1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

URANIUM REFINING ATOMIC WEAPONS EMPLOYERS

(AWEs) WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

JANUARY 13, 2017

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, Henry 

A. Anderson, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

HENRY A. ANDERSON, Chair

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

BILL THURBER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CONTENTS

Contents

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

SC&A Review of NIOSH Technical Basis Document ....................................5

for Hooker Electorchemical (Rev #3) and........................................................5

NIOSH Response..............................................................................................5

Adjourn...........................................................................................................29
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:01 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome to everybody on the 

5 line. It's the Uranium Refining AWE Work Group. 

6 And we have a brief agenda today, to deal with maybe 

7 wrapping up the Board's review of Hooker Site 

8 Profile.

9 And the agenda for today, and the 

10 materials related to that agenda, should be posted 

11 on the NIOSH website under the Board section, 

12 Scheduled Meetings, Today's Date.

13 And you can go there and follow along 

14 with the documents that we're talking about, and 

15 you're welcome to do that. So, roll call on Board 

16 Members who do not have conflicts with the site.

17 Actually, we have three Board Members 

18 that are a part of this Work Group. One Board 

19 Member's going to be absent, that's Dr. Field. Dr. 

20 Anderson chairs it, and Dr. Kotelchuck's one of the 

21 Members.

22 And so, we're fine going forward with 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the two. So, let's do roll call.

2 (Roll call.)

3 MR. KATZ: It's your agenda, Dr. 

4 Anderson.

5 SC&A Review of NIOSH Technical Basis Document

6 for Hooker Electorchemical (Rev #3) and

7 NIOSH Response

8 CHAIR ANDERSON: Yes, thanks. On this 

9 review of the only open part of the review to 

10 discuss is number four, which had to do with the 

11 residual period and estimating doses from the 

12 surface contamination.

13 There were some issues initially raised 

14 by SC&A. I don't know if one of you want to review 

15 this technical issue here.

16 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

17 would suggest Bill Thurber. Bill, you're on the 

18 line.

19 MR. THURBER: I am.

20 DR. MAURO: We both worked on it. I 

21 did read it over again yesterday, and I'm familiar 

22 with it. But I think you're closer to it than I 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 am.

2 If you want to go ahead and take a run 

3 at it, and I'll help out where I can?

4 MR. THURBER: As you said, the only 

5 open issue was our finding number four. And our 

6 concern there was -- at a couple of prior meetings 

7 of the Work Group, we had a considerable discussion 

8 about the applicability of TIB-009 to the residual 

9 period. 

10 And there was concern expressed on all 

11 sides that that was -- whether or not that was an 

12 appropriate approach was open for discussion. 

13 Some of us, myself included, went away from those 

14 discussions with an opinion --

15 With the impression, rather, that 

16 TIB-009 should not be used. And in our review in 

17 November, we pointed out some of the language from 

18 the transcript that we felt supported our 

19 understanding.

20 But NIOSH responded and said, no, SC&A, 

21 you didn't really understand exactly what we were 

22 saying. And we think that it is appropriate under 

23 certain circumstances to use TIB-009.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And we took that position under 

2 advisement. We looked at NIOSH's arguments on 

3 which that position was based. And the gist of the 

4 argument was that, if you used TIB-009 during the 

5 residual period, you should not consider 

6 resuspension.

7 And so what NIOSH proposed was, you take 

8 the airborne concentration at the end of operations 

9 and you extend that through the residual period.

10 Now, obviously, that's very 

11 conservative because the concentrations are going 

12 to decay. Certainly, and NIOSH said this 

13 categorically, that the airborne concentrations 

14 will decay very rapidly.

15 And, therefore, the real concern during 

16 the residual period is surface contamination, 

17 which can then be via some hand-to-mouth transfer 

18 mechanism result in ingestion.

19 And so, as I said, this is clearly a very 

20 bounding approach, very conservative. And the one 

21 -- a couple of comments that we made about the 

22 approach was that the TIB model, as you may or may 

23 not recall, consists really of two parts.
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There was one part involved, basically 

2 hand-to-mouth transfer. And the second part 

3 involved deposition -- airborne deposition. 

4 Deposition into a cup of coffee.

5 And, obviously, if you take the 

6 position that the airborne contamination will die 

7 off very quickly during the residual period, then 

8 that mechanism really goes away.

9 So, the bounding approach taken by 

10 NIOSH is even more so, because only half the 

11 contribution that you calculate using the TIB 

12 procedures is going to be present during the 

13 residual period.

14 Having said all of that, we are okay 

15 with using this as a bounding mechanism. And the 

16 only caveat that we included in our short write-up, 

17 from the end of last year, was that this approach 

18 is fine, except when it creates a situation where 

19 compensation would be considered.

20 And it's just way too conservative to 

21 be used in compensation rewards. So, that kind of 

22 summarizes our position on this.

23 CHAIR ANDERSON: Just let me -- I'm 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 trying to sort through all of my documents here. 

2 And one of you may know this, since I haven't been 

3 able to quickly find it, there was no cleanup after 

4 they ceased operations?

5 I mean, because the issue here was 

6 re-entrainment as well. So, if you have surface 

7 contamination, and hand them out from that surface 

8 contamination, you can get re-entrainment, which 

9 would then fall into the coffee cup.

10 Obviously, it wouldn't be as high a 

11 concentration as if you'd had operations going on 

12 and there's kind of a new source being added to the 

13 air on a continuing basis.

14 So, your issue here of air will quickly 

15 drop down if there's re-entrainment. It obviously 

16 won't get to the 50 percent, I wouldn't think. But 

17 does that play into this at all? Or was there 

18 cleanup to the extent that it wouldn't be 

19 particulate readily re-entrained?

20 MR. THURBER: This is Bill Thurber 

21 again. No, there was no cleanup involved. 

22 Certainly, there could be some residual 

23 resuspension, and some of that resuspended 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 airborne material could deposit in the 

2 hypothetical coffee cup.

3 But that contribution would be much 

4 smaller than what you calculate using the airborne 

5 concentration at the end of operations, which is 

6 what NIOSH has proposed.

7 CHAIR ANDERSON: Right. Okay, that's 

8 what I recall.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: This is Dave. Let 

10 me ask, I follow you up to the point that you said, 

11 well okay TIB-009 is okay. And what it leaks out 

12 is minimal in this case.

13 But then you said, but you can't use it 

14 for compensation purposes. And that I did not 

15 understand.

16 MR. THURBER: Well, the reason I said 

17 that is that this model is extremely conservative 

18 because it assumes that the concentration you 

19 calculate from TIB continues in perpetuity, if you 

20 will.

21 There is no decay in the airborne 

22 concentration during the residual period, which is 

23 -- so it's unrealistic and it's conservative from 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that point. And it's additionally conservative 

2 from the point that one of the two mechanisms 

3 obviously is significantly diminished by the 

4 physical situation.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, what 

6 you're saying is that --

7 CHAIR ANDERSON: It's an overestimate.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

9 It's an overestimate. On the other hand -- right. 

10 So, it's an overestimate. 

11 MR. THURBER: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John. I can help 

13 a little bit here.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

15 DR. MAURO: Normally, what we expected 

16 to see is, when you get into the residual period 

17 and you're concerned with the inhalation or 

18 ingestion pathway -- I think this goes toward 

19 ingestion -- what you would do -- and this is 

20 OTIB-009. This is classic OTIB-009. You assume 

21 that there is -- you're assuming that you're 

22 continuously generating an aerosol during 

23 operation.
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And that's settling out and creating a 

2 film on the surface. And, normally, what we expect 

3 to see in a calculation like this is, okay, that 

4 would be the activity that's on the surface. 

5 There's no longer any new airborne activity being 

6 produced and ascended.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 DR. MAURO: But now you do have this 

9 surface contamination. And the way in which NIOSH 

10 typically addressed this, under OTIB-070 -- this 

11 is what we were expecting to see -- is that, okay, 

12 you start with that activity on the surface.

13 But it's going to be declining at a rate 

14 of .00067 per day, based on empirical data. So, 

15 that activity on the surface is actually going to 

16 decline.

17 And then, from there, you could model 

18 the hand-to-mouth behavior for ingestion. And 

19 this is all laid out in guidance, it's actually in 

20 reg 5512. NIOSH has adopted this basic strategy. 

21 We have deliberated on that, and everything's fine. 

22 So, we were expecting to see that, okay? We've got 

23 your beginning activity, and then it's going to 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 decline.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: What NIOSH actually did is 

4 say, listen, there's an ingestion activity going 

5 on during operations that is high. The way in 

6 which they do it, they key it back to the airborne 

7 activity.

8 And there was a lot of discussion on 

9 that. So, you have a relatively high intake, of 

10 course, of inhalation, because you're operating in 

11 these aerosols.

12 And you also have smaller but also an 

13 ingestion going on continuously. But, as soon as 

14 operation ends, all you really have left is this 

15 residual activity.

16 And then it becomes just this 

17 hand-to-mouth activity, which will be declining in 

18 time because of the natural attenuation that occurs 

19 once you stop producing it.

20 Now, what NIOSH did was they said, well 

21 we're going to simplify it. It was surely an 

22 efficiency, as I understand it. This is our 

23 takeaway.
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Really, an efficiency method. 

2 Whatever the ingestion rate was during operation, 

3 we're going to assume it basically continues right 

4 into --

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: Which is conservative. 

7 It's actually going to decline.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, which is 

9 conservative, meaning claimant-friendly.

10 DR. MAURO: Claimant-friendly. You 

11 can overestimate.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: So, we understand that now. 

14 There was another -- in fact, we talked about it. 

15 there was another approach that could have been 

16 used, that would have been used, if they actually 

17 cleaned up.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

19 DR. MAURO: It's a completely 

20 different approach that's been adopted. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: With the DuPont.

22 DR. MAURO: With DuPont, exactly. 

23 DuPont Deepwater.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: Which was using DuPont 

3 Deepwater. They used it for --

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: I forget the exact units, 

6 but it's all there now.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 DR. MAURO: And that approach is a good 

9 approach, when the cleanup is done right when you 

10 terminate operations. But there's still some 

11 residue.

12 And so, they could use that 

13 ten-to-the-minus-four approach. So, really what 

14 we have is -- and that was one of our questions for 

15 you. Why didn't we use the DuPont Deepwater 

16 approach?

17 And the answer was, well there wasn't 

18 -- in DuPont Deepwater, there was cleanup. But, 

19 at the Hooker, there wasn't, right? So, what we're 

20 going to simply do is, whatever the ingestion rate 

21 was during operations, we're going to assume the 

22 ingestion rate just continues, which is an 

23 overestimate.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And that's fine, because it's always 

2 fine to use efficiency methods to simplify the 

3 calculation. But our only concern is that, well, 

4 you cannot really compensate a person using what 

5 would be considered to be an overestimate.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right, 

7 right, right. 

8 DR. MAURO: So, it wouldn't be fair to, 

9 you know, to do that. So, our only real endpoint 

10 on all of this was that this is fine, as long as 

11 the person isn't being compensated.

12 And so, that's how we sort of end there.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, that's 

14 clear. Thank you.

15 CHAIR ANDERSON: By and large, these 

16 estimated doses are going to be pretty low?

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: No matter which way you do 

19 it, by the way, the contribution from the residual 

20 period from ingestion is always very low. 

21 Although, I think in this case, that was the only 

22 pathway.

23 I think this person's exposure was only 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during -- am I right, Bill? Or did I miss that one? 

2 In other words, he had no exposure from the --

3 MR. THURBER: No, there is other 

4 exposure.

5 DR. MAURO: There was? Okay. 

6 MR. THURBER: The issue came about 

7 because, in the original Site Profile, the 

8 ingestion pathway during the residual period had 

9 not been considered.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, it wasn't even 

11 considered at all?

12 MR. THURBER: No, it wasn't. So, this 

13 was additive. And it's certainly true that these 

14 contributions are very small. Our only concern is 

15 that we're not setting precedence that are 

16 misunderstood, and so forth.

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

18 That, to me, clears it up. And, Henry, my feeling 

19 is that, with the two parties agreeing, it seems 

20 to me the issue is resolved.

21 CHAIR ANDERSON: Yes, I would agree. 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

23 CHAIR ANDERSON: I think the caveat --
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean, it's unlikely but potentially there would 

2 be somebody that had significant prior exposure 

3 that got up very, very close to the hot point.

4 And this little bit could put him over, 

5 and then you'd want to --

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: Exactly right.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Exactly, I see 

9 that. Right, right. So, do we want to -- I mean, 

10 do we want to put --

11 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. 

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

13 MR. ALLEN: Can I say one thing first?

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

15 MR. ALLEN: About that caveat part. 

16 The whole history on this one is -- just so you know 

17 the history here -- originally, when we were 

18 writing -- I mean, not originally, but at one 

19 point, we were writing or revising -- I don't recall 

20 which -- this TBD -- it was at the time that the 

21 depletion factor that John and Bill have been 

22 talking about, on the rate of decline of the 

23 contamination.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That rate was very much in debate. And 

2 this particular site, that ingestion rate was very 

3 small -- it's pretty trivial -- so, we ended up 

4 writing a TBD where it just didn't decline.

5 And, since that time, this went through 

6 a review board with the Secretary's Office. And 

7 the Secretary's letter disagreed with us and the 

8 Board, and said that it should be an SEC.

9 But they also, in that letter, stated 

10 that we should do residual, in accordance with that 

11 version of the TBD. So, at that point, it kind of 

12 felt like my hands were tied and I'm stuck doing 

13 whatever we were doing in that version, whether it 

14 pays or not pays.

15 And, as you mentioned here, it's pretty 

16 trivial. So, even if that's enough to push 

17 somebody over, it's -- they were close enough. You 

18 know?

19 CHAIR ANDERSON: Yes, I was going to 

20 say, it's well within a rounding error.

21 MR. ALLEN: So, I mean, I just want to 

22 make sure we don't get a caveat in there saying you 

23 can't pay anybody by this. I don't think it will 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ever happen, frankly.

2 But I really don't want that kind of 

3 caveat in there when we get this right -- thing from 

4 the review panel that basically said, that's how 

5 we should do it. And the Secretary agreed with it.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And, by 

7 this discussion, we're putting it on the record. 

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Are we not?

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I guess we are.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good.

12 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt. 

13 This is John. You just threw me a little bit of 

14 a curveball, and I want to make sure that I 

15 understand.

16 The method that you're using when 

17 you're saying that the ingestion rates just 

18 continues without, you know -- that would be a 

19 bounding approach.

20 Are you saying that that can be used in 

21 a case that's compensated? I think one of the 

22 philosophies has always been -- I understand that 

23 we're talking about a trivial change.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But let's say this case was being done 

2 today. And the outcome of it was that the person 

3 was compensated. Would you feel that it was okay 

4 to leave it on the record, in this current form, 

5 using the current method that you have adopted for 

6 adjusting?

7 MR. ALLEN: I think there are a number 

8 of cases out there with TBDs that are, especially 

9 prescriptive ones, where we have been conservative 

10 in lieu of research -- especially on something that 

11 is trivial.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes, in those situations, 

14 we would pay somebody. We could use prescriptive, 

15 and we would do -- it comes out however it comes 

16 out. 

17 In this particular case, we got the 

18 research done and we could decline this, and 

19 normally would. But, I think my hands are tied as 

20 a result of the review panel.

21 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, let me see if I 

22 understand this. So, if you were doing it today, 

23 though, would you still do it the same way regarding 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the residual period?

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we would do it by the 

3 TBD, which is a constant throughout the residual 

4 period.

5 DR. MAURO: And you would feel that 

6 there would not be any -- and I'm not disputing at 

7 all, I just want to make sure I understand. The 

8 fact that you would not be using the more realistic 

9 method, where the activity declines, that would not 

10 represent any type of contradiction to not using 

11 bounding approaches for cases that are being 

12 compensated?

13 Even though this particular bounding 

14 approach only applies to the residual period, and 

15 it really wouldn't change anything. But you'd 

16 still -- and, because of that, you would have no 

17 problem still doing it this way if you were to do 

18 that today?

19 MR. ALLEN: Well, we would follow the 

20 TBD.

21 DR. MAURO: You would follow the TBD.

22 MR. ALLEN: Right.

23 DR. MAURO: Which has -- and the TBD 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 currently has this same treatment. So, in this 

2 regard -- so, if I understand it correctly -- I 

3 didn't check the TBD. The TBD has this same 

4 approach where you just continue the ingestion rate 

5 going constant? Is that how this particular TBD 

6 is written?

7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it is.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. And you would not 

9 change it. And I would agree that this does not 

10 represent a circumstance where you'd ever find 

11 yourself at that fractional percentage, close to 

12 the compensation.

13 The fact that you're being conservative 

14 on this aspect, would end up with a compensation 

15 that otherwise would not be compensated, if you're 

16 following me? Do you understand my question?

17 MR. KATZ: John, so, what Dave has said 

18 is that it's theoretically possible that you could 

19 have a case where the vast majority of the doses 

20 from other experiences --

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: And this little bit could 

23 put them over. 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: And he's saying, in that 

3 case, that will be fine, we will still compensate 

4 that person. We are beholden to use this method 

5 because the Secretary's put the stake in the ground 

6 in terms of applying this method.

7 DR. MAURO: Even though it's not the 

8 way you would do it at other sites?

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 MR. THURBER: That's my question. For 

11 clarification, this is only for Hooker?

12 CHAIR ANDERSON: It's been mandated 

13 for this site.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, this is only for 

15 Hooker. It's only for this very unusual 

16 situation, where there was an SEC Class which, upon 

17 appeal, was granted by the Secretary. And the 

18 Secretary's determination, in effect, was that she 

19 put a stake in the ground about applying this method 

20 for the residual period.

21 So, we're complying with the 

22 Secretary's position, since the Secretary has the 

23 ultimate policy measure -- that we'll use this 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 method.

2 DR. MAURO: I gotcha, I understand now. 

3 I just needed a little help with that. Thank you.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, sure.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: So, Henry, would 

6 it now be appropriate to say that our Working Group 

7 accepts that this is resolved? Or, that the 

8 Working Group considers this issue resolved?

9 CHAIR ANDERSON: Yes, I would say so.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I so make 

11 that motion.

12 CHAIR ANDERSON: I think that is a 

13 motion.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That is a motion.

15 CHAIR ANDERSON: I'll second it.

16 MR. KATZ: Now you need to discuss it.

17 CHAIR ANDERSON: Right.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, it seems to 

19 me -- I mean, in this case, this is a mandated --

20 this is a mandated resolution. Even, it seems to 

21 me -- even if SC&A continued to disagree, which they 

22 do not -- they agree now. But if they did, we would 

23 still be mandated to do it, because the Secretary 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 has so defined it. And, for this case, there is 

2 no question that this method shall be used. And 

3 we're using it.

4 MR. THURBER: This is Bill Thurber. I 

5 would suggest that that specific -- that there be 

6 a specific reference to this decision included in 

7 the minutes, so that when someone's, in the future, 

8 trying to track this down, they can pinpoint the 

9 source.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, by our 

11 speaking about it -- and this is being recorded, 

12 right? This is on the record now. I don't believe 

13 we need to add it to our resolution, that the 

14 Working Group considers this point resolved.

15 And we've agreed -- both parties agree 

16 -- technical parties agree that this is the way that 

17 we're going to do it. And so we've certainly 

18 mentioned that's the Secretary's mandate here.

19 CHAIR ANDERSON: I mean, we're making 

20 a statement that's -- it is a true statement that 

21 it is a conservative approach, a systematically 

22 applied conservative approach.

23 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR ANDERSON: And there might be 

2 other approaches that would be less conservative 

3 that would also be acceptable. But, in this 

4 instance, we're comfortable using it because it's 

5 also mandated.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 CHAIR ANDERSON: So, is that okay, 

8 folks?

9 DR. MAURO: This is John. It's fine.

10 MR. THURBER: Yes.

11 CHAIR ANDERSON: And I don't think we 

12 -- the impact of it is relatively unlikely to occur 

13 going forward. But I think it's important to have 

14 it in the books.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Agreed. 

16 CHAIR ANDERSON: So, all in favor?

17 (Chorus of ayes.)

18 CHAIR ANDERSON: I don't know, do you 

19 want to -- I suspect Bill will feel the same way. 

20 Do we need to run it by him as well?

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

22 MR. KATZ: No, you don't.

23 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, because we 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have a quorum.

2 CHAIR ANDERSON: Okay, we're good to go 

3 then.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. And, Andy, you 

6 already gave most of the Hooker review at the last 

7 Board meeting. So, do you need any support? Or, 

8 are you fine with reporting out on this?

9 CHAIR ANDERSON: Yes, I don't think 

10 we're going to have a PowerPoint or anything. Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 CHAIR ANDERSON: I'm just going to say, 

13 we talked about it. And I can also mention the 

14 issue with the Secretary.

15 MR. KATZ: Sure.

16 CHAIR ANDERSON: But we discussed and 

17 resolved it and it's appropriate to use it -- that 

18 it is a conservative approach. Although we could 

19 have considered other approaches, because of the 

20 Secretary's indication that we are to use this 

21 approach in this instance, we're comfortable with 

22 that.

23 MR. KATZ: Okay, that sounds good.
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: All right.

2 CHAIR ANDERSON: Anything else, for 

3 the good of the order?

4 MR. KATZ: No, I think that's all good.

5 CHAIR ANDERSON: Okay. All right, 

6 thanks a lot.

7 Adjourn

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

9 went off the record at 10:32 a.m.)