. The question is, is it a 

20 realistic --

21 DR. NETON: I don't think gross, 

22 using gross alpha is an issue personally. I 
124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think that's okay. I think the main issue is, 

2 is this air sampling, these 200 or so air 

3 samples adequate to document this less than 

4 one year process that occurred.

5 And the fact that many of them 

6 were process samples, I would say we've got 

7 it. I mean we've seen -- process samples back 

8 in this era are usually taken, you know, 

9 they're even labeled as not indicative of the 

10 exposure of the workers. They're like trying 

11 to get a rough idea of an upper level of the 

12 magnitude. 

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So you'll put 

14 together a little more documentation on that?

15 DR. NETON: I personally won't, 

16 but someone will.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I'm going to 

19 parcel out assignments to individuals. No, 

20 I'm just saying that I think to move this 

21 along, that it's what we need.

22 DR. NETON: I agree.
125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: We need to show that 

2 the air samples are representative of 

3 exposures for the thorium project, and I can't 

4 put my hands on this thing. I don't have it 

5 with me and I can't put my hands on that 

6 reference marker, because I don't -- I just 

7 can't remember.

8 I'm thinking they're GAs, but I 

9 cannot remember. That will be part of showing 

10 whether it's representative or not though.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So we'll get a 

12 little report on that.

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We owe you 

14 something there. 

15 DR. MAURO: Okay. Finding 5. Old 

16 Finding 5 as stands, we've had nothing new on 

17 that, right? Yes. I'll tell you, when I was 

18 reviewing this, I stopped at the --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 DR. MAURO: I didn't keep going 

21 with the residual period. It looks like 

22 there's some residual period issues.
126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I can elaborate 

2 on that, John.

3 DR. MAURO: Thanks.

4 DR. BEHLING: What it turns out is 

5 that I looked at the protocol for determining 

6 what the inhalation dose was for residual 

7 contamination, as defined in the Rev 0 and 

8 then Rev 1, and there was really no 

9 significant difference other than the date on 

10 Rev 1.

11 And on the basis of what the 

12 protocol was, the intent was to use the 

13 highest intake rate from Table D-1, to convert 

14 that to an air concentration that would then 

15 settle the floor for a period and accumulate 

16 for one year.

17 Using their protocol, and they 

18 used also a resuspension factor of E minus 6 

19 and applying those values, I ended up with an

20 inhalation dose that was 20 times, 29 times 

21 higher than the one estimated by NIOSH. 

22 On this, they have something that 
127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I didn't consider or identify, an error in my 

2 assumption. I think the finding stood, as we 

3 discussed the last time around. So what we 

4 have here is a discrepancy that's about a 29-

5 fold discrepancy.

6 DR. NETON: So what you're saying, 

7 Hans, is you think that there is some sort of 

8 a calculational error in our --

9 DR. BEHLING: Well, I can only 

10 look at my calculation, Jim, and I can't see 

11 any flaw in what I did. If you look back at 

12 both the original write-up and then the 

13 subsequent review of Rev 1, I basically 

14 regurgitated what I stated beforehand, 

15 identified my calculations the way I saw or 

16 interpreted your model, and I ended up with an 

17 inhalation dose that was 20 times higher than 

18 the value of 10.34 dpm per day for Type S 

19 uranium, as defined in Table D-1.

20 So unless somebody can point an 

21 error out in my calculation, I stand by my 

22 initial statement.
128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: We need to look at 

2 that. It sounds like a simple - 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

4 DR. NETON: Unless Dave's got 

5 something.

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, we discussed it 

7 last time and I am looking at my notes and 

8 can't recall the details. I think we did 

9 point out an error in your calcs Hans, but I 

10 just don't recall. I'm going to have to end 

11 up -- it's a simple thing. I mean if there's 

12 a math error, then it needs to be fixed 

13 obviously.

14 DR. MAURO: So a Work Group action 

15 item is want the calculation --

16 MR. KATZ: So do you have Hans' 

17 actual calculations?

18 DR. BEHLING: Yes. Just for 

19 information, it's on page eight of my revised 

20 write-up that incorporates the revisions to 

21 Rev 1, where I by and large went through the 

22 same calculation and identified the values 
129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that I thought were appropriate, based on the 

2 recommendation for using the data of Table D3 1, in terms of the highest intake rate.

4 I mean it's a very simple 

5 calculation, where you end up with an air 

6 concentration times a deposition velocity, 

7 which I believe was also identified as 

8 something, what was it, about 0.075 meters per 

9 second or something.

10 I used all the recommended values 

11 that NIOSH uses from deposition velocity to 

12 resuspension, and came up with a ground 

13 contamination at the end of a full year, and 

14 then used the resuspension value of one E 

15 minus 6, and I end up with a value, inhalation 

16 value per day that is 29 times higher.

17 DR. MAURO: Hans, when you came up 

18 with the buildup on the surface, and then the 

19 dust loading from resuspension, did you decay 

20 that or using what's constant during the 

21 residual period?

22 DR. BEHLING: Well, there's no 
130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reference to that. As I said, my flow 

2 contamination level after one year was based 

3 on a surface contamination that reflects the 

4 maximum inhalation dose on Table D-1, and then 

5 I used a 0.075 meters per second deposition 

6 velocity, which is defined in meters per 

7 second, and then the number of seconds in a 

8 year, and end up with a dpm per square meter 

9 of flow contamination, and then applied the 

10 simple resuspension factor of E minus 6, and 

11 ended up with an inhalation dose that's 29 

12 times higher.

13 DR. NETON: Is that for a work 

14 year or a calendar year deposition?

15 DR. BEHLING: That was, I believe 

16 it was for 2,000 hours.

17 DR. MAURO: The reason I asked the 

18 question is there's history here. Over the 

19 course of the least couple of years, we have 

20 concurred with you folks on at the beginning 

21 of the residual period, you pick a number 

22 that's at the end of operations and that 
131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 represents sort of like the transition.

2 This is going to be the start of 

3 our residual period. You pick some dust 

4 loading, whatever it is, and then you -- and 

5 we're okay with that. And then you apply a 

6 deposition rate as .00075 meters per second, 

7 which is the rate at which the stuff is 

8 falling down, and you allow that to fall down 

9 for a full -- I don't know, sometimes it's a 

10 week and sometimes it's a year. It's a little 

11 fuzzy. But anyway, the whole concept.

12 And at one time we had a problem 

13 with that. We don't have a problem with that 

14 because David made a very good case that this 

15 works. So now you have the activity on the 

16 surface of the ground at the beginning of the 

17 residual period.

18 Then you say okay, but now we're 

19 going to put -- now from that, you can get 

20 external exposure, and also from that you can 

21 get inhalation exposure from resuspension. 

22 Now, our position regarding the 
132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resuspension factor has matured a bit. We 

2 believe that if that, that residue, it sits 

3 there, it hasn't been cleaned up, it's 

4 substantial. 10 to the minus 6 is not a good 

5 number. We like 10 to the minus 5.

6 However, if there was a cleanup 

7 that took place, similar to what took place at 

8 Linde, where they deliberately went in and 

9 vacuumed all the stuff up, and now the 10 to 

10 the minus 6 is starting to look good, because 

11 there's lots of evidence from the NRC reports 

12 that when you do clean the stuff up, that your 

13 10 to the minus 6 is probably a good number. 

14 And we may not have said this out loud before, 

15 but I'm saying now, that when you could show 

16 that, that the cleanup did take place, 10 to 

17 the minus 6 holds up nicely. It's when there 

18 was no cleanup.

19 Now, to go back to the original 

20 question, but that's the beginning. So now 

21 let's say you go with your model and you come 

22 up with your dust loading at the beginning of 
133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the residual period. Now you can do one of 

2 two things. You've gone, you could just 

3 assume it's constant. Okay, in this case you 

4 assume it's constant.

5 That's extremely conservative. We 

6 are prepared to accept that if you have FUSRAP 

7 data 25, 30 years later, that where they 

8 measure the air dust loading or measure the 

9 surface contamination, as far as we're 

10 concerned, you can draw a slope from that 1950 

11 data, whatever it is, down.

12 Now in this case, Bill's just 

13 pointed out that you didn't do that. You left 

14 flat. That seems to be pretty bounding.

15 DR. NETON: I think we're all in 

16 agreement with that. It's just that Hans 

17 couldn't duplicate what our calculations were.

18 DR. BEHLING: And let me just 

19 briefly, because it's a very short statement 

20 that defines the model, and I incorporated it 

21 into my finding, the very statement that I 

22 used. It appears in both Rev 0 and Rev 1, and 
134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I quote the following.

2 "In order to estimate residual 

3 contamination to the highest intake rate from 

4 Table D-1 was converted to an air 

5 concentration, to settle on the floor and 

6 accumulate for one year. The surface 

7 contamination resulting from this was then 

8 assumed to expose an individual for 2,000 

9 hours per year." 

10 That's basically the sum total of 

11 the model, as I see it described in both Rev 1 

12 and in the original Rev 0, and I simply 

13 applied that, using, again, the standard 

14 deposition velocity and the resuspension, and 

15 agreed even the 1 e minus 6 might be 

16 contestable, especially if you don't define 

17 the circumstances.

18 If for instance, as John pointed 

19 out, there was a concerted cleanup effort, 

20 where the cleanup effort basically removes 

21 differentially loose surface contamination, 1 

22 e the minus 6 might be appropriate. In the 
135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 absence of a cleanup operation, well perhaps 1 

2 e minus 6 is not conservative, and maybe 1 e 

3 minus 4 or 1 e minus 5 might be appropriate.

4 But in not even contesting that, 

5 by simply applying the various parameter 

6 values of deposition and resuspension, using 

7 the models as described herein that I just 

8 quoted, I ended up with an inhalation dose 

9 that's 20 times -- 29 times higher than the 

10 10.34 dpm per day that is defined by NIOSH.

11 So the only thing I'm asking is 

12 where is the error or why can't I duplicate 

13 the numbers that NIOSH quoted, without 

14 necessarily questioning the assumed 

15 parameters.

16 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and from the 

17 notes I got, and I don't have your original 

18 review with me; I'm trying to find it and I 

19 don't have it right here, but my notes 

20 indicated that I think last time we admitted 

21 there was a math error for both Finding 5 and 

22 Finding 6.
136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Well, we haven't got 

2 to Finding 6 and we will discuss it. There 

3 was a mathematical deficiency in my 

4 calculation. But I don't think that applies 

5 here.

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, I was going to 

7 say there was a math error, if I'm not 

8 mistaken, on both of those. There was a math 

9 error in the Appendix or a typo, one or the 

10 other, and I think there was also one with 

11 your calculation between the two of them. 

12 It's math, and we intend to fix it, you know, 

13 during the revision.

14 DR. MAURO: That makes life easy.

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I mean that's --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, okay.

17 MR. ALLEN: But it's math. It's 

18 not something that needs -- it's not an 

19 opinion, you know.

20 DR. MAURO: Do --

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is that also 

22 true then for 6?
137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: That's what my --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- 5 and 6 on 

3 the residual, yes. So both of those are - 

4 MR. ALLEN: That's what my notes 

5 say but like I said, I don't have the detailed 

6 thing here, and I really didn't look at those 

7 old findings when we -- when I was trying to 

8 get ready for today. I looked at the new 

9 report.

10 DR. MAURO: In 6 though, we're 

11 saying you're too hot. In 5 --

12 DR. BEHLING: No, in number 6, let 

13 me clarify that, too. My estimate of residual 

14 external radiation dose was based on Federal

15 Guidance Report 12 for U-234 and 235, and I 

16 was obviously in error, and I think NIOSH 

17 correctly pointed out that Federal Guidance 

18 Report 12 for those two isotopes does not 

19 incorporate the short-lived daughters that 

20 would be in -- equilibrium with 234 and 235, 

21 and they would be a major contributor to both 

22 external and -- to external gamma and beta 
138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radiation.

2 When I went back and recalculated 

3 using Federal Guidance Report 12, but now 

4 incorporating the short-lived daughters that 

5 can be assumed to be in equilibrium with U-235 

6 and 234, my calculation turned out to be 

7 within a matter of a few percentage errors, a 

8 few percent error of the dose estimates 

9 derived by NIOSH. So I stand corrected, and I 

10 withdraw that Finding 6. 

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So we're 

12 closing Finding 6.

13 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Finding 5 is 

15 basically closed, as long as you've fixed the 

16 numbers. So we'll sort of keep it open, but -

17 - 

18 MR. ALLEN: In abeyance.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. We 

20 aren't going to have to discuss it anymore.

21 DR. MAURO: Do we have any SEC 

22 issues here that jump out?
139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: No, not in 5 and 6.

2 DR. MAURO: No -- I don't think we 

3 talked about it on Hooker -- on United 

4 Nuclear.

5 DR. NETON: I think the air sample 

6 justification for thorium is potentially - 

7 DR. MAURO: Okay - 

8 DR. NETON: I don't want to argue 

9 that too strongly, but I think that clearly we 

10 need to demonstrate that the air samples are -

11 - 

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I was going to 

13 say that for here, I would say that's our 

14 number one action.

15 DR. NETON: In my opinion, that's 

16 true. I don't want to bias anybody else's, 

17 but that's what I think.

18 DR. MAURO: I feel the same way. 

19 It's important, though, that the Work Group 

20 feels the same way.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any comments 
140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the phone?

2 MEMBER FIELD: No. I'm in pretty 

3 much agreement. This is Bill.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So do we want 

5 to say anything about Observation 1?

6 MR. KATZ: Jim, do you need a 

7 break?

8 DR. NETON: Well, I think once 

9 we're done with the UNC.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I was 

11 hoping to close this.

12 DR. NETON: I don't know whether, 

13 you know - 

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean now 

15 that it's --

16 DR. NETON: Observation 1 

17 basically says that we should have a better 

18 description of the characterization of 

19 facility.

20 DR. MAURO: In other words, this 

21 is just something for your information. You 

22 can use as you see fit. 
141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: I mean I would say 

2 that we would take that under consideration 

3 when we revise the Appendix, and we'll flesh 

4 that out.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And now that 

6 we're doing away with the 6001 part, the 

7 appendices have got to stand on their own 

8 more, so maybe --

9 DR. NETON: To be fleshed out a 

10 little better in the next revision. 

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So we'll call 

12 that closed, too. Any other issues on United 

13 Nuclear? On the phone, questions, comments?

14 (No response.)

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So I 

16 think we are going to move forward on getting 

17 the thorium - 

18 DR. NETON: Air sample.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- air 

20 sampling.

21 DR. NETON: And we did agree to 

22 provide some written response on the uranium 
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay -- adequacy of the uranium bioassay 

2 measure.

3 DR. MAURO: No action items for 

4 SC&A, or did I miss something?

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I don't think 

6 so.

7 MR. KATZ: No action items for 

8 SC&A.

9 MR. ALLEN: And we were going to 

10 try to see if we can get a hold of some 

11 workers, and find some details on the neutron 

12 exposure.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, the story, the 

14 neutron --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So 

17 let's take a break then. 

18 MR. KATZ: So should we say 15 

19 minutes?

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. So then 

21 should we get started, I mean we're going to -

22 - can we do Electro Met? 
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Sure.

2 DR. NETON: We did agree that we 

3 would reconvene at one o'clock.

4 MR. KATZ: So we want to break at 

5 noon, about noon for lunch. But so we'll 

6 reconvene at 20 after for Electro Met. 

7 DR. MAURO: Am I safe to assume 

8 that I should push my 3:00 flight to a later 

9 time? We're not going to finish by 3:00, is

10 that right?

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I don't 

12 know, I mean you have a better sense - 

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 DR. NETON: Substantially less 

15 time on these next two.

16 DR. MAURO: I'll take my chances.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You don't have 

18 some of your responses.

19 MR. KATZ: I'm putting the phone 

20 on mute but not disconnecting.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 11:06 a.m. and 
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resumed at 11:22 a.m.)

2 MR. KATZ: So we're reconvening 

3 after a break. This is the TBD-6001 Work 

4 Group, and we're going to pick up actually --

5 we thought we were done with United Nuclear, 

6 but there's another piece that needs to be 

7 addressed before we close that site --

8 discussions on that site. John, do you want 

9 to --

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'll be glad to. 

11 One of the things that we overlooked this 

12 morning is part of the work we did when we 

13 prepared our review of United Nuclear was to 

14 review carefully the 97 page SEC petition, and 

15 try to capture what the sense of those 

16 concerns were. So our report includes a 

17 couple of sections.

18 For those of you who have access 

19 to the report, it's on page 10 of 91, called 

20 Section 3. What we did here -- what Joseph 

21 Provecchio, who's on the line, did, prepared 

22 this for us, he said "Listen. I went through 
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the 97 pages, and I tried to collect the 

2 information as best I could." Is someone 

3 trying to speak?

4 (No response.)

5 DR. MAURO: No. Anyway, so there 

6 are basically -- and to make sure we didn't do 

7 -- if there are any petitioners on the line, I 

8 would very much encourage to feed back if you 

9 think that in condensing the 97 pages of 

10 material into six fundamental issues, please 

11 let us know if we missed anything of 

12 importance. I guess that's the first thing.

13 Then what I want to do is -- and 

14 we're not going to go over them right now 

15 because we will in a second, then at the end 

16 of our report, on page 29 of our report, where 

17 we sort of summarize the whole story, you'll 

18 see toward the bottom of the page, we 

19 reiterate each of those six issues, and we 

20 give SC&A's position whether or not we agree 

21 that this is a concern that needs to be 

22 addressed, or whether or not it has been 
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 addressed adequately already in the ER, okay.

2 So let's go through them quickly. 

3 The first one has to do with transuranics; 

4 that is, they're radionuclides other than 

5 thorium and uranium, that might have been 

6 present in the feedstock that was handled, 

7 including recycled uranium. 

8 We looked into -- this is the 

9 issue that was raised. The petitioners said 

10 listen, you have to look at that. That's 

11 important, and we looked into this and we 

12 found that yes, there's evidence that there 

13 was recycled uranium at the site, and --

14 because of the presence of technetium-99, and 

15 we concur that this is an issue that does need 

16 to be looked at, and that's where we stopped. 

17 You folks certainly could take a look at it, 

18 see if you agree. 

19 The second issue, I'm reading it 

20 quickly here, Joe, if you want to jump in and 

21 help out a little bit here, please feel free 

22 to do so. I'm just reading these concerns. I 
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't know if he's there. 

2 (No response.)

3 DR. MAURO: Well, I'll read it.

4 MR. PROVECCHIO: This is Joe. I'm 

5 on the line. I had it on mute.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. Joe, why don't 

7 you go ahead and you take it. You did the 

8 heavy lifting here. Just read through the 

9 concern and I'm on page 30 of the main report 

10 that I forwarded to you. Why don't you go 

11 ahead and take it from here?

12 Just read the concern and what 

13 SC&A's position is regarding the concern.

14 MR. PROVECCHIO: Well, the first 

15 one you covered already, the fact that the 

16 petitioners identified issues related to 

17 transuranics, and we confirmed that that's 

18 probably correct, and that needs to be 

19 addressed.

20 The other one was taking a look at 

21 the protocols and dosimetry data, that it 

22 seems that the Site Profile may not be 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 consistent with the actual occupations and 

2 task assignments at the facility, and this is 

3 something too that I believe that if we 

4 interviewed folks, with specific line of 

5 questionings towards this, it may help us make 

6 a better Site Profile to be able to 

7 reconstruct the doses, particularly in areas 

8 of bioassay or in the protective equipment 

9 that was used in housekeeping practices.

10 The next concern was dealing with 

11 the types of scans, and the ALARA protocols 

12 that were taking place, that may or may not

13 have left personnel leaving the site with 

14 contaminated clothing and so forth.

15 So there was specific comment 

16 about the consequences that that may have 

17 resulted in, and we think we need to be 

18 respectful of the petitioners' concerns and 

19 questions and address that as best we can.

20 The next one listed as Concern No. 

21 4 was the challenges.

22 DR. NETON: Can we go back? I 
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't know if we're going to talk about these 

2 at all, but --

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 DR. NETON: This one seems to be 

5 concerned with contamination of workers' 

6 homes, and I'd just like to point out that I 

7 think we all understand that those exposures 

8 aren't covered under this program.

9 MR. PROVECCHIO: Well, whether or 

10 not they're covered in the program, it's a 

11 matter of being respectful of the petitioners 

12 coming out and making a statement that needs 

13 to be responded to, whether or not this is 

14 included in the program or else, or how else 

15 it would be addressed I think is something 

16 that's worth consideration.

17 DR. NETON: Yes, I'm surprised 

18 that's not in there. Normally, in the 

19 Evaluation Report, there is a separate section 

20 that goes through and discusses each of those 

21 concerns.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Recognizing 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the --

2 DR. NETON: We'll go back and look 

3 and make sure. If it's not --

4 MR. PROVECCHIO: Right. Well, 

5 the next one included an allegation of 

6 negligence and exposure to contaminants, the 

7 worker occupational category and exposure 

8 assumptions may not be consistent with the 

9 claimant's duties that were performed. 

10 So this again deals with listening 

11 to what the petitioners have to say and being 

12 able to respond specifically to their 

13 comments, and not overlooking them and missing 

14 a concern that was raised.

15 In Concern No. 5, again the actual 

16 conditions and incidents on the site needs to 

17 be addressed with respect to a possibility of 

18 acute exposures and criticality incidents that 

19 are questioned by the petitioners. 

20 The last one, Concern No. 6, deals 

21 with allegations of falsification of data and 

22 fundamental disregard for human life and lack 
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of quality control. These things, I think, 

2 are very important to be specifically 

3 addressed, how they're handled carefully and 

4 not disregarded at all.

5 So I think the exposure of all of 

6 our work to the petitioners' interpretation of 

7 adequacy and being respectful of their 

8 concerns, whether they have great validity or 

9 not, is something that we need to address.

10 DR. NETON: I'm looking through 

11 our section that addresses the petitioners' 

12 concerns, and there are seven of them listed. 

13 None of them match up with the ones that SC&A 

14 apparently evaluated. So maybe there are 

15 additional things in there that you guys, 

16 pieces that are - 

17 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. This is a 

18 long write-up, if I remember right, and it's 

19 essentially this is your version of parsing 

20 that out --

21 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

22 MR. ALLEN: -- into different 
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issues, and I think this was our version of 

2 parsing it out. I know they don't match up 

3 well, but we can certainly look at that and 

4 make sure they're --

5 DR. NETON: A couple of these I 

6 could see where they're -- they sort of 

7 overarch both issues, but they did not get 

8 into the specifics, as Joe just did. We'll 

9 look at it and see where we did or did not 

10 address those. That's reasonable.

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I'm not sure how 

12 to go about addressing them. I mean a number 

13 of these were like the criticality accident 

14 was a real accident. It does involve one of 

15 our claimants, but it happened at their plant 

16 in Rhode Island, not at Hematite. 

17 It's not something -- it's not 

18 something I really want to put in the Appendix 

19 it's very -- but some sort of way of 

20 addressing it, possibly in a letter to the 

21 petitioner or, you know, making sure it is 

22 addressed in the ER - 
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: I think you bring up a 

2 very important point. The petitioners submit 

3 their petition. It's granted, and the ER 

4 comes out. The question is to what extent do 

5 you explicitly address it and what vehicle is 

6 used to make sure that the petitioners are 

7 heard?

8 DR. NETON: Yes. I think it needs 

9 to be in the Evaluation Report, not 

10 necessarily in the Appendix.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 DR. NETON: We don't need to 

13 address criticality accidents that never 

14 happened or didn't happen in the facility.

15 MR. ALLEN: And there's a number 

16 of them about beryllium.

17 DR. MAURO: And I think it's 

18 satisfying for them to know that we looked at 

19 it, we thought about it --

20 DR. NETON: And so I think what 

21 we'll point out here is that we probably 

22 didn't do as good a job as we needed to 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 address all of their concerns in their 

2 petition.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It was a long 

4 petition. There was a lot there.

5 MR. PROVECCHIO: If I could just 

6 add one more point. For that particular 

7 issue, you know, Concern number 5, there were 

8 six different locations where that was alluded 

9 to, which was consolidated into one concern. 

10 Each one of these concerns was a reflection of 

11 multiple locations throughout the petition 

12 document, that came up with the same issue.

13 DR. NETON: So what we might do is 

14 have another section that is a roll-up of 

15 SC&A's comments.

16 DR. MAURO: You might find that in 

17 the very back of our report, there's 

18 Attachment A, where Joe -- the six that we 

19 just talked about actually is a condensation 

20 of three pages of where we tried to take all 

21 97 pages and create this, sort them all out, 

22 so that it's -- it was really a two-step 
155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 process. So this might be helpful.

2 DR. NETON: That would be, yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any others?

4 MR. KATZ: So I just was unclear. 

5 Is this going to be then a revision of some 

6 piece of the SEC Evaluation Report, or just --

7 because I don't know. It seems to me our main 

8 concern is that the petitioners get responded 

9 to, in effect, for their concerns and if it's 

10 not in the Petition Evaluation Report, I don't 

11 know, unless you're going to do some -- it 

12 seems like it needs an addendum or something 

13 to more thoroughly respond to the concerns 

14 that they raised. Otherwise, I don't know how 

15 you -- or a document that just gets sent to 

16 the petitioners that goes through these --

17 that's separate, but you think you'd just tie 

18 it with your Evaluation Report.

19 MR. ALLEN: I mean I -- that's the 

20 part I'm struggling with, too, you know. I 

21 didn't want to put it in the Appendix if it's 

22 not relevant. I was kind of saying a letter. 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Jim was saying an addendum to the ER. 

2 MR. KATZ: I'm mean it's 

3 irrelevant in the sense that they raise these 

4 as concerns, and all you're doing is saying --

5 in some cases you're saying this didn't occur 

6 at the site. This is why it's not addressed 

7 here. That's a response still. It still 

8 acknowledges that they raised the issue and 

9 you've put it to bed in a sense - 

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And evaluated 

11 it.

12 MR. KATZ: You don't have to go 

13 into detail when you respond to it.

14 DR. NETON: Well, here's the 

15 situation. I guess the scenario would be if 

16 we revise the Evaluation Report, then that 

17 would -- we'd have go all the way back through 

18 the process and re-present, I think, Revision 

19 1 of the Evaluation Report to the full Board.

20 MR. KATZ: But if this is just 

21 really an Appendix to make sure that you've 

22 buttoned up your responses to -- because you 
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have some, you said, responses to the 

2 petitioners' concerns. If this is just, in a 

3 sense, trying to do a more thorough job of 

4 accounting for those and it doesn't change 

5 anything in the Evaluation Report, I don't 

6 think you have to re-present to the Board on 

7 that. I think it's really just responsive 

8 then to the petitioners.

9 DR. NETON: An addendum or 

10 something.

11 MR. ALLEN: A separate supplement 

12 to the ---

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MR. KATZ: No. I mean there are 

15 distinctions, I know, in how you term the 

16 document. But it should be tied somehow with 

17 the Evaluation Report.

18 DR. NETON: No, I mean and it's 

19 mostly because we want to make sure we have a 

20 good record of this. We don't want to have 

21 loose documents hanging out.

22 MR. KATZ: But it's not that 
158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different from when SC&A does these appendices 

2 for their worker interviews. They come in 

3 later from their reviews, but they don't get - 

4 DR. NETON: We'll work out the 

5 mechanism - 

6 MR. KATZ: -- necessarily 

7 presented separately.

8 DR. NETON: We'll do something in 

9 writing, and my guess is it would be some sort 

10 of a supplement to the Evaluation Report.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. Now we're 

12 finished with United Nuclear.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So for 

14 the next 15 minutes or 20 minutes or so, let's 

15 start with Electro Met. 

16 MR. THURBER: Okay. Everybody has 

17 the matrix. We reviewed our findings on 

18 Electro Met at the last Work Group meeting. 

19 Subsequent to that, Sam Glover provided some 

20 preliminary reactions to our findings, and 

21 those are included in the column headed NIOSH 

22 Initial Response.
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 At the last meeting, we agreed to 

2 do two things. One was to supply NIOSH with 

3 our spreadsheets where we had come up with 

4 some different numbers from those that were 

5 included in the original NIOSH report, and we 

6 did that. 

7 The second thing is that we said 

8 that we would provide a summary of the 

9 interviews. That we have not done yet, but 

10 the status is as follows. 

11 We conducted a total of six 

12 interviews. I believe two were of petitioners 

13 and the other four were former Electro Met

14 employees. We have prepared an interview 

15 summary. It is now at DOE for approval, so it 

16 should be forthcoming very shortly.

17 We will provide that summary to 

18 the Board initially, but we'll incorporate it 

19 ultimately as Revision 1 to the Electro Met

20 report, where we will replace the existing 

21 Appendix E, I believe it is, which contained 

22 the first interview only, with the summary of 
160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the interviews.

2 I would caution people when they 

3 look at those, the interview summaries, to not 

4 confuse some of the statements which clearly 

5 related to the metallurgical plant, with what 

6 went on in the Area Plant. So you know, 

7 workers in some cases were clearly talking 

8 about what went on and making ferroalloys.

9 And so -- and we didn't, obviously 

10 didn't try to guide the interviews and so one 

11 should read them with that proviso in mind.

12 That's really, I think it's 

13 probably best to pass the ball to Sam at this 

14 point because he has, as I say, has come up 

15 with some preliminary responses here that you 

16 may want to go through.

17 DR. GLOVER: I think we can go 

18 through these fairly quickly. As we discussed 

19 at the Board meeting, we didn't proceed -- a 

20 lot of analytical things because we had a 

21 large data collection that happened at NARA 

22 and the other activities.
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So one of the things we did, and I 

2 was -- you guys had some different numbers 

3 than we had. The first thing I did was to 

4 have ORAU go back and collect all of the data, 

5 go through every SRDB and put that into a 

6 spreadsheet. Now I waited to evaluate it 

7 because I wanted to make sure the NARA stuff 

8 didn't have more.

9 Data was collected in that, and we 

10 had to compare it against those listings to 

11 make sure there was nothing new. So I think 

12 we have probably a pretty good setting.

13 It has all of the bioassay data; 

14 it has all of the external dosimetry data; it 

15 has ring data; it has surface contamination 

16 numbers. So we can look at the breadth of it 

17 because there are some - 

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Wasn't there 

19 new data?

20 DR. GLOVER: What's that?

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Was there 

22 additional data that you got from that?
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. GLOVER: From what they've 

2 looked at, it doesn't look like anything since 

3 July or August has come in new. So it looks 

4 like that that data we have -- now there's 

5 some descriptions in there that's new about 

6 the types of data that was collected.

7 So there's several hundred new 

8 reports, and some of them are descriptive in 

9 nature, but not analytical numbers, you know, 

10 not more bioassay samples. I will say that 

11 there are, and as we discuss the findings, I 

12 have maybe perhaps a couple hundred more 

13 bioassay samples than say the numbers you 

14 started out with.

15 So trying to point, compare 

16 exactly the number he got versus the number I 

17 got, well I want to understand conceptually 

18 maybe why we are different, why we had a 

19 different number. We may not come up with 

20 that same number now because we may have more 

21 data. 

22 Like now we have bioassay data in 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 43 and 46, I think, when we didn't have any 

2 before. So there's some more numbers, and we 

3 can take a look -- or it's air data, 

4 whichever. I have to look at the spreadsheet 

5 that we can compare against. So maybe just 

6 after the responses and we can kind of - 

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure, yes.

8 DR. GLOVER: So last time, we had 

9 talked about the DOE facility, about Electro 

10 Met and how people were included. As I said 

11 then, it is a DOL function. We contacted the 

12 Department of Labor, and right now what they 

13 do is they go to Electro Met and Electro Met

14 says -- they go to their database and they put 

15 the people in there or not.

16 If we get them, as Dave said when 

17 we were here last time, we're going to analyze 

18 them. We're going to have to do a dose 

19 reconstruction based on what we understand. 

20 So their response back to me was, you know, 

21 it's pretty limited what DOL is capable of 

22 doing -- what Electro Met is capable of doing.
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Could I just put a 

2 little qualifier. This is a concern that Bill 

3 and I talked about quite a bit. When we --

4 and we're going to get into it -- the 

5 specifics of the areas where there may be 

6 softness in your ability to reconstruct doses, 

7 in the Area Plant, you know, what data you 

8 have, now you obviously have more data, which 

9 may help solve that.

10 And of course this could move in a 

11 direction where the Board and the Work Group 

12 may decide well maybe we have an SEC here, 

13 whether or not. 

14 DR. GLOVER: Sure.

15 DR. MAURO: The thing that is, I 

16 think, very important for this Work Group is 

17 if all of Electro Met is on the table, I don't 

18 know the difference in numbers of people. But 

19 I looked at the map. The Area Plant is like a 

20 postage stamp on the United States. 

21 So I don't know how many 

22 different, the numbers of people involved. 
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But if the boundaries of the site of concern 

2 is not the Area Plant but is the entire 

3 Electro Met facility, Bill, you probably have 

4 a feel for the numbers of people we're talking 

5 about, the differences, thousands? It's 

6 enormous.

7 DR. GLOVER: Yes.

8 DR. MAURO: So I think this is 

9 very important. 

10 DR. GLOVER: Well, I would say 

11 that it's not -- we don't try to encompass the 

12 activities that would have happened at the 

13 rest of Electro Met. It is a DOE site, so the 

14 DOE encompasses the activities we're trying to 

15 bound. 

16 It's just that they may be elbow 

17 to elbow because there may be several -- now 

18 that being said, and I haven't had time to vet 

19 this with my colleagues because I was going 

20 through some different -- we have all the SRDB 

21 numbers, and I was showing Bill some things. 

22 We actually have a 30-page listing 
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of what may be all of the employees in Electro 

2 Met at the DOE site because they actually say 

3 from 40 -- here's all the guys. Now we 

4 haven't given that to DOE or DOL, so they 

5 actually talk about their job titles, how long 

6 they worked in different occupations. So 

7 that's something that I must say is new, as I 

8 was going through some data that ORAU 

9 provided. 

10 So we'll have to see where that 

11 goes. But there is, I gave him the SRDB 

12 number for that, and it's about 30 or 35 pages 

13 of names and when they were employed and what 

14 they did. So but I did clarify with DOL, and 

15 these were initial responses that were 

16 generated last time.

17 I will certainly update them to 

18 work through there. Does that -- maybe you 

19 want to have some more discussion on Finding -

20 - so that was Finding 1. I'll include the 

21 email from the Department of Labor, what their 

22 response back was, and certainly we will 
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provide anything that we find that could be of 

2 help to DOL. We'll give that to them.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So it may be 

4 able to define the workers who we're actually 

5 in the Area Plant. 

6 DR. GLOVER: That is their 

7 concern. They may say -- they still -- that 

8 is still their --

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: They declared 

10 -- the whole Area -- the whole Electro Met. 

11 DR. GLOVER: No.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No?

13 DR. GLOVER: They contact Electro 

14 Met and ask them if they work there. Electro 

15 Met, you know, at the DOE site, Electro Met --

16 that database may be so primitive that they 

17 cannot put them in one facility versus the 

18 other, and they just say that this is the way 

19 it is. 

20 So that's the ability that they're 

21 able to differentiate. So I can't -- if they 

22 put them and they give it to us for dose 
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 construction, Dave is going to --

2 MR. ALLEN: The assumption is 

3 they're in the Area Plant.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

5 DR. GLOVER: Because they've 

6 qualified them as DOE employees.

7 MR. THURBER: Because they worked 

8 at Electro Met, period.

9 MR. ALLEN: That just comes down 

10 to how DOL identifies as them as a claimant, 

11 but as far as what we have to estimate, it's 

12 the Area Plant. 

13 DR. MAURO: Do we see any cases 

14 where when we went in to do the DR review or 

15 look at the work, that we felt that the person 

16 didn't work at the Area Plant?

17 MR. THURBER: Yes. We covered 

18 some of this in our review report. One of the 

19 petitioners, based on the evidence that was 

20 available -- was not clear that her spouse 

21 worked at the Area Plant. There was --

22 actually, there was a dose reconstruction, 
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 too, that we looked at. 

2 It was pretty clear that the 

3 claimant did work at the Area Plant, worked at 

4 Electro Met. So there have been several 

5 instances of this. 

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's just an 

7 anomaly in this system, that we really have a 

8 problem we can't really deal with.

9 DR. NETON: They're -- employee 

10 under this program, by definition. They work 

11 in this facility.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. We can't 

13 --

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 MR. ALLEN: But you don't -- I 

16 mean it comes down to, you know, it sounds, I 

17 don't know, it sounds heartless or maybe not. 

18 But it comes down to it's not our problem. 

19 If DOL gives this to us, they are saying they 

20 worked in the Area Plant.

21 If it's their error that that 

22 occurred, then -- if we saw something, we can 
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 maybe try to say hey, here's some information. 

2 But we never have done that, not with Electro 

3 Met. 

4 DR. MAURO: When we -- audit and 

5 if we see that, we come to that - 

6 MR. ALLEN: But it comes down to 

7 the claims examiner's decision on whether or 

8 not, you know, they're saying that's a covered 

9 employee or not.

10 DR. NETON: Now what's the 

11 definition of the facility?

12 DR. GLOVER: It is -- they built -

13 - DOE built a little building on Electro Met. 

14 That is --

15 DR. NETON: But the facility --

16 what's the site definition for Electro Met? 

17 DR. GLOVER: It's a DOE site, 

18 based on the days -- the dates that that plant 

19 was owned by DOE.

20 MR. THURBER: It's all employees 

21 who worked at Electro Met, is the definition.

22 DR. MAURO: They opened it up.
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: No, that's the SEC 

2 definition. What's the facility definition by 

3 the Department of Energy website. A real 

4 similar situation at GE. The GE covered 

5 facility is really the AEC operation of the 

6 DOE that occurred in that little --

7 MR. KATZ: If you have, and I'm 

8 just curious about this, and maybe Jenny needs 

9 to respond. If you have definitive 

10 information as opposed to speculative 

11 information, if you have definitive 

12 information that a person never was, say, in 

13 the building of concern, it seems to me you 

14 still -- DCAS could still say there's no 

15 radiological exposure in this case. Couldn't 

16 you? Or not?

17 MR. ALLEN: No, the truth is it's 

18 not so much radiological exposure. It is 

19 they're not a covered employee, and that's not 

20 our jurisdiction.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, but I'm not 

22 saying to say that they're not a covered 
172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 employee.

2 DR. NETON: But if they're a 

3 covered employee, by definition they had work 

4 at this covered facility. 

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: They won't 

6 have any biomonitoring.

7 MR. ALLEN: The truth is I'm not 

8 sure -- I mean there's some -- some that look 

9 pretty much like they were. I don't know how 

10 definitive they're admitting it necessarily - 

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MR. KATZ: That doesn't make sense 

13 to me.

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 MR. KATZ: No, I understand you. 

16 NIOSH doesn't determine who's a covered 

17 employee. Here's what I'm asking you. 

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Wait, wait, 

19 wait. Are we able to capture all this? 

20 MR. KATZ: We can't. We have --

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Too many 

22 talkers.
173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: -- conversations going 

2 on.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Here's my question. 

5 I'm clear about they're a covered employee; 

6 they have a right to a dose reconstruction. 

7 But if our dose reconstruction method is a 

8 method that applies to one building, and you 

9 have definitive information they were never in 

10 that building, why would you apply the dose 

11 reconstruction method for one building to that 

12 person, when you know they never were in the 

13 building?

14 Why wouldn't you say this person, 

15 yes, he's a covered employee but has no 

16 radiological exposure because they're not in 

17 that building?

18 MR. ALLEN: It comes down to how 

19 you're defining knowing he wasn't. DOL has 

20 said we know he was. By giving us the claim, 

21 they're saying we know he was in the Area 

22 Plant. That's the covered facility.
174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. LIN: So does NIOSH have this 

2 information that -- that points definitively -

3 - they weren't even in that building, they 

4 shouldn't be a covered employee. Then they 

5 communicate that to DOL, and DOL has to make 

6 that determination. So even if NIOSH finds, 

7 you know, suggestions or something, it's still 

8 up to the DOL to make that determination.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you.

10 DR. NETON: I mean just imagine if 

11 it did go SEC, how it's going to be 

12 administered. All employees who worked at 

13 Electro Met would be the Class Definition.

14 MR. KATZ: No, I understand that, 

15 Because in that case, we don't get the 

16 information from the individual that -- DOL 

17 doesn't get the information -- 

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MR. ALLEN: They don't get a lot 

20 of information from - 

21 MR. KATZ: Right, no, so I 

22 understand what happens with an SEC, but I --
175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seems like it's a different case when it's a 

2 dose reconstruction.

3 MS. LIN: But when it comes down 

4 to it, DOL made a determination, and then 

5 we'll just have to say, okay, then we do our 

6 best to apply the doses to this person.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It becomes a 

8 coworker - 

9 MR. KATZ: At the next Board 

10 meeting, we're going to ask DOL to give a 

11 discussion about defining Classes and all 

12 that, which will be interesting. I think this 

13 will sort of get into some of these issues. 

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Moving 

15 right along.

16 DR. GLOVER: This should be --

17 Finding 2 is very much the same way. But 

18 everything outside -- is not covered. We have 

19 a DOE facility covered -- that was built and 

20 operated. In 1953 ownership was transferred; 

21 it's done, no residual period. 

22 Activities that happened before 
176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that thing was built, not covered. They're a 

2 main plant, and we can pass that on to DOL. 

3 DOL may choose to add a AWE facility for what 

4 was done.

5 But that's not part of this 

6 activity. But we will certainly follow up in 

7 the SRDB information to DOL and let them 

8 determine what they may want to determine. 

9 That's outside the scope of what we --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So you'll only 

11 dose reconstruct for the period that the plant 

12 -- the Area Plant was in -- a worker might 

13 well have been employed there before.

14 DR. GLOVER: We would start when 

15 that building was built.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

17 DR. GLOVER: We would end when 

18 that building ceased to -- and we -- the two, 

19 I got all excited. Oh, there's armies. 

20 There's this research going on 

21 before. Then I realized it's outside the 

22 covered scope, so you can't do it. So there's 
177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some -- you know, they had some stuff that 

2 they did on plants, some preliminary research. 

3 It's separate.

4 MR. THURBER: And in one of the 

5 interviews that you will see, the interviewee 

6 said yes, there was some work done in the 

7 research laboratory, which was building the 

8 store before the Area Plant opened. But 

9 basically it was some analytical chemistry 

10 work and obviously would not have resulted in 

11 any significant exposure.

12 DR. MAURO: But you're saying 

13 that's not within the scope of the --

14 MR. THURBER: It's outside the 

15 scope is what I heard Sam say, yes.

16 DR. GLOVER: As it is right now. 

17 I mean if there's information to make the rest 

18 of it an -- or something, that's something to 

19 give the DOL, make a new AWE next to the DOE 

20 site. 

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay, 

22 three.
178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. GLOVER: Finding 3, these are 

2 all interrelated. These are the start and end 

3 dates, start and end dates. This is a DOE 

4 site. The other thing would be related to 

5 what DOL would do with any additional 

6 information we may have found.

7 So those are interrelated to one 

8 and two, and I don't know if there's a way to 

9 have that just encompassed, that we have, you 

10 know, extra findings being tracked. Maybe 

11 it's just not worth trying to close or open, 

12 but it is obviously interrelated to the first 

13 two discussion points. So I don't think 

14 there's much update for that. Let's see.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Pre '48 data.

16 DR. GLOVER: Finding 4, working on 

17 reviewing all the data. So basically we have, 

18 we've read and understood your concerns about 

19 back-extrapolating. We have now, I believe, 

20 compiled all this data, and it will be my job 

21 to put some approaches together and meet with 

22 Jim and with Dave, and see what the best 
179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approach would be and how that -- so right 

2 now, we're not be to speak to that. Right now 

3 we have compiled the data.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But you're 

5 going to work on a justification.

6 DR. GLOVER: To see if that 

7 approach is appropriate. 

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, right, 

9 exactly. 

10 DR. GLOVER: So that is the 

11 current state that we had. We've updated the 

12 data and it's the time to develop an approach.

13 DR. MAURO: I consider this to be 

14 one of the most important issues because 

15 earlier, when we looked at it, the concept was 

16 the `48-`49 had data; `43 and `44 didn't, and 

17 there was going to be an extrapolation. But 

18 it was your position at the time that there's 

19 every reason to believe that the later data 

20 could be applied to the earlier years.

21 But we did point out that there 

22 was a year, 1947, where clearly something 
180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 happened that changed things, and it's going 

2 to be difficult to extrapolate given that 

3 change. Now that you have data for the 

4 earlier years -- what I'm getting at is this 

5 could have been a very important SEC issue, I 

6 guess is what I wanted to say.

7 DR. GLOVER: It may still be. The 

8 process may not be covered. So all those 

9 things have to be evaluated, whether you have 

10 this back extrapolation capability. So we do 

11 have some early urinalysis data, and --

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We do have new 

13 data that you can work with, so that -- yes.

14 DR. GLOVER: It's compiled in one 

15 SEC, so we can all look at it and make it 

16 easier to determine what may or may not be a 

17 reasonable approach. So that will be our next 

18 big step, is to come up with the -- to review 

19 that against the appropriate approach. 

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, number 

21 5.

22 DR. GLOVER: I think that this 
181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be something we would do very late in 

2 the change. We agreed that we want to make 

3 sure we fixed any inconsistencies, but that 

4 we're not going to -- until we work out the 

5 approaches, there's not much sense in doing 

6 anything with 5. Right now, there's no action 

7 until -- that would be done later. I think 6 

8 - 

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Same thing.

10 DR. GLOVER: Now this is -- as 

11 we've talked about -- they compiled it. But 

12 it does need to be carefully reviewed as to 

13 whether it's BZ process or GA.

14 They've done some initial markings 

15 on them, but it does need be very careful 

16 about the type of data, and if it's really a 

17 fixed head sample or if it was truly like a 

18 HASL type BZ data. 

19 So there's different kinds of BZs, 

20 what they may call a BZ. So I do agree that 

21 that -- part of our Finding 6, we certainly, 

22 as part of our data analysis, we'll be looking 
182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at that. All right. Seven.

2 Well this -- we'll have to see 

3 what the new found data works out. With that 

4 SRDB, see if that sheds any light on some of 

5 the titles and jobs that they were doing. It 

6 may help fill in some holes about the type of 

7 occupations that we have. 

8 But I haven't done any additional 

9 work with that at this time, so I haven't 

10 proceeded. We've moved Finding 7 ahead.

11 MR. THURBER: Is there any 

12 advantage or is it a bad thing to think about, 

13 to minimize the number of job categories? 

14 Like simplistically, operations people, office 

15 people, which tends to circumvent the case, 

16 well, was this guy really a laborer or was he 

17 a supervisor or was he an operator, for -- and 

18 particularly for a small facility like this, 

19 where there were only 70 people maybe in the 

20 Area Plant. I don't know. A question really.

21 DR. GLOVER: We will have to --

22 we'll make sure, as we develop our approach, 
183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we --

2 DR. NETON: Is this all related to 

3 the ability to develop coworker model? Is 

4 that what we're talking about here?

5 DR. GLOVER: Sure. Yes, how to 

6 set that analysis up, yes.

7 DR. NETON: And how many workers 

8 weren't monitored and what we're going to do.

9 MR. THURBER: Yes, and were they -

10 - was this a guy a laborer one day and an 

11 operator the next day and --

12 DR. NETON: Well, we don't know. 

13 We're going to assume he was probably an 

14 operator.

15 MR. THURBER: That's why I say, if 

16 that's the case, you know, why bother with 

17 these?

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 DR. NETON: Did we propose four or 

20 five different --

21 DR. GLOVER: We had four or five 

22 different. We have a supervisor, an operator 
184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 DR. NETON: Okay.

3 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry. I didn't 

4 --

5 DR. GLOVER: Sort of the Appendix 

6 C approach or sort of the Battelle approach.

7 MR. ALLEN: When we're actually 

8 doing the DRs, they get the benefit of the 

9 doubt on that, and in all honesty, it's kind 

10 of a lessons learned to have something there, 

11 so when you get the one that says they were a 

12 bookkeeper in the admin building, you don't 

13 have to give them operator dose, when you only 

14 have one option --

15 MR. THURBER: No. That's why I 

16 say, but if you narrow it down then --

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, whether we got 

18 the right separation --

19 MR. THURBER: Fewer things for 

20 people to debate about.

21 DR. GLOVER: So we do understand 

22 your point, and as we develop our approach, 
185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we'll make sure that we look at what's 

2 appropriate. All right. Finding -- I think 

3 this is where we --

4 DR. NETON: Is this like rank 

5 order versus curve-fitting kind of thing?

6 DR. GLOVER: Yes, all right. 

7 MR. THURBER: It was just 

8 interesting to us, when we did the analysis, 

9 where you do the calculation when you take the 

10 sum of the squares and all that sort of thing, 

11 as compared to the curve-fitting, and you get

12 significant differences actually.

13 DR. NETON: That's not usually the 

14 case for internal data. For internal data, 

15 usually the 95th percentile fit is higher. 

16 I've already done that for all the other 

17 coworkers, and what happens is you get towards 

18 the top and there's a tailing off because 

19 people can only get so much intake, and then 

20 you go out to the 95th and you end up with a 

21 higher, in this particular case. Probably 

22 based on the limited number of data, I don't 
186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know. 

2 MR. THURBER: Probably.

3 DR. NETON: But it's worth looking 

4 at, and we'll take that in consideration.

5 DR. MAURO: When I was reading 

6 this, I noticed there's a large section 

7 dealing with the DWE concept that came out of 

8 here, and the DWE concept, you're probably not 

9 aware of this, only recently has emerged as 

10 something that's of great interest, and this 

11 is to imply here.

12 During the Weldon Springs Work 

13 Group meeting, the discussion came up related 

14 to -- in fact, I brought it up related to do 

15 you use the classic HASL approach to do DWE, 

16 and everyone agrees that that's good 

17 industrial hygiene. Take these little 

18 measurements and process them with HASL 

19 protocol.

20 The point that was made, and I 

21 think it was originally made by Arjun on 

22 Mallinckrodt and it has really reemerged, is 
187 

NEAL 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 does the classic HASL approach, is it 

2 appropriate to apply to this program. SC&A's 

3 position is no, and the reason is that the 

4 HASL approach will come up with a central 

5 estimate for a particular job, a best estimate 

6 that is reasonable to give you an indication 

7 of these are the kinds of intakes -- DWEs, 

8 workers of this category, are expected.

9 However, there may be many workers 

10 in that category, some of whom could be 

11 substantially higher and some lower, as 

12 evidenced by the samples that were taken for a 

13 given task, sometimes spread over two, three 

14 orders of magnitude.

15 Now where I'm going with this is 

16 Bob Morris answered very nicely. He said 

17 "Well, we're not doing that. We're not doing 

18 that. We're using the Davis and Strom 

19 approach from the 2008 Health Physics 

20 journal," which is a much more sophisticated 

21 treatment of the problem, where they apply 

22 Monte Carlo.
188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So and now what we're seeing, 

2 we're seeing we're in a transition mode. I 

3 think you're in a transition mode, whereby 

4 you're using the Strom and Davis strategy, 

5 which we reviewed as of yesterday, and found 

6 it very compelling.

7 I think that the degree to which 

8 that applies here, I guess this is something 

9 new that's not in the matrix. I'd like to put 

10 it on the table. When you look at the issues 

11 associated with the DWE work that was done in 

12 this case, factor in the Strom and Davis paper 

13 as dealing with this business of uncertainty.

14 I think it's important because 

15 it's a way -- that's why he wrote the paper, 

16 by the way.

17 DR. NETON: Well that was 

18 specifically done on contract to us.

19 DR. MAURO: And it's great work, 

20 and we reviewed it very carefully. You're 

21 going to be seeing some work that -- because 

22 it's related to Fernald and Weldon.
189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: I'm not working on 

2 either of those. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, I understand.

4 DR. NETON: Conflict.

5 DR. MAURO: But I wanted to bring 

6 it up, and it applies here.

7 DR. NETON: Well, that's good. 

8 I'm glad you mentioned that. 

9 MR. THURBER: And indeed, part of 

10 the -- some of the cases they looked at 

11 included Electro Met data in that paper.

12 DR. NETON: I just want to mention 

13 --

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, can I -- I was 

15 going to mention it. It's - 

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. 

17 MR. KATZ: -- and we have a 

18 certain time frame for - 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. We've got to 

20 come back at one.

21 MR. KATZ: So we can just break 

22 this and resume this after we do Hooker. 
190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we're 

3 breaking for lunch, everyone on the line, and 

4 we'll be back -- we're going to try to be back 

5 promptly at one, since we have folks from 

6 Hooker who want to listen to that 

7 conversation. Thank you.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

9 matter went off the record at 12:03 p.m. and 

10 resumed at 12:59 p.m.)

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
191 

NEAL 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-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 12:59 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: So this is the TBD-6001 

4 Work Group, and we're just reconvening after 

5 lunch, and let me check first on the line for 

6 our Board Members. 

7 MEMBER FIELD: Bill Field.

8 MR. KATZ: Welcome back, Bill, 

9 and, Mark, do we have you back too?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I'm here, 

11 Ted.

12 MR. KATZ: Great, and then also we 

13 were expecting -- so we were planning to shift 

14 to Hooker, but I want to check on the line and 

15 see.

16 We had two people from Hooker who 

17 were going to join us for this discussion. 

18 Are they with us? Geraldine and Mary. Okay. 

19 I wonder if we shouldn't just wait a minute 

20 at least, since we set this aside for them.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Are there any 

22 other Electro Met? 
192 

NEAL 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: Oh, yes. So we could 

2 continue. I just didn't want to get deep into 

3 Electro Met if they're - 

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, I think - 

5 MR. KATZ: -- they're going to pop 

6 on right now.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It seemed to 

8 me, at least my sense was, you've got new 

9 data. You're going to be looking at that data 

10 and a lot of the other issues are going to be 

11 dependent upon how well you're going to be 

12 able to use that.

13 So I'm not sure -- I mean if you 

14 want to go through them all, but it seemed to 

15 me we were sort of just doing an update. 

16 DR. GLOVER: I think you're right. 

17 It should happen very quickly. I think 

18 you're right. Most of it is to go to that new 

19 data, and I guess for number ten, I think 

20 we've got --

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

22 DR. NETON: Well, number nine.
193 

NEAL 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: Nine, nine, okay.

2 DR. NETON: Nine because it says a 

3 TBD-6001 issue, since there's no TBD-6001 --

4 MR. THURBER: Well, if TBD-6001 no 

5 longer exists, the issue is irrelevant because 

6 all it said was gee, this is not as 

7 conservative as TBD-6001. So it just goes 

8 away.

9 MR. KATZ: What issue number is 

10 that?

11 DR. NETON: Nine.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, so that's gone, 

13 closed.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Ten is the 

15 issue of blowouts, yes.

16 DR. GLOVER: And that's something 

17 I'm waiting for interview notes.

18 MR. THURBER: They don't reveal 

19 that there was any major problem, which is 

20 consistent with what's been said. As I 

21 recall, and you of course will have it to 

22 analyze for yourselves, one interviewer said 
194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 "well, sometimes the seal would leak," and I 

2 presume that there's a seal on the bomb of 

3 some kind.

4 But it was nothing like, you know, 

5 the seal blew and we had contamination all 

6 over the place. And in another instance, one 

7 of the people talked about blowouts, but from 

8 the context, it's not clear that that wasn't 

9 an explosion in an electric arc furnace, which 

10 happens all the time when you get moisture in 

11 the furnace.

12 So it doesn't say anything 

13 startling, let me put it that way. But you 

14 all will make your own evaluation.

15 DR. GLOVER: Yes, I mean, we'll 

16 see what those interviews have to say and if 

17 we need to include those in our approach.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So no residual 

19 period.

20 DR. GLOVER: All right. Eleven is 

21 withdrawn because there is no residual period.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Twelve.
195 

NEAL 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: 6001. I see if this 

2 is -- since withdrawn. I think we'll -- with 

3 the updated, it's really just part of that.

4 MR. THURBER: It's part of the 

5 whole data update question.

6 DR. GLOVER: Thirteen, and that's 

7 just -- we'll rewrite this, I mean, saying 

8 whether we're not -- we'll make sure that they 

9 match.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 DR. GLOVER: Appendix C, actually 

12 we'll write an individual updated --

13 individual Site Profile, right, Dave? So this 

14 will be converted to --

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, stand-alone.

16 DR. GLOVER: Stand-alone. So 13, 

17 this will actually become a stand-alone.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Fourteen.

19 DR. NETON: This is what we talked 

20 about earlier.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: Photofluorography.
196 

NEAL 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: Yes, about whether or 

2 not it was really even on site. 

3 DR. NETON: That's our action item 

4 for revising six.

5 MR. ALLEN: It needs to be 

6 clarified for sure.

7 DR. NETON: Yes.

8 DR. GLOVER: Well, this is a DOE 

9 -- one thing I'm going to say about the 

10 argument. I hadn't recognized this is 

11 actually a DOE site, and the discrepancy here 

12 is that it does not use a -- you classified it 

13 as an AWE in your description.

14 DR. MAURO: That's right.

15 MR. THURBER: That's right. But 

16 that was before Ted Katz enlightened us last 

17 Working Group meeting, and I probably didn't 

18 pick it up.

19 DR. NETON: We should probably be 

20 a little more clear on what we mean when we 

21 say a DOE site for photofluorography. We mean 

22 a DOE site that had a large number of workers, 
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where it would be of benefit to use 

2 photofluorography.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, cost 

4 effective.

5 DR. NETON: As a practical 

6 measure.

7 DR. GLOVER: So in this small 

8 little facility, I don't think there's any 

9 evidence that any medical facility was on site 

10 --

11 MR. ALLEN: In all reality, it was 

12 probably on the main part of the site, not in 

13 the covered part of it. But we don't know 

14 that. So we're assuming an annual PA, unless 

15 we find something --

16 DR. GLOVER: But this is related 

17 to PFG. We would get PFG at the same time.

18 MR. THURBER: But PFGs 

19 conceptually could have been done at Electro 

20 Met. 

21 DR. GLOVER: Little Electro Met or 

22 big Electro Met? 
198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: Electro Met. 

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. THURBER: Not at the Area 

4 Plant, but you know, at the moment we're 

5 talking about the whole facility.

6 DR. GLOVER: It's still only the 

7 activities in that little DOE box. Even 

8 though we're putting everybody elbow to elbow 

9 in there, it's only what happens in that 

10 little box, that little postage size stamp at 

11 Electro Met that's covered. So if they go --

12 as soon as they step outside of that DOE fence 

13 --

14 MR. KATZ: It's not a covered 

15 exposure.

16 DR. GLOVER: -- it's not a covered 

17 exposure.

18 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry.

19 DR. GLOVER: Electro Met is very 

20 confusing.

21 MR. THURBER: But I thought that 

22 the SEC petition dealt with all of the 
199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 employees at Electro Met. 

2 DR. GLOVER: They can ask whatever 

3 they want, but the only covered facility --

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, Electro Met that 

5 covered EEOICPA's facility is the area of the 

6 plant. It is just how you were defining 

7 Electro Met. It would not defined as a DOE 

8 site if you were talking the rest of -- kind 

9 of like Linde Ceramics is really Linde Air. 

10 Electro Met in the form of EEOICPA is the Area 

11 Plant.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay, so the term 

13 Electro Met is defined as the Area Plant. The 

14 fact that there is this other place called 

15 Electro Met that is much bigger is irrelevant.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But as far as 

17 getting into dose reconstruction, all you have 

18 to do is have worked on Electro Met. 

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MR. THURBER: That's the rub, 

21 whether the two or three thousand people who

22 worked at Electro Met, include the 70 who 
200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 worked in the Area Plant well that's the 

2 population we are talking about.

3 MR. KATZ: It's not population 

4 based. The question is location-based. So it 

5 doesn't matter what happened outside of that 

6 plant. It doesn't matter even though all 

7 2,000, DOL may let them all in the door and 

8 treat them as if they worked in that little 

9 plant, the program only needs to reconstruct 

10 doses that occurred in the plant.

11 MR. THURBER: I understand that but 

12 I guess what Sam said is, as far as DOL is 

13 concerned all of those two or three thousand 

14 people are crowded into that little plant.

15 DR. GLOVER: We don't know, that 

16 is the way - 

17 DR. MAURO: Well there is no way 

18 to know for sure that they were kept out, I 

19 guess maybe that is a better way to look at 

20 it.

21 MR. ALLEN: Actually I think there 

22 is some evidence that there was pretty good 
201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 security.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Let's move 

3 along. We recognize the issue. Okay next. 

4 DR. GLOVER: This is -- we got new 

5 data, whether we'll update our exact numbers, 

6 but I will look at it to make sure why maybe 

7 there is a discrepancy, so we, you know. So a 

8 little education on that. But we're not going 

9 to come up with the same numbers because we 

10 have additional data.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

12 DR. GLOVER: Finding 16. This, 

13 you know, Jim, aren't you doing some stuff 

14 with recasting? Haven't you got another area 

15 where we're doing recasting exposures, you 

16 know, to the surface?

17 DR. NETON: Always. The Puzier 

18 effect?

19 DR. GLOVER: Yes, yes.

20 DR. NETON: Yes. That's a GSI 

21 issue. Is it a GSI?

22 MR. ALLEN: TBD-6000.
202 

NEAL 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: TBD-6000.

2 DR. MAURO: In general.

3 DR. NETON: In general, right. 

4 Which finding are you looking at, Dave?

5 DR. GLOVER: Sixteen.

6 DR. MAURO: Sixteen.

7 MR. THURBER: All 16 said is in 

8 Appendix C, you don't cover dose to the hands 

9 and arms, and we think you should. That's all 

10 this is about.

11 DR. NETON: That's something, did 

12 we agree? We agreed that we'd do that and 

13 consider it.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Seventeen. 

15 DR. GLOVER: I think that's the 

16 last one, right?

17 DR. NETON: No, there's 18.

18 DR. GLOVER: Oh, there's 18.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, one more.

20 DR. GLOVER: The issue of the 95th 

21 percentile of bounding.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: What about 17?
203 

NEAL 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: And you said -- you 

2 know, seventeen, we've said that we are 

3 clearly reviewing the 48 back extrapolates.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So do we have 

5 any time line thoughts on where's this fit 

6 into your work schedule?

7 DR. GLOVER: It won't be touched 

8 until January. I won't start working that up 

9 until January.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

11 DR. GLOVER: Because this, I've 

12 got to fit this and Laughlin.

13 MR. KATZ: Does this look like 

14 something that could be put to bed, your work 

15 in January, within January?

16 DR. GLOVER: Depends upon how many 

17 other fires we have, depends on other places, 

18 because we have Sandia coming due in that time 

19 frame too.

20 MR. KATZ: So the question, I mean 

21 we can get to it later, but the question will 

22 be whether we can book a Work Group meeting 
204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 before the February, which is like the third 

2 week in February, before the February Board 

3 meeting? Is it in early February?

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 MR. KATZ: It's not early 

6 February. It's like the third week or --

7 MR. ALLEN: So the Work Group 

8 could be early probably.

9 MR. KATZ: So if the Work Group 

10 could be before that, that's the question.

11 DR. GLOVER: We can send this out 

12 in an email and make a decision on this.

13 MR. KATZ: Or at the end of the 

14 day today.

15 DR. GLOVER: All right. 

16 MR. KATZ: I mean if we can. I 

17 mean just where to schedule the Work Group. 

18 Chew on that.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We'll probably 

20 push a Work Group meeting --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean it's 
205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 close to the big meeting.

2 DR. NETON: Well, if it gets too 

3 close to the Board meeting --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Then you can't 

5 put it on the agenda, yes. So --

6 DR. NETON: But we have Los Alamos 

7 Work Group scheduled for the 11th.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, we do.

9 DR. NETON: And so the week of the 

10 14th, I think, is the week before the Board 

11 meeting.

12 MR. KATZ: That's right. 

13 DR. GLOVER: That's in February?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. If not, say so. 

15 If it doesn't work before, then we just need 

16 to know that then, and we'll plan for it 

17 after. 

18 MR. ALLEN: So just one thing I 

19 wanted to point out here, to at least get a 

20 feel from this room, is I sent out an email 

21 and we intend to cancel TBD-6001.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes.
206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: In order to do that, I 

2 need to revise these appendices, at a minimum 

3 change the format so it's not an appendix to a 

4 document that's going to be gone, Electro Met

5 being one of them.

6 I wanted to try to get this done 

7 by the end of the year, but for a number of 

8 reasons, I really don't want to piecemeal 

9 these appendices and change it today, and then 

10 change it again two weeks from now.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

13 MR. ALLEN: If we're still 

14 analyzing the Electro Met or one of these 

15 others.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Doesn't make 

17 sense.

18 MR. ALLEN: We might end up 

19 putting out to where it's a format change, 

20 without changing the numbers, just to allow us 

21 to go ahead and get rid of TBD-6001, knowing 

22 there's an additional change to come. 
207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 As long as there's some text and 

2 format without changing the numbers, that kind 

3 of piecemeal I can handle a lot of easier than 

4 me to start changing the numbers. I just 

5 don't want that to be a surprise to anybody, 

6 if that's what we end up doing. 

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

8 MR. ALLEN: We will include 

9 everything through these audits that we can 

10 do. If we can close it out, we'll include it 

11 all.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So 

13 let's move to Hooker.

14 MR. KATZ: Let's just -- let me 

15 just check on the line and see if we have 

16 either the people from the public from Hooker, 

17 who are possibly going to join us at 1:00.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: They say they 

19 might join us.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. One of them said 

21 that she might not. She might just --

22 MS GERARDO: Yes, I'm here.
208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good, okay.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, so that's Mary.

3 MS. PAGE: And Geraldine Page is 

4 here.

5 MR. KATZ: And Geraldine's here 

6 too. Very good. Okay. So we're ready. 

7 We're going to start talking about Hooker now.

8 MS. PAGE: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

10 MR. THURBER: Everybody has the 

11 Hooker matrix. This is new material. We 

12 issued our review of Appendix AA and the 

13 findings that we arrived at are presented 

14 here. We can go through these -- I'm sure 

15 that NIOSH has not had a chance to examine 

16 these or prepared any responses yet, or I 

17 presume that's the case.

18 MR. ALLEN: I think we're ready to 

19 talk to them. We didn't do anything kind of 

20 formally.

21 MR. THURBER: Okay. Well then 

22 we'll go through them with that in mind. 
209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Finding No. 1, we felt that the assumption 

2 that the required number of barrels could be 

3 dumped in a single day was pretty overly4 optimistic, since we're talking nominally 

5 about 400 barrels, and it seemed like guys 

6 would have to really be humping to open and 

7 dump that many barrels in a day. So we felt 

8 that that number should be reexamined. The 

9 second finding --

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes. That was a 

11 fundamental one. It comes out we didn't 

12 assume they were dumping 400 barrels. We 

13 assumed they were dumping 40 barrels in a day. 

14 Your estimate was based on the ten tons per 

15 month being the output of the process.

16 MR. THURBER: Yes.

17 MR. ALLEN: And ours was the ten 

18 tons per month being the input of the process. 

19 MR. THURBER: But if you take the 

20 -- they gave you the total output, as I 

21 recall, of - 

22 MR. ALLEN: 150.
210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: 150 tons, and that's 

2 over nominally 15 months. So that's like ten 

3 tons a month of product.

4 MR. ALLEN: It was actually, and 

5 I've got it open here; let me find it. It was 

6 approximately 150 tons of C2 slag were 

7 processed. It doesn't say whether it was 

8 input or output.

9 MR. THURBER: Well, then --

10 MR. ALLEN: We went back and 

11 corrected that.

12 MR. THURBER: I went back and did 

13 some analysis, because this one, even when we 

14 were writing the Appendix, this part was not 

15 clear.

16 As it turns out, you can estimate 

17 how much mag fluoride was produced in the MED 

18 from 1942 and 1945. It was about 150 or 1,500 

19 tons, most of which was at Mallinckrodt, and 

20 that was dumped at SLAPS, I believe.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

22 MR. THURBER: If this were a ten 
211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ton per month output, essentially they would 

2 have needed to have an input of the entire 

3 amount the MED ever processed. There's no 

4 evidence that anything came from Mallinckrodt. 

5 It was pretty much all from Electro Met, 

6 which was very near the Hooker plant.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good. If you 

8 are on the phone, can you hear us okay?

9 MS. PAGE: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, good.

11 Yes. speak up if you don't, 

12 that's all, because people are spread around 

13 the room, but the microphones are pretty good, 

14 so don't be bashful.

15 MR. ALLEN: But that --

16 MS. PAGE: Okay, thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Go ahead.

18 MR. ALLEN: That little analysis 

19 is what finally sold me on it, that the 152 

20 tons total and the ten tons per month was the 

21 input term rather than the output term.

22 MR. THURBER: Okay. It sounds 
212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sensible. I need to obviously go back and 

2 double-check the language, but if what you say 

3 is correct, then the one percent, I'm sorry, 

4 the one day per month would be a reasonable 

5 estimate.

6 MR. ALLEN: I guess that's your 

7 item to go back and look.

8 MR. THURBER: Yes, absolutely.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It's a task. 

10 DR. MAURO: A small task, but a 

11 task all the same.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And we'll hold 

13 you to it at the next meeting. Okay, three.

14 MR. THURBER: Okay, two. 

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Two, two. I'm 

16 sorry.

17 MR. THURBER: Okay. This comment 

18 related to the fact that in estimating the 

19 exposures, they only really looked at the 

20 barrel dumping operation and did not look at 

21 the issues of feeding the slag through the 

22 digesters, filtering the slag, I'm sorry, yes, 
213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 filtering the output from the digesters, re2 barreling it for shipment, those kind of 

3 things.

4 So our thought was that you were 

5 missing some exposure by not including all of 

6 those operations.

7 MR. ALLEN: Okay, and you did a 

8 calculation here. You got 146 picocuries per 

9 day in your write-up, and that is how we did 

10 that.

11 The Appendix, though, has 156 

12 picocuries per day for the final answer, and 

13 the remaining came from a semi. The 95 

14 percent of the time was a filter operator. So 

15 it was considered in there. 

16 MR. THURBER: Okay. It hit that 

17 -- 

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I mean once you 

19 actually put the math into the Appendix, it's 

20 hard to put all that in there. I think it was 

21 mentioned in there, but it's text, it's not 

22 math. 
214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: Okay. Well, that 

2 explains why those two numbers are different 

3 too. 

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So have we 

5 resolved that, do we think?

6 MR. THURBER: I believe so. 

7 Again, I want to take a close look at --

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, all 

9 right. 

10 MR. THURBER: But yes, it makes 

11 sense.

12 MR. KATZ: SC&A. We'll recheck 

13 that one too.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

15 MR. THURBER: Yes, and you said it 

16 was filtration was 95 percent of the time.

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We used a 

18 filtration, because the -- now I'm trying to 

19 remember what the task was called in 6001. 

20 MR. THURBER: There is a 

21 filtration task there in the scrap recovery. 

22 So I suspect that's probably what you used.
215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And that seemed to be 

2 the most appropriate, because the dumping was 

3 already covered. It goes into a passive tank, 

4 which is low airborne and a liquid system, and 

5 the next time it's close to dry would be the 

6 filtration, and that's -- even then, it's kind 

7 of a cake.

8 MR. THURBER: It's a wet cake. 

9 Indeed, I agree. Okay. Number three, we felt 

10 that the intake values were -- well, we had 

11 some problems with some of the assumptions, 

12 and we made some alternative assumptions and 

13 we concluded that your numbers were 

14 conservative, but we felt that they might have 

15 been unrealistically high as compared to the 

16 alternatives. 

17 You know, we had a big discussion 

18 about this this morning as to what is 

19 conservative or overly-conservative, and 

20 certainly some of this is in the eye of the 

21 beholder.

22 But the -- given the fact that 
216 

NEAL 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 is so much attention being focused on 

2 surrogate data and whether it's used 

3 realistically or not, we felt that that's 

4 something that ought to be examined a little 

5 more closely.

6 MR. ALLEN: And we, I mean we 

7 considered a number of things, and in the 

8 Evaluation Report, you'll see where there was, 

9 and I can't find it right now. But I believe 

10 it was some 400 EPM per cubic meter from 

11 Electro Met from this material. We used 822.

12 MR. THURBER: And again, we did 

13 not have the benefit of the Petition 

14 Evaluation Report when we did this. 

15 Certainly, there is more and I would say 

16 better quality data in the Petition Evaluation 

17 Report than was used here, and it's certainly 

18 an improved document with better data, in my 

19 view.

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We always seem 

21 to find more as we go.

22 MR. THURBER: Yes.
217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: But the truth is, when 

2 you start talking about surrogate, I mean our 

3 opinion where there is a little more 

4 robustness to something that's sampling many 

5 plants or whatever, like the document used for 

6 TBD-6001, you know.

7 There's, you know, several plants, 

8 et cetera, versus one or two samples from 

9 something that might be a little more similar. 

10 It's kind of -- it's half a dozen of one, six 

11 of the other type of thing, you know.

12 MR. THURBER: To some extent it's 

13 in the eye of the beholder. The Finding 4 --

14 MR. KATZ: Well can I, before we 

15 go on to four though, what is the -- so where 

16 do things stand with three? 

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: As far as the 

18 -- unrealistically high.

19 MR. ALLEN: Well anyway, it's 

20 conservative. It was intended to be bounding, 

21 and it's probably high. I think we would 

22 disagree with the unrealistic adjective.
218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, it would 

2 probably help if you could maybe elaborate on 

3 that as to --

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think some of 

5 that was in the ER, and you said you didn't 

6 have that when you --

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

8 MR. THURBER: No, and nor were --

9 nor have we been commissioned to review the --

10 we reviewed it in a very cursory manner, but 

11 we did not -- we were assigned to review the 

12 Appendix only.

13 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I mean right 

14 now, we're kind of standing, as Bill said, 

15 it's -- unrealistic is in the eye of the 

16 beholder.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: What might be helpful 

19 is what we do, because we usually ask to do 

20 this. Compare whenever you used surrogate 

21 data, compare that use against the criterion. 

22 For example, in a case where you're using 
219 

NEAL 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 from another site, built into 

2 the process should be enough conservatism, 

3 because you're coming from that site. You 

4 don't have your own data to temper it.

5 So one could argue yes, maybe it 

6 might be unrealistically high, but since we 

7 don't have any data on our site, one could 

8 argue we erred on the high side of it. That 

9 would be one way of almost accommodating one 

10 of the acceptance criteria.

11 Yes, it is more conservative. Now 

12 of course later on, the last criteria is 

13 plausible circumstances. Now and this 

14 question's asked of us, and we try to address 

15 it, but I think maybe you should have the 

16 first run at it, because when you do -- in 

17 fact, I'll make a suggestion here.

18 When you do use surrogate data, as 

19 has been done here, it wouldn't be a bad idea 

20 to put it to the board's criteria. Go through 

21 it the way we've been doing it when we've been 

22 asked to do it, and okay, surrogate data was 
220 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 used here, and that each of the criteria, 

2 exclusivity, timely, the timing, the 

3 plausibility. 

4 You know, in any event, maybe four 

5 or five criteria, having that, articulating 

6 that, because eventually we're going to have 

7 to do it. I think it would be better if you 

8 would do it, as part of the basis upon which 

9 you're building your case. 

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Have we 

11 already done that internally? I thought we 

12 did that internally.

13 DR. NETON: I mean it's something 

14 we do internally against our draft criteria.

15 MR. ALLEN: It was our criteria 

16 before the Board adopted it.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 DR. NETON: What surrogate data 

19 that we're talking about here now?

20 MR. THURBER: It's a May 2010 

21 document.

22 DR. NETON: I know. But I'm 
221 

NEAL 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 think about this particular value 

2 that we're discussing is at the --

3 MR. ALLEN: Is the, what we use 

4 for drum dumping and --

5 DR. NETON: Okay.

6 MR. ALLEN: The TBD-6001.

7 DR. NETON: All right, and that 

8 was taken from the --

9 MR. ALLEN: I get the two mixed 

10 up, but Harrison-Kingsley or --

11 DR. NETON: Harrison-Kingsley or 

12 the other report?

13 DR. MAURO: Christifano.

14 DR. NETON: Christifano, I think. 

15 Just the final number of sites over a 20, 

16 over a ten-year period or so.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 DR. NETON: Yes. I think we've 

19 done this, so I don't have a problem with that 

20 - 

21 MR. THURBER: I guess basically 

22 the argument that we made here was the 
222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specific data that were selected from 

2 Christifano & Harris were for scrap recovery, 

3 and in particular it was a guy that was 

4 handling trays of oxide, and that didn't seem 

5 to be a very good analog to the operations 

6 that were being done at Hooker.

7 So we said gee, there are some 

8 other operations out of Christifano & Harris 

9 relating to ore digestion and things like that 

10 that we think are better analogs, and require 

11 fewer assumptions, if you will.

12 And by doing that and not having 

13 to make some of these other assumptions, we 

14 convinced ourselves that your numbers were 

15 certainly bounding, or they were very 

16 bounding.

17 DR. NETON: I think that's fair. 

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 DR. NETON: We'll certainly share 

20 what we've done.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think the 

22 plausibility - 
223 

NEAL 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: It may be in light of 

2 what we're hearing from you guys too, because 

3 we just sort of didn't consider --

4 DR. MAURO: There was a time when 

5 you would introduce a bounding set of 

6 circumstances and, you know, that would be end 

7 of it.

8 It suggests that we're convinced 

9 that you placed a plausible upper bound. I 

10 mean we used those words real loosely, but 

11 plausibility has become really a key word, 

12 plausibility of circumstances.

13 In other words, can the 

14 circumstances that existed at this facility 

15 handling that material, this is dolomite and 

16 the other, can it be plausibly characterized 

17 by using the scrap -- this is uranium, as 

18 opposed to this residue.

19 And one could say "no." You know, 

20 the two are very much different, you know. 

21 One has very little uranium in it and one is, 

22 I guess, all uranium or close to it. So I 
224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean it leaves you in a place where you're 

2 going to have a -- you're going to have a 

3 tough time getting by the plausible 

4 circumstances.

5 MR. ALLEN: I think plausible 

6 argument has to be how high the number is 

7 though. I mean if, in this particular case, we 

8 end up with a number that's fairly low, that 

9 we're saying is possibly unrealistically high. 

10 MR. THURBER: Well, I know. But 

11 --

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR. THURBER: We understand that. 

14 I guess really more the focus is you could 

15 come up with something totally off the wall of 

16 a process that's totally unrelated, come out 

17 with a nice big number and say it's bounding.

18 MR. ALLEN: Right, I would agree 

19 if it was big. But I'm saying you could come 

20 up with a very low number that everybody's 

21 agreeing is high. That's a different story.

22 DR. MAURO: Is it?
225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: I don't know.

3 MR. ALLEN: It is. Everybody 

4 agrees it's high. I mean if you've got one 

5 millirem per year external dose rate and 

6 everybody agrees that's a high number, is that 

7 really implausible?

8 DR. MAURO: Well, now you're going 

9 to, you know, how do you trigger the one 

10 millirem per year number. 

11 MR. ALLEN: Well, you could call 

12 it ten millirems per year. I mean at some 

13 point, it's so low that it's not implausible.

14 MR. THURBER: I agree with that. 

15 Unfortunately, that logic doesn't exist in the 

16 criteria that we're asked to evaluate against.

17 DR. NETON: Well, it certainly 

18 exists in our version. Our version talks 

19 about plausible bounds being you can't, you 

20 know, you'd have to evaluate it against 

21 certain things, like is this a lethal dose of 

22 external exposure you're providing, or is this 
226 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- 

2 MR. KATZ: I mean it says are you 

3 -- have you estimated the maximum doses that 

4 could have occurred under plausible 

5 circumstances at that site. But so if what 

6 they did at that site under plausible 

7 circumstances as opposed to having them 

8 imagining that they did some other crazy 

9 things there.

10 Under the plausible circumstance 

11 of their operations, does this estimate bound 

12 then? That's the question. 

13 DR. NETON: So it certainly bounds 

14 it. The question is --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: How closely.

16 DR. NETON: Yes. I mean we're 

17 splitting hairs here. I mean how close is 

18 close to make it a bounding -- I can see if it 

19 was if we used 50 milligrams per cubic meter 

20 from Bethlehem Steel, and said okay, there's a 

21 choking atmosphere of uranium in the air, and 

22 it's certainly no higher than that. I would 
227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 raise the red flag on that one and say now 

2 come on. That's not even close.

3 But if you're drumming stuff and 

4 now it gets to the matter of the relative 

5 concentration of materials, and if you have to 

6 account for certain things like air 

7 circulations that aren't built into these 

8 calculations.

9 You know, there's some 

10 uncertainties in there that are inherent that 

11 we feel are comfortable picking a higher bound 

12 and saying it's in there, you know. I don't 

13 know. I agree with Dave. I mean if you get a 

14 very low number and we're arguing whether it's 

15 -- everybody agrees to a low number, but it's 

16 higher than what you would expect there, is 

17 that -- does that give you a situation where 

18 you can't bound the dose? Then you get -- if 

19 that becomes -- let's follow this through. If 

20 that becomes the basis for SEC, now you've got 

21 a health endangerment issue, because the SEC 

22 criteria is that if you can't bound it, health 
228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is essentially automatically in danger, 

2 because you can't put this bound on the value. 

3 So --

4 MR. THURBER: We're not saying you 

5 can't bound it. We're convinced you can. 

6 We're just arguing about whether this is the 

7 right way to bound for this particular case. 

8 DR. NETON: Well then see I think 

9 then we need to take plausible off the table 

10 and say that you don't think it's a realistic 

11 value, and we should lower our value, and it's 

12 a non-SEC issue.

13 MR. THURBER: We're not evaluating 

14 the SEC. 

15 DR. NETON: Well, that's true. 

16 This is not an SEC.

17 MR. THURBER: You know.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And the 

19 question is do we want to charge --

20 DR. NETON: If you take plausible 

21 off the table and say you feel it's an 

22 unrealistically high value.
229 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: Which is what the 

2 words were that I got chastised for, about 

3 unrealistic.

4 (Laughter.)

5 DR. MAURO: SEC is at play and 

6 we're trying to advance, and advancing our 

7 Site Profile Review, there was a back room 

8 objective. Maybe we could say something 

9 intelligent about the SEC also. So it's not a 

10 bad idea to talk about --

11 DR. NETON: Well, I mean we've got 

12 to talk about it eventually. In this context, 

13 I would say that you feel the number is high.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And there 

15 might be better choices.

16 DR. NETON: And there might be a 

17 better choice to do.

18 DR. MAURO: For the surrogate 

19 data.

20 DR. NETON: And I think our 

21 response would be we'll take a look at it.

22 MR. THURBER: And certainly with 
230 

NEAL 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 new data that you have uncovered for the 

2 Petition Evaluation Report, that makes a much 

3 more robust argument, to me. 

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and that's what I 

5 was saying. It seems to fit better. It 

6 doesn't seem to be as robust as the -- I can't 

7 even say the name.

8 DR. NETON: Christifano.

9 MR. ALLEN: Christifano, yes. 

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Number four.

11 DR. NETON: So we're going to take 

12 a look at it. I mean that's the action.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Observation.

14 MR. THURBER: There's an error in 

15 the table. I think David and I talked about 

16 this on the side at one time, that it needed 

17 to be fixed, I think is the bottom line.

18 MR. ALLEN: And yes. We talked 

19 about it and I agreed, and I'm trying to 

20 remember what this one was. Okay. I remember 

21 this one. It was simply an error in a 

22 spreadsheet that got carried forward.
231 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 As I said, we're revising the 

2 appendices, so we'll correct that.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, next.

4 MR. THURBER: Number five, it 

5 relied on some information in TBD-6001 to do 

6 the, I believe this is the external dose, and 

7 we thought it was again kind of a stretch to 

8 use the numbers from TBD-6001, which dealt 

9 with drums of uranium, and then try to 

10 extrapolate down, if you will, to drums of 

11 slag, and that a more robust approach would be 

12 to use MCNP or something like to generate the 

13 numbers on the basis of the real source that 

14 we're talking about.

15 MR. ALLEN: And with the TBD-6001 

16 going away, I can't see the point to it, so 

17 I'm going to add to --

18 MR. THURBER: Right. 

19 DR. MAURO: Quite frankly, 

20 probably that's what you're going to do.

21 MR. ALLEN: I've got to go back to 

22 the source documents. So it will be revised 
232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the next revision.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Again, 

3 Observation 3 is gone, because 6001 is gone.

4 MR. THURBER: Finding 6 again is, 

5 suggests that it would be better to do some 

6 modeling than to use some extrapolations.

7 MR. ALLEN: And it's almost the 

8 same answer as far as we had to revise the 

9 basis. We can't just point to TBD-6001.

10 MR. THURBER: Right. 

11 DR. MAURO: Once you move up 

12 everything, you're taking it from the top.

13 MR. ALLEN: I guess not modeling -

14 - make sure I get this right. Is this the 

15 beta?

16 DR. NETON: Shallow dose.

17 MR. ALLEN: Modeling beta dose is 

18 a little tricky with those programs, and those 

19 programs don't do so well sometimes. So the 

20 methodology will be revised. Whether it's 

21 relying on a measurement somewhere or a model 

22 --
233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: I mean and you did 

2 have, again, in the Petition Evaluation 

3 Report, you had some new data which you used, 

4 and that's certainly an approach. I think if 

5 you can model it, the modeling would be 

6 preferred. But there's certainly alternatives 

7 available.

8 DR. MAURO: I'm putting myself in 

9 your shoes. In other words you start with 

10 Christifano & Harris, and TBD-6001, which is 

11 some kind of aggregating and sorting out and 

12 tabulating, to create a matrix from that. 

13 And then of course you have your 

14 appendices. Then your appendices then go back 

15 to TBD-6001 to varying degrees. What you're 

16 doing is you're pulling this out now. So in 

17 my mind, good. Just get that out there, 

18 because that was kind of confusing and 

19 disorienting. 

20 Now I -- now what you've just said 

21 I agree with completely. All right. Now I'm 

22 going to revisit, let's say some external 
234 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposure to beta from some situation. You can 

2 do one of two things.

3 You can say I think I can model 

4 this and come up with a scenario that will be 

5 plausible and bounding, or I could go to 

6 Christifano & Harris, which is a very good 

7 source document, to see if they provide data 

8 on beta exposure or whatever their data show 

9 that can directly link, or do both.

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MR. ALLEN: I'm with you 100 

12 percent on the internal.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay, but nothing on 

14 the external.

15 MR. ALLEN: No. As Bill pointed 

16 out, there's some data that's in ER that could 

17 be used, and the question is going to be using 

18 some surrogate data or using a model, you 

19 know.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

21 DR. NETON: I mean the issue here 

22 is the dose rate coming off the slag, compared 
235 

NEAL 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 -- I mean because we've done this shallow 

2 dose for drums. It's got to be pretty low.

3 MR. THURBER: Yes. I'm sure it's 

4 very low. There's no doubt about that. If 

5 any coming out of a wooden barrel, if you 

6 will. 

7 MR. ALLEN: Just being a small 

8 percentage of uranium and all that mag 

9 fluoride.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. THURBER: I would doubt that 

12 there's any. But --

13 DR. NETON: Okay. We'll look at 

14 it.

15 DR. MAURO: These are easy fixes. 

16 You've got easy fixes.

17 MR. THURBER: Number seven, it 

18 just wasn't obvious how the inhalation intake 

19 of one picocurie per calendar day was 

20 calculated, we felt that the transparency of 

21 that process could be improved in the revised 

22 document.
236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And I agree. I think 

2 the document just said we started with, or 

3 something to that effect, and more detail in 

4 the text.

5 MR. THURBER: Because we tried to 

6 reproduce it and couldn't. Eight. 

7 (Laughter.)

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: A lot of these 

9 you're going to get a revised document and we 

10 don't need to trash on it now. Once we get 

11 the text, then we'll see what you did and we 

12 could talk about it more then. So let's --

13 we've got the assignment made, so I'm ready to 

14 move --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Go ahead.

17 MR. THURBER: Eight deals with the 

18 issue that we talked a little bit about this 

19 morning, and we talked about many times in the 

20 past, and that's the appropriate resuspension 

21 factor to use, and as John indicated, we have 

22 been refining our thinking on this, and 
237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 clearly for a residual period where there's 

2 evidence of cleanup and that sort of thing, 

3 that 10 to the minus 6 is -- we would buy into 

4 it.

5 So again, some support for that 

6 selection in this revised document would be 

7 improvement.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: All we've done 

9 is double the length of your document.

10 MR. ALLEN: Well actually on that 

11 one, I was going to say this is more of a 

12 global issue. It's been discussed. Like you 

13 said, it's in every --

14 DR. NETON: But I'm thinking he's 

15 suggesting that if we could do it as a cleaner 

16 operation, then this might be valid.

17 MR. THURBER: Yes. I think it's 

18 in one sense it's global, but in another sense 

19 it's very site-specific, you know. We have 

20 evidence that there was a purchase order that 

21 included cleanup, you know, and therefore 

22 you've got something to document. 
238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So it's both a global issue and a 

2 site-specific issue.

3 DR. MAURO: And the data are very 

4 solid, NRC work, the report they put out, 

5 where they come out with a 10 to the minus 6. 

6 They hammer it home cleanly. You know, when 

7 you've cleaned up your site, your residue, 

8 you're not going to have -- the resuspension 

9 is good.

10 DR. NETON: The amount of loose 

11 material is --

12 DR. MAURO: It's the loose 

13 material, yes.

14 DR. NETON: And if we can justify 

15 it based on the cleanliness of the operation, 

16 we'll do it. If not, it will become a global 

17 issue.

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MR. ALLEN: I'll tell you right 

20 now. I mean they were dumping drums outside. 

21 One report said they had respirators 

22 available but they didn't need them because 
239 

NEAL 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 wind blew it away. It's not a clean 

2 operation.

3 (Laughter.)

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: All right 

5 there you go. A global issue.

6 MR. THURBER: Well, but there's 

7 also -- you know, this point is -- it's 

8 unclear as to how much of the operations were 

9 done inside as compared to outside, and I 

10 think in the Evaluation Report, it suggests 

11 that quite a bit of work was done outside.

12 But if you go back and look at one 

13 of the documents that was prepared at the 

14 time, I don't know that it was a contract 

15 completion report or something like that, it 

16 clearly indicated that most of the operations 

17 were in the building that was specifically 

18 built for the purpose. So --

19 MR. ALLEN: Oh, I agree. There 

20 was a little bit of conflicting information, 

21 but most of it seems to agree the vats and the 

22 filter purses, everything were in a specially-
240 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 constructed cinder block building, small 

2 building.

3 MR. THURBER: Right.

4 MR. ALLEN: But the dumping was --

5 MR. THURBER: That would be the 

6 sensible way to build that kind of a process. 

7 You have a hopper or something and the 

8 forklifts dump the stuff into a hopper, and it 

9 gets conveyed into the building through a 

10 bucket elevator or whatever.

11 MR. ALLEN: So I can take a stab 

12 at this for a site-specific issue, and then in 

13 the next Work Group we decide to push it into 

14 that global issue, if that's where we stand. 

15 If that's not right --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: If the site17 specific issues don't meet these kind of 

18 criteria, 10 to the minus 6 and alternative 

19 strategies, you know, you'll present that. 

20 Okay. Nine.

21 MR. KATZ: Just as long as we're 

22 on that topic, what Work Group would handle 
241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it? Procedures? Is it on the table for 

2 Procedures?

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 DR. NETON: TIB-70 is where that 

5 value --

6 MR. KATZ: And we're working on 

7 that already. Okay.

8 DR. NETON: That's forever, for 

9 several years.

10 MR. KATZ: But it seems like then 

11 it should be, we should put it to bed there, 

12 because if we end up with a situation here 

13 where we decide it's a global, we're going to 

14 put it to bed because we have a petition. So 

15 it's a priority for - 

16 DR. NETON: Yes, if this is a 

17 global issue, this would normally stay a TIB18 70 issue being handled at the Working Group.

19 MR. ALLEN: The other end of that, 

20 Ted, is I think we reached agreement long ago 

21 there is a number that can be used. It's just 

22 a question of what that number, appropriate 
242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number --

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. ALLEN: That's why the 

4 petition is not really an SEC issue.

5 MR. KATZ: It's a TBD issue, 

6 that's correct. Okay, thanks.

7 MR. THURBER: Finding 9, I think, 

8 is really closely tied in with 8, and I don't 

9 think it requires --

10 DR. NETON: With TIB-70.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Connected.

12 MR. THURBER: It's definitely 

13 connected, and Finding 10, I believe yes. 

14 There's an error which is tied in with the 

15 same error that was in Finding -- whatever, 4, 

16 and it just got -- it gets extended into the 

17 residual period. So that's readily fixable.

18 MR. ALLEN: No disagreements, so 

19 --

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any comments 

21 or questions from Board Members on the phone?

22 MEMBER FIELD: No, I'm good.
243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. The 

2 only thing that maybe we could talk about is 

3 the ER review. Do we anticipate that's going 

4 to come, and how soon are we ready with it? I 

5 just don't remember the timing on dealing with 

6 the petition versus this.

7 MR. ALLEN: I don't have a clue. 

8 I mean the ER is out.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MR. ALLEN: Were you guys tasking 

11 the ER?

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, no. 

13 That's why I'm just saying, is that something 

14 we want to --

15 DR. NETON: Have we presented it 

16 yet?

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and --

18 DR. MAURO: Because I remember 

19 listening to it, yes. A while ago.

20 MR. ALLEN: In Niagara Falls. It 

21 was a while ago. We had to do it in Niagara 

22 Falls. It was just down the road.
244 

NEAL 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.

2 MR. THURBER: We glanced at it 

3 briefly and made a couple of comments here 

4 that were very general and generic, but we 

5 have not reviewed them. 

6 MR. KATZ: So we need to assign 

7 SC&A with sort of finishing the review --

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think so, 

9 yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Or beginning the 

11 review.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 DR. NETON: Well, I assume if 

14 you've done a Site Profile Review, then --

15 MR. KATZ: You've got a lot of 

16 ground under your feet.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MR. THURBER: But as we've said, 

19 there's quite a bit of new and interesting 

20 information in the ER that was not included.

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

22 DR. NETON: I was going to say, 
245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because really just take what you have and see 

2 which ones are SEC issues.

3 MR. KATZ: So SC&A will review 

4 Hooker.

5 DR. MAURO: I mean think we just 

6 -- in fact, let's get a little focused more 

7 forwardly. This should be a focused review.

8 DR. NETON: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: To zero in 

10 specifically on those issues that we've 

11 already covered, that we believe -- I may want 

12 to get -- but we believe are potential to the 

13 SECs. We will report back what we believe 

14 those are, just so everybody agrees. 

15 DR. NETON: But as you build the 

16 statistics, there's additional information in 

17 the ER that might mitigate, for lack of a 

18 better word, some of these issues. 

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. That's what I -

20 - I think I heard that. I think, as always, I 

21 think I'd like to look at the petition, the 

22 way we did for --
246 

NEAL 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: You should look at the 

2 petition, absolutely. And that will be an 

3 extra piece? That certainly, because --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We want to 

5 sort of roll the two together. We don't want 

6 to -- actually, that's something that's --

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. Maybe I 

9 crossed wires with the previous one, but is 

10 there some new data, new analysis going on 

11 with this? Is this the one that had some new 

12 data that you have --

13 DR. NETON: It's in the ER.

14 DR. MAURO: It's in the ER. It's 

15 in the ER. Okay. There's a previous one we 

16 had new data, but it's not in there yet.

17 MR. THURBER: They had some slag 

18 data from other sites --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 DR. MAURO: Okay, good. 

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So that's a 

22 task. Otherwise, I think the rest of these 
247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are going to be when you redo the profile.

2 DR. NETON: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And do we have 

4 a --

5 MR. ALLEN: There's some sort of 

6 White Paper for the surrogate data --

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, right. 

8 Yes. I think that could be --

9 MR. ALLEN: And in all honesty, 

10 the rest of these are just no-brainers.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, it has 

13 to be done, and but --

14 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but I don't think 

15 there's going to be any disagreement on --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, no. It's 

17 a matter of finding the time to get it done, 

18 and so when --

19 MR. ALLEN: Finding the time is 

20 the issue.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 MR. KATZ: When is the time, Bill, 
248 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do you think it's required to do the Petition 

2 Evaluation piece for SC&A? That would 

3 probably take more time than Dave requires to 

4 button up what's been addressed here already.

5 MR. THURBER: A couple of months.

6 DR. MAURO: Two months is great. 

7 Two months would be very good.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, okay, January.

9 MR. THURBER: Okay, because 

10 there's a lot of, you know, bad time.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 DR. MAURO: Do we have any 

13 interview data capture aspects to this?

14 MR. THURBER: We have not, we 

15 haven't explored any.

16 DR. MAURO: Usually -- well, you 

17 know what we'll do, is we will probably set 

18 that in motion, but nevertheless move --, and 

19 let the data capture interviews catch up.

20 MR. KATZ: It is a focus review, 

21 so I mean the interviews would only be if you 

22 see issues that you need to get from a few 
249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 interviews.

2 MR. THURBER: The one thing that's 

3 come up here that would be helpful, if we 

4 could get at it, is what was done indoors and 

5 what was done outdoors, and to what extent 

6 were -- how were things cleaned up?

7 DR. MAURO: And I'll tell you, my 

8 experience in all these SECs was it's not 

9 always self-evident that there would be great 

10 value to these, but it turns out every time we 

11 do them, great value occurs. We learn 

12 something, and if nothing else, the 

13 petitioners have a chance to, you know, 

14 communicate with us. How much of that turns 

15 out to really make it home? It's hard to say. 

16 But I really like the idea of going to those 

17 interviews.

18 MR. ALLEN: Just to make sure 

19 you're aware, and I know Bill's aware, this is 

20 about a four-man operation that ended in 1946.

21 DR. MAURO: That's a simple thing. 

22 Not too many people out there to talk to.
250 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And not many people, 

2 and there was two or three interviews done--

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MR. ALLEN: With some conflicting 

5 information. It's certainly worth looking at 

6 those. I think we found the one guy that 

7 might still be around that did it, one or two.

8 MR. THURBER: That's right. 

9 That's a very good point. A very good point.

10 MR. KATZ: So Dave, do you think 

11 that before the next Board meeting, which is 

12 February, do you think your part of this, in 

13 terms of having the petition discussion, could 

14 be done? The TBD issues, of course, don't 

15 have to all be put to bed, but --

16 MR. ALLEN: My thought is, I think 

17 I've got like two issues here that I could 

18 create some sort of like White Paper, and 

19 possibly if there's any question in how I'm 

20 changing the basis on these other things. But 

21 I think if there's any question, I can 

22 document them too, send this to the Work 
251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group.

2 Hopefully, about the time that 

3 you're completing the ER review, then we have 

4 one conversation, maybe put it all to bed, and 

5 then do a real revision on the Appendix after 

6 that.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, so this is one 

8 that --

9 MR. ALLEN: Like I said, there 

10 might be a format revision done before that. 

11 I'm not sure.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any other 

13 issues with Hooker? Okay. Now we're just 

14 looking at an update on Baker-Perkins and what 

15 other sites are assigned to us?

16 DR. MAURO: Baker-Perkins is the 

17 last one. We did have DuPont Deep Water, but 

18 that we haven't acted on at all, for a variety 

19 of reasons. So the only left today to talk 

20 about, we did deliver relatively recently on 

21 Baker-Perkins, and I wonder if James East is 

22 on the line?
252 

NEAL 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. EAST: Yes, he is.

2 DR. MAURO: And James, wonderful, 

3 thanks for hanging in there with us. James is 

4 the author of it, and aided us. What we 

5 really can do now is tell our story about what 

6 we found. I think you have the reports, but 

7 my guess is you probably didn't have much of 

8 an opportunity to look at the findings and the 

9 thought process. If not, you know, we could 

10 just give a summary to everyone of what's it 

11 all about.

12 MR. ALLEN: I've got to call it up 

13 and remind myself right now.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, let's get a sense 

15 of it.

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 DR. MAURO: So James, if you want 

18 to go ahead and just give, tell the story 

19 about the findings. Does everyone have a copy 

20 of the report? No. 

21 MR. KATZ: Everyone received a 

22 copy.
253 

NEAL 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: Everyone received a 

2 copy. Well James, I'll just leave it to you 

3 just to go through the findings and set the 

4 context as best you can, and I'm going to 

5 leave. So I want to make my flight. So take 

6 care, and thank you very much everybody.

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John.

8 MS. GIRARDO: Is it okay if Hooker 

9 just signs off?

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's absolutely 

11 okay, and thank you for joining us.

12 MS. GIRARDO: Do I conclude from 

13 this that you still have work to do before you 

14 make your decision?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's exactly 

16 right. So there will be another Work Group 

17 meeting, and we haven't determined yet whether 

18 it will be before mid-February or after that, 

19 like late February or March.

20 But there will be another Work 

21 Group meeting that you could listen into, and 

22 the folks from NIOSH will send you a notice of 
254 

NEAL 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 Work Group meeting date.

2 MS. GIRARDO: If I'm lucky. They 

3 didn't do it this time. Okay, thank you very 

4 much for all your time.

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Bye.

8 MR. ALLEN: One of them was 

9 anyway.

10 DR. NETON: I don't know if they 

11 were petitioners or not.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I thought the 

13 lady speaking was the petitioner, but I might 

14 be wrong.

15 MR. THURBER: Baker-Perkins.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 MR. THURBER: James, go ahead.

18 MR. KATZ: Well Dave, have you had 

19 a chance to pull up whatever information you 

20 have?

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I think I can 

22 discuss some of these issues on the surface. 
255 

NEAL 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 mean not deep, but it will probably knock 

2 out some of this.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Go ahead then 

4 James.

5 MR. EAST: Okay. In summary, 

6 Baker-Perkins was a manufacturer of equipment 

7 used for mixing, particularly in the baking 

8 industry and Fernald thought that their 

9 equipment might be useful in mixing uranium 

10 with water and ammonia mixtures.

11 There was a test done at a Baker12 Perkins, over a five-day period, and we were 

13 fortunate in that there are data sheets for 

14 the air samples that were taken both before, 

15 during and after the tests. So we have some 

16 good airborne data for this test.

17 The one problem that we ran 

18 across, and this will come up in a finding, is 

19 that we were never able to identify which 

20 building and where in the multiple sites that 

21 Baker-Perkins did this building exist. It was 

22 referenced in one place as "Laboratory 
256 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Building 15," but the data capture never found 

2 a map that identified this and where it was 

3 located.

4 Going into the occupational 

5 medical dose, we looked at what Appendix P 

6 stated about the occupational dose, and it 

7 really just did not provide enough guidance to 

8 help the DR in determining what medical 

9 exposures would be expected. 

10 So our finding is that it wasn't 

11 sufficiently prescriptive in just defining 

12 what the medical exposure would be. We drew 

13 the conclusion that one exposure, because it 

14 was a five-day period, one medical exposure 

15 for this would be appropriate and more than 

16 likely very favorable for the workers there. 

17 There was no data to support any evidence of 

18 medical exposure during this time.

19 If we look at Section 3, we are 

20 looking at the occupational internal dose, and 

21 we have guidance in Tables P-1 and P-2 that 

22 indicate the daily inhalation and ingestion 
257 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quantities for the workers. These are based 

2 upon the general area measurements and the 

3 breathing zone measurements that were made.

4 Those measurements are repeated in 

5 Table 1. It's on page eight of the report, 

6 and basically we have a pretty good idea of 

7 what was going on, well-documented additional 

8 notes. 

9 One of the notes that we saw in 

10 there was that the workers were wearing dust 

11 masks and identified them as the half face 

12 cartridge respirators. However, we did not 

13 take credit for that protection in any of the 

14 internal dose calculations.

15 We looked, going down into page 

16 nine, we tried to unravel the background and 

17 how they came up with their numbers, and it 

18 seems that they took two steps to the right 

19 and two steps to the left, and really didn't 

20 define them too much, and ended up with what 

21 we think was pretty good numbers.

22 But we found the approach a little 
258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not well-defined, and they throw in a factor 

2 of 73 in there that wasn't described as to 

3 what that meant. In a brilliant flash one 

4 night that woke me up, I realize that 73 is 

5 365 divided by 5. So that's where the 73 came 

6 from, I imagine.

7 But they go in and take the 

8 concentrations that were measured. They take 

9 that and divide it out over the year, and then 

10 tell you to multiply by 73 to make it the year 

11 exposure again. I think this bouncing back 

12 and forth leads to confusion and difficult to 

13 understand what was really intended here.

14 I've performed the calculations to 

15 verify their data, and I see my inhalation 

16 data for plant for high has an extra factor in 

17 that first line. That W factor is extra and 

18 should be deleted from the equation. It 

19 doesn't belong there, so it's an error on my 

20 part.

21 But I went through the 

22 calculations, and I agree that the final 
259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 numbers in the end all work out, if you can 

2 figure out how the DR is supposed to use 

3 those. So that's -- we find that confusing 

4 and should be cleared up, and justification 

5 for this approach is lacking.

6 For Finding No. 2, the approach 

7 taken in the Appendix 2 exposure tables, of 

8 annualizing the dose from five days of 

9 exposure and presenting this data in terms of 

10 exposure per work days is confusing. It can 

11 lead to errors by the dose reconstructor. We 

12 go on to Finding No. 3. NIOSH --

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Wait, wait.

14 MR. KATZ: James, just before. 

15 Dave, do you want to respond to any of these 

16 as we go or --

17 MR. ALLEN: If you want me to. As 

18 far as Finding 1, it was the X-ray guidance, 

19 you know -- needed some better guidance to

20 agree 100 percent. As far as Finding No. 2 

21 with the annualized exposure for the five-day 

22 work, I agree 100 percent that that is 
260 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 confusing.

2 I would like to point out and I 

3 did check, and every claimant that we've had 

4 so far have worked the entire year. So it 

5 didn't make a difference as far as too much 

6 confusion, but it could in the future. It is 

7 confusing and we will revise how that's 

8 presented --

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: How many 

10 workers were at the site?

11 MR. ALLEN: We've had four 

12 claimants.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: This isn't a 

14 petition site though, is it?

15 MR. ALLEN: This is an appendix 

16 review.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, that's 

18 what I thought.

19 DR. NETON: We've already 

20 presented the petition and voted on it.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I thought 

22 so.
261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And I think back to 

2 you.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks James. 

4 Go ahead, again.

5 MR. EAST: Okay. Finding No. 3, 

6 NIOSH should include guidance on how to 

7 reconstruct doses for employees not working in 

8 Building No. 15. We, as I pointed out, the

9 building wasn't identified as to where it was 

10 in the site, and the two claims that I was 

11 able to look at, they had, they did not 

12 present any information to suggest that they 

13 had actually been a part of this experiment, 

14 and whether they were even in the building.

15 So by default, because we can't 

16 show them, show that they were elsewhere on 

17 one of the many sites in the area, this 

18 becomes very conservative to assume that they 

19 were in the room with the testing going on, 

20 where the air samples were taken.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We don't have 

22 any information. We don't have any hope of 
262 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 putting them in a particular building or not. 

2 The best we could do is divide it up into a 

3 types of jobs, so that at least an accountant 

4 or a secretary might not get the full brunt. 

5 That's about all we can do with what we've 

6 seen.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, James.

8 MR. EAST: Okay. We're just 

9 looking at findings, so go down to Finding No. 

10 4. That we're looking at the intakes are 

11 based upon half the breathing zone and half 

12 general area samples. Obviously, there's 

13 going to be some workers that were probably in 

14 there working this the whole time, and as a 

15 result, I don't see that as being a bounding 

16 exposure for workers like that.

17 It may be for supervisors and 

18 others, that we can't confirm were in the 

19 area. When someone is confirmed in the area, 

20 this will be more bounding of the dose. 

21 MR. KATZ: Dave or Jim?

22 DR. NETON: I might have a 
263 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different recollection of this, but I thought 

2 that the Baker-Perkins workers were not even 

3 really in the area. The testing was done by 

4 the Fernald folks.

5 MR. ALLEN: They were certainly 

6 there.

7 DR. NETON: That was my 

8 recollection, was that the Baker-Perkins 

9 people were not participants in this test. 

10 They were there, but not doing the actual - I 

11 think the Fernald people came out, set it up, 

12 ran the process. We'll have to go back and 

13 look at that. But that was my -- I could be 

14 wrong, but that was what I recall. I don't 

15 know. We'll look at it.

16 MR. EAST: Okay. Going into 

17 external dose, it was based upon tables from 

18 Tables 7.1 of 6007, and as found in earlier 

19 reviews, this apparently contained some 

20 errors, and there is the traceability here, 

21 openness of where these numbers came from 

22 seems to be lacking.
264 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So where our finding is that it 

2 contains errors, and it makes it difficult to 

3 trace information that is in Table P-3 to its 

4 source. 

5 MR. ALLEN: On this one and the 

6 next one, why don't you go ahead and explain 

7 number six, and then I think I got the same 

8 answer on both.

9 MR. EAST: Okay. Finding No. 6, 

10 NIOSH should provide sufficient detail to 

11 permit the reader to duplicate the dose 

12 calculations in support of Tables 3 and 4. 

13 This is actually from previous reviews, I 

14 believe, of the TBD. 

15 MR. ALLEN: Okay, and essentially 

16 this is similar to what we've already seen, I 

17 think, with United Nuclear and with Hooker, 

18 was we're revising the Appendix and 

19 eliminating TBD-6001.

20 So the Appendix will have to go 

21 back to the source documents, et cetera, and 

22 be a much more clear than just pointing to a 
265 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 table that seems to have some errors in it.

2 MR. EAST: And then looking at 

3 residual contamination, there is documentation 

4 to show that there were, there was 

5 decontamination of the equipment, that took 

6 the equipment apart, cleaned it, measurements 

7 were being made of the air during this time 

8 period.

9 So and that the concept or 

10 knowledge that typically, uranium and this 

11 compound will be visible in values with the 

12 concerned contamination. So we agree that 

13 residual contamination would not be a source 

14 term for any of the workers, and there was no 

15 surrogate data used in this analysis, in this 

16 TBD. So that's my report. 

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you, James. 

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So it sounds 

19 like we have no real major issues here. 

20 MR. ALLEN: Over the five days, I 

21 don't think you can. 

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Well, I 
266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was going to say, I mean but well, but we 

2 still want to, if we can move this forward and 

3 kind of get it done and off the table, it 

4 would be very --

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I think this one 

6 moves forward with the revisions to the 

7 Appendix.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean this is 

9 one that by getting rid of 6001 created more 

10 work for you. But other than that, it's --

11 any questions on the phone?

12 MEMBER FIELD: None from me, Bill.

13 MR. KATZ: So Sam, do you want to 

14 just give us --

15 DR. GLOVER: This would be after 

16 the Board meeting comes.

17 MR. KATZ: After the next Board 

18 meeting.

19 DR. GLOVER: We're going to have a 

20 couple, several coming up as far as things 

21 that I have responsibility for, for SEC 

22 reviews, that would be preferable to --
267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: There's no 

2 real time constraint here.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, the only time 

4 constraint is we do have -- some of these are 

5 petitions that -- some of these are petitions, 

6 to the sense that we tried to get those in a 

7 timely way. So I think if we're shooting for 

8 end of February or early March. Is that what 

9 you're saying? Is that --

10 MR. ALLEN: That would be a much 

11 quieter time than trying to get things done 

12 right before a Board meeting.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. Do people want to 

14 look at calendars or do you want to book this 

15 independently, as long as we have everybody 

16 here.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. 

18 MR. KATZ: It's been easy to do it 

19 this way, and it's so hard by email.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, right. 

21 What dates are we looking for?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes. So let me just 
268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 run to that month quickly in my calendar and 

2 see. Okay. So the Board meeting is the week 

3 of the 21st. So then we're into March. So 

4 like the first or maybe right after the Board 

5 meeting is probably not the best time, because 

6 Sam will probably be at that Board meeting 

7 too.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: But what about the 

10 first full week in March, the week of the 7th? 

11 Does that seem reasonable for what you have 

12 ahead of you Sam? I mean because Dave we've 

13 talked. Dave has sort of checked these boxes 

14 for his. He's good with that, I think, right?

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Monday the 7th 

16 is good for me.

17 MR. ALLEN: What was the date you 

18 were talking maybe?

19 MR. KATZ: So the first full week 

20 in March for another, next Work Group meeting. 

21 MR. ALLEN: I don't think I'm 

22 ready today to guarantee that I'll have 
269 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 everything done I'm supposed to. But I'll 

2 definitely have some of it -- 

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The week of 

4 the 14th? Would one more week help?

5 MR. KATZ: One more week always 

6 will help.

7 MR. ALLEN: At this point, I don't 

8 think I can --

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You don't 

10 know, okay. I'm just looking at my schedule. 

11 That week is much better for me.

12 MR. KATZ: The week of the 14th?

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, and that gives 

15 them an extra week.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It is not 

17 going to take all week.

18 MR. KATZ: So let's just pick a 

19 day, that week of the 14th.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: What works 

21 best for you?

22 MR. KATZ: Any of those days work 
270 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for me. Want to do it in the middle of the 

2 week, so no one has to travel on a weekend?

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure. 

4 Thursday?

5 MR. KATZ: So how is -- or yes, 

6 the Ides of March, March 15th?

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Tuesday? 

8 Tuesday the 15th?

9 MR. KATZ: Does that work for you, 

10 Bill, and you Mark, March 15th.

11 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I 

12 teach on Mondays and Wednesdays, but I could -

13 - 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thursday is the 

15 17th, isn't it?

16 DR. NETON: Tuesday we're talking 

17 about.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Tuesday, March 

19 15th.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Tuesday the 

21 15th works.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.
271 

NEAL 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: And Bill, how about 

2 you?

3 MEMBER FIELD: I can make 

4 arrangements.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, done. 

6 MR. KATZ: All right, and then is 

7 that it, Mr. Chairman?

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: We're adjourned. Thank 

10 you everyone on the phone for hanging in with 

11 us. Have a good evening, yes.

12 (Whereupon, at 2:13 p.m., the 

13 above-entitled matter went off the record.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22