NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

URANIUM REFINING ATOMIC WEAPONS EMPLOYERS

(AWE) WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight 

Time, Harry A. Anderson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

HARRY A. ANDERSON, Chairman

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DeKEELY HARTSFIELD, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS
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

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

Welcome and roll-call/introductions ........ 3

Current SC&A Review ........................ 5

Meeting Adjourned ......................... 48
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

2 11:05 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: We've got everyone now. 

4 So, let's get started quickly, because I know 

5 Andy, for everyone's information, has a very 

6 short time with us for this meeting.

7 So, this is the Advisory Board on 

8 Radiation Worker Health, Uranium Refining AWEs 

9 Work Group. And let's begin with roll call. 

10 We're speaking about a specific site, DuPont 

11 Deepwater Plant. So, please state the conflict 

12 of interest, as well, for all Agency-related 

13 people. And let's get started with Board 

14 Members.

15 (Roll call.)

16 MR. KATZ: Very good. Okay. The 

17 agenda for the meeting and the two papers that 

18 we are discussing are on the website, NIOSH 

19 website, under the Board, under today's 

20 meetings, today's date, for anyone who needs to 

21 follow along there.

22 And, Andy, I'll turn it over to you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

1 And just let everybody know your time frame here, 

2 too, for today. Thanks.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah, I, 

4 unfortunately, I think, because of all of the 

5 budgetary stuff, we're having an emergency 

6 meeting at noon Eastern Time. So, I'm going to 

7 have to leave after the first hour here. And, 

8 Bill, I hope you got my email. I'd like you to 

9 take over chairing the session, as I suspect we 

10 may go beyond an hour.

11 So, today we're going to discuss the 

12 responses, NIOSH's responses and SC&A's review 

13 of DuPont Deepwater Works so far. And I think 

14 the first is to -- I think we can just go right 

15 into SC&A's review of the White Paper that NIOSH 

16 prepared last March.

17 And so, John, maybe you want to take 

18 over and -

19 DR. MAURO: Sure. I'd be glad to. 

20 And let me say that the issues here are minor and 

21 I think we're going to be able to move through 

22 them very quickly.
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 As you had mentioned, SC&A did 

2 review DuPont Deepwater about a year ago. NIOSH 

3 provided -- and we had seven findings. NIOSH 

4 provided a response in March of this year, and 

5 we prepared our response to that response in a 

6 report dated June of this year.

7 And what I'll do is -- just a quick 

8 background. We're dealing with a facility that 

9 was under contract to the MED back in the early 

10 `40s, into the late `40s, doing some of the 

11 original metal, uranium metal work and some 

12 uranium chemistry. It was really one of these 

13 old facilities. And we had seven findings.

14 Our first finding was one of our 

15 classic, simple findings, is that there were 

16 data available in the later time periods of 

17 operation. Later being 1945 time period. And 

18 one of our issues was, well, you could 

19 reconstruct doses from data available, from 

20 coworker data and various sources of data for the 

21 later years, but what about 1942 and `43 which 

22 is, in theory, when the operations began?
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 Jim and NIOSH clarified. They 

2 said, well, when you take a close look at the 

3 operating history of the facility, there really 

4 wasn't anything going on in those years.

5 And so, SC&A went back and went into 

6 the source documents that Jim and NIOSH 

7 referenced. Of particular importance was by 

8 Chambers. It's all in the write-up. And lo and 

9 behold, there really wasn't anything going on 

10 until about 1944 when the data are available.

11 And before then -- so, we were 

12 concerned that later data may not be very 

13 applicable to earlier years, but there really 

14 wasn't very much going on in the earlier years.

15 So, we agree with NIOSH's response 

16 and we recommend that we close Issue Number 1.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I also just 

18 want to remind, in case there's some public on 

19 the phone here, that this is a review of a Site 

20 Profile, not an SEC petition. So, we're just 

21 going over the Site Profile documents.

22 So, Board Members, any comments on 
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 this?

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sounds perfectly 

3 reasonable.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Yeah, sounds good.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, as we go 

7 through these, the recommendation here is to 

8 close. And so it sounds like we're all in 

9 agreement. So, Finding Number 1, we think the 

10 documentation here is sufficient and adequate. 

11 So, we think this issue has been completed and 

12 we'll close out Finding Number 1.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good.

14 DR. MAURO: We will move on, then, 

15 to Finding Number 2. Finding Number 2 has to do 

16 with the assumptions and methods used in the Site 

17 Profile by NIOSH to calculate ingestion dose.

18 When we reviewed that, we found that 

19 the method that was used apparently did not 

20 follow our understanding of the standardized 

21 method, which is TIB-9, and I guess our inquiry 

22 was something seems to be wrong here.
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 And NIOSH's response was, you're 

2 right. The way in which it was implemented here 

3 needs to be -- you know, we have to revisit that.

4 And so SC&A's position is that, 

5 yeah, right now this item is open to the extent 

6 that we believe that -- and I haven't seen 

7 anything, but we believe that NIOSH is going to 

8 correct whatever the issues were associated with 

9 the ingestion pathway.

10 And, Jim, if you're on the line, do 

11 you know the status of that revisit of that 

12 particular issue?

13 DR. NETON: Yeah, we're working on 

14 that, John. The issue was, really, it was an 

15 inappropriate application -- or inappropriate 

16 application of TIB-9.

17 If you recall, TIB-9 sets the 

18 ingestion intake at some fraction of the 

19 measured air concentration; 0.2 times the air 

20 concentration, I think.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: And that's fine. But 
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 reality of what we did, though, was that is 

2 assuming that you have some sort of an air 

3 concentration that was measured based on some 

4 operation in the plant, you know, like some 

5 airborne-generating operation.

6 And in this particular case, what we 

7 did was we used a resuspension value of material 

8 from the ground into the air and said, ah, 

9 there's the air concentration and multiplied 

10 that times 0.2. And that resulted in an 

11 extremely low value of ingestion which we 

12 thought is way too low.

13 So, the way around this is one has 

14 to then -- you can't use that TIB-9 value. You 

15 have to come up with a surface concentration 

16 value and then use something like what's in the 

17 RESRAD document, an ingestion rate in meters 

18 squared per hour. And that's what we're going 

19 to do to correct that problem.

20 We haven't done that yet, but we will 

21 revise the TIB -- I mean, the Site Profile, to 

22 reflect that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 DR. MAURO: I could speak for SC&A. 

2 That strategy is acceptable to SC&A. And in a 

3 situation like this, what has been done in the 

4 past, and certainly it's up to the Work Group, 

5 you know, we accept that strategy in principle 

6 and, you know, whether or not you would want to 

7 close on that basis or wait until that actual --

8 that revision is made. But I'm familiar with 

9 Jim's description that he just provided as being 

10 the fix. And that fix is the fix that we would 

11 expect.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, Jim, do we 

13 have any timeline for when that might be done?

14 DR. NETON: You know, I don't. I 

15 would actually suggest we probably hold this in, 

16 what do you call it, abeyance.

17 DR. MAURO: In abeyance, yeah.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. That's 

19 what I was going to suggest.

20 DR. NETON: Yeah.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: If you were 

22 saying, well, somebody is actually writing on it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 now, that would be different.

2 DR. NETON: No.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Let's just hold 

4 this in abeyance.

5 DR. NETON: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You know, I 

7 mean, partly we're going to report on today's 

8 meeting at the full Board meeting. And I think 

9 we can just say this is in abeyance and we'll just 

10 continue to kind of track it.

11 DR. NETON: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: When you get it 

13 done, you can bring it back to us and -

14 DR. NETON: Right. I think it's 

15 safe to say we have an agreement.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Then we can 

17 close it out. So, let's just do that.

18 DR. NETON: Right. We have 

19 agreement in principle, but, you know, you guys 

20 certainly should review what we've put forth to 

21 make sure that it's what you think we're doing.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: 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

12

1 DR. MAURO: Good.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Moving right 

3 along to Finding 3.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. Finding 3, I'll 

5 give it briefly. Our original concern was 

6 something called the Putzier effect. You know, 

7 when you're working with -- when you're reducing 

8 -- you've probably heard this before. Maybe 

9 some of you haven't. 

10 When you're making uranium and you 

11 go through a reduction process, one of the 

12 outcomes of this process very often is you 

13 accumulate thorium-234, the progeny, 

14 short-lived progeny of uranium, on the outside 

15 crust of the uranium ingot.

16 And we felt that, in our original 

17 review, that -- and that has about a 15-fold 

18 effect on the external beta field until it decays 

19 away, this unusual transient circumstance 

20 called the Putzier effect.

21 Jim and NIOSH responded back as, 

22 well, it really doesn't apply here, because 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

13

1 Putzier effect really comes as a result of the 

2 second refinement step in the development of a 

3 uranium ingot, not in the first step. And we 

4 agreed.

5 So, we concluded that our concern 

6 regarding the Putzier effect was misplaced. 

7 And that, in fact, there is no Putzier effect at 

8 this particular facility because of the nature 

9 of the operations. And we recommend closing 

10 this issue.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any Board 

12 Member questions?

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

14 MEMBER FIELD: No.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, I think 

16 we have a good explanation here down in writing. 

17 So, it's helpful to have that documentation 

18 should questions come up in the future. So, I 

19 would agree, I think we all agree, we'll close 

20 Finding Number 3. 

21 And Four and Five you have now 

22 combined?
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 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have combined 

2 Four and Five because they are connected at the 

3 hip. And NIOSH's response also is -- when they 

4 responded, it was sort of connected. So, it's 

5 easy to do Four and Five in one.

6 And this is one where it may take a 

7 few more minutes. Now, let me say this: I don't 

8 think we have a problem here. I think we, in 

9 fact, in my opinion, the outcome is fine; the 

10 doses, the approach, the exposures.

11 What I wanted to bring to the 

12 attention of the Work Group is the methodology 

13 is a little bit, in my mind, what I'll call 

14 bizarre.

15 The outcome numbers are okay, and 

16 I'll try to explain what we did and how that 

17 differs from what NIOSH did. And so that then 

18 we can hear a little bit about the wisdom of the 

19 approach that NIOSH used, which, in my mind, was 

20 a little unusual.

21 As I said before, though, the 

22 outcome doesn't disturb me at all. The numbers 
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 are perfectly reasonable.

2 What the issue has to do with is you 

3 have a uranium operation. And there's people 

4 working next to, let's say, a slab of uranium or 

5 maybe a drum filled with uranium, and we know and 

6 we all agree on what the radiation field is as 

7 a function of distance from this source. The 

8 gamma and beta radiation field.

9 And it's a look-up number. We've 

10 checked it many, many times. It's become 

11 standard. So, we all agree on that radiation 

12 field at one foot, which is 1.2 mR per hour. And 

13 it's 0.3 mR per hour at one meter.

14 So, therefore, it's a source, 

15 understanding the source and what kind of 

16 external exposure.

17 And NIOSH made certain assumptions 

18 regarding how long a person might be at one foot, 

19 working at one foot, and at one meter from these 

20 sources. And, thereby, you could calculate 

21 easily by hand the skin dose and the organ dose, 

22 whatever the organ might 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

16

1 Now, but it turns out NIOSH -- and 

2 that was what we expected to see. A very, very 

3 conventional calculation. But NIOSH did 

4 something unusual. The numbers -- let's go with 

5 like the 1.3 mR per hour at one foot. Well, that 

6 is the number -- in other words, the physics of 

7 it. That's what you would get at one foot from 

8 a slab of uranium, natural uranium. But NIOSH 

9 didn't use that number.

10 They decided to say, well, we're 

11 going to treat that number -- and certainly, Jim, 

12 anyplace along the line you want to help me out, 

13 but my understanding is they said, well, no, we 

14 don't want to work with that number, because we 

15 consider that to be the average number at that 

16 location, or an average number.

17 And so they converted it into the 

18 geometric mean by assuming that that exposure 

19 rate at that point has a certain distribution. 

20 I forget what the geometric standard deviation 

21 was that was used. And then you could derive 

22 what the geometric mean and geometric standard 
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 deviation is.

2 So that instead of using what I 

3 consider to be a deterministic fixed value, 

4 NIOSH converted into a statistical number where 

5 that radiation field is expressed more in terms 

6 of a geometric mean and geometric standard 

7 deviation at that location, and then went ahead 

8 and did the calculation.

9 And it turns out that the outcome --

10 so, NIOSH used what I would call the statistical 

11 approach. Because most of NIOSH's work, 

12 virtually all of its work, really operates 

13 within the framework of assigning a geometric 

14 mean to a metric, to whatever the parameter is, 

15 and a standard deviation and use that as input 

16 into an IREP, into a PoC calculation.

17 In this instance, it seemed kind of 

18 strange to do that, because there really isn't 

19 any uncertainty in the dose rate or exposure rate 

20 as a function of distance from a slab of uranium. 

21 So, it seems that they applied their statistical 

22 approach in a manner that really doesn't 
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 intuitively seem to make sense to a problem of 

2 this class.

3 Now, don't get me wrong. What they 

4 did, they came up with a different result, which 

5 I consider to be perfectly reasonable also. But 

6 it just seemed to be a little strange to do that 

7 here. You know, it's a physical -- this dose at 

8 one foot, there's no uncertainty there.

9 So, I felt that it seemed to be 

10 unusual to assign a geometric mean and geometric 

11 standard deviation to a value that actually is 

12 fixed, unlike a lot of the other things we work 

13 with.

14 So, all I wanted to do here was to 

15 alert the Work Group that this is a practice that 

16 NIOSH has employed here. But in this particular 

17 case, it does seem to be unusual. But I'm not 

18 troubled by the outcome.

19 And, Jim, you may want to weigh in 

20 and, you know, explain, you know, why this is a 

21 standard approach and why you're comfortable 

22 with it. I don't have any problems with 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 outcome. I'm just a little bit, I guess, 

2 surprised by treating the problem in that 

3 fashion.

4 DR. NETON: Yeah. First, I'd say 

5 it's somewhat convoluted. I wouldn't 

6 necessarily characterize it as bizarre.

7 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. That's the 

8 first word that came to mind.

9 DR. NETON: Okay. But I look at 

10 this --

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I'm comfortable 

12 with convoluted.

13 (Laughter.)

14 DR. NETON: I looked at this to some 

15 degree, and I honestly was having trouble 

16 justifying our rationale as well.

17 I think what happened here, if you 

18 remember, there was originally a TBD-6001. And 

19 that was cancelled. So, then some of these 

20 sites ended up having their own little mini- Site 

21 Profiles, so to speak. And in the port over from 

22 there, I think we kind of got our wires crossed 
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 a bit, is the way I'm thinking here.

2 And, to me, I think the calculation 

3 is -- I agree. It's a somewhat convoluted 

4 method to get to an answer. And I'm more 

5 comfortable, after looking at this, going with 

6 a more traditional approach, which would be to 

7 say that the person -- and this GSD of 5, by the 

8 way, is a recommendation in the TBD, the original 

9 TBD, to apply to values that you don't have any 

10 particular distribution. It's a default 

11 recommendation. And the idea was that the GSD 

12 of 5 would account for a variation in distances 

13 from the source.

14 I agree that there is no uncertainty 

15 on the dose rate of one foot from, you know, a 

16 slab of uranium and such, but we're trying to 

17 account for variation in distances of the worker 

18 from the actual source itself.

19 After looking at this for some time, 

20 I think a better approach here, and you end up 

21 in the same situation, is to take a simpler 

22 approach. And that is to take a one-meter 
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 value, which is 0.3 mR per hour, and put a GSD 

2 of 5 on that. So, then you assume that the 

3 worker was at one meter for the entire 2,400 

4 hours of operation. And with a GSD of 5, you end 

5 up at pretty much the same place.

6 So, it gets us away from this 

7 convoluted, you know, one foot, one meter, and 

8 then taking the average of those two values.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, in effect, 

10 rather than think about it as uncertainty in the 

11 dose rate at a given distance, it's really an 

12 uncertainty in what the distance is.

13 DR. NETON: Exactly.

14 DR. MAURO: And I agree with that 

15 completely. And, by the way, that's how I 

16 interpreted it also when I read the write-up. I 

17 said, well, what they're really effectively 

18 doing is taking into consideration a 

19 non-deterministic approach to distance as a way 

20 to say, well, listen, we don't know how long the 

21 guy -- but, you know, he may have been a foot 

22 away, a meter away.
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 DR. NETON: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: And, you know, how long 

3 he's there and this is one way to accommodate 

4 that. And that's why I'm fine with the outcome. 

5 As you explained it, it's a convoluted way to 

6 come at it.

7 There may be another way to package 

8 it. Like you just said, there may be a better 

9 packaging that makes better optics for anyone 

10 else that might be reading it.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah.

12 DR. MAURO: But I'm fine with how 

13 you -- in other words, bottom line again is I 

14 completely agree with the strategy Jim just laid 

15 out. Even if he left it as it was, I would be 

16 okay with that. But I just wanted to alert the 

17 Work Group regarding this unusual circumstance.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

19 DR. MAURO: And that goes for Four and 

20 Five.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, we'll just 

22 keep this open, or do you want to put it 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

23

1 abeyance?

2 DR. MAURO: I would recommend 

3 abeyance, because I think we agree in principle. 

4 And usually when we agree in principle, it goes 

5 into abeyance until we actually see the 

6 calculation.

7 DR. NETON: Yeah, I agree with that.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any Board 

9 comments?

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, a 

11 comment. Dave.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, go for it.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I have a couple 

14 of questions. If you started out by saying 

15 he'll spend half of his 2,400 hours at one foot 

16 and half at one meter, and then you're going to 

17 say, well, let's just assume a certain distance 

18 and a distribution, why do you choose a meter? 

19 Why don't you choose something between a foot and 

20 a meter?

21 I mean, you're suggesting half the 

22 time was spent closer than a meter and I don't 
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 think your geometric distribution would at one 

2 meter, would give you -- I guess I don't see why 

3 a distance wasn't used that was between one foot 

4 and one meter. Could somebody respond to that?

5 DR. NETON: Yeah. My feeling is 

6 that I think the one foot was a holdover from when 

7 we would have someone working directly with 

8 metal, like metalworking and such.

9 And this is a drumming operation, 

10 not a metalworking operation. So, I personally 

11 feel that a one-meter distance is more 

12 appropriate for a full-time 2,400-hour a year 

13 scenario. A one-meter distance is more 

14 appropriate than a one-foot distance.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I would be very 

16 comfortable with that.

17 DR. NETON: Okay.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That would 

19 suggest to me that the original calculation, if 

20 you'll excuse me, was, in a sense, in error. That 

21 is, looking at the occupation of the person.

22 DR. NETON: Yes, I 100 percent agree 
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 with you.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And then I'm 

3 fine with that. The other question I have is 

4 just something about process.

5 NIOSH originally derived this using 

6 MCNP, the Monte Carlo calculation. Could 

7 somebody just tell me why a Monte Carlo was 

8 needed rather than a -- well, why it was needed 

9 in the first place?

10 DR. NETON: Well, this is something 

11 we did very early on in the program. I mean, you 

12 have a drum of uranium.

13 And it was rather than rely on -- I 

14 guess what you're saying is why wouldn't we just 

15 rely on a measurement of a drum of uranium?

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

17 DR. NETON: Yeah, I'm not really 

18 sure why we ended up doing the Monte Carlo. I 

19 think what we had was different heights in the 

20 drum. You could model it based on how much was 

21 in the drum. That sort of thing and the various 

22 --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I see. I see.

2 DR. NETON: And there are various 

3 material compositions and such. It's just 

4 easier to do that way and --

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. I 

6 see. I see. I just wanted to -- fine. That's 

7 fine.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: There was a 

9 rationale for it.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: There was a 

12 rationale for it.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right. 

14 Okay. And we're going to something different 

15 now and I'm very comfortable with that.

16 DR. MAURO: A further point 

17 regarding MCNP. In theory, if we had some 

18 measurements, you know, you always ask yourself 

19 the question, which should I depend on? 

20 Measurements or a model?

21 I think in a circumstance like this, 

22 you know, certainly out there are probably 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

27

1 measurements taken at different distances using 

2 some survey instrument by some people of what the 

3 radiation field is. But in a case like this, I 

4 trust the calculation. Because it's a physics 

5 calculation. This is what has to be.

6 Now, you know, when you have a 

7 physics calculation, you say, listen, I've got 

8 a source. I know what the source is. I know 

9 it's sitting in this kind of drum and I picked 

10 a distance I'm interested in. You could derive 

11 that number with a high level of precision. 

12 So, you know, there are times when 

13 I prefer modeling to measured data. I'd like to 

14 have both; it's always stronger. And, quite 

15 frankly, when you use many of the standard 

16 guidelines, like TBD-6000, very often they do 

17 use this modeled approach because it is -- it 

18 can't be wrong, you know.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. In 

20 other words, the physics is known to be correct.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. Right. The 

22 instruments, yeah, if you do it right, they'll 
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 be right, too.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

3 DR. MAURO: But they better be the 

4 same number as the one you modeled.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Now, there's another 

7 thing, and I'll try to move quickly, that I think 

8 is important that I'd point out regarding the use 

9 of models. MCNP is the preferred -- many people 

10 use MicroShield which is sort of the well-known 

11 point kernel model that people use.

12 MCNP does have its problems, 

13 especially when you're dealing with a field as 

14 created by Bremsstrahlung. And in the case of 

15 uranium, a lot of the photon field is a 

16 relatively low-energy distribution of photons 

17 that are coming from the Bremsstrahlung 

18 interaction of the betas. 

19 And MCNP does a wonderful job with 

20 that, but MicroShield doesn't. So, often 

21 you'll see, historically, when I went through 

22 the system, I still use MicroShield, but MCNP is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 really the tool of preference when you want to 

2 do -- especially when you're dealing with -- if 

3 you have cobalt-60, it doesn't matter.

4 But when you have a radionuclide 

5 where you're dealing with low-energy photons, 

6 when you're dealing with -- I guess it really is 

7 with low-energy photons, and that's certainly 

8 associated with uranium and some other 

9 radionuclides. You're better off going with 

10 MCNP.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

14 DR. MAURO: Now, one last thing, and 

15 we're going to get through this quickly. One of 

16 the things in my report that I put in -- and I 

17 think, Jim, you very much want this in the record 

18 also. One of the things that NIOSH does often 

19 is it works with the geometric mean and a large 

20 geometric standard deviation as being the input 

21 for your dose calculation into IREP.

22 Now, one of the concerns that I have 
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 had in the past is that, well, why are you using 

2 the geometric mean? If you know what the 

3 absolute value is, you know, that's a single 

4 value, what the number is. And in this 

5 particular case, the absolute value is actually 

6 higher than the derived statistical method 

7 geometric mean.

8 So, what we're saying is, let's 

9 envision you have two circumstances. We want to 

10 calculate the Probability of Causation for a 

11 person who has been exposed to a certain 

12 scenario. And I have two approaches I could 

13 use. I could say, listen, I'm going to put in 

14 the actual radiation field and the dose that this 

15 guy got. And let's make believe it's ten, you 

16 know.

17 And but you say, no, we're going to 

18 go through a statistical treatment of this 

19 problem and I'm going to put in the geometric 

20 mean of this particular number, not the best 

21 estimate or the average or the real number. I'm 

22 going to put in a geometric mean and a large 
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 standard deviation. And in this case, it's 

2 because of this uncertainty in distance.

3 What we found, and what Jim has 

4 demonstrated and we also confirmed, is that you 

5 might put in the geometric mean that could be 

6 like four times lower than, let's say, the 

7 arithmetic average or the -- we'll say the 

8 arithmetic mean. The geometric mean is often 

9 quite a bit lower than the arithmetic mean.

10 And there's actually an example in 

11 the write-up. But in one case you have a 

12 deterministic calculation. You put no 

13 uncertainty. So, you have a value of 10 

14 millirem per hour. I'm making this number up. 

15 And I put that in as a fixed value into IREP. And 

16 then Jim says, no, we're going to go with the 

17 geometric mean and we're going to put in two 

18 millirem per hour with a geometric standard 

19 deviation of five. Okay. And you say to 

20 yourself, well, which one is going to give you 

21 a higher PoC?

22 It turns out, interestingly enough, 
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 even though you're working with a substantially 

2 lower value, this two versus ten, because you 

3 have a large geometric standard deviation of 

4 that number, and the way in which IREP works 

5 where it's estimating the upper 99 percentile 

6 confidence level, you actually end up with a 

7 higher PoC, when you use what I call the 

8 statistical approach that Jim is using, than the 

9 deterministic approach that I like to use 

10 because it's simple.

11 So, what I'm saying is -- and this 

12 came up in yesterday's conversation dealing with 

13 SECs, but I just wanted to alert the Work Group 

14 that there is this convention that NIOSH has 

15 adopted by using geometric means and geometric 

16 standard deviations. And at one time, I was 

17 concerned that they were not working with 

18 arithmetic means.

19 And if you're experienced with these 

20 kinds of distributions, arithmetic means are 

21 often three or four times higher than a geometric 

22 mean in a log-normal distribution. And I was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 always concerned that they weren't using the 

2 arithmetic mean.

3 I am no longer concerned because of 

4 the large standard deviation you put on and the 

5 fact that when you calculate Probability of 

6 Causation, you're sampling from a population of 

numbers and you're picking off the upper 99th 7

8 percentile. What happens is you end up with a 

9 higher PoC, a more claimant-favorable outcome 

10 when you do it Jim's way.

11 And, Jim, I know that that came up 

12 yesterday and I thought it was important. And 

13 there's actually a write-up in our response that 

14 talks about this with an example. And I think 

15 it was very enlightening to go through this 

16 process to convince myself that, yeah, the 

17 geometric mean approach makes sense and is 

18 claimant-favorable.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, that 

20 table was interesting.

21 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I found it -- you 

22 know, when we went through this exercise, 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

34

1 first time we did it was here. And it solved 

2 something that was sort of like nagging at me for 

3 quite some time.

4 And I think it's important, because, 

5 you know, sometimes you ask us, well, why are you 

6 using -- you know, here you have a person, why 

7 aren't you using the average exposure? Why 

8 would you work with the geometric mean? And it 

9 makes sense to me as applied to this particular 

10 kind of program where you're deriving a PoC at 

11 a 99 percent confidence level.

12 Anyway, Jim, do you want to add 

13 anything to that?

14 DR. NETON: No, I think you 

15 summarized it perfectly.

16 DR. MAURO: Thank you. Thank you.

17 DR. NETON: I'm good with that.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, that was 

19 Four and Five. We're up to Number 6.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We're going to 

21 leave that one in abeyance, too.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: 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

35

1 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I would agree with 

2 that.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Next.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. All right. 

5 Here is a place where I believe you have 

6 overestimated. Number 6.

7 We want to calculate the dose to a 

8 person from any residual radioactivity that's on 

9 the floor. Okay. So, you got uranium dust on 

10 the floor and there's a guy walking around 

11 exposed to that material.

12 Now, it turns out that measurements 

13 were made of what the open window reading --

14 survey instruments, now -- were at this 

15 facility. And it's around 0.05, 0.03 millirep 

16 per hour.

17 That's how far back we go that we're 

18 using millirep and opposed to millirem. 

19 They're really the same number.

20 And they have a measurement and say, 

21 oh, this is what we measured and it's open 

22 window. All right. So, what that means is you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 are reading something that is the outcome of a 

2 reading that includes both the photons and the 

3 beta that's penetrating the detector that's 

4 giving your readings.

5 Now, what NIOSH did was say, okay, 

6 well, we're going to go with 0.04 millirad per 

7 hour as being the exposure rate. And that's 

8 perfectly reasonable given that the data they 

9 have said was between 0.03 and 0.05, but then 

10 they did something that I was surprised. They 

11 said, we're going to assume 50 percent of that 

12 0.04 millirad per hour is due to beta and 50 

13 percent is due to gamma.

14 Now, that can't be correct. It 

15 turns out that virtually, I would say, at least 

16 the ratio of beta-to-gamma at one meter, 

17 basically you're at a 0.1 meter off the floor, 

18 when you measure that 0.04 millirep per hour, 

19 probably 90 percent of it, if not more, was from 

20 the beta, not the gamma.

21 So, what you're doing is you're 

22 probably, by taking the approach that there was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 a 50/50 split in terms of what was creating that 

2 signal, that 50 is beta and 50 is photon, I think 

3 it's more likely 90/10 or on that order. So, we 

4 think that this approach is technically 

5 incorrect.

6 The reality is that most of that 0.04 

7 mR per hour at one meter is probably from the 

8 beta. And what this means is that they probably 

9 overestimated the photon dose, because only a 

10 small fraction of that reading should be photon.

11 Jim, do you agree with that 

12 perspective?

13 DR. NETON: Yeah, I agree. I think 

14 we commented in our response that we thought the 

15 one-to-one probably was an overestimate and we 

16 thought maybe 10-to-one would be more 

17 appropriate.

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah. By the way, you 

19 know, TBD-6000 actually has it at a 

20 hundred-to-one.

21 DR. NETON: Well, that's sort of for 

22 an infinitely thin surface, you know.
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 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

2 DR. NETON: A slab of uranium would 

3 be about a hundred to one. In this particular 

4 case, though, we felt that the material had 

5 migrated into the concrete and they were 

6 actually having to scabble to a fair depth 

7 indicating that, you know, the uranium was 

8 embedded. And that that would reduce the beta 

9 contribution down from a hundred.

10 Now, I agree that one-to-one 

11 probably overdid it. Although, you know, we're 

12 only talking about 80 millirem a year here total.

13 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Yeah.

14 DR. NETON: But we do think it 

15 shouldn't be a hundred-to-one, it shouldn't be 

16 one-to-one. We feel 10-to-one is probably more 

17 appropriate at this point.

18 DR. MAURO: And I'm fine with that. 

19 Again, here we got a situation where I think they 

20 overestimated the penetrating dose and it should 

21 be lower. And I think the 10-to-one ratio is 

22 certainly within reason as applied to this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 problem.

2 DR. NETON: And there's good 

3 evidence for this in the plants that you see 

4 10-to-one ratios. They're quite common in an 

5 operating plant where there's uranium on 

6 surfaces and such.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, any 

8 questions?

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

10 MEMBER FIELD: No.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, we're going 

12 to put this in abeyance, too?

13 DR. NETON: I believe so.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. We're 

15 making headway here. Finding 7.

16 DR. MAURO: I think Seven is very 

17 similar to the one we just talked about.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah.

19 DR. MAURO: It's the same issue. 

20 Yeah, really, when I'm looking at it, it's again 

21 the 10-to-one issue; isn't it, Jim?

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 DR. NETON: Yeah, it is.

2 DR. MAURO: So, I mean, I don't know 

3 why we have two separate findings here, quite 

4 frankly. But it's the same exact, I think, 

5 problem/issue and I think the fix is going to the 

6 10-to-one ratio. And that would solve the 

7 problem, also.

8 DR. NETON: Exactly.

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah. So, again, same 

10 problem. Maybe a different setting. Quite 

11 frankly, I don't know why it's a separate 

12 question. Let me just take a quick look.

13 DR. NETON: I'm looking at this 

14 again. I mean, it's definitely a 10-to-one 

15 issue, but I don't know why this came out --

16 DR. MAURO: As a standalone item 

17 separate from the previous one, yeah.

18 DR. NETON: It had something to do 

19 with this 0.05. Oh, yeah, John. I think one 

20 was photon dose, and one was beta dose. That's 

21 what the difference is.

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. It's simply 
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 split that way.

2 DR. NETON: Yeah, yeah.

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah, it's the same 

4 issue that we just discussed and the 10-to-one 

5 adjustment is the certainly appropriate 

6 solution.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, we 

8 don't need to combine those now, but I would --

9 that's in abeyance as well.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. Could 

11 somebody just tell me what's the difference --

12 this is Dave. Could somebody tell me the 

13 difference between a rep and a rem? I'm not sure 

14 what a rep is. Maybe I'm not old enough.

15 DR. MAURO: You know, I wasn't 

16 around when they used reps, but I keep running 

17 into them. And everybody tells me that for all 

18 intents and purposes it's the same thing as a 

19 rad.

20 DR. NETON: Yeah, a rep stands for, 

21 I think, roentgen equivalent physical.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Ah, 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

42

1 DR. NETON: For most photons and 

2 stuff it comes out 00 it's about a --

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Sure. 

4 Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I'm glad you 

6 didn't ask me.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, I was 

8 afraid to ask at first. But when I saw it again, 

9 I --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I was thinking 

11 it. Okay. So, do we have any other issues on 

12 this?

13 DR. NETON: I think that's it.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think that's 

15 it. So, as far as the Committee is concerned, 

16 I think, John, we can just, you know, take your 

17 summary and the conclusions and recommendations 

18 and make just a few brief slides for me to present 

19 with --

20 DR. MAURO: Sure. I'll be glad --

21 I can put that --

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And then we can 
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 go through the findings and report on it to the 

2 Board?

3 DR. MAURO: I'll get that to you right 

4 away. This is an easy one.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah, I think 

6 so. And mostly this is just cleanup activity of 

7 somebody writing at some point in time.

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Well, there you 

9 go, we've got you done before 12:00 o'clock.

10 MR. KATZ: So, John, just for that 

11 presentation, because the Work Group hasn't 

12 discussed DuPont with the Board at all, even 

13 though it's been through it, if you could just 

14 in the presentation sort of get Andy started from 

15 the beginning?

16 DR. MAURO: Sure. I'll set it up.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think, you 

18 know, some of the stuff from the introduction, 

19 I think we have some from the earlier document 

20 as well.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I have everything 
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 written up here from all the documents. I'll 

2 pull out, you know, the history of the process 

3 we went through and have a couple of slides, as 

4 always, introducing the process we went through, 

5 when the various reports were issued, what the 

6 type of operation was and what the findings and 

7 resolution was.

8 It will be a standard set of slides. 

9 Andy, I'll get it to you shortly. You can take 

10 a look at it and see if you're comfortable. We 

11 can certainly iterate a little bit to make sure 

12 you get what you like.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure.

14 DR. MAURO: This is going to -- like 

15 I said, this is an easy one.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. A little bit in 

18 there, John, about the plant itself and what it 

19 did before.

20 DR. MAURO: I will. I have that in 

21 the introduction of our report. I'll pull some 

22 of that out. Sure.
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 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. I think 

2 we're at a point where -- I don't know. Are 

3 there any public participants that want to make 

4 a comment?

5 MR. KATZ: Andy, I don't believe 

6 there is anybody from the public on the line.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Then 

8 we're good to go. Any other issues for the 

9 Committee?

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I saw there 

12 were some other --

13 MR. KATZ: So, Andy --

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- another site 

15 coming to us?

16 MR. KATZ: Yeah, Andy. This is 

17 Ted. There are no other issues with this, but 

18 we do have a report from SC&A on the Hooker Site 

19 Profile that the Work Group should take up.

20 The Work Group really can't take it 

21 up, I guess, until the folks at NIOSH have a 

22 chance to respond to your review. That would 
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 be, you know, to the SC&A review. That would be 

2 the first step. And then we could have a meeting 

3 and discuss that.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. That 

5 sounds good. Because I think that's the only 

6 other thing right now we have on our calendar, 

7 isn't it?

8 MR. KATZ: Yeah, that's correct.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah. Okay, 

10 with that if there's no other comments, I want 

11 to thank everybody. It's good to close out some 

12 of these like this. So, I think we're making 

13 good headway.

14 MR. KATZ: Good.

15 MEMBER FIELD: Thanks, John and 

16 Jim.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Thank you, 

18 everybody. Have a good weekend. And if 

19 there's no other comments, we'll close off.

20 (Whereupon, at 11:50 o'clock a.m. 

21 the meeting in the above-entitled matter was 

22 adjourned.)
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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10