NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

83rd MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012

 The meeting convened telephonically 

at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, James M. 

Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A

BALDRIDGE, SANDRA

BARRIE, TERRIE

BARTON, BOB, SC&A

BEATTY, EVERETT "RAY", SR.

BRACKETT, ELIZABETH, ORAU Team

CRAWFORD, CHRIS, DOL

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

JESSEN, KARIN, ORAU Team

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS Contractor

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

LIPSZTEIN, JOYCE, SC&A

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

McKEEL, DAN

ROLFES, MARK, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, 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

3

CONTENTS

Roll Call 6 

by Mr. Katz, DFO

Welcome 6 

by Dr. Melius, Chair

Recording Absent Member Votes from 7 

February Meeting

by Mr. Katz, DFO

Fernald SEC Petition 7 

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 75

Status Update 

by Mr. Rutherford, DCAS

Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees 81

by WG/SC Chairs

Adjournment 92
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 (11:00 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Welcome, 

4 everyone, to the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

5 Worker Health Board teleconference. And the 

6 agenda for this Board meeting is posted on the 

7 website as well as the materials, and such, the 

8 agenda, the reports.

9 There is one document, and perhaps 

10 two, one that was just sent late this morning. 

11 I'm not sure that that's posted. There's one 

12 that was posted yesterday and somehow, I don't 

13 know how these things work but, fell off, the 

14 posting, and should have been re-posted.

15 I haven't checked, recently, to see 

16 if it's been re-posted, but that's the 

17 presentation that's being given today by John 

18 Stiver. So that's for all of you online who 

19 failed to receive the materials directly because 

20 you're not on the Board or you're not Staff.

21 So let's begin with a Board roll call 

22 because we are speaking about a particular site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 in an SEC petition, that's the Feed Material 

2 Plant in Ohio, or Fernald, as it's known. The 

3 Board Members, note your conflict of interest if 

4 you have one with this site as we do roll call.

5 (Roll Call.)

6 MR. KATZ: Okay then. We have a lot 

7 of people on the line so please, everyone who is 

8 not speaking to the group, please mute your 

9 phones. If you do not have a mute button, press 

10 *6 to mute your phone and then you press *6 again 

11 to unmute your phone, but please keep your phone 

12 muted, except when you're addressing the group.

13 There is no public comments session, 

14 per se, but there is an opportunity for 

15 petitioners to discuss the Fernald SEC petition.

16 And please do not put the call on 

17 hold at any point, hang up and dial back in if 

18 you need to leave the call. And it's your 

19 agenda, Dr. Melius.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

21 you, Dr. Katz. And so I'd like to welcome our 

22 two new Members to the Board. If we could get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 introduced to them in voice today and then in a 

2 few weeks in our meeting -- well, anyways, 

3 welcome aboard.

4 Please, the talking in the 

5 background, can you please mute. And, Ted, I 

6 think the first agenda item is yours, the votes 

7 from absent Members.

8 MR. KATZ: Right. Thank you, Jim. 

9 So at the February Board meeting we had votes on 

10 five SEC petitions. There were two Board 

11 Members absent for those votes and I'm recording 

12 their votes now. That's Dr. Lockey and Dr. 

13 Poston.

14 Both Lockey and Poston submitted 

15 their votes by March 23rd and they both voted in 

16 the affirmative, with the rest of the Board, for 

17 all of the petitions for which they were eligible 

18 vote.

19 Dr. Poston recused on Sandia because 

20 he had a conflict there, but in any event, they 

21 voted affirmatively with the Board on all the 

22 other votes and the covers voting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

2 Ted. Our next agenda item is the discussion of 

3 the Fernald SEC petition. So this was an agenda 

4 item at our last meeting to discuss today. I 

5 believe that all the Board Members and most of 

6 this information is available on the website, if 

7 you need information, background on, sort of, 

8 updating them on what's happened since the last 

9 Board meeting.

10 And there was a Work Group meeting, 

11 I believe, sometime in the last couple of weeks, 

12 where this was discussed and the Work Group, as 

13 I understand it, will have a recommendation for 

14 us.

15 I think this is how we're going to 

16 handle this is, I believe, John Stiver from SC&A 

17 is sort of going to give us an update, 

18 essentially, a carry on from his presentation at 

19 the last meeting. And then, after that, we'll 

20 follow up with a discussion.

21 And there will be a time for the 

22 petitioners to comment if they wish to. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 first, John Stiver.

2 MR. STIVER: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

3 This is John Stiver from SC&A. And I was asked 

4 at the Work Group teleconference last week, 

5 actually one week ago from today, to provide the 

6 Board with a summary presentation of where we 

7 stand; what has transpired since the Oakland 

8 full Board meeting.

9 And so I put together a short slide 

10 show, which was distributed to the Board. It's 

11 entitled, Fernald Update Stiver-4-23-12. So I 

12 assume you all have that.

13 Unfortunately, there is a mistake I 

14 discovered on this one today, on Slide 5, which 

15 is the one that most of you who've been in Fernald 

16 have seen several times, but for the interest of 

17 clarity, it's kind of unfortunate that the 

18 values that I really wanted to present in that 

19 table are missing from the PDF that was sent out.

20 However, on the DCAS website, under 

21 the Board meetings for today, there's a list of 

22 documents that are available and if you look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 the last in that list, entitled, SC&A Draft 

2 Summary of SC&A Concerns Regarding the Latest 

3 Documents Posted by NIOSH to Complement Their 

4 White Papers on In-Vivo Thorium Bioassay, dated 

5 April 6th, there's a PDF there.

6 And on Page 19 of that, is the full 

7 table that is missing on Slide 5. So having said 

8 that, I'd like to go ahead and get started. 

9 Today is really more of a focused review on SEC 

10 Issue 6B, and this is the Use of Chest Counts to 

11 Reconstruct Thorium-232 Intakes for the Time 

12 Frame of 1968 to 1978.

13 And if you go along to Slide 2, this 

14 is kind of a review status of the issue to kind 

15 of bring everybody up to speed; where we are and 

16 what's transpired.

17 Now, basically, the description of 

18 the issue is that, beginning in 1968, Fernald 

19 went from doing breathing zone air sampling data 

20 and constructing these daily weighted exposures 

21 to controlled workplace conditions, to using 

22 this mobile in-vivo radiation monitoring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 laboratory that was put together and built down 

2 at the Y-12 laboratory.

3 And then we sent out to the outlying

4 labs, to Fernald, Paducah, Portsmouth, mainly 

5 the big uranium production facilities, because 

6 it was, basically, not feasible to bring all the 

7 workers in to Y-12 to have them counted in their 

8 fixed distance, they decided to go ahead and 

9 build a mobile system on a tractor trailer rig, 

10 and, basically, take it around to the various 

11 labs, and do their monitoring on site.

12 The point being is that, in 1968, 

13 when this system was installed, Fernald, 

14 basically, stopped doing their air sampling 

15 program for the purposes of health protection.

16 And so from 1968 on, till 1988, 

17 during this 20-year period, they were completely 

18 dependent on the integrity of the chest count 

19 data for being able to derive thorium-232 

20 intakes during this 20-year period.

21 And there's kind of an elbow right 

22 in the midpoint between 1978 and 1979. 1968 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

11

1 1978, the results were reported in mass units, 

2 basically, in milligrams thorium, and there's no 

3 underlying, or raw, data available to support 

4 those values.

5 From 1979 to 1988, the results are 

6 reported in the activity values of the progeny 

7 radionuclides, lead-212 and actinium-228.

8 And from that, SC&A believes that 

9 the NIOSH approach for handling that set of data 

10 in that period is adequate for deriving a 

11 plausible upper bound value because the actual 

12 lead-212 measurements are available and can be 

13 manipulated in order to get back to a bounding 

14 value for thorium intake.

15 And that'll all become clear as we 

16 go through the subsequent slides. The status of 

17 the issue, lots of White Papers have been 

18 exchanged. For the last year, over three 

19 different Work Groups, there have been very 

20 intense discussions on this issue.

21 Three different Work Groups, April 

22 and August of last year, and then February 9th 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 of this year. At the full Board meeting in 

2 Oakland, I presented a summary of SC&A's 

3 position at that time and the knowledge we had.

4 We felt that from 1968 to 1978, the 

5 data that were reported in milligrams thorium 

6 were likely inadequate for the purposes of dose 

7 reconstruction and we felt this was an SEC issue. 

8 This was based mainly on two, kind of, 

9 interrelated issues.

10 The first being that we just didn't 

11 know what assumptions and what methods were used 

12 to derive those milligram. And we demonstrated 

13 that, depending on the method, which progeny was 

14 measured, there could be five orders of 

15 magnitude variability.

16 Basically, you could underestimate 

17 by up to a factor of a 100, and conversely, for 

18 the unexposed group, there could be 

19 overestimates by three orders of magnitude.

20 The other issue was this idea of a 

21 technical shortfall and maybe the system just 

22 was not adequate for its intended purpose under 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 EEOICPA, which is to be able to discern 

2 dosemetrically significant intakes.

3 And we talked about that. I 

4 presented our position on that. And it was last 

5 Wednesday, there was a meeting of the SEC 

6 Subcommittee. And during that time, this whole 

7 idea of sufficient accuracy is brought up in, 

8 kind of, a global context; basically, a program 

9 lag context.

10 And, evidently, DCAS is putting 

11 together a matrix of all SEC decisions and their 

12 bases, and then this whole idea of sufficient 

13 accuracy is really going to be addressed in a 

14 program-wide manner, which it really should be 

15 addressed in that form.

16 So this whole idea of a technical 

17 shortfall has, kind of, been deferred as it 

18 applies to this particular data set. I'm going 

19 to concentrate on the adequacy of the data set 

20 itself.

21 Moving on to Slide 3, February 24th, 

22 right before the Board meeting, NIOSH posted 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

14

1 set of documents that was claimed to be relevant 

2 references that related to the estimation of 

3 thorium-232 intakes for Fernald workers using 

4 in-vivo data from the Y-12 mobile counter.

5 We reviewed that and discovered 

6 that, basically, there are NIOSH White Papers, 

7 several other supporting documents, which 

8 described different approaches that could have 

9 been used to calculate thorium-232 lung burdens 

10 during that time period of interest.

11 We delivered a response on April 

12 6th. It was entitled, Summary of SC&A Concerns 

13 Regarding the Latest Documents Posted by NIOSH 

14 to Complement Their White Papers on In-vivo 

15 Thorium Bioassay. Kind of a mouthful and that's 

16 the one that I just referred you back to a minute 

17 ago.

18 In summary, what we did was, we went 

19 through each one of these documents. We did the 

20 technical evaluations, summary paragraphs, 

21 related to the SEC concerns. And we concluded 

22 that the NIOSH White Papers are all based on an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 unsupported assumption.

2 And that is that the lead-212 was 

3 measured and thorium lung burdens in milligrams 

4 were calculated using those measurement 

5 results. As we left, that point still not 

6 clear, how the milligram thorium results were 

7 calculated, whether it was based on progeny 

8 activity, or a ratio method that had been put 

9 forth by Y-12, Hap West's paper in 1965, and some 

10 of the Scott papers in the '60s.

11 But at that point in time, we weren't 

12 really sure what particular method was used. 

13 And, of course, the related implications for the 

14 ability to reconstruct doses.

15 If we could move on here to Slide 4, 

16 this is, kind of, a preamble to the table, this 

17 Table 1, that has been seen many times by the Work 

18 Group. And we keep bringing it up because it's 

19 very important.

20 It is the only link at that elbow, 

21 basically, where the data went from being 

22 reported in milligrams to being reported in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 progeny activity levels. And there's several 

2 results here that are of concern to SC&A because 

3 they illustrate inconsistencies between the 

4 milligram thorium data and the nanocuries of the 

5 lead-212 for this period of overlap.

6 And suggests to us that lead-212 

7 probably was not used to drive the milligram 

8 thorium data, at least during the period we're 

9 concerned with.

10 If you take a look at Slide 5 here. 

11 Unfortunately, if you could take a look at the 

12 table on Page 19 of the document I referred you 

13 to, that would be best. If not, I can just talk 

14 you through it.

15 The table basically consists of five 

16 columns. The first column further on the left 

17 is reported thorium results in milligrams. The 

18 second column is the reported lead-212 activity 

19 in nanocuries. The third column is reported 

20 actinium-228 activity in nanocuries.

21 The fourth column is the monitoring 

22 date and the fifth column is the location or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 plant member. And what we're really concerned 

2 with, there are two sets of data. All the data 

3 are from 1979.

4 The first consists of four values 

5 taken from June 2nd to June 19th of 1979 in a 

6 location, the Pilot Plant, or Plant 7, one or the 

7 other, and what's interesting here is that we 

8 have four values of lead-212, they're all above 

9 the detection limit of 0.23 nanocuries.

10 And because we have a snapshot in 

11 time at a particular plant, we're reasonably 

12 sure that this represents one particular source 

13 of thorium to which these workers would have been 

14 exposed. So you would expect proportionality 

15 between the lead-212 and actinium-228, and also 

16 between those daughter products and the reported 

17 results in thorium in milligrams.

18 You can see that there is a 

19 correspondence, proportionality if you will, 

20 between lead-212 and actinium-228, but the 

21 thorium results are all 2.1 milligrams right 

22 down the line. And this kind of concerns us.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 And we have the second set of data 

2 that were taken in October from Plant 4, we see 

3 the same type of thing. There's five results 

4 there, all but one are greater than the detection 

5 limit. There's proportionality between 

6 actinium and the lead.

7 But there is the same, what turns out 

8 to be the detection limit, assuming equilibrium, 

9 of what would be derived for thorium; 2.1 

10 milligrams across the board.

11 So this kind of led us to believe 

12 that maybe there's some concerns regarding how 

13 the data were being processed, whether the 

14 reasonable values were being produced from the 

15 detector, and also, the highest value, 5.1 

16 milligrams, this was taken in June of 1980.

17 And this was during a time when the 

18 method of calculation for thorium was the 

19 progeny activity, and here we have a negative 

20 value of lead-212 corresponding to a 5 milligram 

21 thorium result.

22 And so, unfortunately, this is 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

19

1 only set of data where we have an overlap and it's 

2 not, again, a very extensive set where you 

3 understand that, but it concerns us because it 

4 would seem to indicate that there may be some 

5 problems with this data set in terms of how those 

6 values were derived.

7 And move on to Slide 6, April 9th, 

8 NIOSH posted the PowerPoint presentation. This 

9 was the point of discussion at last week's 

10 meeting. It's entitled, Bounding Thorium-232 

11 Intakes Using MIVRML Data, and Mark Rolfes also 

12 provided a nice Excel table that had hyperlinks 

13 to the various documents in the supporting 

14 references.

15 The one that really jumped off the 

16 page at me, we see most of them, but there was 

17 an interview conducted on March 15th of 2012, 

18 with ‘identifying information redacted’, who is 

19 the principle designer and developed of the 

20 mobile system.

21 And he's, evidently, a professor at 

22 the Louisiana State University and is quite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 active. He was able to provide a lot of useful 

2 information that clarified some of our concerns, 

3 but yet also, crystallized some of our concerns 

4 regarding the validity of this data set as it's 

5 intended to be used in the program.

6 ‘identifying information redacted’

7 indicated that the mobile system was patterned 

8 after the fixed Y-12 system and was calibrated 

9 and operated in exactly the same manner as the 

10 fixed system. They used the same calibration 

11 standard for both, which had a radium-228 

12 equilibrium ratio of 60 percent and a 

13 thorium-228 equilibrium ratio of 80 percent, 

14 relative to thorium-232.

15 We did make an indication that those 

16 ratios would not be possible for a single 

17 purified thorium source, which indicates there 

18 may have been some radium contamination in that 

19 source material.

20 We used a REMAB phantom in the 

21 calibration, which was, basically, a plastic 

22 human effigy with a human skeleton and tissue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 equivalent organ material inserted. I believe 

2 they used a sponge for the lungs to simulate 

3 lungs in the chest cavity.

4 And they put these little vials of 

5 the thorium calibration solution in the sponge. 

6 They filled the whole thing with water and then 

7 they did background counts. And the actual 

8 counts were workers for the 12,000 seconds, 

9 20-minute counts, and they did use the empirical 

10 sum of ratios method that was described in the 

11 Scott and West papers in the mid-'60s.

12 NIOSH articulated their current 

13 position on Slide 8. They believe that the 

14 thorium mass reporting is not an SEC issue and 

15 that the intakes that are estimated from the 

16 mobile system are plausible, claimant 

17 favorable, and bounding.

18 So on to Slide 7, this really gets 

19 to the heart of the issue. Here we have the 

20 equation, empirical equation that was used for 

21 calculating the milligram thorium results. And 

22 you can see the milligram results are related 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

22

1 a sum of the ratios.

2 There are three ratios consisting of 

3 counts in various regions of interest on a sodium 

4 iodide spectrum. And if you could just jump 

5 quickly to Slide 8, this is an example spectrum 

6 of what we're looking at here.

7 The top trace is for an exposed 

8 individual. The bottom trace is for an 

9 unexposed individual. And you can see that 

10 there's these bars. So there's a dark bar, and 

11 there's a light bar right next to it, and three 

12 different combinations.

13 The dark bar, the very first one, it 

14 covers the lead-212 photo peak centered at 240 

15 keV. Next to it is an adjacent higher energy 

16 peak, which was used as a background for the 

17 ratio, basically, to the ratio of the 240 keV 

18 peak to the adjacent higher energy peak.

19 And then the same for actinium-228 

20 at 330 and the actinium-228 in the 900 keV 

21 emissions. So if you go back to Slide 7 again, 

22 you can see that this was based on this Y-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

23

1 methodology and the rule of thumb document, 

2 which is a one-page letter from 1961, from 

3 ‘identifying information redacted’ to 

4 ‘identifying information redacted’. 

5 The ROI represents the total counts 

6 in a particular region of interest. For 

7 example, ROI 0.208-0.248 is the total count in 

8 the portion of the spectrum between 0.208 and 

9 0.248 keV for the lead-212 emission. And the 

10 ROI 0.249-0.295 would be, then, the background 

11 count and the adjacent higher energy portion of 

12 the spectrum.

13 And so if we have three of those 

14 ratios, one for lead-212, one for actinium-228 

15 at 330 keV, and one for actinium-228 at 900 keV, 

16 those are all summed, and they're compared to 

17 summed ratio with this value 3.23, and this is 

18 an average value of the summed ratios of the 

19 counts in the three ROIs that were obtained for 

20 about 1,100 non-exposed persons.

21 And so that, really, is the basis for 

22 a background distribution here; this 3.23. 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

24

1 so then the difference between the summed ratios 

2 for the measured person in relation to the

3 background and that differential, this then 

4 represents the elevation in those ratios in this 

5 empirical approach.

6 And the 8.84 is the coefficient that 

7 converts this dimensionless ratio difference 

8 back to units of mass in milligrams thorium. 

9 And it is specific to the calibration source and 

10 conditions of Y-12.

11 If we can move on now and leapfrog 

12 ahead here to Slide 9, April 17th, SC&A responded 

13 to NIOSH's presentation with a memo entitled, 

14 SC&A Comments on Slide 7 of the NIOSH 

15 Presentation, and that is posted. Hopefully, 

16 you were able to retrieve it before the meeting.

17 We had some concerns, mainly with 

18 this thorium coefficient. This is really this 

19 lynchpin that gets you back from this 

20 dimensionless ratio to a milligram value. It's 

21 an empirical value and it's specific to the 

22 sources, conditions, and calibration at Y-12 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

25

1 indicated in the Rule of Thumb document.

2 This other slide I have here as a 

3 sub-bullet, Health Physics Considerations 

4 Associated with Thorium Processing by Hap West 

5 in 1965, states that a rise in the ratio of 1 is 

6 equivalent to about 33 percent of the lung burden 

7 for the listed mixture.

8 And so we can presume that 8.84 

9 milligrams, then, represents about 1/3 of a lung 

10 burden. And so given this particular 

11 situation, the way they were calibrated and the 

12 way they're counted, they knew the amount of mass 

13 thorium that was in the phantom, and they 

14 calibrate, then, back to an increase of a ratio 

15 difference of 1, so they basically increased 

16 from 3.23 to 6.46.

17 That ratio, then, corresponds to

18 8.84 milligrams given the conditions of 

19 calibration at Y-12. Now, the important from 

20 our standpoint is this, when you take this system 

21 out and you're going to take it off to Fernald, 

22 or even with the situation where you have, given 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 that you have thorium in all different stages; 

2 from the ore, which is in equilibrium, to 

3 nitrate, the freshly separated nitrate in the 

4 refinery, in which case there's, essentially, no 

5 equilibrium initially, and that will not, then, 

6 get reestablished, at least for about three 

7 weeks for the thorium-228 progeny, of which 

8 lead-212 is a member.

9 So we're concerned that you have 

10 this entire spectrum. We have that, the 

11 nitrate, all the way through oxide, metals 

12 production, then we have Type-S materials, you 

13 have an entire range of equilibrium, all the way 

14 from none, all the way up to a 100 percent 

15 equilibrium.

16 And so our concern, really, is, here 

17 you have a guy who may be working in the refinery 

18 and he may get a snoot full of this material. It 

19 may be a lot.

20 And the unlikely, but yet, plausible 

21 scenario is that that guy could get counted a few 

22 days later, and he's got a big intake, and 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

27

1 it's not going to be detected using this system. 

2 So that's one issue.

3 The MDA issue is another one of 

4 concern. For a long time, we weren't really 

5 sure how this 6 milligram stated detection limit 

6 was derived, and now we know it's based on this 

7 background distribution, this 3.23, of the 

8 summed ratios for the unexposed personnel.

9 The 95th percentile confidence 

10 interval on that value ranged, basically, 2.23 

11 minus 0.7 to 2.23 plus 0.7. And so taking that 

12 0.7 differential and multiplying it by 8.84 

13 gives you 6. And so the background 

14 distribution, which encompassed about 97 

15 percent of all the results in this data set, were 

16 less than 6 milligrams.

17 Basically, anything from minus 6 to 

18 plus 6 with a mean of about 0. So the stated MDA 

19 is not based on the counting statistics of the 

20 MIV system, it's based on this empirical value 

21 derived from a group of unexposed individuals.

22 Moving on to Slide 10, to try to get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 a handle on what type of disequilibrium 

2 conditions might have existed and what the 

3 results could mean using (phone connection lost) 

4 approach. We did some hypothetical 

5 calculations.

6 This particular example, we assumed 

7 that the worker was exposed to Type-M thorium for 

8 60 days and then monitored on the mobile system, 

9 and we assume that he was monitored in the era 

10 that he was working with thorium, on one of six 

11 dates, either in the middle of his exposure 

12 period, which would have been 30 days after the 

13 first day of exposure, on the last day of 

14 exposure, 90, 120, 180, and 360 days after the 

15 first day of exposure.

16 For the sake of illustration, we're 

17 assuming that the stated detection limits in 

18 nanocuries that are provided post-1978, we used 

19 those to determine detectability for this 

20 particular example.

21 We assume that 10 milligrams were 

22 measured. The daily intake spans over an order 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 of magnitude depending on which of those dates 

2 the individual was measured. This is nothing 

3 new. I think we presented this on our previous 

4 two Work Group meetings.

5 We looked at three different 

6 situation. One would be the source in 

7 equilibrium. One would be this triple-purified 

8 thorium, which is what NIOSH uses as a, kind of, 

9 favorable assumption for the period during which 

10 lead-212 measurements are available.

11 This, basically, results in a 

12 disequilibrium of the ratio of thorium-232 to 

13 238 of 1 to 0.19, basically, a 5.25 factored off. 

14 And also, we looked at the single purification. 

15 This is a situation where you might have a single 

16 purification followed by an intake.

17 And, you know, you're not going to 

18 have actinium building in because it's building 

19 in at the 5.75 year half-life of radium-228, but 

20 you would see a thorium-228 peak within about 

21 three weeks.

22 We looked at these three different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 options. And for the first, when you got a 

2 source in equilibrium, a 10 milligram 

3 measurement, you're going to wind up with about 

4 1.1 nanocuries on all dates, because you're 

5 basically in equilibrium.

6 So this have a situation where the 

7 ratios in all three peaks, the ROIs, would be 

8 detectably different from background. Then we 

9 looked at the triple-purified scenario. And in 

10 that situation, the intake would have been 

11 completely missed, even out to one full year 

12 after the intake had begun.

13 And then on the single purification, 

14 we have a situation like I described where you 

15 have a detectable peak in the lead-212 photo 

16 peak, but nothing detectable in the actinium 

17 photo peaks.

18 So you end up with a situation where 

19 you've got only one photo peak that is comprising 

20 the sum of the ratios there. And when you look 

21 at that equation, and you go back to it, and you 

22 rearrange it, however you might try, you find 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

31

1 you can't there from here, in simple terms.

2 There's just no hook back to that 

3 lead-212 activity because, even in the simplest 

4 case where you have just the first ratio, you 

5 have R1, I'm going to call it, for brevity, and 

6 you have a milligram value.

7 Now, you could rearrange that 

8 equation and you could say, okay, well, here, we 

9 can isolate our 1 and we can model what the 

10 background count would be, so we could have a 

11 measure of B in that power of Y of interest.

12 Well, the problem is, you've got 

13 that 8.84. And that is only applicable to the 

14 calibration conditions at Y-12. So even in the 

15 simplest case, you have one equation with two 

16 unknowns.

17 Now, let me move ahead to Slide 11 

18 here. This is kind of a summary of where we 

19 stood after reviewing the NIOSH presentation 

20 going into the meeting last week. And there 

21 were three main issues of concern to us.

22 Well, actually, there's more than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 that, but the sum of ratios could, potentially, 

2 miss very large intakes as we indicated, 

3 depending on the number of purification and the 

4 age of the source since separation.

5 The coefficient of 8.84, we believe 

6 to be narrowly defined for a set of conditions 

7 that were unique to Y-12 and that aren't really 

8 transferable to Fernald, or any other facility 

9 for that matter.

10 The thorium was present at Fernald 

11 in both soluble Type-M, the thorium nitrate 

12 tetrahydrate, the TNT, and also as an insoluble 

13 Type-N, is the metal and the oxide.

14 And so the concern we have here is 

15 that radium -- this whole issue of 

16 physico-chemical translocation. This would be 

17 important for small particles down in the 

18 respiratory fraction for the radium that's 

19 produced in the Type-S matrix could actually 

20 escape the matrix and then behaves more as a 

21 Type-M material and be translocated out of the 

22 lung.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 And we've discussed this at length 

2 in the Work Group discussions. I'd also like to 

3 point out, there's a lack of coherence in the 

4 NIOSH presentation between Slide 6 and the Slide 

5 7, and this gets back to the idea that the NIOSH 

6 White Papers which provide a methodology based 

7 on this triple-distilled thorium as being a 

8 claimant favorable worst case.

9 They're all predicated on having 

10 lead-212 measurements. And so this factor of 

11 5.25 based on the disequilibrium of 0.19 of 

12 thorium-228, it's derived assuming that 

13 lead-212 was measured and that the lead-212 

14 result was used to derive the milligram of 

15 thorium results.

16 That same correction factor is not 

17 applicable to the empirical method as described 

18 on the Slide 7. And I might add at this point, 

19 Mark Rolfes posted a one-page sample problem 

20 about an hour ago that implies, once again, that

21 you can take this 5.25, this range of 

22 disequilibrium, if you will, without even having 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 a lead-212 measurement, and apply that to a 

2 milligram result to get a worst-case situation.

3 And we don't believe that that is 

4 really an acceptable way to go. I know Mark is 

5 probably going to want to talk about this, so I 

6 don't want to get into right now in too much 

7 detail, but we believe that that ratio could be 

8 anywhere from 0 to a 100 percent.

9 

10 

11 And given the fact that you have a 

12 milligram value based on a ratio and you've got 

13 that conversion factor that's applicable to one 

14 particular situation, we don't see that you can 

15 take a milligram value and, a priori, assume that 

16 it's based on the Y-12 measurement.

17 So in summary, we feel that if that 

18 empirical equation in Slide 7 was applied 

19 without modification, and which we believe it 

20 was. I mean, the principle architect of the 

21 system indicates that that's what happened so we 

22 have to believe that that's the way it was done.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 And so we believe the milligram 

2 thorium results were not derived correctly and 

3 they carry huge uncertainties. And don't 

4 believe those uncertainties can be reconciled. 

5 And we also believe that the thorium lung burdens 

6 that are reported in units of milligrams, '68 to 

7 '78, cannot be reconstructed and associated with 

8 the meaningful intakes.

9 I'm just reading this right of the 

10 page here. And so we believe that it does appear 

11 possible to place a scientifically sound and 

12 plausible upper bound on the thorium body 

13 burdens for some workers, which is what we would 

14 have to do to really have a one-size-fits-all 

15 model.

16 And this gets us to April 19th, and 

17 finally, this is where we come into the Work 

18 Group discussion. NIOSH presented their 

19 position and we responded, as stated in this 

20 presentation that I've given today.

21 The Work Group discussion focused, 

22 mainly, on, not surprisingly, the Rule of Thumb 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 sum of ratios method. We kicked around a lot of 

2 ideas during the discussion. We came to some 

3 conclusions. This is my interpretation of it 

4 and DCAS may have their own take on this, but 

5 these are what I felt were the salient points.

6 We have only milligram values 

7 reported. The counts and the ratios are not 

8 reported or available, to the best of our 

9 knowledge. The coefficient for converting the 

10 sum of ratios to milligrams is specific to a very 

11 narrow set of conditions and can't be applied to 

12 sources at Fernald.

13 There are many unknowns in the 

14 empirical equation, but only one value given, 

15 which is a milligram value, and so we just don't 

16 see a way to get back to lead-212 activity, which 

17 would then allow us to go ahead and place a 

18 plausible upper bound on the value.

19 As we indicated, lung burdens in the 

20 10's of milligrams could have been missed 

21 altogether. Also, our Table 1 shows that, given 

22 values measured at a progeny greater than the MDA 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 are not proportional to the stated milligram 

2 values.

3 And we also have noted in previous 

4 discussions that, the situations where there's 

5 high values, you know, 10's of milligrams, can 

6 be followed by very low values, which really 

7 don't comport with known biokinetic properties 

8 for the solubility types of concern.

9 And we also noted that several very 

10 high values showed no follow-up measurements 

11 whatsoever. So that kind of called a lot of this 

12 in question as well.

13 And really, I guess, the thing to 

14 take home at the end of the discussion was this 

15 last bullet, given the current state of 

16 knowledge regarding the methods employed, and 

17 the lack of available raw data in terms of the 

18 ROI counts, efficiencies, and the source 

19 characteristics.

20 My understanding is that the Work 

21 Group's position was that, we don't believe that 

22 a plausible upper bound applied to the milligram 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 data for the period of '68 to '78.

2 And that's it in a nutshell.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

4 you, John. Do Board Members have questions for 

5 John?

6 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

7 have one. I think it's a valid question. It's 

8 very difficult to tell, but there is one thing 

9 I'd like to ask.

10 John, since most of the people who 

11 are trying to grasp what you folks like to call 

12 the granularity of the issues here, don't do this 

13 on a regular basis, it's very difficult to follow 

14 the line of thinking because it jumps around from 

15 one facet of the calculation to another.

16 Is it fair to further simplify your 

17 summary by saying that the contractor believes 

18 that because it can be postulated there's a 

19 circumstance where the algorithm that was used 

20 isn't accurate, then consequently, no bounding 

21 method is adequate. Is that a valid summary?

22 MR. STIVER: I would say that, given 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 what we know and this methodology that was 

2 implied, I don't see that there is a way to get 

3 back to a plausible upper bound value.

4 This could range anywhere from total 

5 disequilibrium all the way up to full 

6 equilibrium. And we just don't know. We don't 

7 have that handle, that hook, that would allow us 

8 to even have any faith in what the milligram 

9 value that was reported it, much less, take that 

10 and these varying ratios to try to get back to 

11 what a lead-212 measurement could have been.

12 So what you're stuck with is 

13 basically, you just throw out the data and just 

14 model it, and assume that, well, it could range 

15 anywhere from, you know, nothing to a 100 

16 percent, and so here we have some value and we'll 

17 say what's the worst case it could possibly be?

18 You know, in my mind, that would be 

19 a pretty shaky foundation to base, you know, 

20 potentially, 100s of compensation decisions on.

21 MEMBER MUNN: It's difficult for 

22 someone who doesn't do this all the time to see 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 how you cannot place an upper bound, given the 

2 fact that we have data, and the data is fairly 

3 extensive.

4 It seems that by being -- I thought 

5 I understood the real argument here as being one 

6 of sufficient accuracy rather than inability to 

7 bound, but it's kind of worked around to an 

8 inability to bound. Am I still understanding 

9 what has transpired in the last, say, month?

10 MR. STIVER: Yes. At the beginning 

11 of the presentation I had indicated that we're 

12 not going to talk sufficient accuracy, really, 

13 in terms of, kind of, this global overarching 

14 issue of whether the system was adequate for its 

15 intended purpose. I think, maybe, that's what 

16 you're talking about from the Oakland meeting.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. That's what our 

18 purpose has been prior to this.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. We're really 

20 talking about an ability to bound. Now, for the 

21 later period where the data reported in the 

22 nanocuries of lead-212 and nanocuries 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

41

1 actinium-228, we feel that NIOSH's approach that 

2 were put in Tom LaBone's RIF paper using this 

3 triple-distillation approach for claimant 

4 favorability.

5 We feel that that's reasonable and 

6 that could provide an upper bound, because you 

7 have that hook. You have the lead-212 

8 measurement. We know how far out of equilibrium 

9 it could have been. And so we can place a 

10 plausible upper bound on that.

11 For this data set, the way it was 

12 derived based on this empirical formula, I just 

13 don't see a way out; to be honest with you.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, John.

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Can I try to help, 

16 John?

17 MR. STIVER: Certainly.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: This is Joyce. Can 

19 I try to help?

20 MR. STIVER: Sure. Please step in.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Once you have the 

22 worst-case scenario that NIOSH has posed to us, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 that was a triple-separation of thorium, 

2 purification of thorium, that you end up with a 

3 ratio of thorium-232 to thorium 228 of 0.19.

4 And I made a calculation that if 

5 someone had a 10 milligrams lung burden of 

6 thorium-232 and he was measured at the lung 

7 counter, and the way it was calculated by those 

8 three terms on the equation that are summed, all 

9 three equations would be below detection limit.

10 So we won't see any peaks there. 

11 Everything would be the same as background. So 

12 you would have 10 milligrams in your lung, but 

13 you could see anything on the 95 percentile 

14 between minus 6 milligrams and 6 milligrams, 

15 that would be your reported result.

16 So in answering this, first, you 

17 know, there is a large uncertainty. You cannot 

18 bound something that is between minus 6 to 6 to 

19 10. What's the bounding? I don't know.

20 And second, I think it was wrongly 

21 applied at Fernald at the time because that 

22 equation is only valid for the Y-12 sources where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 you can see both peaks, the actinium and the lead 

2 peak. When you cannot see one of the peaks, then 

3 that equation cannot be applied.

4 So you have values in milligrams 

5 that doesn't mean anything.

6 MR. ROLFES: Joyce, this is Mark 

7 Rolfes, and we agree that there may be values 

8 less than the limit of detection. And NIOSH 

9 would apply the missed intakes based upon 2 of 

10 the limit of detection of the count. That 

11 number would be adjusted by our claimant 

12 favorable correction factor of 5.25 for 

13 triple-separated thorium.

14 And we feel that we can place an 

15 upper bound on the worst-case scenario amount of 

16 thorium that was deposited in someone's lungs.

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: May I respond?

18 MEMBER MUNN: That's what I wanted 

19 to hear, Mark, because the negative uncertainty 

20 is confusing to people who don't deal in 

21 uncertainties all the time. Your explanation 

22 helps. And thank you, Joyce.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 I read, very carefully, the material 

2 that you provided on the 17th, you and John 

3 responded to the algorithm, and tried to make 

4 sense of that, not being a person who does these 

5 kinds of calculations normally, and recognized 

6 when I got to the point where you were reporting 

7 a lower daily intake for a 60-day exposure to the 

8 2 milligrams and was reported for the 30-day 

9 milligram.

10 I realized that I was missing a 

11 couple of the basic factors related to ingrowth 

12 and I stopped trying to figure it out. So that's 

13 why I'm asking these questions.

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: It's a very good 

15 question. It's really very confusing, but --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I recognized 

17 what the basis was, Joyce, and recognized that 

18 I was not competent to complete that 

19 calculation, and so I didn't even try, but thank 

20 you both for helping to explain at least a part 

21 of the rationalization that we're going through 

22 here. Thanks. I think I'm 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

45

1 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Thank you.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius, this is 

4 Ziemer.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Paul?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: A couple comments. 

7 And I was on the Work Group so let me add to this 

8 discussion. A couple points that should be made 

9 on the final bullet that said the Work Group does 

10 not believe a plausible upper bound can be 

11 applied.

12 I think we should point out that, at 

13 the Work Group meeting, there were only two of 

14 the four Work Group Members participating; Brad, 

15 Clawson, and me.

16 And at the time of that meeting, and 

17 I told the group, with what information we had 

18 at the end of the meeting, I agreed that we could 

19 not do a plausible upper bound and it really 

20 focuses on that equation and how it's used.

21 But even at that, there were just two 

22 of us representing the Work Group, so I'm not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 sure it's fair to say that that's a Work Group 

2 position since there were only two of the four 

3 there, but that's, sort of, just a point on 

4 John's comment.

5 I think, John, it certainly looked 

6 like we were making that as a recommendation, but 

7 did not have, in a sense, the majority. But let 

8 me follow that up with the other point I was 

9 trying to make at the meeting.

10 And that was, it seemed to me that, 

11 in principle, and following up on Joyce's 

12 comments, which, obviously, are very pertinent 

13 to this, that, intuitively, it would seem that 

14 there would be some value for the freshly 

15 separated material, some value, above which, you 

16 could detect it, even though there would be 

17 virtually nothing in the upper regions, you 

18 would find a lower region peak.

19 And from that, one, perhaps, could 

20 do bounding. The only other question then would 

21 be on that 8.84 value and that still remains a 

22 problem for us.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 It seemed to me that there must have 

2 been some reason, because ‘identifying 

3 information redacted’ had been brought aboard, 

4 and I guess was actually Fernald when this was 

5 first used and calibrated, for which he felt that 

6 that value, which was established at Y-12, could 

7 also be used at Fernald.

8 But we have no information on that 

9 at this point, so that remains a problem.

10 MR. STIVER: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

11 John Stiver. You know, the documents at the 

12 time indicate that they were fully aware of the 

13 drawbacks to the approach, but it was basically 

14 used as a screening approach.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

16 MR. STIVER: Even later into the 

17 1997 to 2001 time frame, the Mound Technical 

18 Basis Document for Internal Dosimetry, 

19 indicates that that methodology, even with their 

20 own fixed system, which they had at the time, 

21 was, really, only to be used for screening-type 

22 calculations.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 And so I think that you got keep it 

2 and, you know, kind of give the historic here is 

3 that the system was really put into place to 

4 measure fractions of maximum permissible body 

5 burdens for uranium-235.

6 Now, you look at all the 

7 quantitative calculations that were done that 

8 are available, every single one is for uranium 

9 and there's none for thorium. And so they're 

10 taking a substandard system out there, something 

11 that wasn't fully vetted, I think they 

12 understood the limitations of the system and for 

13 which it was being applied at the time.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

15 Members have questions? If not, I'd like to 

16 first hear if NIOSH has any comments at this 

17 point. So, Stu.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Dr. Melius, this is 

19 Stu Hinnefeld. Did you speak my name or did you 

20 say any --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. Stu 

22 Hinnefeld, I'm asking if NIOSH has any comments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 at this point.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Mark did 

3 submit a one-page item this morning that 

4 describes the possible ranges of lead-212 that 

5 could be associated with a particular amount of 

6 thorium. All the way from full equilibrium down 

7 to this triple material that would be a fraction 

8 of the lead-212. It would be only about 19 

9 percent of equilibrium.

10 And then provides, as a bounding 

11 interpretation of the in-vivo reading, it was a 

12 bounding interpretation of what a 20 milligram 

13 (phone connection lost). Let's make a bounding 

14 interpretation that that could be a full 

15 equilibrium number and it would be 0.19 

16 nanocuries of lead-212.

17 But then to do dose assessments, 

18 we're going to recognize that we could very well 

19 not be in equilibrium. It could be 

20 triple-separated and then multiply that times, 

21 roughly, 5, you know, to get your answer; that 

22 would be what we consider the value.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 So the question then becomes, is 

2 that interpretation of bounding interpretation? 

3 What I mean is, is, you know, interpreting a 

4 milligram mobile counter result as, I think 

5 it's, 0.22 nanocuries, is that, in fact, 

6 bounding?

7 Now, it would seem to us that the 

8 0.22 nanocuries should be higher than what the 

9 amount of lead-212 that was there, in reality, 

10 based on the calibration of the counter, because 

11 the calibration of the counter have a full 

12 equilibrium source.

13 And so 20 milligrams should, in 

14 fact, relate to some smaller amount, like, what, 

15 80 percent or something, of 0.22, if the material 

16 in the person's chest was the same as the 

17 material in the calibration source.

18 So it seems like, maybe, that is an 

19 overestimate, and maybe that is a bounding 

20 interpretation, but then you have to consider, 

21 well, what do we know about how the counter 

22 behaves when we have both actinium measurements 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 and thorium mass measurements?

2 And I keep going back to this table 

3 in the SC&A presentation about the 1979 data 

4 where you have both. And several of these 1 

5 milligram results have lead-212 activity values 

6 that are higher than what the equilibrium value 

7 would be.

8 You know, if it was 2.1 milligrams, 

9 the equilibrium value would be, what, about 

10 0.23, or something, nanocuries and you have 

11 upwards to 0.4 nanocuries of lead-212 associated 

12 with the 2.1.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: This is Dave 

14 Kotelchuck. I just got cutoff a moment ago and 

15 I'm reentering the conversation. So please go 

16 ahead; just for the record.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I'm looking 

20 now, 2.1 milligrams is below the detection level 

21 of the in-vivo counter, so a 2.1 milligram, 

22 theoretically, wouldn't be treated as 2.1, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 although I'm not a 100 percent sure that's true, 

2 based on how the coworker model is built.

3 But if we did say that, since it's 

4 below the detection level, we're going to do this 

5 based on half the intake. We would say that's 

6 3 milligrams, so our bounding interpretation 

7 would be 0.3.

8 And there are, looks like, three of 

9 these values where the lead-212 activity is 0.4, 

10 that's associated with a 0.21, so it's not fair, 

11 even in that case, that by using the LOD over 2 

12 interpretation of a count that the equilibrium 

13 consideration actually provides you a bounding 

14 estimate of the lead-212.

15 I'm not a 100 percent sure and the 

16 fact that the milligram of thorium is below, 

17 pretty much we agree, what can be detected. I 

18 don't know if that factors into the validity of 

19 that argument or not, but it worries me that I'm 

20 not sure how confident we are that the 

21 interpretation of a 20-milligram readout as 0.22 

22 nanocuries of lead-212 is bounding.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 I'm not so sure that the counter 

2 works, that we understand, well enough, how the 

3 mobile counter works and how those numbers come 

4 popping out, to really make that conclusion 

5 that, assuming equilibrium is, in fact, the 

6 bounding interpretation of that number.

7 So that was a lot to say to answer 

8 the question and say, gee, I'm not so sure.

9 MEMBER MUNN: And it was hard to 

10 follow too.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: With respect to 

12 other information that might be relevant, my 

13 staff has informed that there is a computer code, 

14 it's a Monte Carlo code, that can model counting 

15 arrangements, and specifically, in-vivo 

16 counting arrangements, and specify your sodium 

17 iodide detector, and your subject, you could 

18 then model various combinations of lead-212 and 

19 actinium-228 in the lungs, Monte Carlo the 

20 efficiencies of the detectors for those various 

21 radionuclides, so that same program will also 

22 Monte Carlo the Compton continuum that you get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 from the K-40, which is the main contributor of 

2 the Compton continuum in a sodium iodide in-vivo 

3 spectrum.

4 And presumably, since these were in 

5 the '60s and '70s, you'd want to put in some 

6 cesium-137 as well because that one can also 

7 contribute to a Compton continuum.

8 And then, theoretically, you could 

9 generate these spectra and actually generate 

10 what the vector should be, you know, seeing what 

11 the ratios should actually be for various 

12 combinations of radionuclides.

13 Now, there will not be any way to 

14 validate that code since we don't have a mobile 

15 in-vivo counter to compare the code results to. 

16 And my own view is it seems like a long way to 

17 go, but with a lot of assumptions built in.

18 And the obvious drawback, that that 

19 code is not capable of determining the effects 

20 of the intrinsic background, or the empty 

21 chamber background, and how that might effect 

22 ratio counting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 So in my way of thinking, that's a 

2 long way to go and probably not get a significant 

3 payoff at the end, but I've not asked anybody to 

4 pursue that, but it is something that is 

5 available.

6 So I've just provided a lot of words, 

7 probably not very coherently, because I've been 

8 thinking about this all morning, and I'm still 

9 troubled by whether we really understand, well 

10 enough, how those ratios, that the mobile 

11 depends upon, are affected and how various 

12 amounts of the various activities, you know, how 

13 do you interpret that, even in a bounding 

14 fashion?

15 So I'm really having trouble 

16 convincing myself that we can make a bounding 

17 interpretation given the unknowns about how 

18 those ratios behave in different combinations. 

19 Sorry, but that was a long way to go and not very 

20 far.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. Thank you 

22 for that. That's helpful. The Work Group, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 Brad, do you have any comments? I want to hear 

2 from the petitioners.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I just 

4 wanted to say, you know, we've been dealing with 

5 this for an awfully long time and Paul was right, 

6 there was only me and Paul, but as we came away 

7 from that meeting, we really did not see a way 

8 of being able to address this properly, 

9 especially being a compensation act.

10 We could continue on doing all 

11 these, but we're still going to come up with an 

12 uncertainty that we're not ever going to be able 

13 to prove, you know? I just think that we're at 

14 the point for this as an SEC, and that this is 

15 why we brought it before the Board at this, and 

16 this is what the recommendations of just me and 

17 Paul were that we bring before the Board, and 

18 that was our feelings.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

20 Brad. Are the petitioners on the line and do 

21 they wish to speak?

22 MS. BALDRIDGE: This is Sandra.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Hi, Sandra. Go 

2 ahead.

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: I'd like to read a 

4 statement that won't be quite as spontaneous as 

5 the frustration I voiced at the last meeting.

6 Over the past five and a half years, 

7 I've listened to countless hours of technical 

8 discussions about the complexities of uranium 

9 and thorium, whether their levels are bounding 

10 or not.

11 But the quality of worker records 

12 and the data integrity has always been the SEC 

13 issue under which this petition was presented. 

14 Numerous FMPC historic documents express a lack 

15 of concern for accuracy in worker records.

16 For reasonable accuracy, the 

17 workers in dose reconstruction, must be 

18 identified based on the job or task assigned, the 

19 location, the substance, and the length of 

20 exposure. FMPC records fail to accurately 

21 document the work history of the worker on the 

22 their roadmap for dose reconstruction. Some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 simple comparisons were overlooked.

2 According to the rules and 

3 regulations 42 CFR 82.2, the basic principle for 

4 dose reconstruction is to characterize the 

5 radiation environment to which workers were 

6 exposed and then place each worker in time and 

7 space within this exposure environment.

8 Then methods are applied to 

9 translate exposure to radiation in to qualified 

10 radiation dose at the specific organ or tissues 

11 relevant to the type of cancer. Many workers 

12 were assigned hypothetical intake values 

13 because this criteria could not be met.

14 They failed to characterize the 

15 radiation environment, as evidenced by the 

16 missing of the thorium in Plant 6 from 1960 to 

17 1964, the disallowing of the air stack 

18 monitoring data due to falsification of those 

19 readings.

20 Each worker cannot be placed in time 

21 and space within the exposure environment. 

22 Documents in the petition from the management 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 state that the employment records were 

2 incomplete because they only show plant 

3 assignments, but not actual work location or 

4 jobs performed at any given time or period of 

5 time.

6 Employment records showed the plant 

7 they were hired to work in, but in the 

8 early-1950s, the facility was still under 

9 construction and workers were sent to the Pilot 

10 Plant.

11 Because the employment records 

12 didn't reveal this temporary assignment, which 

13 was up to a year in some cases, this exposure was 

14 not factored into the dose reconstruction, but 

15 rather, a dose was assigned according to the 

16 employment records for the plant that was still 

17 under construction.

18 Many workers received kidney damage 

19 due to exposure to uranium hexafluoride while 

20 working in the Pilot Plant. To my knowledge, 

21 workers whose records showed they worked in the 

22 Pilot Plant have received compensation, while 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 those who worked there temporarily, and incurred 

2 the kidney damage during that time, have not 

3 been.

4 Workers who were dosed with OTIB-2 

5 under the worst-case scenario were not dosed for 

6 uranium hexafluoride. This is just an example 

7 of how exposures were missed.

8 I've spoken with numerous workers 

9 who have complained about being dosed for the 

10 wrong work locations and work assignments. 

11 Attempts to correct these errors have been 

12 unsuccessful. Workers' account of the 

13 workplace, in some cases, have ben ignored in 

14 favor of errors in the FMPC documents.

15 Under CFR 82.27, NIOSH is authorized 

16 to review completed dose reconstructions in its 

17 own initiative upon obtaining new information. 

18 By failing to adjust for thorium in Plant 6 for 

19 the years from 1960 to 1964, they have chosen to 

20 make it an SEC issue.

21 I am hoping that the Plant 6, 1960 

22 to 1964, thorium exposures would be included in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 the items that are being considered today, 

2 although that may not be the case and I'm hoping 

3 that today's result will be good for some, 

4 although the journey will continue for others.

5 Thank you very much.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

7 Sandra. Is there another petitioner that wants 

8 to speak? I can't quite recall. Is there more 

9 than one petitioner on this one? Okay. If not, 

10 then we'll go ahead. I think for consideration, 

11 and I'll let -- I'm not sure we have a formal 

12 recommendation from the Work Group.

13 I think my understanding would be 

14 that we have at least some level of agreement 

15 between Paul and Brad on moving forward, but I 

16 think, given that there were just two Members at 

17 the least meeting, I think we'd look for a formal 

18 motion at this time if we want to move ahead with 

19 this SEC.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, Paul. This 

21 is Brad. I'd like to make a motion that we give 

22 Fernald an SEC from January 1st, 1968 to December 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 31st, 1978.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick Lemen. 

3 I second that.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So we have 

5 a motion from Brad and a second from Dr. Lemen. 

6 Further discussion?

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim, this is Mark 

8 Griffon. I'm assuming that the motion is 

9 intended to be for all workers? Is that part of 

10 the amendment?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm sorry. Yes. 

12 It was all workers. I'm sorry. I had that 

13 written up and sent off, but I was reviewing the 

14 dates of when we got to, and it should be all 

15 workers from January 1st, 1968 to December 31st, 

16 1978. Thank you, Mark.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Somebody said 

18 something, I couldn't understand it. Do we have 

19 further discussion? Any Board Members?

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: This is Dave 

21 Kotelchuck. I'm new to the Board. This is the 

22 first Board meeting I've attended. I cannot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 evaluate the discussion that's been going on for 

2 the last six years.

3 So I feel that I must abstain, or I 

4 wish to abstain, on this vote.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine. 

6 And just for the benefit of the new Board 

7 Members, if you haven't been at our meetings, how 

8 we do this is, we do a roll call for all --

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So at that point, 

11 you can decide how to handle it.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's fine.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Dave. 

14 Other Board Members with comments or questions 

15 at this point?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Jim, this is Wanda. 

17 I don't know whether it's my phone or whether 

18 it's yours, but your (phone connection lost)

19 MR. KATZ: Wanda, are you still on?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I am. Can you 

21 hear me?

22 MR. KATZ: Now we can. You cut 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

64

1 Whatever you were trying to say did not come 

2 across.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, what I was 

4 trying to say was, Dr. Melius' phone, something 

5 about his transmission is fading in and out on 

6 my line. I don't know whether it is on other 

7 people's or not, but whether it's mine. I'm 

8 losing some of what he's trying to say.

9 My other question was, I wanted to, 

10 before we took vote, clarify what I think I heard 

11 Stu Hinnefeld say. So did I understand you to 

12 say that there is now some question in your mind 

13 as to whether or not we can, in fact, place an 

14 upper bound of thorium intake during this 

15 specific period.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: During this period?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there is. 

19 It's not a 100 percent clear to me that we know, 

20 well enough, how the in-vivo monitor works. By 

21 that I mean, how was that sum of ratios affected 

22 by the possible combinations of daughter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 products that could be there.

2 And that's the only thing that 

3 matters in terms of what the in-vivo counter 

4 spits out is, how is that sum of ratios affected? 

5 And so I don't know that we know, well enough, 

6 how that sum of ratios is affected in order to 

7 be confident on how to interpret a milligram 

8 number that's spit out by the in-vivo mobile 

9 counter.

10 And a part of that reason comes from 

11 not being able to reconcile some of those counts 

12 where we have thorium milligrams and actinium 

13 measurements both for the same count.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Now, does it follow, 

15 then, that if we -- for this particular segment 

16 of information during this particular time, that 

17 we do not know enough about the source terms in 

18 the plant to be able to make a reasonable bound? 

19 Are we relying solely on --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, our knowledge 

21 of the source terms in the plant, I don't know 

22 is entirely relevant. It's certainly a 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

66

1 We don't know source term in a particular 

2 subject's lung, so that is a key part of this.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

4 Jim, may I ask a question or make a comment I 

5 guess?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We really don't let 

7 Jim on these things.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Pardon?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu or you 

10 want to ask Dr. Melius?

11 MEMBER MUNN: I was just asking if 

12 a Board Member could make a comment at this 

13 point.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. This is the 

15 time for the Board Members to comment or ask 

16 questions.

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. It's 

18 difficult to hear, but what I've gathered 

19 through all of this discussion that there is a 

20 question, yet, in NIOSH's mind as to whether 

21 bounding can be done on the thorium exposures.

22 I'm left really frustrated because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 it would seem at this point that what one would 

2 do is answer some of the questions that have come 

3 and to do some further investigation on this, and 

4 yet, we're faced with a vote.

5 So I'm left not really knowing which 

6 direction to go. If we take a vote at this 

7 point, I think I'm going to have to abstain 

8 because I really haven't gotten any conclusive 

9 answer from anyone. It seems everything is, 

10 there's still a question as to whether it can be 

11 done.

12 It appears that NIOSH has an 

13 approach, and yet, within NIOSH, there's 

14 disagreement as to whether it can work.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

16 Member comment?

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Jim, this is 

18 Phil.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Phil.

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'd just like to 

21 make a comment that at that some point, we've got 

22 to call this and make a vote on this issue. 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

68

1 there's just so many uncertainties that I don't 

2 feel confident that they can bound the doses. 

3 That's all I have to say.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

5 you, Phil. Any other Board Members with 

6 questions or comments? This is Jim speaking, 

7 but I would just, you know, in response to Gen's 

8 comment. I mean, it's been over six years now. 

9 I think our guidelines for reviewing SECs, it's 

10 saying, we're looking for a demonstration that 

11 those reconstructions can be done.

12 You know, a plausible upper bound 

13 inaccuracy, we've not really heard that, or seen 

14 that, demonstrated. And how I interpreted what 

15 Stu was saying is that, while there may be other 

16 issues to explore, it is, you know, very 

17 skeptical that those will lead to a reasonable 

18 method that would satisfy what needs to be done 

19 in order to do those reconstructions.

20 So I think we've gone through this 

21 for quite a long time and spent a lot of time, 

22 and really just don't have a dose reconstruction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 method that we have confidence in. And 

2 therefore, I would, you know, support the motion 

3 based on that time period.

4 Any other comments from Board 

5 Members; or questions? If not, I'll ask that 

6 Ted take a roll call. Ted, are you there?

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Who are you 

8 looking for?

9 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. This is Ted. 

10 I was on mute. Sorry. So, yes, I'm going to do 

11 this alphabetically. I'm going to run through 

12 the list and --

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: What's the motion 

14 again?

15 MR. KATZ: The motion to add a 

16 Class.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. That's 

18 all. I just wanted to know.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: I got it.

21 MR. KATZ: Everybody clear? Okay. 

22 So any way, let me start the vote and I'll include 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 people that may be absent or may not. Dr. 

2 Anderson.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field.

9 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson are you on the 

11 line? Okay I will have to collect his vote after 

12 this. Mr. Griffon.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Abstain.

16 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey is recused. Dr. 

19 Melius.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Abstain.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston are you on the 

2 line? I will have to collect his vote. Dr. 

3 Richardson I will have to collect his vote. Dr. 

4 Roessler.

5 MEMBER ROESSLER: Abstain.

6 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Ms. Valerio.

9 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. There are ten 

13 yeas, so the motion passes. Three abstentions 

14 and we have three absent Members, I'll collect 

15 their votes.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

17 you, Ted. And thanks Members of the Board and 

18 thank John Stiver, Stu Hinnefeld, Mark Rolfes, 

19 everybody involved in this. And Brad and the 

20 Work Group for all your efforts on this. 

21 There's still more work to do, so we'll be 

22 talking about this some more. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 The next item on our agenda is an 

2 update on Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

3 Status. LaVon?

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Thank 

5 you, Dr. Melius. At the Santa Fe Board meeting, 

6 we plan to present six evaluations; Titanium 

7 Alloys Manufacturing, Oak Ridge National Labs, 

8 Winchester Engineering, Hanford, and hopefully, 

9 Clarksville and Medina.

10 Clarksville-Medina, we actually 

11 uncovered some documents that we want to look at 

12 before we actually make our final determination, 

13 so those last two are, kind of, in question right 

14 now.

15 TAM, Titanium Alloys, the Board 

16 already has. Oak Ridge National Lab, the 

17 evaluation should be with the Board 

18 approximately three weeks prior to the Board 

19 meeting. Winchester Engineering, we actually 

20 should have that evaluation to the Board later 

21 this week or some time next week.

22 Hanford, it's another 83.14. We've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 been working on that for some time. We 

2 anticipate that being out in the next three to 

3 four weeks.

4 And again, Clarksville-Medina, 

5 we're working those. Those are both 83.14s. 

6 We had taken the position that those 

7 reconstructions are not feasible, however, we 

8 did uncover some documents. We want to go look 

9 at those documents.

10 We anticipate having them fairly 

11 soon and our goal is to have both of those -- if 

12 the documents do not change our determination, 

13 our goal is to have Clarksville and Medina 

14 presented at that meeting June as well. 

15 So again, there's six Evaluation 

16 Reports; two 83.13s and the other four are 83.14s 

17 where we have determined dose reconstruction is 

18 not feasible. And that's about it.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody with 

20 questions for LaVon?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: LaVon, this is 

22 Brad Clawson. What documentation and where'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

74

1 it at?

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, the 

3 documents were identified at Sandia, I believe 

4 it was Sandia, and again, you know, until we look 

5 at the documents, I can't make a statement on 

6 whether we think it's going to change our 

7 opinion.

8 These documents were identified as 

9 being potential documents that may have exposure 

10 monitoring information.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I understand. I 

12 was just involved with Sandia down there. I was 

13 just wondering where the documents were at 

14 because this probably isn't something new then.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: It's documents 

16 that we have not actually seen previously.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

19 questions for LaVon? What I think that that 

20 means for Board Members is that, Ted and I have 

21 been communicating on this and he may have some 

22 additional comments, but it looks like our Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 meeting in Santa Fe will be a long two and a half 

2 days.

3 So it depends on the, yes -- it's 

4 always hard to judge those ahead of time, but 

5 we've got a number of Work Groups that will be 

6 bringing, maybe bringing, recommendations to 

7 the Board. And then we have, obviously, the new 

8 ones that are updates for old ones that NIOSH 

9 have gotten out or will be getting out.

10 So I think we can plan on staying in 

11 Santa Fe at least through noon or 1 o'clock on 

12 Thursday I believe. I think we're scheduled 

13 Tuesday, Wednesday, and the half a day Thursday. 

14 Ted, do you have anything to add to that?

15 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Can you 

16 hear me? I think that's right. I don't think 

17 there's any way we're going to be pack today in 

18 the two days unless a lot of things fall off the 

19 table at the last moment.

20 I do have a question for LaVon, which 

21 is one of the items that's a little bit 

22 uncertain. It's the GDP Work Group, to use 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 shorthand for that Work Group, Uranium Refining 

2 Work Group, AWE Work Group, was hoping to close 

3 out K-25, that profile review.

4 There are a couple items left to get 

5 done and I corresponded with LaVon a little bit 

6 about where things stand, but I'm unclear as to 

7 whether you think that'll be ready in time for 

8 the June meeting.

9 In other words, would that Work 

10 Group meeting book in advance and do it or not? 

11 So, LaVon, can you just help me with that one?

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, Ted, are 

13 you sure you corresponded with me on that one? 

14 I'm wondering if you corresponded with Chuck 

15 Nelson.

16 MR. KATZ: No. I did with you, 

17 actually. I don't want to get in any details 

18 here and now.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

20 MR. KATZ: But there are a couple 

21 action items left on DCAS' plate to close this 

22 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

77

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: One is a classified 

3 interview and the other has to do with -- well, 

4 anyway, I don't want to get into the details.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. You know, 

6 I'll get an answer quickly on that and I'll get 

7 a response out to the Board as quickly as 

8 possible.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, Ted, this is 

11 Jim. I would just add to that that we may, since 

12 it's Site Profile closeout. We may just want to 

13 do that as they hold through the next Board call 

14 or the following Board meetings.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think there's 

17 less urgency to that, but I'm not familiar with 

18 what they might be recommending, but keep that 

19 in mind also.

20 MR. KATZ: That's fine. Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We now have an 

22 update on our Subcommittees and Work Groups, 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

78

1 I'll start off with Mark's report because I 

2 believe Mark had to leave the phone call after 

3 the Fernald discussion. And he just reports 

4 that there are meetings of the Dose 

5 Reconstruction Review Subcommittee scheduled 

6 and also the LANL Work Group has a meeting 

7 scheduled, both of those. I believe will still 

8 take place before the June meeting. Is there 

9 anybody else on the Board who wants to update us 

10 on their Work Group activities?

11 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I'll 

12 be glad to give you a short update on Procedures.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead, Wanda.

14 MEMBER MUNN: And when the 

15 Procedures Subcommittee in Cincinnati on the 

16 11th of April. We are pleased to report that the 

17 database is coming along very well. We were 

18 able to manipulate live while we were working and 

19 we'll add one more column to the way the data is 

20 presented as we see it while we're working with 

21 it.

22 But most of the design is now 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 complete. The thing that is most beneficial to 

2 most of us is that the links are now hot and 

3 operating so that it's easy for us to move back 

4 and forth between the database itself and the

5 links of the documents and other materials that 

6 we need to read in order to confirm that we're 

7 doing what we needed to do.

8 We have been working with a total of 

9 540 findings. We have done -- about 68 percent 

10 of those are now closed. We have 78 remaining 

11 open or in progress. By in progress we mean we 

12 are actively working on them at the time.

13 We have 92 which are in abeyance that 

14 really means that they are closed as far as we 

15 are concerned, that NIOSH has to incorporate the 

16 result of the findings in some document. And 

17 until the document is actually issued and has 

18 been checked for completion.

19 And so far as incorporation is 

20 concerned, it remains on our list as in abeyance. 

21 They're resolved but not yet incorporated in 

22 those documents.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 The summary reports for the website 

2 that we hope to have posted later this year are 

3 progressing slowly, partially the result of the 

4 Chair's inability to complete any of them, but 

5 we're getting there with them.

6 Our next meeting will be in 

7 mid-July. The exact date has yet to be 

8 determined. Our DFO staff is polling 

9 Subcommittee Members for an appropriate date 

10 that week in order to set that up. And that's 

11 where we are with Procedures; progressing well.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Jim?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

15 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, sorry. Go 

16 ahead.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I was just asking 

18 if anybody else had an update.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Jim. This is 

20 Josie. I have a short update for Mound. As you 

21 know, we're going to try and bring Mound issues 

22 before the Board in June. We had our last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 meeting on April 10th and our next meeting is 

2 scheduled, tentatively, I haven't heard back 

3 from NIOSH's availability yet for June 5th.

4 We have two SEC issues we are still 

5 working through; Internal Dose Adequacy and 

6 Completeness. We're waiting for SC&A to 

7 provide a response to NIOSH's White Paper on 

8 thorium. And then NIOSH just owes us a 

9 remaining action items from an SC&A White Paper.

10 We're also dealing with tritium. 

11 SC&A is preparing a response to NIOSH's revised 

12 best estimate approach in their March 30th White 

13 Paper, and that is a focus of the uncertainties 

14 and assumptions that were made.

15 So we're waiting for those and 

16 hopefully we'll have our meeting as scheduled in 

17 June and be able to bring Mound before the Board 

18 at our June meeting.

19 Let me touch on radon. Radon was 

20 brought back to the Work Group and at the last 

21 meeting we decided in the Work Group that we're 

22 looking at a possible 83.14 for the 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

82

1 September 1st, 1972 through December 31st, 1972, 

2 and then January 1st, '75 through December 31st, 

3 '76.

4 Those are the missing logbook dates. 

5 That is awaiting further action by a petitioner 

6 and we've talked about reporting to the 

7 Ombudsman for that. So that's where we are with 

8 Mound.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Josie. 

10 Other Work Groups Chairs who wish to share a 

11 report?

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Jim, this is Gen. 

13 Okay. I was on mute so I missed something there. 

14 Okay. This is an update on Linde. We're having 

15 a meeting in Buffalo next Monday, April 30th. 

16 This is not an official Work Group meeting, but 

17 a meeting to get more information, more input, 

18 from former workers.

19 There will be three of us Work Group 

20 Members there, SC&A representative, and a 

21 representative from NIOSH. We're pursuing more 

22 information on the tunnel issues we've discussed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 before. These are TBD issues.

2 We want to get more information from 

3 workers on occupancy factors and we're also 

4 trying to confirm dates of construction of these 

5 tunnels. And then I expect we'll be reporting. 

6 I have a Work Group report at the June meetings.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Excellent. 

8 Thank you, Gen. Paul, were you going to report? 

9 Any other Work Group Chairs wish to report? If 

10 not, I have two reports to update.

11 One is that, for the SEC Evaluation 

12 Work Group, we had a brief conference call a week 

13 ago, I believe, to discuss how we would proceed 

14 on the issue of the ten-year update on, sort of, 

15 how to better define or understand how to apply 

16 the issue of sufficient accuracy in our SEC 

17 evaluations.

18 And this is simply an organizational 

19 Work Group call and at the time, NIOSH updated 

20 us on their efforts to, sort of, develop an 

21 inventory of how this issue has come up in past 

22 SEC evaluations. The inventory is going to 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

84

1 prepared by the end of the next Board meeting, 

2 so probably some time over the summer, the Work 

3 Group will reconvene again to review that and 

4 discuss that.

5 The second update is Hanford. 

6 We're having ongoing activity. There's an 

7 active SEC that SC&A is evaluating and then we're 

8 also waiting on the 83.14 Evaluation Report from 

9 NIOSH that will, sort of, put the parameters on 

10 what further work needs to be done by the Work 

11 Group in terms of evaluating the Hanford issue.

12 I think you heard earlier that that 

13 report is expected in the next month or so and 

14 we will be prepared. We may have enough work 

15 done on our active SEC. We will (phone 

16 connection lost) 83.13, not the 83.15, so we may 

17 be able to report back on that at the meeting, 

18 but it's really probably too early to tell on 

19 that.

20 Any other Work Group --

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, Jim. This is 

22 Brad. I just want to give an update, a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 bit, on Pantex. We're still waiting for 

2 documentation. As you remember, when we put the 

3 SEC out there, there was the years from '84 to 

4 '94. NIOSH is supposed to be working on that 

5 paper and getting that back to us.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Work 

7 Group updates?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, this is 

9 Ziemer. Let me report on TBD-6000.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: That Work Group 

12 met, actually met twice in March on the 15th and 

13 the 28th. And we plan to come before the Board 

14 in the June meeting and provide a recommendation 

15 on the SEC for the active period.

16 I should point out that we have not 

17 yet taken formal action on the residual period 

18 and that needs to be included. So we may have 

19 to actually meet before the June meeting and 

20 formalize the residual period portion of that 

21 recommendation.

22 But in the meantime, let me remind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 the Board Members that we've been distributing 

2 a fair amount of information, both from NIOSH and 

3 SC&A, on the approach to bounding doses at that 

4 site. And there's also been a number of 

5 documents from the petitioner, Dr. McKeel.

6 So we hope the Board Members take 

7 advantage of the time and look at all of those 

8 before the June meeting.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Thanks for 

10 that reminder, Paul. It might be helpful if, 

11 to have sort of an inventory of what are some of 

12 the key documents as well as, you know, other 

13 documents that would be useful that --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. If 

15 necessary, I can get together with Ted and we can 

16 resend a package of documents to NIOSH; the SC&A 

17 and the petitioner's documents for that meeting.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. I 

19 think that might be helpful, Paul, if only just 

20 to reference to where they are because I think 

21 that's --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: 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

87

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- useful for us. 

2 And I think also to make sure that no one don't 

3 put the key documents on the -- the titles and 

4 so forth that are not always -- or a little bit 

5 confusing in terms of telling you how important 

6 or what is covered in a particular document.

7 There may be a key issue in terms of 

8 the Work Group's recommendations.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Any 

11 other Work Group updates? Thanks, everybody. 

12 We have one piece of Board correspondence. A 

13 letter that was received by the Board in March, 

14 late-March, and a draft response to that letter 

15 has been circulated to the Advisory Board for 

16 that.

17 And I think we've had, I believe, one 

18 comment, at least that I've seen, that was from 

19 Jim Lockey, Dr. Lockey, who made the excellent 

20 suggestion that, in the last paragraph, we 

21 indicate that the Chair is sending the letter on 

22 behalf of the Board.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 So we're changing the I to the we in 

2 that last paragraph. We appreciate the work you 

3 and your father did. I think that was the only 

4 change we heard. I don't know if anybody else 

5 has any other suggestions, either say them now 

6 or email them to me.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

8 read the letter. I think it's fine.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks. Okay. 

10 And then anything more to say about the June 

11 meeting? Ted. Ted, are you there?

12 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. I'm speaking 

13 on mute again, but no, I have nothing more to say 

14 about June.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If not, 

16 then any other new business anybody wants to 

17 bring up? If not, I believe we can adjourn. 

18 Thank, everybody, and thank you for all the work, 

19 and input, and spending the time. I think we 

20 accomplished a lot in terms of Fernald and the 

21 business today. And we'll see everybody in 

22 Santa Fe in June. Thank you and see you then.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 (Whereupon, the meeting matter was 

2 concluded at 12:48 p.m.)