1 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON USE OF SURROGATE DATA

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

NOVEMBER 5, 2010

+ + + + +

 

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 1:00 p.m., James M. Melius, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
2 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

JEFFREY KOTSCH, DOL

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN McKEEL, Texas City Petitioner

JIM NETON, DCAS

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS

TOM TOMES, DCAS

BILL THURBER, SC&A
3 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Welcome/ participants roll call............ 4 

Revised NIOSH Texas City

Chemicals SEC Petition Evaluation Report

Tom Tomes (NIOSH).......................... 7 

Board questions and comments.............. 14

Questions and comments from petitioners... 37

Work Group Recommendations to Board....... 49

Adjournment............................... 59
4 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 1:02 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: All right. Let's get 

4 started. This is the Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health, the Surrogate 

6 Data Work Group. 

7 And let us begin with roll call. 

8 Since we're talking about a specific site, 

9 please speak to conflict of interest, and 

10 we'll begin roll call with Board Members.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim Melius. No 

12 conflict.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn. No 

14 conflict.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer. No 

16 conflict.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach. No 

18 conflict.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. No Jim Lockey. 

20 Okay. And let's go to the ORAU Team.

21 DR. NETON: ORAU Team? I don't 
5 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think there's anyone from ORAU on the phone.

2 MR. KATZ: NIOSH.

3 DR. NETON: Oh, NIOSH. I didn't 

4 hear the NIOSH part. This is Jim Neton, 

5 NIOSH. No conflicts.

6 MR. TOMES: Tom Tomes, NIOSH. I 

7 have no conflict.

8 MR. KATZ: SC&A Team.

9 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. No 

10 conflict.

11 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber, SC&A. 

12 No conflicts.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Federal 

14 officials or contractors to the feds.

15 MS. LIN: This is Jenny with HHS.

16 MR. RAFKY: This is Michael Rafky 

17 with HHS. No conflicts.

18 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch --

19 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi 

20 with DOE.

21 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with the 
6 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Department of Labor.

2 MR. KATZ: Welcome, colleagues. 

3 How about members of the public?

4 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

5 I'm the Texas City co-petitioner.

6 MR. KATZ: Dan, were you expecting 

7 your other petitioner to join us or --

8 DR. McKEEL: I'm not sure. She's 

9 not been very well recently, so probably not.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. And 

11 this is Ted Katz. I'm the Designated Federal 

12 Official for the Advisory Board.

13 Let me then just remind everyone 

14 who is not addressing the group to mute your 

15 phone when you're not. *6 if you don't have a 

16 mute button. And then *6 again to take your 

17 phone off of mute.

18 And, Jim, it's your agenda.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks 

20 everybody for joining us. This is the Texas 

21 City petition, 00088, so by the number you can 
7 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tell it's been around for a while.

2 As I recall, back in -- I believe 

3 in 2008 it was when NIOSH issued their first 

4 Evaluation Report, and actually SC&A then, 

5 later in 2008, wrote a critique of that, or 

6 review of that report, which they submitted to 

7 us.

8 But then we've been on sort of 

9 hold for a period of time, you know, pending 

10 resolution of issues related to some of the 

11 other sites, particularly the Blockson site, 

12 and radon issue and so forth.

13 So -- and then, within the last 

14 few weeks NIOSH has issued an updated 

15 Evaluation Report. So what I thought we would 

16 do is start the meeting with either Jim Neton 

17 or Tom, if you could sort of briefly present 

18 the updated report, I guess, sort of focusing 

19 on sort of what's changed and what your 

20 findings have been relative to the earlier 

21 report, since the conclusion has changed also.
8 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So. Jim or Tom.

2 DR. NETON: Okay. I'll turn this 

3 -- this is Jim Neton. I'll turn it over to 

4 Tom Tomes.

5 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. As Dr. 

6 Melius mentioned, we approved the initial 

7 Evaluation Report, SEC Petition in January 

8 2008, and that report was reviewed by SC&A and 

9 NIOSH received their comments on it.

10 In responding to those comments 

11 and to a revised report, as Dr. Melius 

12 mentioned, it was delayed due to 

13 considerations, mainly for radon.

14 And in addition to the radon 

15 issue, NIOSH considered additional information 

16 on AEC activities. This information was 

17 previously not available. And I was just 

18 going to mention briefly what those are.

19 We received an AEC report on Texas 

20 City from a 1955 AEC visit. That report 

21 provided details on the activities at the 
9 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plant that we previously did not know.

2 We also received two AEC progress 

3 reports. These reports were written by Texas 

4 City Chemicals that specified all the work 

5 done under the development contract. 

6 Previously we did not know the nature of the 

7 development contract. We only knew that it 

8 was dealing with phosphates.

9 And we also received some court 

10 records. This is records from a suit between 

11 the current and former owners of the property, 

12 and those court records did contain some 

13 information that we eventually used concerning 

14 radon during the residual period.

15 And NIOSH also did additional 

16 research in the ensuing period and we found 

17 some publications on the internet on details 

18 of 1950 activities -- 1955/56 activities at 

19 the site. Specifically, that information was 

20 on the nature of the phosphate plant 

21 operation, the closing of the plant due to 
10 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bankruptcy and the reopening of the plant in 

2 1956.

3 All that information was 

4 eventually incorporated into this revised ER 

5 that we issued a couple of weeks ago. And the 

6 main difference to the -- the biggest 

7 difference to the report is that NIOSH now 

8 recommends an SEC class during the AWE-covered 

9 periods.

10 We believe that we do not have 

11 sufficient information on process activities 

12 at the phosphate plants to accurately model 

13 the radon exposures. Although we feel like we 

14 can model those exposures, we do not believe 

15 that details of the plant are sufficient to do 

16 so.

17 We don't know the size of the 

18 plants, we don't know some of the details of 

19 intermittent operations that was going on 

20 during this period of time.

21 As I mentioned, some of the 
11 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information that became available on the site 

2 led to a review of the covered period. This 

3 was also commented on by SC&A during their 

4 review.

5 Information that we received 

6 indicates that the plant -- that the uranium 

7 extraction plant at Texas City Chemicals was 

8 never fully operational and was shut down 

9 permanently by March of 1954.

10 Previously the covered period at

11 Texas City Chemicals was listed as 1952 

12 through 1956, and this information along with 

13 the information on the development contract 

14 work was forwarded to the Department of Labor.

15 They reviewed that information and 

16 eventually changed the covered period to be 

17 October 5th, 1953 through September 1955. 

18 September 1955 was the expiration date of the 

19 development contract work with the AEC. That 

20 development work was basically laboratory 

21 scale testing of small samples of phosphates.
12 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We now believe that worker 

2 exposures at Texas City Chemicals after the 

3 main plant was shut down can be bounded by 

4 exposure in the phosphate plant.

5 Previously our Evaluation Report 

6 recommended assigning uranium exposure 

7 throughout the AWE period. That was based on 

8 inconclusive information on this later period 

9 of time when the development work was going 

10 on.

11 Since we now know that the uranium 

12 plant was shut down, and we know the nature of 

13 the development work, we feel that exposure to 

14 phosphates is the bounding dose to the 

15 facility during that period of time.

16 And the -- although we do not feel 

17 that we can reconstruct radon during the 

18 operational period, we were able to do so 

19 during the residual period. We -- simply the 

20 data that we got from the lawsuit records --

21 had radon got in there during the residual 
13 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 period and we were able to evaluate that data, 

2 along with data -- radon data from other 

3 phosphate plants and we can actually 

4 reconstruct doses of radon from the residual 

5 period.

6 I would also like to mention, just 

7 point out the surrogate data is used in this 

8 -- in these evaluations.

9 The internal doses from the 

10 uranium operations are based on bounding air 

11 concentrations at AWE facilities that 

12 processed uranium concentrates. 

13 The uranium concentrates were the 

14 end product of the uranium extraction 

15 operations at Texas City Chemicals, and we 

16 have used evaluation of multiple facilities 

17 that handled that for the AEC to provide a 

18 bounding dust concentration at Texas City 

19 Chemicals.

20 We've also used phosphate plant 

21 exposure evaluations from other phosphate --
14 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to estimate Texas City Chemicals's dose from 

2 the phosphate plant operations, specifically 

3 the HPAREH reports from the 1998 report that's 

4 referenced in the SC&A review. It's been 

5 thoroughly reviewed and incorporated, as well 

6 as additional phosphate plant data that we've 

7 used.

8 And so that's basically the 

9 changes that were made. There was additional 

10 evaluations in there, but it all -- all to 

11 support these changes. And that's about all I 

12 have on the summary.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

14 you. Now I thought it was a thorough report 

15 and you've sort of documented your changes 

16 very well. It's relatively straightforward to 

17 read and understand. So it's appreciated so -

18 - to that.

19 Do any Board Members have any 

20 questions or comments on the report?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 
15 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have a question.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: It appears to me 

4 that you have a fairly good handle on the 

5 source-terms. Is that not correct? I'm 

6 trying to get sort of a more comfortable 

7 feeling on reconstructing the radon dose or 

8 the inability to during the operational 

9 period.

10 And it appears to me that the 

11 limiting factor was room size or building 

12 sizes. Was I -- did I understand that 

13 correctly?

14 DR. NETON: Yes. This is Jim, Dr. 

15 Ziemer. The size of the building is not known 

16 with any degree of confidence but, in addition 

17 to that, we don't know much at all about the 

18 partitioning of the rooms within the building.

19 For example, at Blockson, we felt 

20 we knew that it was a fairly open-structured 

21 building --
16 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

2 DR. NETON: -- and, you know, did 

3 not allow itself for partitioning. In this 

4 particular plant we really don't know if there 

5 were a series of smaller rooms versus, you 

6 know, one open area.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Well, what 

8 I was wondering, with that sort of thing in 

9 mind, at least conceptually, would it not be 

10 feasible to take a look at what the upper 

11 limits would have been had there been smaller 

12 rooms?

13 And I guess you could put some 

14 bounds on that in terms of the size of the 

15 equipment that might have been there. But 

16 suppose you had a -- I don't know, a few 

17 hundred square foot room or something that 

18 was, you know, that -- okay. 

19 Let's suppose that this source20 term was all in that sort of smaller area, and 

21 use a simple diffusion model and see what kind 
17 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of concentrations could be generated.

2 Did anybody look at anything like 

3 that? I mean, it would seem, in principle, 

4 given the fairly good information about what 

5 source-terms were there, one might at least --

6 DR. NETON: Yes, in principle, 

7 you're right. That could be done. And, in 

8 fact, Tom Tomes did some of the -- some 

9 analyses to that. And, for example, we 

10 originally considered ratioing the size of the 

11 building based on the production rate, and we 

12 knew that -- I think it was Texas City, 

13 produced about a third amount of phosphate 

14 material as did Blockson. 

15 So, you know, one might argue or 

16 consider the fact that while maybe the 

17 building would be a third of the size, and 

18 that would directly increase the radon 

19 concentration by a factor of three.

20 So, it would -- it took it up to 

21 somewhere, I think, in the 30, 40 picocuries 
18 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 per liter, just by reducing the building to a 

2 third.

3 If you put all of the concentrates 

4 into a very small room like you suggested, a 

5 couple hundred square-foot room, you would end

6 up with some very high radon levels that --

7 that, at least in our opinion, are not 

8 sufficiently -- or, you know, not likely to be 

9 plausible, you would end up in the hundreds of 

10 picocuries per liter at a phosphate plant 

11 where it just doesn't seem plausible it would 

12 be that high.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But it would be 

14 -- excuse me. This is Jim Melius. It would 

15 be plausible if that was the size of the room? 

16 I'm trying to --

17 DR. NETON: Well, yes. I mean --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you know, 

19 I'm trying to -- yes. That's my point, I 

20 think. It might not seem plausible in the 

21 fact that they really worked in rooms that 
19 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 small, but could it be bounding, that's sort 

2 of where I'm moving on this.

3 DR. NETON: Well, yes, I guess 

4 it's sort of a -- it's an interesting issue. 

5 I mean, is it implausibly -- is it plausible 

6 if the room size were really a couple hundred 

7 square feet, is it plausible that all of the 

8 source material were in there, you know, 

9 processed through there at one time?

10 We don't know the work shifts. At 

11 Blockson, for example, we felt we knew pretty 

12 well the fact that they work 24/7 shifts. We 

13 don't know what the shift schedule was. It 

14 was such an intermittent operation there. 

15 There's a lot of unknowns.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Although we don't 

17 have a great deal of documentation with 

18 respect to the building, we certainly don't 

19 know its size and don't have a footprint or a 

20 floor plan, if one places any credence on the 

21 commentary from the workers themselves during 
20 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the workers' meetings, one has the impression 

2 of a very large building, and primarily a lot 

3 of open space.

4 That was the impression that one 

5 got from the people who reported to have been 

6 there. One -- if there was any mention made 

7 of segregation areas for a specific material, 

8 it was made during meetings where I wasn't 

9 present. 

10 And, of course, I didn't go down 

11 for all of them, but I did go down for one 

12 where there was a large number of workers and 

13 the impression that was left was always a very 

14 large, open operating area.

15 DR. NETON: Well, I'm not sure I 

16 recall it exactly that way, Wanda. That was 

17 true at Blockson. I'm not sure we got that 

18 type of information from workers at Texas 

19 City.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No. They were very 

21 vague.
21 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Everything was 

3 vague, but my --

4 DR. NETON: Yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: -- point -- the 

6 point I was trying to make is, there was no --

7 no reference made to segregated areas.

8 DR. NETON: I think that is true.

9 MEMBER MUNN: You know, for 

10 specialized operations or for specialized 

11 materials.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the way I 

13 was thinking of it was sort of the following, 

14 that take the type of equipment that was being 

15 used, and I don't have a good feel for what 

16 that would have been dimensionally, but say, 

17 okay, we'll put some reasonable walls around 

18 that and see what size room that gives us, and 

19 then -- and then generate -- you know, again, 

20 I was looking for a reasonable way to bound 

21 this.
22 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I understand the dilemma that you 

2 don't have room dimensions, but nonetheless, I 

3 think your reasonable assumptions are 

4 certainly allowable.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there can 

6 certainly be maximum and minimum assertions 

7 made that would be more than reasonable.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is Jim 

9 Melius. Since I'm a building model skeptic, I 

10 guess -- I've had trouble when we don't have 

11 information on the building, as we don't have 

12 in this case, that -- you know, that anything 

13 -- yes, you can make some assumptions and then 

14 come up with what would be plausible for that 

15 assumption, but how do you know that those 

16 assumptions -- you have no information to 

17 really base, you know, whether that assumption 

18 is plausible and, you know, it doesn't take 

19 much in terms of ventilation or change in room 

20 size or whatever, to have a very significant 

21 impact on what you would, you know, model to 
23 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be the high end of exposure there. So --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's very 

3 true and what one would do, of course, would 

4 be to take the low end of the turnover rates, 

5 for example -- and we certainly thought about 

6 doing that in other situations where you said 

7 -- you would say, for example, if the turnover 

8 rate was, you know, one room change per so 

9 many hours, pick out something that's on the 

10 very low end and specify a room size that was 

11 at least big enough for people to work in, it 

12 seemed to me, in principle, you could find an 

13 upper bound.

14 That was the point I was making.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But is it --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's 

17 understandable that, you know, you could 

18 increase the turnover rate. Now, that would 

19 cut it down. You could specify no turnover, 

20 which is almost impossible in a -- 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But is that a 
24 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plausible upper bound -- we're going to get 

2 caught up here with too many plausibles, 

3 different meanings of plausible. But is that 

4 a plausible upper bound? 

5 Yes, you can calculate the upper 

6 bound, but is it a plausible upper bond, given 

7 that you have so little information. And 

8 then, if you do, as Jim mentioned it, that Tom 

9 did, if you took a relatively small room and 

10 then you come up with -- you do a calculation, 

11 you make some -- do a -- and then you come up 

12 with an upper bound that appears to you to be 

13 implausibly high, you know, given what's been 

14 found at other phosphate plants.

15 Is that -- do you reject that? Do 

16 you -- I mean, that's the problem is, with any 

17 of these models is, we need something to 

18 anchor them on and, without information it's 

19 -- on the building and the various factors, it 

20 seems to me it gets hard to do that.

21 MEMBER MUNN: But, you know, we do 
25 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know that the building was big, old and 

2 rickety, and we do know that the process rate 

3 was not high, nor did it last long, and given 

4 the information that we do have, one can 

5 certainly make some logical and quite 

6 plausible determinations with respect to what 

7 we can expect as a maximum.

8 You know what came in, you know 

9 went out and you know what can have transpired 

10 in the meantime. That gives you all kinds of 

11 good information over and above the question 

12 of is it in a bread box or is it in the whole 

13 room.

14 The probability of it's being in a 

15 bread box certainly in an old factory like 

16 that, which was turned over from other owners, 

17 is not going to be -- you're not going to have 

18 a snug operation there.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but having 

20 been through lots of industrial operations, 

21 you know, visiting them, not necessarily of 
26 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this type, it's, you know, there are buildings 

2 used for other things, you know, who knows how 

3 the setup is? And it's not uncommon to have 

4 smaller areas that are walled off and then 

5 have very limited ventilation.

6 And I just, you know, don't know 

7 how you distinguish that --

8 MEMBER BEACH: Well -- this is 

9 Josie -- oh, sorry.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- between one 

11 and the other? I think that's the dilemma we 

12 run into in these situations if you don't have 

13 that -- enough information going back and 

14 there's no way of sort of recreating it.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now could you 

16 remind us again, in the previous version of 

17 the Evaluation Report, what were you proposing 

18 for the radon approach?

19 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. We 

20 had a value in there of, I believe it was 2.33 

21 picocuries per liter, if my memory is correct. 
27 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It's something about that -- that value, based 

2 on the 95th percentile of some separate data.

3 DR. NETON: It's the Florida --

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It was the 

5 Florida data, I think.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. In other 

7 words, just using -- and that was truly 

8 surrogate because --

9 DR. NETON: Correct.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- it was the 

12 issue of how well does it apply. Well, I 

13 guess, NIOSH, what you're telling us is you 

14 don't have any confidence that you can apply 

15 either the surrogate data or defining the 

16 operational sort of configuration in a way 

17 that allows you to make reasonable assumptions 

18 on these -- on the generation of radon and its 

19 concentrations. Is that --

20 DR. NETON: I think that's a fair 

21 --
28 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- sort of the 

2 bottom line?

3 DR. NETON: -- that's a fair 

4 characterization

5 DR. MAURO: This is John. At the 

6 risk of saying something that probably we've 

7 talked about before, but maybe it's time to 

8 revisit it again.

9 Radon is a very special problem in 

10 terms of understanding its concentrations. If 

11 there's any place where one would say all 

12 petitioners with lung cancer are the ones that 

13 should be granted.

14 I don't -- I understand that this 

15 has been -- this is very early in the program. 

16 We have now encountered radon on so many 

17 occasions where it has been, I guess, an 

18 obstacle to be able to come to grips with 

19 either modeling or by surrogate measurements, 

20 and clearly without any boundary, it's a 

21 respiratory tract problem.
29 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I realize that this is something 

2 that transcends -- it's a perhaps statutory or 

3 regulatory, I'm not sure, but, boy, if there's 

4 any place where it makes sense to grant 

5 everyone with lung cancer or respiratory 

6 cancer, it's a case like this.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well --

8 DR. MAURO: I apologize for 

9 throwing that on the table, but I just had to.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It's -- I 

11 understand what you're saying, John, but if 

12 that's the assertion that one is going to 

13 make, then one has to -- has to accept the 

14 fact that what we are going to say is in any 

15 case where we do not have all of the specifics 

16 that we need to make the accurate calculations 

17 that we would like to have, then we will, in 

18 fact, make the assumption then that we can't 

19 prove a negative and, therefore, all the cases 

20 will be granted.

21 And that's -- if that's what we're 
30 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to do, then I think we ought to save 

2 ourselves a great deal of time and just say 

3 that's what we're going to do.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but --

5 Wanda, this is Jim. I think what John was 

6 actually proposing was -- was what NIOSH 

7 originally proposed for their SEC regulations 

8 which were cancer-site-specific SECs.

9 And I think what John was saying, 

10 that -- essentially, that this would only 

11 apply to lung cancer.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. Radon and lung 

13 cancer.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Radon and lung 

15 cancer.

16 DR. MAURO: Very, very focused.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And without --

18 because it's been a long time and I don't want 

19 to sort of relive the argument. And I think 

20 the issue was there. I don't know if we 

21 always -- we used radon as an example when the 
31 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board discussed it, but the question then 

2 becomes a sort of, where do you -- how do you 

3 choose which cancer sites to include and not 

4 to include for various radionuclides and 

5 materials, and it's -- it's just tricky, 

6 because -- difficult.

7 And we were also, you know, told 

8 at the time that that was not the intent of 

9 Congress when they wrote up the, you know, the 

10 original EEOICPA law and included the Special 

11 Exposure Cohort list.

12 But, so, I mean, it would involve 

13 having to change the regulations which --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It's not an 

15 option we have before us.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's that, but 

19 -- do that, and --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, because, in 

21 essence, we would be saying that there's a 
32 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whole lot of other cancers being caused by the 

2 radon, and that's never been demonstrated 

3 scientifically, you know.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, but -- no, I 

5 agree, and it's -- well, then, how far -- how 

6 far do you carry it with other, you know, 

7 material? That's --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Understood.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- where it gets 

10 trickier and so forth and, you know, is it 

11 saying that radon doesn't make -- or anything 

12 doesn't make a very small contribution to --

13 you know, in addition to other radiation 

14 exposure somebody has that wouldn't make a 

15 very small contribution, might not show up in 

16 epidemiological studies -- you know, it's a 

17 long, convoluted, difficult argument. I 

18 shouldn't say convoluted. It's difficult.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it is 

20 convoluted, and it's difficult and --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
33 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: -- I guess I 

2 understand what John is saying when he says 

3 radon is a special case, and that lung cancers 

4 are irretrievably linked to the two.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: But by the same 

7 token, I have to take a slightly different 

8 position, I think, with respect to our just 

9 simply saying radon's different. Radon is 

10 different in some ways, not so different in 

11 others.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And just -- this 

14 kind of situation we're looking at here where 

15 you have a small plant, small sources, to 

16 begin with, not that much production, a short 

17 production time, it's very -- it's 

18 disheartening and it's discouraging, and for 

19 some of those, it's inaccurate to just simply 

20 say that these people, since we can't prove 

21 that you were not harmed, we're going to tell 
34 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you that you were harmed by the radiation in 

2 the work that you did.

3 And they may have been harmed in 

4 many ways, but it seems inappropriate to

5 assure people that they were injured by 

6 radiation when the fact of the matter is all 

7 the science that we have surrounding this kind 

8 of operation does not support that conclusion.

9 But if that's what we're going to 

10 do, then that's what we're going to do.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And we --

12 this is Jim again. And we've talked about 

13 this in lots of different contexts, but it's 

14 really -- the real issue -- it's a little 

15 uncomfortable, I don't think -- is with sort 

16 of how to accept a model or whatever.

17 It's really with the endangerment 

18 issue, and the construct, the legal regulatory 

19 construct we have is that -- is that 

20 essentially endangerment is based on any 

21 exposure that lasts 250 days or more, and so 
35 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's what the concern is.

2 It's, you know, the issue with 

3 General Electric, it's an issue with -- in 

4 lots of other situations, and I don't disagree 

5 with your discomfort on that point.

6 Any other questions from Board 

7 Members? Josie, you were starting to say 

8 something, I think, a while ago.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was just 

10 interjecting about the ventilation and not 

11 knowing -- knowing at all what that was.

12 I also want a little bit more 

13 information on the residual period that can be 

14 reconstructed. I believe what Tom said was 

15 that data was from the court records, or did I 

16 hear that wrong?

17 DR. NETON: No. I think -- I 

18 think you heard that right, Josie. I'll let 

19 Tom speak to how we did that, but one thing I 

20 think to keep in mind here is that the 

21 residual radon at the plant would only be the 
36 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radon that would be there as a result of the 

2 manufacture of the three to four hundred 

3 pounds of uranium.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

5 DR. NETON: So you're essentially 

6 reconstructing the amount of radon from that 

7 uranium process in a literal sea of other 

8 radon that was there from making phosphates.

9 So, with that caveat, I'll let Tom 

10 describe what he did.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thanks.

12 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. The 

13 radon data that was available in those court 

14 records was flux measurements and gas 

15 measurements that were taken in, I believe 

16 it's 1983 and 1984. 

17 I'm not sure of the exact date 

18 that's in there, but those flux measurements 

19 were -- and gas measurements were reviewed 

20 against similar data from the Florida 

21 phosphate industry.
37 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They were all consistent with 

2 phosphogypsum piles. The radium that was 

3 present in the -- in the phosphate rock used 

4 to produce the uranium for the AEC, nearly all 

5 that would have been deposited in the 

6 phosphogypsum stacks.

7 Small concentrations could be 

8 elsewhere but would be insignificant compared 

9 to what was deposited in the piles. And so we 

10 looked at that data, and we actually 

11 multiplied the residual -- the data that they 

12 had, we multiplied that times five, based on 

13 the fact that the -- the radon gas was 

14 decreased over time due to the piles being 

15 inactive, forms a crust, and the radon gas 

16 decreases.

17 So we did that, and we also 

18 considered the fact that only a small 

19 percentage of the material in that pile was 

20 attributable to AEC work. So we adjusted for 

21 that -- for that also.
38 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Does that answer your question?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Thank you. I 

3 just wanted to know how you came to that 

4 conclusion.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do any other 

6 Board Members have questions on that or --

7 SC&A, do you have questions?

8 DR. MAURO: No. No, I don't.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If no one 

10 else on the Board or SC&A have questions, Dan 

11 McKeel, do you have any questions or comments?

12 DR. McKEEL: Yes, I do. Can you 

13 all hear me okay?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can.

16 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Good. I do 

17 have a few comments, and I just want to review 

18 -- have a few comments, particularly about 

19 things just said, but also about the larger 

20 picture about Texas City.

21 One is that in the references, I 
39 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 didn't see any letter from the Department of 

2 Labor reference about the change in the 

3 covered period, so I wondered why that wasn't 

4 there.

5 I did look today at the DOE 

6 facility database that was updated August 10th 

7 of this year, and it showed that the covered 

8 period of TCC extended from October the 5th, 

9 1953 to September 1955 and that the residual 

10 radiation period was 1957 to 1977.

11 So there is a 15-month gap, at 

12 least from the DOE facility description point 

13 of view, and that gap is from October 1955 

14 through December 31, '56. So that will leave 

15 those folks out in the cold.

16 And what that gap resulted from, 

17 of course, was that the old covered period 

18 extended through 1957. Now it's been 

19 shortened. So that's a comment about 

20 something that I think needs to be adjusted.

21 DR. NETON: Dr. McKeel, can I 
40 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comment on that? This is Jim Neton.

2 DR. McKEEL: Yes. Sure.

3 DR. NETON: We recognize that, and 

4 that, of course, as you correctly identified, 

5 is an artifact of the way residual periods are 

6 defined.

7 NIOSH has the responsibility to 

8 inform the Department of Energy what the 

9 residual period is, and we do that through a 

10 report to Congress. And until a report to 

11 Congress gets updated, identifying that 

12 change, the DOE website will stay the same.

13 We are working to that end as we 

14 speak to provide that information in a letter 

15 report to Congress that just updates -- this 

16 affects this and other sites, and we're trying 

17 to get that changed as quickly as we can.

18 DR. McKEEL: That would be good. 

19 That's all I was trying to say needed to be 

20 done. And I hoped it could be done by a 

21 letter amendment.
41 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The other thing -- another thing I 

2 want to point out is that Table 4.1 of the 

3 revised Evaluation Report shows that there 

4 were only 15 TCC claims that have been 

5 referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction.

6 When I checked the DOL website 

7 today, and it's shown this for quite a while, 

8 it shows that there are 47 covered claims and 

9 30 covered cases filed with 17 cases having 

10 been referred to NIOSH for dose 

11 reconstruction, and it shows that now there 

12 are three -- three of those cases with 

13 completed dose reconstructions. Eleven cases 

14 are listed as being currently at NIOSH 

15 awaiting dose reconstruction, and the 

16 statistics show that one person from Texas 

17 City has been paid.

18 So the bottom line of this comment 

19 is that there's a discrepancy of two between 

20 the number of cases referred for dose 

21 reconstruction according to NIOSH and this new 
42 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report and what the Department of Labor 

2 website has said for quite a while.

3 Third comment is that I just want 

4 to make sure that we all are aware of the big 

5 picture according to Texas City, and that is 

6 that, unlike Blockson, for example, where 

7 there were some urine bioassay data, there's 

8 never been any claim, and it's reiterated in 

9 this report on page 55, that there was any 

10 personal monitoring film badge or bioassay 

11 data for Texas City workers. There's no site12 specific appendix to TBD-6001 for Texas City. 

13 And I also, just as a historical 

14 note that's interesting to me apropos other 

15 sites where petitioners have been concerned 

16 that why so much work was allowed to take 

17 place by NIOSH and SC&A and the Board after

18 an SEC petition was submitted, and there was 

19 clearly at that time insufficient data for 

20 NIOSH to reconstruct doses.

21 But I was told, when I first 
43 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 engaged this whole project in 2006, that NIOSH 

2 had three TCC documents in their Site Research 

3 Database, and I obtained them, finally, and I 

4 note that in this Rev 1 of the Evaluation 

5 Report, there are 85 references listed with 

6 many pertinent ones that I can think of that 

7 could have been listed.

8 Those documents include all of my 

9 co-petitioner remarks to the Board and the 

10 public docket about Texas City. The Texas 

11 City worker petition about the handling of the 

12 SEC, and my points made during the Surrogate

13 Data Work Group session.

14 And I've noted before that I 

15 really do think that the date and so forth of 

16 the Department of Labor's notification letter 

17 regarding the covered period change in Texas 

18 City ought to be referenced in this new 

19 report.

20 The fourth point I want to make is 

21 that on page five of 64, NIOSH finds that it 
44 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is feasible to reconstruct all doses except 

2 the radon doses during the revised AEC 

3 operational period of 1953 to '55.

4 But I want to comment that this 

5 site was selected by the Board specifically as 

6 an ideal test site for SC&A to evaluate the 

7 draft Board surrogate data criteria. And SC&A 

8 did that, and they found that NIOSH had fallen 

9 short on two of the four original draft 

10 criteria by not sufficiently justifying 

11 comparability of the different surrogate sites 

12 that are used to construct the feasibility 

13 analysis for dose reconstructions that's in 

14 this current report.

15 And I just mention that along the 

16 way, Board Member Brad Clawson stated on the 

17 record that one of those sites in Idaho was 

18 not comparable to Texas City based on his 

19 personal experience.

20 And there is no new data in this 

21 new report that goes -- that addresses the 
45 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comparability of sites, really, at all. So to 

2 me, those two SC&A findings are still not 

3 actually addressed.

4 Another comment that really has 

5 two parts. On page 41 of 46, referring to 

6 radium-226 at the site, the narrative refers 

7 to this, and I quote, "The uranium recovery 

8 building, when it was closed in 1954," well, 

9 the uranium recovery building at Texas City 

10 was not closed in 1954, and several workers 

11 have testified at the NIOSH outreach meetings 

12 in 2007 that the TCC uranium recovery building 

13 was very dusty inside, and it was used after 

14 1955, and was even used by site workers 

15 through late 1977, January 1978, when it was 

16 finally demolished.

17 So that particular statement is 

18 just not accurate. The recovery building was 

19 used during the `50s, the rest of the `50s, 

20 during the `60s, and into the `70s for 

21 equipment storage and activities related to 
46 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fertilizer production.

2 And, of course, as the workers 

3 have also mentioned that going in and out of 

4 that building, which was very dusty, they were 

5 exposed to whatever residual uranium that 

6 might have been there as well. That building, 

7 to my knowledge, was never surveyed for 

8 uranium content.

9 Referring to the residual period 

10 radon, on page 41 of 46, in Table 7.6 on page 

11 43, the implication is that dose referable to 

12 AEC phosphogypsum can be parceled out when, in 

13 fact, it cannot be clearly distinguished 

14 physically from non AEC phosphogypsum piles.

15 The Act specifies that all such 

16 mixed AEC and non-AEC waste for AWE sites such 

17 as Texas City that are used in reconstructing 

18 dose, that both types, the non-AEC and the AEC 

19 mixed waste must be used during the residual 

20 period. 

21 And certainly, there's no way --
47 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I've talked to the workers. There is no 

2 indication that the AEC phosphogypsum waste 

3 that might contain uranium residues were in 

4 any way separated physically from the rest of 

5 this phosphogypsum.

6 So I don't think you can parcel 

7 that out. I mean, you can calculate a 

8 fraction that was mixed in with the much 

9 larger fraction of non-AEC phosphogypsum, but 

10 there's no way one can distinguish where that 

11 was. So -- and the workers who worked around 

12 those piles worked around all of them.

13 Anyway, just to remind you that 

14 this report does comment that by 1970 there 

15 were one million tons of phosphogypsum at 

16 Texas City.

17 On page -- the seventh point was 

18 on page 56 of 64 pages, the following passage 

19 appears, and I quote, "Therefore, dose 

20 reconstructions for individuals employed at 

21 TCC during October the 5th, 1953 through 
48 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 September the 30th, 1960, but who do not 

2 qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be 

3 performed using these data as appropriate."

4 I think that's probably a typo, 

5 but anyway, just a reminder that it needs to 

6 be corrected if it is, and the DOE facility 

7 database lists the end date for the residual 

8 contamination period at Texas City as 1977.

9 The other comment about the 

10 recovery building was Wanda Munn referred to 

11 the building as "big, old and rickety," and at 

12 least with respect to the covered operational 

13 AEC period, the construction for both the 

14 fertilizer plant and the recovery building 

15 started about the same time in 1952, and it 

16 went on line in 1953. So, actually, the 

17 recovery building was a brand new building, 

18 and it wasn't old at all. Now that doesn't 

19 help determine the size or the partitioning of 

20 the building.

21 My understanding from the workers 
49 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is that there was like a partial second floor, 

2 you know, but I don't know anything about the 

3 dimensions. So I think it's a correct 

4 statement to say that not enough is known 

5 about that building, but it certainly wasn't 

6 old and rickety.

7 And I guess that's -- that's the 

8 comments. I believe firmly that Texas City, 

9 based on having zero monitoring data and all 

10 the things that were not known when the SEC 

11 was submitted, should have been in line based 

12 on what has been done at numerous sites by 

13 now, should have been an ideal candidate for 

14 an 8314 SEC, and I think that's what should 

15 have been done.

16 And I certainly hope now that this 

17 has been -- you know, the petition was 

18 submitted in February of 2007, and I certainly 

19 hope now that we can bring this to a 

20 conclusion, and I think the proper conclusion 

21 is to support NIOSH's current recommendation 
50 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to approve an SEC Class for that site.

2 Thank you very much.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, Dan.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Dan. 

5 This is Wanda. I just wanted to clarify that 

6 I did not make any statements with respect to 

7 -- to the building itself. I said the 

8 impression that I got from what the workers 

9 had said, and there's no question in my mind 

10 you've studied that issue far better than I. 

11 I was just reporting what my impression had 

12 been of the comments that had been made by the 

13 workers.

14 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Tom or Jim 

16 Neton, do you have any comments or response 

17 you want to make at this point?

18 DR. NETON: None other than that 

19 we do acknowledge there's a typo from one of 

20 Dr. McKeel's comments on the covered date, but 

21 I don't think we have anything beyond that.
51 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Any other 

3 Board Members have comments or response?

4 (No response.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Hearing 

6 none, does anybody have any recommendations on 

7 how we should move this forward or do we want 

8 to make a recommendation to the Board on 

9 accepting or not accepting this report, or do 

10 we want to --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'm 

12 reluctant, but I think we have to accept it at 

13 this point, and I would hope that, during the 

14 main meeting, we could have a little more 

15 discussion on the issue of -- or the inability 

16 to model that, just for the record.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Now --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I'll support 

19 it.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine. 

21 And I would hope that sometime soon we would 
52 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 find a -- a site where we can model, so --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie. 

3 I do support recommending the Class go 

4 through for radon, but I do have a question on 

5 the rest of the surrogate data. What happens 

6 with that? Will we continue discussing that 

7 within this group?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, the -- I 

9 guess there's two periods of time during the 

10 covered period -- the reason this was referred 

11 to the Surrogate Data Work Group was the 

12 original radon issue during the covered time 

13 period. That was the major reason for it.

14 And, you know, NIOSH, you know, 

15 based on a lot of discussion that we all went 

16 through with -- with -- Blockson decided that 

17 the use of the Florida data and so forth was 

18 not appropriate for -- for this, given what 

19 little information there was on Texas City, 

20 and also then considered using the -- I'll 

21 call it, for lack of a better name, the 
53 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 building model approach, and have, you know, 

2 found that that was also not adequate.

3 So I think that was the major 

4 surrogate data issue that was addressed, and 

5 then, you know, once it's -- we've made a 

6 finding regarding these people be added --

7 added to the Class, and since the Class would 

8 cover all of the employees during the covered 

9 time period, I'm not -- you know, it's usually 

10 been our practice not to try to spend a lot of 

11 effort on -- the other is that where NIOSH has 

12 other data that's available or whether it be 

13 surrogate or other modeling for doing 

14 individual dose reconstructions for people 

15 with noncovered cancers, they would -- they 

16 would do so.

17 DR. NETON: Dr. Melius.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I 

20 would just like to point out that the 

21 surrogate data used in this report is 
54 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 virtually the same as that that was employed 

2 in Blockson.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

4 DR. NETON: So there -- except for 

5 one -- in one -- with one exception, it's the 

6 same exact surrogate data.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. And I 

8 was also going to go on to that, and I believe 

9 for the residual period it's quite similar 

10 also. Is that true, Jim?

11 DR. NETON: No. I'm not -- I 

12 don't think so. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 DR. NETON: I think, for the 

15 residual period, the radon in particular, we 

16 did not have, you know --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

18 DR. NETON: -- a model radon at 

19 Blockson. Was the external the same?

20 Oh, yes. Tom is nodding to me 

21 that the external was the same, so --
55 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I did a 

2 quick comparison, so --

3 DR. NETON: Okay. Yes. At any 

4 rate, there's not much new in here in the 

5 realm of surrogate data that the Board hasn't 

6 seen before at other sites.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Melius, may I 

9 make one comment that I forgot to make?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure. You sure 

11 may.

12 DR. McKEEL: Real quickly. The 

13 comment was made that the radon measurements 

14 from the phosphogypsum piles or stacks were

15 made during the residual period, and that's 

16 actually not true. The court records were 

17 referable to measurements, I think, made in 

18 1983 and '84, and that was six to seven years 

19 after the residual period ended.

20 So, again, we're taking 

21 measurements at the site, but -- but some 
56 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 years past when the residual period ended. So 

2 there really are no measurements of radon at 

3 the site during either the operational or the 

4 residual periods, to be accurate about things. 

5 And I guess that's it. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks.

7 So I guess -- these are options, 

8 and I'm not making a recommendation, but one 

9 would be, you know, we could make some 

10 assessment or have SC&A review the residual 

11 period, particularly the use of radon, the 

12 surrogate data during that time period.

13 We also have another, you know, 

14 residual period site. It's a different site, 

15 type of site, to some extent but, you know, 

16 Dow Madison, that we have a Work Group Meeting 

17 on next -- next week, as well as will come up 

18 at the Board Meeting the following week.

19 And there's also going to be 

20 discussion, I believe, of the radon issue at 

21 the Linde site at the Board Meeting. So I 
57 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 guess we -- we could also make a determination 

2 of what to - if we need to do any further work 

3 on the residual period at the Board Meeting 

4 after discussion of those other sites in 

5 addition to what -- see what other Board 

6 Members' response is to the --

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, these other 

8 sites are not phosphate plants.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I know. I know.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Their radon 

11 exposures should be markedly different --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: -- from these 

14 particular plants. As best I can see, the 

15 only -- the only similarities that we're 

16 dealing with here that we're rejecting out of 

17 hand are that any of the measurements made at 

18 the Texas phosphate plant can be applied 

19 anywhere else.

20 And if that's the argument, then -

21 - then it doesn't seem to me that it applies 
58 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the other surrogate data issues.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: We're simply talking 

4 about Texas Chemical.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I was talking 

6 about in a very general sense, Wanda.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But your point's 

9 taken.

10 Any other comments or preferences?

11 (No response.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Personally, I'm 

13 comfortable with the radon approach used for 

14 the residual period.

15 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see any 

16 alternative other than to recommend --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- that we accept 

19 the report that -- the revised ER report that 

20 NIOSH has provided us. I don't see any 

21 alternative to that at all.
59 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And Josie?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Well, I kind 

3 of wouldn't mind having SC&A look at the 

4 residual period and the records, but that's 

5 just my thought, so go with the majority.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, Paul, do 

7 you have any --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I said I 

9 would support the general recommendation of 

10 NIOSH.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What about the 

12 SC&A for the worker --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am trying to 

14 recall the two unresolved issues that go back 

15 on this particular one, and Dr. McKeel 

16 mentioned it as well. I guess we need to get 

17 a feel for whether or not those are issues 

18 that are still in play, even if this becomes 

19 an SEC site.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: My recollection, 

21 and I looked through the SC&A report this 
60 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 morning, was that the first issue was the --

2 using the Florida phosphate data for radon. 

3 So that's been -- that one's been addressed on 

4 that.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John, do you --

7 or, Bill, do you recall the other?

8 DR. MAURO: I don't. Bill, I know 

9 --

10 MR. THURBER: This is Bill. One 

11 of the things that we talked about at the 

12 time, we felt that the approach to modeling 

13 the exposure from drums of yellowcake was a 

14 bit of over-kill.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

16 MR. THURBER: And that has 

17 certainly been corrected in the revised 

18 Petition Evaluation Report. I don't recall 

19 all of the other --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm looking 

21 through the executive summary, and I think --
61 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, you're talking 

2 about the nine findings or so?

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I've been 

5 looking through that, myself.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, why don't 

7 we defer on that. Everybody take another look 

8 at it. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: We can do tasking 

10 at the --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: At the meeting 

12 if we think it's appropriate.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'll do it that 

15 way. That's --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- appropriate. 

18 Good. Okay. Any other comments or questions? 

19 Ted, do you have any?

20 MR. KATZ: No. No comments.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You get the 
62 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Surrogate Data Work Group, 

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

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Surrogate Data Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 final word. If not, thank everybody. Thank 

2 you, Dan and SC&A and Tom and Jim and all the 

3 Board Members for your participation, and 

4 we'll see you in Santa Fe.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks 

7 very much.

8 MR. KATZ: Jim and everybody, bye9 bye.

10 (Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the 

11 above-entitled matter was concluded.)

12 

13 

14