NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT WORK GROUP 

+ + + + + 

MONDAY 

NOVEMBER 17, 2008 

+ + + + + 

 The work group meeting convened in 

the Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott Hotel, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky at 9:30 a.m., Tim Melius, Chairman, 

presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman 

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

MARK GRIFFON, Member 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member* 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member* 

 
 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

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal 

 Official 

HANS BEHLING, SC&A* 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

STEPHEN OSTROW, SC&A* 

JIM NETON, NIOSH OCAS 

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH OCAS 

LAURIE BREYER, NIOSH OCAS 

LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH OCAS 

STU HINNEFELD, NIOSH OCAS 

DENISE BROCK, NIOSH OD 

JOE GUIDO, ORAU 

MIKE MAHATHY, ORAU 

BILL THURBER, ORAU 

ZEDA ELIZABETH HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS 

EMILY HOWELL, ESQ., HHS OGC* 

DAN McKEEL, Dow, Petitioner* 

MAUREEN MERRITT, Participant* 

JOHN RAMSPOTT, Participant* 

TERRIE BARRIE, ANWAG 

*Present via telephone. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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

PAGE

Roll Call 4 

Ames Discussion 8 

Dow Discussion 77 

Adjourn 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

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

2 9:32 a.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, so we are going to 

4 get started. We are missing Mark Griffon but 

5 he will be with us shortly. So -- hello? 

6 MS. HOWELL: Sorry, this is Emily. 

7 I just wanted to let you know I think there 

8 were some airport delays. I know Liz is en 

9 route. 

10 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Thank you, 

11 Emily. 

12 Okay, this is Ted Katz. I'm the 

13 acting Designated Federal Official for the 

14 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

15 And this is the Special Exposure Cohort 

16 Workgroup of that board. 

17 And we are going to begin by taking 

18 roll starting with the board members in the 

19 room. 

20 CHAIR MELIUS: Tim Melius, board 

21 member. 

22 MR. KATZ: We need to cover whether 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 is a conflict of interest with Ames or Dow, 

2 which are the two sites that will be discussed 

3 at some point during the day. 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: And I have no 

5 conflict of interest. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach and no 

7 conflict. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, no 

9 conflict. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, then on the 

11 telephone for Board members. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, no 

13 conflict. 

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, no 

15 conflict. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. And now NIOSH 

17 OCAS OR ORAU staff in the room. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, OCAS, 

19 no conflicts. 

20 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, OCAS, no 

21 conflict. 

22 MS. BREYER: Laurie Breyer, OCAS, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 no conflict. 

2 MR. GUIDO: Joe Guido. I have a 

3 conflict with Dow. 

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, conflict with Dow. 

5 And on the telephone the NIOSH ORAU staff. 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford, 

7 no conflicts with Dow or Ames. 

8 MS. BROCK: Denise Brock, no 

9 conflicts. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's it for 

11 NIOSH ORAU. Then in the room, SC&A. 

12 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

13 conflict. 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, 

15 SC&A, no conflict. 

16 MR. KATZ: And on the phone, do we 

17 have any SC&A? 

18 MR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, no 

19 conflict. 

20 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, no 

21 conflict. 

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. And now we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 have either representatives of Congressional 

2 offices or members of the public on the 

3 telephone. 

4 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel, 

5 I'm the SEC petitioner for Dow. 

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott. 

7 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, that's John 

8 Ramspott. Thank you. 

9 MS. BARRIE: And this is Terrie 

10 Barrie with ANWAG. 

11 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Terrie. 

12 Anyone else from the public who 

13 would like to identify themselves? 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. Just phone 

16 etiquette, please everyone who is not 

17 speaking, put your phone on mute. And can you 

18 *6 if you don't have a mute button? And 

19 please don't put the phone call on hold but 

20 hang up and call back in if you need to leave 

21 for a while. 

22 And with that, I turn it over to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 the Chair, Dr. Melius. 

2 CHAIR MELIUS: Our plan is to start 

3 talking about the 250-day issue with Ames. I 

4 suspect we'll go until about eleven o'clock 

5 for that. 

6 And then at eleven, we'll switch 

7 over to talking about Dow unless we finish up 

8 with Ames sooner than that. Or have a very 

9 heated discussion that we don't want to stop 

10 or whatever. 

11 So -- and I think the last meeting 

12 we had about this was -- the discussion was 

13 the draft report from SC&A regarding the Ames 

14 situation. And then since that time -- since 

15 our last, this group we have had the Jim Neton 

16 -- NIOSH has produced a report which he 

17 circulated again the other day. 

18 And so I think it's probably best 

19 to start -- Jim, if you want to briefly 

20 summarize. 

21 DR. NETON: Sure. 

22 Yes, this is a report that we -- I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 guess we call these white papers these days -- 

2 originally circulated April 23rd, 2008, to the 

3 working group. And it was our sort of 

4 analysis of the 250-day -- I mean the blowout 

5 analysis that SC&A prepared and issued in June 

6 2007 and which was primarily put together by 

7 Hans. 

8 But I think during our 

9 deliberations of this document, a couple 

10 questions came to light. One was well, A: 

11 does this really apply to anybody currently 

12 that we're reconstructing; and then B: SC&A 

13 proposed a framework that appeared to be 

14 almost workable for doing dose reconstruction. 

15 And I said well, let's take a look 

16 at that and see, you know, if we can 

17 demonstrate that we can do dose reconstruction 

18 for blowouts, then this whole issue may sort 

19 of disappear. So this is our attempt at 

20 looking at some of those issues. 

21 And there are three parts and I'll 

22 go over them one by one. It's pretty brief. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 I think this whole document is three pages 

2 long. 

3 The first thing we did was we 

4 pulled through and, again, I'll have to caveat 

5 this by this review was done back in April so 

6 the case files we looked at may not be 

7 current. 

8 But at that point in time, there 

9 were only three case files that we could find 

10 at the Ames facility or the Ames laboratory 

11 that had less than 250 days of employment and 

12 would have been precluded from being in the 

13 class. 

14 One of those claims has already 

15 been administratively closed by the Department 

16 of Labor at the request of the claimant. That 

17 leaves two claims which are listed as B and C 

18 in this report. 

19 Claim B is active. He worked in 

20 the metallurgical lab building purifying some 

21 yellow cake, et cetera. But in his caddy, he 

22 indicated that he did work with uranium but 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 not thorium. So it's not clear that this 

2 person had any involvement with thorium 

3 exposure, particularly blowout, at least 

4 directly involved with blowout. 

5 In Claim C, the third claim, the 

6 energy employee appears, by looking through 

7 the files in some detail, have been a co-op 

8 employee who worked part time. 

9 So based on his co-op experience in 

10 the laboratory, it looks like if there was any 

11 potential for exposure with thorium, it would 

12 have been small quantities of sources that 

13 might have been present in the laboratory. 

14 So in two out of three cases that 

15 we looked at that had less than 250 days 

16 employment are sort of on the table for dosing 

17 instructions. But it's not clear to us that 

18 either of them have potential for exposures to 

19 blowouts. 

20 The second part of this review went 

21 over SC&A's analysis of a hypothetical 

22 blowout. And we did a couple things. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 One is we looked at the assumptions 

2 behind SC&A's analysis. And I won't go over 

3 them in detail here but we believe that it is 

4 a reasonable framework for possibly bounding 

5 these blowouts. 

6 But we did believe that some of the 

7 assumptions used here were somewhat overly 

8 conservative. Probably at the high end of 

9 what the exposure conditions really were. 

10 That's our opinion from looking at some of the 

11 assumptions that were made. 

12 We did go and review the 

13 calculations and we don't take exception to 

14 the doses that were calculated. We believe 

15 they are in the general ballpark. 

16 I think we had a five percent here 

17 or there discrepancies in the doses but those 

18 are trivial for purposes of what we're trying 

19 to establish here. And the doses were pretty 

20 much in line with what SC&A had calculated for 

21 the lung and the bone surfaces. We'll talk 

22 about those later. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 And the third part of this analysis 

2 was that we had suggested that there were 

3 bioassay data available for workers at Ames. 

4 There were 73 bioassay regional 

5 urine samples that were taken between 52 and 

6 53. And at that meeting, we had suggested 

7 that we could go back, use those to try to 

8 bound exposures for workers, you know, use 

9 those as sort of long-term indicators. And 

10 store them as a long-term retention component. 

11 You could take what was currently 

12 being excreted in the urine, or at least the 

13 misdose that, you know, you could calculate 

14 from the urinary excretion and come up with 

15 some sort of bounding analysis based on the 

16 urine results. 

17 We, in fact, went back and did that 

18 but unfortunately the results of our analysis 

19 produced implausibly large misdosage. You 

20 know, we should have seen a priori that 

21 thorium is a very bad nuclide to -- it's not a 

22 very particularly useful nuclide for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 reconstructing exposures going back in time 

2 because not much is excreted in the urine per 

3 unit time after it is taken into the body. 

4 And particularly if you go back -- 

5 we were going back, I believe, nine months or 

6 something trying to predict an acute intake 

7 nine months ago based on a contemporary urine 

8 sample. 

9 And the doses that we provide in 

10 the table clearly are extremely large. I mean 

11 the lump doses are somewhere around 8,000 rem, 

12 that sort of thing. So that analysis just is 

13 not going to work. 

14 So that's the summary, a brief 

15 thumbnail summary of what we've got here. 

16 Entertain any discussion? 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: The bottom line is 

18 that you do numbers but you come up with 

19 implausible numbers. 

20 DR. NETON: Yes, the urine samples 

21 just are not going to work. They are not 

22 going to be instructive. That still doesn't 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 mean that the -- you know, the SC&A I think 

2 still has some merit. 

3 But the problem with the SC&A 

4 approach -- I mean the SC&A originally, I 

5 believe, developed this approach to 

6 demonstrate that the exposures were 

7 substantially large, similar to criticality. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it wasn't -- 

9 DR. NETON: It wasn't supposed to 

10 be a bounding thing. But at the same time, 

11 given that that scenario is on the table, I 

12 still believe that the exposure is somewhere -

13 - maybe not the very high upper end of the 

14 exposure but probably no higher than that. 

15 But then the question comes up well how many 

16 times did that occur. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

18 DR. NETON: Now you got to also 

19 remember though in the 250-day requirement, 

20 it's either presence or 250 days. It's not 

21 five exposures or five times these blowouts 

22 occurred. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

2 DR. NETON: So in reality, you'd 

3 almost have to have a single incident, which 

4 would be a single blowout. I mean if you're 

5 going to use that blowout as a determining 

6 factor in presence. 

7 And then it comes back to where we 

8 were at the original meeting, are the doses 

9 that are calculated for the single blowout 

10 similar to a criticality. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

12 DR. NETON: And so we're 

13 essentially back to where we were at the last 

14 meeting in my opinion. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I would agree 

16 with that. I think that that's sort of the 

17 heart of the question. I mean for dose 

18 reconstruction, you have to know how many 

19 blowouts and so on but it's irrelevant if the 

20 focus is on a single incident. 

21 DR. NETON: Right. I mean think 

22 that's true. I mean the lawyers are not here 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 yet. 

2 I think the way the rule is 

3 structured, it's either presence, just one 

4 incident that you can define or 250 days. 

5 There's no in between. You can't start saying 

6 well maybe ten days presence or two incidents 

7 or that sort of thing. 

8 CHAIR MELIUS: Well but couldn't 

9 you say hypothetically 30 days -- if you were 

10 present working there for 30 days, there's a 

11 strong likelihood that you would have been 

12 present during a blowout. 

13 Say we decide -- again, 

14 hypothetically, that a single blowout would 

15 be, you know, sufficient dose and high enough 

16 dose to qualify. That if you were there for, 

17 you know, 30 days, you would have, you know, 

18 strong probability that you would have been, 

19 you know, present -- involved in one of those 

20 blowouts. And, therefore, you qualify based 

21 on that. 

22 I mean I think that -- it's really 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 no different than the other -- all the other, 

2 you know, estimates that, you know, we do on 

3 other dose reconstruction activities. 

4 DR. NETON: I've not really thought 

5 about it from that perspective. I don't know 

6 about Larry or Emily or Liz, if she gets here 

7 have thoughts on that. 

8 But I guess I would go back further 

9 and say is that single blowout of sufficient 

10 magnitude to be similar to a criticality. I 

11 mean that's the first thing I think needs to 

12 be established. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think one of the 

14 things we overlooked to step back a bit, one 

15 of the first things we did, as a workgroup is 

16 explore, you know, what types of doses would 

17 one consider to be comparable to a 

18 criticality. 

19 And I know we prepared a report on 

20 that and we realized that the range was very 

21 large. But at the same time, I'd offer up 

22 that I think there was consensus that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 something on the order of from 25 rem to 100 

2 rem delivered acutely to the whole body would 

3 be in the right ballpark for something that 

4 one would consider comparable to a 

5 criticality, not the fraction of a rem dose 

6 that we also saw for some criticalities 

7 because were not too close. 

8 DR. NETON: Yes. 

9 DR. MAURO: And where we ended up -

10 - and I think we did have quite a bit of 

11 discussion and disagreement related to can you 

12 truly compare -- let's just for the sake of 

13 argument now, assume that the 25 to 100 there 

14 is general consensus that that falls into the 

15 right ballpark for acute, whole body, 

16 penetrating radiation as being comparable to a 

17 criticality, then Hans performed an analysis, 

18 okay, let's do a blowout and see what kind of 

19 doses we get. 

20 And the kinds of doses are 

21 different. We're talking doses that certainly 

22 are in that range. But they're dose 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 commitments, internal dose commitments which 

2 are delivered over years. 

3 And, for example, I'm looking at 

4 the table right now -- there is a table in 

5 Hans's report where well if you just look at 

6 the bone dose -- and now it's not whole body, 

7 now we're talking organ dose, look at just one 

8 year, we're talking 12 points of rem. 

9 Now you may have come up with a 

10 number a little different. And then if you're 

11 looking for 30 year -- this is thorium now -- 

12 dose commitment per blowout, we're talking 214 

13 rems. So in effect, we do have a difficult 

14 question in front of us. 

15 And that is maybe we're talking 

16 about doses that are comparable but in terms 

17 of absolute sense in terms of where we would 

18 agree but where there is, I would say, almost 

19 at risk of say a policy decision, is a dose 

20 commitment, a 30-year dose commitment 

21 equivalent to -- that would be, in this case, 

22 214 rem to the bone. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 Would that be considered to be 

2 comparable to equivalent to a criticality 

3 exposure? And therein lies the nub. 

4 DR. NETON: Yes, I think John has 

5 summarized it pretty well. And that was the 

6 crux of our discussion at the last meeting 

7 which is are internal exposures -- internal 

8 committed exposures comparable to an acute 

9 exposure. 

10 And I can only say that I remember 

11 thinking back when the rule was being written 

12 that the criticality analogy or the, you know, 

13 analogy that's in there was really more so 

14 that it would be sort of intuitively obvious 

15 that this exposure endangered health. 

16 And almost to the point where you 

17 are talking about potentially having 

18 stochastic health effects, you know, something 

19 like, you know, blood, you know, human -- 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: You mean non21 stochastic. 

22 DR. NETON: -- I mean not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 stochastic -- non-stochastic health effects 

2 like blood disorders, you know, lymphocytes 

3 production and cataract formation, you know, 

4 things of that order. 

5 And so then it would be somewhat 

6 general agreement among a health physicist 

7 looking at this that yes, this was a very 

8 large exposure. And it's easily determined to 

9 be as such. 

10 When you get into internal 

11 exposures, where you have protracted exposure, 

12 they're not acute, you're not going to have 

13 any long-term health effect -- and, in fact, 

14 in this particular analysis, I think you are 

15 looking at multiples of the annual limit on 

16 intake. You know these are not like where is 

17 the magnitude kind of thing. 

18 So I have a little difficulty 

19 comparing the two. And that's exactly where I 

20 think we left off. 

21 Is 214 rem, 30-year committed dose 

22 to bone surfaces equivalent to an 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 instantaneous 200 rem whole body exposure? 

2 Probably not. 

3 And, in fact, you also have to 

4 remember the fact that we have the GDREF 

5 incorporated into this analysis, which gives -

6 - infers less risk per unit dose from chronic 

7 exposure which, by definition, all internal 

8 exposures are. 

9 DR. MAURO: But I would like to 

10 also add we know that there were multiple 

11 blowouts in a given year -- in a given 250-day 

12 period. So we can't discount that either. 

13 DR. NETON: Right. But again, you 

14 get -- instantaneous -- the law -- the rule 

15 talks about a one-shot incident versus 250-

16 day. When you start talking about multiple 

17 blowouts, now you're talking about multiple 

18 exposures. I agree. I understand. I hear 

19 what you're saying. 

20 You know, it's just there is no in 

21 between in the way the current rule is 

22 written. You can't say well five blowouts 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 would do it, you know that will get you there2 kind of thing. It's just not possible. 

3 CHAIR MELIUS: Well, we can always 

4 change the rule which is a possibility. But 

5 what about a different tact again, 

6 hypothetically, what if you made a 

7 determination that you can do some sort of 

8 bounding dose for a blowout, okay. 

9 And you assume then that anybody 

10 working that time period less than 250 days -- 

11 because you've determined over 250 days you 

12 can't reconstruct. But less than 250 days 

13 would have, you know, been exposed to one 

14 blowout per month. And that would be part of, 

15 you know, your dose calculation for that 

16 person. 

17 I mean that would, you know, maybe 

18 I don't know -- it's been so long since we've 

19 talked about Ames and specifically how common 

20 they were, but one per month or one per week 

21 is not, you know, is certainly within the 

22 range of what was talked about. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 So for a person that was less that 

2 250 days, you would do the dose 

3 reconstruction. Your assumptions for the dose 

4 reconstruction would be whatever, you know, 

5 was measured, et cetera, plus assuming one 

6 blowout per week exposure. 

7 DR. NETON: That's a viable option. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, now you're 

9 talking about a way to bound it rather than -- 

10 DR. NETON: Right. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you would have 

12 a bounding rule then. 

13 CHAIR MELIUS: Partial dose 

14 reconstruction that just looks -- because 

15 you've agreed that if it is over 250, you 

16 know, I mean it's a way of trying to address 

17 an issue within the -- sort of the constraints 

18 of what we -- how we've approached how our 

19 regulations are written. 

20 DR. NETON: I don't disagree. That 

21 certainly could be approach. I mean we have 

22 to -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Can you bound that 

2 dose? Or do you have to come out? You have 

3 to be able to -- 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

5 Could I add to that comment? In fact in all 

6 of these cases, in order to assess whether or 

7 not something is a viable option such as a 

8 blowout, we end up having to bound the dose 

9 for the blowout to see if it is eligible, in a 

10 sense. So on all of these you end up doing 

11 exactly that. 

12 You have to sort of say what dose 

13 could have been received by this kind of 

14 activity? So don't we end up bounding them 

15 anyway? 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I'm just -- I 

17 mean we're going back and forth between the 

18 policy question and the Ames question. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but I'm 

20 following up on Jim's idea that if you could 

21 establish a sort of typical frequency and a 

22 bounding dose, then you could take that -- use 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 that in a dose reconstruction for the 

2 individual who had less than 250 days and, 

3 therefore, didn't qualify for an SEC status. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: But have you 

5 already said -- for the people over 250 days, 

6 you've already said that you can't reconstruct 

7 or bound doses, right? 

8 DR. NETON: Yes. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: So now you're 

10 going to say for those less than 250, all of a 

11 sudden we have respondents that know how to 

12 bound. It's a little -- 

13 DR. NETON: Well, this is 250 days' 

14 exposure working with thorium. So you can't 

15 bound the chronic exposure. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now this is only a 

17 partial -- 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's a way to give 

19 them some credit, I guess, partial dose 

20 reconstruction. 

21 DR. NETON: Well think about 

22 someone applying for an SEC and saying I want 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 to apply for blowout compensation, how would 

2 we handle that? 

3 We would probably do something very 

4 similar to what Dr. Melius just mentioned. 

5 We'd say well, okay, you were involved in 

6 blowouts and we know that -- we know the 

7 amount of material that was involved, we know 

8 the duration, I mean -- 

9 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, you know, we'll 

10 take the 95th percentile of the average number 

11 of blowouts that -- whatever, we have some 

12 frequency information or -- 

13 DR. NETON: Hans did just that. 

14 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 

15 DR. NETON: I mean he did a very, 

16 you know, nice analysis trying to take into 

17 account the size of the building and such. We 

18 feel that it is a little bit on the high side 

19 but nonetheless, you know, an approach similar 

20 to that, you know. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Demonstrates the 

22 principle. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 DR. NETON: A somewhat similar 

2 approach would be viable. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: It seems to me that 

4 the problem with that is that if you're going 

5 to say one blowout a month, and you're already 

6 with one blowout, I would say you got 

7 implausibly high doses. 

8 DR. NETON: No, one blowout if we 

9 used the uranium thorium bioassay data. I'd 

10 probably go back and reconstruct what the 

11 exposure would have been if I took the 1952 

12 uranium thorium bioassay data and assume the 

13 acute exposure nine months prior to that. 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. Sort of 

15 guess the date of -- 

16 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean okay what 

17 if it happened nine months before, the 

18 exposures come out huge. The blowout 

19 exposures come out high. I would not say that 

20 they are implausibly high. 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, all right. 

22 DR. NETON: You could envision, you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 know, some of these are -- the instant case, 

2 you're talking about a 40 nanocurie intake of 

3 thorium here. This is not a massive amount of 

4 thorium to inhale. I mean it's .04, yes, 40 

5 nanocuries of thorium intake. 

6 Those are not unlike what we see in 

7 a number of chronic exposures. So, you know, 

8 these are not out there ridiculous. I mean 

9 the bone doses are high just because of the 

10 long-term retention of the thorium in the 

11 bone. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

13 Jim, could I ask on that issue is the problem 

14 the fact that you are way out on the long tail 

15 of excretion and you just have a single point? 

16 DR. NETON: For the thorium 

17 bioassay? 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 DR. NETON: Yes. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: You said the model 

21 gives you implausibly large results and -- 

22 DR. NETON: Well -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- you know the 

2 model is still the model. And so what -- is 

3 there any -- I was trying to think whether 

4 there's any precautions even in the ICRP's 

5 discussion on use of the model in that way. 

6 Obviously, a single point on the tail of a 

7 model, you could be off by quite a bit. 

8 DR. NETON: Yes, actually -- 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: A priori, one says 

10 you can use that but then to go back and say 

11 "But I don't like the results, therefore I 

12 can't use it doesn't work." I agree it's 

13 implausibly large but we still -- the model is 

14 still the model. 

15 DR. NETON: Right. I think what 

16 happens here, Paul, is the misdose -- well, we 

17 didn't know at what point to go back to as far 

18 as the acute exposure. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes. I 

20 understand that. We're going back awfully 

21 far. 

22 DR. NETON: And, in fact, we used 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 the 95th percentile of the bioassay data. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. That's 

3 what -- 

4 DR. NETON: It was 2.7 picocuries 

5 per day excretion. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. 

7 DR. NETON: If you're excreting 2.7 

8 picocuries of thorium -- I think we went back 

9 nine months -- 245 days we went back, you 

10 know, it's probably ten to minus six or ten to 

11 minus seven the excretion fraction or 

12 something at that point. 

13 So you multiply that number times a 

14 huge number and you end up with these intakes 

15 that -- I'm looking here, for type S, it 

16 imputed or it calculated 8.7 microcurie intake 

17 of thorium. That's not plausible even under 

18 these blowout scenarios that SC&A is 

19 calculating. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

21 DR. NETON: So it's just that 

22 thorium is a bad tool to go back to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 reconstruct -- not a useful tool to go back 

2 and reconstruct plausibly bounding exposures. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think you got 

4 what -- 50, 70 grams of thorium. 

5 DR. NETON: Yes, it's a massive 

6 amount of intake. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 DR. NETON: The 40 nanocurie 

9 intakes projected by the SC&A model -- frankly 

10 40 nanocuries is not that high. I mean it's -

11 - you know, that's a few multiples of what the 

12 ALI used to be anyway -- the annual limit on 

13 intake. 

14 Any intake of an alpha-emitting 

15 actinide like this will give you a fairly 

16 large dose. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: In fact if you 

18 think about it, most of the SEC sites we've 

19 added have been for inability to reconstruct 

20 internal doses due to either uranium or -- 

21 well, actually mostly thorium. 

22 But there is another -- I mean if 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 we turned the question that Mark raised, step 

2 back from Ames and say 250 days is a policy 

3 question, obviously it's not in the 

4 regulations, the internal dose. So you have 

5 to exercise some judgment, you know, somebody 

6 exposed to an acute event that results in high 

7 doses, what's the right thing to do? 

8 But maybe the way the question 

9 should be framed is if you there have been 

10 acute incidents, would this person be 

11 compensated if they were there just for that 

12 one day as a worker for any one of the SEC 

13 cancers under a typical kind of claimant 

14 circumstances. 

15 And the answer is yes. Then you 

16 could say well, you know, that incident 

17 qualifies. Now it doesn't let you compare it 

18 a criticality clearly but there is no way 

19 really you are going to compare committed 

20 doses to criticalities. It's two different 

21 things. 

22 DR. NETON: But would you have done 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 a dose reconstruction then almost by 

2 definition and say he's compensated by dose 

3 reconstruction, not by SEC. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, if you come 

5 down -- 

6 DR. NETON: I mean if you do a dose 

7 calculation and you say it's over 50 percent, 

8 I've done a dose reconstruction that's 

9 bounding and he's being paid. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, it's a 

11 hypothetical calculation. It isn't a 

12 calculation for -- 

13 DR. NETON: Not an individual, it's 

14 not a case. Then you get into the scenario 

15 that we talked about last time where you have 

16 a virtual infinite variety -- latency period 

17 and agent exposure. 

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, I'm not 

19 suggesting there is an easy way out. I'm just 

20 saying -- 

21 DR. NETON: In fact, this is the 

22 reason the 250 days is in the regulation. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 It's just too hard to put your finger on. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean there is a 

3 fairness idea in the law, like, you know, 

4 you've got to be fair, and timely, and all 

5 that -- I don't remember the exact words -- 

6 but if you focus on the word fair, how do you 

7 compare somebody that worked there for three 

8 months who were exposed to incidents that we 

9 acknowledge to be fairly severe but of the 

10 inhalation variety to somebody that worked 

11 there for 250 days who we assume -- 

12 automatically assume was in danger. 

13 We focus on the in danger piece 

14 rather than the numbers. Can you ask whether 

15 somebody was exposed to thorium blowout was 

16 endangered in that sense? Leaving the numbers 

17 and risks aside, a qualitative judgement about 

18 endangerment. 

19 DR. NETON: I'll go back to the 

20 rule that says can you put a plausible upper 

21 bound on that thorium blowout. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 DR. NETON: If the answer is yes -- 

2 CHAIR MELIUS: No, no, I think 

3 Arjun is asking a different question. It's 

4 how do you evaluate endangerment? I mean 

5 that's what we're -- 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 

7 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, we're wrestling 

8 with less than 250 days. If the endangerment 

9 part of the -- 

10 DR. MAURO: But within the context 

11 of the criticality -- see, at least in this 

12 case, this issue that we're dealing with, we 

13 have some guidance in the statute. And that 

14 is criticality. 

15 The question of endangerment in 

16 general as being a criteria is something that 

17 we've never engaged. 

18 DR. NETON: Well, I think that it's 

19 pretty specific. It says if you cannot put an 

20 upper bound on the dose then health was 

21 determined to be endangered. That's the way -

22 - every time we present an SEC evaluation, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 that's what we say. That's the test. 

2 Can you put an upper bound on it? 

3 No. By definition then, health is endangered. 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. The way I 

5 recall it says can you put an upper bound on 

6 it? No. That's the dose piece. And then for 

7 the endangerment, you say did they work for 

8 250 days? And if the answer to that is yes, 

9 then you say endangered. 

10 CHAIR MELIUS: Endangerment is 

11 always the, you know, it's 250 days and that 

12 there was exposure. We sort of -- we're not 

13 very specific about it. 

14 DR. NETON: But health was 

15 endangered and 250 days is the default -- 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

17 DR. NETON: -- unless there is some 

18 evidence of an extremely high dose incident 

19 such as a criticality. So it really is that 

20 if you can't put an upper bound on it then 

21 health becomes endangered. And 250 days is 

22 the default. That's just the way it plays 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 out. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't recall any 

3 -- well, maybe -- 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: It's a two-prong 

5 test that we've been presenting all these 

6 years. And it says that's the logic. 

7 DR. MAURO: When we get to Dow, we 

8 are going to encounter the situation where 

9 perhaps there will be situations where we 

10 can't put a plausible upper bound and we're 

11 not quite sure if there's endangerment. But 

12 we'll get there later. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, let's save 

14 that one. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 DR. NETON: It's more complicated. 

17 It's not really the 250 days though. That's 

18 more 

19 DR. MAURO: That is not really the 

20 250 days -- but I'm sorry for that diversion. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I mean back to 

22 this -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 CHAIR MELIUS: But originally in 

2 the legislation and really in the regulations, 

3 it's a two-prong test. You know and the two 

4 don't connect. Right. I mean there's no -- 

5 and secondly, the criteria -- well, the 

6 criteria for both are not strict. 

7 But certainly in endangerment, you 

8 know, we simply adopted, you know, something 

9 that was from the legislation. The 250 days 

10 is the basic default. And then language that 

11 turns out not to be as -- maybe as clear as we 

12 all thought it would be on the endangerment 

13 issue. 

14 And so it's -- how do we -- so with 

15 endangerment for these situations I think 

16 we're trying to deal with what has happened. 

17 What are the criteria for less than 250 days. 

18 And it may turn out that Ames is not the best 

19 example to wrestle with that. 

20 It may be better to deal with Ames 

21 as something where the doses would be 

22 reconstructed in those situations. I mean, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 yes, it sort of avoids the issue. 

2 DR. NETON: It doesn't solve it. 

3 CHAIR MELIUS: It doesn't solve it. 

4 But if it's fair to the people at Ames, 

5 that's -- you know, it's best way for Ames in 

6 this situation. I'm trying to think how many 

7 other situation we have where there have been 

8 so many reported incidents of this magnitude. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

10 I'll just add as kind of an editorial comment 

11 here as well. I don't think it will ever be 

12 fruitful for us to argue that there's 

13 necessarily a fairness in the 250 days itself. 

14 That's certainly kind of arbitrary. 

15 But that's the way it was established. Well, 

16 one could argue that someone who worked 249 

17 days, why are they not endangered and the 250-

18 day person is with the extra day. 

19 It doesn't seem fair. But that's 

20 the default value. That's what we work with. 

21 So to try to argue fairness based on 

22 particular doses and particular incidents 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 isn't going to work if we try to compare it 

2 with the 250 days. 

3 I think it becomes sort of 

4 technically kind of fruitless. 

5 CHAIR MELIUS: But Paul -- this is 

6 Jim -- the 250 days was not -- was set in the 

7 regulation. 

8 DR. NETON: It's in the law. 

9 CHAIR MELIUS: Well, it's included 

10 for specific examples in the law. But NIOSH 

11 could have -- and I'll say we, so it's more 

12 than just I -- we collectively could have 

13 recommended something else -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes but -- 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: -- in that -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- Jim, I think the 

17 same thing -- pick another number and you'll 

18 have the same problem. 

19 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, I don't 

20 disagree with that. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Pick 100 days. 

22 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, but I don't 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 think -- 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Then the issue is 

3 what happens at 99? 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm just saying you 

6 still have that sort of arbitrariness. It's 

7 very difficult to find the line where you say 

8 yes, if I don't know, this is where 

9 endangerment occurs. You are always going to 

10 have that arbitrariness to it I think. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, but I think we 

12 have to balance that arbitrariness with -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

14 CHAIR MELIUS: -- fairness as Arjun 

15 was -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I -- 

17 CHAIR MELIUS: -- articulating. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- I would agree 

19 with that part of it. I think it's very 

20 difficult to establish fairness based on the 

21 250-day value per se. 

22 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: It actually works 

2 better -- in my mind, it works better if you 

3 can bound the dose because then we have some 

4 idea really of how likely it is that there 

5 really is a health endangerment. 

6 Without dose numbers, you know, the 

7 250 days is sort aside from any dose number. 

8 And I think that's why we feel uneasy with it. 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: But I am a little 

10 puzzled about this bounding dose. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: Speak a little 

12 louder, Arjun. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm puzzled about 

14 this term bounding the dose because if we say 

15 we're doing a partial dose reconstruction, 

16 then you're not bounding the dose. I mean 

17 those two things are -- you are bounding the 

18 number for an incident but you're not bounding 

19 the dose to the person. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but we do that 

21 on SECs all the time where a person doesn't 

22 qualify, then we try to establish a dose for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 -- or a partial dose reconstruction. I think 

2 that's what we will be doing here. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, but only -- 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: This will be a 

5 partial. 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we do that in a 

7 completely different context. If you do that 

8 for cancers that are not part of the SEC list 

9 -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or for people who 

11 have been there less than 250 days. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: But you also do it 

13 for the items that can be reconstructed. You 

14 used to say -- 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- it can 

17 reconstruct incidents. 

18 DR. NETON: Or incidents. 

19 DR. MAURO: In a funny sort of way, 

20 this is not unlike just using medical x-rays. 

21 If it's the only thing you can do, that's 

22 what we do. And what we're really saying is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 well, the only thing that we can do here is -- 

2 it sounds kind of -- 

3 DR. NETON: If there were 

4 incidents, we can bound them. 

5 DR. MAURO: But this one, I mean to 

6 say that just like x-rays we can place an 

7 upper bound -- in effect where I was headed 

8 was -- this approach, should it go forward as 

9 being contemplated, would be equivalent to 

10 this -- the way in which x-rays are dealt 

11 with. 

12 This is a situation that the 

13 judgment is yes, we can place an upper bound. 

14 I think that there is general agreement that 

15 the kind of scenario that Hans constructed 

16 seems to be reasonable, not bounding, for a 

17 single blowout. 

18 And the dilemma that we're dealing 

19 with is how many blowouts do we assume? 

20 MR. KATZ: Excuse me. Someone on 

21 the telephone is having a conversation about 

22 muting the phone. If you just go ahead and do 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 that please, it's interfering with the 

2 discussion. Thanks. 

3 DR. NETON: Yes, I agree with John. 

4 That then becomes sort of on a case-by-case 

5 basis analysis. Like the two cases I just 

6 reported that had less than 250 days that 

7 didn't qualify for the class, one, in my mind, 

8 in particular, wouldn't qualify for any 

9 blowouts probably. Yet the other one, the 

10 person claimed they never worked with thorium 

11 but they walked through the area. 

12 So you take each case as it 

13 happens, as it comes, with the idea that there 

14 probably wouldn't be that many. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: One hundred fifty 

16 grand plus medical. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, the less than 

18 250-day question doesn't apply to many 

19 workers. I mean generally people tended to 

20 stay in nuclear field if they had some kind of 

21 employment. 

22 But I really think to say this is a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 partial dose reconstruction is mixing up -- 

2 maybe I'm not getting it but it's mixing up 

3 two different issues because we're trying to 

4 look at an endangerment question for those who 

5 worked less than 250 days to see -- you know, 

6 at least this is how I'm thinking of the 

7 question: were the conditions of employment 

8 for those people who worked less than 250 days 

9 similar in terms of risk to those who worked 

10 for more than 250 days? 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: But I think we're 

12 saying, Arjun, and, you know, that is the 

13 issue that I guess the workgroup was focused 

14 on. I think the resolution at Ames is not to 

15 deal with that. Maybe not to deal with that 

16 issue directly. 

17 But a better way or the way of 

18 dealing with -- we can deal with the Ames 

19 situation by doing it as a partial dose 

20 reconstruction. And not having to address the 

21 endangerment issue. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: But why. I mean if 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 -- that is what I am conceptually not getting. 

2 If you are saying the policy issue to be 

3 resolved is is there endangerment if you work 

4 there less than 250 days, how does that -- I 

5 just don't see the equivalent. 

6 CHAIR MELIUS: Because 250 days 

7 only becomes an issue if you are -- if you 

8 can't reconstruct the doses. 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: But you can't. You 

10 can't reconstruct the doses. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: Well, you can do a 

12 partial -- 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: You can always do a 

14 partial dose reconstruction for everybody. 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. But you still 

16 need 250 days. If you have worked more than 

17 250 days, you are in the SEC at Ames. I mean 

18 it's a pretty broad class definition. So it's 

19 under 250 days that we are concerned about. 

20 DR. NETON: That brings up an 

21 interesting point, though, then if you start 

22 doing partial dose reconstructions for non-
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 presumptive cancers, then it has to be added 

2 back in there, and I know we're not doing 

3 that. 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Then you open up 

5 the door for these -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well that was my 

7 point is that you can't be doing something for 

8 the less than 250 days that you're not doing 

9 for the others. 

10 DR. NETON: And a thought just 

11 occurred to me, you have got to think about 

12 the non-presumptives. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. So I mean I 

14 think what we might have come out of this 

15 workgroup is that we're going to fall short on 

16 development of policy basically for -- you 

17 know, but this might come up in other SECs as 

18 we go forward, but the Ames example may not 

19 be, you know -- 

20 DR. NETON: And there were two test 

21 cases, right? There was Ames, and the Nevada 

22 Test Site, and I'm not sure where we stand on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 that. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't know where 

3 that is. 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: In this, well, we 

5 can talk about that in a second, and then I 

6 think there is a third that it was supposed to 

7 be addressed in, and I'm conflicted on that, 

8 but it's Apollo, I believe, the NUMEC site. 

9 DR. NETON: That might be right. 

10 I'm not sure. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: The NUMEC site, it 

12 was in the letter. It was sort of reserved as 

13 an issue, I thought. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

15 you're right, yes. 

16 CHAIR MELIUS: No one has reported, 

17 nothing is done. And, again -- 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Melius, this 

19 is LaVon Rutherford, that is correct. 

20 CHAIR MELIUS: I only remember 

21 because I had to be careful with it. 

22 DR. NETON: I think what happened 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 is after this was taken up with the working 

2 group, there were SECs that had potentially a 

3 similar issue. And they were sort of just 

4 annotated that way. 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: The most reasonable 

6 way to resolve the 250, And you know, I mean, 

7 we've had a tangled discussion about this for 

8 two years now, what we did, you know, just 

9 decide on what an appropriate revision of the 

10 regulation might be, and just -- 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: But to go back, what 

12 we decided to do on the 250 days, because we 

13 tried a general discussion, and we weren't 

14 able to resolve it, and we spent probably a 

15 day doing that, or maybe more, but we said, 

16 let's look at some examples, and see if we go 

17 through the examples - one was Ames, the 

18 second was Nevada Test Site - would that help 

19 us provide a framework for how to approach it. 

20 And so we've been focusing on Ames. 

21 We've had some problems dealing with Nevada. 

22 And we can talk about that maybe in a second, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 but Ames is, I think would be either -- to me 

2 it's do the approach where we would do partial 

3 dose reconstructions on the blowouts. 

4 I guess the second question -- and 

5 Liz, this came up before you were - while you 

6 were in transit - was sort of the issue that, 

7 does the current regulation allow multiple -- 

8 how does it deal with multiple incidents? 

9 It talks about an incident, such as 

10 a criticality or something - I think that's - 

11 I don't remember the exact wording, but how do 

12 you deal with a situation of multiple 

13 incidents? And you don't have to answer now. 

14 I'm not sure that's -- 

15 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I can give you 

16 my off-the-cuff answer, but we would have to 

17 give you an official one later. Are you 

18 talking about multiple incidents that you 

19 would be using in a dose reconstruction, or 

20 trying to establish an SEC class? 

21 CHAIR MELIUS: Trying to establish 

22 endangerment in an SEC class I think would be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 the -- 

2 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, by the 

3 reg, it's either 250 days or presence. So 

4 it's not spelled out to say presence at three 

5 different events, because that would be more 

6 than one second presence. So I don't think 

7 the reg deals with that. 

8 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. 

9 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I think that 

10 would require a reg change if you wanted to 

11 say, we need three incidents to make this an 

12 endangerment. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: I think an important 

14 component of the incident that's mentioned in 

15 the language, in the rule, is that it's an 

16 unplanned, unmonitored event. 

17 And if we have a series of events, 

18 we have to start asking ourselves, okay, they 

19 were not unplanned. They knew that this kind 

20 of a blowout would happen on a consistent 

21 basis. 

22 Were there any administrative steps 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 taken to reduce the number of blowouts? Or, 

2 you know, we'd have to look at it that way, I 

3 think. 

4 DR. MAURO: If I recall the history 

5 of this whole problem, they got smarter as 

6 they went along. And they reduced the number 

7 of blowouts, but in the initial stages -- 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: And that doesn't 

9 answer endangerment, but that just answers, 

10 you know, what kind of a mindset, what was the 

11 culture. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: I don't know, I mean 

13 this is not really my place, but you still -- 

14 it seems like you still have on the table this 

15 question that maybe Ames isn't giving you the 

16 answer to, but it seems like what would useful 

17 to answer is, what is the internal equivalence 

18 to the external acute exposure? 

19 I mean, if it's not the blowout at 

20 Ames, but what would -- at what point do you 

21 say, this is the same kind of thing. 

22 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, and do you want 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 to quantify it? 

2 DR. MAURO: We go back to the 

3 philosophy, and I think there was general 

4 consensus is when you're talking about the 

5 equivalent -- I guess a health impact that 

6 would be equivalent to what one would 

7 experience from an acute dose of 25 to 100 rem 

8 uniform whole-body exposure, that's the 

9 closest I can come to recollecting where we 

10 came out when we started to look at the 

11 criticality question. 

12 You know, some folks mentioned as 

13 low as five rem, because you do see a little 

14 bit of blood change at five rem, but I think 

15 that was sort of rejected, and we drove closer 

16 to the 25 rem as being a little bit more 

17 reasonable. 

18 And I think it's within that range 

19 that there was consensus around the table. 

20 MR. KATZ: And Jim said that, you 

21 know, the case -- this case is different 

22 because, on the surface of the bone and the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 way you do the calculation, it's really a very 

2 marginal case in a sense, he's saying. But 

3 what would not be a marginal case? If you 

4 could get to that point -- 

5 DR. MAURO: You could back it out. 

6 I mean, in effect, you can make it a risk 

7 equivalent. I mean, you could very easily 

8 convert a 214 rem 30-year dose commitment to 

9 the bone to what the risk equivalent would be 

10 to an instantaneous uniform whole-body dose. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm not sure you 

12 could do that at all very easily, John. 

13 DR. NETON: Well you've got the -- 

14 the bone surface weighting factor is -- it's 

15 actually your .03 or .01, depending on which 

16 system you use. But even then, it's delivered 

17 over a long period of time. 

18 MR. BEHLING: Can I make a comment 

19 here? This is Hans Behling. 

20 One of the other factors that could 

21 certainly be introduced into this conversion, 

22 or trying to establish parity, is to use what 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 BEIR -- all the BEIR reports would recommend, 

2 and that is to make use of the factor of two 

3 that separates the cancer risk coefficient 

4 from an acute exposure versus a protracted 

5 exposure. So a factor of two would also be 

6 appropriate to reduce the protracted exposure 

7 of the cancer risk to an acute exposure. 

8 DR. NETON: Yes, I agree with that, 

9 Hans. But it seems to me that now we're going 

10 down the path to establishing some type of 

11 risk, which we've already decided that 250 

12 days is not necessarily dosimetric or risk 

13 based at all. It's a somewhat arbitrary 

14 number that was selected -- 

15 DR. MAURO: But it does go toward 

16 the -- if we decide there's a step that we've 

17 taken that - note when I say we - that would 

18 be taken, the step being criticality, what 

19 does that mean? Risk equivalent, it means 

20 having a potential acute symptoms, acute 

21 radiation syndrome symptoms, that's the step 

22 that we'd be taking that would not be in the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 rule. 

2 Now whether or not you want to take 

3 that step is another question. It would not 

4 be an unreasonable step, but I just -- which 

5 translates to about 25 rem is the floor of, 

6 let's say when you start to see blood changes 

7 of some significance, certainly 100 rem. 

8 And now, in effect, you would have 

9 a very tractable process to answer this 

10 question in a systematic consistent way across 

11 the complex as it comes up if you want to 

12 engage that problem at this point in time. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: But if you say that, 

14 then you've effectively bounded the dose, have 

15 you not? And if you can bound the dose, you 

16 don't need to add the class. 

17 DR. MAURO: Well, the good example 

18 would be here, in other words, if we were to 

19 apply that rule, we'd ask ourselves the 

20 question, is it plausible that a person could 

21 have gotten -- in other words, how many 

22 blowouts would he have to experience to cross 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 that threshold, and is that plausible? 

2 DR. NETON: Now we're getting into 

3 multiple sides of the issue, which the rule 

4 simply doesn't necessarily handle. 

5 DR. MAURO: But it's silent -- but 

6 right now it's silent on that, as we just 

7 heard. 

8 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well no, it says 

9 presence, or it says an incident for presence 

10 for 250 days. So it's not really silent on 

11 that. I mean, you have presence, so you're 

12 going to have a really hard time saying, these 

13 three events were all happening at the same 

14 time, I mean, unless they were. 

15 DR. MAURO: Well, I guess I don't 

16 understand. Let's say you were present for 

17 250 days, and that's it. And during those 250 

18 days, there are N number of events that we 

19 could place an upper bound on. 

20 Would you consider those N events 

21 to be part of the equation? Not just one, but 

22 three, five, ten -- just some number. In 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 other words, I guess I don't quite understand. 

2 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I guess I'm a 

3 little unclear on your question. 

4 DR. MAURO: I think it uses 

5 singular. 

6 CHAIR MELIUS: If it's always 

7 singular, and I don't have it in front of me, 

8 or whatever, I think then what Liz is saying 

9 probably makes sense, I don't know. 

10 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: You're present 

11 for one second, so there's something happening 

12 during that time, or you're present for 250 

13 days. If you're talking about the SEC, then 

14 it doesn't matter how many events happened 

15 during that 250 days. 

16 CHAIR MELIUS: It's presence at an 

17 event, I think is what -- 

18 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Presence, yes. 

19 CHAIR MELIUS: An event I think 

20 it's how it -- but -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

22 That assumes that all the health endangerment 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 during the 250 days is due to those events, 

2 whether it's three, or ten, or whatever, but 

3 really under the rule, it's everything that 

4 occurs in the 250 days. 

5 And one could argue that it's 

6 everything -- it's those events plus whatever 

7 else occurs, which you can't bound. And since 

8 you can't bound it, you don't know that those 

9 are the most significant, in theory. 

10 CHAIR MELIUS: For Ames, just Ames, 

11 away from the bigger question, do you want to 

12 look more into -- what's the next step from 

13 your perspective? Do you want to look back at 

14 -- I mean, I think this is the issue of sort 

15 of how many blowouts, and what's a reasonable 

16 way of approaching this and so forth, and 

17 thinking through how you do it. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: It helps all the non19 presumptives. 

20 DR. MAURO: Exactly. I mean it's 

21 sort of a -- 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Because right now 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 we're not doing that. 

2 DR. MAURO: Right. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: And I guess I'd 

4 wonder what's happened since. You know, did 

5 we not look at this trying to bound the 

6 blowout dose, or not? We just threw up our 

7 hands and said we can't reconstruct dose for 

8 that class. 

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. Exactly, and then 

10 the blowout issue was raised. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: Why don't we do that, 

12 and then we can proceed. And that will get 

13 this at least resolved hopefully on Ames. And 

14 again, how many people it applies to, but the 

15 problem with -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it applies to 

17 one. 

18 CHAIR MELIUS: Exactly. And then 

19 you also have people that have been sort of 

20 dissuaded from applying even because they 

21 worked there for less than 250 days. I think 

22 I've seen some e-mail graphics by at least one 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 person who hasn't applied. Or they get 

2 shunted into Subtitle E or something like 

3 that, I don't know. 

4 But anyway, NTS. 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, the last 

6 report on NTS we gave you, Jim, was about a 

7 year ago. 

8 CHAIR MELIUS: Right. 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: It was a working 

10 paper. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: October 2007. 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, knowing the 

13 cases that Jim filed, and people who might 

14 have had relatively higher exposures -- 

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

16 Arjun, could you get closer to the microphone? 

17 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, speak up, 

18 Arjun. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, this is Arjun 

20 Makhijani. The last report we gave this 

21 working group was about a year ago in which -- 

22 no, it's called Working Paper on Nevada Test 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 Site, Incidents Related to Consideration of 

2 Employees with Less Than 250 Days of 

3 Employment October 2007. 

4 And in that, we had a number of 

5 workers - 22, I think - where we surveyed the 

6 external dose, and looked at whether there 

7 were acute exposures, and whether the people 

8 were involved in incidents. It cataloged the 

9 kind of incidents they had been involved in. 

10 We did not make any judgments about 

11 the 250 day issue, but we just laid forth the 

12 people who were actually involved in the 

13 incidents, and there is quite a bit of detail 

14 in all the references so that you could make 

15 your own judgment about whether -- and there 

16 is a table one that I have in my computer. I 

17 can send it around to people. I have it in my 

18 computer. I can send it around to people. 

19 CHAIR MELIUS: Well, but Arjun, I'm 

20 actually mainly interested in sort of figuring 

21 out next steps, not trying to discuss -- 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 CHAIR MELIUS: -- it here today. 

2 It's not fair to people who we haven't alerted 

3 them. 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

5 CHAIR MELIUS: But we have 

6 discussed this paper already once. 

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

8 CHAIR MELIUS: And then we were 

9 going to go to see whether we could use some 

10 of the DTRA methods, and that was explored. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, and it came to 

12 a -- yes, we -- you know, there has been so 

13 much controversy and difficulty and difference 

14 that we kind of -- 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- I think in 

17 conversation that you and I had -- 

18 CHAIR MELIUS: Right. Well yes, it 

19 didn't make sense to pursue. 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: We thought we were 

21 not going to pursue that too much. 

22 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was concluded 

2 - this is Ziemer - what was concluded on the 

3 DTRA method? I recall that you were going to 

4 look at that, but I don't recall the outcome. 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's been a little 

6 while since I looked at the specifics of it. 

7 We did look at it, but the whole 

8 methodological questions and the differences 

9 between what NIOSH had done and DTRA had done 

10 in terms of being able to calculate internal 

11 doses from external doses seemed kind of 

12 pretty iffy, because NIOSH had actually 

13 abandoned that approach in deciding to grant 

14 the SEC. 

15 And then it would seem -- it seemed 

16 like one would then have to get into all the 

17 details of what every -- all these agencies 

18 have done. It didn't seem very productive to 

19 do that. 

20 CHAIR MELIUS: This is like -- I 

21 think we need to get back to that October 

22 report and think about it so it either can -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 we resolve the discussion. We thought it was 

2 a way of trying to help, you know, facilitate 

3 the discussion of, really of the endangerment 

4 issue, getting a better handle on what the -- 

5 DR. NETON: Wasn't -- I'm sorry. 

6 CHAIR MELIUS: Go ahead, Jim. 

7 DR. NETON: It's coming back a 

8 little bit now. 

9 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's been a while. 

11 DR. NETON: Were we not going to 

12 take a look at what the magnitude of the doses 

13 that DTRA had reconstructed -- 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

15 DR. NETON: -- as sort of an 

16 indicator of how high these really were -- 

17 given the fact that we had some differences 

18 with DTRA, and you're saying that we really 

19 couldn't use those values, but at least to get 

20 a rough order of magnitude, are these internal 

21 doses, you know, very large, small, you know, 

22 what are they? I think that was kind of -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't think the 

2 internal -- from memory, I don't think the 

3 internal dose as calculated by DTRA would 

4 vary. 

5 But then the question is, what 

6 significance are you going to attach to that 

7 without looking at the methodological 

8 questions? And that's sort of the -- 

9 DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- can you ascribe 

11 any significance to it? 

12 CHAIR MELIUS: What do we do with 

13 the information? 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: What do you do with 

15 the number? 

16 DR. NETON: Yes, given that we've 

17 already said that it's not useful for our 

18 purpose. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. So then to 

20 introduce -- you know, we thought about it 

21 some, and we thought to introduce numbers into 

22 the debate without being able to say what they 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 mean, and how they compare seemed -- 

2 CHAIR MELIUS: And how they got 

3 there, right. 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- kind of not -- 

5 without further direction from the working 

6 group, it seemed not worthwhile. 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, we did make a 

8 couple of inquires and thought it through. 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. And the dose 

10 is -- Jim is right. The dose is not very 

11 high. 

12 CHAIR MELIUS: Why don't I suggest 

13 that everybody look at the October `07 report 

14 again? Maybe we can do either a quick 

15 workgroup meeting at the -- at our Augusta 

16 meeting, a breakfast meeting or something, or 

17 we can do a phone meeting, and sort of move on 

18 from this. It's not fair to expect people to 

19 discuss something we haven't looked at for a 

20 year. 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, should I 

22 recirculate the report? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, if that helps. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I do not believe it 

3 has -- let me see here. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Can I ask -- this 

5 is Ziemer -- I just want to ask, because I'm 

6 looking at that report right now, and just to 

7 refresh our memories, I think, Arjun, you had 

8 provided, I think, actual external dose 

9 monitoring values for the 22 persons, plus you 

10 had appended an accident report which detailed 

11 doses for a number of individuals. 

12 So we were looking at least at the 

13 external values to get a -- some idea of the 

14 magnitude of exposures, and I think we were 

15 going to see what DTRA did. 

16 I think we knew that DTRA mainly 

17 focused also on external. My question is, 

18 were we also going to look at the internal -- 

19 were we looking at updates, as well? Arjun, do 

20 you recall if you were going to look at that, 

21 or -- 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Excuse me, Dr. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 Ziemer, the idea of compiling that table was 

2 to look at people who were involved in 

3 incidents, and I actually laid before you 

4 whatever detail on the issue is available. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes, I 

6 understand that, yes. But that was mainly -- 

7 CHAIR MELIUS: And we did that. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- external 

9 dosimetry that you were able to uncover there. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I mean 

11 incidents with potential internal dose. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

13 DR. MAURO: It was effectively a 

14 compendium, 22 cases. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

16 DR. MAURO: And out of the 22 

17 cases, we did get some pretty good information 

18 on what the magnitude of the external 

19 exposures were. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Exactly. 

21 DR. MAURO: But we -- and I'll give 

22 you the highest one we got was 18.5 rem. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

2 DR. MAURO: But when we looked at -

3 - 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was an annual -

5 - I mean that was the annual figure. It may 

6 have been one event, but it was annual. 

7 CHAIR MELIUS: Good question. I'm 

8 not sure -- I have the number in front of me, 

9 but I'm not sure if it's annual or -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Well, well, the tables 

11 are all by year. 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Annual, it's 

13 annual. 

14 CHAIR MELIUS: But I read this last 

15 night in anticipation we might do this, and 

16 there is quite a bit of information regarding 

17 the nature of internal exposures, but it's 

18 semi-quantitative. 

19 That is, where we could get some 

20 estimates of what the internal exposures were, 

21 like a thyroid dose of 37 rem, in one 

22 particular case. But I would say, in general, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 what we found is that it's hard to extract a 

2 good compendium of data on what the internal 

3 exposures might have been, especially 

4 associated with some of these -- the internal 

5 exposures that went hand in hand with these 

6 external exposures. 

7 But certainly everyone should read 

8 it. It's just one case study after the other. 

9 It gives you a good handle on the kinds of 

10 information that are out there. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: So I'll recirculate 

12 that, and I'll have Nancy send it for Privacy 

13 Act review. 

14 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, which may be 

15 hard. It's going to be hard. It's going to 

16 be very difficult. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's true, you 

18 circulated a Privacy Act review to the working 

19 group so that we can all -- 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Right. I'll 

21 do that, yes, sure. I'll circulate what I 

22 have. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Good. Okay. 

2 I think that concludes what we can 

3 do on the 250-day issue today. Why don't we 

4 take about a ten-minute break, and come back 

5 at about a quarter of 11:00 and do the -- talk 

6 about Dow. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. I'm just putting 

8 the phone on mute. 

9 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. 

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

11 the record at 10:37 a.m. and resumed at 

12 10:50 a.m.) 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, the SEC workgroup 

14 is back and ready to start again. We're going 

15 to be discussing Dow, and we have two 

16 individuals in the room joining us since we 

17 began, Stu and -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Stu Hinnefeld 

19 from NIOSH. 

20 MR. KATZ: And conflict or not with 

21 Dow? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I have no 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 conflict with Dow. 

2 MR. MAHATHY: Mike Mahathy over at 

3 ORAU. No conflict. 

4 MR. KATZ: No conflict. 

5 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And Liz Homoki6 Titus, HHS. 

7 MR. KATZ: So three individuals. 

8 Liz came in a few minutes late, and if anyone 

9 -- if there's anyone new to the phone who 

10 wants to self identify, please do. 

11 Okay. Now we can start. 

12 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, just logistics. 

13 Our plan is to go until noontime, and then 

14 we'll make a decision, see where we are in 

15 terms of discussion and so forth, and then 

16 figure out how we handle lunch and et cetera. 

17 This is the first time that this 

18 workgroup has discussed the Dow SEC, and our 

19 main focus today is going to be on the SC&A 

20 report from August 2008, which is called a 

21 Focused Review of Addendum 2 to the Dow 

22 Chemical Madison Plant SEC Petition Evaluation 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 Report. 

2 I thought it might be helpful -- I 

3 don't know if LaVon is still on the phone, or 

4 if Stu or somebody could give us -- 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I am, Dr. Melius. 

6 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, could you give 

7 us sort of a brief history on the Dow SEC so 

8 that we can have some context for this report 

9 -- 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: -- session? Thanks. 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, this is LaVon 

13 Rutherford. 

14 September -- about September of 

15 2006, we determined dose reconstruction was 

16 not going to be feasible for the operational 

17 period for Dow. In November of that year, 

18 2006, we sent a letter to the petitioner 

19 informing them that dose reconstruction would 

20 not be -- to a potential petitioner that dose 

21 reconstruction would not be feasible. 

22 And we received that petition on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 November 28th of 2006. In December, we sent a 

2 letter to the petitioner explaining that we 

3 would not be presenting at the December board 

4 meeting in 2006 because of a number of issues. 

5 In January 2007, we sent a letter 

6 to Dow requesting documentation on Dow 

7 Midland. In April of that year, we issued our 

8 first evaluation report. The evaluation 

9 determined dose reconstruction was not 

10 feasible for the 1957 through 1960 period. We 

11 did -- although it was -- 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: LaVon? 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes? 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: LaVon? 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry. 

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes? 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: I think you need to 

19 be specific on what we could and could not 

20 reconstruct. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm just getting 

22 ready to do that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Sorry to 

2 interrupt. 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Again, April 2007 

4 evaluation report we issued, and we determined 

5 dose reconstruction was not feasible for the 

6 1957 through 1960 period. However, we did 

7 determine that, at that time, that dose 

8 reconstruction for the residual period was 

9 feasible. 

10 At that time, the only covered 

11 exposures that were required to be 

12 reconstructed for the residual period was 

13 uranium. And in that report, we determined 

14 dose reconstruction was feasible for uranium 

15 during the residual period. 

16 Late April of 2007, just before we 

17 presented our evaluation report to the board, 

18 we received additional documentation from Dow. 

19 We presented our evaluation report at the May 

20 2007 advisory board meeting. The advisory 

21 board concurred with NIOSH to add the class 

22 from 1957 to 1960. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 The petitioner at that time 

2 contended that thorium should be a covered 

3 exposure, and that the residual period dose 

4 reconstruction should include thorium 

5 exposure. 

6 NIOSH indicated that, at that time, 

7 thorium is not a covered activity, that the 

8 thorium work was not a covered activity, and 

9 therefore, the thorium exposures would not be 

10 accounted for during the residual period. And 

11 therefore, NIOSH had not evaluated that as 

12 part of the residual period. 

13 The advisory board, at that time, 

14 decided to send a letter to the Secretary of 

15 HHS requesting that the Secretary consider 

16 adding thorium activities as a covered 

17 activity. In addition, the advisory board 

18 asked NIOSH to evaluate whether dose 

19 reconstruction for thorium exposures are 

20 feasible during the residual period. 

21 At that time, NIOSH had concluded, 

22 though, that they would not evaluate the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 thorium exposures during the residual period 

2 because we could not put resources to 

3 calculating thorium exposure during a residual 

4 period that was not a covered activity. That 

5 would have been -- this is just a side note -- 

6 that would have been, wouldn't have been a 

7 good idea to use resources for an activity 

8 that was not a covered activity. 

9 May 29th, 2007, the advisory board 

10 sent a letter to the Secretary of HHS asking 

11 that thorium activities be considered a 

12 covered activity. 

13 On August of 2007, Addendum One is 

14 issued -- Addendum One to the evaluation 

15 report is issued to address additional 

16 documentation received from Dow in that late 

17 April period. The addendum concluded that the 

18 documentation provided by Dow did not change 

19 the original feasibility determination. 

20 On August 30th of 2007, Dr. 

21 Gerberding with CDC, at the direction of 

22 Secretary Leavitt, sends a letter to Dr. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 Ziemer and the board indicating that CDC -- or 

2 that HHS is not responsible for determining 

3 covered activities. That is the responsibility 

4 of the Department of Labor and the Department 

5 of Energy, and therefore, cannot add thorium 

6 activity as a covered activity. Dr. 

7 Gerberding did offer technical assistance from 

8 NIOSH. 

9 On September 10th of 2007, the 

10 Department of Labor sends a letter to the 

11 petitioner concluding that the information 

12 provided does not support changing the 

13 coverage for the Dow Midland facility. 

14 On January 8th of 2008, the 

15 Department of Energy sends a letter to the 

16 Department of Labor concluding that magnesium 

17 thorium alloy plates and sheets provided by 

18 Dow to the AEC could have been used in atomic 

19 weapons, and therefore, should be considered a 

20 covered activity. 

21 The Department of Energy presented 

22 at the January 2008 advisory board meeting 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 their findings concerning the thorium 

2 activities. NIOSH indicated at that time that 

3 they would evaluate the feasibility of 

4 completing dose reconstructions for the 

5 residual period for thorium exposures. NIOSH 

6 had already concluded dose reconstruction for 

7 uranium during the residual period was 

8 feasible. 

9 On February 28, 2008, NIOSH 

10 requests a clarification from the Department 

11 of Labor as to whether DOE's findings 

12 supported changing the covered period because 

13 of the addition of the thorium activities. 

14 On March 7th, 2008, NIOSH sends a 

15 letter to Dow requesting additional 

16 documentation that could be used to 

17 reconstruct thorium exposures during the 

18 residual period. 

19 On March 11th of 2008, the 

20 Department of Labor sends a letter to NIOSH 

21 concluding that the covered period should not 

22 be extended because of the addition of thorium 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 activities as a covered activity. 

2 On June 3rd of 2008, NIOSH issued 

3 their Addendum 2 to the evaluation report that 

4 concludes that dose reconstruction of thorium 

5 exposures during the residual period are 

6 feasible. 

7 NIOSH presents the Addendum 2 at 

8 the June 2008 advisory board meeting, and the 

9 advisory board concludes they will have SC&A 

10 do a focused review on the addendum, and they 

11 will give OTIB-0070 to the procedures group 

12 for review. 

13 On September 3rd, 2008, SC&A issued 

14 their Focused Review of Dow Addendum 2, and on 

15 September 8th of 2008, NIOSH issues Appendix C 

16 to the Dow, which is the Dow Chemical part of 

17 Battelle 6000 for reconstructing Dow claims, 

18 and starts reconstructing -- or starts 

19 completing dose reconstructions. 

20 And that takes us pretty much right 

21 up to the workgroup meeting. 

22 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. Now SC&A has 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 issued two reports on, if I'm correct, on the 

2 Dow site. One was in August 2007, which is a 

3 focused review of operations and thorium 

4 exposures at the facility. And then secondly, 

5 there is this Focused Review of Addendum 2. 

6 The Focused Review of Addendum 2 

7 was much more specific to the SEC petition, 

8 and is the one -- is also the most recent 

9 report, August 2008, and it's the one that we 

10 will focus on. 

11 And I talked to Jim Neton last week 

12 about this, and although NIOSH has not done a 

13 formal review of this, or written a report 

14 yet, at least one that has been released, he 

15 is prepared to discuss some of NIOSH's 

16 reaction -- technical reactions to the SC&A 

17 review. 

18 So I think that's what I'd like to 

19 start our discussions on, and then see where 

20 that takes us, and we can decide what else we 

21 need to do. 

22 So, Jim Neton. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 DR. NETON: Well, I don't know -- 

2 CHAIR MELIUS: Or whoever -- 

3 DR. NETON: I don't know if you're 

4 prepared to go through, and with Mike 

5 Mahathy's assistance, respond to these 

6 individually, or how do you want to proceed? 

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Jim, I apologize. 

8 I've been out for -- 

9 DR. NETON: Okay. 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- the past week. 

11 DR. NETON: That's fine. Well, 

12 hopefully -- Mike Mahathy is here, and I think 

13 he's the lead on preparing these responses, so 

14 there were how many findings that were issued 

15 -- seven findings that were presented in the 

16 SC&A report that was issued in September 2008, 

17 right? 

18 And we can go through those one by 

19 one, and just have a general discussion of 

20 where we go -- 

21 CHAIR MELIUS: Would it be helpful 

22 if John or someone did a quick -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 DR. NETON: Yes. 

2 CHAIR MELIUS: -- summary of sort 

3 of the focus where their report came out, I 

4 think would be helpful. 

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

6 I'll give you an overview. 

7 Bill Thurber, who is the principle 

8 author of this, is on the line, so we can get 

9 into a little more granularity. 

10 To go back to the first report, 

11 though, is probably good just to make it 

12 clear, in our first report, we reviewed 

13 NIOSH's judgment that they could perform dose 

14 reconstruction for uranium during the `57 to 

15 `60 period, and the residual activity 

16 associated with it, and we concurred with 

17 that. 

18 And the -- and they also concluded 

19 that they could not reconstruct the doses 

20 associated with thorium during that time 

21 period. And we have certain observations -- 

22 we were a little bit more concerned with 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 thoron than we were with thorium, but 

2 nevertheless, we concurred with that decision 

3 also. 

4 Now moving off from there, then 

5 came this issue related to the thorium again 

6 for the residual period. Now this is 

7 interesting because we carefully reviewed the 

8 protocol that NIOSH presented in what we'll 

9 call their Addendum 2 to the thorium report, 

10 where they claimed that they can perform dose 

11 reconstruction. 

12 And it's important to recognize 

13 that the approach that was adopted also makes 

14 reference to a procedure, OTIB-0070. So that 

15 was part and parcel to the review, and we 

16 reviewed both, and the workgroup and the board 

17 have both reports. 

18 Now the -- to get to the -- I'll 

19 give you the bottom line, and then we can sort 

20 of let it expand from there, is that the way -

21 - the approach that NIOSH has taken can be 

22 thought of like this. That is, during the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 operations period, while the weapons-related 

2 thorium was being produced, which was in the 

3 late 1950s, the idea being that, okay, we do 

4 have data on the airborne levels of thorium at 

5 the facility at that time. 

6 And we can make the plausible but 

7 claimant-favorable assumption that the dust 

8 loadings of thorium at that time represented 

9 an upper bound of the airborne activity 

10 resulting from the resuspension of residual 

11 radioactivity that might have accumulated at 

12 the site at that time. 

13 And that basically begins the 

14 starting point, January 1st, 1960, of what an 

15 upper bound might have been for the airborne 

16 dust loading for thorium. And then from there 

17 on, since there was no longer any additional -

18 - starting at that point, it's assumed that, 

19 okay, so that's -- we can sort of say we could 

20 place an upper bound on the inhalation 

21 exposures from thorium on January 1st, 1960 

22 based on those measured values. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 But then as time goes on, that 

2 activity is going to decline, and to a point 

3 where it exponentially gets lower and lower 

4 and lower to some level, and there are 

5 actually some measurements made much later on, 

6 I believe actually as late as 2006, of 

7 residual radioactivity of thorium at the site. 

8 So in principle, the idea being 

9 that, well, we know the starting point of what 

10 might be an upper bound of the airborne dust 

11 loading from resuspension, and we know that 

12 it's gone down sort of exponentially over 

13 time, and we could probably peg the lower end 

14 of what that might have been, place a 

15 plausible upper bound of what the end would 

16 be, and from there, you have a curve showing 

17 the airborne concentration of thorium 232 in 

18 air as a function of time due to residual 

19 activity associated with weapons-related 

20 activity for thorium at the facility. 

21 Now our principle concern is that, 

22 based on our review of the literature, the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 vast majority of the thorium that was 

2 processed at Dow was not related to weapons 

3 production based on a review of purchase 

4 orders, okay? Basically we looked at purchase 

5 orders from Mallinckrodt and a number of other 

6 places. 

7 And the bottom line is an extremely 

8 small fraction of that airborne dust that was 

9 measured in the late 1950s was associated with 

10 weapons-related activity. Perhaps on the 

11 order of less than one percent, perhaps .1 

12 percent. 

13 And therefore, the entire model, 

14 starting from 1960 onward, represents an 

15 implausible scenario. We completely agree 

16 that it's an upper bound. Bu we believe that 

17 the rule also states that the scenario that 

18 results in those exposures have to be 

19 plausible. 

20 And we don't think it's plausible 

21 that any worker was ever exposed to residual 

22 activity of weapons-related thorium activity 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 that was on the order of these numbers that 

2 you folks make reference to. 

3 And that was the front end of our 

4 problem. The back end of our problem, when 

5 you get to the later years, is that the 

6 measured activity that was, you know, reflects 

7 a number of things that confound the problem 

8 further. 

9 One is, whatever was measured there 

10 residual on surfaces, was due to all the 

11 thorium processing that took place, so 

12 therefore, it's some kind of mixture of 

13 commercial and weapons related, probably a 

14 very, very small fraction of which was weapons 

15 related. 

16 But making it more complicated is 

17 that whatever was measured was measured after 

18 there was quite a bit of decontamination 

19 activity that took place prior to then. So 

20 therefore, we have offsetting effects. 

21 In one respect, on the back end 

22 now, the later years, you are grossly over 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 estimating the contribution of weapons-related 

2 thorium, but on the other hand, you might be 

3 underestimating it because you're not looking 

4 at residual activity that was there over the 

5 years. It's residual activity left after 

6 cleanup. 

7 So I guess that represents 

8 conceptually our concern that the construct, 

9 though bounding, is really not scientifically 

10 plausible. 

11 And Bill, is there anything - I try 

12 to really capture it as briefly as possible - 

13 is there anything you would like to add to 

14 that to enrich the story a little bit? Bill 

15 Thurber, are you on line? Bill? 

16 MR. THURBER: Hello, can you hear 

17 me? 

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, hi, Bill. Yes. 

19 MR. THURBER: Yes, I heard what you 

20 said, John. 

21 DR. MAURO: Did I capture the 

22 story? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 MR. THURBER: Yes. I think you 

2 captured it well. I think that the points are 

3 -- the overarching points are, one, that what 

4 NIOSH did is clearly bounding; two, our 

5 fundamental concern is that, while it's 

6 bounding that we have some reservations of 

7 whether it meets a plausibility test because 

8 we think that a number of the assumptions that 

9 were used overstate the problem by perhaps 

10 orders of magnitude. 

11 And the most specific thing is the 

12 fact that the new evidence that underlies the 

13 whole Addendum 2 thing was that a 

14 determination that some of the magnesium 

15 thorium alloy could have been used for atomic 

16 weapons, not was, but could have. 

17 But anyway, setting that aside, if 

18 you look at the specific data as to how much 

19 magnesium thorium alloy was shipped to 

20 Mallinckrodt in 1957 and 1958, it's a few 

21 thousand pounds, and that is a tiny fraction, 

22 as you said, of the total magnesium thorium 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 alloy production. 

2 And so using -- unless you 

3 compensate for that, you come up with very 

4 large numbers of residual radioactivity. 

5 We had a number of other points of 

6 technical details relating to things as to 

7 exactly where NIOSH got the data that they used 

8 in specific calculations, or why they screened 

9 the available data in the way that they did, we 

10 felt that there was more data available than 

11 they did use in the report, for example. 

12 But I think you've pretty much 

13 captured it, John. 

14 DR. MAURO: Thanks, Bill. 

15 DR. NETON: Okay, well I appreciate 

16 being in a position where an estimator thinks 

17 our numbers are too high. That doesn't happen 

18 very often. 

19 CHAIR MELIUS: No, it's actually 

20 both -- both ways, too high and too low. So 

21 take your pick. You can start with either one. 

22 DR. NETON: Well, I thought they 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 96

1 felt that their numbers were bounding, 

2 excessively bounding. 

3 CHAIR MELIUS: On the front end. 

4 On the back end, we're not quite sure what to 

5 do with the back end problem. 

6 DR. NETON: But on the front end of 

7 the issue, where they're too high, I think 

8 specifically the amendment for the covered AWE 

9 talks about, if a non-covered source of 

10 ionizing radiation to an atomic weapons 

11 employer is not distinguishable from a covered 

12 related source, then the non-covered source 

13 shall be treated as part of the radiation dose 

14 received by the employee. So I think we're 

15 bound. 

16 We can't determine which portion of 

17 that is related to the cover operations, then 

18 we just include it all. And that's required by 

19 law. So even though we admit that it's higher, 

20 we can't distinguish between which magnesium 

21 thorium alloy was related to operations, and 

22 which was commercial, so we just said it's all. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 MR. THURBER: Well, excuse me, this 

2 is Bill Thurber. If it's clearly identified as 

3 to how much magnesium thorium alloy was shipped 

4 to Mallinckrodt in 1957 and 1958, and how much 

5 magnesium thorium alloy Dow produced, I'm not 

6 sure why you say that. 

7 MR. MAHATHY: For one, we don't 

8 know if that's all of it. 

9 CHAIR MELIUS: Mike Mahathy, speak 

10 up more loudly. 

11 MR. MAHATHY: You know, there's 

12 indications that Dow might have shipped, 

13 although it hasn't been shown, may have shipped 

14 magnesium thorium to the Rocky Flats and to 

15 other sites, so we can't say -- 

16 MR. THURBER: But the issue about 

17 magnesium thorium alloy to Rocky Flats was 

18 reviewed in the previous report. 

19 MR. MAHATHY: I know we don't want 

20 to go there. I'm just saying -- 

21 MR. THURBER: So there is no basis 

22 for it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 MR. GUIDO: Well regardless, how 

2 would you propose to scale it then? This is 

3 Joe Guido. I mean, I agree in principle, but 

4 how would you propose to scale it in a way 

5 where everyone will agree to the scaling? 

6 MR. THURBER: Well, as I say, we 

7 know how much was shipped to Mallinckrodt from 

8 the purchase orders. 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: So what Bill -- 

10 this is LaVon Rutherford -- so what, Bill, you 

11 are saying is, is we take that percentage 

12 versus the amount that was produced by the 

13 facility in roughly that same year or 1960-61 

14 and we say that percentage is -- 

15 MR. THURBER: No, in the same years 

16 that it was produced. 

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's what I'm 

18 saying. 

19 MR. THURBER: In `57 and `58, yes. 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, and then you 

21 are saying then we would take that fraction 

22 percentage and apply it to the intakes that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 we've already applied and drop the intakes by 

2 that amount. 

3 MR. THURBER: Basically. 

4 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Melius, this is 

5 Dan McKeel, may I make a comment? 

6 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, brief, Dan, go 

7 ahead. 

8 DR. McKEEL: Well, my brief comment 

9 is, let's table this discussion completely 

10 apropos what the law requires is the production 

11 period for thorium alloy did not stop in 1958. 

12 And so the residual period did not start for 

13 thorium in 1958 either. 

14 So the production of thorium alloy 

15 of the same type that was used in nuclear 

16 weapons work as certified by DOE continued on 

17 for many years thereafter. And that needs to 

18 be considered as well in the dose calculations. 

19 CHAIR MELIUS: I think we're bound, 

20 for this discussion -- you know we recognize 

21 that there are open questions about that. But 

22 I think for the purposes of what NIOSH is doing 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 now, they have to stay with what are the 

2 covered periods and do that. 

3 And that's why I want to stay 

4 focused on this report. If covered periods 

5 change, then things will have to be adjusted 

6 accordingly. And we're not speaking one way or 

7 the other about that specific issue but trying 

8 to deal with the technical issues related to 

9 whether or not the doses can be reconstructed 

10 during this period, given what is, you know, 

11 what we have now and what is, you know, 

12 allowed, you know, legally in terms of what 

13 NIOSH is allowed to do. 

14 DR. McKEEL: I understand that. 

15 The point I'm trying to make, though, is that 

16 what you all are talking about as residual 

17 period and covering the doses is that, during 

18 the uranium residual period, thorium was still 

19 being produced, whether you call it the covered 

20 period -- it's outside the covered period, but 

21 it's during the residual period. And thorium 

22 was still, during the covered period -- the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 residual period for uranium, but thorium was 

2 still being produced. 

3 CHAIR MELIUS: But not for an 

4 atomic weapon that has been shown, 

5 demonstrated, or evidenced, Dr. McKeel. Not 

6 for use in atomic weapons. 

7 We have a confirmation from DOE and 

8 DOL that those two years are the only time 

9 periods that we are to consider thorium 

10 production activity. 

11 DR. McKEEL: I understand. And you 

12 are -- I understand that everybody has chosen 

13 to disbelieve the Rocky Flats story from 11 Dow 

14 workers. So I just wanted to make that 

15 comment. And that's all I want to make. 

16 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. 

17 DR. McKEEL: Thank you. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, this is 

19 Ziemer. 

20 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask a 

22 question here? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, certainly, 

2 Paul. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: This question, I 

4 think, is either for Jim Neton or for SC&A. Is 

5 there an assumption that the -- assuming there 

6 is some ratio of weapons versus non-weapons 

7 work, I think SC&A was suggesting that it be 

8 scaled proportionately. 

9 But are they making the assumption 

10 that the development of or the generation of 

11 contamination was the same from all these 

12 processes? That is the weapons-related 

13 activities and the non-weapons-related 

14 activities? It seems to me that's the 

15 assumption -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Paul, yes -- 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- that would be 

18 open to question. 

19 DR. MAURO: -- yes, Paul, I would 

20 say that we did not make that recommendation or 

21 finding. The only finding we have is that 

22 based on production, we know that the alloy -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 thorium alloy produced for weapons was a small 

2 fraction of one percent of the total amount of 

3 thorium alloy produced at the facility during 

4 the covered period. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'm just 

6 saying it doesn't necessarily follow that one 

7 percent of the contamination was. 

8 MR. THURBER: No, this is Bill 

9 Thurber. May I amplify what John said? The 

10 materials that were sold to Mallinckrodt that 

11 might have been used for weapons were the same 

12 materials that Dow was producing for commercial 

13 customers. They were commercial alloys. 

14 So you would think that the kind of 

15 contamination from producing whatever it was -- 

16 HK21 sheet or something -- whether that sheet 

17 went to Mallinckrodt for a weapons application 

18 or whether it went to some commercial customer 

19 for use in aircraft or whatever, that the 

20 relative amount of contamination would be the 

21 same. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, that's really 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 what I was asking. 

2 MR. THURBER: Those were not 

3 special materials -- 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

5 MR. THURBER: -- that went to 

6 Mallinckrodt. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, they were the 

8 same processes is what you're saying. 

9 MR. THURBER: Right, yes. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's just a 

11 matter of who the final product went to. 

12 MR. THURBER: Yes. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. That helps 

14 clarify that question. Thank you. 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: Jim Neton has a 

16 comment to that, Paul. 

17 DR. NETON: Yes, someone from ORAU 

18 might correct if I'm wrong here, but I'm not 

19 sure that we really know the total production 

20 of magnesium thorium alloys that Dow actually 

21 produced for DOE. I mean we have evidence of a 

22 couple purchase orders that establish the fact 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 that they did produce this material and shipped 

2 it to Mallinckrodt. But that just established 

3 the minimum amount of material that was 

4 produced for DOE or AEC. 

5 So how do we really know how much 

6 of that total material was produced for DOE 

7 operations? I say we don't. Then we're just 

8 guessing if we try to scale the values. 

9 MR. THURBER: But that's the only 

10 material -- the only material that -- isn't it 

11 true, I may be wrong, this is Bill Thurber, 

12 again, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but 

13 isn't it true that the only material that DOE 

14 has said was used for weapons was the material 

15 that went to Mallinckrodt in 1957 and 1958? 

16 DR. NETON: I don't think that's 

17 true. 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I think, 

19 Bill, I think what they've said is, that is 

20 what has gotten them -- the thorium activities 

21 in the door. But I don't think that they've 

22 said that, you know, those two purchase orders 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 were it. This is LaVon Rutherford, by the way. 

2 I think it is true, and I'm not 

3 disagreeing with you at all, but we did review 

4 all of the purchase orders that were in that 

5 700 pages of documents. And these were the 

6 only materials that did go to Mallinckrodt. 

7 All the rest of the stuff that went 

8 to Mallinckrodt was not related to magnesium 

9 thorium alloys. It was related to other Dow 

10 products. 

11 CHAIR MELIUS: My comment would be 

12 that given the amendment and what NIOSH is 

13 obligated to do, I think there is a pretty high 

14 bar in terms of showing, you know, adopting the 

15 approach that SC&A is proposing here. I think 

16 NIOSH would have to be very certain that they 

17 would have complete information -- 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: To scale it back. 

19 CHAIR MELIUS: -- just to scale -- 

20 in order to scale. And, again, while it may be 

21 a valid point in terms of making sort of 

22 general estimate, I think given that amendment 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 107

1 and given the circumstances, I think they would 

2 be hard pressed to come up with the 

3 circumstances where NIOSH would be absolutely 

4 certain or have a high degree of certainty in 

5 order to be able to use that kind of scaling. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: The weight of the 

7 evidence is not there. 

8 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, right. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Just like it's, you 

10 know, we hear the workers talk about shipments 

11 to Rocky Flats, but the weight of the evidence 

12 is not there either. 

13 DR. MAURO: So what I am hearing is 

14 that you are saying that it is plausible that 

15 it all could have been -- 

16 DR. NETON: We don't know where to 

17 draw the line. And if we can't know where to 

18 draw the line, we just -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Like the law says, if 

20 it's not discernable, we can't distinguish. 

21 MR. GUIDO: You know, we're not 

22 commenting on plausibility there. There is Joe 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 Guido. We're commenting on the 

2 indistinguishability. I mean we know that 

3 there is some other level but the question -- 

4 it's like the start of the question, who is 

5 going to pick the number? And who is going to 

6 agree on the number? 

7 If we agree on ten percent or 11 

8 because, you know, those factors are going 

9 effect -- at some point, it is going to effect 

10 someone's compensability. You know, whatever 

11 number you pick, so, you know, that's where our 

12 case is. 

13 DR. MAURO: We find ourselves in an 

14 unusual circumstance. You know we're 

15 interpreting and perhaps we shouldn't be, but 

16 the plausibility issue has come up before, and 

17 it will come up again. 

18 And I guess the way in which 

19 plausibility is defined in its broadest -- you 

20 are defining it in its broadest sense right 

21 now, that is if we really can't place an upper 

22 bound on it, we'll assume it is all. Even 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 though we know it is implausible that it was 

2 all. 

3 DR. NETON: Right. But that is 

4 following the regulations. I mean we're not 

5 making this up. I mean we're following the 

6 law. 

7 CHAIR MELIUS: I think this is a 

8 different plausibility than the plausibility, 

9 sort of, dose reconstruction and so on. I 

10 think this is how do you interpret that 

11 specific statute and amendment? 

12 And so I think we just sort of 

13 approach it differently and not try and put it 

14 in the context of the other. And I think the 

15 wording is such that I think it is hard to do 

16 anything other than what NIOSH is doing. 

17 DR. MAURO: Then there is the back 

18 end of it. Now we go to the back end of the 

19 problem and Bill, please, again, as a reminder, 

20 our concern is that the way in which this curve 

21 of residual exposure is built is very much in 

22 accord with -- well, at least one of the steps 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 recommended in OTIB-0070 whereby you sort of 

2 pin down what is at the back end of the 

3 potential exposures, the low end. 

4 And one of our concerns was that 

5 the way that was constructed had numerous 

6 assumptions embedded in it that were 

7 questionable, that were questionable in terms 

8 of, well, we put to bed the front end problems. 

9 So, therefore, we're not -- we are 

10 concerned in that maybe the cause there was 

11 decontamination that took place prior to those 

12 measurements, the place you are pegging the 

13 number now at the bottom end might be too low 

14 and maybe was higher. 

15 MR. MAHATHY: There also was a 

16 survey done in 1989, which Bill alluded to, and 

17 the highest thorium dose sample was like seven 

18 picocuries per milligram. And if you calculate 

19 that out, it comes out to 1,700 picocuries per 

20 year, which is actually lower than the dose we 

21 calculated using the other method, which is 

22 2,100. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 So even using data that we have 

2 previous to 2006 actually gives you the lower 

3 intake. Now we also have -- since then, you 

4 know, we have all the data, you know, from the 

5 contamination survey that was done in 2006. So 

6 those are -- you know, I feel like the intake 

7 we calculated in 2006 is actually higher than 

8 what it would have been because remember they 

9 were in there vacuuming and stirring it up. 

10 We only have to calculate what 

11 people would have gotten from residual, not 

12 from some action of the thorium. So if you 

13 assume all the thorium was fixed there and, you 

14 know, basically would have been the same pretty 

15 much over time, it would have been higher when 

16 they were disturbing it. 

17 CHAIR MELIUS: Go ahead. 

18 DR. MAURO: I guess our concern is 

19 that what was measured reflected post20 decontamination and not pre-decontamination. 

21 MR. GUIDO: It turned out that the 

22 decontamination in 1989 -- I'm just trying to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 get the scope -- where is the decontamination 

2 we're talking about. 

3 DR. MAURO: I'm zeroing in at 2006 

4 now. 

5 MR. MAHATHY: Right. There is 

6 20006, and I didn't allude to the 1989 data, 

7 which is actually less than the 2006 data. 

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

9 This is LaVon Rutherford. That is correct. 

10 The 2006 data is actually higher than the 1988-

11 89 data. 

12 MR. MAHATHY: Which tends to 

13 suggest that the material was disturbed, and 

14 then they had higher readings. 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: The reason, John, 

16 the reason that we moved to that was because we 

17 had that data in 2006. And that was actually 

18 perimeter data that was used around the -- we 

19 knew that the cleanup activities, based on the 

20 Cushman or the closure report, that the cleanup 

21 activities, the workers inside that area were 

22 in respiratory protection and they used 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 boundary samples. 

2 We used the perimeter samples to 

3 actually say that the highest exposed person 

4 that would not have been working in that area 

5 would have been exposed to that air data. 

6 And then we used that air data and 

7 actually compared it to the `89 data and we 

8 said, well, we know this is bounding. And 

9 we'll go ahead and use this in the exponential 

10 approach. 

11 MR. THURBER: I think -- yes, I 

12 understand exactly what you're saying. I think 

13 that the comment in our report was that the 

14 2006 data were taken during the cleanup of 

15 overhead beams that involved vacuuming and 

16 other manual removal processes. 

17 And our comment was that that would 

18 hardly seem to be representative of what the 

19 real residual contamination endpoint ought to 

20 be for an exponentially-declining function. I 

21 think that's the point. 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well -- this is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 LaVon Rutherford -- then, Bill, it's more than 

2 that it could be over-estimating -- it could 

3 be implausibly high if you take into 

4 consideration what you just said. 

5 MR. THURBER: Yes. 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: I mean it could be 

7 both ways. So our situation was we had this 

8 data in 2006, and we felt like okay, to be a 

9 good bounding exposure, we're not just going to 

10 throw this data out. We're going to consider 

11 this data. 

12 And we took that air data and we 

13 actually compared it to the `89 data. It was 

14 higher. We could have went back and said well, 

15 let's just use the `89 data, but we didn't 

16 because we didn't want to have to argue the 

17 point of well, which is right and which is 

18 wrong here. 

19 MR. THURBER: Right. 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: And so that's why 

21 we went that way. 

22 MR. MAHATHY: I might also add that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 within those reconstructions for four different 

2 cancers using 40 years of employment, they are 

3 all within the realm of plausibility. And we 

4 can share the information. So -- 

5 DR. NETON: I think what Mike is 

6 saying is we've done some examples of dose 

7 reconstructions using some metabolic and non8 metabolic cancers. And the values aren't 

9 ridiculously high to where, you know, these are 

10 implausible exposures. 

11 MR. MAHATHY: Colon cancer was 

12 33.25 percent of CLC -- 

13 DR. NETON: That in and of itself 

14 doesn't say too much other than the fact that 

15 they are not astronomically high. One could 

16 still argue that they are on the high end for a 

17 residual period, I suppose. But now I'm 

18 hearing -- John started off saying that they 

19 were too low. And now I'm hearing Mike Thurber 

20 saying that they are too high. So I'm not sure 

21 where we are. 

22 DR. MAURO: I know we agreed -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 when we walked away from the back end of the 

2 calculation, we had what I would say 

3 contradictory concerns. In one respect, we 

4 were operating on the assumption that the 

5 material was cleaned up before. So, therefore, 

6 it is really not what the residue is. 

7 We were also concerned, but wait a 

8 minute, whatever the residue was, probably only 

9 a very, very small fraction was from weapons10 related activity. 

11 And then finally, offsetting that 

12 further, is you are cleaning up and you were 

13 stirring the stuff up, that's not what you 

14 would have during a residual period. That was 

15 during the D&D period when you were generating 

16 aerosol. 

17 So, you know, we have all -- I 

18 guess it becomes, you know, we're in this place 

19 where we tried to look at this as a 

20 scientifically plausible way of modeling 

21 something. And we found right from the front 

22 end to the back end in our approach to really 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 stress what we would consider to be a 

2 scientifically valid and plausible approach. 

3 Nevertheless, within the 

4 definition of plausibility, as embraced by 

5 NIOSH and apparently around the board, I guess 

6 our concerns really are misplaced. I don't 

7 know -- I mean I'm hearing answers that sounds 

8 like that is okay. 

9 MR. MAHATHY: I just -- one other 

10 problem. If you look at the `89 and the 2006 

11 data, that really within the margin of error, 

12 they were the same. 

13 DR. MAURO: Well, as far as SC&A -- 

14 I mean I'm going to withdraw at this point. 

15 We've done the best we can to sort of put a 

16 light on how you did it, where we think there 

17 might be weaknesses scientifically in the 

18 assumptions and the approach. 

19 I think you understand what they 

20 are. And really I don't know how much more we 

21 can add other than some of the -- there are 

22 some what I would call second order issues 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 related to the data that you started with, its 

2 completeness. But that's really secondary to 

3 what we're talking about. 

4 MR. MAHATHY: And I wanted to say 

5 we used only samples, only results from 

6 Madison. We did not use results from Bay City 

7 or Midland, and the earlier results, `56 and 

8 `57. And there were some in `58 that were from 

9 Midland and Bay City. 

10 We only used results from Madison 

11 that we considered general area. 

12 DR. NETON: Mike, could you just 

13 clarify for me, what were the general 

14 conditions around when the 1989 samples were 

15 taken? What was the pedigree of those samples? 

16 MR. MAHATHY: It was done by ORAU. 

17 DR. NETON: Right. So these were 

18 sort of just not disturbed samples. They were 

19 more of building operations. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: And those were, 

21 you said, picocuries per milligram -- 

22 picocuries per gram? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, what was it? 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: What were the -- 

3 MR. MAHATHY: Actually those were 

4 stored by results and we converted them. 

5 MR. GUIDO: Well, the one that you 

6 are talking about is picocuries per gram. 

7 MR. MAHATHY: Seven picocuries per 

8 gram. 

9 MR. GUIDO: I heard milligrams. 

10 MR. MAHATHY: Oh. Sorry. 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: If I remember 

12 correctly, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, this 

13 is LaVon again, that 1989 survey was a 

14 preliminary survey to get in basically stagnant 

15 conditions in preparation for future D&D. Or 

16 future remediation. 

17 DR. MAURO: So this is like a 

18 standard Morrison site characterization prior 

19 to clean up. And now were you measuring 

20 airborne dust loading or surface contamination 

21 level? 

22 MR. MAHATHY: That was surface 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 contamination only. And we, you know, I 

2 converted -- I just used the simple, you know, 

3 converted -- I had factors and I converted it 

4 to an airborne -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Ten to the minus six? 

6 MR. MAHATHY: Yes. 

7 DR. MAURO: Then we're back to the 

8 ten to the minus six resuspension factor. I 

9 mean this is closing down to -- I mean where we 

10 are right now, from what I see, then it becomes 

11 a matter of how did you peg the back end and 

12 you're saying you pegged the back end, assuming 

13 all the residual activity that was there -- 

14 MR. MAHATHY: That was in `89 only. 

15 DR. MAURO: -- was -- is an upper 

16 bound. 

17 MR. MAHATHY: Right. 

18 DR. MAURO: Because you are 

19 assuming one, it was all weapons-related, what 

20 you are looking at, and that the material was 

21 based on what was measured on surfaces. 

22 MR. MAHATHY: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 DR. MAURO: And then you -- well, I 

2 guess the only thing that I would point out is 

3 then you applied the ten to the minus six 

4 resuspension factor and that would you give you 

5 -- peg your lower end -- 

6 MR. MAHATHY: Yes. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- of 1980 -- well, 

8 let's say, 2006 number of a certain level of 

9 number of becquerels per cubic meter. During -

10 - we have lots of literature that says during 

11 operations, the air dust loading would have a 

12 resuspension factor that might be at least two 

13 orders of magnitude higher than that. 

14 MR. GUIDO: Can I -- 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: Go ahead. 

16 MR. GUIDO: Well, I wanted to say 

17 we're kind of mischaracterizing a little bit 

18 the 1989 data because there was a lot of data 

19 there and a lot of different ways to look at 

20 that. I mean if we're trying to say that, you 

21 know, we agree our upper bound is high and our 

22 lower bound, which is based on air data may or 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 may not be high because we're trying to say 

2 well is that really the right number because 

3 there was some decon done before. 

4 And if you trace that back to 1989 

5 and say, okay, is -- you know based on that 

6 curve, is the `89 point right because the `89 

7 data is undisturbed. I mean there's a lot of 

8 ways to look at the -- 

9 DR. MAURO: But it's surface data. 

10 MR. GUIDO: Well, yes, but as I 

11 say, there's a lot of ways to look at the 1989 

12 data. 

13 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel, 

14 may I please make a comment about the 1989 

15 data? 

16 CHAIR MELIUS: No, not right now, 

17 Dan. Let him finish first. 

18 MR. GUIDO: Yes, let me finish my 

19 point. What I'm saying is there are a bunch of 

20 ways to characterize it. And one way is they 

21 actually went up in the dust in the rafters and 

22 calculated the specific activity of the dust. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 It was seven picocuries per milligram. Okay, 

2 that was in the dust. 

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

4 MR. GUIDO: So now if you want to 

5 look at what the 1989 intake projected by that 

6 curve is and you want to look at what dust 

7 loading based on seven picocuries per 

8 milligrams would cause that, you're going to be 

9 up around 120 milligrams per cubic meter, which 

10 is very high. 

11 So that framework kind of gives you 

12 a -- we're still high in my opinion. We're not 

13 using the ten to the minus six. I mean because 

14 that, to me -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, you didn't use that 

16 then? 

17 MR. GUIDO: Well, we didn't use 

18 that data at all. I mean we're not using that 

19 data at all. I'm just saying if you are trying 

20 to -- if we went back -- if you said go back 

21 and look at the `89 data and make us 

22 comfortable that that `89 data shows us the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 124

1 curve is right, what I'm saying is we could do 

2 that based on mass load. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, if you have a mass 

4 loading approach that you could peg the back 

5 end with, given the -- 

6 MR. GUIDO: Right. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- this is all, you 

8 know, as we discussed before, rather than the 

9 resuspension factor approach -- but I'm saying 

10 -- 

11 MR. GUIDO: It's hard to disagree 

12 on that. Once you get there, and if you are in 

13 the milligrams per cubic meter range, you have 

14 certainly placed an upper bound on the back end 

15 of that. 

16 MR. MAHATHY: It is actually higher 

17 than the one we have now. 

18 MR. GUIDO: So maybe we should, you 

19 know maybe one way to get through this is for 

20 us to do that to show you -- I mean because I 

21 think -- well, it's not hard. You know seven 

22 picocuries per milligram was what was in the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 rafter dust. 

2 So, you know, to get to -- you can 

3 look at the intake that is projected in that 

4 year. What's the number? I actually did this 

5 calculation because I thought this was going to 

6 be an issue -- 18.9 dpm per day in 1980. What 

7 is it in 1989? What is the data in 1989? I 

8 have the matrix right here -- 7.7 dpm per day. 

9 So basically what we're saying is 

10 what does it take to get to 7.7 dpm per day 

11 from seven picocurie per gram material. 

12 DR. MAURO: Is that milligrams per 

13 cubic liter? 

14 MR. GUIDO: No, I know, I'm just 

15 saying that's the process to do it. I'm not 

16 saying let's do this right here. But I'm 

17 saying this is the process we can do and we 

18 could see what the number comes out to. If it 

19 is in the milligrams per cubic meter, we're not 

20 going to argue, right? I mean -- 

21 CHAIR MELIUS: Now, Dan, you had a 

22 comment on the `89 data? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 DR. McKEEL: Yes, my comment was 

2 that 1989 was a very limited survey of only one 

3 building, the extrusion building. And there 

4 was zero survey data from building five or 

5 seven where the rolling mill was and where the 

6 pot room were. 

7 And so the Pantel later report, the 

8 D&D reports in 2003 through 2008 covered the 

9 entire plant. So the 1989 data can't be the 

10 sole representative because it is one spot in 

11 this great big building complex. Thank you. 

12 MR. MAHATHY: That is another 

13 reason I used the 2006. But they were still 

14 very consistent. 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: Did you hear that, 

16 Dan? 

17 DR. McKEEL: I heard -- 

18 CHAIR MELIUS: The response. 

19 DR. McKEEL: -- I heard that it was 

20 used in 2006 for some reason but not why. I 

21 mean, 2006 should be more representative of the 

22 total plant. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's what he 

2 said, yes. 

3 CHAIR MELIUS: That's basically 

4 what he said. 

5 DR. McKEEL: Okay. 

6 CHAIR MELIUS: That's why they used 

7 both and essentially used the 2006. 

8 DR. McKEEL: Okay. I will also 

9 mention, you know, that there was previous 

10 decontamination work, of course, in 1993 of the 

11 thorium magnesium waste that was outside of the 

12 building. So you all are aware of that as 

13 well. Thank you. 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: I didn't 

15 participate in this, but just to raise a 

16 question. 

17 CHAIR MELIUS: Speak a little bit 

18 louder, Arjun. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. Is 

20 there an ingestion component to this also? 

21 DR. NETON: Yes. Another comment. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is my last 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 comment. 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I think we 

3 were in the place that I think is really the 

4 core of the concerns. There are ingestion 

5 issues. Modeling issues we've had on many 

6 occasions. 

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, right. That's 

8 why I was kind of remembering it as being there 

9 before. 

10 DR. MAURO: And, in fact, the 

11 ingestion pathway is almost linked to the 

12 inhalation pathway in the models that were used 

13 by NIOSH. 

14 We're really -- now we are at the 

15 point where we are questioning whether the 

16 inhalation is good. And let's say it turns out 

17 that everyone is comfortable with the 

18 inhalation but then the ingestion becomes a 

19 tractable issue. 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

21 DR. MAURO: Right. That goes -- 

22 DR. NETON: Exactly, which we've 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 already agreed it's a tractable issue. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right now. I'm 

3 sorry, I'd forgotten that. 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: The other findings, 

5 do you want to go over those please. 

6 MR. MAHATHY: Yes. 

7 DR. NETON: There was an external 

8 dosimetry question. 

9 DR. MAURO: Right. It was an 

10 external. And Bill, you're going to have to 

11 help me out a bit here because when I was 

12 refreshing my memory on this, I focused in on 

13 the matters we just discussed. 

14 MR. THURBER: Right. 

15 DR. MAURO: How are you on the 

16 thorium and the external? Are you current on 

17 those two aspects of our sets of findings? 

18 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry. 

19 DR. MAURO: Well, let's start with 

20 external because we broke our report up into 

21 several sections. 

22 MR. THURBER: Right. Well, we had 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 some questions about thoron that were basically 

2 related to the fact that we didn't understand 

3 the basis for the data selection, as I recall. 

4 We thought that there were a number of general 

5 area samples that NIOSH did not include in 

6 their database, and it wasn't clear to us why. 

7 MR. MAHATHY: They were not from 

8 Madison. They were taken from Midland. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you talking 

10 about -- this is Ziemer -- are we talking about 

11 Finding 5 on the thoron measurement? 

12 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. 

13 MR. THURBER: Yes, that's what I 

14 was talking -- this is Bill Thurber -- that's 

15 what I was talking about anyway. 

16 DR. NETON: Yes, our response is, 

17 basically, that we've used all the data that 

18 were available at the Dow Madison facility. 

19 MR. THURBER: Okay. Obviously, it 

20 would have been helpful if that -- if those 

21 distinctions were made in the report. The 

22 other point we had -- we had some trouble 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 actually -- and it may be our guys don't do 

2 their calculations right, but we could not 

3 duplicate the 95th percentile calculation. 

4 MR. MAHATHY: That was an error. 

5 And that was my fault. And your calculation 

6 was correct. 

7 MR. THURBER: Okay. Well, then 

8 what that says is that the 95th percentile 

9 value using your database would be about 35 

10 percent higher than what you reported. 

11 MR. MAHATHY: This has almost no 

12 effect on that. 

13 MR. THURBER: Okay. And, again, it 

14 would be helpful to -- I would have to go back 

15 and try and look at all the data that I 

16 mentioned in our report to see if we are in 

17 agreement that some of the data was from Bay 

18 City. 

19 DR. NETON: I also see here, Bill, 

20 that there's a note on one of our responses 

21 that we did not include process area samples. 

22 MR. THURBER: No, no. We 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 understood. That was very clear in your 

2 report. And we also tried to, in examining 

3 what we thought was the relevant dataset to -- 

4 DR. NETON: Okay. 

5 MR. THURBER: -- to exclude process 

6 samples as well. So conceptually, we're in 

7 total agreement on that point. 

8 DR. NETON: Okay. 

9 MR. THURBER: So I guess then as 

10 far as the thoron is concerned, the question 

11 is, is whether -- if we took our dataset and 

12 reexamined it whether we would be in agreement 

13 that the -- that you people had only used the 

14 Madison and we had used stuff that went beyond 

15 Madison. And we apparently are in agreement 

16 that the 95th percentile value is as reported 

17 in our focused review. 

18 DR. NETON: Correct. 

19 DR. MERRITT: This is Dr. Maureen 

20 Merritt. I'm just joining the conversation 

21 here. Thank you. 

22 MR. KATZ: Can you repeat your name 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 as long as you -- 

2 DR. MERRITT: Dr. Maureen Merritt -

3 - 

4 MR. KATZ: Maureen Merritt. 

5 DR. MERRITT: -- here at Los 

6 Alamos. 

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

8 CHAIR MELIUS: How about Finding 

9 No. 6? 

10 MR. THURBER: Finding No. 6, that -

11 - oops, excuse me -- 

12 DR. MAURO: That's the external 

13 question? 

14 CHAIR MELIUS: Right. Yes, .7 MR 

15 per hour. 

16 MR. THURBER: Yes, I think that -- 

17 well, Finding No. 6 was ingestion, which we've 

18 already talked about. 

19 DR. MAURO: No, number seven. 

20 MR. THURBER: Finding No. 7 -- 

21 CHAIR MELIUS: Was ingestion. 

22 DR. MAURO: That was ingestion. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 Number six has to do with -- if I recall, 

2 number -- yes, external, the .7 MR per hour, 

3 Bill, if you would correct me if I'm wrong now 

4 that it is coming back to me from reading this, 

5 it was based on the assumption that a person 

6 was standing some distance away from the alloy, 

7 the pure alloy, the four percent alloy, thorium 

8 alloy, all the time. 

9 And this really was not 

10 appropriate, if we're talking about exposure to 

11 residual material that might be on surfaces. 

12 Again -- 

13 MR. THURBER: That's correct, John. 

14 DR. MAURO: -- again, a gross 

15 overestimate of what might have been the 

16 external exposures a person might have 

17 experienced from the residual period. I think 

18 that was our concern. 

19 MR. THURBER: Yes. 

20 CHAIR MELIUS: By the way, for 

21 those of you that are confused, Finding Six and 

22 Seven are reversed in the body of the report 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 versus the executive summary. 

2 DR. MAURO: Is that right? My 

3 apologies. 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: I'm looking at the 

5 executive summary. 

6 DR. MAURO: I'm guilty then. 

7 DR. McKEEL: Can I please point out 

8 that the Pantel reports documented that not 

9 only was there thorium dust on surfaces but 

10 there was amounts of thorium metal products of 

11 various kinds scattered around all of the three 

12 main buildings at Dow. I showed that to the 

13 board in May of 2007. 

14 CHAIR MELIUS: All right. 

15 DR. McKEEL: Thank you. 

16 DR. NETON: Along those lines, 

17 then, our response would be similar to what we 

18 said for the others. It is indistinguishable 

19 from commercial -- commercial operations and 

20 AEC operations are indistinguishable in this 

21 time period. So we just went with the higher 

22 dose. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 DR. MAURO: I think that's it. 

2 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes. So I think 

3 that, regarding the SC&A Addendum 2 report we 

4 were going over, I think some written response 

5 from NIOSH would be helpful. I think there is 

6 -- mainly I think a clarification on this 

7 residual period commercially, that issue I can 

8 see where it is confusing to people. And I 

9 think that would be helpful for future and so 

10 forth. 

11 And then I think the clarification 

12 on the inhalation dose, the choice, what we 

13 talked about doing would be also helpful in 

14 terms of the justification. 

15 But I think it makes sense as you 

16 present it. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Including the `89 

18 -- 

19 MR. GUIDO: Right. Yes, that item 

20 isn't really embodied in the one through seven 

21 findings. Where would you want to see that? 

22 Or is this a separate item? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 In other words, findings one 

2 through seven really don't -- 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, it's in the text 

4 but it's not in the findings. 

5 MR. MAHATHY: It's in the text. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: So if we respond, 

7 does it need to be just a separate item or -- 

8 MR. MAHATHY: I think it would fit 

9 under one of these findings. 

10 DR. McKEEL: Doesn't it fit -- 

11 actually it fits under the finding that is 

12 associated with the questions with the 2006 

13 data that we used. 

14 MR. GUIDO: Right. Number three. 

15 Okay. 

16 And I showed -- my back of the 

17 envelope calculations, it is 50 milligrams per 

18 cubic meter is what you would need, which is 

19 off the charts. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: It's pretty high. 

21 You couldn't see through it. 

22 DR. MAURO: We don't go there. I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 can tell you as an industrial hygienist, you 

2 can't see through it. 

3 CHAIR MELIUS: Some of us will 

4 question how well industrial hygienists can 

5 see, smell -- 

6 (Laughter.) 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: I can't imagine it 

8 looking that way every day. People wouldn't 

9 put up with it. 

10 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. That 

11 completes, on this particular issue, I think it 

12 is just getting response back. And I don't -- 

13 Dan, do you want to give us an update -- or 

14 Larry, there are still some outstanding Freedom 

15 of Information Act requests, and I'm just 

16 trying to get -- trying to think how we 

17 schedule dealing with this SEC in terms of 

18 where we are. 

19 I'd like to make sure that we, you 

20 know, to the extent that, you know, we answer, 

21 they answer promptly. And that Dan and the 

22 petitioners have access to all the necessary 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 139

1 information they need to evaluate this. So can 

2 you -- can somebody update us? 

3 DR. McKEEL: I can try to. 

4 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. 

5 DR. McKEEL: We have sent several 

6 FOIA requests. The first was in April of 2007, 

7 soon after the original evaluation report 

8 surfaced. And that had 14 -- I asked -- 

9 actually what I sent Larry Elliott was 14 

10 questions, eight of them, I think, were made 

11 into FOIA requests. 

12 We've gotten answers back from all 

13 but Item 9. And we still await that. 

14 Then in March -- on March 30th of 

15 this year, we sent a FOIA request for 

16 additional Dow information, particularly about 

17 -- and revised that in May and updated it -- 

18 and particularly we were looking for the 

19 information that Larry had indicated. 

20 He sent a letter to Dow 

21 headquarters seeking information about thorium 

22 during the residual period. And that was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 primarily aimed at getting that letter to Dow 

2 headquarters and any information that Dow had 

3 sent back in return. 

4 I didn't get an answer back from 

5 that at all. So in June I filed a FOIA appeal, 

6 and that worked its way through the process. 

7 And eventually I wound up with documents that 

8 were said to be responsive to all three of the 

9 main items I sent a FOIA about. 

10 But none of them were the documents 

11 that was received from Dow headquarters. And I 

12 also mentioned in my revision and in the appeal 

13 that one of the reports, I think it was the 

14 Addendum 2, had mentioned that in the database 

15 there were 62 items from Dow headquarters that 

16 were received or that were placed in the SRDB 

17 January 9th of this year. And that was long 

18 after the other Dow materials that we sent -- 

19 that were sent to us in last August of `07. 

20 So I thought they must be different 

21 documents. And anyway, I went through a long 

22 deal with both FOIA offices, the CDC FOIA 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 office and the Public Health Service Appeals 

2 Office and I never have gotten any of those 

3 documents requested from Dow headquarters. So 

4 I consider those still outstanding. 

5 And then PHS wanted to make one 

6 element of the appeal -- I think it may be 

7 those documents -- they wanted to convert that 

8 into a brand new FOIA request. And nothing has 

9 been acted on with that. 

10 So there are several items like 

11 that that I still would like to get. I also, 

12 you know, of course, would like to have the, I 

13 assume that SC&A may be tasked, or the new 

14 contractor, to make comments on the new 

15 Appendix C. 

16 And, of course, I'd like to have 

17 those when they come out. But I must say there 

18 are all sorts of reports that this workgroup 

19 has not really -- I made a list for myself with 

20 20 document groups that pertain to Dow. And so 

21 I do wonder if those things are going to be 

22 reviewed as well. But the FOIA thing, I'm just 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 -- I'm waiting for those. 

2 There is one bit of information I 

3 would like to convey to you all and just 

4 mention that I can send that this afternoon by 

5 e-mail, but I obtained a final -- the letter 

6 that Illinois Emergency Management Agency, the 

7 Nuclear Safety Division, sent to Spectrulite 

8 Corporation's CEO, Chris Barnes, on June the 

9 9th of this year, which finally terminated the 

10 Spectrulite thorium license. So that did 

11 finally bring closure to the thorium operations 

12 all together at that site. 

13 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon 

15 Rutherford. We do have a copy of that, Dan, 

16 that final letter. 

17 DR. McKEEL: Okay. 

18 CHAIR MELIUS: Does anybody from 

19 NIOSH have a response on the FOI situation? 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it's with the 

21 FOI Office. I mean there's -- 

22 MR. KATZ: But didn't you have some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 interaction with Dr. McKeel about what letters 

2 were actually -- his question about letters to 

3 the headquarters, Dow, whether you ever 

4 received a response or not. I thought you guys 

5 had some interaction about that recently where 

6 you said you never received some documents. Or 

7 am I mixing this up with another facility? 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: There is confusion 

9 around this. I never said I sent a letter to 

10 Dow headquarters. I said NIOSH was looking at 

11 sending a letter to Dow headquarters. 

12 In fact, I think the letter that 

13 was sent to Dow headquarters went out under 

14 Stu's signature. And this is all part of one 

15 of Dr. McKeel's FOIA requests that is being 

16 handled by the FOIA office. 

17 I did write a letter to the State 

18 of Illinois. And I got a response from them. 

19 And I sent them a thank you letter for that. 

20 And I think that is also involved in one of Dr. 

21 McKeel's FOIA requests. 

22 But, you know, these -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 DR. McKEEL: Well, all I can 

2 comment -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: -- when Dr. McKeel 

4 has -- when you have a FOIA request like you 

5 submitted over the weekend for one specific 

6 document, that's very easy to process through 

7 the FOIA office. I simply take that e-mail as 

8 a request for that document and we process it 

9 as a FOIA request, as you've seen me do this 

10 morning, Dr. McKeel. 

11 But when your request is broad and 

12 expansive and changes over the course of a few 

13 months, that causes the FOIA office difficulty 

14 in preparing a response. It causes us 

15 difficulty in understanding what the FOIA 

16 office wants to review in order to make 

17 decisions about provision. 

18 And so that is what is taking a lot 

19 of time on some of the outstanding FOIA 

20 requests. They are very voluminous. They are 

21 very expansive. 

22 They have changed or morphed over 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 time. And, you know, that's in the hands of 

2 the FOIA office. I have no ability to figure 

3 out, you know, how to speed that up or what to 

4 do about that. 

5 DR. McKEEL: Well, I've tried to do 

6 everything I know. All I can say is that FOIA 

7 requests, the way I see them, are a loop. The 

8 reason you can't -- you can't send them to me 

9 directly. But you have the documents that I am 

10 requesting, I believe. 

11 And so I send a request to the FOIA 

12 office. They receive it. And then presumably 

13 they come back to you -- that's what they said 

14 they have done -- and ask for those documents. 

15 And then you send them to them or not. And 

16 then they send me the documents or not. And 

17 provide an explanation. 

18 And so I'm saying that there was 

19 one item that hasn't been contested, Item 9 

20 from April 2007 that hasn't been answered. And 

21 so -- 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: What is Item 9, if 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 you can refresh my memory? 

2 DR. McKEEL: I think it is about 

3 correspondence between NIOSH and ORAU 

4 concerning the evaluation report. I don't have 

5 it in front of me right at the moment. 

6 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Larry, this is 

7 Liz Homoki-Titus. I think that is the one that 

8 has, like, four or five hundred pages of 

9 response that the office is trying to go 

10 through and we're trying to help them speed it 

11 along. But I mean it is a very voluminous 

12 response to a very, kind of, broad question. 

13 DR. McKEEL: Well, I understand 

14 that. I will comment that the FOIA office has 

15 never asked me to narrow that scope. So all I 

16 know is that, you know, it is 17 or more months 

17 afterwards and I still haven't gotten the 

18 document. So voluminous or not, I don't think 

19 the FOIA request discriminates against that. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: There are certain 

21 protections to certain types of information 

22 that, you know, may not be allowed to be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 provided to you. 

2 DR. McKEEL: Oh, I understand that. 

3 But I think in 17 months that could be so 

4 indicated, you know. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: I agree. I would not 

6 disagree with that at all. 

7 DR. McKEEL: Yes, yes. No, I 

8 understand the rules. 

9 Well, that's all I can say. 

10 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Melius, this 

12 is LaVon Rutherford. 

13 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes? 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: I wanted to also -

15 - there was a question that Dr. McKeel had 

16 concerning the end date set for Dow. And I 

17 wanted to point out that Appendix C of the 

18 Patel 6000 identifies November 30th, 2007 as 

19 our end date. And that is what we are moving 

20 forward with in our residual contamination 

21 report. 

22 DR. McKEEL: Well, don't you -- my 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 understanding after the June meeting was that 

2 you would communicate that information to the 

3 Department of Labor. And then they would know 

4 that. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think we told 

6 you at that time, too. And Larry is in here 

7 and he can pipe up on this as well, that the 

8 only thing the Department of Labor is going to 

9 recognize is the residual contamination report 

10 when it comes to changing covered period. 

11 I'd also like to point out the fact 

12 that the original covered period ended at the 

13 1998. Right now we have no claims that are 

14 potentially affected from 1998 to 2007. 

15 Now I do recognize that there are 

16 going to eventually be claims. But right now 

17 we are working all dose reconstructions and all 

18 claims that we have, we are working them 

19 through. And that none of them are affected by 

20 that end date. 

21 And our existing dose 

22 reconstruction model under Appendix C allows 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 for any that come in that, in the future, from 

2 1998 to 2007, we'll be able to handle. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: We anticipate the 

4 residual report to come out soon. We are 

5 working through a review of the draft of it 

6 now. So it is imminent. 

7 CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you. You 

8 answered my question already. 

9 Okay. Thanks. Okay. If not, I 

10 think we can end the meeting. In less time 

11 than I thought. But that's fine. I won't 

12 argue with it. 

13 Thank you everybody. 

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

15 CHAIR MELIUS: And I'd like to 

16 thank the NIOSH rep for the ORAU people 

17 attending today. I think it is helpful to have 

18 people here and see some of these people we 

19 have heard from before. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Happy they could help 

21 us and be here, too. 

22 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay. So thank you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 all. And talk to you soon. 

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

3 matter was concluded at 12:03 p.m.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9