THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

WORKING GROUP MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY TWO 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the NIOSH, Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 1, 2005. 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

June 1, 2005 

TASK 1: MALLINCKRODT SITE PROFILE REVIEW 

MARK GRIFFON 

NIOSH/ORAU

SC&A, ARJUN MAKHIJANI 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND 

The following transcript contains quoted material. 

Such material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 

ABRWH MEMBERS: 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Salem, New Hampshire 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 

OTHER ATTENDEES: 

MR. DAVID ALLEN, NIOSH

DR. HANS BEHLING, SC&A

MS. KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

MS. CINDY BLOOM, ORAU

MS. NANCY JOHNSON, SC&A

DR. ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

DR. JIM NETON, NIOSH 

STAFF/VENDORS 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

5

 P R O C E E D I N G S

 (11:15 a.m.) 

DR. NETON: Okay. We're ready to start I think, 

the recorded session on Mallinckrodt on -- on -- 

the session on Mallinckrodt with SC&A related to 

the site profile. Ray, you've got the list of -- 

of who are in attendance, so we can -- we can 

just get started. I don't know how we want to 

proceed. I think Arjun has some questions that 

he's -- he's come to the table with and we're -- 

if anyone has no objections, I guess we can start 

 DR. ZIEMER: Could I -- could I just ask 

procedurally, we have the SC&A document that has 

the -- the summary table arguments. Was it your 

intent to go through those item by item, or is -- 

are there other issues that -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: He e-mailed them, correct? 

DR. NETON: Right. There -- there was a -- a -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, yeah, there 

were -- I'd tried to sharpen some of that list to 

start the discussion by sending a set of 

questions, which you have, I believe -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Which I may not have brought. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and just so we could have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

questions that were more specific than what you 

asked us to do. And then I intend to go back to 

the reviews and see whether -- there's some 

duplication between what's in the review and the 

questions. And then what I intended to do was go 

back to the review and make sure that I've 

covered what I need to cover, because not 

everything is in these questions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. ROESSLER: I don't have the questions, 

either. Would it be possible to get copies for me 

and Paul? 

DR. NETON: Yeah. Would you go ask Helen -- or 

do you have the e-mail of the questions? 

MR. ALLEN: I don't think so --

DR. ROESSLER: You sent that to us. 

MR. ALLEN: The recent one, that one? 

DR. NETON: Yeah, yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Was this a recent e-mail, or the 

original --

DR. NETON: May 20th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- early -- what was the date? 

DR. NETON: May 20th was the date of this letter. 

MR. ALLEN: The date on the letter is the 20th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 -- 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

DR. ROESSLER: (unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: Could you get just that letter with 

the questions? Dave's gone out -- going to get 

it. It's short. There are two pages of 

questions. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I just read the question 

maybe and get started that way? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, go ahead and -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- start. He'll -- he'll bring you 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The -- the first set of questions 

was just about can we see these types of claims, 

and we've done -- we've done most of that, I 

think, so we can -- maybe we can just go to the 

substantive portion. 

DR. NETON: Sure. Yeah, I think that's fine. 

Yeah, again, the history behind this meeting was 

that Arjun wanted to have this this week and we 

were not as fully prepared as we -- we could have 

been, but we decided to move forward just to get 

the issues on the table, and we're not completely 

prepared to answer all of the questions today. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And I really appreciate Jim 

accommodating us, because I couldn't be here next 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

week and I thought the week after that will be 

just too difficult to meet the meeting schedule 

and write it up and produce drafts and have them 

reviewed and everything. So I really appreciate 

-- and I told Jim that if there's some clean-up 

follow-up I'm ready to come back, but just so I 

can get the process of drafting things started. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So the first question is -- 

relates to the integrity of the data question 

that has come up numerous times. Is there a 

possibility that urinalysis values were adjusted 

downward after the discovery of contaminated 

blanks. I think Mark -- 

DR. NETON: Mark --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- also has raised this question 

at the last Board meeting. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: Right. And Mark asked for -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: No, you sent one --

DR. NETON: -- copy of the reference that was 

listed as an undated reference in the 

Mallinckrodt profile, and actually it turns out 

it's a dated reference that's in there that 

refers to the issue. I don't know how to address 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

it other than there is just this one instance. I 

asked Janet Westbrook if there were any other 

indications of adjusting data downward and she 

said she's not aware of any such -- such 

practice. Now the way I read this -- this note -

-

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- is thank you for your note of 

January 19th. This is -- the subject is 

urinalysis procedure for Plant 6. It says 

(reading) The problem you raise is not a new one. 

It goes by the name of contamination. Any and 

all measurements material used in the plant can 

be performed in the plant area only if the 

laboratory performing these analyses remain 

uncontaminated. 

I think the issue here is that AEC operations was 

assuming that the -- the analyses were being done 

at Barnes Hospital, when in fact they were being 

done I believe at Mallinckrodt at the time. 

That's the -- my take on this. The general 

experience is that the whole problem becomes 

simpler if these measurements can be made at some 

distance from the plant. Well, I -- I looked at 

some of the original data cards following this in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

-- in the -- in the captured data and it does not 

appear that these values were subtracted from the 

original data. What I haven't had the chance to 

go back and look at was to see how those values 

poured over to the data we have in the database. 

I haven't made that last -- you know, my -- my 

thought was let's look at some of the data where 

they allege that the blanks were high, go back 

and look what was actually recorded in the data 

for the worker. I haven't -- I haven't matched 

those yet, but I think we could do that. So, you 

know... 

 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I guess I would have -- 

I mean where I started this question was in the 

test, actually. 

DR. NETON: Right, right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And I probably would have never 

even ventured down this path too much if it 

wasn't for, you know, the -- the language 

suggesting that -- that -- that a lot of this 

data may not be very reliable. I think I'm 

looking for the words -- use caution when 

applying these samples. 

DR. NETON: What page? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm on page 76, 77 in Rev. 1 of the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

site profile. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's actually on the top of 

page 78 where -- where the -- that paragraph is. 

It sort of raised a flag with me, you know, 

because of the questions regarding the validity 

of samples, the apparent variations in the sample 

analysis methods, and even who was doing the 

analysis. The Mallinckrodt urinalysis data 

should be used with caution and -- and especially 

-- I think it says at least when the data were 

taken by Barnes prior to '51. But from the prior 

pages, she raised some concerns about '51 to '55 

also I think, maybe not as -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Four. 

 MR. GRIFFON: To '54 was it? Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I believe '54. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But, you know, I -- I guess to me 

that said well, okay, how do I -- how do I use it 

with caution? What -- what exactly -- 

DR. NETON: Well --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- does that mean --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and how -- is this data reliable 

at all? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

DR. NETON: Right. Which -- I've spoken to Janet 

about this and the idea was that the data would 

be biased high, if anything. If they were 

contaminated blanks, they were done in -- in -- 

some at the plant where I know from working at 

Fernald in the early days before I got there, if 

they did the -- the analysis with the windows 

open you got a much higher number than if the 

windows were closed. And in fact, I think if you 

look some of the data that follows this, here's a 

-- here's a chart that shows the quality control 

samples they ran, and they have the room air 

bottle open reading .14 millirems uranium per 

liter, and then a bottle closed reading .07. The 

inference here is that the air actually 

concentrations were affecting the blanks. And 

the table I have here that's -- that's in -- it's 

in the book -- it's in the data capture effort. 

It says (reading) Each sample contains sufficient 

uranium to ensure a reliable analysis. Since 

significant quantities of uranium were found in 

the closed blank sample bottle as well as the 

open bottle, it seems reasonable to assume that 

these four bottles at least were contaminated. 

There's two open blanks and two closed blanks. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

Sample 9 blank is obviously grossly contaminated. 

The possibility must also exist that the urine 

samples are similarly contaminated. 

So they did have a contamination control problem 

in the laboratory, but I've seen no indication 

where they said let's subtract those to get the 

real result. Now again, I could take -- I have a 

number of a person here and the date of urine -- 

my intent, I haven't done this yet -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Crosswalk it --

DR. NETON: -- to crosswalk that over to see -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- that that value actually appears 

in the bioassay records which, in my mind, would 

give us some comfort that they weren't 

subtracting contaminated blanks. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But the practice would -- if you ask 

how -- what people do in practice, don't they 

actually do the subtraction? 

DR. NETON: No. No, these are method-drawn* 

blanks. I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, they are? 

DR. NETON: When you run blanks through your 

process, it's -- it's a method blank, you know, 

with a full bottle running through and it -- it's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

normal quality control. It's just to see do you 

have a problem with your samples at all. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It's not an environmental blank 

that you would --

DR. NETON: Right. It's not -- it's not like a 

(unintelligible) background blank, you know, that 

you'd subtract the signal. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: It's just a method blank that you'd 

run through and in fact it's a good quality 

control practice I think, to do that. So I need 

to run this -- we need to run this -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess -- I guess the, you know, 

the -- the larger question here is, you know, I 

can -- I can take that explanation for this one 

given circumstance, but the question is, where 

everything over that time period is so vague, you 

don't know what labs even did the data, you have 

these questions of contamination. We -- we 

weren't -- they might have handled it this way 

and they might be biased high. At least for this 

circumstance, they seem to be. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But to me it also raises the 

question of well, what -- what kind of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

reliability on that whole dataset do we have. I 

mean is it useful data? Is it always a way -- 

just from this one memo, you would say let's 

assume it's all -- if it's biased at all, it's 

biased high. I mean I don't know that six months 

from then they didn't run some spikes and they 

were all low, you know. I -- I just -- you're 

hanging a lot on this one memo, in my opinion. 

DR. NETON: Well, this is the only indication 

that we have and -- according to Janet Westbrook, 

at least -- there were these contamination 

issues. I mean we don't have anything else to 

indicate that there were problems. Now we can 

speculate all we want that the laboratory had 

poor practices, but we have no evidence that 

indicates that. In fact, these are pretty 

standard fluorometric methods which I believe 

after '49 was -- you know, you even had the 

health physics program in place and you've got 

the AEC HASL laboratory involved in mentoring 

these folks and -- yeah, I don't know. I --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Well, you have no evidence, 

but on the other hand you don't have the original 

records --

DR. NETON: I'm not sure that --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16

 MR. GRIFFON: -- from the labs. 

DR. NETON: -- we don't, actually. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or you might. 

DR. NETON: I don't. I don't know that but, you 

know, short of looking at every single analysis, 

though, and the calibration records, I'm not sure 

how you would give -- you know, what comfort 

level would you need, though, I guess to validate 

the -- the entire program. I don't know. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, Jim, one -- one way to 

think about comfort level is, is there any paper 

trail regarding the quality control of urinalyses 

that were actually done? Was there like a split 

sample occasionally that was sent to HASL and 

they verified it? Because if you had something 

like that, then you could say well, okay, HASL at 

some point actually looked over their 

measurements and said yeah, good -- or bad, or 

something. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But I haven't actually seen -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- any reference to a record like 

that. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17

 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't know if they exist, but 

that -- that's -- I guess that's kind of what I 

was looking for, just some sort of... 

DR. NETON: I don't know that we have any 

evidence of -- well, there must be procedures out 

there somewhere that I don't know -- but, you 

know, I have not looked through this entire data 

sample so... 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, because like at Bethlehem 

Steel, you know, when we raised questions about 

air concentration data, you had, you know, 

somebody from the time come and give us some 

evidence about what was done then and, you know, 

at least some -- the intensity of the questions 

got diminished when there was some level of 

comfort that somebody was doing what they were 

talking about --

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I am --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and tell us something 

(unintelligible). 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'll turn that off because you 

can't hear. 

 THE COURT REPORTER: It's like a big -- it's 

like the ocean. If y'all aren't using it. 

You're not using it at all? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18

 MR. GRIFFON: It doesn't feel like you're at the 

beach. 

UNIDENTIFIED: It's also hot. 

 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 

DR. NETON: It'll take a few minutes to go off. 

 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 

DR. NETON: Well, we obviously can't point to any 

right now, but it -- you raise a point that we're 

going to have to go back and see what we can find 

in that area. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But I -- I think part of it is -- I 

just lost my train of thought. The -- you know, 

the -- the site profile, the -- that summary 

statement there sort of points to the fact that -

- you know, when you read that -- I mean because 

of questions regarding the validity of the 

samples, the apparent variations in the sample 

analysis methods and even who was doing the 

analysis, it doesn't give me, as a member of the 

public, very much confidence that they know what 

the -- how good or bad this data was. I mean 

that's -- that's -- you know, she goes on -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MS. BLOOM: I hate to put words in Janet's mouth, 

but knowing Janet, the way she wrote that is she 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

wants these to be scientifically defensible -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- site profiles, and her thought was 

not that everybody was going to think she meant 

that the results were low and that you should be 

careful not to account for enough dose. You 

should be aware that these are going to be high 

numbers and so beware -- you know, these are 

probably overestimates. 

DR. NETON: I think it even states that 

somewhere. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it does. It says however --

 MS. BLOOM: I think early on. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- it appears that errors, if any, 

are -- are in the conservative high direction. 

DR. NETON: Right, right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And that they're claimantfavorable, but -- and that's -- you know, for me 

that's the red flag to ask you guys what's your 

basis for that final statement? How do, you know 

-- and then when I come back with one memo 

defending it --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm like, you know, isn't there 

a little bit more to say, you know, we -- we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

checked this out. And I'm not saying -- like I 

said, a hundred percent checks but, you know, 

didn't -- did HASL -- like Arjun suggested, did 

HASL do some sort of summary report looking at 

that -- that issue for that time period or -- and 

I don't know if it exists, but that's all I was 

asking with that. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) 

UNIDENTIFIED: Sure. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The next question, I think it's 

related, are there documents beyond the 

discussion of contaminated blanks in the TBD that 

would allow some conclusion that bioassay data 

were consistently biased high in the 1949 to '54 

period, so we've covered that. 

DR. NETON: I think we covered that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Then Mallinckrodt urinalysis only 

measured uranium. Does this mean that air 

concentration and job data are the only input for 

dose estimation in area where -- areas where 

uranium isotopes were not the main radionuclides. 

So it is a question of how -- how and when are 

you factoring in the non-equilibrium radium, 

thorium, protactinium radionuclides. What --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

what are the criteria for that? 

DR. NETON: Well, it's true that if you don't 

have -- if -- if it's a non-equilibrium, I think 

a uranium urine sample is not going to be useful 

for -- for bracketing the dose. So you would 

need to rely on air sample data. 

 MS. BLOOM: Air sample and source term data. 

DR. NETON: And source term, what was there. And 

so yes, it would be air sample data. And how we 

would go about doing that, I think the profile is 

not as prescriptive as it needs to be. I think, 

Cindy, you mentioned that you think this is 

related -- it's related to job title, you know, 

where for some work during the time period, which 

plant and what job title they had, whether or not 

they were a raffinate worker or maybe worked with 

the Sperry cake --

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

DR. NETON: -- that sort of thing. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And do -- do we -- I mean I guess -

- I guess it references what Jim had sent for the 

last meeting, I just didn't have a chance at that 

meeting really to -- to understand them. But it 

-- it -- to me, again, that -- that is the extent 

of the knowledge on the various concentrations, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

I 

and are those -- I -- I'm not even familiar with 

these references myself, I got to be honest. 

didn't have a chance to pull all those documents. 

But do those involve like the -- the worst case 

raffinate concentrations, the average raffinate 

concentrations? How are those numbers compiled 

for the various applicable operations? And 

again, what -- are -- are these Plant 6, Plant 7, 

I'm not -- you guys know Mallinckrodt much better 

than I do so... 

DR. NETON: I don't know. Maybe, you know, Janet 

is available on the phone to talk. 

(Unintelligible) 

 MS. BLOOM: About two hours in the afternoon 

she'll be available --

DR. NETON: I wonder if she's available. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- and we might be able to reach -- 

DR. NETON: -- we have some questions that really 

-- Janet, of course, couldn't make it here -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. No, that's --

DR. NETON: -- because of conflicts but -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There are lots of follow-up 

questions, because they came out, you know, off 

and running as to -- since what's missing in a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

way -- well, one of the things that's missing in 

the -- in -- in the TBD is a -- is a clear idea, 

and it's not faulting the TBD. As I told you 

sort of informally, I think the TBD is actually a 

very good historical document. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And -- but what's missing is a 

kind of time line. This is the period when the 

SLAPS waste were being brought back for 

reprocessing, so you apply -- and it was here and 

this is what -- just like we have that for the 

thorium refining. We have a very discrete period 

from '55 and --

 MR. GRIFFON: Or it might be this --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- '56, but we don't have that 

for the other residues. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or it might be this -- this -- like 

Jim said, maybe some sort of dose reconstructors 

user guide that interfaces -- but, you know -- 

and maybe the -- the -- I mean sometimes in some 

sites, I think those workbooks end up doing that, 

but they're sort of the user's guide that tells 

you about certain time periods what -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Takes it to the next step. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24

 MS. BLOOM: And I think at some point we do want 

to go back and do that with Mallinckrodt and some 

of these other documents. They're very big and 

we've got a very ambitious schedule for other 

site profiles. But what we're trying to do is 

take those generic assumptions for claims where 

we don't have data and say okay, this is what we 

know about when people worked. You know, if it 

says they started in '59, we're going to assume 

that means January 1st, 1959 because we don't 

have any better information. We have this 

information that they were using this raffinate 

waste here. There's no start and end date, so 

does it make sense to -- to expand it to the 

whole period, or can we bound it somehow. And we 

have been trying to do that and we'll continue to 

try to do that. This -- we're having a hard time 

being able to move backwards so we can move -- 

because we're having to move forward at the same 

time. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I guess -- I guess what I'm 

-- you know, what I'm understanding from Jim on 

this -- on the raffinate/Sperry cake question is 

that, you know, you can't rely on the urinalysis 

data so you're going to rely on air and source 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

term information. Then the question -- you know, 

I have two questions on that. Number one, how 

well can we define average or max air source term 

information. And number two -- and I think this 

is a critical one -- can we place these potential 

claimants into the various environments or -- or 

-- or are there maximizing situations you would 

use instead where you don't know where they 

worked. You sort of use a maximizing case. 

DR. NETON: I think that's -- that's the case. 

mean that's the easier to answer is -- is if we 

have representative data for those periods and if 

you don't know where they worked, we're going to 

default assume that they were -- they were 

working in those areas I think. You know, that's 

sort of the standard way we do business with our 

dose reconstructions. As to whether or -- you 

know, we have air data for many areas of the 

plant that are in the TBD and if one -- You got 

it? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Great. So if -- if you assume that 

all of the air concentration was related, and I 

wouldn't want to go to this extreme, but one of 

the extremes would be, for instance, to possibly 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

assume that it were all actinium 227, which is 

probably one of the --

 MR. GRIFFON: Or whatever gives you the highest -

-

DR. NETON: -- highest, the highest dose per unit 

intake. And Cindy, you and I discussed this, it 

may be actually organ specific -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) model this. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: But if you do have air concentration 

data you can hang your hat on, then it is not 

that hard a stretch to come up with some -- some 

dose from a disequilibrium situation using 

maximizing radionuclides. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess the --

DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) representative of 

the data. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Excuse me. Then the other question 

I guess you get into is the maximum plausible -- 

that's not a site profile discussion, but in my 

mind we're grappling with that, too. 

DR. NETON: Well, I think -- I think it's a 

little different when -- when you have actual 

monitoring data versus when you source term. The 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

source term is where you get on the edge a bit of 

these plausible scenarios, much like happened in 

Iowa where people thought that the doses were not 

plausible. And -- and then you get in the 

situation of discomfort. If you have an air 

sample date itself, I think that at least becomes 

closer -- more closely tied to the work 

situation. This amount of alpha activity was in 

the air at this time and, you know, whether the 

worker was there or not, you know, we could 

debate. But, you know, we would default to that. 

So I -- I think plausible, when it's tied to air 

data -- plant monitoring data I think is -- it's 

probably not that big a stretch. 

Now if we were to take source term and say there 

was no air data and we -- we would model some 

mechanical process where they would agitate this 

and throw it into the air, then you start pushing 

the bounds of plausibility because to -- to 

document the dose could be no higher than X, 

you're going to have to throw in some pretty 

generous assumptions whenever you enter the sort 

of shakier calculations. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but when you -- when you 

deal with this raffinate question, you are really 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

getting into -- into source term questions, too. 

I mean you have air data -- 

DR. NETON: You have air data, you have bounding 

air data that --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's how (unintelligible) did 

it, yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- can say, you know, ten to the 

seventh, whatever, picocurie per year intake or 

something to that effect. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But you have to make some -- 

DR. NETON: And you're going to have to make some 

-- some assumptions, although the original 

question you had was how well -- we have the 

characterization data, and I'll be honest, I 

don't know them like Janet does. But given that 

we have characterization data of the Sperry cake 

and some of the other raffinate streams, I think 

that would allow us to do some sort of bounding 

estimates based on even the air sample and using 

those ratios and applying it to the air. 

 The other unknown factor here that I had not 

really intended that we would rely on 

necessarily, is these radon breath measurements. 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

DR. NETON: A lot of people don't necessarily 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

have a lot of confidence in those things, but 

they do, again, allow for some bounding values 

(a) if a worker has a radon breath measurement -- 

I think there's about 2400 of them over the 

course of time that we're talking about here. If 

you have a radon breath measurement, then, in my 

mind, at least there was a potential for exposure 

to the ore. I mean you weren't working only 

after the -- after the daughters had been 

extracted. And then if -- if the data are 

reliable then, you know, one can infer what the 

radium body burden maximum would have been, given 

the exhalation of radon. That, again, has some 

limitations, but one could -- let's say for 

example one did some bounding and now just came 

up with this huge intake and then you look at the 

radon breath data and say well, that -- you know, 

much like you do with whole body count, you could 

say well, the worst case assumption is this, but 

the whole body count indicates that it had to be 

much lower than that, so you can (unintelligible) 

bracket. That's not addressed in the -- in the 

profile. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I was going to say, is that 

documented how you -- how you -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

DR. NETON: There is a procedure -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- use the radon breath to -- to -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, uh-huh. There's a procedure 

that was just -- I just signed a week or two ago, 

I think. 

MR. ALLEN: TIB. 

DR. NETON: It's a TIB, not a procedure, and it's 

based on, you know, the Argonne experience. 

They've done a lot of radium -- radium dial 

painters. 

 MS. BLOOM: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: Yeah. (Unintelligible) and then went 

to Argonne later on. I think they used like a 60 

percent emanation fraction and there are 

differences whether you take that measurement 

shortly after you ate or not. And of course if 

you haven't been off work, you know, then you're 

-- you're really just ventilating radon that's 

naturally dissolved in the body fluids. There 

are -- there are some uncertainties in that 

sense. 

 DR. BEHLING: Can you give me just a ballpark 

number what a picocurie per liter of exhaled air 

would correspond to in terms of body burden of 

radium? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

DR. NETON: Yeah. It's pretty high. The 

detection limit is pretty high. I think it's 

somewhere around 250 nanocuries, maybe. 

 DR. BEHLING: Per picocurie of liter? 

DR. NETON: But the sensitivity of this technique 

goes down well below that I believe, so I think 

it's in the -- it's in the TIB somewhere. 

 MR. GRIFFON: You don't know the TIB number? 

It's coming out soon or -- 

DR. NETON: No, it's out. It's out --

 MR. GRIFFON: I can look it up. 

DR. NETON: -- it's issued -- 30-something. I 

don't know, 20-something? 

 MS. BLOOM: 24 or 25. 

MR. ALLEN: I can go --

DR. NETON: Yeah, Dave can look it up -- 

MR. ALLEN: -- print off a copy. 

 DR. BEHLING: How do you -- how do you 

differentiate? You were talking earlier about 19 

picocuries per liter as being an ambient dose -- 

concentration level. Would these measurements 

have been taken obviously in a low background 

area outside the facility? 

 MS. BLOOM: They definitely should be. There 

were concerns in some of breath analyses that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

they were in areas where the concentrations were 

a little bit higher than they wanted them to be, 

so there was more work in later years moving the 

worker to a different area. 

 DR. BEHLING: I think one picocurie per liter is 

what ambient levels are in average homes. 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

 DR. BEHLING: And so if that corresponds to that 

kind of a body burden, you'd have a problem 

basically identifying what is a real value and 

what's not a real value. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. I think actually these people 

would -- well, I don't know. I may be speaking 

without looking too much, but later on I know at 

Argonne, they had these people breathe aged air 

that, you know, you sort of ventilate the -- the 

environmental radon out of your system and you'd 

-- you'd not want to take their measurement 

unless you were off work for a while, 'cause if 

you were in a high work area, there is a 

saturation or equilibrium of radon gas, being a 

noble gas, with the body tissues. That said, I 

mean any of these factors would again bias the 

results high, so you're not going to -- I don't 

think, going to have a low -- low analysis. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. I think that in this case 

that is correct, but if you use -- if you use the 

radon breath at face value -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- you would bias the results 

high. 

DR. NETON: And -- and you know, I -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If the measure -- if there are no 

measurement problem at those low levels, which 

would be my question --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- this is how -- how well in 

those days can you rely on a picocurie per liter 

recording. 

DR. NETON: Right. And that would need to be -- 

be fleshed out. I think these are scintillation 

cells that are the Lucas flask type -- type 

things. Yeah, I -- I'm speaking out of school 

here because I haven't really looked through 

this, but that is one technique that would be 

available to help -- I'm talking about the 

universal techniques available to bracket doses 

to raffinate workers, and I think we have some 

tools here. 

 MR. ALLEN: Is Janet --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34

 DR. ZIEMER: I would think the uncertainty would 

be much greater in the model itself than in the 

data, so you can make those measurements pretty 

well. but what do they mean in terms of body 

burden is --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think it's like any -- any 

bioassay measurement, interpretation is -- I'm 

going to see if I can get ahold of Janet real 

quick here. 

MR. ALLEN: That -- that radon breath TIB was TIB 

number 25. Here's a copy if you want it. It's -

- basically just develops the conversion factor. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, it's very simple. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Screening her calls. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: (By telephone) Hello, Janet 

Westbrook. 

DR. NETON: Hello, Janet. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. How are you 

doing? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Uh-huh. Fine, you? 

DR. NETON: Good. I was actually going to say I 

was Regis Philbin, but I didn't think you'd 

believe me, Who Wants To Be a Millionaire. We're 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

phoning a friend, taking one of our -- never 

mind. Janet, are you available to chat for a few 

minutes? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

DR. NETON: Okay. I've got a -- a host of people 

here. We're meeting, as you know, related to a 

discussion on the Mallinckrodt profile. And the 

question came up related to the -- the -- sort of 

the depth and the representativeness of the -- of 

the data for the raffinate materials. I think 

you indicated in a previous discussion that we 

did have some information on the isotopic 

composition of the raffinate. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Depends which raffinate you're 

talking about. 

DR. NETON: Okay. I wonder if you could maybe 

just in general give us a -- give us a sort of a 

overview of what we -- what we may have in this 

area, if you can do that. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, let me just pull my 

Electronet notes out. It seems to me that I sent 

somebody something about the Sperry cake. 

DR. NETON: Yes. That was -- I think Mark 

Griffon and I asked for something on that, and 

Arjun, and --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. Well, first of all, 

there's the K-65 raffinate, and that was the 

raffinate from basically the first step where 

they took out the radium. So the K-65 was 

barreled up and shipped out to a -- it was either 

put in a storage area until there got to, I 

assume, be so many barrels, and AEC had it sent 

out to the airport site --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- where, once somebody dumped 

it, it was then no more dose-producing until 

somebody brought more barrels. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. So only when people were 

out at the airport was it dose-producing and so 

forth. Now they did do some airborne 

measurements, once, of different areas where they 

counted the -- they were trying to distinguish 

between uranium in the air and thus they didn't 

do just gross alpha measurements. They actually 

isotopically counted for uranium, I guess U-238 

or whatever, and radium. And they found the 

results that you might expect, which was that the 

radium was in near equilibrium in the regular 

uranium areas. But in that raffinate area where 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 -- 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

the dust was mainly the raffinate dust, the 

radium was about a hundred times the uranium, 

which was consistent with uranium left over in 

the raffinate being just like less than a percent 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- of the -- so that I think we 

can assume that the big actor in the K-65 was in 

fact the radium and any radium daughters. And of 

course then there was the radon emanation from 

that. Okay. 

DR. NETON: Right. So --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Now that was that. 

DR. NETON: Well, do we know like what time frame 

and what areas this would apply to? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. I think that's pretty clear 

from the time they started using the pitchblende 

to the time they stopped using the pitchblende. 

That -- those were the years in which they 

produced the K-65. 

DR. NETON: Right. And which -- which areas 

would this be? Like Plant 6 or --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. And actually before Plant 6 

was built, there was time in like 1945 when they 

were doing it on the lab level and maybe the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

pilot level, but that I believe was relatively 

brief compared to, of course, at the Plant 6 

time. They -- they built Plant 6 specifically 

because they anticipated having to process larger 

quantities, and thus they would -- knew they 

would have a dose problem if they tried to do it 

in the smaller spaces that they had back in the 

K1E and all those Plant 1 buildings. 

DR. NETON: So in your mind, though, then anybody 

working in Plant 6 in this pitchblende era could 

potentially have been exposed to this 

disequilibrium. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: No, I think it was pretty much 

restricted to just the areas where the K-65 was. 

Reason being, remember it was separated in a wet 

process in tanks, okay, and that precipitate was 

then collected -- I guess on a filter -- and that 

filter was scraped off into the barrels and then 

the barrels were closed, sealed, and -- and taken 

off. Now there was some like spillage on the 

floor and so forth, but I think it -- it's very 

reasonable to assume that didn't get tracked 

around much because it was just in limited areas 

that that was done. There were many more stages 

in the process and then there were all the other 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

operations that were done. So I think most of 

the building was pretty far removed from the -- 

just those little spots. And then these -- these 

guys who were the cloth operators who would have 

dealt with the -- the powdery form and -- and 

replacing the cloth, opening the full filters, 

taking the stuff off and barreling it, those 

people were kind of dedicated guys. You'd see 

them month after month, year after year, they're 

the same guys. So I tend to think that we don't 

really have a whole lot of turnover and a whole 

lot of people going back and forth. And I think 

that was partly because AEC recognized -- and 

Mallinckrodt, pre-Plant 6 -- that it might be a 

problem and therefore, although Plant 6 wasn't 

that well designed from many points of view, 

nevertheless they did make that a kind of a -- a 

limited area process. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Were those people changing the 

cloth, Janet, were those -- did they have a 

particular job title or you said they -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yeah, they were -- they were the 

cloth operators and --

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, cloth operators, I thought I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

saw --

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- and usually it'll be pretty 

clear, from the name of the filter or the name of 

the guy, who it was. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Janet, when I -- I was in St. 

Louis -- this is Arjun. When I was in St. Louis 

last week and I talked with some people who 

worked in Plant 6, and they were like maintenance 

workers who, you know, were all over the 

radiological operations who worked around these 

filters, who kind of cleaned up, fixed things, 

transport workers -- including some who said they 

transported this stuff back and forth from the 

airport in their private vehicles. And so it 

seems a little more fuzzy to me, so I agree that, 

you know, there were -- there were some job 

titles of people who would be there, the 

operators. This -- also seemed to be other 

people who would have been there, and from what I 

understand, these kind of roving job titles are 

electricians, maintenance people, cleanup people, 

sheet metal workers -- they have a whole set of 

them. One guesstimate, and the person did say it 

was a guesstimate, was that it -- it was as many 

as 25 percent of the workers were not stationed 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

at a particular location. Would that -- does 

that correspond to your research, or do you have 

a different view of that or... 

 MS. WESTBROOK: I don't -- I don't know, but I -- 

I tend to think that -- well, full filter -- 

filter like this, it didn't -- I'm trying to 

remember which of the filters were the more 

problematic ones and might require some 

maintenance folks to visit them. I think you 

could certainly assume that these filters did 

have some maintenance, but there might have been 

roving plant guys, but how many of them -- like 

an electrician might not be -- have much to do 

around a filter like this. Okay? It would be 

maybe the more mechanical guys, you know, the 

millwrights or whatever, who might be doing 

something with a filter like this. And so that 

might limit the number right there. I don't 

think clerks would have any occasion to go in 

this area and so forth. Now -- however, once 

this stuff was barreled, there -- there was for a 

-- for a time, a storage area where they put this 

stuff, so there might have been a clerk that went 

over there and marked the names of the -- you 

know, wrote down the numbers of the barrels. But 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

again, that would be like a few minutes and then 

he's off to doing something else. I -- I think 

the warehouse workers where the pitchblende came 

in and so on and so forth, if -- some of these 

people may be -- and then there were those other 

two kinds of raffinate, some of these people may 

not be remembering this particular raffinate. 

They may just be saying oh, I transported some 

waste. And in their private cars, I find that a 

bit incredible, you know, unless the truck was 

really broken down and somebody volunteered. But 

I think that that would have been a very, very 

infrequent thing if it indeed ever happened. But 

I don't think they would have transported a drum 

of K-65 in their private cars. I just -- you 

know, because they had these trucks and these 

dedicated spaces and AEC went out to the airport 

and measured this and that and the other and so 

did the Mallinckrodt guys, I just feel that they 

treated the K-65 in a kind of a special way. 

And so I -- I do believe yes, there were 

infrequent access by other than the raffinate 

workers, but I think the general population of 

Plant 6 had only a very distant exposure to the 

gamma rays. I don't think that they were really 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

in the area of the dust. I don't think, for the 

most part, that they were really likely to have 

picked up much dose from that just because of 

that special treatment. I could be wrong. 

DR. NETON: Okay, Janet. That's -- that's good. 

I didn't -- I forgot to let you know that we are 

on the record here in this session, not that you 

would change what you say, but you need to know 

that Ray Green is here and we're preparing a 

transcript of this session, so... 

 MS. WESTBROOK: I have no idea who Ray Green is. 

DR. NETON: Ray Green is a court recorder who -- 

who attends many of our meetings and -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Ah, okay. 

DR. NETON: -- and prepares a transcript. So 

just so you know that. It's only fair that, you 

know, you be aware of that fact. So as far as 

you know, we only have an air sample or so of 

isotopic analysis of the K-65 raffinate area. Is 

that what you were saying? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, there were -- there were 

other measurements --

DR. NETON: Other measurements. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- but they were the gross alpha 

measurements that were taken everywhere. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

DR. NETON: Right, right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay? But we can assume those 

gross measurements, as far as the isotope goes, 

that the dominant contributors to that alpha 

thing would be the radium and its daughters. 

DR. NETON: Understood and --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can you give the reference for that 

one isotopic survey or air sampling effort that 

was done? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: It's in the TBD. 

 MR. GRIFFON: You might have given it to me 

already but --

 MS. WESTBROOK: It's in the TBD. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It's in the TBD. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yeah, and I think I mentioned it 

in something I sent to somebody, so it could have 

been, you know, whatever was sent to you. 

DR. NETON: Frankly, I haven't had a chance to 

look at what you sent us, Janet, so I apologize 

that I'm not up to speed on those. 

One thing that crossed my mind is that we do know 

this ratio of 100 -- what's that Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: It's 100 to 1. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45

 MS. WESTBROOK: Something like that, yeah. 

DR. NETON: Then, in a sense then, if we had 

urine samples on the person, we're not -- we're 

not confined to using the air monitoring data. 

If --

 MS. WESTBROOK: That is correct. 

DR. NETON: If we know that the ratio of the 

isotopic airborne is 100 to 1 uranium -- radium 

to radium -- radium to uranium, then we can take 

a urine sample and just take any intake from the 

uranium urinary output and assume that it's 100 

times the uranium intake. So in a sense -- my 

original point was that if we don't know, we're 

going to have use airborne is not correct if we 

do know the isotopic mix in the air -- in the air 

samples themselves. So that -- that's good, in a 

way. That helps us. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I have a question, another 

question about the K-65 isotopic composition. 

know that at Fernald in silos 1 and 2 where some 

of the stuff went, they had thorium 230, also. 

Now I know thorium 230 was not -- and this is 

from memory now -- not in equilibrium with -- not 

all the thorium 230 went along with the radium. 

Do we have a thorium 230 measurement of these KI 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

65 samples in that -- in that one measurement 

that you refer to, or are we assuming only radium 

here? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: No. 

DR. NETON: We do not? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: No. They discounted those two 

elements. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That might be an area where -- 

DR. NETON: Something, yeah, that's worth 

pursuing. I don't know. Thorium 230 -- yeah, we 

need to look at that. That was one of my 

original thoughts was we have the residue in the 

K-65 silos and there's virtually hundreds of 

measurements made on that. Whether its on the 

same exact equilibrium state as when it was 

processed, I don't know, but -- and -- and in 

fact I think -- well, we need to look, but it 

depends on the organ, of course. But radium 226, 

being a somewhat soluble radioisotope, is going 

to deliver a pretty high dose -- relatively high 

dose per unit intake to systemic organs compared 

to something like thorium 230, other than the 

deliverer and the skeleton. So here you have a 

situation where radium would be predominant in 

the dose delivered to the systemic organs. It's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

something to look at. 

Okay. Now Janet, you mentioned there's a couple 

other raffinate streams where we have data. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

DR. NETON: Could you just briefly describe what 

those are? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, there's the barium sulfate 

which, by volume, I think was about the biggest 

one. And I'm sitting here trying to look through 

my notes here. I have all the -- most of my 

notes in one file which is an Excel file which 

about -- with about a zillion little tabs and I'm 

trying to find the right one here where I have 

the stuff listed. Dang, I can't seem to find it 

and I'm just drawing a blank, you know, like -- 

I'm thinking oh, my gosh, what is the third one. 

But anyway, let's see. Airport --

 DR. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) 

 MS. WESTBROOK: I absolutely at this moment -- 

I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank. I can't remember 

what number three is, but there are three main 

ones. And as I pointed out, I believe the Sperry 

cake was treated as a subset of the -- I know, 

I'll go to my materials table, my basic table 

over here -- subset of the -- I can't remember. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

Okay. Let's see. First of all we have the K-65, 

the pitchblende raffinate. Oh -- oh, the airport 

cake, that was the Am-7. That was the third one. 

Okay. So you've got your barium sulfate, your K65, and your -- what -- what they generically 

called "the raffinate" was Am-7 and that was -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Airport. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- like the last one after the K65 and the barium sulfate. First they took out 

the radium, then they precipitated the barium, so 

that produced those first two cakes, and then the 

leftovers then were kind of a -- I think 

sometimes they kind of mixed a few cakes together 

to get the pitchblende raffinate, the Am-7 and 

it's nickname was airport cake. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Where does the Sperry cake fit into 

those? 

DR. NETON: I think it's a subset of the barium 

sulfate raffinate? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is it --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Now the Am-7, we do have some 

references for what it contained in terms of the 

thorium 232 and the thorium 230, because that was 

analyzed -- well, the reference is Figgins 1962 

and that's in the TBD and it's discussed in the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

under-the-table and everything. But they say so 

many parts per million -- they found so many 

parts per million thorium 232; so many parts per 

million thorium 230. Okay? 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: And anyway, on -- on that -- in 

that vein, okay? 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: But we don't seem to have any 

thorium content for either the K-65 or the barium 

sulfate. I'm looking at this table here. They 

did say so much uranium. If there's a reasonable 

-- I mean a carryover of the thorium, like 

uranium, we could estimate it from that. 

Otherwise, I don't know. I -- I have tried for a 

long time to figure this out and track down what 

-- what the other isotopes were and I hoped that 

they had at some time done an isotopic breakdown 

of all these different cakes, but I don't think 

they did it except when they wanted to sell off 

the cakes at the airport, but they didn't do that 

with the K-65 because of course, it had moved on 

elsewhere and they weren't selling it. 

DR. NETON: Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50

 MS. WESTBROOK: But this Am-7, we did have some 

more information about it. 

DR. NETON: So you do have some isotopic on the 

Am-7? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Not -- not a total isotopic, but 

we have some more information about the thorium 

and that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is the Sperry cake -- again, I'm 

not sure where the Sperry cake fits into this -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: The Sperry cake seems to be a 

subset of the Am-7, the last one, and I think the 

reason was, there's a -- the Am-7 was produced 

with every single batch, whereas they drew the 

Sperry cake off only -- off the column only 

intermittently, you know, once in a while. Like 

maybe when it got -- it kind of precipitated to 

the bottom of the column but the column was still 

usable. So from the description and -- and this 

is somewhat inferred from the way they put it, 

but I -- I believe the Sperry cake was a much 

smaller volume than any of these others by far, 

and that when they dumped it at the airport, it 

was lumped in with the Am-7 like they might have 

-- just drum it in and then take it out there and 

-- or wherever they put it, and then dump it out. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51

 MR. GRIFFON: And the Sperry cake, the focus was 

the protactinium. Is that right? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

 MS. BLOOM: Janet, a question on the Am-7. This 

is Cindy, by the way. Did you look at any of the 

Mound documentation? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

 MS. BLOOM: And you didn't find anything in 

there? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, what I did, I -- I milked 

out of there -- and it's in the TBD -- everything 

that I could find. Every -- every detail about 

isotopic content, experience with it or whatever, 

is in the TBD. 

 MS. BLOOM: Okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: If it isn't there, I -- I don't 

have it. I didn't leave anything out. 

 MS. BLOOM: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Questions about their timing, if 

we're done with isotopic -- 

DR. NETON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Janet, this is Arjun again. In -

- in the TBD, I don't -- I don't have a date 

number in front of me, but you mentioned that -- 

that raffinates were brought back, I think 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

starting 1950, or '49, for extraction of uranium, 

and then from time to time this seems to have 

happened. But there doesn't seem to be -- so at 

that time the whole of Plant 6 presumably in 

those periods, the workers would have been 

exposed to this disequilibrium. Would -- am I 

understanding your write-up correctly? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: I -- I'm sorry. I'm having 

trouble hearing you. Now -- now --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- what -- when the workers were 

exposed to disequilibrium, they would have been -

- some workers, the raffinate workers, would have 

been exposed to the disequilibrium, or let's just 

say the raffinate dust, during the whole time 

because it was -- it was like a manual removal or 

-- or at least a semi-manual removal from -- of 

the cake into the drum and the replacement of the 

cloth in the filter. And, you know, there's 

always a little bit left over in the filter, you 

know, that can dry out and get in the air, and 

then there was some that would fall on the floor. 

Little bits would get on the floor and would be 

swept up periodically, but might sit around and 

dry out. They pointed that out in the memo. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

Okay. So some workers would have been exposed to 

that during the whole time of (unintelligible) 

processing. Okay? But most of the workers would 

have not been exposed to it directly, like they 

weren't in the room or the core filter room or 

wherever where it was, or even in the corridor 

outside, let's say. But then there would have 

been the guys who were transporting the drums out 

to the -- like to maybe a temporary staging area 

and then out to the airport. Those guys, though, 

would have been exposed to it only to what might 

have been on the outside of the drum, and then -- 

I have no information as to whether they cleaned 

the outside or not. I think they were supposed 

to, but who knows. Anyway, so there might have 

been a little on the outside of the drum. But 

other than that, see, that seems to me -- they 

put the used cloth into a drum, I believe, 

because they actually took some measurements of 

one drum, and in it fit three cloths. And so 

they took some measurements on the outside to see 

how hot the cloths were because apparently they 

thought maybe the radium might soak into the 

material more than it would -- you know, might 

concentrate there for whatever reason. And I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

don't think they found that, but anyway, just -- 

just so you know that -- so we have all these -- 

the filter itself, the cloth, and the material -- 

I mean and the cake, and the cloths and the cake 

would have been drummed at the place where it was 

removed from the filter. This is my 

understanding. Okay? 

So then once it was sealed in the drum, then it 

would be transported. So those -- you can kind 

of see the spectrum of workers that might be 

exposed in all that operation, those tasks. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry. I think -- I think maybe 

I didn't speak loudly enough. You mention in the 

TBD that waste -- after it was taken to the 

airport some of the raffinate, I think the K-65, 

was still high enough in uranium that they were 

brought back for uranium extraction. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: No, not the K-65. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Were some raffinates brought back 

for uranium extraction? I'm pretty sure you 

mentioned that in the -- I wish I'd tabbed the 

page. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, just remind me. Remind me. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'll have to do a search here. 

In 1949 or 1950 -- I'm wondering what to search 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

for. If you don't remember, it's in these. 

DR. NETON: Well, it says here, in -- most or all 

the K-65 was brought back in drums from SLAPS and 

reprocessed starting in early 1948. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Oh, well. Ah, there you go -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: What page? 

DR. NETON: Forty-seven. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Oh, okay. I may be misremembering here. Let me -- let me get back. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then it indicates, it's -- 

there's a sort of fair amount of vagueness as to 

the time, and that's what's puzzling me is -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Hang on a minute. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- how do we place people in time 

with this reprocessing, and what happens to Plant 

6 dose calculations during those times. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Just -- just a second here. Let 

me --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sure. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. Now page what? 

DR. NETON: Forty-seven. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Forty-seven. 

DR. NETON: Third paragraph or second -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Forty-seven, third paragraph. I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

hate Word. Why it doesn't clear your search when 

you open a new file, I don't know, but it 

doesn't. Anyway, okay, let's see. Where do --

where do -- see, I don't know that I have the 

same copy that you do. Sometimes stuff is sent 

over to NIOSH and I don't get a copy of it and -- 

DR. NETON: This is Rev 1. It's the same --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. Rev 1? 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, see, I'm opening my working 

copy which is the last that I had -- now, I may 

have it --

 MS. BLOOM: She'll have the Word file rather than 

the Adobe copy that we have -- 

DR. NETON: Oh, this is a -- this a PDF file, so 

it might be on a different page. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- because those are harder to work 

with for --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. Well, just tell me three -

-

UNIDENTIFIED: Section 542.3, would that help? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Tell me three consecutive words 

to search for. 

 DR. BEHLING: As noted in Section 4.7. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57

 MS. WESTBROOK: As noted in Section 4.7. Okay. 

That's good. That's good. Thank you. Let me 

remind myself here, I'm -- oh, oh, oh. Let me go 

back to Section 4.7. This is good. I didn't --

I completely forgot about that. Ah, residues and 

effluents. Here we go. Let's see. Let's see. 

Yeah, right, right, right. Let's see. Ah, some 

reprocessing of residues is also done to recover 

uranium. All right. Let's see here. 

Oh, yes. Okay. Following the development and 

installation of the sodium carbonate -- thank 

you, I had forgotten this -- the sodium 

carbonate/sodium bicarbonate leach process in 

1948 to '49 to recover more of the uranium, the 

K-65 produced up to that point was brought out of 

storage in lots and reprocessed -- reprocessed in 

about 1949, resulting in a final uranium content 

in the residue of .05 percent. So that was 

apparently done in the same vessels and in the 

same general manner as ore would be processed, 

including heating the K-65 drums in the thawing 

oven used to thaw ore drums. Just consequent 

rate on emanation, right? 

Okay. And then they sent that residue to Lake 

Ontario. Okay? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: All right. So there -- you're 

right about that. I forgot about that. But what 

they did was they -- they opened the drums and 

dumped the stuff in, but they heated the barrels. 

They loosen them and then they'd heat them to 

drive off the radon so when they were dumping 

them, presumably it was reasonably dry, 

relatively dry. I think they packed it kind of 

wet but when they heated it, maybe at least some 

of the moisture would be driven off. So I don't 

know -- I believe at that time they had an 

automatic ore dumper, like it would hold -- it 

would -- they put the barrel on it and it would 

do the dumping. The person wouldn't actually 

physically have to dump it. I'm -- I'm not sure. 

I'd have to double check that, because they did 

get an automatic ore dumper at some point in the 

'40s. Anyway, so yeah. But -- but once they 

dumped it in, it would then be treated just -- it 

would go through the process just like regular -- 

it would come out in the next step, again as the 

K-65, only this time there would be less uranium 

in it. 

DR. NETON: See, it's listed as starting in early 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

'48. We don't know, I guess, when it ended. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, a couple of the -- it was 

all done in 19-- by the end of 1949 because we 

have two separate references that -- one of them 

says that it started in late '48 and ended -- but 

they both say it ended in '49, like it was done 

over a period of months. But the leach process 

was researched and installed in '48 to '49, so 

that may be why one of them thought it started in 

'48 but the other one said it was done in '48. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay? So they probably used some 

K-65 they had not taken out to the airport yet to 

test the process the first few times, and once 

that was established -- maybe in '48 or early '49 

-- then in '49 they brought back the barrels and 

reprocessed them. That's my best -- but you can 

go back to the original -- 

DR. NETON: Well, let me ask you this. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- memos and read them yourself. 

DR. NETON: When was this K-65 stopped processing 

then? I mean if this was all prior to '49, it's 

really not relevant for our discussion. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, they reprocessed the K-65 

that they had already processed. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

DR. NETON: But they -- oh, but they were 

continuing to run it through. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: But after that then they had the 

higher recovery so --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I got you. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- didn't have to reprocess it. 

DR. NETON: All right. Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Do -- do we have an ending date 

for the raffinate processing for uranium 

extraction? I mean was this the only -- since 

they developed the process and the early 

extraction -- you know, they had some Canadian 

ores, ten percent and all that. And I don't have 

all the words in front of me, just a little bit 

of an impression in my mind from reading your 

write-up, Janet, that there is some -- that this 

may have been done sort of in lots from time to 

time after this big one-time thing in 1949 when 

they did the K-65 silos, but maybe I'm not 

reading it right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Where -- where would it say that, 

or where would you take that from -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't remember. See, that's 

why I wished I'd made the page references. Which 

paragraph in 4.7 were you at? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. This would be one, two, 

three, four -- four paragraphs from the end of 

4.7. It's the fourth paragraph. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: How do the paragraphs -- oh, some 

reprocessing. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes, that's right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That paragraph? Yeah, I -- I 

don't know why I have that impression. Maybe --

maybe -- I'd have to go back and check. Maybe 

not a correct remembering. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, I already made my memory 

mistake for the day, so you're entitled to have 

yours. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So so far, you know the 

other -- there wasn't -- other than the thorium 

Sperry cake thing, there wasn't more bringing 

back of raffinates after '49? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, this paragraph also says at 

least some of the barium sulfate cake was 

reprocessed similarly, and I think that was after 

that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That must have been why I 

remembered that. Thank you. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yeah, yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So that's the time question that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

I have, is if you have the barium sulfate residue 

-- which was the bulk of the residue, right? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: I'm sorry. What? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The barium sulfate residue was 

the bulk of the residue, right? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: I don't -- I -- I -- I'm not able 

to remember that, but my -- my memory is that the 

Am-7 was the biggest -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- amount, but -- but I could be 

wrong there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Yeah, I think you might be 

right about that. The -- but anyway, they had -- 

barium sulfate had a fair amount of radium in it, 

and certainly in disequilibrium, if I remember 

correctly, and so if the -- the problem here 

would be to put some kind of time bound on -- you 

know, time limits starting and stopping dates for 

this barium sulfate reprocessing. Is there any 

evidence of that? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, I -- I -- they -- they 

noted that they reprocessed the barium cake and 

one of the references is 1951 and one of them is 

'48. And the '51 I think referred to it as 

having been done, if I'm remembering correctly. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

So therefore that means it must have been done -- 

I think either maybe prior to the K-65 or just 

after it, which I think is a little more likely. 

But anyway, the 1948 reference may have been 

prospective, you know, we're going to do it. But 

anyway, I -- so I think they had finished it all 

probably in the like '49 to '50 time frame, but -

- but you'd have to look at the references for 

that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'll do that. Thank you. I will 

do that. 

DR. NETON: Okay. Any other questions on the 

raffinates as far as --

 DR. ZIEMER: There is a paragraph that states 

that in '55 thorium-bearing raffinate residue was 

brought back from storage of SLAPS for plant 6. 

DR. NETON: Where is that, Paul? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Top of page 33, the second paragraph 

(reading) conveyed by dumpster from Plant 6 to 

Plant 7 as needed. Processing done on a crash 

basis in early '55. 

But that looks like it's a small scale lab 

operation. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Oh, that was the thorium 

processing. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, this is -- this is the 

Sperry cake, right, Janet? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It says it's Am-7 raffinate. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Am-7. Yeah, okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: The Am-7, that was the -- the -- 

the airport cake basically, the bulk residue that 

I -- I think is the bulk residue, anyway -- hedge 

my bets there -- the Am-7. And they took it back 

because it was -- it was where -- it was the one 

we had the thorium content of and the reason was, 

they did it -- somebody did a thorium assay on it 

and of course it was known to be somewhat 

concentrated in thorium, so they processed it to 

make the concentrate that was then sent to Mound 

for further concentration of the thorium. 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. So that's what that was. 

So let's see, they reprocessed some K-65, some 

barium sulfate, and I think all of the -- pretty 

much all of the Am-7 -- no, some of the Am-7, but 

-- but it turned out to be I think most of it. 

But anyway, quite a lot of it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now didn't we just say Am-7 was 

most of the residues? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yeah, but I -- I -- I think I 

hedged my bets in writing this. The purpose of 

that was to process -- reprocess some of the Am-7 

because it wasn't clear to me how much there was 

out there at the time. I know how much they 

reprocessed, but I don't know how much had been 

sent to the airport at that time. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And the Am-7 would have had 

highly variable ratios of uranium to radium, 

radium to uranium I'm thinking, because they had 

-- it wasn't all -- I mean it was -- it was 

various grades of ore. It wasn't all 

pitchblende. There were all different kinds of 

residues from different ores, right? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, actually, the Am-7 was 

pitchblende residue --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: And we do have the -- the AM-10 

was the carnotite residues. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, I see. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: And -- and we do have a thorium 

ratio for them. I mean we have some thorium 

information, anyway, for them. So that the -- it 

was also called -- their Am-7, the carnotite 

residue, raffinate, was also called airport cake. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

But it -- it definitely had its own code name, 

the Am-7 -- I mean AM-10. Okay. So they --

they did distinguish between those two. Now 

mostly what I'm reading off to you I'm taking 

from the materials table, and I forget whether 

it's Table 4 or whatever, but it's one of the 

first five tables. It's that one that goes on 

for pages and pages in landscape mode, but it's 

got -- there's some information there in the -- 

that -- and in mostly some references. So in 

case you want to track down where I got any of 

these numbers, I believe you can just find it 

there. You'll find more information and -- and 

adjust it in your own time there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 

DR. NETON: Okay. Any other issues with 

raffinates while we've got Janet on the phone? 

know, Janet, you've got an appointment or 

something coming up soon so we don't want to keep 

you too much longer. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Oh, no. That's -- that's okay. 

I still have some time. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Were there -- were there area 

dose -- were there area dose -- external dose 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

measurements made in the areas where raffinates 

were particularly concentrated? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, they had some detector 

measurements, and they -- I think they took a lot 

that they either, you know, said oh, this is 

consistent with what we measured before and so 

they didn't record it, or else -- as I suspect -- 

it was written down like internally in 

Mallinckrodt and -- and we don't have those 

records anymore. We just have maybe the AEC's 

measurements or what is recorded in memos that 

have been recovered. Now it's known that they 

did use film badges, spares and controls and 

things like that. They -- they used some of the 

extra film badges as area monitors and in fact I 

think it had some kind of a program for placing 

them, like to -- to have -- I think Mallinckrodt 

pioneered some of this stuff because they were so 

big and did so many things, and they were 

cooperative in stuff like that. So I know they 

did do a lot of -- especially in like the '50s. 

Yeah, they used the film badges as area monitors. 

Now we mostly don't have that -- the data for 

that. I think it's out there somewhere, but who 

knows. Anyway, so those are the two -- two 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

things they did. Apart from the human film 

badges they -- they did those detector and film 

badge measurements. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is there going to be any survey 

data you ran across during any of the 

decommissioning activities for these sites? 

Isotopic survey data. Janet? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry. I was too far away from 

the mike. Are there any survey data you ran 

across for -- during the decommissioning period 

for this site? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: What that I -- we ran across? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Survey data. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Please? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Survey data, like isotopic 

particularly, survey data. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, not isotopic, but they -- 

they did of course have a -- years-later survey. 

Let's see, was that by Oak Ridge, ORNL, and they 

said oh, we found uranium here, or we found 

radium, we found some thorium there. They did do 

it to that extent, but during the time of 

decommissioning they mostly were just looking to 

get it down to below their limits of beta, gamma, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

and alpha --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- by smear and by direct 

measurements, so they didn't really care about 

the isotopic stuff and so I think they never -- I 

do not think there is any data for that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And that characterization report, 

does that -- that does have some uranium, radium, 

and thorium data? Is it -- is it mainly soil 

sampling? Is it also building survey stuff, or 

is it mainly soils? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: No, it was -- they did a thorough 

-- let me -- let me look at -- yeah, it was ORNL 

and they surveyed both the airport site, and they 

surveyed -- I think they surveyed Mallinckrodt 

itself, if I'm not mis-remembering here, although 

somehow I seem to have just hit on the -- can 

only find the airport thing at the moment. Ah, 

here we go. Radiological Survey of the 

Mallinckrodt Chemicals, et cetera. They measured 

all these buildings. They checked for uranium, 

radium, actinium, and thorium concentrations in 

the soil, and they again seem to have done some 

observations of what -- where they were in the 

buildings if they found the -- not the actinium 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

but the other three, they -- they noted that here 

and there. So that's about all I can tell you 

about what they did. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is the 1981 Oak Ridge 

survey? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is it on the -- on the database 

there on the -- on your database? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: On the O drive in the library? 

Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thanks. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: They also measured radon. Of 

course remember, this was like -- oh, you know, 

more than -- about 20 years, 22 years later, 

something like that. They -- they also measured 

radon, which of course will give you some idea of 

what was going on, but anyway -- they did smears, 

indirect measurements, plus the soil business. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I have nothing more on 

raffinates. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. 

DR. NETON: Let's just -- I guess if there's no 

more questions -- I -- I hate to let you go, 

Janet, because you're a loss of knowledge here, 

but I don't want to hold you up all day. So 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

that's it. I guess -- I guess you're off the 

hook for now. Are you going to be available 

later on in the afternoon? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Why don't -- can we -- I mean while 

she's on the phone, I'm just curious about the -- 

we were talking earlier about the laboratory data 

in general. 

DR. NETON: Oh, okay. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And there's that one memo that Jim 

has showed us, and it referenced on page 77, 78, 

something like that about the blank -- the sealed 

blanks and the urine data tending to be -- if -- 

if it was biased, it was probably biased high. 

Have you run across any other -- any other sort 

of quality control documents or -- or -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Whatever I ran into I thought -- 

along those lines, I thought was important for 

the dose reconstructors to know, so everything I 

knew about that is in there. Now a knowledgeable 

person reading the references, looking at the 

references, might be able to deduce something 

more than I have been able to do, like somebody 

who's really, you know, knows the meanings behind 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

the words or whatever. But everything that I 

thought was of a quality control or how they did 

it or what the limitations were, that's all in 

the TBD. 

DR. NETON: Okay. So -- this is Jim. Have you 

not run across anything like split samples that 

were run maybe at HASL, or any procedures related 

to what they were doing, or things of that 

nature? 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Only -- only that interview that 

John Harley* gave to ORAU way back when they were 

starting their four-plant study and one of those 

four plants, of course was Mallinckrodt -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- and he talked about how HASL 

did their things and aliquots and so forth, and I 

think there was one other thing in there, but 

again it's this kind of retrospective thing 

rather than what we did in real time but -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- I -- I think that was probably 

their usual method. And I -- I think in order to 

do the urinalyses themselves, Mallinckrodt had to 

satisfy AEC that they were using approved AEC 

methods, or -- or that Barnes Hospital would -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

who --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: -- was supposed to be doing the 

urinalyses, would be doing that. So -- so I 

think we can assume that, on paper at least, what 

AEC did was what they did. 

DR. NETON: Right. It would just be nice if we 

had some memos to that effect, you know, that -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, I -- I don't know what to 

tell you. 

DR. NETON: I -- no, I'm not asking you to make 

up anything, I just -- I'm just pointing out, you 

know, where -- if you run across something, it'd 

certainly be nice. And maybe we need to take a 

little closer look at some of that stuff 

ourselves --

 MS. WESTBROOK: Well, you're the kind of guy who 

at Christmas says oh, is this all the presents. 

DR. NETON: You know, I may be. I think if you 

ask my wife... 

 DR. ZIEMER: How much more can I get. 

DR. NETON: Okay. All right. I think that 

answers that question. Is there anything else 

that we have for Janet -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Good place to stop. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

DR. NETON: -- that's -- that's relevant at this 

time? Okay. Janet, is it safe that we have 

some issues later, like say -- I don't know what 

time, 2:00-ish or so, we could call you back or -

-

 MS. WESTBROOK: Oh, of course. Of course. 

DR. NETON: All right. Well, we'll do that. 

think we're going to hopefully be breaking for 

lunch fairly shortly and -- 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Oh, my gosh. I should hope so. 

DR. NETON: Well, food's not here yet, but it may 

get here shortly. All right. Well, thanks, 

Janet, and we'll be in touch. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Okay. 

DR. NETON: Okay. Bye. 

 MS. WESTBROOK: Bye, everybody. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Thanks. 

 MS. BLOOM: Bye. 

DR. NETON: It might be good just to take a 

little break now. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:35 

p.m. to 1:40 p.m.) 

DR. NETON: Okay. We're ready to start the 

afternoon session, and I guess I'll just leave it 

up to SC&A and Arjun to bring forth whatever 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

issues you care to. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. We still have some 

questions along the same lines in the same set 

that we were doing right before lunch, so I'll 

just go to the next question, which is just a -- 

sort of a -- if you have an idea, what proportion 

of claims have no bioassay data, like where 

you're going to rely on air concentration -- 

rough idea? 

DR. NETON: You know, I can't give you a -- a 

handle. I tried -- I started to go through this. 

I don't have the data yet, but I will -- I will 

get that. My -- my feeling is the majority of 

claims have bioassay data of some sort. Now that 

may mean that you have some bioassay data that 

are from the Weldon Springs era. Say -- say the 

person works and started -- you know, maybe you 

have nothing at Mallinckrodt. All of a sudden 

you have a 1957 Weldon Springs bioassay or 

something. That is information that one can use 

to try to bracket some of these exposures. So in 

going through roughly, I found bioassay data for 

most of the cases, but I can't give you any 

better answer than that, short of going through 

each individual file. It's hard to say. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I didn't understand your -- 

your comment, though, how you would use Weldon 

Spring data to bracket the Destrehan Street 

doses. I didn't get that. 

DR. NETON: Well, let's say we -- and this is 

just a technique, an example of a technique. In 

1957 you have a -- a sample on the first day of 

employment and it -- it's essentially 

nondetectable and measures 10 micrograms uranium 

per liter. One could put together, using that 

data point, a bioassay scenario that would 

predict what could be the maximum exposure of 

that person in their Mallinckrodt time frame at 

Destrehan Street, yet still have a .010 urine 

sample in 1957. That may or may not be useful. 

I'm saying to the extent possible, we would use 

it. 

Say, for example, if this were a -- a -- just a 

systemic cancer, didn't concentrate uranium, you 

could make some assumptions about solubility 

class and do a bracketing estimate of the dose. 

I saw there's --there's several cases like that 

that I noticed where there were no bioassay data, 

at least found or -- or observed in the 

Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street era, and some for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

Weldon Springs. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. I came across a couple -- 

DR. NETON: It's -- it's -- I just raise that as 

a possibility that we -- we -- we, you know, we 

may end up being able to use some of those data 

points. But I -- I -- I'm sorry. I just can't 

give you a better --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- feel. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's -- it's just on the off 

chance that you had an idea. Okay. Now at the 

Board meeting you had this hypothetical example 

of how you were going to address this sort of 

data gaps, data integrity question, by using 

urine data, air concentration data, and -- radon 

breath data, was it? Something like that? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Source term. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Source term, I'm sorry -- 

DR. NETON: Source term to (unintelligible) -- 

right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is there a real-world example 

that you --

DR. NETON: No, I don't have that yet. I'll be 

working on it. That was one of reasons I was 

hoping to do this a little later, but -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- we're going through the dataset. 

I'm -- I'm going to try to approach it from 

several levels. One is to look at the -- at the 

individual datasets themselves and show that the 

are somewhat consistent in their -- their ranges 

and spreads. For example, if you plot -- if you 

have a cumulative probability plot for the urine 

data, and then you do a cumulative probability 

plot for the dust data for a given year, and the 

lines are quite parallel and move along, it gives 

you some sense that low air concentrations have 

low air samples; high concentration you have 

higher samples, and -- and it gives you some 

feeling there. And then to take it to the next 

step and -- and take a few cases and try to 

compare where that would stand using the air 

data, the urine data, and the source term data, 

it will give you some comfort that the -- the 

numbers are internally consistent, given that 

these type of comparisons rarely correlate 

perfectly or even greatly. I mean we've got to 

acknowledge that -- you know, there are a number 

of reasons why air samples would -- would 

possibly show higher exposures than urine 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

samples. Particularly if particle size selection 

wasn't done and you're just sampling the entire 

spectrum, much of the -- the dust may be 

nonrespirable, you know, that kind of thing. We 

take -- we take no credit for respiratory 

protection in any of these dose reconstructions, 

even though there's some indication that people 

did wear respirators. So somehow -- it's a 

difficult task to have to do this, but -- so 

that's why it's taking a little longer than I 

thought. But we are moving -- moving forward. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: You will -- you'll have some of 

this in the next -- in the --

DR. NETON: The next four --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- couple weeks? 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I'd like to -- I'm hoping by 

the 13th to have some type of analysis that we 

can sit down and discuss. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm making my own notes, but I 

don't anticipate I'm going to get grades -- 

DR. NETON: No, not --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- making summary notes. 

UNIDENTIFIED: I figured that's what you were 

doing. 

DR. NETON: That's fine. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So I can rely on them and then 

verify later on. Okay. So this is sort of the 

big methodological question in actually applying 

a lot of the TBD data. And here -- part of the 

thing, you know, in the last review that we did 

that kind of -- when I -- when I was doing the 

analysis that's in the -- in the review, there's 

this problem of, you know, two and three 

measurements and with considerable scatter. It's 

very important in some cases -- in some cases it 

doesn't matter, you know, if you've got two 

measurements in the lunchroom and the lunchroom 

doesn't really contribute anything, that -- that 

doesn't amount to anything. But in some cases 

that I showed, that the uncertainty from a single 

-- single operation in a set of measurements can 

triple your -- triple your dose estimate if 

you're going to 95 percentile. And so I'm just 

wondering -- and I personally found it, just in 

that short amount of time, I wasn't quite able to 

come up with a good suggestion as to what method 

you would use when you had uniformly very few 

measurements as to how to aggregate all the 

uncertainties. It just -- it wasn't obvious. So 

I'm wondering where you are with that. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

DR. NETON: I thought, when you're talking about 

those individual measurements, you're talking 

about a very specific function, right, like some 

job description or some function. My thought on 

this was more broad-based than that, and it would 

be to use the facility distribution at that 

point. So, you know, if you don't have any 

confidence at all, or much confidence in the -- 

the very specific job that you were looking at, I 

don't know why -- you know, we might be able to 

use the facility distribution at that point which 

encompasses, you know, the range of values. It's 

just a thought. I mean, you know, but we've got 

a plant by year and you know the range of the 

concentrations. But -- but then you take a 95th 

percentile of facility distribution. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But how does that help you with 

the individual? Like you have Plant 4 and you 

have a lot of different things going on, you have 

different -- distinct things going on in Plant 4. 

You have the UO-2 becoming UF-4, so that's a 

discrete operation. And I think, if I remember 

correctly, that's done in Plant 4. 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then they take it next door 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

and they load the bombs and they put them in the 

furnaces and that's -- even in a separate room, 

that's all in Plant 4. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And so you've got different -- 

first of all, you've got different solubilities. 

DR. NETON: Well, the solubility is taken care of 

by the bracketing, you know, whether -- we're 

going to pick a solubility that is the most 

claimant-favorable. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. But if you have different 

-- different operations all together -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and it seems to me -- the 

difficulty -- the difficulty I -- when I looked 

at the data sort of carefully and tried to come 

up with a set of calculations, it seemed to me 

that the calculation of measurements for each 

operation is actually different and so, because 

different things are happening, you probably 

construct a different distribution for each 

operation. 

DR. NETON: But within those family of 

distributions, I think you -- you will find a 

lognormal distribution of air samples. Cure the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

probability plot, you know, it's got to be a 

straight line if you do it in a lognormal 

distribution and you pick the 95th percentile. 

I'm -- I'm just, you know, throwing out ideas 

here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, yeah. 

DR. NETON: I think that, you know, if -- if your 

argument is that we have almost no data for that 

facility-specific job, then the only thing we can 

offer is that we would take the facility 

distribution and use that value and apply it to 

that class of workers. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm not saying there's -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- there's no -- no usable data. 

I think the data for air concentration do appear 

to be usable. I think since our discussions at 

Bethlehem Steel -- I mean there are still some 

questions to be settled, but as I think you may 

have noted --

DR. NETON: Yeah. Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we're not kind of putting a 

lot of weight where we did initially about how 

were these samples taken and how do we know the 

result. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean that's still in the 

footnotes and the fine print, but it's not -- 

it's not -- I don't imagine it as vague because I 

think you presented some evidence that this can 

be used for -- you know, at least as a first cut 

-- to go ahead and think what (unintelligible). 

But in -- in looking at this data, it's not that 

you can't do anything with three measurements. 

DR. NETON: Well --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's that the uncertainties -- 

I'll give you a -- the uncertainties are actually 

bigger than what I represented in -- the last 

time because I just -- we didn't have any 

information. So one of the things I asked people 

who worked in Plant 4 in St. Louis last week is -

- and show them the AEC information -- is how 

long did it take to load up one of these bombs, 

mix the -- and he said, you know, by the time you 

got started loading up -- preparing the bomb, 

loading the uranium, mixing it, jolting it so it 

was all properly tamped down, closing it and 

loading it, it was half an hour. And when I 

showed them that the AEC estimate was six and a 

half minutes, they all laughed. And so you've 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

got -- now, I don't -- the AEC doesn't actually 

have a jolting thing in that list, but it clearly 

is part of a set of operations, so maybe somebody 

missed something. Also, the number of operations 

doesn't match, so there are a number of furnaces, 

so I don't know how it was all added up. So 

actually now I have more uncertainties -- 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- than -- because I don't know 

what is the uncertainty in the time, and you're 

talking about the uncertainties in the most 

sensitive part of the operation where your air 

concentration is the biggest. I mean I've only 

looked at one as an example because -- I don't 

know why I picked that one. I think I had the 

data at hand, so -- and it was relatively 

straightforward to do it, so I picked it. And by 

chance there happened to be at least two people 

who were very -- very familiar with -- with -- 

sorry -- Plant 4 and the bomb chargers and they 

actually did that work who showed up in St. 

Louis, so I was able to ask them in detail. So 

it's -- I'm -- I'm just -- I'm -- if we're going 

to use -- if there are no bioassay data, so I 

agree with you on that. If you have bioassay 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

data, you don't have a problem. But if you're 

going to use the air concentration data in the 

TBD, I think -- it seems to me not a simple 

exercise to actually convert that into 

demonstrably claimant-favorable reasonable dose 

estimate. I haven't been able to 

(unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: I don't know. I -- I'm not sure, you 

know, what we can say. If it's -- there's 

certainly uncertainties you can put about the 

values, I mean how certain are you, and it's -- 

it's, you know, you can use some statistics, too. 

But two measurements, three measurements with Tdistributions, wherever you can add -- you know, 

add things on there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I guess the most 

straightforward question in this regard is -- I 

mean in the next -- since we have to present 

something to the Board in terms of our review, my 

question is are you going to show us how this is 

to be done, because it seems not -- to me it 

seems not an easy problem. Maybe you have a 

solution to it and then we can all agree that it 

is a solution. But right now I -- I can't. I 

don't -- I don't have one in my head or I'd offer 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

it to you and --

DR. NETON: Well, you know, I mean not -- there's 

not one answer for all your questions. You know, 

there's not one answer for everybody. I mean you 

can see what we've done in the example I showed 

early on where they -- they took the highest air 

concentration -- they attempted to take the 

highest air concentration measured in any 

facility in that year and apply it to the worker. 

I mean I think that is a pretty demonstrably 

claimant-favorable approach. I'm not unconvinced 

that that wouldn't work for most systemic cancers 

that don't concentrate uranium. So, you know, 

it's sort of -- you know, you have to try these 

approaches. But you know, that one would -- in 

my mind would be the most claimant-favorable 

approach. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Barring the --

DR. NETON: Barring, you know --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- the raffinate questions. 

DR. NETON: -- raffinate, the raffinate 

questions, right. We're talking now just about 

uranium --

UNIDENTIFIED: Multiply that --

DR. NETON: -- and then you multiply that times a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

hundred and you've got your -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: You're done. 

DR. NETON: -- your K-65 raffinate. But that --

that's possible. Now I guess at the end of the 

day, you know, you need to refine it. And our 

approach is if you can't refine it any better 

than what you've got, you're going to go with the 

unrefined estimate, which would be the maximum 

air concentra-- I'm not suggesting that we will 

do that, but that would be the fallback approach. 

That's that. I mean we -- we certainly probably 

need -- we need to think about this some more but 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- I don't know. Dave, you got any 

ideas? 

MR. ALLEN: Like you said, it depends very much 

on the dataset you're dealing -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: -- with, et cetera, the case of -- I 

mean you're talking about some additional 

uncertainties in time-weighted averages and in a 

situation where you only have three -- I mean 

three data points isn't a lot to work with any 

way you look at it. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sometimes there's only one. 

MS. BLOOM: And if it's all you have -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then you really... 

DR. NETON: Right. That's -- I'm suggesting the 

facility distribution makes no sense to me, 

whether it's the highest value ever measured in 

the facility --

MR. ALLEN: Yeah, as far as how far to break it 

down --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: -- it's usually how far are we going 

to be able to break down where that claimant was 

DR. NETON: Right, and then what's your comfort 

level with that as a bracketing value. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that's why my line of 

questioning on the -- can we narrow it down, this 

population, whoever worked with or around the 

raffinates, you know, and -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- separate that off because 

otherwise, if you go maximizing all the way, 

you're going to get into this almost default SEC 

question. I mean -- I don't know potential -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

90

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm not sure. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I just -- I just have a 

request -- and there are three Board members here 

so, you know, please advise us, SC&A, in that you 

asked us to, you know, evaluate how the TBD might 

be used in dose reconstruction. And the air 

concentration distributions and tables are 

obviously a very big part of the TBD and they are 

intended to be applied when urinalysis data are 

not there or deficient in some serious way. And 

-- and we've agreed on that. So my request would 

be that, you know, in the next two weeks or so 

that NIOSH should propose something, otherwise it 

would be -- I mean otherwise we'd be 

disconstrained to say that we're still in the 

same place, that it seems difficult to do this 

and we don't have a proposed method to apply it, 

which would -- so it would be nice to have 

something from NIOSH as a proposed method -- 

DR. NETON: Well --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- whether it is this what you've 

been saying, or something that's applied to some 

case, or maybe two or three different approaches 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 -- 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- for different cases, as you've 

been saying. 

DR. NETON: I think you're right because, you 

know, you -- you -- a lot of this is dependent 

upon what the answer to your first question was, 

which is how many cases don't we have any 

bioassay samples. If the answer is, let's say 

theoretically ten -- which I think it's probably 

more than that but let's say it's -- then this 

question becomes less of an issue. I mean okay, 

we're going to have to --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's a good starting point 

DR. NETON: Well, that's what I'm saying. That's 

a good starting point and then you say okay, of 

those ten who have no bioassay samples -- because 

we have statements that say virtually everybody 

that needed to be bioassayed was. Now whether 

you believe that or not -- but let's start there 

and then look at the job title, and it's a 

secretary, the question is a lot different, you 

know, so what do we use then. And -- and should 

we not go back and use the coworker urine data 

and -- and, you know, instead of the air 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

92 

monitoring data because there's so many different 

angles that one could take on this. So just 

because there are tables of air data does not 

mean we're constrained to use them if you don't 

have bioassay data, so --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Well, I'm not -- 

DR. NETON: But you're right. You've raised an 

issue --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- suggesting that. I'm just 

saying that just from my -- you know, I've been 

made the point person to give our team -- 

DR. NETON: I understand. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- the draft of this and I 

promised them that I'd do that, you know, in the 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- next coup-- two -- 10, 15 or 

20 days I'm going to give them a solid draft, and 

I -- whatever the proposed methods are, I need to 

be able to say something about that. 

DR. NETON: But part of that is what Dave and I 

were just saying, though, is it's -- it's almost 

not a fair question to say exactly what method 

you're going to use for -- for all cases because 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- it doesn't apply. There is no 

fixed answer to these question. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I guess -- I guess that's 

not fair, you're right -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I think -- I think -- 

DR. NETON: NIOSH does not have a standard method 

to apply when there's no bioassay data. Well, 

guilty, but I think for good reason. There are -

- there is no standard approach that should be 

used. I don't think I'd want to constrain 

ourselves to say every time you have no bio-- you 

know --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- so that's my point is -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: So you need to be careful in how this 

question is raised and -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: But I think you can present it in 

such a way -- I mean, you got to be -- maybe be 

careful presenting --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- another theoretical model 

because that --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

DR. NETON: Well, no. It won't be a theoretical 

model, either. 

 MR. GRIFFON: No more theoretical models but -- 

DR. NETON: But I think a listing --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- of approaches. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But also, and I think most 

important to me, is -- is just some assurance 

that each one of those tools in your toolbox can 

be used. They're not so rusted that they -- you 

know. For instance, the air sampling -- just to 

go back to the raffinate issue, you know, we're 

going to use this approach for people who were 

likely exposed to, you know, the Air Force -- or 

the airport cake -- Air Force -- airport cake, 

you know, type raffinate. Well, can you tell me, 

you know, at the Board meeting, do you have a way 

-- if you're going to use that option, do you 

have a way of identifying who was and was not 

exposed? Because otherwise, how do we define 

this class? I mean I guess that's -- that's -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, one thing that -- you 

can say you've got all these tools, but if -- if 

they don't function in the reality of information 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

you have about your claimants -- so -- so I guess 

that's what we're looking for is some assurance 

that -- that --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, some of those ifs you 

can --

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, let me also ask this question. 

Can you characterize raw job descriptions for 

most of the Mallinckrodt people? The example we 

had earlier today, we didn't know where that 

woman -- I think it was a woman -- 

DR. NETON: Right. Yeah, I think we have job -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Does that tend to be the exception 

on Mallinckrodt? Are there job descriptions of -

-

DR. NETON: Yeah, most of workers we have some 

type of job description -- or job title, let's 

put it that way. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Or title, so you could distinguish 

between a Plant 6 production line versus a 

secretary type of thing? 

DR. NETON: We have a lot of that information, 

and in general I think -- yes, I agree. I think 

we know by plant and even more specifically by, 

you know, operator, chemical operators -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- maintenance workers, that sort of 

thing, you know. We always have some trouble 

binning people in the plant once you get there 

between -- as Arjun pointed out correctly, 

electrical -- electrical workers tend to be maybe 

less exposed as chemical operators in some cases 

so -- but yeah, we -- we could do that. We could 

identify who was where, to a large degree. This 

raffinate issue though, is going to be sticky. 

mean I -- I think at the end of the day if we 

can't -- if we could identify that the person was 

in the plant and exposed, and I don't know that 

there's -- you know, you mentioned this SEC 

territory. I'm not comfortable saying that just 

because we would have to say that all people 

maybe were raffinate workers, that would 

necessarily move it down that path. I mean --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- that's, you know -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: It may not be --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

DR. ROESSLER: Looking toward the future of other 

potential SEC petitions, is this raffinate 

something -- this will set a precedent, whatever 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

is decided here, for future cases? I'm looking 

across the board at the consistency situation. 

DR. NETON: There -- there' s a finite number of 

-- of sites, I think that -- that processed raw 

ore. I mean Harshaw comes to mind I guess -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: Fernald. 

DR. NETON: -- Harshaw Chemical, Fernald to a 

certain extent, but there aren't many of the DOE 

sites that -- that did this, you know, they 

started with raw. Now uranium mills, that's a 

different story. But I think there may be one 

uranium mill in covered facilities, I think. I 

think -- but there aren't that many compared to 

the people who actually took the finished product 

that these folks made, the uranium metal, and 

then started rolling it and machining it and 

what-not so... 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So here -- here the problem is I 

think much more complicated than in most places 

because of this raffinate being brought back. 

Because the pitchblende was so rich that the 

raffinates themselves were comparable to a lot of 

uranium ore. You know, they had one -- one 

percent uranium in them. And so they were 

processing one percent uranium, so it was -- you 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 -- 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

know, they had essentially ore sitting out at the 

airport except it had a hundred times more radium 

than ore. And so I think Mallinckrodt and maybe 

one or two other places may be kind of unique in 

that -- even at Fernald they did not have -- so 

there you have equilibrium, which at least in 

principle is -- is sort of simpler to handle. So 

you have uranium in the urine and then you go 

back and you can do your isotopic ratios. Here, 

it's -- it's sort of much more complicated 

because you have the disequilibrium from the 

reprocessing of raffinate. I don't know. I'm --

I'm not aware that there were a lot of sites that 

DR. NETON: No, I don't think so. 

 MS. BLOOM: I think the --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean this is the only one that 

I know --

MS. BLOOM: -- reprocessing of it would be 

unusual. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think maybe Cotter*. Did 

Cotter* do some of that, maybe? 

MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure. 

 DR. ROESSLER: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: That sounds good. It's not going to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

be a large number of sites. I mean I don't know 

anybody that did complete isotopic measurements, 

especially back in these days, for these -- these 

type of --

DR. ROESSLER: What my bottom line I guess is, in 

fairness to all sites, is that they're all 

treated scientifically the same, not -- not 

treated differently because of particular 

advocacy groups or anything like that. I think 

that's where we have to make sure that it's 

scientifically solid. And if the sites are a lot 

different then it's hard to do that. 

 MS. BLOOM: I think one other thing that plays 

into it is sometimes you have much better 

information. Mallinckrodt was so well-studied 

that you have much more confidence in the job 

titles for that site than you do at most other 

sites where job titles are based on memories 50 

years later by either the -- the Energy employee 

or the claimant, and so there's much less 

certainty and not as much confidence in 

stratifying the exposures there. I think there's 

-- you know, the process needs to be fair. Does 

it result in the same exposures everywhere? No. 

Does that seem equitable? It depends on your 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

point of view. 

DR. NETON: Well, the trick is to nail down the 

isotopic composition of the raffinates, and Janet 

has given us some hints as to what those are. 

And it actually may end up being that one of the 

raffinate streams will -- will overbound the 

others. I mean, you know, we're worried about 

thorium 230. Thorium 230 for -- for systemic 

organs is -- nonmetabolic organs is not an issue. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Probably not that big of one. 

DR. NETON: You know, so if one assumes that 

we're working in a -- in a stream with a hundred 

to one radium to uranium, you're going to -- my 

guess is, to really be claimant-favorable to 

those systemic organs and -- and yeah, we need to 

develop a coaching approach that you guys can all 

understand and -- and demonstrate that, you know, 

this is the path we're going to go down with 

that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Great. Thanks. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Radon data. Now we have 

this -- that document from Mason, you know, in 

which he said that radon data were not really 

suitable for dose estimations. He said -- I 

think he said something that -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

DR. NETON: I looked. I tried to find that, 

Arjun. I can't -- is it -- is it in the profile, 

or is it another document? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's not in the profile. 

DR. NETON: That's why I couldn't find it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's -- it's a Mason document -- 

DR. NETON: I remember talking about this. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and I believe I have it in my 

computer, but --

 MS. BLOOM: Is that the one that says that the 

average -- they don't know how to apply the 

average radon data to a worker. My understanding 

was he wasn't saying that the data were no good, 

they just didn't feel that they -- that they had 

sufficient time and motion studies to apply that 

data to the workers for, you know, providing the 

epidemiological kind of data that they were 

looking for. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I don't think it was a 

wholesale condemnation of the data as invalid or 

anything. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I agree --

DR. NETON: And I think that's where -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- let me try to --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

DR. NETON: All right. My recollection is -- is 

what Cindy's saying is -- and I think I may have 

seen this. 

 MS. BLOOM: But I think that makes it -- not that 

the data is not usable for dose estimation, it's 

probably not usable for risk estimation in terms 

of developing epidemiological studies. In terms 

of a compensation program I think that the data 

is --

DR. ROESSLER: Makes a big difference. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- is probably very reliable -- you 

know, not very reliable, but -- 

DR. NETON: Can be used for compensation 

purposes, I think. And he certainly was not 

speaking from a compensation program 

perspective. 

I believe we have somewhere in the vicinity of 

2300 radon measurements. Is that right? 

 MS. BLOOM: And those are the breath analyses. 

DR. NETON: Oh, no. Those were -- but I think 

there's also a few --

 MS. BLOOM: Oh, right. 

DR. NETON: -- thousand just area radon 

measurements. 

 MS. BLOOM: I think you're right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 -- 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103

 DR. ZIEMER: Do -- do you know what Mason meant 

by dose estimates in that time frame? 

DR. NETON: I think when they went back and they 

tried to reconstruct the doses to the workers in 

 DR. ZIEMER: Actual --

DR. NETON: -- time frames --

 DR. ZIEMER: - organ doses? Because --

DR. NETON: Oh, yeah. I believe so. 

 MS. BLOOM: Yes. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. They were coming up with -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Because really the -- the legal 

limits were working-level months. They weren't 

dose limits. 

DR. NETON: Right. Well, effectively they were. 

I mean there were some exposure limit, some 

exposure value --

 DR. ZIEMER: More like an exposure limit, yeah. 

But I mean --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: They weren't looking at the limits 

whether -- they -- they were doing dose. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dose in what kind of use? 

 MS. BLOOM: Lung doses. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Lung doses? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

DR. NETON: Radon though? I don't know that I 

saw that they were doing radon lung doses. 

 MS. BLOOM: Well, the radon they decided not to 

do because of the question -- but they were doing 

the uranium --

DR. NETON: See, those were sort of independent -

-

 MS. BLOOM: -- I think they had radium in there 

as well. 

DR. NETON: You know, there's a certain -- 

there's a maximum permissible body burden or lung 

burden for uranium, then you've got a maximum 

permissible exposure for radon. And in my mind, 

back in those days they were independent source 

terms, not additive. 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

DR. NETON: In fact, I think even at DOE sites 

today, there's (unintelligible) question as to 

how that works, but -- so I think -- I think what 

he was saying, though, is we could not go back 

and do an accurate reconstruction of an 

individual worker's working level month dose -- 

or working level month exposure. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Level month --

DR. NETON: Exposure. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

DR. NETON: And that's probably true, you know, 

you -- you couple it with a few thousand 

measurements with -- with, you know, no time and 

motion studies that they recorded. But I think 

for our purposes, using these radon data, it -- 

we can use them in a compensation program and use 

claimant-favorable values where necessary, pick 

the highest radon concentration in the plant that 

we need be, or in some cases -- as I talked about 

earlier -- just using the outdoor radon 

concentration of somewhere in the vicinity of 19 

picocuries per liter is sufficient to demonstrate 

the lung cancers over 50 percent. If it's not, 

it doesn't take a lot of radon to -- to move 

these into the 50 percent-plus range. 

MR. ALLEN: The radon would apply to people 

working with pitchblende or with the raffinates 

with lung cancer and I can't -- 

DR. NETON: Well, see, yeah. You take --

MR. ALLEN: -- the real -- the real data there is 

generally enough to compensate them. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: The trickier part then is the people 

who were not process-type operators, in general 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

occupants of the site. Then you have these 

outdoor radon concentrations which I'm assuming 

we would assign. I think in that one year there 

was 30 measurements made in that one year that I 

looked at. We would assign that value for their 

-- for their exposure. And I don't know -- I 

mean it may be a moot issue. It may not be 

relevant in some ways because we may have already 

done all the lung cancer. I don't know. I have 

to look through the database. We've done 66 dose 

reconstructions, most of which were lung cancers. 

And outside of lung cancer, I don't view the 

radon as being a contributor to (unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) it's in the 

review that we did, and the document is notes and 

summary by M. Mason, August 1975. And what it 

says here, (reading) There are fragmentary 

measurements of air radon beginning about 1946 

and continuing through about 1955. I view them 

as having little if any use as a measure of 

magnitude of individual exposure. These data can 

be used to show that certain jobs or job 

categories did entail possible exposure to radon 

within a mini -- max/mini range. Any 

interpretation beyond that would be erroneous, in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

my opinion. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So --

DR. NETON: That speaks to compensation program -

-

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- usage, though. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So -- so that's what you're 

saying is that the only way -- so radon data -- 

the way you would resolve this comment is that 

you would use radon data for the maximum -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- of -- in order to put an upper 

bound but not to --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we couldn't use it in any more 

refined way. 

DR. NETON: We wouldn't be doing time weighted 

average values or anything of that nature, just 

no way we could do that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So that will resolve that 

question. I had --

DR. NETON: There was some pretty high values 

too, in there. I mean it was --

 MS. BLOOM: What were some of the values? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

DR. NETON: Oh, I think there was some that were 

-- I want to say 1000 picocuries per liter or 

something like that. 

DR. ROESSLER: (Unintelligible) say 600. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) pretty nasty 

stuff. 

DR. NETON: But since you get these in a confined 

space at all --

DR. ROESSLER: Of course that will be on the 

record. Holy cow. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's my line, isn't it? Where 

I come from -- sorry. 

DR. NETON: I just read something about that, 

they're consolidating all (unintelligible) Okay. 

All right. Now that -- that takes us through -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. I think the external dose 

question we're going to leave till tomorrow when 

Hans is here. 

DR. NETON: I appreciate that. I just will have 

better intelligence here tomorrow to speak to 

that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But --

DR. NETON: Yeah, let's get to --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- (unintelligible) question 

about ABC or if -- if -- Dr. Ziemer, did you ask 
1 

2 

3 -- 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

whether we're going to go through the summary of 

the -- the table that we have? We could do that 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I was -- I was really -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Are you going to be here 

tomorrow? 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- just asking where SC&A and NIOSH 

were with respect to the issues raised in your 

report. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And I -- I think what you told me 

was that, based on this information, you would be 

in a position to revise this table appropriately 

and maybe identify if there are any outstanding 

issues; is that correct? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. It -- it may be that we 

should go to this table and see what the internal 

dose questions are remaining and take them up so 

that we can deal with them. 

 MS. BLOOM: Do we have this table? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. I think a review of -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's in their actual review -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- SC&A review of Rev. 1. 

DR. NETON: We don't have it with us but -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Would you -- or I can open my 

file. 

 MS. BLOOM: I think I've got it on my computer -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: You can use mine and I'll open my 

file. 

 MS. BLOOM: Well, here. I've got it here -- 

Thank you. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'll just go to it in my 

computer. 

(Pause) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There's a breathing rate question 

I think is the first in that list that we haven't 

yet covered. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's the third item in table 1. 

DR. NETON: Right. And we had talked about -- I 

think we went through these at one point in our 

phone conversation and -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. We're -- we're no further 

along on this, other than I think the last time I 

spoke with you we were attending -- intending to 

address this in a -- in a generic way so it would 

apply to a number of different facilities because 

this has come up both at Bethlehem Steel and now 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

Mallinckrodt. And I -- I can tell you right now 

we're -- we have not been able to find any real 

definitive evidence of constant heavy breathing 

at any public -- published reports of the 

constant heavy breathing at places like steel 

mills or even Mallinckrodt. The heavy breathing 

rate, if -- this will be in our analysis -- 

speaks to some pretty demanding tasks such as, 

you know, sledge hammering, pushing a wheelbarrow 

around with 75 pounds of weight on a continuous 

basis, that kind of stuff. And so this will be 

addressed in a -- under separate cover and be 

referenced in here. But right now we're not 

inclined to say that Mallinckrodt should be 1.7 

cubic meters per hour on a constant basis. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we didn't actually -- you 

know, we actually modified -- after the 

discussion on Bethlehem Steel I went back a 

little bit. Bethlehem Steel was, you know, 

imaginably hard work a lot of the time, but I 

actually went back and we discussed this. And 

this is written somewhat differently and in the 

time weighting discussion this comes up in a more 

elaborated way in that there's some tasks that 

may last at least 15 minutes or, you know, when 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

they're really tamping these bombs and they're 

loading the uranium and they're shoveling stuff, 

it may be, you know, five minutes or ten minutes 

half a dozen times a day. But those happen to be 

the operations where there's heavy dust. For 

instance, they may -- may happen to be -- so you 

have a kind of a combination of -- that workers 

are breathing more hard at times when they're 

doing work that's more dusty. And so I think 

we've -- at least in this review -- refined our 

own thinking a little bit along in the sense that 

heavy breathing should actually -- in the context 

of time-weighted data -- be considered, you know, 

in a job-specific way or even in a time-specific 

way, or both. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: I think we'd be hard-pressed to do 

that, just in terms of modeling things. I think 

we also tend to pick the more soluble or the type 

-- absorption type that's going to result in a 

larger dose. We pick times when we apply these 

over -- when we apply things for 2000 hours for a 

standard work year when we know workers weren't 

in those areas for that period of time. So I 

think there's lots of things that weight that -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

those little spikes. We also take -- we have 

uncertainty in the metabolic models that we 

account for when we get to the dose 

reconstructions. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. I -- I think -- I'm going to 

try to get my terminology straight here, but the 

heavy exercise model assumes heavy breathing for 

one hour out of the eight-hour work shift. 

That's my recollection, or -- and the terminology 

might be --

DR. NETON: -- wrong. 

MR. ALLEN: (Unintelligible) workers in these -- 

DR. NETON: Heavy worker -- heavy worker, heavy 

exercise for one hour -- 

 MR. ALLEN: That's right. 

DR. NETON: -- which would be at -- at the high 

rate. And I don't think we're fundamentally 

opposed to using that where it might make some 

sense. I think -- I -- I thought early on -- the 

original comment was that SC&A's position that we 

should go beyond the highest exposure category in 

the ICRP models and concoct some new model that 

would be heavy breathing for more than one hour 

per work shift, and we have been hard-pressed to 

come up with any indication that that's the case 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

in -- in the literature. I mean I guess finding 

-- not finding information does not prove this, 

but there's certainly nothing out there and in -- 

in a pretty detailed review of the ICRP 

publications, some of the heavy breathing was 

really developed in uranium -- I mean in -- in 

mining. Uranium mining I believe is what it 

referred to. Anyway, we're going to have this 

written up in more detail. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Was there -- was there -- 

also I thought more of the outstanding issue was 

the -- the nasal versus oral breathing. 

DR. NETON: That's another issue, right, oronasal versus --

 DR. ZIEMER: You know, in general -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: I thought that was the bigger 

outstan-- I thought we resolved that -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) deposition it 

seems like you'd get more swallowed stuff -- 

DR. NETON: You mean the heavy breathing? 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- with the oral -- with the oral. 

What happens --

DR. NETON: The oro-nasal breathing -- if you 

breath through your mouth preferentially you'll 

increase the dose. It's -- it's --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115

 DR. ZIEMER: To the lung? 

DR. NETON: What happens is you end up not 

filtering out the stuff through the nasal 

passages as much and so it's a direct deposition 

into the lungs. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Still goes down through -- 

DR. NETON: Right. The -- the ET-1, as they call 

it, acts as a pretty efficient filter. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And there's a default in ICRP for a 

certain fraction going through -- through the 

mouth, right -- I think. 

DR. NETON: Well, it assume-- once you get the 

heavy breathing then it switches to a certain -- 

50 percent I think oral breathing. So even most 

people switch to oral breathing 50 percent of the 

time when you have a heavy breathing rate. On 

the other side of the coin, there are people that 

are preferential nose breathers who only breath 

through their nose --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: I mean I know more about this than I 

ever really cared to. 

MR. ALLEN: Me, too. 

DR. NETON: So I think -- first of all, I think 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

this is not really very relevant when we have 

urine data. Right, Dave? I mean the urine data 

would --

MR. ALLEN: Right --

DR. NETON: Bioassay --

MR. ALLEN: -- systemic --

DR. NETON: If you have bioassay data and you're 

talking about systemic organs, it's -- it's not -

- not an issue because we're just modeling the -- 

you know, the deposition directly. But we -- we 

have not been able to convince ourselves that 

oro-nasal breathing is any different than what 

the ICRP models predict. We've done some 

analyses where you can look at -- say where you 

do have urine data -- help me out here, Dave. I 

thought -- with the type M material there's no 

indication that the people were more mouthbreathers -- or no, is that -- what did we do -- 

MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure where you're heading. 

DR. NETON: We've looked at the oro-nasal 

breathing issue for Bethlehem Steel. I mean 

that's one thing that we're getting ready to put 

out. 

MR. ALLEN: Yeah. And Bert-- Simonds -- using 

some Simonds data --
1 

2 

3 -- 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

DR. NETON: Using some Simonds data -- 

MR. ALLEN: -- and (unintelligible) all followed 

DR. NETON: It looks like the standard ICRP 

default models are not inconsistent or 

inappropriate to be used. If you take the urine 

data, compare it to the air concentration data, 

the air concentr-- well -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- the air concentration is much, 

much higher --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- than what the predicted urinary 

output is so -- there's some empirical evidence 

of this. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But there's a lot of other factors 

in -- combining those two things -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Well, I would think that the 

solubility is what really -- 

MR. ALLEN: Well, I think if you take the Simonds 

Saw, if you take that time-weighted average, use 

a 1.2 and not a 1.7 and use the type M solubility 

for U-308, 'cause it's more like 140 days, then 

you'll hit the mean of the urinalysis pretty 

close with the average -- time-weighted average 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

and you'll hit the high urinalysis with the 

highest time-weighted average. It -- it fits 

pretty well. 

DR. NETON: So yeah, I'm getting into the 

Bethlehem Steel issues, but -- 

MR. ALLEN: Oh, yeah, you know. 

DR. NETON: Right now we're not -- I'm not -- 

fundamentally I'm not opposed to adjusting the 

heavy breathing for certain positions as long as 

it's consistent with the default -- the highest 

default ICRP model. To go beyond that, we just 

really have no evidence to -- to hang our hat on 

that that's the case. 

MR. ALLEN: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So -- but we won't expect this 

before -- in the next few -- couple of weeks. 

DR. NETON: No, probably not. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But it's not a thing that, in 

principle, can't be addressed. This is --

DR. NETON: Yeah, well --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- this is something that we can 

address. It's not a -- 

DR. NETON: No, this is --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- question or modeling question 

like raffinates that we have -- it's not that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

kind of a question. 

DR. NETON: This is an approach. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

DR. NETON: This is an approach issue. 

 MS. BLOOM: Would this be -- I guess I sort of 

see it as you have to identify who you're 

applying this to --

DR. NETON: If at all. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- and that gets back to the -- to 

everyone. 

DR. NETON: Well, then you get in a situation 

where you have a job category. Let's say for 

instance we would make whoever the bomb operators 

were heavy breathing. Then if they -- if it were 

known that they were a bomb operator, you would 

apply that. But then -- then you get in a 

situation where I don't know what the person did 

and then you apply it. The more special cases 

you have, the harder it is to -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- to apply. 

 MS. BLOOM: And I think it gets tough and I think 

-- well, I guess I'm concerned about having two 

choices out there because I think -- 

DR. NETON: I agree. It makes it -- makes -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

there's some --

 MS. BLOOM: There are other ways -- 

DR. NETON: -- there's some rationale -- 

 MS. BLOOM: -- to capture it. 

DR. NETON: There's some rationale for making 

just one choice. And if we do, it would be the 

conservative one. For instance, I noticed here 

we moved down to 1.2 cubic meters per hour. I'm 

not sure what happened there. I mean --

 MS. BLOOM: From the 1.4? 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: Because that's not an option in IMBA. 

You can't model doses with 1.4. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: You can model intakes but -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- not doses. 

DR. NETON: Okay. We -- yeah. Okay. We'll talk 

about that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. The -- the incidence 

question. Now --

 DR. ZIEMER: Which page are you on? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm in -- I skipped the 

raffinates under -- because we already covered 

that, and then under that on page 7 -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) page 7? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- on top of page 7, incidents, 

high risk jobs, intakes (unintelligible). So 

let's take incidents. I mean we -- you had an 

approach to incidents. We did some -- Mike Thorn 

ran some quick numbers that, you know, haven't 

been kind of checked. I just told him to do some 

normalized -- going backward from one microgram 

per liter into intake and dose at various times. 

You know, if you had an impulse intake after an 

accident just after the last urinalysis, you get 

pretty big numbers and quite -- well, depending 

on the organ. But you get -- you know, you get -

- especially if you have annual -- if you have an 

annual bioassay, you're going to wind up with 

very huge numbers. In any case, I -- I don't 

know if you've -- and then when you apply that -- 

because in all the cases that we've looked at, 

normally you consider a chronic intake. You 

don't consider an impulse intake or a one-time 

intake. So my question about this is obviously 

there's going to be -- there's going to be a huge 

difference in -- in estimated dose depending on 

whether you assume a chronic intake or impulse 

intake. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

MR. ALLEN: When you say there's huge numbers, 

are you talking intake or are you talking dose? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Both, you -- because -- 

MR. ALLEN: Because --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: -- because the only way you can 

assume --

 MR. GRIFFON: Depends on --

MR. ALLEN: -- an acute intake from that 

urinalysis that occurred like a year before is to 

assume that he was not exposed for the rest of 

that year. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, that's the model that you 

have proposed. 

MR. ALLEN: And if you do that, the doses usually 

aren't that much different than a chronic intake. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, that's true. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Plus the numbers (unintelligible) -

-

MR. ALLEN: You get a lot of intake -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- what I've done just -- 

DR. NETON: You either come down like this or you 

go like this (indicating). 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: They -- they intersect at some point. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

MR. ALLEN: They're not that different. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) not that 

different. 

MR. ALLEN: (Unintelligible) a million scenarios 

and then you can't -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Lots of scenarios. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, you come up with big 

numbers anyway because I didn't do a comparison. 

MR. ALLEN: You see it typically from what we've 

seen, you know, playing with incidents in between 

all the chronic intakes, is that the -- the big 

doses come from the long-term low -- low intake 

rate that's just continuously going day after day 

after day. It seems to be where the big doses 

come from, and an acute intake every now and then 

just doesn't seem to add that much to it. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I would agree -- generally agree 

with that. 

 MR. ALLEN: Let me ask Jim (unintelligible) -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I've done some --

DR. NETON: Spikes just --

 MR. GRIFFON: I've modeled it with all different 

acute intakes over all these spikes or just 

averaged it and you get almost the same -- 

DR. NETON: We've been pretty -- we've been not 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

real good about verbalizing that and convincing 

people but that's --

MR. ALLEN: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: When working with the datasets a lot, 

that's what you end up seeing. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: We actually have not gone and -- 

and done this comparison. I just -- we just ran 

some numbers for assuming an acute intake and -- 

but I didn't actually -- I assumed they would be 

bigger but I didn't (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: But you've looked at some of the 

values on that air sample table. We're talking 

about ten to the seventh picocuries per year 

intakes. I mean --

MR. ALLEN: They're huge -- huge intakes. These 

people --

 DR. NETON: That's why these, you know, lung 

cancers are by and large, you know, well over 50 

percent. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So are we saying that -- 

that this -- that the chron-- that the intake 

from incidents specially -- I mean blow-outs were 

very frequent. I mean that's -- that's very 

clear. And then you had -- you had these 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

125 

maintenance people and electricians and the 

clean-out people that went into these furnaces, 

and they had very frequent blow-outs throughout -

- until '57, actually. I came across a document 

in the file of Mr. B. there, who was -- who -- 

you know, which indicates very frequent blow-outs 

as recently as -- as 1957. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And it's the DOE file, and I can 

give you -- it's a huge file so I can give you 

the page number. It'll take you a long time to 

find it. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

MR. ALLEN: (Unintelligible) occurred at Fernald 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So if it's not an issue then -- 

DR. NETON: It occurred at Fernald pretty 

frequently, as well. Dave worked there when -- 

when they happened. But, you know, generally the 

approach is that they clear the area when a blowout occurs. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

DR. NETON: You're not going to be standing there 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I confirmed that. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

DR. NETON: -- breathing all this. So you clear 

the area so, you know, you're exposed to a small 

-- a large mass of -- of radium in the air for a 

fairly short period of time. So these things, 

you know, would have to had occurred very, very 

frequently in order for the collective -- and 

then essentially you end up with a chronic 

exposure. 

MR. ALLEN: I was going to say --

DR. NETON: I mean there's always a trade off 

between --

MR. ALLEN: To answer the question how many 

acutes make a chronic? 

DR. NETON: How many acutes in a chronic and 

then, you know --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Actually that may be the more 

convincing point because we -- all evidence is 

that blow-outs were frequent. And my -- and so 

we discussed this and, you know, summarized -- my 

notes are not in shape to be distributed. All 

the typos even haven't been taken out of it but -

-

 MR. GRIFFON: But I think this might be a good 

thing for you to demonstrate in a public meeting 

-- for instance, in St. Louis -- that you've 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

looked at certain cases, not hypothetical, and 

you've -- you know, since you're -- you're -- 

there's some concern about accidents and 

incidents, in some cases you assume that it was 

an accidental exposure from the beginning of the 

year because you only have yearly urine samples 

on some of the people or whatever, and you model 

it with the chronic intakes and -- you know, I 

mean -- you know, demonstrate just what we've 

been talking about. I think it's worthwhile. 

DR. NETON: Well, see, you could model it with a 

chronic like we would, and then demonstrate how 

many blow-outs or --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- these incidents could have been 

versus, you know, and what the potential exposure 

could have been in a blow-out. Of course, you 

know, putting a cap on the air concentration 

would be a little bit difficult I think, but -- 

but what could -- what could have been the 

maximum amount in air, given these incidents, and 

still have that urine sample -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That -- you know, it would -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

that would help my life. It would really 

simplify --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- my write-up a great deal 

because this is a very significant issue as we 

have raised it. And if we can have a calculation 

that says, you know, with once every two weeks 

and you have a bioassay once in three months or 

six months and you assume a chronic intake, they 

look pretty much the same. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And the other reason this -- this 

is important is --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And I -- I agree, they probably 

will. 

 MR. GRIFFON: The other reason that's important I 

think is 'cause, you know, part of the CATI 

interview process is were you involved in any 

incidents or accidents. These people remember 

these kind of blow-out things. 

DR. NETON: Sure, yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: They tell you about them and then 

they say well, you didn't account for that, you 

know --

DR. NETON: Well, right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- so --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

DR. NETON: I think there's a blanket statement 

in all the dose reconstructions to say we 

evaluated those and our model is -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- more generous but -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: But it's -- yeah. They see that as 

boilerplate language that's like yeah, they 

didn't really -- yeah. So --

DR. NETON: So -- okay. You've got a fair handle 

on that, Dave? 'Cause Dave's going to have to 

help me with this. 

MR. ALLEN: Do you want some sort of hypothetical 

type of --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, with some-- somebody that 

worked in Plant 4 --

DR. NETON: I would take a case. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Just take a case. Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Let's take a guy who we modeled and 

did his integrated chronic exposure for four or 

five years and say okay, let's assume that he had 

some blow-outs -- that was involved in incidents 

and show how --

MR. ALLEN: Use his urinalysis and model it 

chronic and then model it chronic with a number 

of --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

DR. NETON: Of acutes to --

MR. ALLEN: -- acutes --

DR. NETON: -- show what happened -- 

 MR. ALLEN: -- (unintelligible) with it? 

DR. NETON: Right. And that would effectively 

drop the chronic down over those periods because 

you can't --

MR. ALLEN: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

MR. ALLEN: Yeah, we can --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: I'm trying to think whether I already 

have that. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: Okay. 

DR. NETON: But that would be a -- I think that 

would be a very compelling example to show that -

- because we've been saying this repeatedly for a 

while now, and I've always felt that we -- we've 

done a good job saying that it's in there. You 

know, it's -- it's actually covered. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But I agree that the frequency of 

the blow-outs actually, in the case of blow-outs, 

it makes -- makes the -- would make the 

difference very small in any case. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

DR. NETON: Right. Yeah, I mean -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But they're more -- much more 

frequent than the bioassay. 

DR. NETON: Right. Right, but you know, if there 

are -- if there are 365 blow-outs in a year, then 

you've got -- the chronic covers blow-outs 

because every year -- every day you've got 365 

acute intakes that are covered. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. This large particle 

ingestion business, you said that you are 

evaluating that or not evaluating? I don't 

remember. That's the item that's under 

incidents. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. This is -- this has -- this is 

- has more to do generically with the ingestion 

model that we're using. This is not just a 

Mallinckrodt issue, I believe. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

DR. NETON: I'm going to need to get back to you 

on this. I think -- you know, our statement is 

that if you're using urine samples, it's -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

DR. NETON: -- it's somewhat covered. But I 

don't know. Dave, unless you can answer this, I 

-- we've gone through this for the Bethlehem 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

Steel analysis, as well, and I just don't 

remember exactly where we ended up on the logic 

path on this. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now, in regard to the urine 

samples, how do you partition between the 

ingestion and the inhalation because you've got, 

you know, one -- one datapoint (unintelligible) 

notes with different metabolic implications. 

MR. ALLEN: We almost always assume it's 

inhalation, which gives you a higher dose than 

the ingestion --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is that -- is that generally 

true, because I haven't done that. 

DR. NETON: I think inhalations always in general 

are going to give you a higher dose. 

MR. ALLEN: For uranium definitely, and I think -

-

 DR. MAKHIJANI: For all organs --

MR. ALLEN: Yeah, because the --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- including colon and so on? 

 MR. GRIFFON: And then you'd say -- yeah. And 

then my understanding, from what you've done on 

other cases, is that you take the most 

conservative class going backwards and going 

forwards, right? So it could -- you could switch 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

classes. 

MR. ALLEN: No, we don't do that -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Never do that? 

DR. NETON: We -- we try to at least be 

scientifically consistent. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. I thought -- I thought 

in some cases you were saying that you -- 

DR. NETON: No, we tried both -- you know, we try 

the most conservative approach. But once we pick 

a pathway --

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. NETON: The only place we really diverge from 

that is -- is an external exposure when we assume 

a chronic exposure for neutrons and an acute 

exposure for photons, even though they were in 

the same batch, but that's because of the DDREF -

- or the -- yeah, the DDREF. 

 MR. GRIFFON: DDREF. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So this -- this ingestion 

dose, as it is ingestion of large particles, 

comes in only when you're using air data for 

inhalation because then you've got a separate 

item to account for, rather than when you're 

using bioassay data. 

DR. NETON: Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134

 DR. MAKHIJANI: When assuming just one pathway 

for --

DR. NETON: Bioassay data is an integration of 

all your -- your ingestions and we pick the most 

conservative pathway. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So that -- that kind of 

limits the impact of this comment for 

Mallinckrodt as opposed to say Bethlehem Steel. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Internal dose we'll skip 

for today. Surrogate worker data I think we've 

dealt with. It was corrected. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Surrogate worker data -- yeah, so 

this -- I think a lot of this next page, page 8, 

really deals with the use of air concentration 

data --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- which we've dealt with and 

kind of bumped and you're going to send us a 

little explanation of various categories. And if 

there are very, very few cases maybe you'll just 

say that and outline some approaches for us. 

DR. NETON: That would be my hope. Yeah. And 

the solubility thing I think was a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

misunderstanding of -- of the table, in a way. I 

think there's a table that talks about type M, 

and it wasn't our intent that those be type M. 

They were examples. If it were type M, here's 

what it would be. That needs to clearer in the -

- the profile. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: How will I know all that had been 

cleared up? 

 MS. BLOOM: This is on the type M and type S 

issues? 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: That's actually -- happens in Task 5. 

DR. NETON: Well, no, but there -- there is a 

statement -- there's a table that -- that 

generated this comment that is a table of 

potential intakes. I think it's all Table 29. 

No, that's Table 29 -- there's a table that has -

- that used bioassay data in limited degree to 

come up with intakes. And they were -- they 

assumed type M and it says at the bottom. The 

footnote -- the footnote on the bottom of the 

table says use type M and -- and Janet -- 

discussing it with Janet, it was her -- her 

attitude that well, if the dose reconstructor 

knows it's type M this is what you've got. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

Clearly it's not applicable if you're doing a 

type class Y -- a type S. So we just need to 

make that clearer because there are other 

sections of the TBD that clearly state that you 

use the most claimant-favorable approach. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It's Table 28. 

DR. NETON: Table 28, that makes sense. And so 

that table was generated all based on -- on type 

M. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So that -- that 

explanatory correction then -- 

DR. NETON: Right. It will -- it will be -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that's on the --

DR. NETON: -- yeah, explanatory correction is in 

the profile. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So normally you are going -- you 

-- in IMBA you use the most claimant-favorable 

solubility. 

DR. NETON: Unless you really --

 MS. BLOOM: Of the choices. 

DR. NETON: Of the choices. Unless you know 

pretty definitively what the person -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- was working with and then we would 

use the actual case. Although in practice we 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

rarely end up doing that, I think. 

MR. ALLEN: We can generally narrow down credible 

cases (unintelligible) but -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, but, you know, in some way -- 

MR. ALLEN: Sometimes it's (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: Yeah, it's hard enough to know where 

a person worked let alone know exactly what the 

soluble material was. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: In -- in many of the cases it's 

actually remarkable how -- in Mallinckrodt it's 

remarkable how detailed a record does exist about 

-- about --

DR. NETON: Yeah. Some of these --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- jobs. I mean I think it is 

quite remarkable. 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Some of the long DOE files have a 

lot of information in them. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask -- stopping at Table 28 

for a second -- because I -- and I -- we've been 

through this table many -- I've got all the marks 

on this table. But there's a number of cases by 

each one of these. Is that the number of case -- 

number of -- what is that, number of cases? 

DR. NETON: That's the number of cases that were 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

evaluated given those numbers. That's not the 

total number. I mean those were selected cases -

-

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

DR. NETON: -- so those are not --

 MR. GRIFFON: Those are the ones that had good 

urinal-- or -- or, as you described it before, 

fairly uniform or -- a good set of urinalysis 

data, right? 

DR. NETON: Yeah, and that's what -- Janet picked 

those and she could speak better to what those 

were. 

 MS. BLOOM: I would guess that they probably 

worked for a long enough period and had enough 

data that you could indeed think you were 

modeling them. 

DR. NETON: But see, my -- my -- my opinion is 

that that table is going to be of limited use in 

the profile -- in the reconstructions because I 

would go with more of a co-worker data, you know, 

of the sample set looking at the urine data. We 

haven't done that yet necessarily. 

 MS. BLOOM: No, that's on the schedule 

(unintelligible) get there. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Co-worker meaning -- rather than 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

surrogate, you would -- you would select people 

that --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- you knew had the same job title 

or worked in the same area or -- 

DR. NETON: Groups of people or something like 

that, yeah, and say okay here's -- that's what 

that kind of is, I suppose --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so it makes sense. 

DR. NETON: -- but it needs to be fleshed out. 

think there are more -- there are more data there 

than what -- what is in there. 

 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause that's the way I saw this 

was -- was co-worker -- surrogate. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: After -- after this correction -- 

I mean are you going to calculate it in different 

solubilities, type M and type S, or are you going 

to just leave it as it is or -- I don't 

understand how --

 MS. BLOOM: For the co-worker data -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- this will be used -- actually 

be used. 

 MS. BLOOM: -- when we actually do the whole coworker data analysis, we take the urine data. We 

do fits to that using M or S and come up with 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

140 

intakes for each of those situations, and then 

the intakes are available for dose reconstructors 

to assign. And so they would choose either M or 

S based on the fit and based on their organ of 

concern. But you'll have a different intake for 

M than you would for S. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And so this particular table is 

not going to be used or will need another -- like 

a 28-A and 28-B that will actually be used -- I'm 

not understanding. 

 MS. BLOOM: My sense is that this will be 

replaced. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. With? 

 MS. BLOOM: Unless I -- unless there's something 

I don't know about this table, my sense is that 

it -- it will be replaced when we do the fullblown analysis. 

DR. NETON: But again a lot -- how much work we 

put in this depends on how many people we don't 

have bioassay records for (unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so that is the starting 

point. I think this flows -- 

DR. NETON: It's all flowing from these -- these 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141

 MR. GRIFFON: -- these sites or these steps for 

you to outline, though, is going to be critical 

for us because, you know, the -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- we can't leave St. Louis saying 

well, we're waiting to see this other piece -- 

DR. NETON: No. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, fleshed out. We need 

to know at least generally -- you know, not that 

you would do it on -- which cases you would use 

certain techniques, but that these are the 

techniques and here's how we -- and -- and like 

for this kind of thing, and we're -- we're -- you 

know, and you can demonstrate that I can identify 

who a Plant 6 generic worker is. And to take --

to take that a little further, and I can identify 

what kind of raffinate -- potential raffinate 

exposures that group of people, you know 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think the fact that -- that air 

data are -- you know, that so -- so many workers 

have bioassay data. Now I've actually looked at 

many records myself, you know, I have much more 

practical input. 

Okay. So this question of survivor claimants -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

you know, there are survivor claimants. Here 

they are, no job data and so on, so in those 

cases I -- I guess you would apply the default 

procedures at that --

DR. NETON: Pretty much like that one we did for 

the uterine cancer. There was no job title, 

although we knew the person worked there and we 

took -- at least in this case, it was 

noncompensable. We took the average at a highest 

10 TLD film badge measurements for those years 

and then took the highest air concentration 

measurement in the plant and applied it. That 

was not compensable. It -- it may be a little 

different at this -- if it put it over 50 

percent, but we would probably refine it to a 

certain extent but, you know, you get to a 

certain point where you can't refine it any more. 

And if it's over 50 percent, it's over 50 

percent. It just -- it's a -- it's an artifact 

of this program, the way it's set up, that the 

people with the poorest monitoring records end up 

getting some pretty high doses because we can't 

defend doing otherwise. That's just the way it 

works out. I mean that's the way the program was 

-- was set up. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There are a couple other things I 

know that are in the fine print of this, and then 

I have a question from I think Mr. B. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: They -- the TBD mentions that 

there was uranyl fluoride that was produced 

there, so -- but there are no dates and there are 

no -- there's a little bit that was done there 

and then there's no more information. And we 

also know that recovered uranium from -- well, 

the document that we have, we don't know -- that 

said recovered uranium from Hanford went to 

Mallinckrodt or Oak Ridge. Now I don't know how 

to interpret that, but -- or what period or how 

many workers it might apply to, and so we know 

these two -- there's this recycled uranium -- and 

this isn't like the tank that -- the U Plant 

recycling that the big reports are about after 

the recycling started at -- at Hanford with the 

tank wastes. This is before the tank wastes 

started to be recycled through U Plant. This is 

1950 when I guess it must have been the redocs* 

plant that they were recovering uranium from and 

the orange oxide was sent to Oak Ridge -- or 

uranyl nitrate was sent to Oak Ridge and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

Mallinckrodt. I don't know. So how do we -- how 

do we nail down these things, because I think 

that -- that you -- you did look at this. 

There's no documentation. We have indication 

that these materials went to Mallinckrodt or were 

produced there, so how are we going to address 

that? 'Cause now you've got different solubility 

questions, too. You've got type F and you've got 

-- yeah, you've got type F with uranyl fluoride. 

DR. NETON: I don't know. I -- I am not aware of 

the document that, you know, you're referring to. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, it says so here in the TBD. 

I can give you the page. I can show you the 

(unintelligible). 

 MS. BLOOM: For the uranium, the (unintelligible) 

uranium that they're processing, we're assuming 

things are in equilibrium, that they're being -- 

getting the thorium 230, the radium 226, the 

actinium, and the protactinium. If you've got 

recycled uranium, the radionuclides that you 

would be adding onto that, my sense is that if it 

sat for any time, you're going to be worried 

about neptunium 237, plutonium 239, and 

technetium 99. And those are going to be 

insignificant in terms of dose compared to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

assigning the equilibrium radionuclides instead. 

You know, you're not -- because you're going to 

assign an equal amount of thorium 230. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That -- that might be right. In 

this case, the way it's set up, it may not 

matter. 

 MS. BLOOM: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: But I -- I think saying -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- so why bother with the other -- 

 MS. BLOOM: -- that that's a bounding... 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think you're right about that 

because normally we don't think of adding the 

radium and the thorium when you're processing UO3. I think you're right about that. Mark, would 

you agree as a neptunium expert? 

 MR. GRIFFON: That's a pretty good -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think that's --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. So -- and then 

there's the -- on the page -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: Very good. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you know, the less issues 

there are hanging there -- and some of these 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

issues are kind of -- probably small in terms of 

time frame and workers, but then if you have to 

say you don't know, then -- then you don't know 

what to do with it. But I think I agree with the 

answer. 

Page 18, page 29, so now we have UO2F2, the 

recycled uranium is gone away. So it produced 

apparently UO2F2 to add to the bomb to slow down 

the process thermally, resulting in a better 

separation of slag (unintelligible). And then 

there's a table in Section 6.1 that actually has 

UO2F2, says it has to be assumed as type F 

material and I agree with that. But the question 

is when do you ever assume that and what do you 

do with it? 

DR. NETON: You're on page 18 you're talking 

about? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, the first out of four 

references to UO2F2. One is on --

DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) graph on page 18. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- page 18. I also found another 

one. There are actually two. There's another 

reference in our review. And then on page --

page 9 in the bottom there, they say there's no 

information about production of the UO2F2 at the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

-- last paragraph, first line of the last 

paragraph. The supplied uranyl nitrate can be 

ignored, but it said what UO2F2 was. And then 

the last reference is on page 103 where it simply 

lists the solubilities of the various kinds of 

uranium to be assumed. I don't know what -- how 

we propose to handle that. I don't know where it 

was produced. 

DR. NETON: They were adding --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) not in large 

quantities. 

DR. NETON: Right. They were adding it to the 

bomb --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- to slow down the process. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: You know, there may be technical 

literature from the time on the subject, but I 

haven't kept that. 

DR. NETON: I don't know. 

MR. ALLEN: If they're adding it to the bomb, 

they're adding to -- it just said -- I lost it 

already, but it said something about small 

amounts. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it did say small amounts. 

MR. ALLEN: You're talking about a small amount 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

of type F in and amongst a lot of type M. I'm 

not sure how much difference that's going to 

make. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Can we address that in some way 

by assuming a few percent or something? 

MR. ALLEN: Yeah. The bomb I think would 

generally -- I'm not sure what size they're 

talking --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, didn't they make a 

difference? 

MR. ALLEN: -- it may be several hundred pounds 

of UF-4. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dave, wouldn't it make a 

difference to some organs? 

MR. ALLEN: Depending on the mode of the intake. 

From urinalysis, very little for a systemic 

organ. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I agree with that. 

MR. ALLEN: And lower for lung. Or from an 

intake it would be -- the F would give you a 

higher dose for systemic organs. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

MR. ALLEN: But again, it's going to be a 

percentage --

DR. NETON: How much higher? Because once it's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

systemic, it's exactly the same. All you're 

talking about is the different -- 

MR. ALLEN: From an airborne intake. From 

urinalysis it's not going to make much 

difference. 

DR. NETON: So but even from an airborne intake 

if you inhale it and so it clears from the lung 

more rapidly than type M, you get the incremental 

dose based on the differential and the clearance 

rates. Is that -- am I missing something? 

MR. ALLEN: Yeah. There's some amount of type M 

that ends up being coughed up and swallowed, 

whereas type F is almost an injection. 

DR. NETON: Okay. So there's a -- there's that 

deposition --

MR. ALLEN: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so this is -- again this -- 

we're in the same kind of thing that if you're 

going back on bioassay you're okay, but if you 

are -- if you're using air data, then you have 

more issues. So how many (unintelligible) you 

are using, et cetera, et cetera so it may be put 

into that same bin. 

DR. NETON: Right, but it --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

MR. ALLEN: Type F? I'm looking real quick here. 

The default model for type F is a 100-day lung 

removal rate. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Hundred days? 

MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. A hundred per day is the 

rate. The type M you have the same removal rate 

for the rapid fraction, which is ten percent. So 

if this -- basically if we assume it was all UF-4 

and ten percent of it's going to be removed at 

the type F rate, so unless it's getting into the 

higher -- you know, into the high single digits, 

it's probably not going to make any difference at 

all. It's just lost in the round-off, 

essentially. 

DR. NETON: That's good -- that's good 

information. So ten percent assumes it's almost 

-- it's like type F anyway, so -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Yeah. I didn't know that. 

DR. NETON: -- so if you add a couple percent on 

top of that, it's really lost in the -- That's 

built into the GSD of 3. 

MR. ALLEN: (Unintelligible) virtually the same 

model dose. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Those are two kind of don't-know 

issues that were bothering me and so -- good. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

MR. ALLEN: Does that answer that or do you still 

want something --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I think -- I think if 

that's --

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm okay with that ten percent -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- explanation. Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think that that ten percent 

does resolve it, so if you're adding a few -- if 

you've got a significant percentage of type F 

that we modeled anyway then -- yeah. You want to 

take a break? 

DR. NETON: Yeah. Our court recorder would like 

a comfort break and I know I would, as well. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So would I. 

 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:00 

p.m. to 3:25 p.m.) 

DR. NETON: I think we're ready to -- to 

reconvene after our -- our break, and I think 

Mark had a few questions that he wanted to raise. 

So Mark, the floor is yours. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Thanks. All right. Yeah, just a -

- a few points. Hey, somebody stole my notes. 

No. Yeah, really I just wanted to follow up on 

M. I think we discussed we discussed this some 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

this morning -- on the record and off the record 

I think we've discussed this. But a lot of these 

cases -- well, let's see. I guess the question I 

had was on the -- and this involves the 

urinalysis data and the external data for the 

cases that we looked at. There's -- there's one 

question we had when we were at our last meeting 

in Iowa was what fraction of these do you have 

the raw records for, the urine cards or the -- 

you know, that sort of thing and -- and -- as 

opposed to using the CER database data. And the 

-- and I think -- well, maybe I can ask that, 

Jim, just --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, what -- what fraction 

of these cases have you got the original data as 

opposed to a -- a query out of a database. 

DR. NETON: Right. We talked about that. My 

impression -- I have to verify this so I can't 

say this with 100 percent certainty -- is that 

the database itself was coded from the original 

data -- the cards. Now I believe those do exist. 

They'd be in ORAU's possession. I need to verify 

that, though, and I think part of what you were 

addressing this morning was are we going to go 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

back and do some sort of validation of the CER 

database against the cards -- you know, the 

original data to --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- to verify that there was a -- I 

guess an adequate job done in transcribing those 

records. So that's -- my sense is what we're 

talking about, so the short answer is I'll have 

to get back to you. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: But -- but I do think that we -- we 

have access to the original cards. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, will you confirm that, just 

that fact, for me in the next two weeks, that the 

cards exist? Not -- not every last one, you 

know, but that the bulk of the original records 

exist and can be verified? 

DR. NETON: Right. I will do that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And have you -- have you tried to -

- for the unusual cases where you do have standin copies of the cards, have the dose 

reconstructors cross-walked the raw data or do 

they just tend to use the CER output data? 

 MS. BLOOM: They should be using all the data. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BLOOM: I looked at one thing -- it wasn't 

one that was done, but I did notice as I went 

through the cards and the CER data that -- that 

it is important to look at it all so you're sure 

what you're reading. 

DR. NETON: Right. And I -- I think that's true. 

I went and looked at selected cases, certainly 

not a representative sample but four or five, and 

where there was a DOE submittal, it did match 

what was on the CER database, but the dose 

reconstructors are supposed to use all the 

records that are available and they shouldn't a 

priori assume that the CER database is the -- is 

it, because there honestly could be more data in 

there than in the CER. Or conversely, there's 

data that might not match. I mean I --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- I don't know they're going to that 

extent, though. I mean I think preferentially 

they should use the data that's in the DOE 

submittal because that's why we go to the extent 

to ask the DOE. You know, every case that we 

ever got, if it's a DOE facility we'll say -- 

we'll ask them to submit the original record that 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

they have on the person. I was pretty insistent 

on that early on because I thought the DOE had an 

obligation to provide us what they have and not 

just rely on these certain epi databases but... 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. ROESSLER: When Arjun writes his report after 

you give him this information, will we be able to 

get a copy of that before the Board meeting? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. (Unintelligible) schedule, 

as I've discussed it with John Mauro, is 

somewhere I guess around the 20th -- or 18th I 

will have a draft for internal review and check, 

around the 20th, and we hope to have a -- a 

version for the Board meeting to you latest by 

the first of July, so it would be before the 

Board meeting --

DR. ROESSLER: Before we go. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- but not much before. I --

I'll try to get it done as soon as I -- as much 

as I can before that but given (unintelligible) -

-

DR. ROESSLER: Well, I've kind of interrupted 

Mark's train of thought, then I have a question 

probably for Paul. What is the plan for the 

Board meeting -- not so much whether we travel on 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

the 4th of July or not but once we get there what 

is the agenda and how -- how are we going to 

address --

 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- and -- and actually I've not 

had a chance to -- I've got to discuss this with 

Lew and look at the time frame. I only learned, 

as you did, that the time frame was finalized for 

St. Louis just -- I guess yesterday. 

DR. ROESSLER: But we are going to obviously take 

up the Mallinckrodt question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. 

DR. ROESSLER: -- and then will there be other 

things -- what -- on what day will that be and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't --

DR. ROESSLER: You don't know that yet. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I do not know the answer to 

that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think we --

 DR. ZIEMER: The -- the Mallinckrodt thing has 

got to be -- we -- we're going -- 

DR. ROESSLER: That's why we're going to be in 

St. --

 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to have to have time to 

hear from the petitioners again, and from the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

public again. All of those things have to 

happen. We're -- I'm sure we're going to hear 

from Congressional delegation folks that'll be 

there again, so --

 MR. GRIFFON: I think we do need a -- a chance 

for subcommittee -- we were talking about this 

earlier --

 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) Mark and I were 

talking --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- about the subcommittee and if -- 

if we can work it out in terms of the schedule, 

we probably would -- if we need a subcommittee 

meeting, we'll probably do that the first 

afternoon and then use the next two days for the 

DR. ROESSLER: Okay. But it wouldn't be before 

the first afternoon, the subcommittee meeting? 

It would be, at the earliest, the -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Because of the holiday it's very 

difficult for -- I can't get there before middle 

of -- before noon. I don't think Mark will be 

able to, or not too much before noon. I know 

others are not going to be --

DR. ROESSLER: Because we're being asked to make 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

our travel arrangements and I just -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. ROESSLER: -- wondered what to -- okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So I'm -- I'm being somewhat vague, 

but it -- it remains to be fleshed out and -- 

DR. ROESSLER: I think you've answered -- 

DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 

DR. ROESSLER: -- the question I had on it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Ziemer, since I'm the only 

one here from SC&A -- Joe is not here -- I -- I 

should ask on his behalf if -- do you plan to 

have Y-12 on the agenda? Because I know Joe is, 

you know, working pretty hard -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I think --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- on that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think we're going to determine -- 

we need to make sure that we are able to do 

closure on Mallinckrodt. We have to do closure 

on the first 20 cases. They've been carried 

along for a while. I think we would like to get 

the first round of the next 18 on the agenda. We 

have the issue of addressing the -- the 

procedures review. I suspect that -- I -- I'm 

not sure where we'll be on Y-12. I'm -- I'm sure 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

NIOSH would like to push that forward and -- 

DR. NETON: We're proceeding as if we would -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- we will do the evaluation of Y-12 

at the next meeting but -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- I don't set the agenda, but I know 

from my perspective, the technical end, we are 

moving forward with the Y-12 evaluation. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And I think we asked SC&A to 

expedite that for that reason because we thought 

we --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, be an overage. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: People are kind of going flat-out 

and maybe they don't need to, and if they don't 

need to actually, it would be nice if they knew 

or if they -- but I -- I -- I know that -- that -

- I just got an e-mail from Joe this morning or 

last night, both planning a schedule review, 

production --

DR. NETON: Part -- part of the issue was that -- 

and we had talked about this in another setting, 

I forget where, that the Y-12 evaluation report 

covers a very early period only of Y-12. So if 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

the profile review is being conducted for 

information related to the evaluation for it, 

then it's a very finite, specific time period 

and, you know, if SC&A is really having trouble 

because they're trying to do the entire document, 

then maybe they need to -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Do part of that --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- do that part first. 

DR. NETON: I think there may have been some 

communications to that effect. I don't know, I'm 

not --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't know if SC&A is having 

trouble or not, I'm just saying that I'm not 

involved intimately at this stage. I'm not 

involved at this stage. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think Lew's been coordinating that 

with John --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think so. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- but insofar as we can have -- 

what -- what we don't want to have is a situation 

similar to what developed in Iowa where we think 

we're ready to go and there's something else out 

there that needs to be addressed. And if -- I 

think if NIOSH believes we're ready to go and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

SC&A -- SC&A has had a chance to do a review and 

-- and also that in that review there are not 

major issues hanging out there that would prevent 

us from coming to closure, because that could -- 

that --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- also becomes an issue. So we'd 

have -- we'd have to have a -- hopefully you 

would have a chance to -- to get feedback again 

before you came to the Board with that, and I 

know -- I don't know how that's going as far as 

Joe is concerned. 

DR. NETON: Well, I -- I just spoke to Stu 

earlier this afternoon, and -- and Joe was 

actively trying to put together a conference call 

with us. And I believe -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: So you could in fact do that. 

DR. NETON: -- I left Stu with the impression 

that we could accommodate that call next week 

sometime --

 DR. ZIEMER: Then it sounds like --

DR. NETON: -- probably early next week. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'll be ready to go 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, Dr. Ziemer, actually the -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

this conference call is to answer the questions. 

It's not to look at a draft. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So we are --

 DR. ZIEMER: We're not that --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we're not at the draft stage 

yet. 

DR. NETON: All right. Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So part -- part of the answer to 

that may depend on where SC&A ends up, also. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I think -- I think Joe was 

planning to --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- submit something. I just 

wanted to clarify, in view of what you said, 

whether Y-12 was going to be discussed. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I think our intent is to 

have it on there as long as we're -- we're -- 

everybody is --

DR. NETON: My understanding is that the portion 

or the years that the petition is being 

evaluated, there is nothing in the profile, so it 

should be a pretty simple review. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It would be pretty straightforward 

then. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

DR. NETON: I -- I would think. The profile is 

essentially silent because there is no 

information in that time period. So one could 

conclude from that what they want but -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. I understand what you're 

saying. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can I -- just a couple more things 

on the database question. I mean I think you 

have -- I guess it would be useful for me at the 

meeting to -- I mean obviously at this point you 

can't do a sampling and val-- you know, any kind 

of sampling validation method, but you have some 

cases or claims in your hand that have these 

records and, you know, you're saying that that's 

the procedure, that you would normally go to 

those records. You also have the database 

printout. Maybe -- maybe you can report back to 

us on were there any discrepancies when that was 

done. You know, you looked at this many cases 

and -- I don't know if the DR people would keep 

that kind of information necessarily, but even if 

you did it for a handful of those -- 

DR. NETON: Well, I mean what you're saying is if 

we go through and look where we have some pretty 

voluminous DOE submittals and -- and pore through 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

those things and then go look at the CER reports 

and -- and determine are there inconsistencies or 

not. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: I think that's -- that's doable. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And I think Arjun and -- and I, to 

a lesser extent, but I think Arjun's done some of 

that, so --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Very little, but --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- what little I have --

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't have as much access to raw 

data. 

DR. NETON: It looked to be -- and -- and maybe -

-

 MR. GRIFFON: It looks okay, what I've seen so 

far, you know. 

DR. NETON: Maybe some of that description that I 

-- I just forwarded you guys also might -- might 

help in the --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that would be good, too. 

DR. NETON: -- mechanics. It's -- it's --

essentially addresses the mechanics of how they 

went about --

 MR. GRIFFON: Assembling the data. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

DR. NETON: -- they inherited this dataset and 

then they went about assembling it, and much of 

it speaks to how they came up I think with job 

titles and such. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Actually -- actually there was 

one -- one discrepancy that I found. I checked 

two files. One was with Mark yesterday when I 

was sitting in Stu's office. And I didn't find 

any discrepancy in numbers but I found an issue 

with the dates. The original --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- record had lots of dates 

crossed out. It was quite a messy record. And 

then we see -- our record had this person in lots 

of different locations but with the same set of 

dates, which didn't correspond to the original 

record and I don't know what happened there, 

whether the original record was written over by 

whoever compiled a -- I don't know what happened 

to that piece --

DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- of data. I'll tell you that 

case number. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is that case (unintelligible)? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, that's not --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166

 MR. GRIFFON: Don't tell us the number, but if 

you could write it up there -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, you can just provide me that 

number, I'd love -- I'd like to check it out. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I will provide you that 

number. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And then there -- there's -- you 

know -- in -- in looking at this, the database 

data that I've seen so far, there's just a couple 

outstanding questions which I think you -- you 

raised the one, which was the airborne 

concentrations being zeroes from '53 to '55. 

Almost -- maybe not all of them but a lot of that 

DR. NETON: Many, most --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- if not all of them. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. And what happened -- you 

know, what happened there. And there's another 

question I had. Maybe there's a good reason for 

this, but I -- I don't know it. In the film 

data, 19-- there's -- there's a bunch of entries 

for 1976 and many of them are -- are real high 

data points -- 22, 23, 19, 18 rem penetrating. A 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

lot of them also have monitoring months in excess 

of 52. I don't understand that. 

 MS. BLOOM: Monitoring weeks. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Monitoring weeks. I'm sorry, 

monitoring weeks in excess of 52 and -- 

DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and there's a gap between '66 

and '76 and I -- I -- I was -- I don't know if 

there -- if there was some kind of clean-up 

process in '76 or if this was -- I -- I guess I 

just --

DR. NETON: Yeah --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- would ask you --

DR. NETON: -- I need -- I need -- I'll look into 

that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- is there any explanation to 

that. 

DR. NETON: I really don't know. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And then the last thing I really 

had, and you can look at those cases probably, is 

this -- the laboratory validation question and 

whether we -- you know, because this is an 

outstanding question that was raised at the last 

meeting, and I'm wondering if we're going to have 

any more information. I think you asked Janet to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

go look under the Christmas tree a little more or 

whatever, but --

DR. NETON: Right. I --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- I'm hopeful we're going to find 

something. I mean Janet says that she didn't 

find anything but I -- I don't -- I'm not sure 

she was looking from that exact perspective. And 

maybe she was, but we're going -- we're going to 

go back and --

 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe there's something in -- 

DR. NETON: -- look at these dates -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- some of the more generic HASL 

audit records or something that might -- 

DR. NETON: -- right, exactly. There may --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- the case or --

DR. NETON: -- be something in the EML 

documentation --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- I don't know, but -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- we will look wherever we can 

because I mean it sounds like it's -- it's going 

to be an important issue. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not -- I'm not trying to add 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

work, but these are some -- I mean part -- part 

of my harping on this is this, this question for 

the public of the independence of this. And, you 

know, it's -- it doesn't go without notice to 

many -- many people in the public that ORAU did 

the epi study as well as -- as they're doing the 

dose reconstruction. So this question of -- or 

need to sort of independently -- independently 

validate against raw data I think is even more 

important for that reason. 

DR. NETON: That's fair. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: We -- we'll look at it. I think part 

of the reason ORAU was a strong contender when 

they got the contract was because they had access 

to this data. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I know. 

DR. NETON: But I do understand what you're 

saying that --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's a double-edged -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, I'd like to raise a few 

questions, looking forward. I won't be here 

tomorrow. You'll be discussing external dose, 

and I don't want the answer the questions but I 

would like to know if you had the answers to the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

questions. It seemed to me that most of these on 

the list of eight -- a lot of them are simply 

straightforward do you have this or have you 

found this or that. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But have you had a chance to look at 

these and --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and you do have answers -- one 

way or the other. I'm not asking you what the 

answers are, but have you -- have you been able 

to address all of these issues or are there some 

that you have found it difficult to wrap your 

hands around? 

DR. NETON: Most of these we have some answer to 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

DR. NETON: I think with the exception of maybe 

number 3, which is -- is in process. Now we're 

not -- I don't know that we're going to have the 

exact answer and --

 DR. ZIEMER: But you're --

DR. NETON: -- we won't have an answer tomorrow. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- but you're addressing it. 

DR. NETON: But the approach would be available 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

to be discussed and -- and what-not. Otherwise I 

-- we have answers for most of these. A couple 

of them we have questions on because the 

questions don't appear consistent with the logic 

of, you know, the nonlinearity issue and optical 

density. I mean we have calibration curves that 

account for that. We're not clear on -- on the 

exact issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I would have assumed that, 

too, but --

DR. NETON: Yeah, when Hans is here -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- we need to resolve that because -

-

 MR. GRIFFON: That's Hans's specialty. 

DR. NETON: Right, uh-huh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- optical density curves in fact 

are nonlinear --

DR. NETON: Yeah. I mean that's the reason 

they're called curves. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

DR. NETON: You know, I'm not -- I'm not sure why 

-- why that issue is -- is there, and the same 

issue with the high -- highly variable response 

to energies less than 100 keV. It's welldocumented film over-responds -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

172

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- at very low energies and that's 

accounted for with the calibration. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So you'll have --

DR. NETON: Yeah, so we're going to discuss those 

issues. I just wanted to have someone with a 

little more knowledge of it (unintelligible) 

myself. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, to the extent that I know -- 

I've discussed this with Hans obviously, to some 

extent. To the extent that I know, the 

nonlinearity question is that we only -- we don't 

have original, you know, optical density data. 

We just have the reading. And the other question 

of whether the reading was properly done making 

the nonlinearity occult because apparently in his 

-- in his view that they -- they may not have 

done it properly (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: And -- Greg Macievic, who -- who is -

-got his Ph.D. in external dosimetry -- did his 

dissertation on external dosimetry issues and 

worked at Landauer for a number of years is 

really, really good with this stuff and I -- I'd 

be better -- it'd be better if he were to address 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

DR. ROESSLER: What's his last name? 

DR. NETON: Macievic, M-a-c-i-e-v-i-c. At least 

I think he did his Ph.D. in external dosimetry. 

I know he's -- he's very well versed -- 

DR. ROESSLER: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: -- and he and Tim Taulbee are two 

people that we rely on for external dosimetry 

issues and both Greg and Tim are out today. 

That's unfortunate, but Greg will be here 

tomorrow. And he's -- he's pretty well versed in 

these issues so -- but I think the answer then, I 

think we can provide some -- some discussion for 

all of these. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can -- can I ask you one thing 

before, because I'm -- I'm heading out -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, sure. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- in a few minutes. But -- but 

the database you gave me, I appreciate that, but 

could I get the same database with names on it? 

Just in the next month I'm -- I want to do some -

-

DR. NETON: I think so. Well --

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean it's privacy. I understand 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

that, but we --

DR. NETON: Yeah, it's privacy. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- have access --

DR. NETON: Yeah, right. You guys have access to 

that. Yeah, I think -- do you want a cross-link? 

I mean I'm having a guy work on cross-linking it 

anyways, so I can give you another database that 

you'd have to -- you know, I've got Social 

Security numbers -- how does this work. You've 

got to go to two different databases to match 

them all --

 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) databases, oh, 

it's not... 

 MS. BLOOM: It doesn't exist as one yet. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Doesn't have the name and 

(unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: I can tell you who we have claims for 

and then Socials, but then it's got to be crosslinked. I can -- I'll get you something. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

DR. NETON: And I don't know if it's better for 

you, but I'm having our guy convert it into a 

Excel -- Excel format, as well, because I -- you 

can't do much with Axys as far as the -- at least 

I can't. I'm not good with that so -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175

 MS. BLOOM: Is it small enough to go into Excel? 

DR. NETON: Oh, yeah. Excel -- Excel has 40,000 

lines. 

 MR. GRIFFON: 40,000 lines or 65 --

DR. NETON: Sixty-five or something like that, 

yeah -- some octal number. It's probably 64. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I usually use SAS over top of Axys 

so really I --

DR. NETON: Well, actually -- and that's -- 

matter of fact, the guy I've got working on this 

is a SAS guy so he's doing it all in SAS but -- 

so I can at least do something and feel good 

about it, I'm having it put into Excel for me. 

Some of these Z-score plots and stuff are very 

easy to do in Excel. SAS would do it, but it 

takes some manipulation. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. If he -- if he --

DR. NETON: I'll see --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- have them link quickly I mean if 

it's --

DR. NETON: Well, no. This will be a week or -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. NETON: -- matter of fact, it should be here 

now. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

DR. NETON: That's sad. He only works three days 

a week -- well, two days -- two days something. 

I'm trying to get him to be here more time. 

 MR. GRIFFON: All right. If it looks like it's 

not going to be in -- you know, very timely, just 

send me --

DR. NETON: I'll just send you the whole thing. 

Right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Now did you have -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I have --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- those cases yet --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Let me -- let me start 

with Mr. B. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: He worked at Mallinckrodt and 

then went to Weldon Spring. 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And he was at first a -- you 

know, in the production, electrician, and so on. 

He had one of these roving job descriptions and 

he was monitored. He had film badge data and so 

on. And then he became an office 

(unintelligible) and -- at Weldon Spring. He --

he worked in the office building there and did 

not actually go into the production areas other 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

than once in a while, walking through the 

production areas or something like that. And I 

verified this with him very carefully, and his -- 

the time he stopped -- and you know, the -- the 

Weldon -- as I understand it, the Weldon Spring 

office building was fairly separated from the -- 

from the production areas, much more so than -- 

than in -- in downtown. And I've seen a picture 

of the downtown site from the period 

(unintelligible) and he -- his urine data -- 

urinalysis data from the time he was in the 

office are pretty remarkable because not only 

does he have significant urine concentrations, 

but they also go up for a period, as much as a 

year after. I think the highest urine sample is 

(unintelligible). So this -- the question of 

environmental doses kind of came up in an 

indirect way. I can't now lay my hands on 

another example of this. I had but I don't think 

I made notes at the time. I must have been just 

kind of going through stuff and I noticed 

something and I didn't stop to make notes. But 

there was a worker who was also one of these 

roving workers who was assigned to office work 

for a period in the middle of his work at the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

downtown site and also had nonzero -- you know, 

significant urine data, but I don't remember the 

numbers on that. And so the question came to 

mind is, you know, there's an assumption that 

people who worked in the offices and who were not 

-- who were generally not monitored and who were 

nonproduction workers have low doses. And that 

kind of -- it threw that -- you know, raised 

questions in my mind about environment doses at 

both sites. 

DR. NETON: Well, this guy has 711 pages of DOE -

-

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. It's the hugest DOE file, 

and I think you will find -- 

DR. NETON: You would pick this one for me to 

look at. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, but I think he has the other 

file. He has the other -- I went through it. I 

didn't go through it all. It's -- it's actually 

at the end. 

DR. NETON: I didn't see -- I didn't see the PER 

file. See the only one here is a DOE response. 

There's no (unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Then it -- then it must be toward 

-- it must be toward the end. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

DR. NETON: I've got everything that should be in 

here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no. On that 711-page file -- 

DR. NETON: Oh, I see. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- it's toward the end. And I 

maybe can pull the page number for you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in any event in a case like 

that, that dose still gets accounted for even if 

he's working in the office. Right? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, yeah. Dr. Ziemer, his -- his 

dose calculation is not at issue. The thing that 

kind of -- and he had no idea why I was asking 

him these question at -- so -- so that his 

response would not be biased by that. I met him 

when I went to St. Louis and then I -- this was 

just a follow-up call after I looked at his case. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess my first question for that 

one would be why did they continue to monitor him 

if the practice was not to monitor the office 

workers, too. You know, that's -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: Well, my -- my question is -- I've 

got to look at the dose reconstruction, but did 

we -- we --we should have used his urine data -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't believe it's complete. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

DR. NETON: What's complete? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: His dose reconstruction. 

DR. NETON: It has to be because it's -- oh, I 

see what you're saying. I just assume --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't believe those numbers 

have been done. 

DR. NETON: Oh, okay. You're right, it's not 

done. 

DR. ROESSLER: But that's not the point as it is 

why did he have that -- is that what you're 

asking, why did he have a positive urine -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes --

DR. ROESSLER: -- value when he's working... 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- if he wasn't -- well after he 

started working in the office -- 

DR. ROESSLER: What do you mean by well after? 

 MR. GRIFFON: A year (unintelligible), more than 

a year. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: More than a year. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, more than one year. 

DR. NETON: But this was not at -- at 

Mallinckrodt, it was at Weldon Springs. 

UNIDENTIFIED: What kind of (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) had a body burden 

to start with. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181

 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) didn't seem like 

it could have just been (unintelligible). 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But it went out looking 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I've seen -- I've seen people's 

excretion go up. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. I mean theoretically, if you 

look at the plutonium levels -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: After -- after a single exposure. 

mean it --

DR. NETON: Yeah. No, but actually if you look 

at the plutonium curves -- I don't know about 

uranium, but many years after exposure there is 

an increase, and I don't know what's driving that 

in the -- in the (unintelligible). 

DR. ROESSLER: It's coming out of the bone for 

some reason. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's -- there 's -- it's 

recompartmentalizing or -- or it's -- 

 DR. NETON: Yeah, maybe --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- changing its chemical 

(unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: -- all these compartments converted 

at one point to where they -- because it actually 

does, the intake retention fraction goes up at 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

some point -- not a lot -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, for a little while. 

DR. NETON: For a little while and then it drops 

right down. But that -- that might not be the 

issue here. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: I guess without looking through all 

700 pages to see what this guy did -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no. This is toward the end -

-

DR. NETON: -- because I just happened to flip 

through there and I see he was a night 

maintenance supervisor or something listed on 

there. I don't know whether that was -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Could you write the name on that one? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Do you have a name? Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I got it here. 

 MS. BLOOM: Or actually, can you plug back into 

that, or no? 

DR. NETON: I suppose I could but then it would 

bother Ray. Yeah. I think --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It -- it just -- this is -- I 

don't have answer to this. It just raised -- 

DR. NETON: Right. It's a good question. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It raised a question in my mind. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

I did write down the numbers for this one and 

then I came across another one. It may be the 

same explanation for both of them. 

DR. NETON: Let me see what this guy claimed. 

Mallinckrodt Chemical downtown St. Louis, 

electrician, worked in all areas with uranium 

(unintelligible), downtown maintenance supervisor 

Weldon Springs. I mean that's not -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then -- no, no. It was for 

the subsequent job title of data -- data 

something. 

DR. NETON: Oh, yeah, but see he went to Weldon 

Springs and he was a maintenance supervisor -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

DR. NETON: -- in and out of all areas, which 

would explain positive bioassay -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. That was after '62. 

DR. NETON: Right. In later years analyzed 

exposure levels and worked with computergenerated exposure notices to employees, worked 

inside electrical furnaces, exposed to 

contaminated dust. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, that was --

DR. NETON: That's something separate. Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So this was -- this was the data 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

processing/data analysis part of his job from '62 

on. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And... 

DR. NETON: So from '62 I don't -- I'd have to 

look at the urine data and see what it means by 

quite variable, but it's possible that if he was 

exposed from '57 to '62 at Weldon Springs -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess not. 

DR. NETON: -- there's no good way, 

unfortunately, to get at these. 

DR. ROESSLER: He could be having positive urine 

for quite some time. 

DR. NETON: Right, it just depends on how 

variable these values are. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, is it okay to say what 

these values were? I have them. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, why not. We're not -- yeah, I 

think --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: His -- his -- at the start of his 

data processing job, he had 14 micrograms per 

liter and then the range of -- of values during 

his data processing was 4 to 25 micrograms, and 

the highest value of 25, if I -- I didn't write 

down the date here -- if I remember correctly it 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

was sometime in 1963. He went to office work in 

mid-1962 and --

 MS. BLOOM: And the values were lower than that 

when he was working in the production areas 

typically? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I didn't -- I didn't write down 

his -- in my notes the production values, but his 

termination urine sample from the production time 

was 14, and then a year after he started office -

- in the next year it was -- the peak was at 25 

in his office period, so it was quite a big jump. 

It was not a small -- it wasn't like a -- 

DR. NETON: Well --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- what you might expect. 

 MS. BLOOM: I don't know about --

DR. NETON: It could -- it could be any number of 

things. I mean it's not uncommon for people to 

change locations. I don't know if the guy moved 

and he's got a well with uranium, natural uranium 

in it. I've seen this happen at -- at Fernald 

and Argonne National Laboratory. I had one guy 

who was positive all the time after his brother 

sent him this special water from someplace out 

west and he drank it. We analyzed it; it was 

like 1000 micrograms per liter uranium. It was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

some health water. It was a brackish-looking 

thing. So I'm not saying that that's the answer 

here, but there's any -- you know, there's a -- 

DR. ROESSLER: Also medications -- I'm not so 

sure about uranium, but medications can do that -

-

DR. NETON: Can affect --

MR. ALLEN: Act like a chelation. 

DR. ROESSLER: I don't know. 

 MS. BLOOM: Plutonium --

DR. ROESSLER: Really? 

MS. BLOOM: -- there was a study that somebody 

started drinking a lot of cranberry juice. 

DR. NETON: It's possible he's had a body burden 

and something changed but -- but you raise a 

valid issue, is this -- is this in any way 

related to his office work and it seems -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- not likely, but if the office 

happened to be in the middle of the controlled 

area somehow -- I mean I don't know where these 

offices are located. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It was in a separate building at 

-- at Weldon Spring, and the reason I kind of 

thought from Weldon Spring to downtown is in 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

downtown -- (unintelligible) I asked, you know, 

and he said it was two or three city blocks from 

production building. And so in downtown clearly 

you have production areas that were much closer, 

you had --

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- you had stuff outside that 

were --

DR. ROESSLER: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- contaminated from the '40s and 

was a much more -- messier situation, and so 

definitely raised a question about -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I really don't -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and it's just question. I 

don't have a hypothesis to offer. 

DR. ROESSLER: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you know, it was a question 

of whether it was environmental dose 

(unintelligible). 

MR. ALLEN: There's any number of things it could 

be without being environmental dose in the -- the 

office there. I mean... 

DR. NETON: Well, in this particular instance, I 

think -- I think the dose reconstruction would be 

done using his data. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

188

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, here. I can tell you where 

they are. It was -- exposure data are early on, 

age 40s, 50s and so on. 

DR. NETON: External exposure -- here we go. 

Yeah, I got it -- '54 to '61 (unintelligible) 

external. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Somewhere, but I can't remember. 

I wish I'd written the page number down. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the generic question is whether 

or not there are contamination levels at Weldon 

Springs that might --

MR. ALLEN: This is off-site? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Or, you know, in the -- in the 

streets, in the offices, in areas right adjacent 

to production areas where, you know, clerks and 

typists and --

 MR. GRIFFON: Administrative areas -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- administrative areas, since in 

-- in downtown the administrative areas were 

close to the -- close to the production area. 

DR. NETON: It's suspicious that he was monitored 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- being in a -- in a --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189

 MR. GRIFFON: That's what makes me --

DR. NETON: -- administrative area. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, unless they -- unless they 

were basing that on finding earlier positive 

results and --

DR. NETON: Right. He could have just -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Follow-up. 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Nowadays people would continue to 

follow someone like that (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: Oh, yeah. 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. Those aren't very large 

results for that time period, though, 'cause... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I --

 MR. GRIFFON: That wouldn't trigger follow-up 

sampling necessarily. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: In any case it's (unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: Yeah, it's --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- question. 

 MS. BLOOM: Curious. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Unless he was still having to roam 

around in the other areas -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah, and maybe he went to -- what is 

it he was doing, dose records -- records or 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

something like that. I don't know whether he -- 

he went and got film badge result-- here we go, 

'59... 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There's a lot of those pages that 

are repeat... 

DR. NETON: Yeah, they are. I've noticed that. 

There's -- I don't know if that's the scanner or 

just... 

 MR. GRIFFON: While you're looking through the 

data, I had another question that just -- that 

Cindy brought to my attention -- just the trigger 

level, if there was a trigger level at 

Mallinckrodt for returning for a follow-up 

bioassay, because I saw a number sample -- and I 

couldn't determine -- and just looking at the raw 

records, it looked as though it was maybe .03 or 

something because then they'd be sampled a couple 

days later where they're usually quarterly or 

even annually. But there -- I think there was 

some kind of trigger. If they exceeded a certain 

value, they'd do -- they'd go back to the 

(unintelligible). 

 MS. BLOOM: I don't recall a specific one from 

Mallinckrodt --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191

 MS. BLOOM: -- but I do think there was 

discussion from some sites about some level that 

they thought (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: Well, there was some -- 

 MS. BLOOM: (Unintelligible) 

DR. NETON: I think -- I think it depends on what 

you're working with. I know at Fernald at one 

point we had a trigger level was based on kidney 

damage. If you happened to be working with the 

very soluble uranium and your result exceeded X -

- I don't remember what that was. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: I want to say it was like .05, 50 

micrograms or something per liter, they would -- 

it would trigger a protein albumin ureo* test, 

and that was based on some default calculation we 

did and showed that, you know, if it was really 

soluble uranium this could have accumulated so 

much X at the no-effect -- above the no-effect 

level of the kidney. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. NETON: I -- I don't know. There was 

actually some NRC guidance I think at one point, 

an NRC -- but that was not until like '87 time 

frame that talked about -- I don't remember. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192

 MS. BLOOM: I do recall seeing something in the 

'50s, but I don't know that it was generically -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I know I've seen it at other 

sites. I wasn't sure what the practice was -- 

 MS. BLOOM: I'll see if I can find that. 

DR. NETON: We can follow up on this, but -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. All right. 

DR. NETON: -- yeah, that's a good, you know -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now take Case A --

(Whereupon, Dr. Ziemer retired from the 

meeting room.) 

DR. NETON: Just let me make a note here. Okay. 

So Case A? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Case A. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: This person started in 1950 so 

had no internal or external monitoring data till 

'55. He had a renal cell carcinoma. His wife 

knew of incident but had no detail, so this is a 

survivor -- also no urinalysis data 

(unintelligible) and a high reading of 58. This 

is obviously a relative dose. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The -- the DOE response, if 

you'll open that and go to page 42 is what my 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

notes indicate (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: Okay. There's some urine data 

starting '60/'61 time frame. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) downtown and 

Weldon Spring. His 58 would be (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: This is what I was talking about. It 

may be -- if he has no data at Mallinckrodt, 

we're getting (unintelligible) urine data -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, he had data at Mallinckrodt, 

but not for the first five years. 

DR. NETON: Right, but -- I don't know, Dave, if 

you could build up some chronic scenario that 

would actually be chronic high and then come back 

-- continue the chronic -- there'd be two chronic 

exposure periods, I guess. How would that work? 

MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure what you're asking. 

DR. NETON: Well, you've got a gap of -- you have 

a gap of three years of data but you have samples 

down in here later on. Could you construct a 

chronic model that would fill in the early gaps 

in these --

MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and the -- the bigger the gap, 

the higher this chronic -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

MR. ALLEN: -- but then that means the shorter 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

that chronic period, so you end up with lesser 

intake. In general you take it out to where it's 

close to the monitoring period of your -- your 

highest intake and there's not a lot, if I recall 

-- a huge difference in the -- 

DR. NETON: Right. But that's my point is -- 

MR. ALLEN: You're getting one thicker urinalysis 

sample, you know, or a set of them -- it -- it 

fairly well locks you in on the intake. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, but that's my point. You'd 

have to have two chronic scenarios in there to do 

that, right? The first one large enough to get 

you down to the first data point, build up, and 

then to sustain that -- 

MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I'm just saying if you take a 

chronic that builds up to that data point, that's 

one thing. But you're saying you want to build 

up higher and then let it come down? That'd be 

your worst case. 

DR. NETON: Right. That's what I'm saying. 

 MS. BLOOM: Uh-huh. 

DR. NETON: You build up a chronic to get you to 

that first point because you really don't know 

anything about this and so you build up this 

large chronic and --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

MR. ALLEN: The -- yeah, I'm saying -- 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: -- it all depends on that -- you've 

got the start date locked in pretty much -- 

DR. NETON: Right, right. 

MR. ALLEN: -- so it all depends on that gap 

between that first urinalysis and the end of the 

chronic. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, the beginning of the chronic 

wouldn't it? Isn't that what -- I'm sorry. 

MR. ALLEN: That -- that time period you know. 

You know the beginning of employment, you know 

the date of urinalysis. 

 MS. BLOOM: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The beginning of employment to 

the first urinalysis, five years. 

MR. ALLEN: Okay. So you -- you got that five 

years you know. The question is, if you assume 

that he's exposed from day one chronically -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so --

DR. NETON: So you've got to do something like 

this to bring it down to there? 

MR. ALLEN: Right. 

DR. NETON: But then this would have to start 

coming in -- I'm not sure what that would -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

196 

MR. ALLEN: What I was just trying to say is if 

you -- you got that curve you're looking at right 

there, but the part that's unknown is the end 

date for that chronic exposure. 

 MS. BLOOM: That chronic intake so it -- 

DR. NETON: Right, right. Yeah, right. 

MS. BLOOM: -- so it just squishes -- 

MR. ALLEN: If you adjust that you find out it 

doesn't make -- it does make a difference, but 

it's not as big as you would think because you 

have competing effects there -- 

DR. NETON: Right. 

MR. ALLEN: -- because if you say it was a fouryear chronic intake and then he was sampled a 

year after that, you know, for your five-year 

period, you get an intake for that four-year 

period. If, on the other hand, you assume he was 

only exposed for that first year of employment 

and then, you know, it got way up there and it 

came down for that urinalysis, it looks like a 

much bigger intake. But in reality, since it's 

only a year, it comes out near the same. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so that's (unintelligible) 

MR. ALLEN: (Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- it seems you've got two 

unknowns so you can't really determine the peak. 

But what you're saying is the peak doesn't 

matter? 

MR. ALLEN: It's the area in the curve that 

matters, not the peak. And the area in the curve 

ends up being -- since you have those competing 

factors there, the area in the curve ends up 

being similar. You know, I'd have to run some 

numbers and they're not -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and the extreme of that is 

if you (unintelligible) -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm not convinced about that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- acute exposure on day one before 

the five years, I think he's still -- you have a 

very small curve --

MR. ALLEN: Right, but the next acute is steep. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- but very small, and then it 

tapers down. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So these are your data points 

here? 

MR. ALLEN: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And if you assume a chronic 

intake that looks like what this person might 

have had during the period of monitoring you'd 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

have something like this, right? 

 MS. BLOOM: You'd start it to, yeah. 

MR. ALLEN: Well, it would build up -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Well, that would be -- but that you 

can't demonstrate is the truth. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, you can't, so what I'm saying 

is if you actually have -- if you use the second 

example that Dave just talked about, the heavy 

exposure in the first year, reaching a big peak 

and then going down, then the area under the 

curve would be much bigger than -- than this in 

the case of chronic (unintelligible) -- 

MR. ALLEN: But -- but the intake ends at the 

peak of that thing. That's how it's sort of 

coming down, right? 

 MS. BLOOM: Yeah, you have to have that stop. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) the end of the 

peak --

MR. ALLEN: So you've got an intake per day for a 

shorter period of time, you multiply it together. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, I --

MR. ALLEN: The intakes end up being similar. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The intake, that's right. So 

this is the curve of the urine -- expected urine 
1 -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

MR. ALLEN: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- not (unintelligible, but the 

integrated intake. 

DR. NETON: Right. 

MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and it's -- like I said, it's 

not exact. There's a hundred scenarios you can 

run --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

MR. ALLEN: -- and get different answers, but 

it's -- they are competing factors there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. But it's like the previous 

thing that we talked about with -- with -- 

 MS. BLOOM: With the little acutes and the 

chronics. 

DR. NETON: There are -- I guess the bottom line 

is there are things you can do and work with that 

dataset to bracket this person's exposure, given 

his monitoring history. 

MR. ALLEN: Right. And you can get different 

answers, but there's some bounding amount there. 

It's just a variable around some mean. 

DR. NETON: And actually I haven't looked at this 

case a little closer, I'm not sure why it's not 

done. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200

 DR. MAKHIJANI: External --

 MS. BLOOM: Is it more than 5,000? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: This person might get -- 

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

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I don't want to comment. 

DR. NETON: I don't know what the result's going 

to be, but there appeared to be a fair amount of 

data to work with here is what I was saying, and 

-- and there's a lot of reasons cases are done 

(unintelligible). 

 MR. GRIFFON: Cindy's fault. 

DR. NETON: I don't know about externals. Did he 

have any? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. (Unintelligible) there's a 

blank, maybe the data were lost for the first 

five years or something. 

DR. NETON: We don't -- we don't want to talk 

about the job title here, but I think -- well, 

again, if we knew the job title here and we could 

position this person somewhere, we've got numbers 

for external based on plant that we could -- we 

could do. I suspect, given this -- this dataset 

as looking at it, the predicted intakes could be 

fairly large -- the data that we're working with 

here. (Unintelligible) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. All right. Now, I can't 

find my notes on Case C, so -- 

MR. ALLEN: There's also a survivor case there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I had that somewhere. 

(Pause) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Let me make an attempt to 

find my notes. Why did I put that up? Oh, this 

-- this -- this thing about work hours comes up a 

lot, and I think -- it's reasonably clear that at 

downtown a 2,000-hour work year is not a good 

default assumption. It really isn't, because 

almost no one we talked to fits that profile and 

it's a source of aggravation because almost no 

one fits that profile. Everybody worked six days 

and I found there were people who said they were 

sleeping at work. You know, when there was clean 

up or rush things, they went to the dispensary. 

And this came up in -- in different accounts, 

independent accounts that the dispensary -- 

DR. ROESSLER: Mark, are you going to call in -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was going to ask if -- can 

I call in in the morning? (Unintelligible) since 

I think we're going to have no Boards 

representing tomorrow. Right? And so yeah, I'll 

call in. Yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202

 (Whereupon, a recess was held from 4:18 p.m. 

to 4:22 p.m., during which Mr. Griffon 

retired from the meeting room.) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I cannot find -- oh, yes. This -

-this work, this -- one of the things that I had 

down in that person's notes, and also throughout 

my notes, is the people did seem to work like 48, 

50, 55-hour weeks. Overtime was very common, six 

days a week was very common. And if there were 

like a default assumption of, you know, a six-day 

week at least -- some. And I think this will 

also only come up when you're actually using air 

monitoring data --

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- so I know it will come up so -

- but it's -- it's not accurate and a source of 

aggravation. So if it's corrected, it will be 

very helpful. 

DR. NETON: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, I had a -- those records I 

was not able to find -- maybe I got his name down 

wrong -- who had a -- an incident reported of -- 

of one of these digester tanks boiling over and 

he had stuff lined up. He had burns all over his 

body and wound up in the hospital. I don't know 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

if you had it. I didn't see a record of an 

incident like that and -- 

DR. NETON: You mean in the profile itself? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, or -- I could not find his 

records so I did not know -- I'll try -- I'll get 

back to you about that. I'll make a note to -- 

 MS. BLOOM: There was a place on the Mallinckrodt 

O drive and -- I believe that's on the O drive 

for Mallinckrodt and I believe this is in the 

dosimetry files, and I did run across a uranium 

burn incident that they were following very 

closely. They were collecting urine samples. 

did this over the weekend so I'm pretty sure it 

was Mallinckrodt that I was looking at, and it 

would have been in one of those site images in 

the dosimetry files. And that may be the same 

person if this was a fairly major incident. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It seemed to have been a very 

major incident and I didn't see reference to it. 

And I mean -- I think in terms of burns, there 

was only this one person involved so there 

wouldn't be a need for it to be in 

(unintelligible) --

 MS. BLOOM: Yeah. No, this was one individual -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- for a file. 

I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204

 MS. BLOOM: -- they were in the hospital. They'd 

gone to the hospital afterwards and they'd 

collected a lot of urine data. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. I -- I think I must have 

gotten his spelling -- name -- the spelling of 

his name wrong because I could not find -- and 

I'm -- I'm pretty sure he said he was a claimant, 

so there's some -- some disconnect there. But 

maybe --

 MS. BLOOM: Did it start with that letter? 

That's what I recall. I'm not sure that that's 

it. 

MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure the first letter of the 

last --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's what I have. 

MR. ALLEN: -- name (unintelligible) Privacy Act. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But I could not -- I could not 

find -- I could not find anything like under that 

name. 

 MS. BLOOM: It's not a name I recall. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I didn't do permutations of 

the spelling. I just have a call in to -- 

 MS. BLOOM: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- try to figure it out and I'll 

-- I'll maybe just communicate it with -- with 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

Jim, or should I cc you? If you'll give me your 

card I --

DR. NETON: CC Cindy too, but yeah, send it to me 

and cc Cindy. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Actually maybe I'll just 

regroup today. My brain is shutting down. 

DR. ROESSLER: My body is shutting down. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I need to regroup and I'll do 

that this evening. 

DR. NETON: May I? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: You didn't find anything under 

that name. 

DR. NETON: There's -- there's two people under 

that name, but neither of them worked at Weldon 

Springs. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. At Mallinckrodt you mean? 

MR. ALLEN: I can cull the table with everybody's 

and sort it and get anything close. 

DR. NETON: Well, it's -- like I say, I don't 

know. It's a pretty simple name -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, it is. 

MR. ALLEN: Oh, is it? Okay. Never mind. 

DR. NETON: It's not like --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. No, I think -- I think I 

must have done something -- I must have gotten 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

something mixed up. 

MR. ALLEN: I'll see what I can -- see if I can 

find (unintelligible). 

DR. NETON: All right. Dave's pretty good 

with... You'd think out of 18,000 names there'd 

be more matches. There's almost 19,000 people in 

the database now. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Nineteen thousand? Is that the 

number of claims? 

DR. NETON: About. It's 18,900-something. We 

have a... 

I'm going to agree with Arjun's assertion that 

we're tired and maybe this would be a good 

stopping point for the day and -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: We'll reconvene tomorrow at 8:30. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, that's fine. 

DR. NETON: Right now we're -- well, we have 

slides to go over the external dosimetry, but I'm 

sure --

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: -- there will be other things to talk 

about but... 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, yeah. What I'd like to do 

is just to go over -- go over -- I'm going to go 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

207
 

over our reviews. I have both of them and just 

make sure, you know, I expect that I could call 

you up and ask you questions -- 

DR. NETON: Oh, sure. Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- but just since we have a court 

reporter here I wanted to make sure I covered all 

the big issues that we'd raised. 

DR. NETON: That's -- that's fine. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. I think we may not need -- 

we may not need all day tomorrow. 

DR. NETON: All right. Well, that sounds good. 

DR. ROESSLER: Are we done with Ray? 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 

(Whereupon, 
_____________________ 

208 

C E R T I F I C A T E OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of June 1, 2005; 

and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 

testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

20th day of July, 2005. 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102