1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON URANIUM REFINING

ATOMIC WEAPONS EMPLOYERS 

+ + + + +

MONDAY

AUGUST 3, 2015

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened telephonically at 

10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, Henry Anderson Chairman, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

HENRY ANDERSON, Chairman

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

ALSO PRESENT:
 

2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

MARK FISHBURN, ORAU Team

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

LARA HUGHES, DCAS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

DENNIS STRENGE, ORAU Team

TOM TOMES, DCAS

JOE ZLOTNICKI, SC&A
 

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

NUMEC (Apollo and Parks Township, PA)

Technical Basis Document Review ............... 7 

Lunch Recess ................................ 131

W.R. Grace (Erwin, NT) Technical

Document Review ............................. 139

Adjourn
 

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:06 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: So welcome, everyone. This 

4 is the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 Health. The Uranium Refining AWEs Work Group.

6 And we're meeting today to address Site 

7 Profile reviews on two sites. Well, three in a 

8 sense. But NUMEC, Apollo and Parks Township, PA, 

9 Pennsylvania that is. So that's the NUMEC site. 

10 And then W.R. Grace in Erwin, Tennessee.

11 And for people on the line, the agenda 

12 for the meeting, which is that simple, is on the 

13 NIOSH website. Together with documents related to 

14 these sites from their reviews.

15 So, if you go to the NIOSH website and 

16 you go to the Board section, today's -- you go to 

17 scheduled meetings and today's date, you'll be able 

18 to follow along with the documents that people will 

19 be discussing today.

20 So, and then the only other thing to 

21 note for people listening in, is to please put your 

22 phone on mute so we don't have any issues there.
 

5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Press *6 if you don't have a mute 

2 button, and *6 again to take your phone off of mute. 

3 But please, folks, mute your phones.

4 For roll call here, please speak to 

5 conflict of interest related to both the NUMEC site 

6 and W.R. Grace as we go through roll call. And 

7 let's start that with Board Members.

8 (Roll call)

9 MR. KATZ: Okay then. Henry, it's 

10 your meeting.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Well, the 

12 first on the agenda, we -- it's been a while. But 

13 we have a NUMEC Technical Basis Document that we 

14 reviewed, that SC&A reviewed.

15 The SC&A issues were identified and 

16 sent to NIOSH. And the middle of May we received 

17 the NIOSH responses to the SC&A review.

18 And really what we want to go over today 

19 is those NIOSH responses and comments from SC&A as 

20 to -- as well as other Board Members, if we're 

21 satisfied with those NIOSH responses.

22 They're fairly comprehensive. I think 
 

6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they've addressed most of the issues. But, I'd 

2 like to get the idea or the comments from SC&A, ask 

3 if they feel this is settled. And to put the 

4 comments together, what the -- if they're satisfied 

5 with these responses. Or whether we need to have 

6 -- if there's continuing events and we need to have 

7 further discussion.

8 So, SC&A, do you want to go over those 

9 -- your review and the NIOSH responses, please?

10 DR. MAURO: Hi everyone, it's John 

11 Mauro. Yes, we all had an -- we have our team on 

12 the phone.

13 Joyce Lipsztein is not here. She's 

14 unable to connect. I believe she's in Israel at 

15 this time. But, she did send me some written 

16 material.

17 We have all read through the responses, 

18 and we have discussed them. But, I guess the way 

19 we're looking at it right now, is certainly there 

20 are areas where we would like to have additional 

21 discussion on some of these items.

22 But also, I think that many of us felt 
 

7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we -- to some of the responses where there's 

2 considerable information, we would like a little 

3 more of an opportunity to review them.

4 And if it's acceptable to the Work 

5 Group, we could actually submit a formal response 

6 to each of the 24, in some places explaining, yes, 

7 we reviewed your proposed changes, for example --

8 there are many like that -- and we concur, or we 

9 may have some additional questions.

10 So, I can't say that we're in a position 

11 today to say yes or no, we agree or don't agree and 

12 what the issues are. I think we're more in a 

13 position to get clarification, identify places 

14 where we'd like to look a little more closely at 

15 some of the responses. And then get back to you 

16 folks formally. If that's acceptable to everyone.

17 MR. KATZ: Well, go ahead and proceed 

18 John. I mean, that's where we are, so.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, there may 

21 be -- what I'd like to try to do, is can we narrow 

22 them down? I mean, like on Finding 1 there, now 
 

8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we've got a tremendous increase in the amount of 

2 information provided.

3 Are there any of these that we can close 

4 out?

5 MR. MAURO: I think you pointed out the 

6 first one that I agree with.

7 MR. KATZ: Well, can we -- I mean, for 

8 the record, so we have a decent record here. Can 

9 we have a presentation of the finding and then the 

10 response? And then discussion of whether that's 

11 satisfactory?

12 So, I don't know, I think, John, if you 

13 want to present what the finding was in the first 

14 place. And then you can either summarize or NIOSH 

15 can address how they responded and so on.

16 DR. MAURO: I'd be happy to if that's 

17 the way to go. And if we'd like to begin, we might 

18 as well get started.

19 It would always be helpful, you know, 

20 what I could do is just reiterate our original 

21 concern.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
 

9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: And quickly summarize our 

2 understanding of NIOSH's response. And it would 

3 be helpful though if NIOSH went a little bit into, 

4 you know, what went into, for example, we'll see 

5 the first one in a moment, putting together their 

6 response.

7 I think that it was a very thorough 

8 response as Andy pointed out. So, if you'd like 

9 to begin, I can open by first giving SC&A's 

10 perspective on Number One. Finding Number One.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Let's do 

12 that.

13 DR. MAURO: Very good. When we 

14 reviewed the two, I guess, Site Profiles, we found 

15 that there seemed to be some conflict and confusion 

16 regarding start and end dates. It's a complex, two 

17 sites.

18 And we just wanted clarification where 

19 there seemed to be some contradiction regarding the 

20 start and end dates for the operations. And NIOSH 

21 came back in their response in the overview that 

22 I presume everyone has in front, with a very 
 

10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 detailed annotation of the different operation 

2 periods for different types of activities that took 

3 place, in this case it's Parks Township.

4 And I mean, in reviewing all of that 

5 material, it certainly seems to be a thorough 

6 response. And I have no comments and I didn't see 

7 anything there that was lacking.

8 We did -- our team did have a chance to 

9 look it over. And I did not get any feedback that 

10 they felt that there was any concerns here.

11 So, the way I see it right now, this is 

12 an issue -- and we can document this all in writing 

13 if that's, you know, because there will be other

14 places where we're going to want to prepare some 

15 material and do some work.

16 But on this one, I feel as if we're okay. 

17 And we would recommend closing.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: This is Dave. 

19 Just, this was all the Parks Township. The Apollo, 

20 apparently in the early reports, that the data was 

21 similarly quite accurate. Yes?

22 DR. MAURO: The dates, yes. This has 
 

11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to do with the operation dates. And the concern 

2 was Parks Township had that concern.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 DR. MAURO: And this, as you can tell, 

5 a very thorough annotation of the -- operational 

6 dates of the different activities that took place 

7 in Parks. And it certainly satisfies our needs.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And there were a 

9 few that were added there, the underlining, that's 

10 very helpful --

11 DR. MAURO: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: For NIOSH. So, it 

13 certainly was worth having them go back over and 

14 come up with these revisions. There aren't too 

15 many.

16 So, but I think -- any other Board 

17 Members have questions or comments? Bill?

18 MEMBER FIELD: No, nothing. No 

19 comments.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, so I -- my 

21 -- just to keep us moving along here and not, you 

22 know, create more work then we need, I looked it 
 

12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 over as well. And looked at the case documents.

2 And as long as these revisions actually 

3 get into the TBD, I would think we would -- I don't 

4 know if we close this or how we do it.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, Andy, it's Ted. You 

6 can just go ahead and close it. I mean, it won't 

7 be reflected until they -- I mean, it's the same 

8 thing to put it in -- well, it's just a -- it's fine. 

9 I think you can close it. Set one up and they will.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. Write 

11 approve/close.

12 MR. KATZ: And then SC&A doesn't need 

13 to do any more on that, right.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right. Okay, any 

15 -- and well, with that, I guess all the Board 

16 Members, do you approve closing out Number 1?

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

18 MEMBER FIELD: Fine, yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, let's go on to 

20 Finding Number 2 then John.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes, Finding Number 

22 2, the issue had to do with uranium enrichment. 
 

13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The original material provided in the Site Profile, 

2 there was not very much said regarding -- see, when 

3 you're reporting on uranium, in bioassay samples 

4 or air samples, you could do it either in, you know, 

5 milligrams per liter or you could do it in dpm per 

6 liter.

7 When you're dealing with the 

8 milligrams, it's important that you specify the 

9 enrichment because the conversion into picocuries 

10 or becquerels per liter, it depends very much on 

11 the level of enrichment.

12 And I believe there was some ambiguity 

13 or incompleteness in the description of the level 

14 of enrichment in U-235 in some of the samples. So 

15 we just simply asked, could you give us a little 

16 more information. That would be helpful.

17 And they did. NIOSH has some 

18 explanatory material here related to those samples 

19 where they used fluorometric analysis, which would 

20 give you milligrams. And it seems to me that they 

21 were, I guess their plans are to provide some, a 

22 new section to the Site Profile, as I understand 
 

14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the response. A new section 5.2.2.4, which talks 

2 about this.

3 And it certainly looks very 

4 claimant-favorable because where the information 

5 is lacking, they're going to assume, and please 

6 clarify if I got this wrong, but it looks like 

7 you're prepared to assume a 93 percent enrichment 

8 is going to be a default when you don't have other 

9 information.

10 And as far as SC&A is concerned, that 

11 certainly is a claimant-favorable and appropriate 

12 approach, and fully responsive to our concerns.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any other 

14 questions or comments by NIOSH?

15 (No response)

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So the 5.2.2.4, 

17 that verbiage there is now going to be added in as 

18 I understand it.

19 DR. HUGHES: Yes, this is Lara. Yes, 

20 it would be added to the next iteration of the 

21 Technical Basis Document.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And any other 
 

15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comments or questions by the other Board Members?

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No. Approve. 

3 That's absolutely claimant-favorable. 

4 Generously claimant-favorable, and that's fine.

5 MEMBER FIELD: They look fine.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. It does 

7 seem to me that in the last paragraph there that 

8 they frequently used highly enriched certainly 

9 would support -- I mean it's claimant-favorable.

10 The question that I would have is, you 

11 know, is it a reasonable set of assumptions? I 

12 think that was the only thing to put in a little 

13 more quantitative if there is any information on 

14 why you would assume that 93 percent.

15 While that is claimant-favorable, it 

16 would be nice to have that it is firmly, you know, 

17 a good foundation information on it. With that I 

18 would say let's close this one out. I think 

19 because the statement is -- certainly covers the 

20 area. It will help in the dose reconstruction for 

21 individuals.

22 So, everyone is in agreement, we're 
 

16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to close out Finding Number 2 as well?

2 MEMBER FIELD: That sounds good.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Finding 

5 Number 3.

6 DR. MAURO: Number 3 is the -- the 

7 concern that SC&A expressed has to do with 

8 performing dose reconstructions prior to 1959. 

9 And NIOSH correctly responded well.

10 Prior to 1960, internal doses cannot be 

11 reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. And 

12 therefore, the approach to be used, you know, as 

13 usual, if you have some data on a person, certainly 

14 it will be used.

15 But, other than that, the position is 

16 their internal exposures, the doses, you know, 

17 cannot be reconstructed. And so I guess, you know 

18 -- but the only confusion I had, and I could use 

19 a little help here from NIOSH is, in getting -- in 

20 preparing for this meeting, I went back to look at 

21 the position regarding the SEC for external 

22 exposure.
 

17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I have to admit that on -- I could 

2 use a little clarification on what the SEC position 

3 is on that. I quite frankly, I didn't dig deep 

4 enough to just -- to tease out Parks from Apollo 

5 and your position regarding dose reconstruction 

6 for external exposure.

7 Can you help me out a little bit with 

8 that?

9 DR. HUGHES: This is Lara. Yes, the 

10 external for Parks at the point where it's not 

11 thoroughly evaluated during the SEC evaluation 

12 because the infeasibility was clearly driven by the 

13 internal infeasibility.

14 And since both sites shared the 

15 monitoring program, we already knew when we did the 

16 Apollo evaluation, that the same issues would 

17 translate to the Parks facility.

18 So, our position is that external can 

19 be done if monitoring data is available. Which in 

20 some cases there is, especially in the later years, 

21 in the 70s, there is a number of workers that had 

22 external data.
 

18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, I am correct 

2 then. Because I'm looking over the -- our review. 

3 And I really, right in the beginning summarize the 

4 reasons for assigning an SEC.

5 And they were all -- except for neutron, 

6 like some neutron exposures, there was a 

7 uranium/beryllium statement. It appeared that 

8 the reason for the SEC was virtually entirely due 

9 to internal.

10 But, I may have missed that. So, 

11 you're saying that external -- inability to 

12 reconstruct external exposure at both facilities 

13 is also the reasons for the SEC?

14 Because I wasn't sure whether you were 

15 saying that, yes, we believe we can reconstruct or 

16 cannot reconstruct external exposures. And what 

17 I just heard you say is that your position is that 

18 you cannot.

19 And, but you will of course when you do 

20 have data. Would that be a correct statement?

21 DR. HUGHES: Yes. In a sense, the 

22 infeasibility is driven by the internal. And then 
 

19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at this point, we're kind of left to decide what 

2 to do with the external.

3 In some cases we can do the external. 

4 But there's also cases where we can't do it.

5 DR. MAURO: I think that from that --

6 let me help clarify. You will see as we move 

7 through, we will have lots of questions. And we 

8 have had and we continue to want to discuss a number 

9 of questions regarding external/internal.

10 But, I think it's important that we all 

11 understand is within the context of granting SEC, 

12 that an SEC has been granted for both reasons: 

13 external and internal. So, our questions are 

14 going to be more along the line of when you do have 

15 data, and you do plan to reconstruct the doses for 

16 people when you can, which is, by the way, 

17 commendable.

18 That is, every effort clearly -- I want 

19 to make it clear to everyone, that this is one of 

20 the -- I believe this might have been one of the 

21 Site Profiles where NIOSH really did everything 

22 they possibly can to try to explain how we're going 
 

20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to reconstruct doses when we think we can.

2 In other words, given that there's a 

3 broad SEC granted, nevertheless, a great deal of 

4 attention was given to how are we going to do 

5 though, internal and external exposures when we do 

6 have some data?

7 And so, it's within that context, which 

8 is an important context. And so, most of our 

9 comments and the responses have to be viewed within 

10 -- with a perspective that everything is being done 

11 on both -- all of us are trying our best to find 

12 when you do have data, what's the best approach to 

13 use.

14 And so, but I think that's to be 

15 commended. And that is really a concerted effort 

16 is being made here to try to find ways to -- to 

17 assign some dose, at least as much as you can, to 

18 these workers who are not covered by the SEC.

19 So, now that being the case, Finding 3, 

20 we agree with NIOSH that the -- it's not needed. 

21 In other words, we could withdraw or close out 

22 Finding 3, simply because it goes towards guidance 
 

21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on how doses would be performed prior to '59.

2 But quite -- you know, and it appears 

3 to me, if I'm correct that what you're really saying 

4 here is that, you know, an SEC has been granted. 

5 And what the -- it's not that you -- the answer says, 

6 you know, well, since an SEC was granted, there's 

7 no need for us to address this question.

8 But, in reality is you do plan to 

9 reconstruct doses when you can. And really, it's 

10 the remaining, starting from 4 on, where you get 

11 into quite a bit of detail on how in fact you are 

12 going to reconstruct doses.

13 So, I guess Finding 3 is just -- and I 

14 don't know if anyone else wants to weigh in on this, 

15 is really not needed within the context with which 

16 we're reviewing and discussing this particular 

17 Site Profile.

18 DR. NETON: Yes, John, this is Jim. I 

19 just want to point out one thing related to the 

20 external feasibility, which seemed to be one of the 

21 issues you had with this.

22 The SEC Evaluation Report for NUMEC 
 

22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Apollo was an 83.13. Which means that it was a 

2 petition that came in that we evaluated.

3 And in those type of evaluations, we do 

4 all modes of exposure and feasibility analysis. 

5 And you will see on page 18 of that report, it 

6 clearly says reconstruction is not feasible for 

7 both internal and external from this.

8 Now, when you get to the SEC evaluation 

9 for NUMEC, it was an 83.14. And those are treated 

10 somewhat differently in a sense that, you know, 

11 those are self-initiated by NIOSH. We find a 

12 litmus case and the SEC proceeds from there.

13 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt Jim. 

14 When you said NUMEC, did you mean Apollo or did you 

15 mean NUMEC?

16 DR. NETON: In this 83.14 for Parks 

17 Township.

18 DR. MAURO: Parks. Okay. I see. 

19 You said -- yes. Okay. So for Parks it's a -- so 

20 Parks is a -- I'm sorry, I'll let you continue.

21 DR. NETON: An 83.14. So in those 

22 83.14s, we don't normally evaluate, we just go as 
 

23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 far as it can to determine the infeasibility. In 

2 this case it was driven by internal.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 DR. NETON: But, if you look under 

5 Section 6.2 of the feasibility of estimated 

6 external exposures in the NUMEC Evaluation Report, 

7 it says that -- I'll just read the paragraph.

8 As mentioned in Section 5.2, NIOSH has 

9 external monitoring data starting in 1961. NIOSH 

10 intends to use any available external monitoring 

11 data that may reside in an individual's file and 

12 that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

13 reconstruction processes and procedures to support 

14 partial external dose reconstructions for 

15 claimants not qualifying for inclusion in the SEC.

16 In that paragraph, I think it's pretty 

17 clear that the external was also considered, that 

18 we would just use what was in the files to do dose 

19 reconstructions.

20 I think it's as Lara said, the origin 

21 of the external was from the same source.

22 DR. MAURO: Are the implications then 
 

24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that no attempt is made to develop a coworker model? 

2 I mean, when all is said and done, once you move 

3 into SEC world -- and we may get into this a little 

4 bit more.

5 But, it was my understanding that --

6 well, that once we're in SEC world, you don't really 

7 try to develop a coworker model. You say, well 

8 listen, we'll do it when we can.

9 Is that the circumstances we're dealing 

10 with here?

11 DR. NETON: That's the situation here.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. Very good. By the 

13 way, for every -- other people's benefit, there are 

14 -- there have been circumstances where -- I have 

15 seen coworker models attempted in SEC world.

16 But, it doesn't apply here. So, this 

17 is a subject for, I guess, a future discussion. 

18 Under what circumstances would you try to build the 

19 coworker model for performing certain doses, you 

20 know, when it, let's say for internal exposure?

21 Well, anyway --

22 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. John, this is 
 

25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Ted. I think you're mistaken.

2 DR. MAURO: Go ahead.

3 MR. KATZ: Where there's an SEC granted 

4 for say internal, we don't do -- they do not do 

5 coworker models for that dose that is infeasible.

6 DR. MAURO: For that particular one.

7 MR. KATZ: So, it's always -- and they 

8 always do, though, they always use whatever records 

9 they have in the files.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: For people who actually, you 

12 know, have recorded dose and so on. But they --

13 this is just standard business really for any site.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Well, you're -- I may be 

17 jumping the gun. But, I think there is one place 

18 here where we found that there is considerable data 

19 that we're going to talk about.

20 Whether or not -- I don't know what to 

21 do with something like this where it looks like 

22 perhaps there is a possibility of a coworker model. 
 

26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I don't know what quite. You know, but we'll 

2 discuss that one.

3 MR. BARTON: Yes, John, this is Bob. 

4 Maybe while this is on the table right now --

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 MR. BARTON: We could kind of get some 

7 clarification on this point. Because I guess I was 

8 not aware of or had never seen a case where the 

9 external dose feasibility wasn't necessarily 

10 explicitly evaluated but was a priori assumed to 

11 be infeasible. And that's the case with Parks.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 MR. BARTON: It was external was 

14 evaluated for Apollo. And then I guess, and thank 

15 you, Jim, for the clarification about 83.13 versus 

16 .14.

17 In the case of Parks, they evaluated the 

18 internal and found it infeasible. And then, it 

19 sort of stopped there. But maybe an unintended 

20 side effect of that is, it's quite poss -- we just 

21 don't know about the external because it was never 

22 actually evaluated.
 

27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, we're sort of assuming that it's 

2 infeasible. Which pretty much takes any chance of 

3 a coworker model off of the table. And I guess I 

4 had never seen that before where -- and the 

5 justification is not a bad one necessarily that, 

6 listen, these sites were kind of sister sites. 

7 They were -- it was the same health and safety 

8 programs. So, one can expect that if at one site 

9 the external dosimetry was not good enough that it 

10 would be also not good enough at the other site.

11 But, the fact that it was never 

12 evaluated was rather strange to me. And I wasn't 

13 aware of any situations where that had necessarily 

14 had come up before.

15 DR. HUGHES: This is Lara. I may add 

16 that when we're reviewing health and safety files 

17 from Parks and Apollo, we can't actually -- often 

18 we can't even tell which site they're on.

19 It's basically we look at the entirety 

20 of the health and safety records for Parks and 

21 Apollo. These sites were operated by the same 

22 contractor.
 

28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I wouldn't go as far as saying they 

2 were not evaluated. We've already done the 

3 evaluation for the Apollo site, and we knew that 

4 the Parks site was faced with the same issues, 

5 internal and external because we did look at the 

6 data that was available at the time.

7 MR. BARTON: And maybe this is simply, 

8 I guess, maybe an administrative or paperwork 

9 thing. But, the actual recommendations from the 

10 Advisory Board and the official report from HHS 

11 only says internal for the Parks.

12 And I guess maybe that needs to be 

13 revised. And perhaps with the position statement 

14 that you just made. That, listen, the first time 

15 around we didn't explicitly say that no external, 

16 because I mean, I'm looking at the official HHS 

17 report and point tests is the last point.

18 It says NIOSH can reconstruct external 

19 dose, occupational medical dose and certain 

20 internal dose. That's for Parks.

21 So, as the paperwork I guess stands 

22 right now, external is still on the table even 
 

29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 though, you know, for good reasons, one could 

2 assume that it's probably infeasible to do.

3 But, I'm not sure that it's ever, I 

4 guess officially been documented that it was 

5 evaluated and found infeasible.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Let -- Dave 

7 Kotelchuck. Let me ask. There may well be 

8 situations in which we grant an SEC and there are 

9 no partials that come up.

10 And implicit in what you're saying is 

11 that we should at the committee level, we should 

12 go ahead and plan for partials, and make the 

13 decision that needs to be made for the dose 

14 reconstruction on partials.

15 And it just seems to me adding a layer 

16 of work that may not be necessary. The Committee 

17 will always be there. And if partials come up, 

18 where issues come up that we haven't dealt with, 

19 then it seems to me we could talk about those.

20 But to do it for every single case, when 

21 in many cases, for particularly smaller shops, 

22 there won't be partials. It happens that there 
 

30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 won't be partials.

2 Then, I would say we shouldn't worry 

3 about having the partials done. Or how we would 

4 do the partials if there were partial claimants 

5 that we came upon.

6 MR. BARTON: I think I understand what 

7 -- I guess our main concern was that since the way 

8 the SEC is worded for Parks, it does not include 

9 an infeasibility necessarily for external that it 

10 still leaves open a possibility that you could 

11 create a coworker model for unwanted or external 

12 portions of --

13 DR. NETON: Well, I think if you look 

14 at 83.14s in general, you're going to see that's 

15 a fairly consistent pattern. I mean, you know, the 

16 SEC has been added and we end up, as the language 

17 usually says, doing what we can do.

18 DR. MAURO: You know, this is an 

19 interesting policy decision. And I think well, we 

20 may get to it again I guess later on when we get 

21 down to this issue.

22 But, we have an interesting 
 

31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 circumstance. And I'm not saying we're 

2 conclusionary here. I think this is -- we're in 

3 the mode of discussion right now.

4 But, Bob, you had looked pretty closely 

5 at the data that was available for Parks, I believe. 

6 And I understand the comment you just made, namely 

7 well, to just leave and say well, because Apollo, 

8 you know in one case is 83.13.

9 Now, when you get an 83.14, let me see 

10 if we get this right now. You get an 83.14, there's 

11 a -- and I guess what triggers that is an individual 

12 that you were not able to reconstruct the dose, and 

13 therefore it triggers an SEC for that particular 

14 scenario. Let's say it's an external dose.

15 Now, you're going to have to help me 

16 with this, and bear with me. But if it turns out 

17 that, you know, you look at that one individual and 

18 you can't do it.

19 But let's say you look at collectively, 

20 let's look at all the data for Parks. And say wait 

21 a minute. Hold the presses. There's a lot of data 

22 out there.
 

32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Is it possible we could build a coworker 

2 model, which would pick up this person who perhaps 

3 you're having a problem with. So, could you help 

4 me out a little bit with that? And in other words, 

5 when you conclude an 83.14, --

6 DR. NETON: John, there's a couple of 

7 flavors there. One is, as Ted mentioned earlier, 

8 it's say for instance we can't reconstruct thorium 

9 exposure.

10 Then it's all thorium exposures for 

11 everybody regardless of who they are unless they 

12 have specific monitoring data available. That's 

13 been consistent from the beginning of the process.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes.

15 DR. NETON: Now, if you're talking 

16 about, you know, it's an SEC based on thorium, and 

17 then can we reconstruct external, that's a 

18 different issue.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

20 DR. NETON: But, until now, we have 

21 done the best we can do for those types of 

22 exposures. But the Board has typically not 
 

33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evaluated every single modality of exposure, you 

2 know, to see if it can be or cannot be 

3 reconstructed.

4 DR. MAURO: You know, it's 

5 interesting. I mean, with thorium from our 

6 experience, it's often -- well, it becomes clear 

7 that thorium was problematic.

8 And you know, when you find it for one 

9 person, there's a very good chance, you know, that 

10 you don't have data for everyone. The 

11 circumstances under which the exposures occurred.

12 So, I can see an 83.14 going --

13 triggering -- being triggered for the inability to 

14 reconstruct internal exposures in thorium.

15 I guess I would like a -- one of the 

16 things we'd like to talk about some more, and again, 

17 remember, I'm not being conclusionary here. Is 

18 that if you did an 83.14 for a person on external, 

19 let's say at Parks. But then we went ahead, and 

20 Bob, you can help me out a little bit here, just 

21 took a look at. Well, let's see, you know, what 

22 kind of data are there for external?
 

34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because, you know, very often for 

2 external, unlike thorium, for external, you may 

3 have a considerable amount of data that will allow 

4 you to build a coworker model once with the internal 

5 thorium, we know that that doesn't happen, or 

6 certainly I haven't experienced it.

7 But, the external is a different beast. 

8 And I guess I just want to talk a little bit more 

9 about that. When you decided to -- in a funny sort 

10 of way what I'm saying is my only concern is this, 

11 when you trigger an SEC, let's say in this case 

12 external, certainly, you know, that's very 

13 favorable for the petitioners and the claimants.

14 But, at the same time, if there's any 

15 aspect to it that perhaps maybe you, you know, you 

16 can build a coworker model. And here's where 

17 things get interesting. You know, in effect what 

18 you're saying is well, reality is, maybe there's 

19 sufficient data out there to build a coworker 

20 model.

21 And that picks up all the people with 

22 the other cancers that are not covered. If you 
 

35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think you can build a coworker model.

2 So, we're in a place right now that 

3 we're looking at the other data. And we're seeing 

4 a considerable amount of other data on external. 

5 And I guess we're -- that's one of the areas where 

6 we'd like to follow up a little further with you 

7 on, you know, whether or not, you know, there is 

8 such a deficit in external dosimetry data that that 

9 really can't be done and a coworker model can't be 

10 built. And I guess at this point in the process, 

11 we're in a funny position in saying that we'd like 

12 to take a little closer look at that.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, let's --

14 we're having a -- this is an interesting discussion 

15 on -- but I think I really want to get us back to, 

16 we're looking at the TBD here, the Site Profile. 

17 And is there something that needs to be 

18 added or modified in the Site Profile to provide 

19 that guidance, or identifying what data is 

20 available and, you know, how that is then applied 

21 is somewhat of a different issue that's the use of 

22 the TBD.
 

36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, the thing is for me is for the --

2 is this response where you say on how to perform 

3 the dose reconstruction. The Finding 3, in 

4 response to it, but does that mean there's going 

5 to be some modification within the TBD to provide 

6 greater detail?

7 Or, I mean, I agree with what the 

8 statement is, and that's how it's -- I think that's 

9 a discussion that's done that. How it is done and 

10 how it's applied.

11 But, the question to me is, is it 

12 sufficiently descriptive in the TBD so when 

13 somebody picks it up to start to do -- use it for 

14 dose reconstruction, they have the guidance 

15 written down that they need rather than just the 

16 -- this is how we've done it in other circumstances.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I think that 

18 Finding 3 can be withdrawn or closed. And the 

19 reason I'm saying that is if the next series of 

20 findings that actually go toward this question. 

21 So, effect --

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, let's do 
 

37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that then. Board Members have -- I mean, this is 

2 -- it's a start and I see where you're going on this, 

3 John. That now you get into each of the individual 

4 older areas.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Andy, this is Doug. I 

6 just question and I was curious about it. The 

7 methodology is going to be based on evaluating the 

8 plutonium that was processed and then reviewing 

9 existing claims.

10 I was just curious, is there a good 

11 cross-section of existing claims with plutonium 

12 bioassay?

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Anyone answer 

14 that?

15 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I don't know. 

16 I mean, I've not looked at that in detail. I'm sure 

17 -- what was your question related to though? I 

18 mean, is there a lot of people that would have 

19 plutonium bioassay?

20 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, in Number 3 here, 

21 it says that the methodology is going to affect the 

22 quantity of plutonium processed, evaluate all 
 

38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitored exposures as well as reviewing existing 

2 claims with plutonium bioassay.

3 I was just wondering how many claims, 

4 like there will be a cross-section of claims with 

5 plutonium bioassay? If this methodology is going 

6 to be based on that information.

7 DR. NETON: Where are you reading from, 

8 Bill? I'm confused. This is Finding 3?

9 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: I don't see our response 

11 saying we're evaluating existing plutonium 

12 bioassay.

13 MEMBER FIELD: Right. You don't see 

14 that?

15 DR. NETON: No, I'm on page four of our 

16 response.

17 MEMBER FIELD: Maybe I'm in the wrong 

18 place.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You may be on the 

20 next one.

21 MEMBER FIELD: I probably am. Okay, 

22 well that's -- hold off on that one then.
 

39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: And I understand what John 

2 is getting at here. And you know, we probably 

3 would want to do the best we can for the claimants, 

4 given the bioassay data available.

5 I think this is a unique situation in 

6 the sense that even though these are physically 

7 different facilities -- and they're different 

8 facilities because they have physically different 

9 locations, they shared the same radiological 

10 monitoring program.

11 They had a single dosimetry program at 

12 NUMEC. There wasn't one for Parks and one for 

13 Apollo that I'm aware of, at least.

14 And so this is sort of a unique 

15 situation. And how much one could tease out the 

16 exposures at Parks versus Apollo given that, I 

17 think is -- it could be interesting to pursue.

18 I don't know if at the end of the day 

19 it's going to work out that we can do it. But, I 

20 understand what you're saying, John. And we'd 

21 certainly be interested to hear your thoughts on 

22 that.
 

40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, again, this is a fairly unique 

2 situation where you've got a site with one single 

3 Site Profile, one single radiological program.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And two sites, 

5 yes.

6 DR. NETON: And two sites.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Two physical 

8 locations.

9 DR. NETON: Two physical locations 

10 with the same program, monitoring program. So,

11 I'm interested to hear this cache of data that 

12 you've discovered that you feel is uniquely 

13 applicable to Parks Township.

14 DR. HUGHES: This is Lara. We're 

15 looking at a similar situation with the Santa 

16 Susana sites where, you know, we found it's very, 

17 very difficult to do a coworker model for one site 

18 and not the other.

19 At the Santa Susana site, it's another 

20 with a Health and Safety Program that's shared by 

21 four sites, I believe. So, we have found from that 

22 point that it's very difficult to do that.
 

41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: And so, if you in fact can't 

2 tell which workers were in which location and 

3 getting which exposures, then I would suggest that 

4 it's not doable.

5 But, again, we're open to hearing 

6 SC&A's --

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, well let's 

8 close out Number 3 then. It seems to be the next 

9 four or five findings that really just elaborate 

10 on Number 3, so.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, let's close 

13 out Number 3 if everyone agrees and move onto Number 

14 4.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Agreed.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

17 DR. MAURO: Okay. Then I'll pick up on 

18 4. Four has to do with the reconstruction of the 

19 internal dose of uranium. And when you look at 

20 that, there really are two sides to that coin.

21 One is during operations. And one is 

22 during the residual period. It is our 
 

42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understanding it is NIOSH's position that you can 

2 reconstruct uranium intakes and doses after 1960 

3 for operations. And of course also during the 

4 residual period.

5 And one -- we've sort of confounded two 

6 things here, and I want to tease them apart. When 

7 it comes to, let's just talk about the residual, 

8 because that's the easy one.

9 The residual period, one of our 

10 findings is -- and which is, you know, and I believe 

11 NIOSH agrees with this, is that you know, once 

12 you're into the residual period and you have 

13 general air sampling data, airborne concentrations 

14 of uranium, not breathing zones, but general. 

15 That's the number you should use during the 

16 residual period.

17 So, we're fine with that, and it looks 

18 like NIOSH is fine with that.

19 But this question goes to more than just 

20 the residual period. It actually goes toward the 

21 operational period post 1960.

22 Now, and please clarify if I get this 
 

43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wrong, but it was my understanding that one of the 

2 things you're going to do is take advantage of 

3 breathing zone samples. I think you have bioassay 

4 and breathing zone samples.

5 And you take advantage of breathing 

6 zone samples and come up with intakes. And under 

7 those circumstances, we just simply raise the 

8 question regarding the uncertainty.

9 And we've been through this quite 

10 extensively if you remember on Fernald. And Davis 

11 and Strom addressed the question of uncertainty in 

12 reconstructing internal doses from daily weighted 

13 exposure from breathing zone.

14 And I believe your answer answers this, 

15 but I just wanted to make sure I understood it. So, 

16 when it comes to reconstructing internal exposure 

17 to uranium post 1960, during operations, you will 

18 be using, you know, the breathing zone DWAs where 

19 applicable.

20 And also a GSD of five to account for 

21 uncertainty. If that's the case, as far as I'm 

22 concerned, this issue has been resolved.
 

44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do believe that's 

2 correct.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think that's 

4 what it says, yes.

5 DR. MAURO: Well, that's what it says, 

6 but you know why? Because there's a 

7 cross-pollination between general air and the 

8 residual period. And it's not very clear that that 

9 distinction is being made here.

10 That's the only confusion. And I don't 

11 think the two different aspects, operation versus 

12 residual, has been separated.

13 And in one case you're using general 

14 air, residual period. In the other one, you're 

15 going to use breathing zone. And when you use 

16 breathing zone, and that would be during operation, 

17 you will use a GSD of five.

18 And that was my -- you know, that was 

19 what I interpreted from reading this. I just 

20 wanted to make sure that was clear. And then that 

21 was confirmed.

22 MR. STRENGE: This is Dennis Strenge. 
 

45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think that's not quite clear in our revised TBD. 

2 I need to take another look at that. And make sure 

3 that's spelled out specifically.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, by the way, just for 

5 my -- again, my own information, for the post '60 

6 period, are you heavily relying on bioassay or 

7 breathing zone? I'd have to go back and look 

8 again.

9 MR. STRENGE: Well, we use whatever we 

10 have.

11 DR. MAURO: You use what you have.

12 MR. STRENGE: And it's usually not 

13 much.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay. Okay. But 

15 this is one of the areas now, uranium intake post 

16 '60 that is one of the areas where you can 

17 reconstruct the exposures.

18 And it doesn't fall under this where you 

19 would build a coworker model if need be. In other 

20 words, you know, if you need -- if you don't have 

21 complete data, but you are claiming that you can 

22 reconstruct uranium intakes and exposures post 
 

46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1960 and also during the residual period.

2 And this is the approach you plan to 

3 use. Is that a correct statement?

4 MR. STRENGE: Yes, I believe so.

5 DR. MAURO: That being the case, do you 

6 think there's a need, and now, you may have done 

7 this. But, I mean, for a coworker model. And we 

8 -- okay, we're going to do it.

9 And unlike when, you know, when you're 

10 doing -- when you're in SEC world you don't build 

11 a coworker model. But for this particular aspect 

12 of it I believe there might be a need for a coworker 

13 model.

14 And forgive me if you've already 

15 addressed this and it's already there in detail. 

16 But, is there a coworker model for post 1960 uranium 

17 when you don't have complete data for a particular 

18 worker for example?

19 DR. HUGHES: There is currently no 

20 coworker model that is planned.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. Let's talk a little 

22 bit about that. Because I think this is an issue 
 

47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we're interested in. Given that uranium

2 intakes can be -- you know, is not covered by the 

3 SEC post '60, that is -- this is something that 

4 you're going to do if you had to.

5 The implications are very often, do you 

6 need a coworker model? And the answer usually is, 

7 well, you really don't need a coworker model if you 

8 have a complete set of data for the workers that 

9 might have been exposed to uranium.

10 And when you don't, now -- so, the issue 

11 then becomes, is it NIOSH's position that you 

12 really don't need a coworker model here? Or 

13 something that you can maybe you should take a look 

14 at?

15 DR. HUGHES: Based on the Apollo 

16 Evaluation Reports where the -- it stated that 

17 uranium is feasible. There's also disclaimers 

18 that that's for the -- the reconstruction for 

19 uranium internally is feasible for the time periods 

20 where uranium bioassay data is available.

21 DR. MAURO: No, I understand that. 

22 Which means of course when you have the data 
 

48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available, you could reconstruct the person's 

2 doses.

3 But, in many cases there could be 

4 workers that don't have data. We don't have 

5 bioassay data or breathing zone data and you're 

6 confronted with the circumstance of how are we 

7 going to assign doses to this worker?

8 And, you know, if it's your -- I'm not 

9 being, again, I'm not being conclusionary. I'm 

10 just saying that this is something we would want 

11 to look at.

12 If you don't have a coworker model for 

13 uranium, one of the things we will be doing, here's 

14 an area where, Ted, the reason I had to preface some 

15 of my remarks, that there are going to be certain 

16 areas where we're going to want to look a little 

17 more closely at.

18 And this is one of them. Namely, if 

19 it's NIOSH's position that they don't have a 

20 coworker model for uranium and they don't need one, 

21 we're going to want to look a little more closely 

22 at that.
 

49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim again. 

2 And this is an area where I think we've had this 

3 discussion in the past.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 DR. NETON: Just because there are 

6 bioassay data doesn't mean there is sufficient data 

7 to develop a coworker model that's sufficiently 

8 accurate. I mean, you know, we have not gone to 

9 great lengths to establish coworker models when 

10 there's an SEC granted based on, say, thorium or 

11 plutonium.

12 A lot of it has to do with the amount 

13 of available data. I mean, there are some sites 

14 where, you know, let's take Fernald is probably not 

15 a good example because I'm conflicted there.

16 But there are sites that have an 

17 abundance of uranium monitoring data. And they 

18 happen to work with some thorium and we can't 

19 reconstruct for thorium.

20 And we have a huge database where you 

21 can develop, you know, geometric means and GSDs and 

22 we've done that in many instances. But in cases 
 

50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where we don't have an abundance of monitoring 

2 data, we just have some workers, we don't know if 

3 it was the highest-exposed workers.

4 In other words, if we tried to use the 

5 criteria of the implementation, the draft 

6 implementation guide against those data, it would 

7 fail. And so, are those sufficiently accurate 

8 coworker models? And you know, --

9 DR. MAURO: You can see then why my 

10 concern is, because then that means that one of the 

11 reasons for the SEC is you can't reconstruct 

12 internal exposures post 1960 with sufficient 

13 accuracy. You wouldn't need -- and I would accept 

14 that.

15 That is, if you're position -- but right 

16 now it's my understanding that that's not one of 

17 the reasons why. Yet --

18 DR. NETON: Well, this gets into an 

19 issue we've discussed before. Does an SEC have to 

20 identify every single infeasibility? You know, 

21 you can't grant another SEC for uranium since 

22 there's already an SEC based on plutonium.
 

51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It's just not possible, I don't think.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, you're 

3 helping me out a little bit. Because you see, the 

4 way I was looking at it is, if you claim you can 

5 reconstruct internal exposures to uranium, the 

6 implications are that, you know, for every worker 

7 that had the potential to be exposed to uranium, 

8 you could reconstruct those exposures.

9 And which might very well mean that --

10 you see, I'm thinking about the guys --

11 DR. NETON: I don't know if that's 

12 necessarily true. I guess maybe that's the 

13 central issue here.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. That is the central 

15 issue. See, I'm thinking about the guy who's not 

16 covered by the SEC. And you're going to have to 

17 do your best to reconstruct his exposures.

18 And one of his exposures may very well 

19 be post-1960, the inhalation of uranium. I mean, 

20 you're not going to do thorium. But, your position 

21 is that you think, you know, you can do uranium.

22 And so I -- say what you are you going 
 

52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to -- you know, how are you going to assign the 

2 various I guess, ET-1, ET-2, prostate, skin and 

3 others? Some of which, perhaps uranium intake 

4 could be not an insignificant contribution.

5 DR. NETON: Well, if we're not, 

6 remember, these are non-presumptive cancers that 

7 we're talking about.

8 DR. MAURO: Right.

9 DR. NETON: And they're not -- you 

10 know, most of the metabolic cancers are covered in 

11 the SEC. So you're going to reconstruct doses with 

12 almost no dose for the numbers.

13 It doesn't mean you shouldn't 

14 reconstruct it, but the doses are going to be very 

15 low for those.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. You may very well be 

17 correct. But is ET-1 and ET-2 also part of -- is 

18 not covered by SEC, right?

19 DR. NETON: Any of those pharyngeal?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think that --

21 correct me if I'm wrong, I know prostate and skin 

22 are not covered by the SEC. But I seem to recall 
 

53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ET-1 and ET-2.

2 DR. NETON: I think they are, but --

3 DR. MAURO: They are? Okay. Then --

4 DR. NETON: Let's not talk about that --

5 DR. MAURO: Well, that -- but that's 

6 not -- that's not really -- well, you're right.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave Kotelchuck. 

8 Question for John Mauro. Do we have such cases for 

9 NUMEC now? I'm asking concretely, not abstractly.

10 Do we have such cases where we need to 

11 do a partial reconstruction? And we may well have. 

12 But I want to be sure this isn't --

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There's definitely 

14 cases that had to do a partial. Let me pull up the 

15 exact numbers here.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So this is 

17 a substantial issue here? If we have some, that's 

18 --

19 DR. MAURO: The issue really goes to are 

20 there a number of cases where we have a worker who 

21 was exposed to uranium post-1960, but he was not 

22 -- his doses were not reconstructed because we 
 

54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't have any data for him, but we suspect that 

2 he might have been exposed. That's really the 

3 issue. If you have data then you're going to 

4 reconstruct it.

5 But, our position is that well, if there 

6 are a number of workers that perhaps did get exposed 

7 to uranium, but you're not going to reconstruct 

8 those doses post-1960 because you can't do thorium.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I guess, so my 

10 point of view, if there are cases and we can do a 

11 reconstruction, then we should do it. We have to 

12 do it.

13 But, I'm just concerned that there are 

14 many situations in which, for small or moderate 

15 size facilities, we don't have such claims.

16 DR. MAURO: I understand what you're 

17 saying. If it's not relevant, it's not relevant. 

18 I mean, we don't have that circumstance.

19 And Rose, if you could help us out a 

20 little bit, that would be good. But, even if, you 

21 know, this is something that again, that we'd like 

22 to look at a little bit.
 

55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I don't -- you know, I want to make 

2 sure that everyone sees that there's some wisdom 

3 to this, some virtue to try to look into this.

4 And if we do have a number of workers 

5 that could very well have been exposed to uranium, 

6 but you don't actually have any data that will allow 

7 you to reconstruct his doses, do you try to build 

8 a coworker model for him so that you can at least 

9 assign some doses to him for uranium post-1960?

10 And that's really the question.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: And we would, you know, --

13 DR. NETON: John, I would submit that 

14 the coworker models you would reconstruct would 

15 have to meet the same standards as you would for 

16 a coworker model where SECs are not granted. And 

17 then that becomes problematic.

18 You get a lot of these sites with small 

19 amounts of data. And you can't really develop a 

20 coworker model.

21 DR. MAURO: Well, and then I would 

22 agree with you if that was one of the reasons why 
 

56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they granted the SEC.

2 DR. NETON: I'm say that I don't think 

3 that every infeasibility needs to be identified in 

4 the SEC that way. I mean, what you're suggesting 

5 is every single nuance must be identified before 

6 the SEC Class can move forward.

7 And what we've been doing for a number 

8 of years now is identifying the major ones. Or 

9 identifying what we can and cannot do. And doing, 

10 as we always say, the best we can do given the data 

11 that are available for the other nuclides.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, let me postulate a 

13 circumstance while Rose is checking these. Let's 

14 say we have a large group of workers post -- in this 

15 case post-1960, where you suspect it could very 

16 well have had some uranium exposure, especially at 

17 a site like this.

18 But, you're not going through -- and 

19 he's not covered by the SEC because of the type of 

20 cancer, your position is that well because we 

21 granted an SEC based on thorium, there's no need 

22 to try to build a coworker model.
 

57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: That's not what I said.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 DR. NETON: I said the coworker model 

4 has to pass the same litmus test or criteria as we 

5 would for a non-SEC site.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. Then I would --

7 DR. NETON: Then you would say, let's 

8 develop a coworker model --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: Because we want to be nice 

11 people. It has to pass certain scientific tests.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. Are you saying now 

13 that right now you don't believe you can construct 

14 a coworker model for the uranium workers, then?

15 DR. NETON: I'm not sure exactly what 

16 we're doing at Parks. I thought I heard some 

17 indication that we're taking these samples and 

18 applying a GSD of five. Is that not correct?

19 DR. MAURO: That would be the breathing 

20 zone. Right, yes. That would be a cowork -- I 

21 mean, it started --

22 DR. NETON: Help me out here, I thought 
 

58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's what we said we were doing?

2 MR. STRENGE: Well, that's if we have 

3 the breathing zone data for a particular 

4 individual.

5 DR. NETON: Exactly.

6 DR. MAURO: But what about just in 

7 general? I know in the past you've used breathing 

8 zone data to say well, you know, for a Class of 

9 workers we've applied this geometric mean, 

10 geometric standard deviation and it would be a 

11 coworker model.

12 And that -- so there is where I guess 

13 a little clarification --

14 DR. NETON: No, I think that the -- at 

15 the end of the day, I think what has to happen, John, 

16 is someone, maybe this is where we're missing.

17 We have to look at the data to determine 

18 whether or not coworker models are feasible that 

19 way.

20 DR. MAURO: Fair enough.

21 DR. NETON: Okay. I would agree with 

22 you.
 

59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 DR. NETON: You can't just -- I agree 

3 that you can't just throw up your hands and say 

4 well, it's an SEC, we're not doing anything. But 

5 in many of these cases, and I think there's a number 

6 of them, there aren't sufficient data to develop 

7 coworker models.

8 DR. MAURO: And you see why if -- and 

9 I understand. Would it be acceptable to the Work 

10 Group for -- as part of SC&A's response to this set 

11 that we look into this a little bit?

12 MR. KATZ: No. This is Ted. No, this 

13 is -- I mean really, so I think you got clarity now 

14 about the situation that -- I mean, yes, if there's 

15 an element that's not addressed by the SEC 

16 evaluation and then there's a question raised by 

17 SC&A in this case about, well, would it be feasible 

18 to develop a coworker model for that element since 

19 it's not addressed in the SEC evaluation.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: I think it falls to NIOSH 

22 though to do that evaluation and determine whether 
 

60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's feasible or not. And not SC&A to try to do 

2 follow-up.

3 DR. MAURO: Well okay, then we -- but 

4 then do we agree, though, that this issue will be 

5 explored a little further?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, no, I think it's a valid 

7 question. I think it's a valid question if there's 

8 some element that's not addressed by the SEC 

9 evaluation, then there are going to be partial dose 

10 reconstructions.

11 And if some element of the partial dose 

12 reconstruction potentially could be addressed by 

13 a coworker model, it's not ruled out until NIOSH 

14 looks at it and says it's feasible or it's not 

15 feasible.

16 And then of course SC&A -- you know, the 

17 Board can evaluate that and determine whether it 

18 agrees with NIOSH or not.

19 DR. MAURO: I'm right with you 100 

20 percent. And I agree with that completely. It 

21 does not have to be SC&A that looks at this.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
 

61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Just as long as it's looked 

2 at.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And it really 

4 isn't -- I mean, part of that -- I mean, we're on 

5 the TBD here. And the question is, does the Site 

6 Profile need to be modified to give that guidance 

7 or not?

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 DR. MAURO: You got it.

10 MR. KATZ: That's the question exactly 

11 right, Andy.

12 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: To me, it's a much 

14 broader issue of those -- you know, how you do the 

15 dose reconstruction. But, you know, are there 

16 things missing in the TBD or --

17 MR. KATZ: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is it sufficiently 

19 vague somewhere that it needs to be clarified? And 

20 kind of following on that, Ted. Is this review and 

21 the responses, does that become part of the TBD?

22 So, dose reconstructor would see the 
 

62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 responses here?

2 MR. KATZ: So, not quite. They would 

3 have to revise the TBD. But in this situation, 

4 they would have to address the question that SC&A 

5 has raised, what about, can a coworker model be 

6 developed for this period where it's not addressed 

7 by the SEC evaluation?

8 So, that would be a, you know, we'd that 

9 we'd need a response from NIOSH and then we'd need 

10 a -- the Work Group to consider it. And then 

11 depending on how that all works out, if NIOSH 

12 decides that in fact it is feasible based on the 

13 review, then they would have to revise the TBD.

14 But no, for a dose reconstruction they 

15 wouldn't refer to anything from the Board.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So if it's 

17 none, kind of the question becomes, if we -- and 

18 I think the conclusion here was some assessment of, 

19 you know, coworker models or whatever, a response 

20 NIOSH may be needed.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do we need to make 
 

63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that another finding?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, so I mean, I think SC&A 

3 has raised the issue. And now it's just for NIOSH 

4 to consider it and provide a response.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Then we 

6 don't need to do -- I'm just trying to do the nuts 

7 and bolts of how do we move on here.

8 So, okay. So, I think that's an issue 

9 that we'll ask NIOSH to take a look at and respond 

10 back to us before we close out the whole TBD thing.

11 But, back to Finding 4, it sounds like, 

12 have we -- we're satisfied with the NIOSH response 

13 then? Or do we want to identify and put this on 

14 -- in abeyance until we hear back on the coworker 

15 model?

16 DR. MAURO: If I may offer SC&A's 

17 perspective on this, it seems that there's the 

18 possibility there might be a need for a coworker 

19 model. And that judgement has to be made for 

20 uranium post 1960.

21 And if there is -- and what does that 

22 coworker model look like, and the basis for it seems 
 

64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to be something that needs to be addressed.

2 Now, we're going to get to Finding 5 in 

3 a minute, which is related to all this. And decide 

4 do you have a coworker model and the data and how 

5 do you use it to reconstruct intakes of uranium.

6 So, I think that it's not an item that 

7 -- in abeyance --

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, this is Ted. So, Andy, 

9 for an item that's not resolved in principle, you 

10 just keep that in fact as in progress.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Well, 

12 Number 4 then is in progress.

13 MR. KATZ: Correct.

14 DR. MAURO: Good, thank you. That's 

15 what we were hoping to be the outcome of this.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Moving 

17 right along to Number 5.

18 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry for going on.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, no, I mean, 

20 it's a -- it's a good discussion. And I don't want 

21 to lose, you know, we can talk about these things 

22 and then time goes by and then we come back and talk 
 

65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about the same things.

2 We really kind of just want to be sure 

3 we're moving forward on them.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: So, we're waiting, 

5 we're not approving SC&A doing this.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: We're waiting for 

8 a response by NIOSH to the concerns raised by SC&A.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right. Right.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And then at that 

11 point, the committee will decide.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Working 

14 Group, yes.

15 DR. NETON: This is Jim. My concern is 

16 that SC&A's -- an issue does not seem to be captured 

17 in Number 4 to me.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. You're right. That 

19 comes later.

20 DR. NETON: Yes. So maybe 4 -- Four is 

21 a different issue. I mean, we kind of morphed into 

22 a --
 

66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, we did.

2 DR. NETON: And then what Finding 4 was 

3 really all about.

4 DR. MAURO: We did. We did. And but, 

5 you'll see, I believe it will come up again.

6 DR. NETON: Well, I understand that. 

7 But I don't want 4 to be held in progress if there's 

8 nothing to start --

9 DR. MAURO: I see what you're saying. 

10 Yes. It's almost like transfer. Make that --

11 we've done that before haven't we? Well 4 really 

12 is part and parcel to something a little later. I 

13 don't know what number it is.

14 So, but you know, as far as explicitly 

15 addressing 4, we are going to, you know, there's 

16 nothing about 4 right now that I see is unique for 

17 4. It actually is part and parcel to something 

18 we're going to be talking about later.

19 Do you see what I'm getting at?

20 DR. NETON: No, I really don't see 

21 that. I just see 4 is talking about using a GSD 

22 of five on the breathing zone air samples.
 

67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Right. Yes.

2 DR. NETON: And so you're going to do 

3 this.

4 DR. MAURO: And you're going to do 

5 that. All right.

6 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I think that.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. I give up. I give. 

8 I yield. You're right. You're right.

9 DR. NETON: I don't see the need.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, we did morph into a 

11 different item.

12 MR. KATZ: All right, so you can close 

13 this one.

14 DR. MAURO: So you can close 4, yes. 

15 We'll get to this other issue later on. And then 

16 we'll --

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay, good.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Four is 

20 closed.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We'll just assume 
 

68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then the later discussion we've had here.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, we got 16 

4 more to go here.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, let's move. 

6 Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I mean not 

8 move. But I mean, some of those, this breaks it 

9 up into smaller parts about the same broader issue.

10 So, you know, we've got the concept of 

11 coworker model may be needed and NIOSH is going to 

12 look at that and where we're at as far as in 

13 progress. So, we'll come to those later.

14 So, let's look -- go to Number 5.

15 DR. MAURO: Number 5, again -- it goes 

16 toward again uranium intake. And it almost 

17 appears that this is a coworker model, I mean, 

18 that's what is unusual about all this.

19 And let me explain the issue. When we 

20 reviewed the Site Profile, it appeared that our 

21 understanding was that there were data on the, I 

22 believe, it's the airborne activity of uranium.
 

69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And there was a number of measurements, 

2 a fairly large number of measurements that were 

3 made. And NIOSH took -- I believe the lowest value 

4 of those measurements and the highest value of 

5 those measurements and multiplied them together.

6 And took the square root, which 

7 effectively is a definition of a geometric mean. 

8 And that's one way to come to a geometric mean when 

9 you have limited data. And you're trying to get 

10 the best you can.

11 And -- but it -- and so we were concerned 

12 that there were a couple of matters related to this. 

13 One is that well, there really is a lot of data out 

14 there, a considerable amount of data out there 

15 where you could -- you didn't have to just work with 

16 the two extremes. You could actually take the data 

17 and fit it. And then actually see what the 

18 distribution is.

19 And I'd like to hand the ball off to Rose 

20 Gogliotti who has looked a little closer at this 

21 in preparation for this meeting. And maybe could 

22 give a little richer explanation of our concerns.
 

70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Rose, could you take it from here?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I can step in. To 

3 answer Dave's question real quick, it looks like 

4 there's at least 90 claims that were not 

5 compensated for this. So, there are quite a few 

6 partials that were done.

7 And going back in, for this NIOSH 

8 eventually developed a default air concentration 

9 to the fumes of breathing zone air concentration 

10 fumes when a claimant is not clear where they worked 

11 and they don't have breathing zone samples.

12 And initially our concern was that we 

13 weren't able to replicate their data. But, they 

14 were calculating mean a different way than we were 

15 calculating mean. So, we weren't ever going to get 

16 the same answer.

17 But, they provided some additional 

18 clarification. And we were able to match their 

19 numbers. And looking at the HASL studies in 

20 general, it looks to be that it's fairly well 

21 representative -- or very claimant-favorable even 

22 for most occupations.
 

71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, I do have some concerns with it. 

2 When you look at the HASL studies, there's a clear 

3 indication that anyone who works in the ceramics 

4 lab and ceramics fabrication had just 

5 astronomically higher intakes then anyone who 

6 worked in another area of Apollo.

7 And that's our first concern. And when 

8 I look at the HASL data and tease out those values, 

9 the average for those two areas are significantly 

10 higher than the two 10 dpm per cubic meter.

11 We also have some concerns when looking 

12 at the SEC Evaluation Report, which indicates that 

13 there's breathing zone uranium samples for Apollo 

14 from '61 to '82. And the HASL studies really only 

15 cover two years of employment, which are the 

16 earliest two years.

17 So, we're not sure necessarily that the 

18 default model that was developed is representative 

19 of all time periods. Now I haven't been able to 

20 find the remaining breathing zone samples.

21 But we do have some concerns that they 

22 might not be representative of all time periods.
 

72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Comments? Anyone 

2 else have something to add?

3 DR. MAURO: This is John. Just one 

4 more point. Isn't this a coworker model? We've 

5 been talking about coworker models but it seems to 

6 me that in spite of the fact that the position is 

7 there is no need for one. But this in effect is 

8 one.

9 That sort of, you know -- so I guess in 

10 a way what we're saying is, it appears that this 

11 Item Five is actually talking about a coworker 

12 model. And the discussion we're having is, is that 

13 coworker model sufficient to make sure we don't 

14 underestimate the doses of some of the workers.

15 And has all the data been used and used 

16 in the best way to capture things like the ceramic 

17 area where the exposures were clearly unusually 

18 high. And whether or not -- so, there's a lot of 

19 clarification that we need a little bit here.

20 One is, is this description that we're 

21 looking at here effectively a coworker model? So 

22 at all time periods post-1960 for uranium, 
 

73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 apparently, the data that we did look at was data 

2 primarily that represented the 1960s?

3 And also, within the time frame, within 

4 that data set, there appears to be certain 

5 locations that that broad data set really would 

6 underestimate the exposure for some workers that 

7 happened to be located in the ceramic area.

8 And so we're in a situation where we're 

9 saying, you know, when a worker does show up where 

10 you need -- you don't have data, so what's going 

11 to be done? Are we going to try to assign some 

12 intake for him for uranium using this approach?

13 So, which means that it is a coworker 

14 model. And second, do we agree that maybe there's 

15 some deficiencies in the strategy that's been 

16 described here. As Rose just explained there may 

17 be some problems with this -- these certain areas 

18 within the facility. I think it's called the 

19 ceramics area.

20 MR. STRENGE: This is Dennis. This 

21 whole analysis here was done specifically for the 

22 residual period just to get a starting point in air 
 

74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concentrations.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But this is during 

4 operational periods but it seems like.

5 MR. STRENGE: I know, that's the data 

6 we used to get one -- to get a claimant-favorable 

7 estimate of the concentration at the end of the 

8 operating period.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But the recommendation 

10 is to apply it during the operational period.

11 MR. STRENGE: Well, I guess that's 

12 something we and NIOSH need to consider.

13 DR. NETON: Yes, we need to look at this 

14 a little closer. I mean, I'm looking, there's a 

15 lot of bioassay data listed for uranium in urine. 

16 But a lot of that was CEP which we had discounted 

17 in numerous situations.

18 You know, I'd have to go back and look 

19 at this. I haven't looked at this in a while. 

20 But, I understand what you're saying, we have some 

21 HASL data in those years. Is it representative of 

22 all the years? Probably not.
 

75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Could it be used for some partials? 

2 Maybe. So, I guess we'll have to wait to -- defer 

3 until we can look at this a little closely.

4 DR. MAURO: To add a little -- to help 

5 out the situation a little bit, the '60s data that 

6 are available, appear to be -- and Rose is the one 

7 that explained this to me, it certainly appears to 

8 be in your high end time period.

9 So, if exactly we're somehow going to 

10 use the '60s data and apply it for the broader time 

11 period, I guess up to the -- into the 1980s, which 

12 is the -- it would certainly be claimant-favorable.

13 DR. NETON: But if you looked at the '60 

14 data I think for uranium, they were processed by 

15 CEP I thought?

16 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is the breathing 

18 varying data we're talking about.

19 MR. STRENGE: Yes, the CEP didn't start 

20 until 1976.

21 DR. NETON: Well, that's not what I saw 

22 here, but -- and we've got some lapel samplers from 
 

76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 '66 to '67.

2 Yes, well, we'll have to look at that. 

3 I mean, I don't know.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's -- you know, 

5 that's the -- we're bringing these up because you 

6 know, we read this material, we get our 

7 impressions. We do a little homework.

8 And this is where we help clarify the 

9 issues. And so, what I'm hearing is this is 

10 another open item that we need to revisit a little 

11 later.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Let's hold 

13 the -- any other comments from the Board Members? 

14 So it sounds like we're going to hold this one in 

15 abeyance.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No.

17 MR. KATZ: In progress.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: In progress, 

19 that's what I mean, yes. And NIOSH will relook at 

20 it and expand on their findings, on the response 

21 I guess.

22 So to Number Six?
 

77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay. I think -- yes, 

2 Number Six has to do with, I believe when you're 

3 dealing with -- we're talking about 

4 reconstructing, I believe we've got plutonium 

5 intakes.

6 Now, plutonium is one of the 

7 radionuclides that you can't reconstruct. So, 

8 we're not talking about a coworker model or 

9 anything like that.

10 So we're talking about when you -- now 

11 somehow when you can reconstruct or you're going 

12 to try to reconstruct the internal doses from 

13 plutonium, some descriptive materials provided in 

14 the Site Profile on how you're going to do that.

15 And it turns out, when you do that, you 

16 have to make certain assumptions what the mix is. 

17 Whether it's a weapons grade, commercial grade.

18 Like I said, there's other grades of 

19 plutonium that come out of, I guess, the Hanford 

20 complex as being the type of plutonium now. So, 

21 the question goes toward all right, you know, which 

22 type of plutonium is going to be used when you do 
 

78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruct the doses?

2 And there's an answer here. And it 

3 looks like quite a comprehensive answer that you, 

4 you know, is satisfactory.

5 Now I can't speak to the technical 

6 substance of this in terms of -- but it certainly 

7 looks like a complete answer. And you know, one 

8 fact it's going to be done and why. And it 

9 certainly looks reasonable to me.

10 But, I have to admit that I'm not a 

11 person that could read this material and say yes, 

12 it looked really, you know -- all I could say is 

13 that what I'm reading here looks like it's a very 

14 comprehensive review of the issue. And NIOSH has 

15 described in substantial detail what they plan to 

16 do.

17 I don't know if there's anyone on the 

18 phone, and Ron, I can certainly look to you a little 

19 bit. Is there anything about here that we would 

20 want to look into further to convince ourselves, 

21 yes, this is it? You've answered the question? 

22 Or are we pretty satisfied with this?
 

79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron Buchanan 

2 with SC&A. 

3 DR. MAURO: And I don't want to put you 

4 on the spot Ron. You may not have had the chance 

5 to look clearly at this. I just -- I read it and 

6 I said my goodness, they certainly have given the 

7 information.

8 But, I wouldn't want to jump to the 

9 conclusion that it's SC&A's position that we can 

10 close this issue right now, because this may 

11 require a look at in greater detail by some of the 

12 folks that are, you know, especially familiar with 

13 this particular subject.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: No, I read over it. But 

15 I didn't go into the details of it. And so, you 

16 know, at this point I do not see any red flags.

17 But, I would not say that we can close 

18 this yet. This would require some further review 

19 to give an okay on this.

20 And so, you know, we haven't had this 

21 too long. So we need to look into more of the 

22 details of it before we could do that.
 

80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So Board Members, 

2 any questions?

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, sounds like 

4 it's in progress.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, another in 

6 progress.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I -- it looked 

8 to me like it's quite a comprehensive response. 

9 NIOSH, any comments you have? Or at this point 

10 we're --

11 DR. NETON: It looks like it's 

12 definitely an SC&A action item.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. So, it's in 

14 progress. And what we're waiting for here is SC&A 

15 to read it and give us more than just we looked it 

16 over.

17 Okay. Next?

18 DR. MAURO: This is also the case of --

19 let me -- Finding 7 has to do with the MDAs for, 

20 I guess americium and plutonium. 

21 And our -- in the Site Profile and in 

22 the response, NIOSH has addressed what they believe 
 

81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to be reasonable, minimum detectable activities 

2 for americium and I believe it's also for 

3 plutonium.

4 And what I did do in preparation for 

5 this meeting is I asked Joyce Lipsztein, who's, you 

6 know, really an expert on the subject to take a look 

7 at this material. And does it, you know, is it 

8 responsive to our original concerns.

9 And she was hoping to be in the meeting 

10 but she couldn't because she couldn't connect in 

11 from Israel. But, she did send me an email 

12 summarizing her concerns.

13 And the bottom line is she still has 

14 some concerns. And the concerns go toward this, 

15 some of the MDAs, she's particularly mentioned 

16 americium, do not seem to be compatible with MDAs 

17 that she has reviewed herself for other sites under 

18 other circumstances.

19 And that the MDAs might be here too low. 

20 And the reason that's important is, if you don't 

21 reconstruct the doses to a worker where you do have 

22 data, and you have to go with one half the MDA as 
 

82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 your default value, because you know, you measured 

2 it, but you didn't see anything, you go with one 

3 half the MDA. Now, depending on what you pick as 

4 the MDA, that could be a substantially different 

5 dose. And Joyce felt that the MDAs in some cases, 

6 it might have been too high. And therefore, not 

7 claimant-favorable.

8 But again, we would like an opportunity 

9 to have a -- you know, look at this and have a --

10 Joyce did write something up, but it was relatively 

11 brief. It's about a page or so of material that 

12 she sent to me over the weekend.

13 And so, this was one I'd recommend that 

14 we leave in progress until we can actually put 

15 something together in writing on the reasons why 

16 we feel that perhaps the best MDAs have not been 

17 selected.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So do you have any 

19 comments? At the end of the NIOSH response, talk 

20 about added guidance there for the MDAs are quite 

21 different than rather lower --

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. No, --
 

83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, it -- I 

2 mean we can hold this. But --

3 DR. MAURO: The reason I'm bringing 

4 this up is yes, NIOSH has provided us substantial 

5 additional information like the previous one. And 

6 in this case, unlike the previous one before that, 

7 you know, dealing with this -- these different 

8 mixes, we have had a chance to have one of our 

9 specialists, Joyce, look at it.

10 And she read through it. And she 

11 responded back. So, notwithstanding the fact that 

12 NIOSH is planning to revise the Site Profile and 

13 provide this additional information, Joyce had a 

14 chance to look at this information. And she still 

15 felt some concerns.

16 So, you know, the fact that -- it's good 

17 that we have a dialog going and NIOSH is revisiting 

18 this and has their perspective. We did have an 

19 opportunity to look at this. And we still think 

20 there's some problems here that we wanted to talk 

21 about.

22 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. I'm 
 

84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking at the data here. And I think the 

2 americium numbers don't look too bad to me. But 

3 I would agree that the plutonium numbers look 

4 somewhat small since the time period of those in 

5 vivo MDAs were developed, I think the thinking of 

6 plutonium has evolved quite a bit over time given 

7 the, you know, development of the Livermore phantom 

8 and such to really get a more accurate detection 

9 limit.

10 I think -- I could see some room for 

11 increasing the plutonium MDAs. I just don't see 

12 what --

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Well, 

14 thank you. That's helpful. As it looked like you 

15 had adjusted them somewhat. But --

16 DR. NETON: And the plutonium -- the 

17 americium numbers don't look too bad to me.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, well that's 

19 what I -- that's -- most of John's comments was on 

20 the americium. And I looked at that.

21 DR. NETON: Yes, and the plutonium 

22 number though, you know, it's very chest wall 
 

85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thickness dependent. Every five millimeters of 

2 chest wall reduces your signal by about 50 percent.

3 So if you get a real heavy guy like me, 

4 it's not going to be 35 nanocuries, it's going to 

5 be probably 100 nanocuries. You know, it needs to 

6 be looked at I think a little closer in light of 

7 the current development of MDAs and plutonium lung 

8 counting.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. That one is 

10 in progress. Seven.

11 MR. KATZ: So, can I just have 

12 clarification about that? Jim, from what you were 

13 saying, is this something NIOSH can relook at based 

14 on the quarrel comments you have? Or do you need 

15 more detail from SC&A?

16 DR. NETON: No, I think since Joyce has 

17 already gone to the trouble of putting together her 

18 thinking on this, I would rather look at what her 

19 opinion is before we proceed.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes Jim, I think --

22 DR. NETON: I think plus I pretty much 
 

86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have the same wave length. I did my whole PhD 

2 dissertation on in vivo counting. So I'm pretty 

3 familiar with this literature here.

4 And Joyce has got the same data set I'm 

5 sure, so. I'd just like to see what she's 

6 summarized already before reinventing the wheel 

7 here I guess.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'd be happy to vote. 

9 Joyce sent me a rather informal write up. It won't 

10 take very much on our part just for me to package 

11 that up and send it in. 

12 DR. NETON: Okay. Let's do that.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Right, then John 

14 would you please copy the Work Group when you do 

15 that please, and me.

16 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. And whatever 

17 I -- yes, I'll be -- what I'm going to do is it sounds 

18 like there are a few action -- at the end of this 

19 meeting, it would be helpful if we could go through 

20 which ones we have the ball.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And we'll owe you some 
 

87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 material. That will be helpful so we're all on the 

2 same page.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, John. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. The next Item, I 

5 think the next Item, you know, we agree. What I'm 

6 getting at is that in effect, this is almost a 

7 subset of the previous one.

8 We agree that, you know, NIOSH will --

9 what we're really saying here is yes, NIOSH is going 

10 to reconstruct the doses, two internal doses from 

11 plutonium when the data are available.

12 And so, this is really a subset of the 

13 previous Item. And so I would say let's withdraw 

14 Finding 8. Because for all intensive purposes 

15 Finding 8, unless I misunderstand this and misread 

16 it, is a subset of the material that we just talked 

17 about, namely Joyce's concerns.

18 If that's -- if everyone agrees that 

19 that's a proper interpretation. That's how I read 

20 Eight. And now that we've discussed Joyce's 

21 material, I -- maybe we don't need Eight anymore.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Other comments?
 

88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (No response)

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, we can close 

3 this then.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's what I see. 

5 Unless anyone else sees something different.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

7 DR. MAURO: Good. Let me go onto 

8 Finding 9. The point that was being made here by 

9 SC&A is that when we read the Site Profile, we felt 

10 that the plan was to use OTIB-54, which is mainly 

11 designed to reconstruct internal doses when you've 

12 got gross beta or gross gamma data on urine samples.

13 And we pointed out that -- and that 

14 there are many, many circumstances where even 

15 OTIB-54 agrees that you really can't use OTIB-54 

16 once you start to separate the fuel and to digest 

17 it. Like after the digestion process.

18 And you can't really use it. And 

19 NIOSH's response is, I believe, very much 

20 consistent with our thinking. Namely, you know, 

21 they reinforce the fact that no, we're not going 

22 to use OTIB-54 when it's not appropriate.
 

89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, you know, I can't -- you know, 

2 there's nothing more to say as long as this really 

3 becomes a what happens here is as long as there is 

4 not -- as long as you don't have guidance in the 

5 Site Profile that is telling the dose reconstructor 

6 to do this, this and this, you know, without taking 

7 into consideration, hold the presses, don't do that 

8 under certain circumstances, you can't use 

9 OTIB-54.

10 And in effect, that's what's being said 

11 here. NIOSH is stating that they will modify the

12 guidance to caution the dose reconstructor. You 

13 know, only use OTIB-54 when it's, you know, when 

14 it's applicable.

15 And I'm fine with that. So, as far as 

16 I'm concerned, Finding 9 can be closed.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Board Members, any 

18 comments?

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No comment.

20 MEMBER FIELD: No.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, for me the 

22 only issue is how are we going to ask to keep an 
 

90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 eye on this is when revision comes out to see that 

2 in fact. Hopefully we can get a red-lined 

3 strikeout version so we can see what changes were 

4 made.

5 Okay. So we'll close out Number Nine.

6 DR. MAURO: Moving onto Number Ten. 

7 Number Ten goes toward recycled uranium. When we 

8 reviewed the Site Profile, we were the 

9 beneficiaries, SC&A, of experience that was gained 

10 from our review of Fernald.

11 And one of the things that came out of 

12 Fernald was a reconsideration of the mix of, I 

13 believe and please correct me if I'm wrong, the mix 

14 of other radionuclides, transuranics and maybe 

15 some fission products, that might be associated 

16 with recycled uranium.

17 And you must take into consideration if 

18 you're going to reconstruct the person's dose for 

19 uranium, as you folks claim you will. And you have 

20 the, you know, making use of that data.

21 And what all we are point out here is 

22 that there is new -- the experience that we went 
 

91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through regarding RU for Fernald should be factored 

2 in here.

3 And I guess we found at the time of our 

4 review that the approach being used for recycled 

5 uranium here predated the experience that -- what 

6 we've learned when we did our recycled uranium work 

7 on Fernald. I believe that's the case.

8 And as a result, maybe you wanted to 

9 take another look at the mix or the -- what the --

10 how you're going to approach recycled uranium.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So --

12 DR. MAURO: And I think you had 

13 indicated you will be updating this. So there will 

14 be an update. So, maybe we're okay.

15 MR. STIVER: Hey John, this is Stiver. 

16 Let me just kind of add a little to that. Fernald 

17 remember, the main issue is that we had plutonium 

18 out of specifications that came out of the Paducah 

19 gaseous diffusion plant in 1980.

20 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

21 MR. STIVER: And so we really, most of 

22 the debate centered around, you know, how to 
 

92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 account for that. And I'm not sure that in this 

2 situation they handled that type of material.

3 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh.

4 MR. STIVER: So, you know, it may be 

5 worth looking at. But I don't think that we're 

6 going to be able to basically take, you know, the 

7 Fernald approach and fit it in.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay.

9 MR. STIVER: But, you know, it's 

10 certainly worth looking into the, you know, what 

11 -- you know, the source of the, you know, the very 

12 contraries and everything of the material 

13 processing and that.

14 You know, a lot of it just is, you know, 

15 we're not looking at these sites in isolation. I 

16 mean, there is a lot of cross-pollination going on 

17 I guess you could say for lack of a better word.

18 But yes, I think it would be worth look 

19 at. But, anyway, that's.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, but what does 

21 that mean, worth looking at? And what -- so what 

22 would be the action here?
 

93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: I would say to kind of see 

2 if we could find what the inventories were, where 

3 they came from. The different batches had 

4 different constituent concentrations.

5 Most were actually quite low, less than 

6 10 parts per billion. But, you know there were 

7 some that were quite elevated.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. 

9 MR. KATZ: So is that -- is that an --

10 this is Ted. But does NIOSH have a response to 

11 this? Is this a matter for NIOSH to look further 

12 into?

13 DR. HUGHES: I don't have anything to 

14 add other then what's in the response.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And the Fernald 

16 issue is still underway. But, I mean, that's when 

17 I -- you know, it's you've raised the issue. And 

18 I think NIOSH is aware of it.

19 I'm just not sure what --

20 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. I don't 

21 know what more we could do.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I don't know what 
 

94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you would do. That's what I'm asking.

2 MR. STIVER: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: Right, we clearly said the 

4 source of uranium used at NUMEC is not known for 

5 many activities.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

7 DR. NETON: I don't know what benefit 

8 there would be in going back and trying to find 

9 additional sources we already know that we don't 

10 have. We do say we're using guidance in the 

11 Fernald Site Profile.

12 MR. STIVER: Mm-hmm.

13 DR. NETON: Or the activity for 

14 actions. Unless someone can point to a wrong.

15 MR. STIVER: Well, the activity for 

16 actions came from the DOE reports that came out 

17 about 2000. And so that would be the source that 

18 I would go look at to begin with.

19 So, you may have already done that, you 

20 know.

21 DR. NETON: Wait a minute. I'm sorry, 

22 I'm missing what you're talking -- you're saying 
 

95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 go look at the --

2 MR. STIVER: I'm saying maybe you guys 

3 have already looked at the DOE reports that came 

4 to basically the same conclusion that, you know, 

5 DOE used on Fernald. That it was all based on the 

6 DOE 2000 reports.

7 DR. NETON: Right. But what else 

8 would we use if we didn't use --

9 MR. STIVER: I wasn't referring to 

10 anything else out there. That was pretty 

11 comprehensive, so.

12 DR. NETON: That's my point. I mean, 

13 so what benefit would there be to look at it. I 

14 mean, we're using what we have.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. I wasn't aware that 

16 you had already, you know, looked at it.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, this could be on us on 

18 namely our response was, you know, based on, at the 

19 time, you know, when we made our review, the concern 

20 was, are you using the best available information? 

21 Are you? And what I'm hearing is that you did.

22 And you know, and John, you know, based 
 

96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on your look at it, and thanks for, you know, 

2 helping us out here. To know that they did use the 

3 most recent information, then we're fine.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I mean, that 

5 was kind of my sense of when you say here might need 

6 to. Well, I think if we've talked about a looked 

7 at Item --

8 DR. MAURO: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It probably 

10 doesn't.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, my sense here 

13 would be I would suggest we close Item Ten.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, premised on the 

15 discussion we just had, I would agree.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Any other 

17 comments?

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

19 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I'm okay 

20 with that.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Finding 

22 11.
 

97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay, let's see. In this 

2 one apparently there was a -- there's a certain --

3 chest count data were compiled using the Helgeson, 

4 I guess is one of the chest count units, a piece 

5 of equipment that are used to do chest counts.

6 I'm presuming that's for looking for 

7 things like plutonium or americium. I have, you 

8 know, may need a little help here. And that this 

9 Helgeson I guess is a chest count unit, there were 

10 some problems apparently.

11 Oh yes, here it is, it's plutonium as 

12 I suspected. But NIOSH's response is that well, 

13 hold the presses. There really is no problem here. 

14 Because if anything, the -- this Helgeson protocol 

15 overestimated.

16 And not, you know, will tend to 

17 overestimate the intakes of plutonium. And so 

18 it's claimant-favorable. And as a result NIOSH 

19 does not plan to make any changes to the Site 

20 Profile related to this issue.

21 And I'm fine with that if there are 

22 other folks on the phone who are a lot more 
 

98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 familiar. As I said, you know, we all had a chance 

2 to sort of read through this, but not do any 

3 analysis.

4 But, I mean, I guess query folks like, 

5 you know, Ron Buchanan, who have a -- maybe a little 

6 more familiarity with this. And whether that, you 

7 know, that being the case, we can close it.

8 But I don't want -- again, Ron, I'm 

9 putting you on the spot. This matter of the 

10 Helgeson chest count protocol. Does that in fact 

11 result in an overestimate of the body burden?

12 Or is this something we better hold off 

13 a little bit and make -- and try to convince 

14 ourselves?

15 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron Buchanan 

16 with SC&A. I'm not familiar with this method, the 

17 Helgeson method. I would say, you know, if what 

18 -- if we can verify what NIOSH has stated here, then 

19 I have no problems with it.

20 If it increases the false positives, 

21 then it would be claimant-favorable and wouldn't 

22 be an issue for this site. So, you know, I see 
 

99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nothing wrong with it.

2 We could look at the Pantex and see what 

3 they say about it if we wanted to verify that. But 

4 I had no other issues with it.

5 DR. MAURO: If it is acceptable to the 

6 Work Group, just give us a little bit of time to 

7 just sniff this out a bit. The folks that I guess 

8 are working Pantex but may not have all necessarily 

9 been brought in on this particular NUMEC issue.

10 And it may become -- we may be about to 

11 just get to this and put this to bed pretty quickly. 

12 But, I hate to shut it down without having that 

13 feedback.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It's Dave. 

15 It sounds like another in progress, but really 

16 subject to SC&A review.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. We just need 

18 a response.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Short response 

22 from SC&A. Okay. Number 12.
 

100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay. You have to give me 

2 a minute. I did go through this. But there are 

3 a lot of them. I just have to refresh my memory. 

4 It takes me a moment.

5 The -- yes, this goes toward there's a 

6 sort of criticality foils I believe, which have 

7 absolutely no relevance to the dose 

8 reconstructions.

9 And unless anyone else feels, you know, 

10 my sense is that the answer is satisfactory, we 

11 could close it. I believe that that's our 

12 recommendation.

13 MR. ZLOTNICKI: John?

14 DR. MAURO: Yes?

15 MR. ZLOTNICKI: John, this is Joe 

16 Zlotnicki here I'm with SC&A.

17 DR. MAURO: Please?

18 MR. ZLOTNICKI: No, I think the answer 

19 that was provided by NIOSH addressed one of many 

20 points on criticality, which in and of itself may 

21 be fine. But there were a number of other issues.

22 For example, I should preface it by 
 

101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying that the external dosimetry sort of overall 

2 collection of badges and dosimeters that were used 

3 at these two sites is extraordinary. That's a very 

4 comprehensive list of just about every badge 

5 Landauer provided and many other types of badges 

6 from other vendors.

7 So, it's a very complex table if you 

8 will of all the badge types. But there was an error 

9 in the table which indicated that the in fact 

10 something wasn't being done when it was.

11 And that is, they were using CL-39 for 

12 neutron monitoring. Even though it says in the 

13 text and in the table 62, that it wasn't. And that 

14 was pointed out.

15 But for some reason that was not picked 

16 up in the response. It just said everything was 

17 reviewed and looked fine. So I was a bit puzzled 

18 by that.

19 So, anyway, I would say that the number 

20 of dosimeters that were used was very large and 

21 there seemed to be one or two errors in there as 

22 to how those dosimeters are the subcomponents.
 

102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then the second part of that is how, 

2 you know, we have data, but what happened when one 

3 -- when you had multi-component badges, you often 

4 have a situation where two or three components are 

5 okay and one isn't. Or one of three -- only one 

6 of three has data.

7 And so clearly, there needs to be 

8 something in the profile that instructs the, you 

9 know, what to do in those fairly complex situations 

10 when someone was wearing these multi-component 

11 badges. What to do when you're doing a dose 

12 reconstruction.

13 So, those are the two parts of that 

14 beyond the criticality.

15 DR. MAURO: If it's acceptable to the 

16 Work Group, it sounds like that we need to 

17 articulate this in the response.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: NIOSH, anything 

19 further?

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Agreed.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

22 DR. MAURO: By the way, I -- Joe 
 

103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Zlotnicki was able to review as best he could, I 

2 asked him to take a look at this late last week. 

3 And he had a chance to read through the response.

4 And as you folks know, Joe specializes 

5 in the various types of dosimeters, extendable 

6 dosimetry. And he particularly looked at 12, 13, 

7 14, let's see, 15.

8 And it would be -- and he sent me a 

9 report that I received over the weekend on his 

10 observations and concerns regarding those 

11 particular responses to our findings.

12 And Joe, if it's okay, would you help 

13 me out here a little bit here and perhaps take the 

14 lead on the next few Items that you had a chance 

15 to look at? I realize that you didn't spend too 

16 much time on it.

17 But you did have a chance to read it and 

18 get a sense of the adequacy of the response. Could 

19 you take over, if that's okay?

20 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Sure. So, on Number 

21 13, the issue would be to starting for the last 

22 couple of hours whether or not there's data. But 
 

104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of course having data is not the whole issue.

2 For example, if someone wore a 

3 dosimeter in a plastic pouch to protect it from dust 

4 and dirt and water, the dosimeter's response is 

5 going to be very different. Especially for low 

6 energy x-ray and for betas.

7 And it may or may not be calibrated in 

8 a pouch. Or workers may or may not have been 

9 wearing lead aprons, et cetera, et cetera. 

10 There's hundreds of situations like that where just 

11 having a dosimeter result isn't sufficient.

12 Another one would be, were you wearing 

13 a wrist badge or a badge on the tip of the finger 

14 in glove box work. And if you were wearing a wrist 

15 badge, was that representative of the highest dose 

16 of the extremity?

17 And I saw no information on any of these 

18 issues such as I just mentioned in the Site Profile. 

19 And so the question arises, is this information 

20 available? And if it isn't, what does that imply 

21 in terms of the ability to reconstruct doses?

22 Many other situations like were people 
 

105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wearing the right badges? Or were they assigned 

2 the correct badge for the neutron field they were 

3 in for example, and so on.

4 Clearly, given the types of badges that 

5 were in use, one can make a statement that overall 

6 there seems to have been a real effort to provide 

7 the best dosimetry technology available. But I 

8 don't know that that applied down to the 

9 individual.

10 So, that was the -- with 13. I felt 

11 that the response from NIOSH, we just went around 

12 in circles and we did not sort of move forward on 

13 sort of acknowledging the issue or addressing the 

14 issue.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: NIOSH, any 

16 follow-on comments?

17 DR. NETON: Yes. Think this falls 

18 under the same category as we discussed for the 

19 uranium exposures is, can we really do a coworker 

20 model here? And I think a number of the reasons 

21 that were just enumerated may play into that 

22 analysis.
 

106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But yes, I think it's going to be in 

2 progress and we need to respond.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

4 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Good. So Item 14, the 

5 -- where am I? I don't have the -- let me see if 

6 I can pull that up.

7 There was a detailed response for 

8 Finding 14 regarding the NTA and the neutron fields 

9 that people were in. And the suggestion of moving 

10 to a neutron to photon ratio methodology.

11 Like some of the other findings, I think 

12 that the response is thorough. I haven't had a 

13 chance to go through and see if it makes technical 

14 sense.

15 But it certainly looks like it's a very 

16 solid proposal. But I haven't gone in technically 

17 just to confirm that it is sufficient or not.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, do we want to 

19 put that in progress and we'll expect a response 

20 from SC&A confirming what you just said, that it's 

21 okay?

22 DR. MAURO: We -- the strategy to be 
 

107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 applied in a neutron to photon ratio, and I'm 

2 looking at these ratios. I guess, we'd just like 

3 an opportunity to look at that a little more 

4 closely.

5 And just to check. Because in the past 

6 neutron to photon ratios have always been a bit 

7 controversial. We've run into that in the past.

8 And I guess the best I can do right now 

9 is say that if you could give me just a little time 

10 to take a look at those ratios and where they come 

11 from and their rationale and justification, then 

12 we could get back to you. That would be our 

13 preference.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So that's 

15 their responsibility to get back to us. Okay, 15.

16 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Okay. In Item 15, 

17 there were a couple of different issues. One of 

18 them was the fact that beta energies were listed 

19 for americium-241.

20 And so I had a sort of general question. 

21 The response was that they were listed because with 

22 the Auger electrons associated with americium-241 
 

108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and then they were listed as greater then 15-KeV. 

2 Because those would be more likely to be an external 

3 problem.

4 So, I had several questions about that. 

5 Do we list beta energies for all alpha emitters 

6 because they'll all have Auger electrons? I 

7 hadn't seen that before. And that puzzled me.

8 And in addition, even on high energy 

9 Auger electron is way below the energy that could 

10 possibly penetrate the skin. And thus is only an 

11 internal problem, not an external one. So I was 

12 a little puzzled by the whole response.

13 There must be a miscommunication 

14 somewhere between SC&A and NIOSH. Or within 

15 NIOSH. I don't know quite where. But the whole 

16 thing was a little odd to me.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So NIOSH, any 

18 clarifying?

19 DR. HUGHES: I would have to check and 

20 get back to you.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We'd probably need 

22 to get something in writing from SC&A too. In this 
 

109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sense there's also part of the fact that they did 

2 so much different measurements and monitoring. 

3 It's really pretty complex.

4 Board Members, do you have comments or?

5 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. No 

6 comment.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, no comment.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, so we'll 

9 put this in progress. But -- so, who is -- SC&A 

10 going to write something up for it, is that what 

11 it's going to be? A guide to us?

12 DR. MAURO: We'd be -- that was our 

13 expectation is that we would prepare something in 

14 writing for you. And for those where we don't have 

15 a -- where we still have some concerns and I think 

16 it's appropriate for us to communicate some of 

17 those concerns to you.

18 And really, there are two categories. 

19 For the Items that we don't close out, clearly some 

20 of these -- and then NIOSH agrees, yes, we better 

21 take a look at it.

22 This, but there are some places where 
 

110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in order for NIOSH to take a look at it, they'd like 

2 to hear a little bit more about some of the, you 

3 know, some of the concerns we have.

4 So yes, that's why -- I was hoping that, 

5 you know, we would sort this out a little bit 

6 because it's getting complex. And we, you know, 

7 what is the information, when is the ball in SC&A's 

8 court?

9 It sounds like that we need to provide 

10 a little written material here that might help 

11 NIOSH respond.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: What I'm saying is 

15 we need to be sure that NIOSH understands what your 

16 issues are.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, otherwise it's 

19 very hard to respond.

20 DR. MAURO: No, no, clearly. And in 

21 some cases we were able to, you know, everything 

22 was clear. But not necessarily in this case. And 
 

111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there may be others like that.

2 Okay. In fact, maybe at the end of this 

3 meeting, SC&A could put together its understanding 

4 of its action items. Or Ted, if you could --

5 MR. KATZ: And I can run through them 

6 when we're done.

7 DR. MAURO: If you could run though, 

8 that would be great. That would really be helpful 

9 to me too. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Keep it running,

11 that's why.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'm over here.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I'm in.

14 DR. MAURO: I started to take notes, 

15 but it got away from me. You know, I couldn't keep 

16 up.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So Number 

18 16 then?

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, 16 are we -- are we in 

20 -- Bob Barton, are we in your territory here?

21 MR. BARTON: Yes John, that's me. 

22 We're kind of circling back around on what we had 
 

112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our first discussion on.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, exactly. Good, good.

3 MR. BARTON: And I guess just to 

4 summarize I guess how my impression of it was that, 

5 again the finding was related to whether NIOSH 

6 would consider a coworker model for NUMEC.

7 And obviously as it stands now, Apollo 

8 is off the table. Because it's included as part 

9 of the SEC.

10 But it sounded like where we kind of 

11 left off earlier in this discussion was that when 

12 you have a component that's not explicitly covered 

13 by the SEC, then it in most cases it's probably 

14 going to be appropriate to evaluate whether a

15 coworker model could potentially be developed.

16 Or at least, I suppose make an official 

17 statement as to why it's believed that no coworker 

18 model is possible and doesn't need to be evaluated. 

19 And I guess that was my impression.

20 I guess I'd ask NIOSH, you know, do they 

21 intend to look at the Parks site and see, make a 

22 determination whether a coworker model is first of 
 

113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all feasible under the current guidelines that, you 

2 know, have been developing over the past year or 

3 two about how you could actually make a coworker 

4 model.

5 Or, is NIOSH's position that based on 

6 the fact that it was the same health and safety 

7 program, that their position is that no coworker 

8 model is then feasible because it had already been 

9 evaluated at Apollo. So it doesn't need to be 

10 evaluated here.

11 So I guess I'd ask NIOSH what their 

12 position is on it?

13 DR. NETON: Well, this is Jim. I think 

14 we're going to look at it. It may end up being the 

15 later of what you just stated. But we need to look 

16 at it a little closer and provide some more detailed 

17 rationale behind why we believe or do not believe 

18 that coworker models are relevant for external 

19 doses at Parks.

20 MR. BARTON: Okay. And if I might, 

21 because I hope I'm not the only one who was a little 

22 confused by this, but if I could ask a clarifying 
 

114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question about the differences between 83.13 and 

2 83.14. Because based on the earlier discussion, 

3 it seemed like there's a different, I guess, 

4 process that goes into each. 

5 For the 83.13, which comes from the 

6 claimants, it seems like the major pathways are 

7 evaluated, as was the case at Apollo were both 

8 internal and external were evaluated and found to 

9 be infeasible.

10 But it seems like with the 83.14, it's 

11 a little bit different where you begin the 

12 evaluation and then as soon as you hit one 

13 infeasibility, it's sort of, you know, pencils 

14 down.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, Bob, this is Ted. The 

16 83.14 arises because you have a claim and you 

17 determine that some part of the dose cannot be 

18 reconstructed generically, not just for that 

19 individual. But, so, it's a different genesis. 

20 And once you determine that, then really the whole 

21 process is to expediently deal with that to get a 

22 Class added so that other people in that worker's 
 

115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 same situation don't have to wait and can have their 

2 claims adjudicated as soon as possible.

3 So, that's why you don't go through the 

4 process of looking at all other exposures and their 

5 feasibility. Because you're trying to get that 

6 claimant, and claimants in the similar 

7 circumstances, their claims addressed as soon as 

8 possible.

9 MR. BARTON: Okay. And I certainly 

10 understand that. It's efficient and the best way 

11 to handle it. I guess my only concern was that it 

12 seems to -- if you're not going to evaluate the 

13 other pathways, essentially what you're saying is 

14 we're not going to evaluate the feasibility of 

15 creating a coworker model. I just want to make 

16 sure that that's not actually the case. 

17 And that further down the line, such as 

18 this situation, where we say, well, maybe you 

19 should look at creating a coworker model, then that 

20 process institutes after that. But it doesn't 

21 necessarily need to happen right away so that you 

22 can administer the SEC quickly.
 

116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 MR. BARTON: Okay. Alright, thank 

3 you. I just wanted to clarify that.

4 MR. KATZ: No, you're quite welcome.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, 16 is 

6 in progress and it's a NIOSH activity to look at 

7 the coworker issue again. Seventeen?

8 DR. MAURO: I think maybe I can pick it 

9 up again, unless, certainly, Joe, if there's 

10 anything that you'd like to weigh in on.

11 But, Joe, my sense is that the concern 

12 was, did NIOSH take appropriate consideration of 

13 external exposure from beta emitters associated 

14 with surface contamination?

15 In other words, during the residual 

16 periods, you got contamination on the floor, on the 

17 ground or whatever, surfaces, where a person is 

18 going to be exposed to both photon and beta. And 

19 the concern was, did they take into consideration 

20 beta?

21 And the answer is, as I understand from 

22 reading this answer, I believe that you will. I'm 
 

117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not quite sure if you're saying you already have 

2 -- maybe I misunderstood it -- or that you will.

3 In either case, the approach for taking 

4 external data exposures into consideration is well 

5 established. It is clearly explained in TBD-6000. 

6 And there are tables, work-up tables for doing all 

7 that.

8 So, as far as I'm concerned, this -- and 

9 if NIOSH has included their protocol already in the 

10 write-up, you know, I have to say that, you know, 

11 maybe we missed it. Or are they claiming here that 

12 you will include it?

13 Either way, as far as I'm concerned, 

14 this issue could be closed. Or I guess maybe in 

15 abeyance if you need to include it. But I don't 

16 see anything about this that there's an in progress 

17 issue. It's just a matter of whether or not the 

18 appropriate material is currently contained in the 

19 Site Profile. And with that I'll sort of turn it 

20 over to you folks.

21 DR. HUGHES: This will be added to the 

22 TBD.
 

118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: It will be added. Okay,

2 very good. Then as far as I'm concerned, I guess 

3 that's an in abeyance. You know, we have no issues 

4 with that. Once it's inserted, it's done. But 

5 usually we put that in abeyance until it's actually 

6 done.

7 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Yeah, John, Joe 

8 Zlotnicki here. I agree with everything you said. 

9 That sounds fine. I'm going to have to drop off 

10 the phone now.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. Joe, thanks for 

12 joining us and helping us out with this.

13 MR. ZLOTNICKI: Okay. The timing 

14 worked out perfectly. Thank you.

15 DR. MAURO: Great. Bye-bye.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, since it's 

17 going to be included, do we close it?

18 DR. MAURO: Well, that's your call. I 

19 mean, in some circumstances when we agree, we 

20 close. Or we leave it in abeyance until the actual 

21 change is made and then we close it.

22 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, if there's 
 

119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uncertainty about how this would be carried out, 

2 then you'd keep it in abeyance, Andy. But if it's 

3 a clear path --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, I think it's 

5 clear what you're going to -- you know, it's a 

6 matter of it's going to get in.

7 MR. KATZ: Then you can just close it.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I think we can 

9 close it, yeah.

10 DR. MAURO: Fine. Yeah, that's fine.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Eighteen.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. Oh, I think this is 

13 an issue that had to do with the use of breathing 

14 zone versus general air samples for the residual 

15 period. And all we were recommending here was that 

16 you go with general air samples since it makes more 

17 sense for the residual period than the breathing 

18 zone samples that were, I guess, collected during 

19 operations.

20 Which sort of relaxes the way in which 

21 it's done. But in our opinion, that's the way it 

22 should be done during the residual period.
 

120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then, let's see, and I think you've 

2 come up with -- breathing zones, they are higher. 

3 I'm reading real quickly. Am I correct that you 

4 are going to be going to the general air samples 

5 in this case?

6 DR. NETON: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's what it 

8 says, yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. Like I said, 

10 I went through it all, but there were so many they 

11 sort of get blurred. And that was my recollection. 

12 And that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, this 

13 issue is resolved.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John?

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah? Oh, please help me 

16 out, Rose.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: My concern here was 

18 that the maximum median value that they're going 

19 to use, as they say, it's 222 dpm per cubic meter. 

20 Which is actually higher than the operational 

21 period from breathing zones, which seems strange 

22 that your starting point during the residual 
 

121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 periods would be greater.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Well, if that's 

3 the case, then that's the case. Is there anything 

4 about shifting to the breathing zone, Rose, that 

5 you feel maybe -- or not breathing zones, I'm sorry, 

6 to the general air samples, that could be 

7 problematic?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree, they should be 

9 using general air samples. But I do find it 

10 strange that you would use a higher value during

11 residual periods and operational periods.

12 DR. MAURO: Do you folks -- that would 

13 be a first for me, I have to say, that your general 

14 air samples are found to be higher than, let's say, 

15 your breathing zone samples. Has anyone at NIOSH 

16 looked into that? Or do you find that surprising 

17 or not?

18 MR. STRENGE: This is Dennis. The 222 

19 is the highest value found and it was for 1966 at 

20 the hammer mill. And to be claimant-favorable, we 

21 used the maximum.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's the median 
 

122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 maximum. Not the highest value.

2 MR. STRENGE: Right. Oh, yes, that's 

3 correct. I guess that's just the way the data came 

4 out. Now, maybe we should have used a median over 

5 all of the working facilities rather than just a 

6 median, the highest median.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, these values 

8 just call into question the values from 25. And 

9 I realize these are general air sampling data 

10 versus breathing zone data. But you would expect 

11 the breathing zone data to be greater. Especially 

12 in the earlier time period.

13 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim. I'm 

14 wondering, if we look closely at those GA samples, 

15 sometimes HASL had a habit of looking at process 

16 measurements and then calling them Gas. I'm just 

17 wondering if that might not have been a process 

18 sample. We might want to go back and look at these 

19 data just to make sure that we're comparing apples 

20 to apples.

21 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

22 DR. NETON: I've seen GA samples 
 

123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 listed. And if you look at it, it's a process 

2 sample. They just stuck it right in, close in to 

3 get a high value. I'm not saying it is, but it does 

4 look a little bit odd to me.

5 I think we ought to go back and just take 

6 a look at that and assure ourselves that we're using 

7 the appropriate samples.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, you're 

9 following a prescribed method. It just gives you 

10 an odd result. So, yeah, I would agree, I think 

11 you ought to --

12 (Simultaneous speaking)

13 DR. NETON: -- much higher values for 

14 the GA than the breathing zone. We'll look it at. 

15 It shouldn't take long just to make sure.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Other questions, 

17 comments? Board Members?

18 (No response)

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Finding 

20 19.

21 DR. MAURO: Nineteen, this has to do 

22 with the residual period. And it's the classic 
 

124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question of, you know, you've got residual 

2 radioactivity on surfaces and you want to do a 

3 resuspension factor to get the airborne dust 

4 loading from resuspension.

5 And our concern was that NIOSH had 

6 employed, I believe, in the original write-up, a 

7 resuspension factor of 10 to the minus six per 

8 meter. Which is fine when there was some cleanup 

9 that might have occurred prior to the residual 

10 period.

11 And NIOSH has agreed that, well, in the 

12 case, I believe, at one of the locations, it might 

13 have been Apollo. I forget which one was which. 

14 But in one case there was cleanup; in one case there 

15 wasn't. And NIOSH has agreed to revise the one 

16 that there was no cleanup to get the resuspension 

17 up to 10 to the minus five per meter. And we are 

18 completely satisfied that that's the appropriate 

19 approach.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Other questions, 

21 comments?

22 (No response)
 

125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, 19 we can 

2 close.

3 DR. MAURO: SC&A agrees.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. As long as 

5 it gets into the final spot.

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Yeah.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, 20.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. You know, right 

9 now, I'm at the point where I'd have to read this. 

10 Could I ask NIOSH to help me out a little bit here? 

11 And maybe you could get out in front on a couple 

12 of these. You know, this is quite a load. Could 

13 you give us a -- I find myself reading them again 

14 to try to catch up. And perhaps to help me out a 

15 little bit, could NIOSH take the front end of this 

16 and just help me and go through a little summary 

17 and I'll listen?

18 DR. HUGHES: Sure, I can.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you.

20 DR. HUGHES: The issue was regarding 

21 the radionuclides other than uranium during the 

22 residual period. The majority of the activity 
 

126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that was processed was uranium.

2 I apologize, I'll have to go back 

3 through it again --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah, I mean, the 

5 response talks about thorium.

6 DR. HUGHES: Right. But there is a 

7 suggestion to add some of the additional values 

8 from the recent data captured to the Site Profile. 

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave, maybe we're 

10 approaching a break time for lunch? And that would 

11 give people an opportunity to take a quick lookover 

12 and get back to us on this after lunch?

13 DR. MAURO: Thank you. That would be 

14 very helpful for me.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, the question 

16 is -- I mean, it's the same issue on 21, too. Ted, 

17 are we going to take lunch?

18 MR. KATZ: Well, Andy and Bill, is it 

19 okay? Can we take maybe a 30 or 45 minute break 

20 for lunch and then resume?

21 MEMBER FIELD: That sounds good.

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and this is John. I 
 

127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will blitz through 20 through 24 during the break 

2 and just refresh my memory. Because I do need to 

3 do that. And maybe Lara, could you --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We end at 21.

5 DR. MAURO: Oh, we end at 21? Where do 

6 we go to?

7 MR. KATZ: We have 20 and 21.

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, that's it? Geez, 

9 we're in the home stretch. Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: But then we have Grace after 

11 that.

12 DR. MAURO: That's wonderful. We'll 

13 get through these.

14 MR. KATZ: So, is 1:00 -- does that give 

15 everyone time enough for a lunch break?

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: If that's okay with 

19 everyone, then let's break and resume at 1:00.

20 DR. MAURO: Very good.

21 MR. KATZ: Thanks everyone.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 
 

128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 went off the record at 12:12 p.m. and resumed at 

2 1:05 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, this is the Uranium 

4 Refining AWEs Work Group. We're resuming after a 

5 lunch break. And we have folks from NIOSH and SC&A 

6 on the line?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, John Mauro's still 

8 here.

9 DR. KATZ: Great.

10 DR. NETON: Jim Neton's here.

11 DR. KATZ: Okay.

12 DR. HUGHES: Lara Hughes is here.

13 MR. TOMES: And Tom Tomes.

14 DR. KATZ: Great. Okay. Well, 

15 forward, John.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, do you want me to pick 

17 it up?

18 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, Finding Number 20, 

20 this has to do with the residual period and with

21 the fact that there's some surface contamination 

22 of uranium. But there's also other radionuclides, 
 

129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specifically thorium, that was handled.

2 So, when we reviewed the Site Profile, 

3 we saw that explicit consideration was given to 

4 uranium, but not for thorium. However, in the 

5 response that was provided by NIOSH, they made a 

6 nice detailed description of what the expectation 

7 should be and what I believe to be revisions or 

8 additions that will be made to the TBD to explicitly 

9 include thorium as part of the resuspension 

10 material during the residual period.

11 Just want to confirm that. And I don't 

12 think that was there at the time of the original 

13 Site Profile. But am I correct that this is 

14 material that will be added?

15 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that would have to be 

16 added. The approach needs to be refined and there 

17 needs to be some guidance as to how it's applied. 

18 And then it needs to be added to the Site Profile.

19 DR. MAURO: Excellent. And as far as 

20 we're concerned, we recommend this issue be closed. 

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Any other 

22 comments?
 

130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (No response)

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, as long as it 

3 gets in, then we should be okay. So, closed it is. 

4 Twenty-one?

5 DR. MAURO: Okay, 21 has to do with the 

6 need to, I guess, include a little bit more 

7 descriptive material on the isotopic mix of 

8 radionuclides. Namely, apparently there is a mix 

9 of americium, plutonium, of different isotopes 

10 that need to be dealt with during the residual 

11 period. And right now I think it just refers to

12 total alpha in the Site Profile. But in the 

13 response it was made clear that the Site Profile 

14 will be amended to make reference to the mix.

15 And more importantly, when they're not 

16 quite sure what the mix is, they'll make use of the 

17 most limiting assumptions. And SC&A finds this to 

18 be a great response. And we're recommending 

19 closing this item.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Other comments?

21 (No response)

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. We're on a 
 

131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 roll. So, we're going to close 21.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's our 

3 recommendation.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. And I would 

5 agree. And others? I don't hear any objection. 

6 So, should we review where we're at here 

7 on the NUMEC site?

8 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I can run through the 

9 actions, if you'd like.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure. Why don't 

11 you.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's see, well, 

13 if I don't mention it, let me just skip the ones 

14 that are closed and get to the ones that have action 

15 items.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sounds good.

17 MR. KATZ: So, that starts with Finding 

18 5. NIOSH was going to provide further response. 

19 Finding 6, also in progress. SC&A owes 

20 a complete review, a written response.

21 Seven, SC&A again. Finding 11, SC&A. 

22 Finding 12, SC&A.
 

132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: What about seven?

2 MR. KATZ: No, Finding 7 was SC&A. I'm 

3 sorry if I don't say that.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: So, 7, 11, 12, all SC&A. 

6 Thirteen is NIOSH. This is the coworker issue. 

7 It's really the same as whatever it looks like.

8 Fourteen, SC&A. Fifteen, SC&A send 

9 comments. Sixteen, NIOSH. Eighteen, NIOSH. 

10 And that's it.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And what did you 

12 have for 11?

13 MR. KATZ: For 11, I had SC&A owes 

14 comments.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And 12, the same?

16 MR. KATZ: Twelve was SC&A.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay, then I 

18 got them all.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good. I think 

21 we've got it.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
 

133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Andy?

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Just for a number 

4 of those that are SC&A, where it's just a matter 

5 of their going over and confirming that it was as 

6 was said by NIOSH and that they just wanted to 

7 double check it, I think we should just -- if SC&A 

8 agrees with NIOSH, I would like to just consider 

9 those closed.

10 And then the next time we meet, we 

11 really don't have to consider all ten of these. I 

12 leave that to your judgement. As a Committee 

13 Member to the Chair, I leave it to your judgement 

14 as to whether we think we need to go over all of 

15 these or whether some can be resolved essentially 

16 by email and your confirming that, "Fine, okay."

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, but, Dave, all of 

18 these that I just went through, were ones where 

19 NIOSH needed the SC&A write-up or SC&A really 

20 hadn't looked at it in detail. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

22 MR. KATZ: I think we need a written 
 

134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response from SC&A on all of them.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I don't doubt 

3 that. I was saying if the written response says 

4 that we agree with NIOSH after, and as several of 

5 them suspect that that would be the case, then we 

6 can just resolve that and the Chair can just say, 

7 "That's fine, we've resolved it."

8 MR. KATZ: I mean, that's fine. But 

9 we'll need to do that when we're in a meeting 

10 anyway. So, the Chair can run through those. But 

11 we'll need to address them in a meeting.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

13 okay, if we do. I was just hoping to shorten 

14 things.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It may be a very 

16 short call.

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I mean, for those 

18 items, I mean, you can just check them off as we 

19 go through, but we're going to need a call to finish 

20 all this up anyway.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sorry.
 

135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Laughter)

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, we 

3 have 10 out of 21 to go over. That's why I was 

4 looking. I mean, it's a large number. But 

5 they're not really large.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, but then we can go over 

7 it really quickly. It's all in order.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's move 

9 on.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, now 

12 we're going to go to W.R. Grace. Is that correct?

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, what we 

15 have is an issues resolution matrix for W.R. Grace, 

16 findings, and NIOSH response. So, do we want to 

17 just go through these findings?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think we should do it 

19 in the same fashion. Summarize what the finding 

20 was and then where each party stands on it.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yeah.

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 
 

136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Buchanan. I'll take lead on that, if you'd like, 

2 from SC&A.

3 MR. KATZ: Good. Thanks, Ron.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Just a real 

5 quick background on this. The W.R. Grace facility 

6 handled uranium and plutonium for the AEC from '58 

7 through '70. And there's a SEC for that period 

8 with a thorium bioassay, I think. And the first 

9 revision to the latest TBD was issued in September 

10 2011.

11 We visited the site, SC&A did, in the 

12 fall of 2012. We sent out a review of the TBD in 

13 about January of 2013. And then NIOSH gave a 

14 response. We received it in July, the middle of 

15 July, of this year.

16 And as far as I know, there's been no 

17 other committee meetings on it. This is the first 

18 Work Group meeting that I'm aware of on the W.R. 

19 Grace Site Profile.

20 And we had a number of issues. And they 

21 weren't really large issues, but they're ones that 

22 need some discussion. And I will just briefly go 
 

137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 over the finding description and what I understand 

2 NIOSH's response is and our present verbal 

3 response.

4 Now, we've only received this about two 

5 weeks ago, so we haven't had a written response. 

6 So, what I'd like to do is to discuss anything with 

7 NIOSH that we need to discuss, and then write up 

8 a formal response and send it in to the Work Group. 

9 And in the meantime, a lot of these findings are 

10 going to be addressed by NIOSH getting further data 

11 from the site.

12 And so I think that a lot of that is 

13 still on hold until we get more of the data and we 

14 see how that affects the dose reconstruction and 

15 how it's going to appear in the TBD before we can 

16 really sign off on it. Most of the suggestions 

17 seem reasonable.

18 And so I'll start with Finding Number 

19 1. And like any site, we looked at the accuracy 

20 and completeness of the bioassay records. And we 

21 did not find that that had been done. We did not 

22 find any red flags. But we did not find any V&V 
 

138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 being performed on it. 

2 And so I understand NIOSH's response is 

3 that they are going to do further work on reviewing 

4 and analyzing the completeness of the claimant 

5 uranium bioassay data during the burial ground 

6 remediation. This site had work during '58 to '70. 

7 Then they buried a lot of this material. And then 

8 recently they've dug it up and shipped it off.

9 In the meantime, they're still 

10 processing uranium on a commercial basis. And so 

11 it mixes those two together. And so that's some 

12 of the issues with separating out what's AEC and 

13 what's commercial.

14 But the burial grounds was one place 

15 that they buried a lot of this AEC and commercial 

16 material. And now they've dug it up and shipped 

17 it out. And so still some questions on how the dose 

18 is being assigned.

19 And so we agree with NIOSH's suggested 

20 approach, and we'll be willing to review that data 

21 when they have it available.

22 Is there anything that NIOSH would like 
 

139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to add to that?

2 MR. TOMES: No, that sounds correct to 

3 me.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And that's going 

5 to include the plutonium data. And that's another 

6 issue we'll get to, is the plutonium usage.

7 Okay. Item Number 2 or Finding Number 

8 2, this was the uranium bioassay data and intake 

9 during the SEC period, the '58 to '70. And about 

10 the only data available was a 1961 air sample, '58 

11 and '61 air samples. And we would have liked to 

12 have seen more data. But this is the SEC period.

13 And so we reviewed this again and 

14 decided, you know, we could not find additional 

15 information. And then NIOSH agreed to reevaluate 

16 Table 315 for the different workers.

17 And we will review that when we -- when 

18 that becomes available. Is this correct, then, 

19 NIOSH?

20 MR. TOMES: Yes.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Okay, this is 

22 Finding Number 3 then. And we see that this comes 
 

140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the use of plutonium.

2 And there are some questions, I believe 

3 the first revision of the TBD included plutonium 

4 as an AEC material. And then the revision that's 

5 currently out there Rev 2 disallowed the plutonium, 

6 and now it looks like they are going to reconsider 

7 that and have the plutonium back in. And this is 

8 one of our main issues with the whole TBD.

9 And this not only affects the 

10 operational period, but then the residual period. 

11 If it is AEC material, then that carries over to 

12 the residual period. If it wasn't, then it 

13 wouldn't.

14 And so, NIOSH is going to include this, 

15 a plutonium AEC material and look and see how it 

16 changes dose reconstruction and the TBD. And we 

17 agree with this. And will evaluate it when it 

18 becomes available.

19 Is that correct at NIOSH?

20 MR. TOMES: Yes. We're looking at how 

21 to reconstruct plutonium doses. We currently --

22 the TBD has specified just for the AWE period only, 
 

141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if a worker has bioassay data for plutonium.

2 But now we're going to reevaluate it for 

3 the residual period as well.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you.

5 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. This 

6 took quite some effort on our part to make the 

7 determination that that plutonium was AEC-derived.

8 Tom well knows, we went back and forth 

9 on this quite a bit. But ultimately ended up 

10 concluding that it was AEC-derived.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

12 DR. NETON: That will be included in 

13 the residual period now.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And then will 

15 there be a PER for that?

16 DR. NETON: Yes, I imagine so.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Okay, then we'll 

18 look at that also when that becomes available.

19 So we can come to Item Number Four, 

20 Finding Number 4. And this is lack of neutron dose 

21 assignment. And most of these uranium processing 

22 facilities had a neutron dose assigned using some 
 

142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 N over P ratio or something.

2 TBD -- the present TBD had stated that 

3 there would be no attempt to assign neutron dose. 

4 And so we contend that that should be considered 

5 further.

6 And I understand NIOSH agrees that 

7 further investigation is necessary of a -- and use 

8 some sort of ratio value. And we agree with that 

9 approach. And we'll evaluate it when it comes 

10 available.

11 Is that correct, NIOSH?

12 MR. TOMES: Yes. We're going through 

13 that in our evaluation.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Okay, the fifth 

15 one is probably the one that is the most unresolved 

16 one. The lack of dosimetry calibration.

17 Apparently, W.R. Grace just farmed 

18 their dosimetry out. And so they had Nuclear 

19 Chicago do it in the early years and had Landauer 

20 do it later.

21 And there is no real documentation on 

22 what the -- number one, what the field exposure 
 

143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 gamma ray energies were. And number two, on who 

2 processed them when and what the calibration was, 

3 and any feedback from the vendor.

4 And so NIOSH's response was that there 

5 wasn't much available, that one reference number, 

6 23570, was the back sheet of a Landauer processing 

7 probably in the '70s, and they didn't plan on any 

8 additional efforts on this. And we would like --

9 I really don't know where the Work Group wants to 

10 go with this.

11 Most sites look at the photon energy. 

12 And I went back and looked at some uranium 

13 processing, plutonium processing sites like Weldon 

14 Spring, Fernald and some of the others, Hanford, 

15 even at Oak Ridge, the dosimetry methods and stuff.

16 And some of them say, okay, it's okay 

17 the way it is. And some of them say, well no, we 

18 missed some of the lower energy photons and so we'll 

19 increase it by 10 percent.

20 And so there seems to be a number of 

21 different ways it's been addressed. And what is 

22 correct for this facility, I'm not sure because of 
 

144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the lack of information.

2 But, it seems that this subject has not 

3 been really approached in a technical basis to say, 

4 yes, the data recorded is correct. Or no, the data 

5 recorded at certain energy, at certain times, by 

6 certain processors perhaps needs an adjustment 

7 factor.

8 And so that's where we're at right now. 

9 We feel that it has not been satisfactorily 

10 resolved. NIOSH states they're not going to do 

11 anything else on it.

12 So, I guess really, I'll leave it to 

13 NIOSH if you want to make a comment at this point.

14 MR. TOMES: Yes, this is Tom. The W.R. 

15 Grace dosimetry records and claims generally have 

16 Landauer reports back to the late '50s. I'm not 

17 sure exactly which year.

18 But it's -- and I think the '58 maybe 

19 there's no real name on who it was that -- who was 

20 furnishing the data. But, I believe in '59, I may 

21 be off by a short period of time.

22 But approximately around that time 
 

145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 frame, all the results are on the Landauer forms 

2 that were -- that we have seen and from other sites, 

3 and from what I understand, we have not really been 

4 successful at getting that kind of detail from the 

5 Landauer processing. Jim may know more about this 

6 then I do.

7 DR. NETON: Tom, I can't add any more 

8 to that, really.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Is there anyone there at 

10 the site now that could shed any, you know, any of 

11 the health physicists working there now, could shed 

12 any light on the history of it?

13 Was this asked when you were there? Or 

14 do you recall if they didn't know?

15 MR. TOMES: I don't -- I would have to 

16 go back and look at the records after that. I 

17 haven't looked at that from the -- from previous 

18 conversations.

19 So my memory doesn't really remember 

20 that. But, I do not believe there was any health 

21 physicists down there from the period that we would 

22 be concerned with, which would be the '58 through 
 

146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1970 period.

2 For the residual period, we have 

3 default dose rates that we go by in the TBD. So 

4 we're talking about the 1958 through '70 period 

5 that would be in question.

6 And that is the SEC period. And I do 

7 not believe there was anyone down there who was 

8 working there at that time.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. My other 

10 concern here is that even if we understood the 

11 technology that was used and any correction factors 

12 that might have been applied, I'm not sure how we 

13 would be able to correlate that with the workers' 

14 actual exposures to the type of external radiation, 

15 you know, they encountered.

16 You know, you could argue that there may 

17 have been different levels of energy that they were 

18 exposed to, such as plutonium, americium versus 

19 higher-energy photons. But, I don't know how you 

20 would even begin to correct for those type of 

21 various exposure geometries in themselves.

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, I know some of the 
 

147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sites that say, you know, if there's an --

2 DR. NETON: And those are sort of more 

3 single type sites where you might have, you know, 

4 a lot of uranium processing going on or you know, 

5 a single type thing.

6 But, this site had a number of different 

7 operations ongoing. Thorium, plutonium, uranium. 

8 I think it would be difficult to parse out those 

9 various exposure scenarios at this site.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, sometimes they'll 

11 go -- if they don't know, they'll go ahead and 

12 adjust it by a certain factor if they suspect that 

13 it will.

14 DR. NETON: Well, right. But then you 

15 start getting into plutonium versus thorium and 

16 your order is a magnitude difference. And I'm not 

17 sure that would be appropriate here.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, it just seemed 

19 like this site lacked information from that 

20 subject. And when that happens, I don't, you know, 

21 like I say, all we can identify it and the Work Group 

22 can, I guess, decide whether they want to, you know, 
 

148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pursue it any further.

2 Or, it's going to be a small amount. 

3 Usually it's 10 percent or 25 at the most, would 

4 be adjustment to the lower-energy photons.

5 And you know, could make a difference 

6 in a few cases. But really don't know what cases 

7 or what periods or when it would actually affect 

8 the man.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Other comments, 

10 questions on that?

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave. We now --

12 but if we do know -- we do know fairly accurately 

13 when Landauer was used and when the other company 

14 was used, yes?

15 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. I was looking 

16 at the TBD. The other company is listed in the TBD 

17 as through 1960 and Landauer started in 1961.

18 So that's -- I just now looked at that. 

19 I was -- 

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. TOMES: And that's consistent with 

22 records I was looking at recently.
 

149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

2 Landauer is generally, I mean, it is assumed that 

3 they're -- they do an accurate job. And we've used 

4 them in many other places. And there's not been 

5 any question about the reliability of their 

6 calibration. Is that not correct?

7 MR. TOMES: I have not heard any 

8 problems associated with that.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I mean, I 

10 don't know what the other firm is. Or what, but 

11 --

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, they have it 

13 listed as Nuclear Chicago. And your statement is 

14 true of Landauer in later years. And if they 

15 matched the energy field.

16 Now, that was, you know, the question 

17 was there didn't seem to be any photon energy 

18 measurements done --

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 DR. BUCHANAN. Like at Mound. There 

21 was a lot of data there to compare.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Aha.
 

150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: But, you know, being a 

2 contract facility, W.R. Grace was just producing 

3 the product. And using an outside vendor to do the 

4 dosimetry.

5 And apparently, you know, I almost have 

6 to assume from lack of documentation, that they 

7 sent their badges in. Landauer processed them and 

8 sent the data back.

9 And there's a void there that if there's 

10 any communication or any determination of what they 

11 recalibrated to that the Landauer facility matched 

12 the operations at W.R. Grace.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: One could, just to 

14 be claimant-favorable, simply put in a 1.25 factor 

15 on the Landauer results, and that's at the most the 

16 worst that the Landauer would be off, right?

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, yes, I'd say even 

18 Nuclear Chicago back then, you know would probably 

19 cover both of them. But I have no technical basis 

20 for that.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

22 DR. BUCHANAN: But that would require 
 

151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a complete rework of all the claims.

2 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. I'm 

3 reluctant to just sort of willy-nilly start adding 

4 25 percent increases in doses for no real technical 

5 known basis.

6 I understand it would be 

7 claimant-favorable, but we'd have to have some 

8 indication that there was a technical disconnect 

9 between the result and the calibration.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. And all, 

11 really, we know is we don't know.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Right. There's just a 

13 void there.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes. Well, 

15 that's a concern.

16 DR. NETON: And again, these are 

17 partial dose reconstructions. There's no --

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 DR. NETON: What is this -- does this 

20 cover for thorium, Tom?

21 MR. TOMES: Yes, it did.

22 DR. NETON: Yes. And there would be 
 

152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium actually, exposure.

2 DR. MAURO: So, Jim, this is John. 

3 Just a question of my own inquisitiveness here. If 

4 there's some question whether the -- you have an 

5 open window and a closed window.

6 And you're not quite sure how they 

7 calibrated the dosimeter. And you know that the 

8 facility was working with thorium and plutonium.

9 If it turns out it's thorium, I presume 

10 you're assuming that you have progeny with 

11 relatively strong gammas? And with the plutonium 

12 you have progeny -- or thorium itself with 

13 relatively weak photons where the open window would 

14 over-respond, depending on how it was calibrated.

15 DR. NETON: Right.

16 DR. MAURO: Am I on the right track 

17 here? You can see where I'm heading.

18 DR. NETON: You're on the right track. 

19 Depending on what badges were used, I'm not sure. 

20 I haven't looked at this myself in a long time.

21 But yes, if you had an open/closed and 

22 the lower energies, of course, the photoelectric 
 

153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would predominate and over-respond.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: But we don't really know. 

4 I guess that's the problem here.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 DR. NETON: Is we don't know. And I'm 

7 reluctant to just make up --

8 DR. MAURO: Yes.

9 DR. NETON: Some value here. Because 

10 again, you have a wide range between -- I don't know 

11 if they were working with plutonium in this time 

12 frame, Tom, were they? Or were they not?

13 MR. TOMES: Plutonium work started 

14 approximately 1967. But they would have been 

15 working with uranium, thorium and --

16 DR. NETON: If they were working with 

17 uranium --

18 MR. TOMES: I think it started in '67 

19 approximately.

20 DR. NETON: My opinion is, you wouldn't 

21 be too far off. I mean, if it was -- uranium, 63, 

22 93, 185. But most of the uranium gamma exposures 
 

154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is actually due to the Bremsstrahlung, not to the 

2 protactinium-234, which is pretty high energy.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes.

4 DR. NETON: So, I don't know that 

5 there's a real disconnect here. I mean, if it's 

6 mostly uranium work, I think this is probably okay 

7 for uranium and thorium.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, so what do we 

9 do?

10 DR. NETON: Well this is Jim. I don't 

11 know what more we can do. I mean we --

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, that's 

13 what's my -- yes, I mean, it's an issue.

14 DR. NETON: It doesn't appear that the 

15 materials they were working with would warrant a 

16 very large correction factor. And given that 

17 there's no indication that they're incorrect, I 

18 would agree we just stay with what we have.

19 DR. MAURO: If -- this is John. If in 

20 fact, I mean, let's say we have some information 

21 on what -- the count they used for the calibration 

22 at the time for these things. Which theoretically 
 

155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 may or may not be available to us from Landauer now.

2 In all likelihood, they would have 

3 calibrated with a relatively strong gamma emitter 

4 unless they were explicitly requested to calibrate 

5 for some other energy distribution. They would go 

6 with either a cesium or a radium or a cobalt source.

7 I mean, just our -- I mean we worked with 

8 Landauer for so long, I mean, as one of the 

9 companies that have been providing us the data. We 

10 probably have a pretty good feel of, you know, what 

11 their standard practice was in those years. And 

12 let's say the 1960s.

13 And just this is -- so let's for a 

14 moment, if we were to assume that they used a 

15 relatively strong gamma emitter to calibrate their 

16 film badge, I don't know what they do about 

17 open-window.

18 Wouldn't the results, if you didn't do 

19 any correction, wouldn't you have an 

20 over-response? I mean, you would be predicting 

21 doses that were probably higher than they actually 

22 were.
 

156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: In some energy range.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: And depending on the 

4 filters and where the filters are read.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: It was changing in the 

7 '50s and the early '60s at the national labs. It 

8 was going from an open window. And then it's going 

9 to two elements. And then it's going to three 

10 elements.

11 And so, you know, none of that 

12 information is available, coupled with we don't 

13 know what Landauer was using for calibration. And 

14 we certainly don't know what Nuclear Chicago was 

15 using.

16 We can kind of back-extrapolate with 

17 Landauer, but with Nuclear Chicago we don't know.

18 I looked up -- tried to look up on the 

19 internet some information on them, and see if it 

20 said anything about their calibration procedures 

21 or anything, and there wasn't anything available.

22 So, you know, I agree it's during the 
 

157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SEC period. It's into 20 percent, which we don't 

2 have a basis to base that change on.

3 But I did -- I did want to point it out 

4 to the Work Group. And you know, it's just an issue 

5 that comes up at most of the sites and some sites 

6 adjust it differently than others.

7 Some of them it's not an issue. Some 

8 of them over-respond enough that it compensates for 

9 it. There's those that don't make an adjustment. 

10 Some of them make adjustments.

11 But, in this case, we -- and usually 

12 they have some basis to it where -- especially at 

13 the national labs. Where they've done, you know, 

14 all these measurements. Whereas this commercial 

15 company didn't do that.

16 And so, you know, that kind of puts us 

17 in the position of not having anything documented 

18 one way or the other on it.

19 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. I don't 

20 recall, I know we've made adjustments where we've 

21 had the sort of the DOE complex badges, which there 

22 are a few different varieties out there.
 

158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I don't recall, and I could be 

2 wrong, but I don't recall, especially at AWEs, 

3 adjusting the Landauer badge results based on any 

4 technical parameters that we have. I just don't 

5 think we've done that.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: In AWEs?

7 DR. NETON: Yes, AWEs are typically the 

8 ones that had a lot -- if they had monitoring, they 

9 would have been an outside vendor, not in-house. 

10 And where the AWEs are, I don't recall adjusting. 

11 Particularly they're uranium type facilities.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Weldon Spring, they --

13 DR. NETON: Well, that's not an AWE.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. But they 

15 processed uranium there, and they added 10 percent.

16 DR. NETON: Right. But they had their 

17 own in-house badge I'm sure.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: I'd have to go back and 

19 look.

20 DR. NETON: Yes. I mean, any DOE-type 

21 facility that has -- that use what I call the DOE 

22 badge. I mean they were the ones that had the 
 

159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 multi-elements and such, I can see adjustments for. 

2 But, Landauer, since we don't know anything about 

3 their calibration methods and such, again, I don't 

4 remember doing that correction.

5 So, if we did start adjusting Landauer, 

6 we'd be a little inconsistent with what we've done 

7 in the past, is what I'm saying.

8 DR. MAURO: If I could -- this is John. 

9 If I could help a little. Since we're dealing with 

10 an SEC and what we're really saying is NIOSH is 

11 trying to do the best they can to at least assign 

12 some dose. But, in doing that, and this is a lot 

13 like we talked about earlier, you know, when we 

14 talked about NUMEC. You know, what do you do when 

15 you're not quite sure.

16 But within the context that you're 

17 doing the best you can to assign the dose. You 

18 know, to me that already is an effort that, you 

19 know, you are trying to give somebody some dose 

20 that's not covered by the SEC.

21 If we really can't get some information 

22 on the standard practice for Landauer let's say, 
 

160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and then I guess we're talking the 1960 time frame, 

2 then NIOSH has done everything, you know, in my 

3 opinion, reasonable to try to assign some dose, 

4 external dose, given the information they have.

5 But, if it is possible to find out what 

6 standard practice was for Landauer in processing 

7 commercial film badges, that would be helpful to 

8 show that -- a degree of due diligence. I know 

9 that, you know, whenever we're in a circumstance 

10 like I go to Joe Zlotnicki who was the vice 

11 president of Landauer for 25 years.

12 And very often he goes back, gives the 

13 current vice president a call and says listen, 

14 could you help us out a little bit? And let us know 

15 what the standard practice was back then.

16 And often, they do have some answers. 

17 But, is this something that's worth doing now, or 

18 is it overkill? I'm not sure.

19 But, in the past, we did take advantage 

20 of our relationship with Joe Zlotnicki.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: The thing is I'd be more 

22 concerned with Nuclear Chicago.
 

161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Oh.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: From '57 to '60.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, before then, I see.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that would be a 

7 good suggestion, you know, if we thought it was 

8 worth the effort to go back to '61 with Landauer. 

9 However, since there's no measurements made in the 

10 facility, we'd have to kind of say, well, guess at 

11 what the uranium, you know, and plutonium and 

12 thorium gamma ray energies were in the field since 

13 there wasn't any made.

14 And so, you know, that'd be kind of half 

15 of the puzzle.

16 DR. NETON: And my other thought here 

17 is, I wonder how large these doses are? I mean, 

18 given that it was uranium, which is a fairly low 

19 gamma rate, you know, low-dose-rate material. The 

20 thorium I guess could have been high. But I don't 

21 know if they processed that much.

22 Tom, do you have a feel for what the 
 

162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 magnitude of these doses are that we're assigning 

2 at --

3 MR. TOMES: Well, I just happen to have 

4 one open on my computer looking at it while we were 

5 talking about the records. This particular 

6 individual here, he had in 1968, he had quarterly 

7 results that ranged from 316 millirem to 130 

8 millirem.

9 DR. NETON: Yes.

10 MR. TOMES: And I know there's numbers 

11 a lot lower than that. I don't know if there's many 

12 much higher.

13 DR. NETON: I was going to say, my gut 

14 feeling here is that these doses are not really that 

15 large. Or shouldn't be that large given the source 

16 term I'm thinking that they worked with from an 

17 external exposure perspective.

18 So making 10 percent adjustments on a 

19 pretty small dose with no technical basis doesn't 

20 seem to be warranted, in my opinion.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, I think that SC&A, 

22 you know, has no heartburn with not making an 
 

163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 adjustment. We just wanted to point it out to the 

2 Work Group that there seemed to be a void there.

3 And nothing to really base any --

4 leaving it as it is or changing it.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, why don't we 

6 get the -- Dave. Why don't we get the information 

7 from Mr. Zlotnicki if it's available, and it can 

8 be just checked by folks at SC&A, to just find out.

9 Well, it might be helpful.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, you know what 

11 it just is, John. It's just a matter of getting 

12 it on the record that we did everything reasonable 

13 to try to say something about this.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: And I think a call into Joe. 

16 He may get back and say no, he's been through this 

17 before. And we really can't help you. And that's 

18 the end of it.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: And if we get something 

21 well, then we deal with it then. But, I know that's 

22 it good to try to cover these things the best you 
 

164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I agree. I think 

3 that would be a good idea.

4 DR. MAURO: I'll email Joe right now, 

5 right after we break. And see if he can help us 

6 out a little bit. It's not going to be a big deal.

7 And he's done this before and he knows 

8 the folks real well. You know, he could call up 

9 the President of Landauer and he'll get back to him 

10 right away.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good.

12 MEMBER FIELD: You know this is -- this 

13 is Bill. I can tell you it would be worthwhile too, 

14 to look for some of the folks that had pretty 

15 consistent monitoring over the periods where you 

16 had both vendors just to see if there's any 

17 discernible differences.

18 A single process that stayed the same 

19 between the two vendors, for instance a big 

20 increase or a big decrease in the vendor's over.

21 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. Well, we 

22 could do that. But then you know, if you do see 
 

165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a difference, you don't know when the source term 

2 changed. If you don't see a difference --

3 MEMBER FIELD: Right.

4 DR. NETON: But, I'm not sure what it 

5 would really accomplish.

6 MEMBER FIELD: Well, I mean, I'm 

7 talking about, you're saying the doses are probably 

8 low anyway. But, it would be at least something 

9 to look at.

10 You may not be able to explain it or it 

11 could be that process has changed. But, you could 

12 also look at it for when Landauer came onboard, was 

13 that -- how much -- how often was there a change? 

14 Was it pretty consistent exposures for workers that

15 were monitored the whole period, or was there 

16 variation, you know, month to month even within 

17 those workers?

18 DR. NETON: Yes.

19 MEMBER FIELD: But I'm just 

20 speculating on some ends.

21 DR. MAURO: You're looking for a weight 

22 of evidence, you know, that you --
 

166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER FIELD: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: You know, you add it all 

3 together and you say well, you know, everything is 

4 telling us there's really no need to make an answer.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. I agree.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, so where do 

8 we stand on this one?

9 DR. NETON: Well, it seems to me that 

10 SC&A is going to get with Zlotnicki and try to get 

11 some idea of what kind of calibrations Landauer 

12 used. And we're going to look at any differences 

13 in doses over time between the two vendors.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And it sounds as if 

16 -- this is Dave. It sounds as if we're likely not 

17 to make a correction. But that we will pursue 

18 every avenue and get it on the record to assure that 

19 we've done more than due diligence.

20 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. I'm looking 

21 at these records, comparing them. You don't 

22 expect a large study. I was thinking a -- just a 
 

167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 small number of claims that have data. Does that 

2 sound reasonable?

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, to me.

4 DR. NETON: I would -- I think so.

5 DR. MAURO: Would you actually follow 

6 one person? I mean, or a few people over time that 

7 crosses from the earlier vendor to the later vendor 

8 and just sort of see a trend?

9 If you all of a sudden see a step 

10 function break, is it some -- is it, you know with 

11 the same person. Or maybe, like, three or four 

12 people, that kind of thing.

13 I mean, that's how I would come at it.

14 MR. TOMES: Yes, I can do that.

15 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, you just wonder, I 

16 would imagine that they would change vendors, it's 

17 something strange. You never know. I mean that 

18 -- who knows.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, both 

20 NIOSH and SC&A are going to do the checking of that 

21 one. So, how about next?

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 
 

168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Buchanan with SC&A again. And we're on Finding 

2 Number 6. And this was the question of onsite or 

3 offsite medical x-rays required for work.

4 And this is one of those issues where 

5 again, there wasn't documentation one way or the 

6 other. NIOSH deferred to OTIB-79 that it would 

7 therefore assign as being taken onsite.

8 The only issue I had -- SC&A had was when 

9 we did the worker interviews, they stated that they 

10 discussed it among themselves and agreed that --

11 the workers agreed that the x-rays were done 

12 offsite in the urban hospital.

13 And so, this is where we have, where the 

14 workers say one thing and that -- but there's no 

15 documentation. And so it's, you know, it's 

16 claimant-favorable to go ahead and use OTIB-79 and 

17 assign it as if it was taken onsite.

18 And so, at this point, SC&A has not come 

19 up with any information to document other than what 

20 was said during the interviews, that the 

21 claimant-favorable thing would be to follow 

22 OTIB-79 and leave it as it is, assigning the x-rays 
 

169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as if they were taken onsite.

2 So, at this point, unless the Work Group 

3 has a different view on that, we would recommend 

4 closure.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well that seems 

6 kind of frustrating that workers say they went to 

7 the hospital and you can't document it. But we 

8 will -- we need to go with what the protocol is. 

9 And that's the --

10 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. The --

11 I believe the reference was not clear enough for 

12 us to form the basis for assuming they were done 

13 offsite.

14 The record of the transcript indicates 

15 a present tense, and there's no reference to what 

16 period of time the workers were talking about, or 

17 what this could have been referring to.

18 And there was just -- it just is not --

19 that did not meet the requirement of having a good 

20 reference that it was done offsite.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. That helps 

22 clarify that. Okay. So, Seven?
 

170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. We're going to 

2 move on to 7 there, and this is the environmental 

3 dose. A question about the TBD not adequately 

4 covering the environmental, an internal 

5 environmental dose.

6 And so NIOSH has stated that they will 

7 do some data-capture efforts in order to properly 

8 address this environmental issue during the middle 

9 period. And get back with us and we will review 

10 that information.

11 Is that correct, NIOSH?

12 MR. TOMES: Yes, it is.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So, that was the 

14 primary findings. Now the Secondary Findings were 

15 ones that, you know, could affect the way the dose 

16 is assigned mainly, more so then the methods.

17 And so we go to Secondary Finding A, 

18 which is this question, it's kind of a mathematical 

19 question, in that some of the tables in the TBD 

20 listed for 250 workdays a year.

21 And then Table 513 lists it as 365 

22 calendar days. And NIOSH -- well, we thought that 
 

171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it should all be adjusted to 250 workdays. NIOSH 

2 came back and said it -- showed some calculations 

3 from a calendar, and that they would add some text 

4 to clarify that in the TBD.

5 And I guess my question is, okay, 

6 mathematically we agree with that. We just didn't 

7 know why one table was 250 and the next one was 365, 

8 which kind of complicated the issue and could add 

9 some confusion.

10 Is there a reason for doing that?

11 MR. TOMES: I don't think there's a 

12 good reason for it to be confusing. But, sometimes 

13 it's just that in the course of doing this, some 

14 of the -- some of that just comes up less clear to 

15 maintain it, and we'll fix that.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. We'll review 

17 that to make sure we agree with it, and evaluate 

18 that.

19 Okay. Secondary Finding B, the AEC 

20 material was removed from the ponds and the 

21 grounds. It said in the original TBD that this was 

22 well documented.
 

172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We could not find documentation. 

2 During the site visit, we couldn't find 

3 documentation at that time to say what was -- what 

4 the material was being removed from the burial site 

5 and ponds.

6 I understand that NIOSH plans to do 

7 additional data capture to determine what 

8 bioassays needed to be performed. The reason that 

9 it's important is, did the bioassays that were 

10 performed cover the material that the workers were 

11 handling during this period?

12 And I understand that they are going to 

13 try to provide additional information on that. 

14 And we'll evaluate that again when it's available.

15 Is that correct, NIOSH?

16 DR. NETON: Tom, are you on mute? This 

17 is Jim. I believe that's correct. I don't know 

18 what happened to Tom, though. I was hoping he'd 

19 be able to --

20 MR. TOMES: Sorry, I had my mute button 

21 on. That -- yes, that's similar to Finding Number 

22 1. What we're going to evaluate to actually the 
 

173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay data for those workers.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That brings us 

3 to Secondary Finding C, burial ground workers and 

4 definition. The problem with some of that is the 

5 operator could be anything.

6 This is a small facility. So the 

7 workers get a lot of different tasks and stuff. 

8 And so, we need to determine how the dose 

9 reconstructor can determine who worked at the 

10 burial grounds.

11 And so, this is going to probably be one 

12 of those cases where if it isn't documented or 

13 sometimes they work there, then it's going to have 

14 to be by default to include them.

15 But I understand NIOSH is going to 

16 provide some more guidance for the definition of 

17 burial ground workers, and we will evaluate that 

18 change.

19 Is that correct, NIOSH?

20 MR. TOMES: Yes. I think this is also 

21 related to our evaluation of exposures from that 

22 work.
 

174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And then the 

2 last one is Secondary Finding D, which is the 

3 external exposure to -- the external exposures in 

4 the TBD at Table 5-5.

5 We get the front end a little bit where 

6 the exposure started. And then we get the -- this 

7 is during the residual period, I believe.

8 And then some settling rates that we 

9 didn't really see how the non-penetrating and 

10 penetrating external exposure was derived when it 

11 was put in the Table 5-5.

12 And so I understand NIOSH is going to 

13 provide some steps in between so we can better 

14 evaluate that, and we will when that's available.

15 And that's correct, NIOSH?

16 MR. TOMES: Yes.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So, that's our 

18 evaluation of that. We plan on putting this in 

19 writing, what I spoke today, and send that to the 

20 Work Group.

21 And then when we receive additional 

22 information, which most all of these involve that 
 

175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from NIOSH, we will reevaluate it. And then either 

2 present it to the Work Group or put it in formal 

3 writing then, or both.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sounds good. 

5 Any, questions or comments from the Board Members?

6 MEMBER FIELD: No, it sounds good.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. No, 

8 comment.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Most all of these 

10 are in process.

11 MR. TOMES: Are we going to close out 

12 the Finding Number 6?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. You did decide to 

14 close that.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. Okay. 

16 Anything further on W.R. Grace?

17 (No response)

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well then --

19 MR. KATZ: Well, that's taken care of 

20 it. If for these follow-ups, NIOSH, if we could 

21 just -- once you sort it out, if you can give the 

22 Work Group, and then we'll be getting from SC&A 
 

176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 their follow up -- but for you, if you can just have 

2 a rough estimate of when we'll have responses for 

3 these matters that you have to look into further, 

4 that would be great.

5 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. We have a 

6 data capture that is -- it's got, unfortunately, 

7 a fairly long schedule on when the data is going 

8 to be available from NFS.

9 MR. KATZ: So, what is that? It's 

10 open?

11 MR. TOMES: I don't know when that's 

12 going to happen. It's months, not weeks.

13 MR. KATZ: No, I'm not -- yes, I'm not 

14 pressing. I just -- but are we talking about, do 

15 you have it already scheduled? Do you know when 

16 that is?

17 MR. TOMES: I don't have the exact date 

18 in front of me.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: So you're going to site 

21 to do the data capture?

22 MR. TOMES: I believe it's going to be 
 

177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available. I'm not so sure how much -- some of it 

2 is going to be available electronically. I don't 

3 know how much of it we have to go down there and 

4 capture.

5 DR. NETON: Yes, this has more to do, 

6 right Tom, with the plutonium during the residual 

7 period. We never bothered to collect bioassay 

8 data during the residual period because plutonium 

9 wasn't covered, and now we need to establish some 

10 sort of methodology to do that.

11 MR. KATZ: Right. So, all I'm asking 

12 is, if you just send a -- once you sort out your 

13 path forward, if you would send a note to the Work 

14 Group.

15 I mean, just so that everyone knows 

16 where things stand. And has a sense for the 

17 schedule going forward.

18 MR. TOMES: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. 

21 MR. KATZ: All right Andy.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, any other? 
 

178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think we've been through our discussions at least 

2 to -- and that W.R. Grace, we're going to wait for 

3 some kind of a time line.

4 I guess on the NUMEC, I think we're 

5 pretty close on quite a few of these. Do we have 

6 any kind of a time line for SC&A getting back to 

7 us on there as to the NIOSH part?

8 DR. MAURO: This is John. Are you 

9 referring to NUMEC now?

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, let's see, I mean, 

13 I'll stick my neck out and say we'll get a write-up 

14 to you in about two weeks.

15 MR. KATZ: That sounds good, John.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'll just get the 

17 crew to work. And we'll get it. Because I don't 

18 think there's a lot here. Just a matter of putting 

19 it all together.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It will be nice to 

21 get this closed out.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes.
 

179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We had -- Ted, do 

2 we have anything else?

3 MR. KATZ: No, that's good. That 

4 takes care of all the business we had on our plate.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. I don't 

6 know if we have public on that want to --

7 MR. KATZ: We don't have any members of 

8 the public on, or at least we didn't before.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So we don't 

10 need to have any additional comments. So, with 

11 that I guess we can pretty well say, have lunch now.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, for those folks in the 

13 Midwest and adjourn.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

16 went off the record at 2:00 p.m.)

17 

18 

19 

20 

21