This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

URANIUM REFINING ATOMIC WEAPONS EMPLOYERS

(AWEs) WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

JANUARY 22, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard 

Time, Henry Anderson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

HENRY ANDERSON, Chairman

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

BILL THURBER, SC&A

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

3

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Page

Welcome and Introductions 4 

Discussion 5 

1 Overview of SC&A Site Profile 

Review of DuPont Deepwater Works 5

2 Resolution of findings 2.4-7 25

3 Actions/path forward 65

Adjourn 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
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

4

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

2 12:01 p.m.

3 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

4 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the 

6 Uranium Refining AWEs Work Group, formerly TBD7 6001. And we're talking today about DuPont 

8 Deepwater Works Site Profile Review.

9 The materials for this meeting are 

10 posted on the NIOSH website under the Board 

11 section, under Meetings, today's date. You 

12 click on today's date and you should be able to 

13 find the materials that we're discussing to 

14 follow along.

15 Since we're speaking about a site, 

16 when we do roll call, please speak to conflict 

17 of interest. And I know already we'll be 

18 lacking one of our three Board Members for this 

19 Work Group. But let's get started, beginning 

20 with the Chair.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

5

1 (Roll call.)

2 Andy, it's your agenda.

3 2. DISCUSSION

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. It's been 

5 awhile since we got together. This was a 

6 little bit delayed moving forward. But I think 

7 what we'd like to do today is close out various 

8 issues. We did have a productive initial 

9 discussion and went through the various 

10 findings and had some comments. And NIOSH was 

11 going to get back and then SC&A was going to 

12 look at those comments. Hopefully, today we 

13 can resolve them. 

14 Could we start with just a quick 

15 overview from SC&A on the review and findings 

16 of the site quickly?

17 MR. THURBER: Yeah, I can do it.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We have then 

19 Findings 2 and 4 to 7 to resolve.

20 MR. THURBER: Right. I can do that. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

6

1 Regarding Finding 2, it appeared to us in 

2 looking at the calculations that NIOSH had used 

3 two different assumptions in converting 

4 workdays to calendar days, one for inhalation 

5 and one for ingestion. And we thought that 

6 those should be the same. Not a big deal, but 

7 just a matter of tidying up something there.

8 A second thing we commented on was 

9 the fact that the method used to calculate 

10 doses in the DuPont document was quite 

11 different than the way the doses were 

12 calculated in TBD-6000. And we felt that a 

13 discussion of that was appropriate to explain 

14 why the approach was taken. And it results in 

15 substantially lower doses than if you'd used 

16 the procedures, the generic procedures, in TBD17 6000.

18 A third point that we raised 

19 questions about is, in attempting to describe 

20 the variation of beta dose with distance, NIOSH 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

7

1 took some published data from NRC and fit a 

2 curve to that data so that they could have a 

3 numerical relationship to use in the modeling. 

4 And what they assumed was that the geometric 

5 mean was a millirem per year -- I'm sorry, a 

6 millirem per hour at a distance of 100 

7 centimeters from the source, and a geometric 

8 standard deviation of five.

9 There's an additional constraint on 

10 that number because the graph that they 

11 presented showed that the curve from the NRC 

12 data and the curve that they developed based on 

13 this log-normal distribution, and the 

14 assumptions I just mentioned, crossed at a 

15 particular point. We tried all kinds of 

16 different ways to try and reconcile this 

17 mathematical curve with the curve to fit the 

18 measured data. And we just couldn't do it and 

19 we ask that NIOSH provide us some insight into 

20 just how they had developed that curve.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

8

1 There is one more point which I'd 

2 like to mention which I think should be 

3 covered, and it's new. But in the table for 

4 the residual period, NIOSH presents exposure 

5 data for both inhalation and ingestion 

6 exposures. And the procedure they used for the 

7 ingestion exposure results in a value that's 

8 about 100 times higher than the inhalation 

9 exposure. And that's quite different than what 

10 we've come to expect all along.

11 That is to say, the inhalation 

12 exposure is generally perceived to be higher 

13 than the ingestion exposure. And we think that 

14 that should be explained a little more clearly 

15 so that everyone understands that. That kind 

16 of summarizes it, Henry.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: How about the 

18 other findings?

19 MR. THURBER: I think, with regard 

20 to the other findings, as we'd indicated in the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

9

1 White Paper that we'd provided, that those were 

2 pretty much resolved based on the changes that 

3 were made in Revision 1 to the DuPont TBD.

4 This last point that I mentioned 

5 about the difference between the -- or the very 

6 high value of the ingestion dose does kind of 

7 speak to -- it kind of leaves one of those 

8 findings, I think Finding 6, a little bit open9 ended. But if that's going to be clarified, 

10 then that can stay closed, if you will.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any questions 

12 that anybody has? David?

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm a little bit 

14 --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You're kind of a 

16 little --

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I'm a 

18 little at loose ends trying to follow as we go 

19 through. Now, I did not get an opportunity to 

20 read this -- a long time ago -- but not to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

10

1 review it recently. I was having trouble on 

2 our machine. 

3 Let's stick to one finding at a 

4 time. I mean, you talked about ingestion and

5 inhalation. I see the data that you present 

6 here on Finding 2. And you said that it is 

7 unusual that ingestion is so much larger than 

8 inhalation.

9 Are you going to suggest why? Or 

10 have you and maybe I didn't follow?

11 MR. THURBER: With regard to Finding 

12 2, I think that the focus in discussing that 

13 should simply be on whether the conversion of 

14 workdays to calendar days was done consistently 

15 for inhalation and ingestion.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MR. THURBER: That should be the 

18 focus of our discussion on Finding 2. This 

19 other point about the ingestion being much 

20 smaller than the --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

11

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Much larger.

2 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry, much larger 

3 than the inhalation. That can come with regard 

4 to a subsequent finding.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. THURBER: But for this first one 

7 I think we should confine it to discussion 

8 strictly to whether this conversion from 

9 workdays to calendar days, which is always a 

10 nuisance, I might add.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. THURBER: And consistently 

13 causes confusion. But whether it was 

14 implemented consistently in the data that was 

15 presented.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. And you 

17 are saying which is the preferred one, the 

18 correct one, is per calendar days?

19 MR. THURBER: Right. Well, we 

20 believe that the data -- since this work was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

12

1 done in the period prior to -- since the work 

2 at DuPont Deepwater, the operational part, was 

3 done prior to 1950, typically, at least in TBD4 6000, the assumption is that in that period 

5 there were 48-hour work weeks. And therefore 

6 we think that the conversion should be based on 

7 300 workdays per 365 workdays.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry. Three 

10 hundred workdays per 365 calendar days.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MR. THURBER: And that factor should 

13 be applied both to inhalation and to ingestion. 

14 It looked to us, as we tried to reconstruct the 

15 numbers, that that assumption was made of 300 

16 workdays per 365 calendar days for the 

17 inhalation data and not for the ingestion data. 

18 That was our take on it.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: All right. 

20 Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

13

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Did NIOSH have 

2 comments on this?

3 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim. I 

4 think I can get it started on this one. The 

5 way it was calculated for the inhalation intake 

6 was just to strictly use 2,400 hours of 

7 inhalation per year. That's why you get that 

8 number, right, and you verified that that's how 

9 that came about.

10 It didn't go through an immediate 

11 step of calendar days. If you just take 2,400 

12 hours per year times that rate, you'll get the 

13 number that's in the TIB.

14 As far as the injection goes, we 

15 assume the 250 workdays to do that calculation, 

16 which is consistent with what we've done all 

17 along for these injection intakes. That's been 

18 pretty standard operating procedure. Even 

19 though the workdays were slightly longer in the 

20 earlier periods, we've always used the 250 days 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

14

1 to do the calculations.

2 MR. THURBER: What you're saying, 

3 Jim -- this is Bill Thurber -- is that 

4 typically for ingestion you have not used the 

5 assumptions that are in TBD-6000.

6 DR. NETON: No, I think we have. 

7 There are longer workdays.

8 MR. THURBER: But you just said you 

9 used 250 workdays for ingestion.

10 DR. NETON: Yeah, there were 250 

11 longer workdays per day, giving you those 2,400 

12 hours.

13 MR. THURBER: Right, but 250 

14 workdays is based on a 40-hour work week.

15 DR. NETON: Yeah, well --

16 MR. THURBER: And not a 48-hour work 

17 week.

18 DR. NETON: Yeah, that's correct. 

19 But we assume only five days per week exposure, 

20 not six days per week.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

15

1 MR. ALLEN: We're not assuming eight 

2 hour workdays in the early years.

3 DR. MAURO: This is John. Just a 

4 quick comment. Notwithstanding that fact that 

5 the two numbers come from, let's say, different 

6 venues, it seems that they should be the same 

7 though. In other words, if you're going to use 

8 a certain number of work hours per calendar 

9 year. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: 

10 Especially if the ingestion is by hour.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, they should be the 

12 same.

13 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. 

14 They're not different. The misunderstanding 

15 here is the assumption that it's an eight-hour 

16 workday. The length of the workday does not 

17 enter into the airborne calculation. You can 

18 have whatever workday you want, multiply it by 

19 a different number of hours per workday and get 

20 whatever number you want. The number we're 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

16

1 using is 2,400 hours per year.

2 The assumption we've 

3 always used is that is 250 9.6-hour days. If 

4 you want to say it in workdays, then we're 

5 using 250 days in the airborne calculation and 

6 in the ingestion calculation. There's no 

7 inconsistency here. The problem is workdays do 

8 not enter into the airborne calculation.

9 DR. MAURO: I have to say I'm a bit 

10 confused because, in the end, the way I look at 

11 it is pretty straightforward. A person is at 

12 some place inhaling radioactivity for a certain 

13 number of hours per year. And the number of 

14 hours per year he's ingesting should be the 

15 same thing. Am I hearing that they are? Or 

16 are they not?

17 MR. ALLEN: They are.

18 DR. MAURO: They are actually the 

19 same. Bill, I guess does that seem to make 

20 sense?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

17

1 MR. THURBER: No. I must say I 

2 remain confused.

3 DR. NETON: You've got to go back 

4 and look at TIB-9. TIB-9 produces a value. 

5 That 0.2 multiplier produces a value that comes 

6 out in ingestion intake per day.

7 MR. THURBER: Right.

8 DR. NETON: Okay. The air 

9 concentration, the inhalation value, doesn't 

10 need to go through that intermediate step 

11 because you know it's 2,400 hours times the air 

12 concentration and the breathing rate gives you 

13 intake without going through that -- you have 

14 to go through that intermediate step for --

15 MR. THURBER: Where does 2,400 hours 

16 come from?

17 MR. ALLEN: It comes from Battelle18 TIB-5000 where they analyzed work hours per 

19 year for various eras. They decided it was 

20 higher in the early years.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

18

1 MR. THURBER: No, no. I understand 

2 that. In the later years, the assumption is a 

3 40-hour work week. So you have five days, 50 

4 weeks. That's 250 workdays per 365 calendar 

5 days. That's for times after 1956 or whatever 

6 the cutoff is.

7 DR. NETON: Right.

8 MR. THURBER: For the early days, 

9 the assumption was a 48-hour work week, which 

10 is, what, 3,000 hours a year?

11 DR. NETON: Twenty-four hundred.

12 MR. THURBER: Twenty-four hundred, 

13 I'm sorry. And for the intermediate period it 

14 was for 2,200.

15 DR. NETON: Yes.

16 MR. THURBER: Is that all 

17 consistent?

18 DR. NETON: Right. But what we're 

19 saying is it does not equate to six eight-hour 

20 workdays. It equates to five 9.6-hour workdays 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

19

1 is the way we've done it.

2 DR. MAURO: I think I got it. What 

3 you're saying is --

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I see.

5 DR. MAURO: -- in an interesting way 

6 the ingestion is based on a per workday. It 

7 doesn't say how long that workday is. It just 

8 says, listen, this is the intake -- in other 

9 words, you simply take the airborne 

10 concentration and times by 0.2 and you get the 

11 intake --

12 DR. NETON: Per day.

13 DR. MAURO: -- per day. And 

14 inherent in that relationship, it's silent and 

15 irrelevant how many hours there are in that 

16 day. And as a result, you end up with this 

17 unintended consequence which appears that there 

18 is an inconsistency, but not really.

19 DR. NETON: Not really because the 

20 2,400 hours could be 250 9.6-hour workdays.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

20

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 9.6 

3 is what equalizes the two regimens of 

4 calculation.

5 DR. MAURO: I think it's as simple 

6 as you're working with a workday and you're not 

7 defining -- when you're doing the OTIB-9, 0.2, 

8 you're just talking about a workday and you're 

9 really not talking -- and that's very general. 

10 It's almost like where how many angels can 

11 stand on the head of a pin. You're simply 

12 saying "look, as a rule of thumb, 0.2 times the 

13 concentration gives you the ingestion per day."

14 We didn't go any further than that 

15 to say, "well, is that a long workday" or "is 

16 that a short day?" So it almost bypasses the 

17 issue of how many hours per day, which is 

18 important when you're doing inhalation under 

19 TBD-6000. Do I have that right?

20 DR. NETON: That's basically what it 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

21

1 comes down to which is the artifact of using --

2 DR. MAURO: It's an artifact.

3 DR. NETON: -- when you have to do 

4 per calendar day.

5 MR. THURBER: Let me understand 

6 this. If you have an airborne concentration 

7 and you multiply it by 0.2, you get so many dpm 

8 per day for ingestion, right?

9 DR. NETON: Correct.

10 MR. THURBER: And what kind of a day 

11 is that? That's a workday.

12 DR. NETON: Yes.

13 MR. THURBER: It's a workday, right?

14 So one needs to take that number and 

15 somehow adjust it to the number of calendar 

16 days, right?

17 DR. NETON: Correct.

18 MR. THURBER: Okay. So help me 

19 continue with the example, then. In the 

20 document, in TKBS-0006, the air concentration 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

22

at the 95th 1 percentile was quoted to be 3,198 

dpm per cubic meter, and that is the 95th 2

3 percentile of the assumed distribution based on 

4 the geometric mean of the available data and 

5 the GSD for that data.

6 DR. NETON: Correct.

7 MR. THURBER: So if you take that 

8 3,198 dpm per cubic meter and multiply it by 

9 0.2, you get 640 dpm per day. And you just 

10 said that's so many dpm per workday. Okay. 

11 Now, how do you adjust that number to convert 

12 it to calendar days?

13 DR. NETON: It's 250 calendar 

14 workdays in a year.

15 MR. THURBER: So there are 250 

16 calendar workdays in every year.

17 DR. NETON: Correct.

18 MR. THURBER: And it's just that the 

19 number of hours per workday varies.

20 DR. NETON: Right.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

23

1 MR. THURBER: Okay. 

2 DR. MAURO: And it's silent with 

3 regard -- right.

4 DR. NETON: This is the way we 

5 typically -- this is the way we've done this 

6 for --

7 MR. THURBER: Yeah, yeah. Okay. 

8 I'm good with that.

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah. What this is is 

10 an artifact of the fact that we've come to this 

11 calculation from two different directions. In 

12 one case, the number of hours per workday is 

13 explicitly addressed in TBD-6000. When the 

14 number of hours per workday is not explicitly 

15 addressed and it's almost like it's irrelevant.

16 We all agree that the 0.2 works as a 

17 reasonable approach for intake per day. But we 

18 really never talk about how long the day is.

19 DR. NETON: Yeah, it kind of gets 

20 lost in the wash.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

24

1 DR. MAURO: It gets lost in the 

2 wash.

DR. NETON: And you take the 95th 3

4 percentile to begin with.

5 DR. MAURO: And do you know what?

6 DR. NETON: Two hours plus or minus 

7 is not --

8 DR. MAURO: And you know what? I 

9 agree completely. It's just a matter that it 

10 leaves us in this place where someone looking 

11 at it says, "What?" But when you hear it this 

12 way, you can say let's just leave this one 

13 alone. We're at a level of precision that is 

14 good enough.

15 MR. THURBER: That wasn't the point 

16 though, John.

17 DR. MAURO: Okay.

18 MR. THURBER: The point was, and we 

19 made that point in our discussion, that the 

20 difference was not a big deal. The only 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

25

1 question that I raised was, was the calculation 

2 done consistently for inhalation and ingestion? 

3 It wasn't that it was a big deal in terms of 

4 whether one number is going to be significantly 

5 different than another.

6 DR. MAURO: Bill, I agree with 

7 completely. A third party looking at this is 

8 going to react the same way. They're going to 

9 say, "What's going on? This doesn't seem to 

10 make sense."

11 But the way you explained it, it's 

12 understandable that this could be one of the 

13 unintended consequences of coming at the 

14 problem from two different directions, a 

15 difference that makes no difference in reality. 

16 But it can cause these kinds of confusion.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: At least I think 

18 I understand it now.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So to close this 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

26

1 one out, do we think the Site Profile should 

2 have a little explanation somewhere at this? 

3 Or is this just because we've delved so deeply 

4 into it and we're just vetting it to say now it 

5 makes sense? The tables and the estimates, 

6 even though it looks like ingestion is out of 

7 proportion, it's right. Is that just something 

8 --

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's my 

11 question. And I would suspect this is probably 

12 present in a number of other Site Profiles and 

13 we just haven't picked up on it before. I 

14 mean, do we need a statement or a brief mention 

15 in there about this or not? That's kind of my 

16 question.

17 DR. MAURO: I guess, speaking from 

18 SC&A's perspective, if I may, to me, it's not 

19 essential. However, speaking from putting 

20 Jim's hat on, I would say it wouldn't be a bad 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

27

1 idea just so that other people who are not -- I 

2 don't know if there are too many other people 

3 who are going to look at it like this. But 

4 having a footnote explaining that this is --

5 I'm not sure.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'll tell you, 

7 if you'd like -- I mean, I believe this was 

8 referred to you by the Dose Reconstruction 

9 Subcommittee, wasn't it?

10 MR. KATZ: No, they're two 

11 independent efforts, Dave.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

13 then I think it should be somewhere in the 

14 record, and it really doesn't matter where as 

15 long as someone looking into it in the future 

16 could find it. And wherever you say it should 

17 be. But I do think there should be some record 

18 of this discussion.

19 MR. KATZ: There's the transcript 

20 and --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

28

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's true.

2 MR. KATZ: And there's the finding 

3 resolutions. And given that this is sort of a 

4 minute technical matter that is not of interest 

5 to the public, I think, I think it's probably 

6 adequate that it has to be captured in the --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: In the 

8 transcript.

9 MR. KATZ: In the issue matrix. 

10 Yeah, the transcript, but also the issue 

11 matrix.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

14 fine. That's good enough.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- between the 

16 two is whether we keep it in abeyance or close 

17 it out. If now we've got it covered, and I 

18 would say we probably do with the transcripts 

19 and then the matrix, then we could say we've 

20 now closed this one out.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

29

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I think we can 

2 say that. I agree with you.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. And it's actually 

4 not -- I mean, there's nothing to fix. So it's 

5 not an abeyance. 

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. It was 

7 correct from the beginning and now we 

8 understand that they are not inconsistent.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: If we were to 

11 say there needs to be some text change in the 

12 Site Profile then we would want to know that it 

13 actually occurred. And that's why I'm saying 

14 it might -- in any case, never mind. I would 

15 just say I think we can close this one.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I would 

18 say that this is going to fall under the 

19 category of maybe the next time we revise the 

20 TIB for some other reason that it would be 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

30

1 prudent to maybe put that in there. But we 

2 wouldn't go and issue an entire new review.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, no. I 

4 agree.

5 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: All right.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Moving 

8 right along, Number 4. So that one we have 

9 closed. Now, do we need a vote?

10 MR. KATZ: You just did. You just 

11 spoke.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah, both of us 

13 said yes.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. You 

15 asked the two of us.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

17 DR. NETON: I think Number 4 is 

18 going to fall right in line with our previous 

19 discussion because for external we've never 

20 really worked out of workdays. We typically 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

31

1 just multiplied it times the number of hours 

2 worked in a year. I mean, there's no reason to 

3 go back per calendar day. If you've got an mR 

4 per hour reading and you know they've worked 

5 2400 hours, that's what you assign.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 DR. NETON: There's really no value 

8 in converting it to dose per calendar day and 

9 then multiplying it.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. Which is 

11 to say that this too is resolved.

12 DR. NETON: I think so.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, the 

14 calculation is --

15 MR. THURBER: There was no open 

16 issue with regard to that.

17 DR. NETON: Four was okay? I'm 

18 sorry.

19 MR. THURBER: Four was okay, yeah.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, so four is 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

32

1 closed.

2 DR. NETON: I'm sorry. I was 

3 looking at four and I saw those 300 days again 

4 and it came out with the right answer.

5 MR. THURBER: We came out with the 

6 right answer, but not the way you would have 

7 done it.

8 DR. NETON: Exactly. I got you. 

9 Sorry.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Finding 

11 5.

12 Four is closed.

13 DR. NETON: Five is probably going 

14 to require a little more discussion.

15 MR. THURBER: Right. And the point 

16 that we made is that -- the fundamental point 

17 was that the numbers that were used in the Site 

18 Profile for DuPont were quite a bit lower than 

19 if you'd taken the numbers from TBD-6000.

20 DR. NETON: Right. And that's, I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

33

1 think, the second issue under 5. The first 

2 issue though is how did we really get to where 

3 we were with the beta exposures using that 

4 graph.

5 MR. THURBER: Oh, the figure. Yeah, 

6 if you want to cover that here, fine. Yes.

7 DR. NETON: Is that a different 

8 finding?

9 MR. THURBER: Well, it was -- No, 

10 no. It's that finding. Yes, it is.

11 DR. NETON: Well, anyway, let me 

12 start there because I think that's harder issue 

13 to explain.

14 MR. THURBER: Okay.

15 DR. NETON: If you recall, in our 

16 last meeting we agreed that the uncertainty on 

17 the dose was really related to our uncertainty 

18 of the person's position in relation to the 

19 source term. Right? So, I mean, the GSD of 

20 five that we assigned for the external dose 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

34

1 really had more to do with we weren't sure 

2 where the person was in relationship to the 

3 drum or the ingot or whatever they're working 

4 with.

5 And we agreed that that was fixed. 

6 We were assigning a certain dose at one meter 

7 for external, with GSD of five, and I think 

8 there's no problem there.

9 When you start calculating beta 

10 doses, though, which we never discussed during 

11 that meeting, it's a little trickier. But what 

12 we've done is -- and Dave can correct me if I'm 

13 wrong here -- first, we had to extrapolate to 

14 figure out what the dose rate from the beta 

15 exposure would be at one meter, because NRC 

16 graph that was in Figure 2 stopped, I think, at 

17 30 centimeters. That extrapolation yielded a 

18 result of, I think it was one millirad per hour 

19 at one meter. So that's our starting point for 

20 skin dose, for non-penetrating dose.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

35

1 But then we had to figure out what 

2 would be the dose for the similar that we did 

3 for the photons for a person who was positioned 

4 closer to the source. Using that GSD of five 

5 calculation, it can be calculated that the 

6 person would spend 17 percent of their time at 

7 one foot or closer to the material.

8 So we assigned a one-foot dose using 

9 that GSD of five. We calculated the one foot 

10 dose, and I forget what that came out to be.

11 DR. MAURO: One hundred and fifty?

12 DR. NETON: No, 2 mR per hour at one 

13 foot. But that means the person was at one 

14 foot or closer. Then we said, well, we will 

15 assume they were at one foot 50 percent of the 

16 time and 50 percent of that time they were 

17 touching the material itself. So we assigned 

18 the contact dose rate that was in a previous 

19 table -- I forget what table that was -- for 50 

20 percent of the 17 percent of the time, and 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
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

36

1 percent of the 17 percent of the remaining time 

2 was at one foot. That's what we've done and 

3 that's consistent with the way we handled the 

4 external exposure.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. Let me see if 

6 I've got that.

7 DR. NETON: I know I've probably 

8 confused everybody.

9 DR. MAURO: I'm trying. I'm working 

10 hard. So you've got this one meter photon dose 

11 of one mR per hour.

12 DR. NETON: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: Then you say what?

14 DR. NETON: Well, the photon dose 

15 wasn't one mR per hour.

16 DR. MAURO: What?

17 DR. NETON: The beta dose was one mR 

18 per hour.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. But somehow I 

20 remember the last time we spoke about, and bear 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

37

1 with me. We tried to revisit all this, quite 

2 frankly, this morning. And I remember that 

3 this was a way. Assigning a distribution, like 

4 as you opened up, was really a way to deal with 

5 distance, not -- with how long was he at some 

6 distance, as opposed to saying he's all the 

7 time at this particular distance where we know 

8 exactly what the -- in that case, the photon 

9 doses -- at that location.

10 So you assigned an uncertainty 

11 distribution on the dose rate at that distance. 

12 But really you were doing that to accommodate 

13 the fact that the uncertainty doesn't lie in 

14 the dose rate, it lies in how much time you're 

15 spending at a given distance. Am I making this 

16 more confusing?

17 DR. NETON: No. That's exactly 

18 right.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now, now you know 

20 that, but that was all photon, right?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

38

1 DR. NETON: Right. It was a photon 

2 dose with a GSD of five on it.

3 DR. MAURO: Right. So now you've 

4 got a nice distribution for photon. Okay. So 

5 that, in effect, tells me how much time you're 

6 spending at different distances. Once you do 

7 that, embedded in that is, what you really are 

8 saying the time you're spending at different 

9 distances.

10 So now you have time spent at 

11 difference distances because of that initial 

12 assumption with regard to photons. Now you're 

13 going to translate that to how much time --

14 he's going to spending the same amount of time 

15 when you're dealing with the beta dose. Is 

16 that what you're doing? Now you're going to 

17 the beta dose and doing the same thing. You 

18 get the time from that and you know what the 

19 exposure rate is at each one of those 

20 distances. And thereby you get your 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

39

1 distribution for the beta dose. I'm trying to 

2 conceptually understand it.

3 DR. NETON: And remember, John, what 

4 we said was, with that GSD of five, that it 

5 would imply that the person was within one foot 

6 17 percent of the time.

7 DR. MAURO: Right. There you go. 

8 That's what I'm getting at. So that really 

9 gives you the time the person is at different 

10 distances. Does it have any effect then on the 

11 fact that we're dealing with beta or gamma? Of 

12 course, the field itself, as a function of 

13 distance for beta and gamma, changes 

14 dramatically differently as you move away. But 

15 you're not talking about that.

16 DR. NETON: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: You're talking about the 

18 time that they're at a given distance. And I'm 

19 starting to get there.

20 DR. NETON: Yes. So we're saying, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

40

1 if the person has a GSD of five on their dose 

2 and they're within one foot or closer 17 

3 percent of the time, that's what we're saying. 

4 And then we took the dose rate for the beta and 

5 the gamma at one foot and assumed that that 

6 person was there at one foot half the time and 

7 contact dose half the time.

8 DR. MAURO: And the contact dose was 

9 on the order of what? One hundred and fifty mR 

10 per hour?

11 DR. NETON: Actually we used, which 

12 I think is probably a bit of an over estimate, 

13 but we used the table for bare uranium metal. 

14 Table 5, I think.

15 MR. THURBER: Yeah, that was the 233 

16 millirem per hour.

17 DR. MAURO: Oh, metal.

18 DR. NETON: Remember this facility 

19 did a lot of some different forms of uranium, 

20 processed a lot of different forms of uranium.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

41

1 DR. MAURO: Okay. So you went with 

2 the upper end one.

3 DR. NETON: They did eventually make 

4 some metal, but not like -- that's why this is 

5 not really applicable, TBD-6000, to this site.

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

7 DR. NETON: That's another issue. 

8 But it's probably an overestimate to assume 

9 that they were always in contact with a metal 

10 slab.

11 DR. MAURO: Gotcha. Because you're 

12 dealing with U3O8. You're not dealing with 

13 pure metal.

14 DR. NETON: Yeah, and it's not a 

15 huge difference. I mean, UO2 is 207 versus 233 

16 for a metal slab.

17 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that's a small 

18 difference.

19 DR. NETON: So you're not talking 

20 major differences.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

42

1 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

2 DR. NETON: And since we didn't know 

3 what chemical form they were necessarily 

4 working with all the time. And it's even a 

5 little more complicated than that, because if 

6 you think about the stuff that's going to be in 

7 the drum, all those betas are going to be 

8 attenuated on the outside going out but not 

9 only from the surface. So we believe that this 

10 is a pretty conservative estimate.

11 That gets me into why we didn't use 

12 the TBD-6000 numbers, because TBD-6000 was 

13 people working with metals 100 percent of the 

14 time.

15 DR. MAURO: And they're naked. 

16 They're not inside the barrel.

17 DR. NETON: They're bare metals. 

18 Whenever they worked with them they were always 

19 working with bare metal, and usually doing 

20 mechanical stuff up close and personal as 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

43

1 opposed to a drumming operation, you know, that 

2 sort of thing. This is the reason we didn't 

3 end up using the TBD-6000 numbers. I'm not 

4 sure if that all helps, but that's the thought 

5 process behind this.

6 MR. THURBER: No, that helps a lot. 

7 And basically we were asking for that kind of 

8 an explanation as to why you didn't use TBD9 6000. And as I say, I understand what you did.

10 We had, as I mentioned, problems in 

11 trying to reconstruct the red curve in Figure 

12 2, because we took the information that you 

13 provided, namely that the geometric mean of the 

14 beta distribution was a millirem per hour and 

15 that was the dose at a meter, and the GSD at 

16 five. And we also noticed that the two curves, 

17 the curve for the measured data and the curve 

18 for the calculated -- or the intersection for 

19 the calculated curve and the measured curve, 

20 coincided at a point. I think it was 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
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

44

1 centimeters or 15 centimeters. I forget which. 

2 And with that constraint, we just couldn't 

3 recreate that red curve.

4 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think Dave might 

5 be able to shed a little light on that.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, just backing up a 

7 little ways to the last meeting, the agreement 

8 or the thought process that was agreed to in 

9 the last meeting was essentially centered on 

10 gamma dose. It was Findings 4 and 5. So it 

11 was really intended to apply to both gamma and 

12 beta.

13 And that agreement was that we would 

14 call the one meter dose rate the geometric mean 

15 of the distribution with a GSD of five as the 

16 sole number for this dose rate. And the GSD of 

17 five would be associated with the distance, 

18 much like John Mauro said earlier today 

19 already.

20 That same process worked well for 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

45

1 beta dose for the skin. So we took this NRC 

2 graph here and extrapolated it back to one 

3 meter to get that one meter beta dose rate, and 

4 then simply 2,400 hours times that dose rate 

5 with a GSD of five, just like we did for the 

6 gamma dose rate.

7 The problem is that agreement had no 

8 means of determining an extremity dose. 

9 There's no way to really do that without the 

10 stuff that we did that we talked about a minute 

11 ago. But that actually comes after this graph.

12 This graph was simply a mechanism to 

13 say that the curve from the NRC is not a log14 normal curve. We fit that curve actually using 

15 an exponential type of function to get the one 

16 meter dose rate. But with the agreement we 

17 had, it had to fit in with IREP. It had to fit 

18 into a log-normal.

19 So we used that one meter dose rate 

20 and the GSD of five, which was already agreed 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

46

1 to. And this Figure 2, it's essentially to see 

2 how that behaves with this graph.

3 And you can see it's not a log4 normal. It doesn't fit it perfectly, but it's 

5 not terrible. It's overestimating in some 

6 areas; underestimating in other areas. It 

7 crosses a couple of different times. So it's 

8 not a terrible fit even for those close-in 

9 regions of that graph. That's all the intent 

10 of that was for.

11 DR. NETON: That curve was not used 

12 for anything other than to demonstrate that the 

13 GSD of five was a reasonable approximation.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It's a 

15 validation.

16 DR. NETON: Sort of, yeah. We never 

17 used that curve for anything other than to say 

18 a GSD of five is not fictional or arbitrary. 

19 It does have some basis in reality.

20 DR. MAURO: I think I get it, and I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

47

1 understand following your logic sequence.

2 MR. ALLEN: I thought it would be 

3 clearer with that in and demonstrate that. It 

4 probably would have, in hindsight, been better 

5 if I hadn't put the figure in there.

6 DR. MAURO: Bill, are you okay with 

7 this?

8 MR. THURBER: Yeah, I am fine with 

9 that explanation.

10 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I am also. I 

11 could see you could tie yourself in a knot with 

12 something like this. But I understand.

13 DR. NETON: We talked about this a 

14 lot. Some of these last, not last, but the 

15 finishing details really can tie you up in a 

16 ball.

17 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I know.

18 DR. NETON: I think we've gotten the 

19 doses bounded here pretty well.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

48

1 DR. NETON: Especially since, again, 

2 this is not a pure uranium slab.

3 DR. MAURO: Right.

4 DR. NETON: It's a drum.

5 DR. MAURO: You're starting off high 

6 right off the bat.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: All right.

8 DR. NETON: I think that covers it. 

9 I don't think there's anything else.

10 I mean, I guess the Work Group needs 

11 to decide what we want to do here.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Henry.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah, I don't 

14 quite know. I mean, I think that that's a 

15 pretty good explanation.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Seems good to me 

17 for 4 and 5, right?

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah. I don't 

19 know -- I don't have anything other than that 

20 to recommend. So I think it's --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

49

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm comfortable 

2 and I would say let's resolve both of those.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is SC&A okay 

4 with that?

5 MR. THURBER: I'm okay with that, 

6 yeah.

7 DR. MAURO: And it's the same 

8 situation as the last one.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah, it's 

10 technical -- it was worth discussing. I mean, 

11 I know more about it than I did before.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And that's very 

14 helpful.

15 DR. MAURO: And the degree to which 

16 you think any more explanation is needed at 

17 some time when maybe you might edit it; it's 

18 another one of those circumstances. But as far 

19 as we're concerned, I think the record that 

20 we're creating right now, and the matrix that's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

50

1 being created right now, does in fact get on 

2 the record why we feel everything is okay.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah.

4 DR. MAURO: To the degree to which 

5 you want to say something eventually, certainly 

6 that's your call.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Exactly. But we 

8 have the document. So are we up to -- Henry, 

9 Andy, are we up to 7?

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think five and 

11 six go together.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, they do. 

13 It's the same.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Ted, just before 

15 I forget it, on the last two, is this something 

16 that we should just -- we can send the 

17 transcript to the Dose Reconstruction group. 

18 Is this something that --

19 MR. KATZ: Yeah, we can do that. I 

20 think, because the transcript may not be ready 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

51

1 for the next Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

2 meeting, what would be helpful, and we need to 

3 have it anyway, since I think it's easier for, 

4 Jim, for you or Dave to do this, if you would 

5 just update the matrix with a brief of this 

6 explanation for how this is closed out. That 

7 would be very helpful.

8 DR. NETON: The question is, is 

9 there a matrix? I don't remember.

10 MR. KATZ: Or just then as memo in 

11 response to the last SC&A document.

12 DR. NETON: Okay. 

13 MR. KATZ: And then I can send those 

14 on to the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee so 

15 they can see what happened with respect to 

16 DuPont. And then John, at the next Dose 

17 Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting, can 

18 explain how these were closed out, or Dave. 

19 And that will allow the Dose Reconstruction 

20 Subcommittee to complete its consideration of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

52

1 those cases.

2 DR. NETON: My end goal here is to 

3 get this in the BRS. They're piling up 

4 rapidly. I mean, this is my third Work Group 

5 meeting in less than a week. But I think,

6 ideally, we'd like to get this --

7 MR. KATZ: Yeah, absolutely. But I 

8 just think, as an interim measure, if we have a 

9 brief memo, for the record or whatever, that 

10 would do fine. Like SC&A's memos work, yours 

11 would too, Jim, just explaining how we closed 

12 the various findings that we will have closed 

13 today.

14 DR. NETON: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: That's what I'll share 

16 with the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee, 

17 along with the SC&A report.

18 DR. NETON: Good enough.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good.

20 MR. THURBER: This is Bill again. I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

53

1 realize it wasn't essentially on the agenda, 

2 but do you all want to discuss the question of 

3 the big difference between the inhalation dose 

4 in the residual period and the ingestion dose 

5 in the residual period?

6 DR. NETON: It's a good point, Bill. 

7 I just forgot about that one.

8 MR. THURBER: And it's new. It has 

9 not been on the table. It's just, as I was 

10 going back through this today, actually, I 

11 said, gee, how you got the numbers is very 

12 clear. There's no question.

13 The way you got the number for the 

14 ingestion dose was different from the airborne 

15 concentration times 0.2, the methodology we 

16 discussed earlier. And clearly that results in 

17 a much higher number. Now, that's claimant18 favorable and all those good things. But it's

19 certainly a different approach.

20 And it's not part of our matrix, if 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

54

1 you will. And if you all aren't prepared to 

2 discuss it, that's understandable, too, because 

3 it's --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Or which 

5 committee does it fit with? You could say it's 

6 kind of generic. I mean, the issue really is 

7 the 0.2 kind of, or different from -- I mean, 

8 times 0.2 is pretty easy to understand. And 

9 this is now a little different.

10 DR. NETON: Dave could say a few 

11 words, I think. But the difference of not 

12 using 0.2 here is the fact that we would prefer 

13 to use measured surface concentrations as 

14 opposed to inferring a concentration using air 

15 sampling.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's right. 

17 You're doing a measurement.

18 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John. When 

19 Bill and I were discussing this this morning, 

20 we were saying, well, the 0.2 multiplied by the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

55

1 air concentration to get intake per day, of 

2 course, we've covered that very thoroughly.

3 And my recollection is that all I 

4 have to do with an operational period, where 

5 you're grinding uranium, you're doing whatever 

6 you're doing, you know what your airborne dust 

7 loading is, you know that the stuff is 

8 accumulating on the ground and you've got 

9 activity airborne settling on food. So it's an 

10 operation.

11 And after a lot of struggle, of 

12 course, as you recall, the 0.2 came out. All 

13 right. We're okay with the 0.2. But now 

14 you're applying it to -- here's where -- stay 

15 with me -- we say, well, now we're in this 

16 realm of the residual period where you're 

17 really not producing anything. Nothing is 

18 falling out of the sky because of your 

19 production.

20 But what you really do have is 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

56

1 you've got a resuspension and redeposition 

2 activity going on, which, of course, could have 

3 associated with it some ingestion. But the 

4 mechanism, to a certain degree, is different. 

5 In one case, you've got the airborne activity 

6 because you're grinding away. And the other 

7 one you've got the airborne activity mainly 

8 because it's being resuspended.

9 And I guess, in our mind, is, okay, 

10 well, is there any reason why the 0.2 shouldn't 

11 work during the residual period? We recognize 

12 that the airborne activity is the declining as 

13 a function of time, or not; it depends on what 

14 you want to assume.

15 But the 0.2 factor seems to be 

16 applicable there just like -- or is it? And 

17 Bill and I were talking about this. And then 

18 you go to the 5512 approach, which is a whole 

19 different strategy. And then you go to that 

20 because now you're working in the residual 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

57

1 period.

2 And if in fact you do do that, you 

3 come up with intakes that are substantially 

4 different than the 0.2 approach. And we were 

5 left with, what I would call, incongruity that 

6 would be nice to resolve, if for no other 

7 reason than to get the record straight on this.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, John, this is Dave 

9 Allen. I think the same thing you just said, 

10 just in other words: at TIB-9, when we came up 

11 with it, and what you all looked over, I think, 

12 in the Procedures Work Group for quite a while, 

13 was based on the airborne settling out. The 

14 operations with some radioactive material being 

15 the primary source of the airborne, it's 

16 settling out causing some contamination, that 

17 contamination being ingested.

18 But I think it was actually DuPont; 

19 I think it was this TBD where they pointed out 

20 that it falls apart when you get into the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

58

1 residual period.

2 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

3 MR. ALLEN: The whole methodology. 

4 So essentially we could not use --

5 DR. MAURO: I hate to do this to 

6 myself, but as we thought about it, what is it 

7 about the residual period? I forget because 

8 there's so much history here; why would it 

9 break down during the residual period? You 

10 still have airborne activity, but it's being --

11 I think it has something to do --

12 MR. ALLEN: I can answer that one 

13 easy, John.

14 DR. MAURO: Good, please.

15 MR. ALLEN: During the operational 

16 period you have some operation that's creating 

17 the airborne. That airborne is creating

18 surface contamination, and that surface 

19 contamination is being ingested. TIB-9 just 

20 takes the whole process in one factor.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

59

1 DR. MAURO: One big load, right.

2 MR. ALLEN: And equating that 

3 airborne to surface to ingestion.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 MR. ALLEN: However, when you get 

6 into the residual period, you no longer have 

7 this other source of airborne and it's purely 

8 resuspension of the --

9 DR. MAURO: Ah, you don't have both. 

10 Because you do have resuspension and generated 

11 during operation.

12 MR. ALLEN: You do, but the 

13 resuspension is always going to be a small 

14 piece of it.

15 DR. MAURO: Right, right.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And it's related 

17 to what's embedded in the --

18 DR. MAURO: Right.

19 MR. ALLEN: So the way to look at it 

20 is that the ingestion is truly related to the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

60

1 surface contamination. In TIB-9, we related 

2 that to the airborne which caused that surface 

3 contamination.

4 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

5 MR. ALLEN: That airborne is gone in 

6 the residual period.

7 MR. THURBER: Wouldn't you then 

8 think that the residual period number would be 

9 lower? And it's much, much higher.

10 MR. ALLEN: No, actually you would 

11 think -- the common sense would be that, if the 

12 ingestion is caused by contamination, the day 

13 you stop operations, the contamination doesn't 

14 change unless, of course, there's a cleanup of 

15 some kind.

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah, but the air goes 

17 away. Yeah, I think I've got it.

18 MR. ALLEN: The air goes away, but 

19 the ingestion rate should --

20 DR. MAURO: So the 0.2 can't work 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

61

1 because the air just went away.

2 MR. ALLEN: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. By the 

4 way. we did get your ingestion rate number. 

5 You know, your outcome of your approach, and it 

6 came in on the order of some fraction of a 

7 milligram per day, something like 20 or 30 or 

8 40 micrograms per day.

9 So the strange thing about it was 

10 the actual number, in my world of understanding 

11 ingestion, seemed to be in the right place.

12 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and what did we 

13 get? Like I said, since TIB-9 kind falls apart 

14 for the residual period, and we actually had 

15 contamination measurements as a starting point, 

16 it really couldn't be used and reverted back to 

17 what Jim used from the NUREG, I believe.

18 DR. MAURO: Nine, yeah.

19 MR. ALLEN: Yeah.

20 DR. MAURO: The 009.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

62

1 DR. NETON: And that 0.2 value using 

2 this 1.1 times E to the minus 4 meter squared 

3 per hour ingestion value. And it was 

4 consistent with the TIB.

5 MR. ALLEN: Well, during operation.

6 DR. NETON: TIB-9 during operation.

7 DR. MAURO: During operation.

8 DR. NETON: I think that 1.1 times E 

9 to the minus 4 is a pretty good number.

10 MR. THURBER: But, still, is it 

11 reasonable to assume, during the residual 

12 period, that the ingestion is 100 times more 

13 than the inhalation?

14 MR. ALLEN: I don't know if that 

15 factor is good and reasonable. I think there 

16 is --

17 MR. THURBER: That factor comes 

18 directly from the table, Table 10.

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MR. ALLEN: I think the 500 is 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

63

1 pretty much a fixed number.

2 MR. THURBER: That factor of 100 is 

3 comparing the two numbers in Table 10.

4 DR. NETON: You have a point there, 

5 and, like you say, it's certainly claimant6 favorable. But it might merit some scrutiny.

7 MR. ALLEN: It's something that we 

8 really don't have any common sense numbers to. 

9 Like I said, the common sense approach was the 

10 ingestion rate won't change when operations 

11 stop. But the airborne essentially goes away.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

13 DR. NETON: In which case, you have 

14 the same ingestion and zero airborne, which is 

15 more than a factor of 100.

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah. I've got to say, 

17 intuitively -- I do a lot of this -- the story 

18 that emerges, I hear what you're saying and it 

19 sort of rings true. But it is, again, one of 

20 those elusive things that unless you were 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

64

1 following it, the history of how this unfolded, 

2 and you find yourself at the end, all of a 

3 sudden ingestion is the dominant one and not 

4 inhalation. And it does sort of stop you in 

5 your tracks.

6 MR. ALLEN: It does, and it stopped 

7 me in my tracks, too. And my final conclusion, 

8 in my own little mind, was that whoever sorted 

9 out what ingestion or inhalation rates would be 

10 in a shutdown facility. I don't think there's 

11 any common sense experience with these kind of 

12 numbers.

13 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Although your 

14 numbers, you're in the range of an ingestion 

15 number when you come out at the end. We took 

16 your activity and turned it into a mass, in 

17 terms of what are you talking about, milligrams 

18 per day from material, from a surface, that I 

19 think has been -- Bill, am I correct? This has 

20 been cleaned up.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

65

1 MR. THURBER: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: So what you're really 

3 saying is we've got a site, no more operations 

4 going on. The potential resuspension is 

5 extremely small, 10 to the minus 6. And that's 

6 a good number because the surface itself was 

7 cleaned up. So we're not talking about readily 

8 removable stuff.

9 All I can say is that, 

10 notwithstanding everything we're talking about, 

11 that end number which -- what was it again, 

12 Bill? We did it by hand on the phone. Twenty 

13 milligrams? I mean micrograms.

14 MR. THURBER: I think it was.

15 DR. MAURO: I think it was 20 

16 micrograms per day, or something like that. 

17 And I play in the world of inadvertent 

18 ingestion a lot. It's coming in in the right 

19 place. I don't know. I guess, Bill, I'm sort 

20 of okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

66

1 MR. THURBER: I have no judgment. I 

2 just point it out as something that seemed 

3 anomalous.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It kind of 

5 depends on what's the route for the ingestion, 

6 if it's people touching the surface and then 

7 getting it on their hands versus the settling 

8 out on -- so does the residual need to get 

9 suspended in order to either be inhaled or 

10 ingested? And if not --

11 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think that's it. 

12 It has to be resuspended to be inhaled. But it 

13 doesn't necessarily have to be to be ingested.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

15 DR. NETON: I think part of this is 

16 we took -- you know, many samples were much 

17 less than 500 dpm per 100 square centimeter. 

18 We took that to be the gospel.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah. That's 

20 the issue.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

67

1 DR. MAURO: Yeah. The high end 

2 number. Use the upper end number.

3 DR. NETON: But certainly, if you 

4 assume that it was that contamination 

5 throughout the entire plant, you end up with a 

6 much higher ingestion rate. Because I strongly 

7 suspect that the deposition model that we used 

8 didn't come up with these levels of 

9 contamination on the floor.

10 DR. MAURO: Do you know what would 

11 be helpful, in my mind, for me? Some language 

12 about one of the outcomes of this approach is 

13 this hundredfold difference and the reason for 

14 it. I mean, in other words, it's something 

15 that emerged from the process. And when you 

16 think about it, it makes sense, because on 

17 first blush you would say, like David just 

18 said, he was surprised, too.

19 But then when you start to think 

20 about it a little bit more, you probably could 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

68

1 explain it a little bit why that would occur in 

2 the residual period as opposed to the 

3 operational period.

4 MR. ALLEN: The only part of that, 

John, is that the 1.1 times 10 to the minus 4th 5

6 factor is applicable to about any facility, I 

7 think. And meanwhile we're applying it to 

8 contamination that was left over after 

9 scabbling. You know it's not that loose.

10 DR. MAURO: Right.

11 DR. NETON: We're assuming this 500 

12 is completely loose contamination.

13 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah.

14 DR. NETON: Not only that, but many 

15 of the values were much less than 500. You're 

16 almost getting a sensitivity of the measurement 

17 method, you know, 500 dpm per 100 square 

18 centimeters alpha is -- I don't know how --

19 DR. MAURO: They get down to 100. 

20 Yeah.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

69

1 DR. NETON: So when you're talking 

2 direct measurements, yeah, it's --

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The upper bound 

4 is --

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 DR. NETON: -- a missed dose, I 

7 would say, but maybe some kind of a technology 

8 shortfall for ability to measure alpha 

9 contamination of direct survey measurement 

10 instruments. I agree. It's worth pursuing and 

11 considering, but I don't know where else to go 

12 with it on this particular -- I remember it 

13 distinctly now. This is the one where we used 

14 the deposition model and it just doesn't work.

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I remember when 

16 this came up. 

17 MR. ALLEN: The problem with this 

18 one is we have survey information after the 

19 cleanup, which is our best starting point, and 

20 the deposition model wouldn't apply because it 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

70

1 would be operational --

2 DR. NETON: We did that in one case 

3 and we got a finding on it. And I thought it 

4 was in this site.

5 MR. ALLEN: I don't think it's this 

6 one. 

7 DR. NETON: There was another site 

8 where we've done that and then we realized -- 

9 actually, I remember reviewing something and 

10 going, it's circular logic. You take the 

11 positive material, resuspend it and then you 

12 let it come back down on the ground. It just 

13 didn't make any sense.

14 DR. MAURO: I remember that. I 

15 don't know if this is the site or not.

16 DR. NETON: Anyway. But I don't 

17 know what else to say on this, other than --

18 MR. THURBER: It sounds like the 

19 misleading assumption, if you will, because it 

20 was so conservative, is that using the 500.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

71

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 DR. NETON: -- numbers that are 

3 fairly low to start with.

4 MR. THURBER: If the stuff is, if 

5 the contamination is bound, and I think that 

6 the document actually said something to that 

7 effect -- I can't remember for sure -- then 500 

8 conceptually could be way too high. 

9 DR. MAURO: And I think the 0.2 

10 number is not something you use during the 

11 residual period. It's only during the 

12 operational period.

13 MR. ALLEN: Right. I mean, we have 

14 used it for operational airborne to determine 

15 ingestion.

16 DR. MAURO: No. That's what I'm 

17 saying. And now that you moved into the 

18 residual period where completely different 

19 mechanisms are at work, you wouldn't apply the 

20 0.2. And you had to find a different way to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

72

1 come to grips with this. I think the answer 

2 somewhere lies in there.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yeah. I think, 

4 actually, this was the site where we did that 

5 incorrectly, really. And you're the ones that 

6 pointed that out.

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Good 

9 discussion. It sounds like a Dose 

10 Reconstruction Subcommittee issue. I think 

11 we've got it covered here.

12 DR. NETON: Yeah. And even with the 

13 30 dpm, which sounds high, I mean, the F1 value 

14 for uranium, the more soluble form, I think is 

15 0.02. So you're talking about a two percent --

16 so 6 dpm per day across the GI tract. It's 

17 pretty small.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Any other 

20 comments or questions?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

73

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So I think that 

3 closes this Site Profile out. Are there any 

4 public comments people would like to make?

5 (No response.)

6 MR. KATZ: I don't think we have any 

7 public members on the line.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, okay. Then 

9 any other issues for the Committee?

10 MR. KATZ: No. I think until the 

11 other sites -- there's more work for this 

12 Committee --

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh yeah. Right. 

14 But I don't think there's anything --

15 MR. KATZ: It's not ready.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It's not ready. 

17 I was going to say, we don't need to use this 

18 to pick a date.

19 MR. KATZ: No, I don't think so. 

20 And I don't think we're ready for that yet. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

74

1 But Jim will let us know when that other stuff 

2 is ready.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. One more 

4 Site Profile down.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

6 Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Unless there are 

8 other comments, we'll close out the call.

9 MR. KATZ: No, that's good. And, 

10 Andy, at the next Board meeting you could just 

11 report out that we closed this work.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Will do. Bye13 by, all.

14 (Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the above15 entitled matter was concluded.)

16

17

18

19

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
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers (URAWE) Work Group, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the URAWE Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change

75

1

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