This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 

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

+ + + + +

TBD-6000 WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened

telephonically at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Time, Paul 

L. Ziemer, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor 

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Contents

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

Review of PER 65 (Anaconda)....................... 6

Action Items/path forward........................ 37

Review of DCAS Program Evaluation Report......... 51

(PER) 63 (Alcoa-Pennsylvania).................... 51

Action items/path forward........................ 62

Adjourn.......................................... 74
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

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

(10:32 a.m.)

Welcome and Roll Call 

MR. KATZ: All right, so let me get 

started. This is the Advisory Board on Radiation 

and Worker Health. It's the TBD-6000 Work Group, 

and today we are dealing with two work sites.

So when we do roll call, please speak 

to conflict of interest related to these sites. 

I should say in advance the Board Members have no 

conflicts with these sites. So, they don't need 

to respond to that.

One is ALCOA-Pennsylvania and the 

other is Anaconda. So, I'm going to go first to 

the back for roll call and then we will come back 

around to the Board Members and make sure we have 

who we have.

(Roll call)

Okay, well it does sound like we don't 

have any public members. Although, I'll just 

quickly note the agenda for today and the related 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

materials which will be discussed today are 

posted on the NIOSH website on the board section, 

schedule of meeting today's date.

So anyone who happens to go on or gone 

on there, you can go to that website and follow 

along with the documents if you would like. And 

Paul, it's your meeting.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Add 

my word of welcome to everyone. Just to amplify 

what Ted Katz said about the documents, just 

remind you there are two NIOSH documents. The 

PER-63 document and the PER-65 document.

Sixty three is ALCOA and 65 is 

Anaconda. And then there are two documents that 

were the review documents from SC&A. Again, one 

review of the Program Evaluation Report for ALCOA 

and the other a review of the Program Evaluation 

Report for Anaconda.

I think both of the NIOSH documents 

were rather brief, and I would assume the Work 

Group has read those. And then we have we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the reviews which are a little more extensive in 

terms of pages. 

But what I thought we would do, if 

it's agreeable, is just jump right into the SC&A 

reviews, and then NIOSH and give the responses if 

needed.

I noted on the, we'll start on the 

ALCOA one, we'll start with the first one on the 

agenda. I think Doug Farver was the person of 

record on that, but I gather someone else will be 

handling that for Doug since I don't think he's 

on the phone call. Is he?

MR. STIVER: No Doug, this is John 

Stiver, Doug is on vacation this week, so Kathy 

has agreed to cover.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh good. Okay, so 

Kathy, you will be out on the hot seat here then, 

in place of Doug, right?

Review of PER 65 (Anaconda) 

MS. BEHLING: And actually, if I could 

ask if John Mauro, would you mind if John Mauro 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

would take the Anaconda the PER-65 first? I have 

to be honest with you, I was asked to do this and 

I thought that this meeting was, like, during the 

week and I do apologize for that.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, okay. We need to 

do, you need to do some reviewing then, it sounds 

like.

MS. BEHLING: I do. I have to 

sincerely apologize. But John Mauro --

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: That's fine, I have no 

problem with that. We can jump on ahead to the 

Anaconda one, if there's no objection.

MS. BEHLING: And John Mauro is very 

familiar with all of the changes in this TBD6000. And so he can give you a lot of background 

there. So I think John is prepared to do that.

DR. MAURO: Yes. That might work out 

well. I'm more than happy to do that first.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Let's proceed 

then with the SC&A document, the review of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Anaconda PER.

DR. MAURO: Okay. This is John Mauro. 

Good morning, everyone. It's very nice to be on 

the phone with all of you. And today is TBD-6000 

day.

And both these cases by way of an 

overarching view of it, have to do with the fact 

that TBD-6000 went through some revisions. And 

also, both of these cases were done before those 

revisions. And then, TBD-6000 was revised.

In addition, OTIB-70, dealing with 

residual period, showed up in the in-between 

time. And also a revision was made to the medical 

x-ray exposure, I think it's OTIB-0006. 

So in effect, you've got three 

documents that came out, guidelines, that came 

out between the time of the original set of DRs 

both for Anaconda and for ALCOA, and then they 

came out. And then, of course, in light of those 

changes it was necessary to revisit the cases 

because of those changes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So there is a common thread that runs 

through all of this. And I'm going to begin with 

Anaconda which is a little bit more interesting, 

in terms of there is a little more twists and 

turns. You will see when Kathy takes on ALCOA, 

that's a little bit more down, straight and 

narrow, so to speak, in how the changes were made.

So with regard to Anaconda, a facility 

located in Waterbury, Connecticut, they 

originally had a contract with MED on gaseous 

diffusion barriers. But there was no 

radioactivity, and I think that was in the '40s. 

There was no radioactivity there so there are no 

AWE issues there.

However, in 1956 they were called upon 

to begin doing some pilot studies relating to 

extrusion of uranium billets that were cladded, 

I believe, with copper clad. So that they were 

like one of the, doing the original pilot work on 

extruding billets for use as fuel.

And it was a very small operation. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

You're going to see that in effect what it comes 

down to is that there was one eight hour shift in 

1956 on a day, September 29, 1956, when they 

extruded, I think, one billet or some billets.

And then a period of time passed until 

1957, March '57, where they did 50 billets over 

two 8 hour shifts. And then the third campaign, 

so to speak, was in October of 1959, where there 

was three 8 hour shifts where they extruded a 

number of billets.

So these were very short-term 

extrusion operations that occurred intimately 

over the course of several years during the 

1950s. Okay. And DRs were performed, and the 

issue was, well there were changes as to TBD-6000 

that had a bearing on how you would do the DRs.

And I'll give you the essence of the 

changes that occurred, that resulted, and the 

need to revise the Site Profile, Appendix G of 

TBD-6000.

It all has to do with changes to TBD-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6000, the parent document. One of the important 

items is the revised TBD-6000 added external data 

from deposited activity. 

They also revised the way in which 

they do the external photon doses from the 

deposit activity, and they also developed new 

protocols for the build-up of surface 

contamination from deposition of airborne 

radioactivity onto surfaces.

In addition, in 2012, OTIB-70 was 

issued. And then again in 2011, OTIB-6 dealing 

with medical exposures were revised.

So you have all of these series of 

revisions that had a bearing on the need to 

reconstruct these doses. So I'm going to go 

through now how those changes affected Anaconda.

Okay. The first has to do with 

medical doses. In effect, it's quite straightforward. OTIB-6 was revised and the doses are 

related to occupational medical exposures had to 

be performed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Now, here's the first place where I 

have a question to NIOSH. It's not a commentary 

or anything, but it's just something for my own 

edification.

In the past I've done a number of AWE 

cases where medical exposures during operations 

were not included unless there was affirmative 

evidence that there was reason to believe that 

the contract with the AWE included occupational 

medical exposures.

But now I notice, coming back into 

this again, that it's become now standard 

practice to assign medical exposures to AWE 

facilities, notwithstanding whether there is any

affirmative evidence that there was such 

exposures.

I guess my question goes to Jim and 

the group there. Am I correct that there was 

sort of a change in policy or strategy that had 

occurred previously, and now related to medical 

exposures?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. ALLEN: John, this is Dave. I saw 

that in there and no, there really hasn't been. 

We've pretty much always assigned x-rays. We've 

assigned them in the covered period, we don't 

assign them into residual period.

DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, okay. Then I 

mis-remembered. I somehow --

MR. ALLEN: Okay.

DR. MAURO: My recollection, going 

back a number of years was that there was a 

difference between DOE and AWE facilities.

With DOE you would automatically, 

always, apply occupational medical exposures, but 

AWE would only be the case when there was evidence 

of such.

I may be, you know, it doesn't really 

have a bearing here, but it's really done because 

I was surprised to see that. But, that's fine. 

I don't think there's any need to further discuss 

that unless anyone else wants to, does anyone 

else recollect that, or am I just mis-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

remembering.

I know Paul, you've been, like me, 

doing these AWEs for such a long time, does that 

ring a bell?

CHAIR ZIEMER: My recollection was 

that if there was a specific indication that they 

didn't do x-rays, that you might not include it. 

But otherwise, you did.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Is that maybe how, ask 

Dave if that was --

MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's the way it's 

been, the default knowing nothing is that they 

are doing x-rays. But if you have some specific 

information like they were done off-site or more 

frequently or less frequently, then we'll use the 

more specific information.

MR. KATZ: John, this is Ted, I think 

that maybe you are remembering the different 

types of x-ray procedure that would be used at 

the DOE sites when they had that equipment at the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

site. And that was only, that rarely occurred, 

if ever at AWE, the fluoroscopy or whatever it 

was called, the more extremely exposing type of 

--

(Simultaneous speaking)

DR. MAURO: Like the PFGs.

MR. KATZ: Yes, yes.

DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you. I'm 

going to move on to internal dose. During the, 

think of it like this, there were these short 

periods of extrusion, then long periods of no 

activity, then extrusion. And there, in fact, 

was airborne sampling data collected during the 

extrusion operations.

There are 83 documents on the SRDB, 

Nicole Briggs who is on the line helped me out 

there. She went into those 83 documents to go 

look-up the records, the data, and confirm. Yes, 

39 dpm per cubic meter is the highest observed 

general air sample that was reported.

And they use that as the concentration 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that all workers were exposed during the 

extrusion operation. So, that's an extremely 

conservative assumption to assume that's the 

high-end, but certainly appropriate of the data.

One of the questions we do have though 

is -- and oh, by the way, the fact that one of 

the things we usually look for is breathing zone 

versus general air. I believe the 39 dpm was a 

general air sample, and not a breathing zone.

But since they used the highest of all 

the general air samples observed, I feel as if 

that sort of covers the fact the they didn't use, 

or didn't say they used, and BZ samples.

So, from the SC&A's perspective, going 

with the highest value sort of covers that, which 

we would call a minor issue then, you know, 

because as we all know, breathing zone samples 

are generally a little higher then general air 

samples. But picking the high-end value seems to 

have covered that.

Now, one of the things that, again, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

sort of an observation that's probably worth 

looking into a little bit is when we went vertical 

into the 83 documents, though we did see several 

memos where the 39 dpm per cubic meter was 

referred to as the highest value, the documents 

also made reference to a couple of attachments 

where the actual data were tabulated.

We were not able to find that data, those 

attachments.

So one of the things we would like to 

request is that if those attachments are, in 

fact, available on the web, it would probably be 

a good idea to have them accessible. We did not 

find them.

But we do accept, based on the actual 

memos that make reference to those attachments 

where they do cite the 39, so we accept the 39 

dpm as an upward bound general air sample, and 

appropriately used as the basis for deriving the 

internal dose from inhalations. 

I guess I will leave that with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Board and NIOSH, whether you have any 

information. That was in our report. I don't 

know if NIOSH had a chance to sort of track that 

down. Were you able to find those attachments?

MR. ALLEN: This is Dave again. We 

looked pretty, we have looked everywhere we could 

come up with when we were preparing the revisions 

of the TBD. We couldn't find it at that point 

either.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MR. ALLEN: That was one of the 

reasons for using the high air sample.

DR. MAURO: Yes. And that would be 

good to have, but then again there's plenty of 

evidence that that 39 was a solid number and can 

be used for bounding purposes, which is what you 

did.

By the way, one of the things I 

thought about as I was working on this is that 

taking the highest value is extremely claimantfavorable. And you're going to see as I move 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

through, and I won't be that much longer, that in 

every step of the way, NIOSH employed what I would 

call bounding assumptions, and ones that they 

could have gone with lower values, there was 

data, et cetera, in bounding.

And I wanted to just point that out as 

I move through this because I have something to 

say about that at the end. And we will talk a 

little bit about that.

Let's move on to the internal dose 

between operations. In other words, we had these 

long stretches of time --

CHAIR ZIEMER: Quick question before 

you do that. So you did, there was an indication 

in your report that there was some breathing zone 

samples on some of the operations in '56.

What I'm looking at right now, it says 

breathing dose samples were taken of the sawing, 

drilling, and deburring operations as well as a 

few operations in the press area. It may have 

some value in there for that. Did I mis-read 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that?

DR. MAURO: No. I'm embarrassed to 

say that I did not specifically do my homework on 

that for this call. And I'm going to burden 

Nicole a little bit, I might be putting her on 

the spot. By any chance, Nicole, did you have a 

chance to look at those data and whether or not 

they were higher than the 39 dpm?

CHAIR ZIEMER: No, they weren't 

higher.

DR. MAURO: Oh, they were not. Okay, 

okay. What I'm still --

CHAIR ZIEMER: No, they were all below 

the 39, but I just wanted to note that there were 

some breathing zone samples. I think there were, 

based on what I'm seeing.

This comes, you reviewed 83 documents 

and some other information. And it describes the 

type of surveys at Anaconda, I was just quoting 

that from the SC&A report.

DR. MAURO: I thank you for that. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

did not bring that up, and that was an oversight

in my presentation. Good point.

CHAIR ZIEMER: That's on page 12, if 

that's correct.

DR. MAURO: Okay. No, that is 

correct. But that's good at adding value. It 

further reinforces the 39 number of being a good 

number.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Right, right.

DR. MAURO: Good. Okay, between 

operations. The approach taken for in-between 

operations is what I would call sort of the 

conventional approach where you have a certain 

airborne activity, in this case 39 dpm per cubic 

meter, you assume that there is a deposition 

velocity which is the settling velocity of .00075 

meters per second.

And they assume that that continued 

for 96 hours which is quite a long time when you 

consider that the actual runs did not run these 

eight hour shifts.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So this was a conservative assumption 

in terms of the duration that you would have this 

deposition. So built in to the way in which they 

approached the deposit activity are two very 

conservative assumptions.

One is that the airborne activity was 

at the highest level, 39 dpm per cubic meter, at 

all locations throughout the extrusion periods. 

And it continued for 96 hours depositing the 

radioactivity. And then they assumed that during 

the entire time period between these extrusion 

operations, which in some cases was months, some 

cases years, the activity stayed constant.

And on top of that, they used the 

conservative re-suspension factor that the 

airborne dust loading of ten to the minus five 

per meter. As we all know, we often use ten to 

the minus six. And I'd like to say ten to the 

minus five is especially a good number here 

because there is no indication that there was 

clean-up after each one of these, what I would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

call, short-term campaigns.

So using these three assumptions, the 

highest airborne dust loading, deposition 

continuing for 96 hours, and resuspension of ten 

to the minus five per meter are three very 

conservative assumptions that result in what I 

would call bounding, external exposures and 

internal exposures for deriving the in-between

time period.

I'd like to point out thought, I do 

not believe, I could be corrected about this, in 

doing my homework getting ready for this I don't 

think there was any exposures assigned for the 

post period, that after the AWE operations 

ceased. And I believe the reason was the doses 

were all below one millirem per year. So that 

certainly seemed to be reasonable.

And so in looking at just the internal 

exposures, they followed TBD-6000 and OTIB-70, 

and the latest version of the medical exposures, 

and in a manner that would be considered quite 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

bounding.

Which brings me to something that I 

would like to draw the attention to everyone is 

that one of my concerns, sort of strange, is that 

this is so bounding, I mean, these assumptions 

that you could say well, would you actually 

compensate someone on this basis?

You know, you say is it appropriate to 

compensate someone using these bounding 

assumptions? And it turns out, and this is one 

of the things Nicole looked into, I asked her to 

check out all of the places that were done.

We are going to get to external in a 

minute, but this is where I think it really is 

interesting. And it turns out, none of the cases 

were compensated. So, what my -- except for one. 

And that's when they used, if you remember, OTIB4. This goes back to 2005, I mean, we're talking 

over a decade ago, when there was a time when 

that was used as a way to do some dose 

reconstructions.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And there was one, it looks like from 

looking at the records there was one worker that 

was, in fact, compensated and it was way back 

when, when OTIB-4 was used. But since then, of 

course, that's no longer being used.

But my question to Jim and Dave is 

would you compensate someone using these what I 

consider to be quite bounding assumptions, 

because you didn't, at least we didn't find any 

cases where these sets of assumptions were used, 

and as a result you obtained PoCs above 50 

percent.

If you did, would you consider it 

problematic to apply these types of assumptions, 

because they are quite conservative.

MR. ALLEN: John, it's Dave. I guess 

to answer your question is this is the exposure 

estimate we would use for everybody. If it ends 

up being greater than 50 percent then yeah, we 

would send that off.

DR. MAURO: Now along those lines, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this is more of, like, a conceptual issue, there 

are AWE sites where you did take credit for, in 

other words, one of the OBIT-70 criteria is that 

when you are inactive, you actually, whatever is 

deposited on surfaces starts to decline.

And so there really are two 

assumptions here that I consider to be bounding 

to the point where I would raise a question 

whether it's appropriate to compensate because 

that approach was not used in other AWE sites.

For example, other AWE sites would 

have used, perhaps, the upper 95 percentile 

distribution of air samples as opposed to the 

highest value observed.

Other dose reconstructions, I would 

have assumed that any residual radioactivity 

quoted in OTIB-70 would gradually decline at 

.00069 per day, which is the way in which OTIB70 applies it.

But you assumed it was constant. So 

imbedded in the way you implemented it here is a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

way that is different than the way in which you've 

implemented TBD-6000 and OTIB-70 in other AWEs.

So, I raise and issue that I think is 

worth exploring with the Board whether, you know, 

that difference that is applying one approach at 

one AWE site at another and another.

See, I would have assumed that if 

there was a compensation here, you would have 

made the default to, what I say the more realistic 

and classic approach that you have used at other 

AWEs sites.

As you're going to see in a minute, by 

the way, when we get to ALCOA, we did go straight. 

Straight, what I call TBD-6000, OBIT-70 as 

opposed to these deviations which were a little 

bit more bounded as applied to Anaconda.

DR. NETON: John, this is Jim. I think 

this issue had come up before. I think you 

pointed out that these are pretty small 

exposures, it was a very short duration exposure.

And, you know, we have taken the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

approach in the past that the degree to which we 

were refine the estimate is pretty much 

commensurate with the magnitude of the exposure.

And this is one of those situations 

where, you know, is it worth sharpening the 

pencil to a large degree.

DR. MAURO: And I completely agree 

with that, and it's consistent here because no 

one was compensated using these exposures.

I just would have liked, if it turned 

out someone, for some reason, did trip over the 

50 percent, would you rethink it as applied to 

that particular case. Or like David just pointed 

out, no, this is the approach we would use, 

whether it was compensated or not. And I was a 

little surprised by that.

MR. ALLEN: John, this is Dave. There 

is a difference in different AWEs. We have gone 

with the maximum before. We've gone with the 

maximum, we've gone with the distribution at the 

95th, and primarily the difference on that during 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that operational period is the data we have for 

the site.

In this particular case, you can put 

three of the air sample reports in the back 

pointed out it's illegible, so we know there is 

some data there. We also know we can't really do 

a statistical analysis on it because it's 

illegible, we don't have all the numbers, we 

don't know for sure how many samples.

So the only thing we can do in this 

case really is to use the max. And the max wasn't 

a huge number in it's a short time period, so 

it's not like it's in an unrealistically high 

estimate in that case.

DR. MAURO: I understand what you're 

saying. So you are saying basically, it's really 

a combination of things.

MR. ALLEN: Yes. And a lot of times 

you're stuck with what information you have and 

that changes the way you analyze the information 

and what estimates you come up with.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: Okay. And the fact that 

you don't go with a declining number, was it the, 

in other words, in effect the doses are so small 

that it really didn't make a difference.

But if they did have the potential to 

make a difference, let's say during the residual 

period, let's put the 39 number to the side 

because I could see why if you really have no 

other good data, that is the right way to go.

You have really no choice. You would 

like to use the distribution and maybe pick the 

95th percentile as a realistic approach, but you 

really couldn't, so I understand that.

But now we are moving into let's say 

the in-between period where what you are saying 

is, you know, yes as we get ALCOA, you will see 

that in a minute. You went down, you had this 

decline in activity in the residual period. But 

here you just didn't do it because it was selfevident that the doses were extremely small.

I thought it was important to bring 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this up because it goes to the heart of really, 

you know, when do you relax the assumptions 

become bounding and it's okay.

But I was a little concerned that, 

caution must be used when applying these bounding 

approaches, especially if you're going to 

compensate someone, because then there is an 

inconsistency between, let's say, one AWE 

facility and other AWE facility.

And, I just wanted to bring that up. 

I thought it was something that everyone, you 

know, everyone should be aware of because this 

consistency issue is important.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well this also looks a 

little bit like the over-estimates that we do for 

people that we expect to have pretty low doses 

anyway.

DR. MAURO: Right. Well that's why I 

--

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: As opposed to the more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

exact ones that are near 50 percent.

DR. MAURO: Right. And that was what 

my question is, would you have used this for 

compensation cases. And you know, I guess the 

answer is well, the 39, yes. I suspect that the 

residual, or the in between period, perhaps not 

if it was important. Would that be a fair 

statement?

MR. ALLEN: This is Dave. Yes, that's 

the way I going to put it is that this residual 

if it became an issue, yes we would probably 

reconsider. But I can't imagine that one 

becoming an issue.

DR. MAURO: And I agree with that. 

Not in this case, that's for sure.

MR. ALLEN: That 39, I think we're 

stuck with that 39.

DR. MAURO: Got you. Right, good. 

Well, listen, that's great. Let me move on.

The ingestion pathway you used the 

classic approach, the 0.2 approach in OTIB-9 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

where you times the 0.2 times the airborne 

concentration and that gives you your daily 

ingestion rate. And that's classic, I guess, 

TBD-6000, OTIB-70. I think it's TDB-6000. No, 

it's OTIB-9 that would reference to that. So we 

are okay on that.

Let's move on to external, okay? What 

was done here is, what I would say, during 

operations, you actually had some measurements of 

radiation photon field that you could have used 

for being up close and personal to these billets 

that were being worked on, which were quite low. 

Or you could have chosen TBD-6000 to fall, 

external photon mR per hour type readings.

And, you went with TBD-6000, which is 

very conservative from a point, and so that's 

fine. Especially since there was -- and I would 

say that the data seemed to be quite limited as 

was the case for the airborne material.

So using TBD-6000 is certainly classic 

approach for external exposure and the look up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this 

transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

tables. All of which, by the way, we all know 

were reviewed and, favorably reviewed. So, that 

was used.

But bear in mind again, that was quite 

a conservative assumption. And that was during 

operation and, of course, following operation, 

the activity on the surface was assumed to be 

constant, again, as opposed to declining at that 

.00069 per day. Again, quite conservative.

So, you know, the bottom line is, this 

is a very favorable review of this PER. And some 

of the questions I have, certainly, have been 

resolved regarding the degree of conservatism. 

We're good.

Finally was case selection. We did 

recommend, I recommend three cases only because 

it sort of in the very beginning, whenever there 

was a fairly simple, and this is a fairly simple 

problem, I would say that well three is a good 

number.

And I really didn't have any great 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

insight as to why I picked three. I just said, 

let's go with three. You do know that there are 

many times when we have many more than three when 

things get a little complicated. But I felt that 

three was sufficient.

And just this week, I did receive an 

email requesting a little more clarification, 

because I did provide some criteria in my report, 

you will see it there, of criteria for selecting 

the three.

And there were some questions, so I 

supplemented that with a memo that went out. Oh, 

let's see, I have it here in front of me. It 

went out on the 20th, were I gave a little bit 

more thought to the cases to be selected.

And I simply pointed out that it might 

be a good idea to get a case of skin cancer and 

an internal dose that either lung or bone being 

other criteria for looking at a case.

So I hope that it met your needs. I 

sent that email out, as I said, a few days ago. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And between the write-up that's in the report and 

the supplemental memo that I sent out recently, 

I hope that provides you with a little more 

criteria for selection.

By the way, in my memo I pointed out 

that, you know, there's one case, as I mentioned, 

one of the things we did on this is we looked at 

the cases. Turned out, there weren't that many 

cases that had to be reviewed. And there is a 

table in our report that shows you the DRs that 

were done.

And we found that they were all 

denied, except for one, and that was the one were 

OTIB-4 was used. But there was another one that 

I pointed out in my memo that I said, you know, 

this might be interesting. I pointed out the one 

that has a PoC of 46.94 percent.

And when I wrote the memo, I didn't 

look a little more deeply, perhaps I should have 

but I did this morning. I was talking to Nicole 

who is on the line and she said, dad, Nicole is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

my daughter, she said dad, that also was an OTIB4. So to me, I don't think there really is any 

need to review a case that used OTIB-4.

So that part of my memo that I sent 

out, I would like to withdraw that as being 

something that might be interesting. I thought 

you actually got someone at a 46.94 using the 

protocol that's in the PER. But since that's an 

OTIB-4, I don't really think that's something 

that needs to be looked at.

And let me see, do I have anything 

else here. I have some notes, that I wanted to 

mention. Hold on. Nope, that's it. I am done.

Action Items/path forward 

CHAIR ZIEMER: Ok, thank you. Thank 

you, John. Let me ask the Work Group Members if 

anyone has any questions for John. If not, 

hearing none, then also, did Wanda come aboard 

yet?

Okay, apparently not. Just 

clarification, does, maybe Ted, you can help me 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

on this. Does the Work Group need to approve the 

number of cases or tasks on this?

MR. KATZ: Well, it, the work we've 

done needs to specify what criteria. It really 

isn't ever a number at the end of the day. It's 

really the criteria, and then what NIOSH does is 

they go and they find cases that meet as many of 

the criteria as can be met by cases in hand.

Sometimes it can be fewer than the 

number that's suggested by SC&A. It could be 

more, but it just depends on what those cases 

have, the attributes of the cases in house.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, right now based 

on John's comments, the SC&A is recommending two 

cases because you're dropping that third one 

John, right?

DR. MAURO: Well, no, no. I was 

recommending three as almost like a baseline. 

Well, you know, we should always have three.

MR. KATZ: We don't do that through. 

I mean --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: But, one of these is 

the one, was the red bone marrow one that was 

done under OTIB-4.

DR. MAURO: Right, and we can, as far 

as I'm concerned, we can drop that. That was a 

bad recommendation. So we have three, with the 

idea being the sense is that when all is said and 

done and you look at this and sort of step back 

and say, well, we'd like to look at obviously the 

operations and the in-between period. We want to 

do that.

So, you may be able to catch that with 

just one, you know, just one case. Easy enough 

given the operations were only eight hours, 

sixteen hours long. So I think with one case you 

could easily hit both those.

Also, we'd like to look at skin and 

one of the internal organs. I think bone marrow 

and lung would probably be the important ones.

So I guess when it's all said and done, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

you know, while you're picking the one that covers 

both operations and residual, if it's possible to 

pick up a couple that, one that covers skin and 

one that covers an internal organ, maybe both if 

you get one for lung and one for, maybe that's 

it, one for lung and one for bone marrow, that 

would be perfect.

CHAIR ZIEMER: And there's only one 

lung, no, there's two lungs in this group. And 

the PoCs are so low --

DR. MAURO: Yes. They're all going to 

be low.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, yes. Well one of 

them is less than one percent --

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

CHAIR ZIEMER: -- so or it's just over 

one percent. But on the other hand, the rationale 

for that perhaps -- what was the other one that 

you were talking about? Skin?

DR. MAURO: Yes, I like the skin only 

because it's external dose to the skin which is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

always a different kind of animal.

CHAIR ZIEMER: I'm looking for skin 

here.

MEMBER BEACH: What about the, what 

about the bile duct? It looks like that skin one 

was pulled. This is Josie.

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Well you're 

ahead of me on this. You're looking deeper. You 

know, it certainly, that would be, but, I'll leave 

that. Right now I guess I just point out lung 

and bone because --

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. I don't see any 

skin, the only skin ones I see were pulled.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that's all I see 

as well.

CHAIR ZIEMER: And, there is a, what 

was the it Josie, the bile duct?

MEMBER BEACH: The bile duct, yes 

that's got a --

CHAIR ZIEMER: That's a 40 percenter.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

DR. MAURO: It sounds good. Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: A couple of colons that 

are a little higher, but.

MR. KATZ: Can I just remind the group, 

I mean the point of doing these cases, reviewing 

these cases is simply to confirm that the 

methodology that is put forth in the PER is 

applied.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Is applied, right.

MR. KATZ: So unless a case uses a 

different methodology, and that's the reason for 

choosing another case is if there is another 

methodology that wouldn't be covered, not for the 

result in the PoC results. I mean, that's really 

irrelevant to make sure that the methodology 

that's applied is put forth and then it's fully 

understood.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Where it says no TBD6000, what does that mean in the table? On the 

procedure used.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: I can't answer that. And 

again, I'm going to put Nicole on the spot. Any, 

could you help --

(Simultaneous speaking)

MS. BRIGGS: The only thing I can think 

of is it might have been, I might have put that 

notation in to indicate that it was before the 

publication of TBD-6000, because it was very 

early.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay.

DR. MAURO: Yes, that could be it 

because some of these actually predated the 

original TBD-6000. It's possible.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, but the revised 

TBD would have been used though, right?

DR. MAURO: In the revision, right. 

But maybe the original, I don't know. I'm sorry, 

I don't know, because I know that there was an 

original DR and then, of course, the revised.

Whether there was a TBD-6000 at play 

as a Rev 0 in the original DR, I really don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

know, I'd have to look. We'd have to do a little 

digging.

MS. BRIGGS: I think that's probably 

what I meant when I put that notation in there 

was that it was, because that one was 2004. It 

just may have been that whatever --

(Simultaneous speaking)

MS. BRIGGS: -- it might have just 

been that the procedure that was used was not, 

you know, that TBD-6000 wasn't even the, I think 

that's all I meant when I put that in there.

DR. MAURO: Yes. And as we also would 

like to point out that in some cases where we 

looked at the original and then the revised cases, 

you know, we noticed that some of them were so 

early that we really couldn't figure out what was 

originally done on the case, for a particular 

case. So that's probably the answer.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. Well, in reality 

there were just ten cases. That seems a little 

excessive to do three out of ten.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: Well, I'm not disagreeing 

that. What I'm saying is that, as Ted pointed 

out, there are certain -- to me the way I look at 

it is there are different aspects of the protocol 

that are quite different and need to be looked 

at, notwithstanding what dose you get.

One is during operation and one is 

between operation. I think that catches those 

two. And the other one is dosimetry method. 

Certainly, we are interested in an external dose 

and internal dose, of course.

But with regard to the external dose, 

I did want to look at skin cancer, so I pointed 

that out separately because that is a whole 

separate way to look at it.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Right.

DR. MAURO: And then internal dose. 

Then it becomes, okay, if we're going to do an 

internal dose, very particular organs that are of 

interest. And I only have to say that typically, 

when you are dealing with uranium, what is of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

interest, of course, first and foremost, 

especially is lung dose and how that was done.

But also bone marrow. But now you 

pointed out that Josie said this bile duct one, 

I didn't even notice that. That came up with a 

high one, I'd have to say that that would be 

interesting to see what was done there would be 

different than internal organ.

But, of course, the internal dosimetry 

and how that's done, whether it's looking at that 

separate from let's say either a bone marrow or 

lung, that's a judgment call. I would not want 

to overburden so many cases because it just 

wasn't, the level of exposure was extremely 

small.

But you do want to hit places that 

where quite different methods are used so, you 

get the idea.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, apparently we 

don't have any skin cases left. Those were all 

pulled.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIR ZIEMER: So, let me, if I'm 

understanding this correctly, David, is that 

correct? We only have internal organs then right?

MR. ALLEN: Definitely the two skin 

listed on the table were pulled. There was no 

dose reconstruction done.

MEMBER BEACH: Well on that one, I 

don't know the year, but it may have covered, you 

know, it may cover both. It may, cover the bile 

duct may cover the, you know, the periods in time 

you're looking for.

MR. ALLEN: Yes, this is Dave. I 

actually looked that part up. And all of these 

cases with, I think, exception of one case covers 

the covered period and well into residual period.

MEMBER BEACH: We might be able to 

just get what we need from that one, and/or one 

other.

CHAIR ZIEMER: How about, what about 

doing the bile duct and the lung? Would that, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

I'm trying to --

DR. MAURO: Yes, the bile duct and 

the lung, during operations and between, I mean, 

my first reaction is sure. If you are asking me 

the question, I'm actually jumping in on this.

CHAIR ZIEMER: On the top of my head, 

I like the bile duct one, partially because of 

the PoC being high, but also looking at something, 

I think a lung might be of interest.

John Poston, have you got any 

suggestions on this? I wonder if he is on mute. 

I don't hear you, John.

MEMBER POSTON: Oh, are you talking to 

me?

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. Did you have any 

suggestions on the selections?

MEMBER POSTON: No. No. I was having 

trouble hearing you, I'm sorry.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, sorry. Have we 

been doing, Ted, remind me on other sites, how 

many have we been doing? One or two?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

MR. KATZ: Again, like I said, It's 

always very based on whether a different 

methodology, whether all the methodologies are 

covered by the cases in hand. In one case, we 

had actually recommended more. But didn't find 

--

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: How much different 

would it be for bile duct and lung outside of the 

fact that it's a different organ? In both cases, 

it's an inhalation issue and then a distribution 

into the organ.

MR. ALLEN: Yes, the other thing that 

going to be different is dose to the internal 

organ. The intake is going to be the same. So 

it's a little different.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. So, I'm not sure 

we get any more information out of the, doing an 

additional lung than we would from the original, 

just doing the bile duct one.

MR. KATZ: That sounds right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR ZIEMER: I'm kind of leaning 

toward just doing the one at this point. I don't 

know that we'd get any more information out of 

doing both of those. What do you think, Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I agree with 

that. I would be fine with that recommendation.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Are you okay with that, 

John?

DR. MAURO: If you are asking me, yes 

I am.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. I meant John 

Poston.

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

MEMBER POSTON: I'm okay with that, 

Paul.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Why don't we go ahead 

with that then. We'll recommend just doing the 

one, see if there's any issues that arise.

MR. KATZ: Okay, then NIOSH will pull 

that case, and then we'll send that to SC&A so 

that they can take a look at the case.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Are there 

anything else that we need to resolve on this 

particular one? Okay.

MEMBER BEACH: There was one question 

that John asked about getting those documents 

uploaded so he could look at them. Did that get 

resolved? The air sampling data?

MR. KATZ: It did, Josie, because the 

documents don't exist. Those were, the documents 

were referenced, but nobody could find.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay, I couldn't 

remember if that was resolved. Thank you.

CHAIR ZIEMER: I think that completes 

the Anaconda then. Okay. Thank you, John. And 

let me ask you, Kathy, are you back on the line 

and ready to go with --

MS. BEHLING: Yes, I am --

CHAIR ZIEMER: ALCOA?

Review of DCAS Program Evaluation Report

(PER) 63 (Alcoa-Pennsylvania)

MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I'm going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to try to walk you through this, and any 

assistance that I can get from John Mauro and 

John Stiver as necessary will be appreciated. But 

let's go through, I don't have the Skype up, but 

I don't know --

CHAIR ZIEMER: I think we all have the 

document. Do we really need to Skype at all?

MS. BEHLING: Okay. No.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Does anybody need Skype 

today?

MR. KATZ: I don't think so.

CHAIR ZIEMER: I have it on, but I 

think I'm going to turn it off.

MS. BEHLING: Okay, because I'll just 

refer to, if everybody has the document, I'll 

just refer to that as we walk through.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay.

MS. BEHLING: Okay. And again, this 

is the ALCOA facility case of the Aluminum Company 

of America, and it's from the New Kensington, 

Pennsylvania site.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

At that particular site, the ALCOA did 

uranium slug canning operations from May of 1943 

to the end of 1945. And it was one of the unique 

facilities that produced nuclear fuel for the X10 pilot plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and also 

for Hanford.

The canning operations, they actually 

did the canning of approximately 100,000 slugs 

through 1945. And the AWE period then, obviously, 

covers 1943 through 1945.

If we, as John Mauro indicated, under 

our Subtask 1 on Page 8 of the document, the 

reason that PER 63 was initiated is because of 

changes to OTIB-70 which impacted the Appendix R 

for TDB-6000. And so we went from TDB-6000 Rev 

0 to Rev 1.

And the changes that were made to 

OTIB-70 included external dose values that 

changed from, for the contamination surfaces, 

conversion factors for photon and beta dose 

rates. And it also included the addition of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

intakes from resuspension.

So if we move on to our Subtask 2 on 

Page 9 of the report, one of the things that also 

changed between Rev 1, Rev 0 and Rev 1 was the 

job titles of operator, general laborers, 

supervisor and clerk were reduced to just the 

operator. And it includes just the highest 

internal and external dose parameters that were 

part of Tables 6.4 and 7.8 of the revision TBD6000.

If we go down to Table 4.1, we are 

showing here the operational phase, the 

differences between Rev 0 and Rev 1 for the 

operational phase for the inhalation and 

ingestion.

And the inhalation intakes during the 

operational phase were based on air 

concentrations of 264 disintegrations per minute 

per cubic meter, with mean air sample values for 

the stamping slug category shown in Table 7.6 of 

TBD-6000 Rev 1, assuming that the operator was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

exposed to 75 percent of the time with an air 

concentration of 198 dpm per cubic meter.

Now, below Table 4.1, Doug actually 

did the calculation and was able to match NIOSH's 

number. And in that calculation, I'll just point 

out because there was a question along the way 

here, and perhaps I can just briefly stop here 

and get input from NIOSH.

Assuming the work here of 2,400 hours 

and breather rate, breather rate of 1.2 cubic 

meter or cubic meter per hour, that's how we 

calculated the inhalation. But that calculation 

also includes a denominator of 365 days per year 

as opposed what should really be 300 days per 

year.

Now we did that calculation and we 

were able to match NIOSH's number, but I guess 

there was some question, I believe Ted sorted out 

the question about why were we using the 

denominator of 365 days per year.

And I just want to confirm with NIOSH 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that I believe CADW multiplies the radionuclide 

intake in the input tables by 365 to derive the 

becquerels per year for total intake to calculate 

the dose.

And is that why, just to explain that 

365 day per year, is that why that is used as 

denominator in this calculation?

MR. ALLEN: Yes. This is Dave Allen. 

Intakes are usually specified in intake per 

calendar day making it a continuous intake over, 

you know, weeks, months, years, whatever. And 

that's the way CADW, that's the way IMBA takes it 

too. It's a continuous, no breaks where work 

begins type of thing.

MS. BEHLING: Okay. And that was going 

to be my next question just to ensure that the 

activity per day that values that that also 

applies to IMBA.

MR. ALLEN: Yes.

MS. BEHLING: Okay. All right. And 

if we move on, the ingestion intake rates are the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

sum of food contamination and incidental hand to 

mouth ingestion rates.

And Doug was able to, if we could move 

on to Page 10, to calculate those values and was 

able to match NIOSH's value.

The only thing that we do take notice, 

note of here, when it came to looking at Revision 

0 of Appendix R, we were not able to match the 

inhalation and ingestion intake rates that were 

identified in Tables 7.8 and 7.9 in Rev 1. 

Although, this is no longer an issue because if 

there was a problem there, it was corrected with 

the Rev 1.

If we move onto Section 4.2.2, we 

calculated the external doses and with the 

exception of the whole body photon dose in Rev 0, 

the values remain the same, it's just that the 

units change.

Again, Table 4.2 shows the operational 

phase external doses, the differences between the 

two revisions. And if we go down and we actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

calculated the skin dose for the hands and forearm 

using the contact dose rate of 230 millirem per 

hour for 48 hours, 50 weeks per year and assuming 

that the person would be in contact with the metal 

for 50 percent of the workday. And using those 

parameters we were able to match NIOSH's number.

Again, for skin that's not in direct 

contact with the uranium metal, it's assumed that 

it was estimated to be ten times the photon dose 

rate of one foot.

And again, if we go onto Page 11, Doug 

shows you his calculations for a maximum dose 

rate of one foot from a rectangular uranium ingot 

of 2.08 millirem per hour. He was able to 

calculate the dose and match NIOSH's number.

Moving on to whole body dose. The 

whole body dose was derived using the photon dose 

rate at one foot, with the rectangular uranium 

ingot. And again, assuming 2.08 millirem per 

hour and 48 hours per week and 50 weeks a year 

divided by two, we were able to match the numbers.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Again, when we went back into Rev 0, 

we were not able to match the 0.349 millirem per 

day as shown in Table R3 of Appendix R Revision 

1. However, again, it becomes no longer a concern 

because we were able to match the numbers in the 

Rev 1.

And if we move on now to the residual 

phase, the residual phase goes from a period of 

1946 through '91, but there was a cleanup done in 

1991, so there's no residual that's calculated 

after that period of time.

And the internal and external 

exposures beginning in the residual phase are 

determined from air sample data from facilities 

from the radium slugs that were produced in cans. 

And Table 7.6 of Rev 1 shows those air sample 

results for slug production.

And if we move onto Section 4.3.1, the 

internal doses were calculated using the data in 

Section 3.4 of TBD-6000 Revision 1 and as Doug 

has shown here. And he was able to match NIOSH's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

number.

Same with the inhalation rates. He 

goes through the calculations for the -- using a 

resuspension of the ten minus six per cubic, per 

meter and a breathing rate of 1.2 cubic meters 

per hour. And he was able, again, to match 

NIOSH's number.

Section 4.3.2 shows the external 

doses, and Table 4.3 shows the difference, or 

shows the surface contamination dose rate factors 

for the photon and exposures and the dose rates.

Again, Doug calculated the doses and 

as shown below the Table and was able to match 

NIOSH's values.

For the source depletion on Page 13 

under Section 4.3.1, the initial intake and dose 

rates are calculated based on the first year of 

residual period, and then using an average 

depletion rate of 6.70 minus 4 per day derives 

the values in Table 4.4 for the exposures for the 

remainder of the years of the residual period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

As I indicated, we were able to match 

all of NIOSH's numbers for Revision 1. We did 

have some question about the previous revision, 

but as I said, that's a moot point at this point 

in time.

So to go onto Subtask 3, which looks 

at the criteria that was used for examining the 

number of cases that were potentially affected by 

this change, NIOSH initially identified 44 claims 

and due to various reasons, they were able to 

eliminate that down to 35 claims that needed to 

be reevaluated.

And when we looked at their approach 

to evaluate and to identify the number of 

potential claims, we agreed with that and we don't 

have any issues with Subtask 3 and their 

identification of 35 claims, or the reevaluation 

of 35 claims.

And then if we go onto our Subtask 4, 

this is where we identify the number of cases 

that we may want to review under Subtask 4. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

that can simply be one case that involves an 

individual who worked both in the operational 

period and the residual period.

Or if that's not a possibility, then 

two cases where the individual worked in the 

operational period and another case where the 

individual worked in the residual period.

That sums it up. Does anyone have 

any questions?

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Kathy. 

Work Group Members, any questions for Kathy?

MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. I 

don't have any.

Action items/path forward 

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, it appears that 

our only task now at this point is selection of 

the case or cases. SC&A is recommending that if 

NIOSH can identify a case that covers both the 

operational and residual period, that should take 

care of it. Otherwise, one case from each.

Dave, you can do the first one. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

don't have a list of the cases right before me. 

But can we find, readily find a case that covers 

both?

MR. ALLEN: Yes. I did some exploring, 

we've got some 17 or 20. Some maybe that had --

CHAIR ZIEMER: Do they cover both?

MR. ALLEN: Cover both, yes.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Do we need to look at 

those cases or just allow NIOSH to select one?

MR. KATZ: That's what we've done in 

the past. We've just selected according to the 

criteria.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. So if there's no 

objection, we'll ask NIOSH to select a case that 

meets both those criteria for the operational and 

residual period and it just requires one case. 

And SC&A can proceed with that.

MR. ALLEN: Okay, this is Dave. I was 

going to suggest one last criteria. I think 

there's a couple cases with some intermittent 

employment during that covered period. I was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

going to throw those out and just do those that 

had employment during the entire covered period. 

It's not that long of a period. Does that work 

for everybody?

CHAIR ZIEMER: That makes sense to me.

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: -- you would specify 

that it's one that has continuous employment 

during that, those two periods.

MR. ALLEN: During the covered period, 

yes.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. Just during the 

covered period.

MR. ALLEN: Yes. And then I didn't 

know if you wanted any organ criteria or not.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, we hadn't 

specified it at this point and I don't think the 

SC&A asked for that. Did you, Kathy?

MS. BEHLING: No, no, we did not ask 

for that.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Are there --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: Can we pick up a skin? 

This is John.

MS. BEHLING: That's what I was going 

to say. The only thing that I would say is 

perhaps a skin, yes, a skin contamination.

MR. ALLEN: I never looked at the 

organs, so I can't say for sure, but there's a 

reasonable chance there is one.

MS. BEHLING: Okay.

CHAIR ZIEMER: So you would prefer a 

skin over an internal?

DR. MAURO: This is John, I would 

want one of --

CHAIR ZIEMER: It's going to be both, 

isn't it? I mean, you're going to be calculating 

both.

MR. ALLEN: Yes. It's, we still 

calculate the internal dose to the skin. It would 

just be small.

CHAIR ZIEMER: The skin was, do you 

have a list before -- the skin in this case, we've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

got fairly high doses, right? Let me go back 

here. In your revised model the skin doses jumped 

up quite a bit. From, well they didn't jump up 

quite a bit.

That's per year. Oh, they did because 

you had a, well, let's see. Sixty eight millirads 

per day. Yes, skin doses, annual skin doses went 

down it looks like.

MEMBER BEACH: That's what it looks 

like to me, Paul.

MS. BEHLING: Yes, they did.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, wait a minute. I 

see because 365 times, what's the annual, real 

quick, Rev 0 for skin.

DR. MAURO: Rev 0 of TBD-6000 did not 

have an external skin look-up table. That's was 

one of those changes going from Rev 0 to Rev 1.

MR. ALLEN: John, you're talking about 

for the contamination. There were --

DR. MAURO: Yes, yes for 

contamination. Or not for direct contact, no. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Direct contact was different.

MR. ALLEN: Yes, and, Paul, if you're 

looking at that Table 4.2 --

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, that's what I'm 

looking at. 68.4 times 365, real quick, what 

does that give us?

MR. ALLEN: It gives us 25 Rem.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, it's the same 

then.

MEMBER BEACH: It's exactly the same.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, the skin didn't 

change then from Rev 0 to Rev 1.

MEMBER BEACH: They're all pretty darn 

close or the same.

MR. ALLEN: Yes, I think all those 

were the same. We changed the time units because 

per year works a lot easier than per capita day.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, the reason I'm 

asking that is if it didn't change, then there's 

that's not the thing that's impacting your 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

changes to the people from Rev, Rev 0 to Rev 1.

MR. ALLEN: I think in the residual 

period it probably did change because of the 

factors in TBD-6000. It would be smaller part of 

the dose. But the original TBD-6000 didn't have 

a beta dose for contamination that was added with 

Rev 1.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, where did you see 

the biggest changes from Rev 0 to Rev 1 in terms 

of the doses? Was it organ doses or was it, it 

doesn't look like the skin doses are going to 

change very much.

MS. BEHLING: No, just as Dave said, 

it's mostly during the residual period, if you 

look at Table 4.4, 4-4 which wasn't included 

before. I don't know, perhaps you would want to 

select two cases? One that would be a skin and 

one --

CHAIR ZIEMER: One, how about full 

body?

MEMBER BEACH: Phase two, when you do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

the calculation out. 

MS. BEHLING: Yes the operational 

period, it did increase for the whole body.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Did you have some that 

were close to 50 percent, but under in the 40s 

Dave? In Rev 1?

MR. ALLEN: I did not look at the PoCs 

or anything for these cases, so I don't know.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, actually that's 

not how we should decide it anyway. But, if the 

skin dose is barely changing, it doesn't seem 

like, to me, like there's much point in using 

that as a criteria for reviewing it.

What's the biggest change? Is it the 

whole body? Or is it internal?

MR. ALLEN: This is Dave. I wasn't 

ready for that question.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, it looks to me 

like whole body is going from about 100 millirem 

per year to about 2,500.

MS. BEHLING: Yes, 124 to 100 -- to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2,500.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, yes.

MS. BEHLING: So there quite a big --

(Simultaneous speaking)

CHAIR ZIEMER: That a pretty big jump. 

What about internal? I mean it would seem to me 

that it would make more sense to look at some 

whole body things rather than the skin, per se.

MS. BEHLING: Yes. The biggest 

increases is the whole body. It is. If you look 

at the next comparison between tables in the 

operational periods, as we at Table 4.1 and 4-2 

it's definitely the whole body. So yes, I agree 

with you.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay if we use that as 

the criteria, Dave?

MR. ALLEN: Not really. I mean, every 

--

CHAIR ZIEMER: I mean, it's really --

well, of course, the other thing that happens is 

if you do whole body, you're also assigning that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

to the skin, don't you?

MR. ALLEN: Yes. Yes. So like I said, 

it's not really the criteria to choose. But if 

that's the thing you want to see, you'll see it 

no matter what you choose.

CHAIR ZIEMER: You'll see it on the 

skin in addition to the skin dose, right?

MR. ALLEN: Correct.

CHAIR ZIEMER: So the skin dose would 

jump up from the whole body part in addition to 

what you assigned to the beta part of it.

MR. ALLEN: Yes.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. So maybe skin 

would work. It's not just skin alone from beta. 

It's the skin is going to get the beta dose plus 

whatever you're assigning to the whole body. I 

think that's correct.

MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's correct, Paul.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. So maybe it is a 

good thing to go with the skin then. Why don't 

we do that. Is that okay? I need to hear from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

both Josie and John Poston.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Paul. This is 

Josie. That's okay with me.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay. It's okay with 

me.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. I think we've 

got a consensus here. And I think Wanda is still 

not with us. So let's go with that. Dave you'll 

be able to provide that, I assume, right?

MR. ALLEN: I've will make sure we do 

have one like that. I'm sure we do and if we 

don't I will pick the next best thing and let 

everybody know what I did and you can give me a 

different criteria, if you don't like that, I 

guess.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Well I can't imagine 

there wouldn't be since that's got to be the 

biggest change.

So if there's agreement on that, 

that's how we'll proceed. Any other questions on 

this one? If not, let me ask Ted this, does the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change.

73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Work Group need to report this out to the Board 

in any way?

MR. KATZ: So, well the next step is 

for SC&A to review those individual cases and 

then, you know, and then they'll finish with the 

PER review.

CHAIR ZIEMER: And then we would do 

it.

MR. KATZ: And then it's an option to 

report this out --

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, the Board. Yes. 

We don't have to report this action at this point.

MR. KATZ: No, we don't.

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. I think, if 

that's the case, I think we have completed the 

business for today. Unless, unless, expected by 

our designated federal person. Is there any other 

business before us?

MR. KATZ: There is not. And thank 

you everybody for handling all this efficiently.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair 

of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript 

is for information only and is subject to change. 

74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Adjourn 

CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, then we are done 

and I will declare that the meeting is adjourned. 

Thank you everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 11:50 a.m.)