1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

URANIUM REFINING ATOMIC WEAPONS EMPLOYERS

WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY

MAY 16, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Frankfurt Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky at 9:00 a.m., Henry Anderson, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

 

HENRY ANDERSON, Chairman

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH*

KAY DREY*

CLARISSA EATON*

MARY GIRARDO*

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, DCAS

L. MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

BILL THURBER, SC&A*

*Participating via telephone
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Call to order 8 

Roll Call 8 

Hooker Electrochemical 12

 Bob Barton 12

 Bill Thurber 14, 29

 Dave Allen 21

 Observation 1 15

 Finding 1 28

 Finding 2 45

 Finding 3 48

 Observation 2 52

 Finding 4 53

 Finding 5 54

 Observation 3 56

 Finding 6 56

 Finding 7 65

 Finding 8 66

 Finding 9 86

 Finding 10 86
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Hooker Electrochemical Petition 90

Evaluation Report

 Bob Barton 91

 Bill Thurber 92

 Finding A 91

 Finding B 94

 Finding C 95

 Finding D 104

 Finding E 125

 David Allen 112

 Finding F 112

 Observation A 127

 David Allen 127

Surrogate Data Evaluation 132

 David Allen 132

Renaming of TBD 6001 Work Group 174

United Nuclear 179

 Bill Thurber 179

 Finding 1 180

 Finding 2 180

 Finding 3 181, 182
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

United Nuclear (Continued)

 Bill Thurber (Continued)

 Finding 4 181, 182

 Finding 5 186

 Finding 6 188

 Observation 1 189

 Dave Allen 189

 Finding 3 189

 Finding 4 190

Public Comments 192

 Clarissa Eaton 192

 Kay Drey 202

Electro Metallurgical 210

 Bill Thurber 211

 Finding 1 211

 Sam Glover 213

 Finding 2 216

 Sam Glover 216

 Finding 3 218

 Sam Glover 218
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Electro Metallurgical (Continued)

 Bill Thurber (Continued)

 Finding 4 218

 Sam Glover 220

 Finding 5 223

 Sam Glover 223

 Finding 6 224

 Sam Glover 224

 Finding 7 225

 Sam Glover 225

 Finding 8 226

 Sam Glover 226, 229

 John Stiver 227

 Finding 9 231

 Sam Glover 231

 Finding 10 231

 Sam Glover 232

 Finding 11 233

 Sam Glover 233

 Finding 12 233

 Sam Glover 234
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Electro Metallurgical (Continued)

 Bill Thurber (Continued)

 Finding 13 235

 Finding 14 236

 Sam Glover 236

 Finding 15 236

 Sam Glover 237

 Finding 16 238

 Sam Glover 238

 Finding 17 239

Future Meeting Date 244

and Administrative Matters
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (9:03 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

4 in the room and on the line.

5 This is the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health. This is the 

7 TBD-6001 Work Group, and we are just getting 

8 started with roll call. Since this is a Work 

9 Group that is site-specific, please speak to 

10 conflict of interest. We are going to be 

11 talking at least briefly about three different 

12 sites today, focusing on ElectroMet and 

13 Hooker, but we will also just get a status 

14 discussion on United Nuclear.

15 So, beginning with Board Members, 

16 with the Chair, in the room.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Henry 

18 Anderson. I don't have any conflicts.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

20 And on the line, Board Members?

21 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, Bill Field. 

22 No conflict.
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Bill.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Anyone else?

3 MR. KATZ: Any other Board Member 

4 on the line?

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is Mark?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's who we were 

7 expecting, Mark.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Did he tell 

9 you --

10 MR. KATZ: Zaida, are you on the 

11 line?

12 MS. BURGOS: Yes, I am. He said 

13 he will try to call in.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay. Yes, he 

15 has conflicts quite bit with CSB.

16 Thank you.

17 MS. BURGOS: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's go on, 

19 then, with NIOSH ORAU team in the room.

20 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. No 

21 conflicts.

22 DR. GLOVER: Sam Glover, NIOSH. 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 No conflicts.

2 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen, NIOSH. No 

3 conflicts.

4 MR. KATZ: And NIOSH ORAU team on 

5 the line?

6 Are you expecting anyone?

7 MR. ALLEN: No.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. SC&A team in the 

9 room?

10 MR. BARTON: Bob Barton, SC&A. No 

11 conflict.

12 MR. KATZ: And SC&A on the line?

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

14 conflict.

15 MR. KATZ: Welcome, John.

16 MR. STIVER: John Stiver, SC&A. 

17 No conflict.

18 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

19 No conflict.

20 MR. KATZ: And is Bill Thurber 

21 going to be on, too?

22 DR. MAURO: I am expecting him. I 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 am sure he will be joining us shortly.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great.

3 MR. THURBER: I had the mute on.

4 MR. KATZ: There you are.

5 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber. No 

6 conflicts.

7 MR. KATZ: Welcome. Thanks, Bill.

8 MR. THURBER: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: All right, good. And 

10 federal officials? There are none in the room 

11 other than me. I'm Ted Katz, the Designated 

12 Federal Official for the Board.

13 On the line?

14 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

15 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS. 

16 No conflict.

17 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Jenny, 

18 Michael.

19 Any members of the public on the 

20 line? There are none in the room.

21 MS. GIRARDO: Mary Girardo in 

22 Niagara Falls, New York.
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Oh, welcome, Mary.

2 Okay. That takes care of roll 

3 call.

4 Let me remind folks on the phone 

5 to mute your phone except when you are 

6 speaking to the group. You use *6 to mute it 

7 and *6 to come off of mute, if you don't have 

8 a mute button.

9 And I can hear someone's 

10 breathing. So, someone hasn't muted.

11 (Laughter.)

12 And there's an agenda for the 

13 meeting which Andy will go over, but it is 

14 online, too. It is on the NIOSH website under 

15 the Board.

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The three 

18 already mentioned, the three we are going to 

19 discuss, we are going to begin with going back 

20 over, at the last meeting we spent quite a bit 

21 of time going over the issues matrix with 

22 Hooker Electrochemical, and there were some 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unresolved issues. So, we are going to start 

2 with Hooker Electrochemical and then go to 

3 Electro Metallurgical and then United Nuclear, 

4 just for a quick update.

5 So, I guess I would turn it over 

6 to -- are you going to --

7 MR. BARTON: Sure, I can kind of 

8 introduce things.

9 I guess since the last meeting the 

10 Board tasked SC&A with reviewing the 

11 Evaluation Report. Since then, we have 

12 released findings for that report.

13 Essentially, I think maybe the 

14 best way to go about this is we just kind of 

15 go one by one through these findings. And I 

16 will ask Bill Thurber, since he is on the 

17 line, and this is kind of his baby, that he 

18 can kind of describe what his findings were 

19 and what his thoughts were on that.

20 And then we can probably turn it 

21 right over to NIOSH and they can present their 

22 new information. Since then, there has been a 
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Site Profile and two White Papers that we have 

2 seen that kind of address a lot of these 

3 topics.

4 So, Bill, are you on the line?

5 MR. THURBER: Yes, I am.

6 I can go through the findings. I 

7 would ask the Work Group whether it would be 

8 more efficient to move directly to NIOSH's new 

9 information. And the reason I suggest that is 

10 this: that several of our findings were tied 

11 in with TBD-6001, and TBD-6001 has been -- it 

12 no longer exists, and I know that NIOSH has 

13 addressed a number of our concerns in their 

14 new standalone Site Profile of Hooker. So, 

15 either way, I can go through the findings or 

16 we can move on to the new discussion. Maybe 

17 we should start with the findings.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, why don't 

19 we just quickly go through that?

20 MR. THURBER: Yes. Okay. We had 

21 one observation and I believe 10 findings, 

22 which are all documented in the memo I sent to 
15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you all earlier or at the beginning of last 

2 week.

3 Observation 1 is a point that we 

4 have brought up on several occasions, and that 

5 is the need to clarify whether 

6 photofluorography is used at AWE sites. This 

7 has been discussed on numerous occasions, but 

8 it is just a loose end that needs to be tidied 

9 up.

10 And the first finding dealt with 

11 the question of how many barrels a month were 

12 dumped by the Hooker people. The context here 

13 is that Hooker received the slag from 

14 ElectroMet in wooden whiskey barrels. They 

15 dumped this material through a screen onto a 

16 conveyor belt and conveyed it into a digester 

17 tank where the slag, the uranium-bearing slag, 

18 was slurried with hydrochloric acid.

19 The information in the 

20 documentation that we looked at was unclear as 

21 to how many days a month the slag-dumping 

22 operation, which is probably the dustiest 
16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operation and that which results in the 

2 highest internal exposure, would have 

3 occurred. And because the information was not 

4 very clear to us, we felt that this question 

5 needed to be examined in greater depth.

6 The second finding that we had, it 

7 was when we read the original documents, it 

8 was not clear that NIOSH had included in their 

9 inhalation dose not only inhalation exposure 

10 during the slag-dumping operations, but also 

11 whether they had included inhalation dose for 

12 other operations that were involved, that were 

13 part of the whole slag-processing operation.

14 The third finding involved the 

15 question as to whether some of the inhalation 

16 exposures were unrealistically high. This, 

17 again, harks back to a frequent discussion 

18 that we have had as to what is plausible and 

19 what is implausibly high. And obviously, this 

20 is a gray area that is subject to considerable 

21 technical judgment. But when we reviewed the 

22 document, we felt some of the basis for the 
17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 estimates was unrealistic.

2 The second observation here dealt 

3 with the fact that it wasn't clear to us how 

4 some of the external exposure calculations 

5 could be traced clearly back to TBD-6001. Of 

6 course, that issue will go away with the new 

7 freestanding Site Profile.

8 Finding 4, again, well, no, I'm 

9 sorry. Finding 4, there were some errors in 

10 the calculations in Table AA3 of Appendix A. 

11 And NIOSH had recognized those. I think that 

12 David Allen and I had discussed those in the 

13 past. This is merely to document that those 

14 numbers needed to be corrected.

15 Finding 5, we felt that the 

16 approach of trying to get bounding values from 

17 Table 7.3 of TBD-6001 was not technically very 

18 robust. We suggested that it would be better 

19 to try to derive these external exposure 

20 values from Microshield or MCNP rather than 

21 using some workplace analogs that were perhaps 

22 a stretch in the context of Hooker.
18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 External exposure values, 

2 Observation No. 3, this was merely to indicate 

3 that the terminology was rather loosely used 

4 between TBD-6001 and Appendix AA regarding 

5 millirad, millirem, et cetera, et cetera, mR, 

6 and that they should be consistent.

7 Finding 6, again, we felt that one 

8 could come up with a better estimate of 

9 shallow-dose estimates, dose to the skin, by 

10 using Microshield or MCNP rather than some of 

11 the workplace numbers that came out of 

12 TBD-6001. Again, we felt that using these 

13 kinds of calculations would be technically 

14 more robust than using some of the analogues 

15 from TBD-6001.

16 Finding 7, there was an inhalation 

17 intake of 1 picocurie per calendar day quoted. 

18 It was a number that we had difficulty 

19 tracing and suggested that it would be quite 

20 helpful if the basis for that number was more 

21 transparent.

22 Finding 8, again, a recurring 
19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 theme in all of these discussions, that is, 

2 the basis for using a resuspension factor of 1 

3 times 10 to the minus 6 should be fully 

4 justified in the context of the operations at 

5 Hooker. And we have discussed on numerous 

6 occasions that the resuspension factor is 

7 site-specific. You just can't always use 1 

8 times 10 to the minus 6. We felt that the use 

9 of that factor at Hooker needed to be more 

10 stringently justified.

11 Finding 9 had to do with the 

12 approach taken to calculating the inhalation 

13 exposures in the residual period. We felt 

14 that the approach did not adequately reflect 

15 some of the criticisms that we had made in the 

16 past on OTIB-0070.

17 Particularly, again, this in part 

18 ties in with the resuspension factor and that 

19 the resuspension factor and the decay rate 

20 need to be consistent with one another. And 

21 if you use 1 percent per day, that is not 

22 consistent with the resuspension factor of 10 
20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the minus 6.

2 And finally, the calculation for 

3 the external exposure and residual period 

4 needed to be corrected because it reflected 

5 the same error that was involved in one of the 

6 earlier findings, in Finding 4, I believe.

7 So, that briefly summarizes the 

8 comments that we had made and the findings 

9 that we had uncovered. I don't see it here, 

10 but I guess in subsequent conversations we 

11 cited some information that suggested that 

12 some of the slag might have remained at the 

13 site after the beginning of the residual 

14 period, and that was an item that needed 

15 further investigation.

16 MR. BARTON: Yes, Bill, that 

17 finding came out of the Evaluation Report 

18 listed as Finding F.

19 MR. THURBER: Right. Yes. 

20 Thanks, Bob.

21 So, I think that pretty much 

22 summarizes it.
21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Do we want to 

2 go over these? Do we want to go over the DR 

3 review?

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Let's go over 

5 these first because I think we can maybe 

6 either agree to disagree or --

7 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- finish them 

9 up.

10 MR. ALLEN: Observation 1 is about 

11 clarifying the X-rays.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We talked 

13 about that last time.

14 MR. ALLEN: We talked about it 

15 last time. I did put a sentence in the new 

16 TBD that says PA chest X-ray.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Yes.

18 MR. ALLEN: But whether that is 

19 clear enough or not, I don't know.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

21 MR. ALLEN: But the root documents 

22 will be revised here eventually.
22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro.

2 Regarding this question of 

3 fluoroscopic examinations at AWE facilities, I 

4 know that this has come up a number of times. 

5 And I think I understand the policy that 

6 would apply across the board to all AWE 

7 facilities. It wouldn't hurt really for me 

8 for a reminder, it is my understanding now 

9 that the language in OTIB-6 that talks about 

10 when you use or assume fluoroscopic, and I 

11 believe it is something like if it is before 

12 1960 or 1970 -- I forgot the exact date -- it 

13 is automatically assumed that was used.

14 I think the intent -- and this is 

15 where I am looking for some clarification --

16 was that was really meant for DOE facilities. 

17 For AWE facilities, it was clarified and 

18 corrected for us, for SC&A, that that doesn't 

19 necessarily apply to AWEs. In AWEs, you would 

20 only use fluoroscopic if there is evidence, 

21 either in the contract itself between the 

22 Atomic Energy Commission and the AWE that, 
23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 yes, you shall do this or there was evidence 

2 that it was there. So, you don't 

3 automatically default to fluoroscopic, as you 

4 do with DOE. It has to be an affirmative 

5 statement that would drive you toward using 

6 fluoroscopic when it comes to AWEs. Is that 

7 understanding correct?

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that is correct. 

9 I mean I would say that any information we 

10 have, then we go away from defaults and use 

11 that information, whether that is saying they 

12 did have PFGs or did not have them or did have 

13 a particular type of chest X-ray or something. 

14 So, the defaults only apply when we have no 

15 information on the particulars, say.

16 DR. MAURO: Well, no, but when it 

17 comes to an AWE, though, unlike DOE where you 

18 default to fluoroscopic examination, AWEs you 

19 don't. You default to X-ray, unless there is 

20 affirmative statement that, in fact, 

21 fluoroscopic was used.

22 So, there is a fundamental 
24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference, which may very well be justified. 

2 Don't get me wrong. I am not being critical. 

3 I am trying to find like the one-size-fits4 all answer. So, when we don't see 

5 fluoroscopic assumptions at an AWE facility, 

6 there is good reason. There was no provision 

7 for it in the contract, and there was no 

8 evidence of its use at the facility.

9 Because if that is the case, then 

10 in one fell sweep we do away with a whole 

11 bunch of comments related to this matter at 

12 AWE facilities. And I just wanted to get, I 

13 guess, a statement made, perhaps on the 

14 record, if that is, in fact, the case, or if 

15 it is not, there's still more to the story, 

16 that is okay, too. But that is where I am 

17 right now. In fact, I have been discussing 

18 this matter with our people, that that should 

19 be our new position when we do AWE reviews.

20 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim.

21 I think you have got it right. I 

22 mean this goes back a while now, but the 
25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concept, I believe, is that photofluorography 

2 was used more in mass screening operations. 

3 It was an efficient way to push through a 

4 large number of people without -- well, it was 

5 just more expeditious.

6 And many of these AWEs, you know, 

7 smaller mom and pop type operations, there 

8 would have been just no real reason to have 

9 that type of procedure in place.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, that was my 

11 understanding, and that's fine because it was 

12 just an open item that just kept recurring.

13 MR. THURBER: I would add one 

14 other comment that was clarified to me, and I 

15 think to some of the rest of us at SC&A in a 

16 recent conversation. And that is that you 

17 only consider X-rays if they are done onsite. 

18 If the workers were sent offsite to a 

19 hospital or a clinic or a physician's office, 

20 those exposures are not included.

21 DR. NETON: Correct. That is the 

22 language, the interpretation of the statute.
26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: If I could ask a 

2 question -- this is Bob Barton. Have we found 

3 to date an AWE site that actually did have 

4 this type of X-ray onsite that they used for 

5 their workers?

6 MR. ALLEN: I don't remember any 

7 photofluorography, but we did find one that 

8 used fluorography, which is even worse. That 

9 was Linde early on, up through mid-`44, I 

10 think, or something like that.

11 MR. BARTON: Okay. So, there are 

12 some sites where --

13 MR. ALLEN: There's other sites 

14 where we have information where they went to a 

15 local hospital for their X-rays, et cetera.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But if it is 

17 offsite, I mean we discussed it wouldn't be 

18 covered, but I thought the assumption was --

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the default 

20 assumption is they had X-rays --

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The default is 

22 that it was.
27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: -- onsite annually, 

2 standard PA chest X-rays.

3 DR. NETON: Linde was a DOE 

4 facility at one point in that operation.

5 MR. ALLEN: That's true, but we 

6 had information about their X-rays, and 

7 defaults don't apply after that.

8 DR. NETON: Right. Once you have 

9 got some information about what they did, we 

10 would use that to the extent we could.

11 MR. BARTON: So, if you had 

12 information that they definitely weren't 

13 getting X-rays onsite, then we wouldn't 

14 include it.

15 MR. ALLEN: Right.

16 MR. BARTON: But if you had no 

17 information, then you would just default. 

18 Okay.

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

20 MR. BARTON: I get it. Thank you.

21 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I think that is 

22 it for that topic, right?
28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Finding 1 was essentially a 

2 disagreement. I wouldn't say a disagreement, 

3 but two interpretations of the 10 tons per 

4 month on one report, whether that was the 

5 input or the output. And I think we agree it 

6 is not that clear or we did agree.

7 In the Technical Basis Document, 

8 we went into more detail on that to try to 

9 describe that it could be either one. And we 

10 looked at, since this was very early on, this 

11 is still during World War II, we could look at 

12 how much uranium metal was produced by the 

13 whole Manhattan Engineering District and how 

14 much magnesium fluoride would be produced by 

15 that.

16 And it turns out to where 

17 Mallinckrodt made most of the uranium metal. 

18 ElectroMet made the rest. I didn't have handy 

19 as far as how much each one did. But even 

20 assuming they were equal, they would not have 

21 produced enough magnesium fluoride for that to 

22 be the output, is basically what it came down 
29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to in the evaluation they did in the Technical 

2 Basis Document.

3 And I don't think Bill has weighed 

4 in on the TBD, or if he has had a chance to 

5 look at it close enough or not. Did you want 

6 to weigh-in on that, Bill?

7 MR. THURBER: I don't care to 

8 weigh-in.

9 (Laughter.)

10 But I did look at the new Site 

11 Profile, the new TBD. And I did look at the 

12 additional information that you provided in 

13 there, which you have just described, 

14 basically, the relative quantities of slag 

15 that might have been produced at Mallinckrodt 

16 as compared to ElectroMet and, therefore, 

17 available to be processed at Hooker.

18 And there's no question that this 

19 is ambiguous. A couple of things that bother 

20 me, they don't bother me deeply, but the 

21 couple of things that bother are these:

22 One, it has never been clear to me 
30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 why Hooker would have built a facility with as 

2 much capacity as they built knowing that they 

3 only had a certain amount of hydrochloric acid 

4 to use, which was a byproduct from some other 

5 chemistry that they were practicing. And they 

6 had enough capacity to process, I forget what 

7 I estimated, but 10 or 15 times the amount 

8 that they apparently actually processed. That 

9 puzzled me a little bit.

10 The other thing that bothers me a 

11 little bit is that the documentation said, 

12 well, the uranium content was increased from 

13 one pound to five to ten pounds. The 

14 inference is that it was one pound to five to 

15 ten pounds per 500 pounds because 500 pounds 

16 was the content of a slag barrel. Now I don't 

17 know whether in local usage that it could have 

18 been one pound per 100 pounds, which is common 

19 parlance at the operation. So, that is a 

20 little fuzzy.

21 But, on balance, I think that new 

22 documentation favors the approach taken by 
31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH.

2 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I don't know 

3 how you want to run this. Do you want to try 

4 to close out findings or just go through them 

5 all?

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, if we 

7 could close it, I mean, is there --

8 MR. ALLEN: I am not sure what 

9 SC&A's --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: If we can 

11 close it all, I would like to. I mean I don't 

12 know what more --

13 MR. ALLEN: SC&A has only had 

14 about 30 days or so since they have gotten 

15 that TBD. I don't know if they have reached 

16 -- I don't know if Bill is talking like an 

17 official --

18 MR. THURBER: We haven't even been 

19 formally tasked to review it, I don't think.

20 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

21 MR. THURBER: Have we, John?

22 DR. MAURO: No. We were just 
32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 asked to read it to the extent that it would 

2 be helpful for the purpose of this meeting, 

3 but not to actually perform a formal review of 

4 the revised TBD and write a report.

5 So, really, this is not unlike 

6 other circumstances where we will read it, and 

7 very often just giving it a read to see if, in 

8 fact, it deals with the issue appropriately, 

9 that does go a long way.

10 Bill, from what you read, do you 

11 think that the business of one day per month, 

12 isn't this the 5 percent number?

13 MR. THURBER: Yes. Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: And I remember that 

15 you had a concern with the 5 percent number, 

16 not only because of quantity, but also because

17 of the physical work, unloading the trains and 

18 loading it and unloading it, and dumping it. 

19 I remember the original review. 

20 So, it went more not only to perhaps the 

21 quantity of slag that was shipped, but, also, 

22 the actual operation and how much time a
33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 worker might really spend in --

2 MR. THURBER: Well, but they were 

3 tied, they were actually linked, John.

4 DR. MAURO: Right. Right.

5 MR. THURBER: If they were really 

6 processing only 10 tons a month, then the 

7 NIOSH assumption of one day per month or 5 

8 percent of the time was solid. If they were 

9 processing more, then it was an 

10 underestimation.

11 Obviously, another choice is to 

12 opt for the more conservative number.

13 DR. MAURO: From what you have 

14 read, what I just heard is that in the new TBD 

15 the sense that quantities were appropriate and 

16 that, everything taken into consideration, 

17 exposure to airborne dust from the handling of 

18 5 percent of the time or I guess one day per 

19 month seems to be reasonable.

20 But I know originally you did have 

21 a concern that --

22 MR. THURBER: Yes. Well, indeed, 
34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because there was a lot of ambiguity in the 

2 original documents, and there still is. Now 

3 what NIOSH has done is they have looked a 

4 little further afield to estimate how much 

5 slag might have been available within the 

6 weapons complex in total --

7 DR. MAURO: I see.

8 MR. THURBER: -- and what fraction 

9 of that on the upside might have been produced 

10 at ElectroMet. That number that could have 

11 been produced at ElectroMet does not jibe with 

12 the high-side production that could have 

13 occurred at Hooker.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 MR. THURBER: That is, of course, 

16 their position.

17 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, good. The 

18 new information, you say the weight of 

19 evidence, of course, not absolute, seems to be 

20 driving it toward the one day per month as 

21 being a pretty reasonable number.

22 MR. THURBER: Yes.
35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Well, you know, I know 

2 Bob and John, Bob Barton and John Stiver have 

3 looked at this a bit in getting ready for this 

4 meeting. Is there anything about that that 

5 you feel that might still be problematic, or 

6 should we let this one go?

7 MR. BARTON: Well, I do have --

8 this is Bob Barton -- I do have one question. 

9 I am looking at the TBD right now, Section 

10 3.2, which kind of deals with this issue. You 

11 cite a War Department memo that indicates 152 

12 tons of slag essentially during the operating 

13 period, July 1944 to January 1946. But the 

14 memo you cite is dated March of 1945.

15 So, I mean, does that include 

16 projections for how much they were planning to 

17 process at the site? Because, how would they 

18 know? Or maybe that date is just --

19 MR. ALLEN: I think that date is 

20 an error, honestly. I think I have that 

21 somewhere on my drive here.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, it would 
36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have been in the middle of the period.

2 MR. ALLEN: It was a medical 

3 clearance. It was a memo for medical 

4 clearance that they did in the War Department. 

5 The contract is over; we want to clear this 

6 out type of thing.

7 So, it was definitely after the 

8 process, and it was the P-45 process which the 

9 hydrochloric acid was a byproduct of that, 

10 that they used for the digestion. The mag 

11 fluoride digestion was a supplement to that 

12 contract or amendment or some term.

13 But let me dig up that memo. I am 

14 not sure --

15 DR. NETON: While Dave is looking 

16 for that, I just have a process question. We 

17 are going through these findings on the TBD, 

18 but, also, do we not have an Evaluation Report 

19 hanging in the balance as well?

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

21 DR. NETON: Right. So, it seems 

22 to me that the SEC Evaluation Report would be 
37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a higher priority to close out than these 

2 individual findings, and some of these 

3 findings that we are talking about here right 

4 now are, I think we might agree they are not 

5 really -- they are Site Profile issues, but 

6 they are not necessarily going to relate to 

7 our ability to bound doses during the SEC 

8 period. So, I don't know. Maybe --

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: See, I thought 

10 this would. I thought that the assumption 

11 that it is only one day a month during the SEC 

12 period versus if it might have been that the 

13 maximum could have been five days a month 

14 would make a difference, wouldn't it?

15 DR. NETON: Well, it would make a 

16 difference, but whether we adopt one number or 

17 the other, we could agree at some point on one 

18 of those numbers. It is a matter of which is 

19 the one we are going to use, not can we put an 

20 upper limit on it at all.

21 MR. KATZ: But if we can put some 

22 of these to bed, I mean because they are 
38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 relatively simple and there's not more digging 

2 to do, we might as well, right?

3 DR. NETON: Yes, that is fine, 

4 but, then, we are going to have to go back 

5 again when we do the ER analysis. Yes, I 

6 don't know.

7 MR. KATZ: I mean we are doing the 

8 ER right now. This is part of that.

9 DR. NETON: No, this is the Site 

10 Profile.

11 These have to be taken in the 

12 context of the ER, which I think would be the 

13 best thing, the most important thing to close 

14 out first.

15 But we can go through this. Maybe 

16 we should just all keep in mind --

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I guess I 

18 was just looking at this one particularly as 

19 an uncertainty, you know, that the ability to 

20 dose reconstruct, if we really don't know how 

21 much was processed and how frequently, yes, 

22 you can take the amount of acid that was 
39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 generated there and say they couldn't have 

2 processed more than that, and how much would 

3 it take to do that, to do an upper bound. But 

4 all of that, again, it is back to the old you 

5 can bound anything. The question is, how much 

6 do we really know about this?

7 DR. NETON: Okay. That's fine.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But I don't 

9 want to go on forever on this, but --

10 DR. NETON: We can go through it. 

11 I just want to make sure --

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. But this 

13 one I thought was probably more important than 

14 the others, some of the others. Now maybe I 

15 am wrong on those, too.

16 MR. ALLEN: I think some of the 

17 issues from the Evaluation Report review are 

18 also here in the Appendix review. So, I think 

19 if we get through this and, then, go to the ER 

20 review --

21 DR. NETON: Okay. That's fine. I 

22 just wanted to make sure I wasn't off base 
40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with my thinking on the ER being --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. No, I 

3 would agree with you on that.

4 DR. NETON: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John.

6 One more, to throw a little more 

7 into the pot. As we go through these, my 

8 sense is if we are able to resolve the issues 

9 here, as we are looking at them, will that 

10 resolve them? Whether they are ER or they are 

11 Site Profile issues, they are resolved.

12 If it turns out, though, that 

13 there is still a little ambiguity, like we are 

14 talking about right now, it wouldn't hurt to 

15 say whether there is agreement by the Work 

16 Group. Whether we are dealing with an SEC or 

17 a Site Profile issue, it helps to sort of get 

18 the process clearing the slate a little bit. 

19 So, it means that, okay, we have cleared it as 

20 an SEC issue, but it may still remain as an ER 

21 issue.

22 I would agree that this business 
41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of number of days per month, the ambiguity 

2 that is there, what I am hearing is that, yes, 

3 there may be a little -- what I am hearing is 

4 that it is more or less resolved, except for 

5 that one question that Bob Barton just brought 

6 up. And that would resolve it both as an SEC 

7 and a Site Profile issue.

8 MR. BARTON: The other thing I 

9 would add to that, John -- this is Bob again 

10 -- is there is a pretty compelling argument 

11 made in the Site Profile that is sort of some 

12 scoping calculations that, for lack of a 

13 better word, is sort of the material balance 

14 between these sites. And if we have that 

15 quoted number from this War Department memo of 

16 152 tons of slag process, and it also says 

17 that a lot of it also went over to Lake 

18 Ontario Ordnance Works, I mean I don't know, 

19 is that information available at Lake Ontario 

20 as to how much they processed? Because that 

21 would kind of round out that sort of material 

22 balance argument, saying they processed this 
42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 much, so it is not even possible that that 

2 much could have been sent to Hooker.

3 MR. ALLEN: I think in, like 1949, 

4 we know how much slag they had at Lake 

5 Ontario. I just don't know if I have the 

6 number --

7 MR. BARTON: It really closes the 

8 thing out?

9 MR. ALLEN: I don't have that 

10 number right now handy.

11 MR. BARTON: Obviously.

12 MR. ALLEN: Actually, the War 

13 Department memo you are talking about I do 

14 have handy. It is right here. And that is a 

15 typo in the TBD. It is March 8th, 1946.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, that's 

17 good.

18 MR. ALLEN: That makes a lot more 

19 sense.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. BARTON: Well, especially 

22 under the determination, you know.
43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes. 

2 Well, that ought to be a pretty --

3 MR. ALLEN: I was thinking it was 

4 an error in the memo, but it is not. It is an 

5 error in the TBD. Yes, it's not the only one.

6 (Laughter.)

7 DR. NETON: Yes, there is one more 

8 we know of.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MR. ALLEN: Two more.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Two more? 

12 Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: So, just a last 

14 question, for all of these, I mean in this 

15 case, the question with Lake Ontario, is that 

16 something that needs to be buttoned up? Or is 

17 this put to bed in terms of materials balance?

18 DR. MAURO: This is John, just to 

19 help out a little bit. 

20 It sounds like the discussion 

21 really was between Bob Barton and Bill. Bill, 

22 your sense is you are ready to put this one to 
44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bed.

2 Bob, in light of what you just 

3 heard, are you ready to put this to bed?

4 MR. BARTON: I'm pretty 

5 comfortable with that. I was just making the 

6 suggestion that it would really kind of knock 

7 this thing out of the park, to the point 

8 where, obviously, you couldn't have more than 

9 that 10 tons coming in. I mean everything 

10 else, I mean the new information provided in 

11 the TBD and all that looks kosher to me.

12 DR. MAURO: Also, to take an SC&A 

13 stand here, I think we put this to bed. We 

14 recommend to the Work Group that we close this 

15 issue as an SEC and as a Site Profile issue.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Bill, 

17 do you have any comments?

18 MR. THURBER: No. That's fine. 

19 That's fine.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Bill? The 

21 other Bill, yes.

22 MEMBER FIELD: No, it's fine with 
45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me as well.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, for 

3 the record --

4 MR. KATZ: It's closed.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- closed, 

6 this one is. And one day a month seems to be 

7 a reasonable process figure.

8 Okay. Good. Are you happy?

9 (Laughter.)

10 Okay. I didn't want to chew on it 

11 all morning, though. Yes, I agree with you on 

12 that.

13 MR. ALLEN: Well, the next one 

14 might be a little faster. That was, if I get 

15 this right --

16 MR. KATZ: The next one is about 

17 inhalation for operations other than --

18 MR. ALLEN: Finding 2 was the time 

19 for dumping the material, whether that could 

20 be done in one day or not. And I think that 

21 was, honestly, related to, if there was 10 

22 times the throughput, no, it couldn't be done 
46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in a day.

2 MR. THURBER: No, no. No, finding 

3 2 was related to --

4 MR. ALLEN: I'm wrong on this?

5 MR. THURBER: -- our concern that 

6 in your --

7 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. You're 

8 right.

9 MR. THURBER: -- inhalation 

10 calculation you only looked at the inhalation 

11 exposures during the slag dumping and not what 

12 the workers did the other 29 days, what 

13 exposure they received the other 29 days in 

14 the month. That was what finding 2 was about.

15 And as I recall, David, you and I 

16 discussed this, and you pointed out to me 

17 that, while it was not apparent in Appendix AA 

18 or not easily discernible in Appendix AA that 

19 you had, indeed, included in the calculation 

20 exposures during the rest of the month, that 

21 they were, indeed, very small, and so they 

22 almost showed up as a rounding error.
47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes, you are right. 

2 That is the finding. I was messed up there.

3 Well, it is kind of a moot point 

4 now with the TBD. Now it is a different 

5 method in there now. Hopefully, I have it 

6 described well enough.

7 I think you pointed out one item 

8 in there where I didn't mention that we are 

9 using 95th. But, other than that, hopefully, 

10 the description in there is adequate to come 

11 up with where the number came from, and it is 

12 accounting for 100 percent of the time.

13 Anything you want to add on that 

14 one, Bill?

15 MR. THURBER: No. No, I think 

16 that, again, based on my quick review of the 

17 new TBD, that it is adequately covered. It 

18 would help the reader if a sentence or so was 

19 added to indicate that while in the document, 

20 the TBD document, you suggest several options, 

21 you actually took the more conservative option 

22 and used the 95th percentile. That point was 
48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not crystal-clear in the TBD. But my 

2 understanding of what you did is conservative, 

3 is appropriately bounding.

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and John Mauro 

5 and Bill did find another error in the 

6 existing TBD that we are going to make a quick 

7 revision to correct. So, in doing that, I 

8 will specify the 95th, which, apparently, I 

9 left out of that. And now I have got a date 

10 on a memo to correct, too.

11 Is that it for finding 2?

12 MR. THURBER: Yes, I'm satisfied.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, closed.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Three.

15 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Finding 3 was a 

16 discussion on whether the airborne was 

17 unrealistically high. And it is kind of a 

18 moot point now that the current TBD is not 

19 using the old TBD-6001 values.

20 And at the last Work Group 

21 meeting, I think the answer was for SC&A to 

22 review the Evaluation Report, which I am not 
49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sure that helps.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean this 

3 really is an issue for the ER, which we will 

4 probably --

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and I did include 

6 a surrogate data justification in the 

7 documentation I sent to the Work Group. 

8 Again, I don't know what has been reviewed and 

9 what hasn't, how much time is needed.

10 I don't know if we want to close 

11 this one, hold it over for the ER talk, or 

12 what. I guess we hold onto this one?

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

14 MR. BARTON: Well, is it really 

15 even a finding anymore since --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I mean I 

17 think it is generically part of the ER 

18 discussion, but not specifically.

19 MR. BARTON: I think if that came 

20 up as a problem in the ER review up here in 

21 the --

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.
50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: -- in the Review 

2 report --

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

4 MR. BARTON: To be honest, I am 

5 looking through it. I don't quite see 

6 anything where we say the method is 

7 unrealistically high. But I don't know if 

8 that is something we really attack under a 

9 Site Profile review --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. BARTON: -- instead of an 

12 Evaluation Report.

13 MR. KATZ: So, this can be closed 

14 here?

15 DR. MAURO: This is John.

16 This is for my edification. So, 

17 in Finding 3, the concern had to do with using 

18 surrogate data in TBD-6001 as perhaps being 

19 unrealistically high. Is that where we are?

20 MR. THURBER: That is what the 

21 finding was.

22 DR. MAURO: Right, but TBD-6001 
51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 now is defunct.

2 MR. THURBER: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: So, they are using now 

4 actual data for Hooker?

5 MR. THURBER: No, they are using 

6 surrogate data from other places that were 

7 handling slag.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay, got it.

9 MR. THURBER: Mallinckrodt and 

10 Fernald.

11 DR. MAURO: All right. And, Bill, 

12 I remember you were looking at this 

13 originally. Was it your sense that the slag 

14 approach for Mallinckrodt now, as opposed to 

15 the default values that were originally in 

16 TBD-6000 falls within the realm of 

17 scientifically-sound and sufficiently18 accurate?

19 MR. THURBER: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So, this is 

21 not something we have to look at further?

22 MR. KATZ: Something you do not 
52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to look at further?

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's what I 

3 mean. Is this something we do not or is there 

4 still some action --

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: This was more 

6 generic than what is currently proposed for 

7 the use of surrogate data. So, I think we can 

8 close this.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: Bill Field, is that 

11 good with you, closing it here?

12 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I think that 

13 is fine.

14 MR. ALLEN: Okay, moving on, 

15 Observation 2 was a math error in the external 

16 dose. It was kind of a small error that is 

17 not there anymore. I mean it is not relevant 

18 to the new TBD.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, that's 

20 closed.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, if you can close 

22 observations. I'm not sure.
53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. So, it 

2 has been addressed.

3 MR. ALLEN: It has been addressed. 

4 Yes, that particular error was 350 days in a 

5 calendar year instead of 365.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

7 MR. ALLEN: I don't know who put 

8 that one in there.

9 (Laughter.)

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Those gremlins 

11 creep in.

12 MR. ALLEN: That is one of those 

13 that --

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, we found 

15 them. That's the good.

16 MR. ALLEN: There's no arguing 

17 with that kind. It is real obvious. You 

18 just fix them.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Even in 1946 

20 we had 365 days. Okay.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. ALLEN: Finding 4 was another 
54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 error in the external calculation, and that 

2 one was TBD-6001. Again, it is no longer 

3 relevant. External doses are calculated very 

4 differently now.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. 

6 That's closed.

7 MR. ALLEN: Finding 5 was, again, 

8 values pulled from 6001 were not realistic. 

9 The Appendix review recommended using MCNP, 

10 and that is what was done in the TBD. The new 

11 TBD was an MCNP run.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

13 DR. NETON: There was an error in 

14 that calculation?

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, there was a 

16 factor of a hundred error that creeped into 

17 there. It was external dose from 

18 contamination. And it might not have been the 

19 most obvious on Finding 5, but, then, the same 

20 factor crept into Finding 10, which ended up 

21 being the primary external dose during the 

22 residual period.
55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: Is this the matter 

3 that I think was cleared up over the last 

4 couple of weeks?

5 MR. THURBER: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Very good. Yes. So, 

7 Bill, you had a chance to look at that, and 

8 you're okay now?

9 MR. THURBER: Yes, I'm okay with 

10 that.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. Great.

12 MR. THURBER: I mean I am okay 

13 with the corrected number. I mean I haven't 

14 seen the corrected number, but I understand 

15 where it is going to be, and I'm okay with it.

16 MR. ALLEN: Okay, we move on to 

17 Observation --

18 MR. KATZ: Closed. I'm sorry. 

19 Closed, right?

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, it's 

21 closed, yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 

2 MR. ALLEN: Observation 3, again, 

3 is there were some millirem doses used in 

4 TBD-6001, and they were cited as 

5 milliroentgen, I think. I don't remember the 

6 details, but there was interchanging of mR and 

7 millirem, and trying to pay a little more 

8 attention to that.

9 Finding 6 --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, that --

11 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's fixed.

13 MR. ALLEN: Finding 6 was beta 

14 dose extrapolated from uranium. They thought 

15 it was not, and probably rightfully so, felt 

16 it wasn't -- I don't know how you would say 

17 it -- a valid approach to that. I believe the 

18 review recommended MCNP calculation, and that 

19 is what was done in the new TBD. There is a 

20 whole new external dose calculation in the new 

21 TBD.

22 DR. MAURO: So, the new TBD has 
57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the correct value, or is that something that 

2 is a commitment?

3 MR. ALLEN: The new TBD has an 

4 MCNP run that used a -- I'm sorry -- it used 

5 MCNP to come up with new values. So, this 

6 particular finding, the issue is gone really.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 MR. ALLEN: Whether a new issue 

9 creeps up is a different story.

10 DR. MAURO: Right, right.

11 MR. ALLEN: But, as I mentioned, 

12 there was another error in the TBD that I need 

13 to correct here. That's what John and Bill 

14 pointed out to me, and that was in the beta as 

15 well as gamma dose rates from the barrels. It 

16 was another spreadsheet math error in there, 

17 and that is going to be corrected here soon.

18 Is that what you are talking 

19 about?

20 MR. THURBER: David, this is Bill.

21 On the beta dose issue, it wasn't 

22 clear to me where the dose to the skin other 
58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 than the hands and arms came from in the new 

2 TBD.

3 MR. ALLEN: It came from MCNP-run 

4 contact dose rates. Is that -- ? 

5 MR. THURBER: Well, I thought you 

6 got the dose to the hands and arms from the 

7 MCNP run.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we calculated a 

9 contact dose rate, a 1-foot dose rate, and I 

10 think a 1-meter dose rate.

11 MR. THURBER: Oh, okay. All 

12 right. Okay.

13 And so, what did you use, 1 foot 

14 or something, for the rest of the skin?

15 MR. ALLEN: I believe it was. It 

16 should be specified in there. I am looking at 

17 the TBD right now.

18 MR. THURBER: It may be. As I 

19 say, I didn't --

20 MR. ALLEN: That is one of those 

21 paragraphs that has all kinds of information 

22 in it that is just --
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: Right.

2 MR. ALLEN: -- you know, you toss 

3 through it all.

4 MR. THURBER: Yes.

5 MR. ALLEN: And I'm still looking.

6 DR. MAURO: While you're looking, 

7 I have a question by way of process. In some 

8 Work Groups, an issue is closed after the TBD 

9 or procedure or whatever the work product is 

10 that NIOSH is preparing has been revised. In 

11 this case, it sounds like that there are 

12 commitments being made to everyone's 

13 satisfaction that, yes, that correction, when 

14 made, will solve this problem. But the actual 

15 document has not been issued with that 

16 revision.

17 This is just really a protocol 

18 question, Andy, on how you would like to run 

19 this. We certainly could close issues out on 

20 these verbal commitments. Or would you prefer 

21 to wait until you actually see the revision in 

22 the product?
60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: I don't know if that 

2 is the same thing, John. I mean, that is 

3 done, I mean, the findings themselves, there 

4 has been a TBD written that addresses those 

5 findings. And, then, there are additional 

6 minor errors -- there is a typo on a date --

7 that is not so much part of the finding as an 

8 additional piece of information mentioned in 

9 this meeting today that was a question.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, I misunderstood. 

11 I though there was a couple of these typos --

12 MR. THURBER: Yes, but, John, this 

13 is Bill.

14 I think that the point that is 

15 being made is that our finding was, we don't 

16 like the way you are doing it; you ought to 

17 use MCNP.

18 DR. MAURO: Right.

19 MR. THURBER: And NIOSH's response 

20 is, we agree; we are using MCNP -- not that we 

21 did MCNP right, because there is a subtlety 

22 there.
61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. ALLEN: That sounds bad when 

4 you say it.

5 (Laughter.)

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, is the TBD 

7 going to be revised or has it been revised?

8 MR. ALLEN: The TBD has been 

9 written to replace the Appendix.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

11 MR. ALLEN: And I think the TBD, 

12 as it stands right now, addresses all the 

13 issues, in the process of completely --

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But we haven't 

15 seen that?

16 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that is what I 

17 sent April 7th.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

19 MR. ALLEN: But what John is 

20 pointing out is there are an error or two in 

21 the new TBD, but I don't think they really go 

22 towards the issue.
62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

2 MR. ALLEN: You know, there is a 

3 math error here and a typo there.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, okay. 

5 Okay. So, we're okay. I mean, I don't want 

6 to change --

7 DR. MAURO: Andy, if you're okay, 

8 we're okay.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I mean, 

10 as long as these have been fixed -- I don't 

11 have that document here. So, I don't know 

12 that it has, but I would rather not completely 

13 close it out. I don't know. Maybe we could 

14 kind of put it in a holding --

15 MR. KATZ: It's fine. I think it 

16 is fine to close it.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes.

18 MR. KATZ: I mean, these are minor 

19 calculational errors that you are going to 

20 fix, or whatever. But what John is referring 

21 to is, with the Procedures Subcommittee, when 

22 there's agreement on an approach, but it 
63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hasn't been sort of sorted out --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Implemented, 

3 yes, yes.

4 MR. KATZ: -- implemented, so that 

5 they can actually see the fine details of 

6 it --

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: -- it is put in 

9 abeyance because there is agreement in the 

10 approach --

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: -- but it is not closed 

13 until they actually see the approach.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Here you already have 

16 the approach laid out.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: There is a 

19 calculational error.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: It's not really --

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay.
64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: You know, it doesn't 

2 take anything to fix that, as long as there is 

3 intent to fix it.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Good. Fine.

5 MR. KATZ: It doesn't take 

6 imagination to know that that number will be 

7 fixed. 

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I just 

9 don't want to have --

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, we are 

12 probably not going to go back to these.

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we don't want to 

14 lose track of something.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You lose track 

16 of it, and, then, it stays there.

17 MR. KATZ: So, at a future 

18 meeting, you can just tick off, you know, that 

19 you have corrected these calculational errors.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Sounds 

21 good.

22 MR. KATZ: And that will put that 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the record.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. ALLEN: And backtracking to 

4 where we were here, Bill, as far as the beta 

5 dose and what we used, it is at the top of 

6 page 13 of the TBD.

7 MR. THURBER: Yes, I --

8 MR. ALLEN: You found it?

9 MR. THURBER: I just saw that.

10 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

11 MR. THURBER: The other 

12 conversation was going on.

13 (Laughter.)

14 And I understand it.

15 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Was that all we 

16 had for Finding 6, then?

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: So, that's closed.

19 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: Is that correct?

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

22 MR. ALLEN: And Finding 7, intake 
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 value could not be reproduced. And we agreed 

2 that we would add detail, which, it is done 

3 very differently now. And I believe the 

4 detail is in the TBD, minus that mention of 

5 the 95th that we already mentioned today.

6 Do you have anything on that one, 

7 Bill?

8 MR. THURBER: No.

9 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, that 

11 sounds done.

12 MR. ALLEN: I believe so.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay.

14 MR. ALLEN: Finding 8 is one where 

15 we used the resuspension factor of 1 times 10 

16 to the minus 6. The conversation, as I recall 

17 from the last Work Group meeting, was that --

18 and, John Mauro, feel free to stop me if I say 

19 something wrong, but I believe you were 

20 saying -- we used an NRC document that uses 1 

21 to the minus 6 as an upper bound for the 

22 resuspension factor. SC&A has pointed out 
67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that that is a screening level for 

2 decommissioning facilities. And they say that 

3 it is assuming that the area has been washed 

4 down.

5 The conversation at the last Work 

6 Group meeting was this should be transferred 

7 to the Procedures Group, who is dealing with 

8 this. And the conversation ended up going 

9 towards we could possibly justify that for 

10 this particular site.

11 So, in the Technical Basis 

12 Document, I pointed out that the majority of 

13 the airborne would be from the dumping 

14 operation that was reported to have been 

15 outside on a concrete pad in upstate New York. 

16 And in upstate New York you are going to get 

17 a lot of weather, rain, snow, et cetera. 

18 Well, the outside area there, that is 

19 effectively being washed down very quickly. 

20 So, for the residual period, that resuspension 

21 factor should apply, if that is the criteria, 

22 washing it down.
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And that justification is in the 

2 TBD right now.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, this is 

4 predominantly or exclusively for the residual 

5 period?

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: Was this material 

9 sitting like on a pad? Well, I guess we are 

10 outdoors now, and I have to admit that, once 

11 you move outdoors, the game plan changes and 

12 the Anspaugh equation that we have seen in the 

13 past, that brings you very quickly to very low 

14 resuspension factors from weathering, and 

15 others have published.

16 So, in effect, what you are saying 

17 is this one item, this issue No. 8, deals with 

18 outdoors and the use of a 10 to the minus 6 

19 resuspension factor outdoors?

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Well, we used 

21 the contamination level derived from the 

22 airborne level that was primarily outdoors. I 
69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean, there is some potential indoors for some 

2 contamination, but it is going into a vat of 

3 acid. It is a liquid system. And, then, the 

4 only other operation in there really is 

5 filtering and drumming to filter it. And that 

6 is still going to be a moist material.

7 So, we based it on deposition 

8 outdoors, which is going to give us a much 

9 higher number than basing it on the deposition 

10 from any airborne indoors. So, I think in the 

11 case of Hooker, you can essentially say the 

12 outdoor contamination would be the greatest, 

13 and it was certainly weathered.

14 MR. BARTON: And, Dave, just to 

15 make sure I am reading this right, it says you 

16 are not considering any removal mechanisms. 

17 Does that even include like radioactive decay 

18 or being blown off the pad and offsite?

19 MR. ALLEN: No.

20 MR. BARTON: So, what falls there 

21 is there for the entire -- so, that is another 

22 layer of conservatism.
70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: And that is outdoors, 

3 assuming 10 to the minus 6 outdoors, and it 

4 stays constant, is a conservative approach. 

5 Because arguments could be made outdoors it 

6 could start around 10 to the minus 5, 10 to 

7 the minus 6, and rapidly decline to 10 to the 

8 minus 9 for outdoors.

9 I am a little confused right now 

10 because I haven't looked at all of this 

11 material recently. But, in item 8, we are 

12 talking solely about outdoor dose 

13 reconstruction under item No. 8? Or do we 

14 need to parse this between 8, and outdoor and 

15 indoor? Maybe that would be a little more 

16 productive. Because we do have some pretty 

17 strong feelings about how you deal with 

18 indoor.

19 MR. ALLEN: Well, what we are 

20 talking about is a residual period.

21 DR. MAURO: Right. And it sounds 

22 like you have broken the residual period, and 
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you are talking about, well, there is some 

2 potential for exposure outdoors during the 

3 residual period and there is potential for 

4 exposure indoors during the residual period. 

5 And what I am hearing is the approach that you 

6 are using for outdoor, which is this 10 to the 

7 minus 6 number, is certainly reasonable.

8 But I haven't heard a little bit 

9 more -- and anyone jump in and help me out --

10 what about indoor during the residual period?

11 MR. ALLEN: Well, what we did for 

12 the residual period is assume that that 

13 outdoor was deposited for a full year. And, 

14 then, we used the 1 to the minus 6 on it. The 

15 indoor airborne is quite a bit lower than what 

16 the outdoor would be. If you were to 

17 calculate a contamination level indoors and 

18 apply some higher resuspension factor, I am 

19 not sure it is going to be more favorable.

20 DR. MAURO: I hear what you are 

21 saying, but has that been done? In other 

22 words, on your indoor side of the house now 
72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you are saying that the potential for surface 

2 contamination becquerels per meter squared is 

3 a lot lower indoors than it is outdoors, and 

4 that becomes a different starting point? But 

5 then, once I am at that point, let's say 

6 whatever that starting point is, and it could 

7 be quite a bit lower than outdoors, then it 

8 becomes a matter of, all right, now we have to 

9 talk a little bit about what is a reasonable 

10 resuspension factor and/or a reasonable rate 

11 at which it goes away, this 1 percent per day 

12 business. So, that brings us squarely into 

13 the open 70 issue, once you move indoors.

14 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Well, our 

15 position is still the 1 to the minus 6 is 

16 relevant for indoors, too. So, we went with 

17 the higher airborne-causing, which is 

18 outdoors.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay.

20 MR. ALLEN: If this is not 

21 justification enough for the 1 to the minus 6, 

22 we can transfer this to the Procedures Group, 
73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but this was our attempt at addressing that 

2 and closing it out altogether.

3 DR. MAURO: Well, I hear that, 

4 basically, you are using a heuristic. You are 

5 saying, listen, outdoors was where the action 

6 was, and the levels of contamination were much 

7 higher on surfaces outdoors. And then you 

8 said, okay, we are going to use the same 

9 assumption for indoors, because that was 

10 intuitively obvious that it was worse for 

11 surface contamination.

12 Now here you are indoors during 

13 the residual period. You are starting off 

14 with the contamination on surfaces indoors, 

15 that clearly and unambiguously was 

16 conservative because you are assuming it is 

17 the same levels as you had outdoors.

18 And I guess the argument, you 

19 know, given your argument, that certainly 

20 sounds reasonable and bounding. It is moving 

21 on from there which is not apparent that you 

22 are necessarily going to be bounding for 
74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 indoors; namely, the 10 to the minus 6 and the 

2 1 percent per day.

3 It would be good to see a little 

4 quantitative analysis of that to support it, 

5 because for me it is a bit of a leap of faith 

6 to automatically assume that your outdoor 

7 treatment is going to be bounding for your 

8 indoor.

9 MR. THURBER: This is Bill 

10 Thurber.

11 Correct me if I am wrong, David, 

12 but, as I understand the data in the TBD, the 

13 indoor uranium concentration, if you will, the 

14 airborne concentration would have been about 

15 40 dpm per cubic meter, which is the number 

16 from Christifano & Harris based on digesting 

17 uranium concentrates.

18 And the number that you used for 

19 the outdoor airborne exposure, as I understand 

20 it, was about 800 dpm per cubic meter. So, 

21 there is a difference of a factor of 40 

22 between the indoor and the outdoor air 
75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concentration.

2 MR. ALLEN: It is actually much 

3 bigger than that. The 40 is the combination 

4 of outdoor and indoor, based on the 

5 timeframes.

6 MR. THURBER: But it is also the 

7 indoor. I am looking on page 10 of the TBD.

8 Oh, I'm sorry. But that is not 

9 adjusted for -- it would be much smaller than 

10 that when it is adjusted for the uranium 

11 concentration.

12 DR. MAURO: Oh, this is the 

13 dolomite. So, it is what, 1 percent or

14 something --

15 MR. THURBER: yes, right.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, I got you. Okay.

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the real number 

18 is, like you mentioned, 806. The other number 

19 is like around 3 dpm per cubic meter --

20 MR. THURBER: Yes, it is around 3, 

21 not 40, because you have got to adjust that 

22 downward for the fact that it is only 2 
76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percent uranium in the enriched slag at 

2 Hooker, if you will.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes. So, it is a 

4 factor of 270 difference between indoor and 

5 outdoor.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, is there 

7 agreement that the airborne concentration is 

8 about a 270-fold difference? Is that what you 

9 are saying? I just want to understand 

10 conceptually.

11 MR. THURBER: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: You have to help me 

13 out a little bit here.

14 MR. THURBER: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: You guys are way out 

16 in front of me. So, indoor the airborne dust 

17 loading, you know, dpm per cubic meter of 

18 alpha indoors is lower?

19 MR. THURBER: Yes, it is lower by 

20 a factor of nearly 300.

21 DR. MAURO: Three hundred? Okay. 

22 Now, given that, then, okay, so you are 
77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 starting off with a very low number. And that 

2 is the stuff that is going to settle out on 

3 surfaces, if the operations is over, right? I 

4 mean, because, in other words, now the stuff 

5 is on surfaces?

6 MR. THURBER: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: It is the residual

8 period. And that surface level, at least at 

9 time zero, is going to be 300 times lower 

10 indoors than it is outdoors?

11 MR. THURBER: That is what these 

12 numbers say, yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. Now the 

14 next step -- I will actually try to work the 

15 problem I had right now as we are talking. 

16 So, now the resuspension factor there, one 

17 would argue, is 300 times lower, but it is 

18 going to be resuspending easily at a factor of 

19 10 to 100 times higher, if it wasn't cleaned 

20 up. In other words, if you just got that now.

21 So, your starting point, so you've 

22 sort of -- now it is a push.
78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: It's a push.

2 DR. MAURO: It's a push. So, now 

3 really they are equivalent. So, it is going 

4 to go down. All right, I'm with you.

5 Now you go down at 1 percent a 

6 day. Everything is squared off. So, in other 

7 words, what you are really saying is the 

8 indoors is going to be just about the same as 

9 the outdoors as a function of time? I mean, I 

10 am just doing this in my head as we are 

11 working through it.

12 MR. THURBER: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Because of the 

14 difference in the concentration, you have 

15 offset the difference in the resuspension 

16 factor. Now this clearly is probably not all 

17 explained in the report, but what I am hearing 

18 is it makes sense.

19 Oh, you are not following it? I'm 

20 sorry.

21 MR. THURBER: No, I follow you, 

22 John.
79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I still 

2 think -- do we have the 1 percent per day 

3 applied to -- we do not? -- the indoors?

4 MR. ALLEN: No. That is the next 

5 finding.

6 DR. NETON: Okay.

7 DR. MAURO: Well, you see, that 

8 might be okay if effectively you are treating 

9 the problem, you're effectively behaving as if 

10 you have got a 10 to the minus 4 resuspension 

11 factor.

12 I'm not sure. I'm sorry. That 

13 was the idea for the blackboard chart.

14 But, in other words, right now, 

15 your whole approach is seated in the outdoor.

16 MR. ALLEN: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: With the argument made 

18 that the outdoor is going to be bounding, or 

19 at least appropriate, as applied to indoor. I 

20 am trying to make it okay with me.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And I am struggling 
80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with it a little bit.

2 MR. BARTON: I might be mixing up 

3 sites here, but was Hooker one of the ones 

4 that was cleaned up after the operational 

5 period?

6 MR. ALLEN: No.

7 MR. BARTON: No? Okay.

8 DR. NETON: But, see, John, there 

9 still remains to be a discussion on TBD-70 

10 about this 1 times 10 to the minus 6. And we 

11 are preparing an approach or maybe a way to 

12 deal with this 1 times 10 to the minus 6 issue 

13 in TBD-70 or TIB-70.

14 So, this might not be the place to 

15 have this discussion.

16 DR. MAURO: A good point. A good 

17 point. Let's put this on the --

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Or should this 

19 go to Procedures?

20 DR. NETON: Well, it is part of 

21 the generic complex-wide issue with this 1 

22 times 10 to the minus 6. I mean, Dave was 
81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 trying to say, well, you can really put this 

2 to bed now. But it sounds to me like there is 

3 enough generic issues.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It is a 

5 generic issue.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. And I was trying 

7 to do the same thing on the fly.

8 DR. NETON: Yes, you don't want to 

9 do that.

10 DR. MAURO: We shouldn't rush 

11 this.

12 DR. NETON: No.

13 DR. MAURO: We shouldn't rush it.

14 MR. KATZ: So, just for 

15 clarification, though, we are not putting this 

16 to bed as a generic issue?

17 DR. NETON: No, no.

18 MR. KATZ: That needs to be dealt 

19 with in Procedures. But it sounds like in 

20 this case you still don't really have a 

21 concern because of the overestimating using 

22 the external starting point.
82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: We were trying to make 

2 the case that the 1 to the minus 6 would 

3 apply, even with what SC&A is saying that we 

4 don't necessarily agree with. However, it 

5 doesn't sound like we are going to reach any 

6 agreement.

7 MR. KATZ: No, I understand that, 

8 but --

9 MR. ALLEN: This was an attempt to 

10 put it to bed for Hooker only. 

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MR. ALLEN: And it doesn't look 

13 like it worked.

14 (Laughter.)

15 DR. MAURO: You've got it right. 

16 That's exactly what I was just trying to do.

17 DR. NETON: I'm not comfortable 

18 saying, okay, well, maybe it is 10 to the 

19 minus 4 indoors and --

20 MR. KATZ: So, I know you are not 

21 agreeing to that. All I am trying to 

22 understand here is it sounded like, from what 
83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 John and Bill were saying, given that you have 

2 this two orders of magnitude difference in the 

3 starting point, even if -- you are not 

4 agreeing to SC&A's approach to maybe being 10 

5 to the minus 4 might be appropriate, but in 

6 any even, it is bounded using this approach, 

7 because you are starting with two orders of 

8 magnitude higher as your base point --

9 DR. NETON: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: -- for the internal.

11 DR. NETON: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: In other words, two 

13 orders of magnitude greater --

14 DR. NETON: But, at some point, 

15 this 1-percent-per-day clearance is going to 

16 come up, and that is a TBD-70 issue as well.

17 MR. THURBER: This is Bill 

18 Thurber.

19 David, help me with -- the TBD 

20 does not assume 1-percent-per-day decline 

21 during the residual period, does it?

22 MR. ALLEN: No, it does not.
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Then, maybe we are 

2 okay.

3 MR. THURBER: It assumes that it 

4 remains constant during the residual period, I 

5 believe, is that correct?

6 DR. NETON: You mean the indoor 

7 portions?

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: So, in effect --

10 DR. NETON: Then, we're good.

11 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. Good. So, 

12 even though we don't agree on OTIB-70 in this 

13 particular case, the way in which you have 

14 treated the problem sounds like it is fine.

15 DR. NETON: Yes, it is bounding. 

16 We agree it is bounding. The 1 times 10 to 

17 the minus 6 is outdoor constant, is a bounding 

18 value, I think is what we just said. Yes, it 

19 would bound the indoor.

20 MR. ALLEN: Right.

21 DR. MAURO: And that is because of 

22 the difference in the reality that the indoor 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 starting point is much lower?

2 DR. NETON: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: That's it. We don't 

4 need to talk about --

5 DR. NETON: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: I thought you were 

7 using a 1-percent-per-day indoor also, but if 

8 you are not, and you are holding it constant, 

9 I think that is right. We could put this one 

10 to bed.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I mean, 

12 to me, and this is really an ER issue, is, 

13 yes, it is bounding, but is it realistic? I 

14 mean --

15 MR. ALLEN: It is a very trivial 

16 dose.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Well, I 

18 mean, that is why I am -- but, you know, these 

19 begin to kind of compound, potentially. But, 

20 I mean, the dose can't be measured, really.

21 MR. KATZ: I think when the dose 

22 is trivial, you don't really have to worry 
86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about the --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes. 

3 Okay. So, we are good to go on this, I would 

4 say, for Hooker.

5 DR. NETON: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: And we agree.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

8 MR. ALLEN: Finding 9 was the 1-

9 percent-per-day completion rate, and we didn't 

10 use it in the original one. So, really, I 

11 never did quite understand the difference 

12 between the two in the review. We don't use 

13 it in this current one. We just discussed it, 

14 and it sounds like that made it okay. So, I 

15 guess that closes 9, too.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 Okay, 10.

18 MR. ALLEN: Ten was a math error 

19 that we discussed in Finding No. 4. That is 

20 done differently now. So, that error goes

21 away.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, it looks 
87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to me like we have closed everything out with 

2 the exception of the broader issue of 8 to 

3 Procedures Group.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, the generic issue 

5 is for Procedures.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, right. 

7 That isn't going to come up at this Committee 

8 again.

9 MR. KATZ: Right. They have it 

10 already. They already have that.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Great. 

12 Fine. So, we are clear.

13 We basically have closed out the 

14 Site Profile issues. So, a fresh, clean Site 

15 Profile will now come out.

16 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it will be a 

17 revision to the --

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

19 MR. ALLEN: Fix a couple of 

20 errors, yet again.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. 

22 So, shall we go on?
88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: A 10-minute break?

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do you want to 

3 take a break? Okay. Sure, we can take a 10-

4 minute break.

5 MR. KATZ: So, a 10-minute comfort 

6 break for everyone on the line, too.

7 Thanks.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

9 matter went off the record at 10:19 a.m. and 

10 resumed at 10:30 a.m.) 

11 MR. KATZ: So, we are reconvening 

12 after a short break.

13 This is the TBD-6001 Work Group, 

14 and we're off again.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And we're off 

16 again. So, now we are on to the SEC review?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Who wants 

19 to --

20 MR. BARTON: Bill Thurber, are you 

21 on the line?

22 MR. ALLEN: I think we came back a 
89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little early. No, maybe not.

2 MR. KATZ: Bill Thurber, are you 

3 on the line yet?

4 MR. THURBER: I am muted again.

5 MR. KATZ: And you're very quiet 

6 when you're muted.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. THURBER: I'm not clear what 

9 the question is.

10 MR. BARTON: Bill, we wanted to 

11 start going over your SEC ER review and go 

12 through those findings. So, we can discuss 

13 them in, I guess, much the same way we just 

14 handled the Site Profile.

15 MR. THURBER: For Hooker?

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Hooker, right.

17 MR. THURBER: But we have had no 

18 findings, no SEC findings on Hooker.

19 MR. ALLEN: You had an SEC -- hang 

20 on a second. Let me get the right word for 

21 it. A focused review, Hooker Electrochemical 

22 Petition Evaluation Report.
90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: Oh, I'm sorry.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Because we 

3 have a response to it.

4 MR. BARTON: It was a January 

5 document, Bill.

6 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

7 MR. THURBER: Let me --

8 MR. BARTON: Well, I can start 

9 summarizing this, and, Bill, you can jump in.

10 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry. Okay. 

11 Excuse me. Yes.

12 Well, go ahead, Bob.

13 MR. BARTON: Okay. Sure. All 

14 right.

15 Well, these are not numbered using 

16 a number system. We used A, B, C --

17 MR. THURBER: Right.

18 MR. BARTON: -- just to kind of 

19 try to avoid confusion between these things.

20 So, Finding A had to do with what 

21 percentage of uranium was contained in the 

22 slag at Hooker. And I believe this one was 
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 based on a report, and this is where they talk 

2 about how it came in at that certain percent 

3 and, then, it was enriched to, I guess, 1 or 2 

4 percent during the process that was at Hooker, 

5 or at least -- anyway, that is still your 

6 response there. But I think that is 

7 essentially what that finding is.

8 Do we want to summarize all these 

9 and then turn it over to you guys or should we 

10 go issue by issue?

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Let's just go 

12 issue by issue.

13 MR. THURBER: I'm sorry. I can 

14 pick up on this, Bob. I just had the wrong 

15 document open.

16 Finding A is basically the same 

17 as, I believe, Finding 1, basically, the same 

18 as Finding 1 with regard to the Appendix AA, 

19 the same basic question.

20 MR. BARTON: Well, it is a little 

21 bit different, Bill, because Finding 1 was 

22 about the total input, the tonnage, I guess 
92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you would say, and the dumping of barrels 

2 based on that. Finding A, it seems to me, is 

3 more about the percentage of uranium --

4 MR. THURBER: Well, but the 

5 commonality is that if the slag contains .2 

6 percent U, then that is consistent with 

7 processing one day per month, given the 

8 available input data from the documentation.

9 MR. BARTON: I see.

10 MR. THURBER: They become the 

11 same, even though superficially they look 

12 different.

13 MR. ALLEN: So, are we going to 

14 say that one is already closed then or do we 

15 want to talk?

16 MR. THURBER: Well, I am satisfied 

17 that that is closed.

18 MR. ALLEN: I'm satisfied it is 

19 closed, but that doesn't mean anything.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. Me, too.

21 MR. BARTON: Well, what you 

22 actually did is you went all the way up to 2
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percent, right, not even the 1 percent that we 

2 know in the findings it's 2 percent at the end 

3 of the process, essentially?

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes, which makes 

5 sense. And that wasn't done in the original 

6 Appendix. Now it covers the .2 percent as 

7 slag and the 2 percent as concentrate.

8 MR. BARTON: And the 2 percent is 

9 what is used for the filtration activities?

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it is.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And how did 

12 you get to the 2 percent?

13 MR. ALLEN: The original document 

14 we were looking at, the description said 500-

15 pound barrels, and it was concentrated from 

16 one pound to five to ten pounds. One pound in 

17 500 was the .2 percent.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, okay.

19 MR. ALLEN: And, then, you use the 

20 10 pounds in 500 for about 2 percent.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

22 MR. THURBER: So, the chosen 
94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approach is conservative, takes the more 

2 conservative number to use for the processed 

3 slag.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

5 MR. THURBER: Finding B said NIOSH 

6 should review its estimate of the monthly slag 

7 throughput at Hooker to ensure that all 

8 relevant data have been considered.

9 And this, again, ties in with the 

10 discussion we have already had on whether the 

11 numbers at Hooker were input or output 

12 numbers. I am satisfied that NIOSH has indeed 

13 reviewed this and added some additional mass 

14 balance information which supports their 

15 position. And I am satisfied that this 

16 finding is resolved.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Okay. 

18 Bill Field, do you have any -- this sounds 

19 pretty reasonable to me, but --

20 MEMBER FIELD: No, I think it 

21 sounds reasonable, too.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.
95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: We will move on to 

2 Finding C then.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

4 MR. THURBER: Finding C: NIOSH 

5 should consider revising Appendix AA to base 

6 internal exposures on surrogate slag-handling 

7 data rather than surrogate data from the 

8 TBD-6001 recovery operations.

9 And what this finding tended to 

10 point out was that we did not agree with the 

11 particular operation from among the many in 

12 TBD-6000 which NIOSH chose to use as the 

13 surrogate for what went on at Hooker. NIOSH 

14 picked the scrap recovery operations from 

15 TBD-6001.

16 We felt that, if you are going to 

17 use TBD-6001, which was the case at the time, 

18 that there were better choices from that 

19 document. Because the scrap recovery that was 

20 contemplated in TBD-6001 was quite different 

21 than processing slag as was actually practiced 

22 at Hooker.
96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I believe that with the new 

2 TBD that this approach has been changed. As I 

3 understand it -- and, David, correct me --

4 NIOSH has used, instead, actual surrogate 

5 slag-handling data from Mallinckrodt and 

6 Fernald and selected the 95th percentile of 

7 the values that they obtained from those two 

8 other sites to use as the basis for the 

9 internal exposure.

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that is correct.

11 MR. THURBER: And, to me, this 

12 seems much improved over the original 

13 approach. I feel it is a reasonable approach 

14 to take. You obviously have to use surrogate 

15 data, and this is a much better choice for 

16 surrogate data, in my view.

17 MR. ALLEN: I'm not going to 

18 disagree.

19 (Laughter.)

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I don't have 

21 any comment. I don't know enough about it. I 

22 mean, it seems to be, if SC&A is comfortable 
97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with it, then, technically --

2 MR. THURBER: It is technically 

3 superior to what was done before.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. And why 

5 is that?

6 MR. BARTON: It is more reflective 

7 of the actual operations that would have 

8 happened and the materials they actually 

9 handled at --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: At Hooker?

11 MR. BARTON: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Rather than 

13 the other one was the generic?

14 MR. ALLEN: The other one, we may 

15 agree or disagree. I mean, it did involve 

16 digestion and acid, et cetera, but the 

17 material was certainly a lot different.

18 MR. KATZ: It was scrap metal.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, it was 

20 scrap metal. Yes. Okay.

21 So, this is what you are using 

22 really as surrogate data for the processing of 
98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 slag?

2 MR. ALLEN: For the handling of 

3 slag.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. 

5 Okay.

6 MR. THURBER: But it is surrogate 

7 data related specifically to slag handling --

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. THURBER: -- but at other 

10 sites.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Just to throw a fly in 

13 the ointment that -- this is John -- in the 

14 past, when we reviewed an ER or Site Profile, 

15 I know that one of the questions always that 

16 in the end has been posed to SC&A is for us to 

17 do a formal review against the five Board 

18 surrogate data criteria: timeliness, you 

19 know, comparability, exclusivity, those sorts 

20 of things.

21 Bill, was that part of the work 

22 that you did here? I just don't remember. 
99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They all sort of blend together. We had a 

2 section on that?

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You did. I 

4 mean, we got a document from David, a White 

5 Paper.

6 So, have you guys reviewed that, 

7 SC&A?

8 MR. KATZ: They received it.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MR. BARTON: I don't know if we 

11 have been tasked to review that. At the very 

12 least, we wanted to look at it --

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

14 MR. BARTON: -- in preparation for 

15 this meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

17 MR. BARTON: But I don't think any 

18 formal review has gone on on that.

19 DR. MAURO: As a matter of due 

20 process, for the record, I know that in the 

21 past whenever surrogate data was an important 

22 part of a decision, especially an SEC issue, 
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we usually had a special appendix where we 

2 walked through each of the points a little 

3 more formally and said, yea or nay, whether we 

4 felt it met the criteria.

5 If we haven't done that yet, I 

6 would suggest that we get that as part of the 

7 record.

8 MS. LIN: This is Jenny.

9 You don't mean to say "due 

10 process", do you? You meant due diligence?

11 DR. MAURO: Let's say due 

12 diligence. I'm sorry.

13 (Laughter.)

14 MR. KATZ: Dave, did your 

15 surrogate data piece address all those 

16 elements?

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We were tasked 

18 at the last Work Group meeting.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, I thought that --

20 MR. ALLEN: It was our evaluation 

21 based upon the Board's criteria and that's 

22 what I sent, yes.
101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's what I 

2 was wondering. Right. So, I mean, do we need 

3 to task them to review that rather than to go 

4 through --

5 MR. KATZ: If they haven't read 

6 it, if they haven't read what DCAS has 

7 produced, they certainly need --

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: -- to review that, read 

10 that analysis.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Is that the case, Bill, 

13 that you guys haven't read the DCAS document?

14 MR. THURBER: I have glanced at 

15 it. I haven't sat down and gone through it 

16 thoroughly.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay.

18 MR. THURBER: Again, it is 

19 something that we hadn't been tasked to do. I 

20 looked at it in preparation for this meeting. 

21 It was not a thoroughgoing review.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: They probably 

2 need to do that.

3 MR. KATZ: I mean, we can run 

4 through it. I mean, Dave can run through --

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: -- the material that is 

7 there, so that you can have a sort of oral and 

8 resolve any questions you might have upfront. 

9 But, certainly, you would need sort of a 

10 final word on it.

11 So, you don't need to repeat what, 

12 but affirm that --

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I don't 

14 think they need to start from scratch, but 

15 they ought to look at it and offer us an 

16 opinion as to do they agree with NIOSH's 

17 summary --

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- rather than 

20 developing a new summary, and then we have to 

21 try to --

22 MR. KATZ: No, no, no, no. Right.
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: But, in answer to 

2 your question, John, we did not do our own 

3 independent analysis at the time of the 

4 surrogate data criteria against the ER.

5 DR. MAURO: And I can say right 

6 now I know that the surrogate data folks would 

7 very much want to make sure that we did look 

8 at each of those five issues. And maybe all 

9 that will be necessary is to go over those 

10 five issues right here with David and listen 

11 to the arguments made or -- and that is really

12 up to the Work Group -- whether you would like 

13 something in writing from us.

14 MR. KATZ: And so, John, I think 

15 Dave will go through them, through the 

16 analysis, and you can respond. But, at the 

17 end of that, if you determine that you need 

18 time to think and analyze, that is fine.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: And we will await that.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, that 

22 really is the key for this SEC review.
104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Because there 

3 isn't anything.

4 MR. KATZ: You know, if you hear 

5 it all and you say, oh, that's all pat, then 

6 that's fine, too.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: But you certainly have 

9 the opportunity to spend time analyzing it 

10 after this meeting.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: And as the 

12 Chair, I would want you to be comfortable --

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- that you 

15 have had enough time to really think about it.

16 DR. MAURO: Good. Okay. I'm glad 

17 I brought it up.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Should we go 

19 through the other findings?

20 MR. THURBER: Finding D? Do you 

21 want to keep going?

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Why 
105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't we quickly do that?

2 MR. THURBER: All right. Finding 

3 D, NIOSH should clarify whether 1.6 millirep 

4 per hour for gamma and 11.5 millirep per hour 

5 for beta, or values contained in Tables AA.3 

6 and AA.4 of Appendix AA, should be used for a 

7 bounding calculation.

8 I think that this is probably 

9 irrelevant now, given the fact that in the new 

10 TBD those numbers that I just quoted, 1.6 

11 millirep per hour for gamma and 11.5 millirep 

12 per hour for beta, are no longer used. But I 

13 think it would be appropriate for NIOSH to 

14 comment on this.

15 MR. ALLEN: Well, the Evaluation 

16 Report, there was data from various sources 

17 put in there just to say there is some data 

18 and the doses can be bounded, not necessarily 

19 that that is what would be used. That is kind 

20 of the purpose of an Evaluation Report, to say 

21 that it can be done, not necessarily how it 

22 would be done.
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The TBD then puts together how we 

2 are going to do it. And like you said, it 

3 does not use those numbers.

4 So, I guess that is our 

5 clarification.

6 MR. THURBER: Philosophically, 

7 and, you know, we have commented on this in 

8 the past, when NIOSH says that they can do a 

9 bounding calculation, and they say here are 

10 four different ways we might be able to do a 

11 bounding calculation, we might only agree that 

12 one of those is bounding. And therefore, we 

13 have suggested from time to time that it is 

14 appropriate to be prescriptive in saying how 

15 you are going to bound it, so that we can then 

16 look at the proposed approach and say, yes, we 

17 agree that that is bounding or, no, we don't 

18 agree that that is bounding. But I am 

19 personally not comfortable when it is left 

20 open-ended.

21 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think I have a 

22 different interpretation of what an ER is 
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 supposed to do. But, again, I don't know if 

2 that is relevant in this discussion. By 

3 issuing the TBD, we have clarified that those 

4 are not going to be used.

5 MR. THURBER: In this particular 

6 case, that is correct. But, as I say, I 

7 wanted to make the philosophical point that, 

8 if the position is taken that a bounding 

9 calculation can be done, it should be -- the 

10 procedure should be described.

11 DR. MAURO: This is John. Maybe I 

12 could help a little on the nuance here.

13 This harkens back to what Mark 

14 Griffon refers to as a proof of principle. 

15 And it emerged that, yes, I fully understand 

16 once you have the data and you say, listen, we 

17 have plenty of data and we're in a position 

18 where we could place a plausible upper bound, 

19 and from looking at the data, very often it is 

20 self-evident that, yes, it is true. It 

21 certainly looks like that.

22 But there is also the concern that 
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sometimes the methodologies, in going from the 

2 data to actually how we are going to use the 

3 data and implement it, and the perfect example 

4 was the high-fired plutonium, is sort of like 

5 where it all started, where a request was made 

6 for proof of principle. Let's see how exactly 

7 you are going to do it.

8 And the reason for that was it 

9 wasn't straightforward. It wasn't intuitive 

10 that, oh, of course, when you have the data, 

11 you are going to take the 95th percentile; 

12 it's done. There was more to the story, and 

13 until you actually went through some cases and 

14 demonstrated them, and went through a process.

15 So, the way I see this proof-of16 principle concept is there are times when you 

17 have data and information which on the surface 

18 certainly appears to be you have sufficient 

19 data to do what needs to be done. It 

20 certainly is helpful to us to see exactly what 

21 you are going to do, rather than for us to 

22 imagine that, yes, it looks like they 
109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 certainly can do it, but it will be nice to 

2 see it.

3 So, I mean, the proof-of-principle 

4 idea is still before us on how far we go in 

5 order to make the case, yes, you can do it. I 

6 guess a judgment call by each Work Group on 

7 whether you would like to see an example where 

8 you walk through how the work is going to be 

9 done.

10 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I am not sure 

11 where we are on that now.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, all I am doing is 

13 some perspective on judgments that need to be 

14 made, whether you really need to lay it out 

15 because it is not self-evident that you can do 

16 it, and how you are going to do it, in cases 

17 where, no, I think we can close the issue 

18 because it is self-evident that, yes, you can 

19 do it, and we know how you are going to do it.

20 MR. THURBER: In this particular 

21 case, it has become irrelevant because the 

22 approach has been changed. But I wanted to 
110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make the point that proof of principle is 

2 often appropriate because several people, as 

3 John suggested, could take the same data and 

4 come up with several different alternative 

5 ways to arrive at what the course is.

6 But, in this case, I think that, 

7 because of what has changed with the TBD, that 

8 this is not relevant any longer.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It seems to me 

10 that in going through the Board's criteria for 

11 use of surrogate data, that is where this 

12 would come into play, where you would need to 

13 describe in that exactly how you are going to 

14 do it, and why that bounding is appropriate. 

15 Is that a place to --

16 MR. KATZ: Well, it is not even 

17 specific to surrogate data, this proof of 

18 principle.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: But this is fine. We 

21 have here a different, we have a TBD that is 

22 specific and lays it out --
111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: -- and there is no 

3 ambiguity about --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: -- the feasibility of 

6 the approach.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. ALLEN: I think we are all 

9 talking the same thing.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, this is put to bed 

11 in this case.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Well, 

13 that's what I thought.

14 MR. KATZ: There is a broader 

15 conversation going on --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes. 

17 Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: -- but it is put to bed 

19 here.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right.

21 MR. THURBER: Are we ready to move 

22 on, then? Consider it put to bed for this 
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specific situation?

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

3 MR. THURBER: Okay. Finding E, 

4 the PER should recognize that slag was present 

5 during the residual period, at least through 

6 1958, and ensure that this information is 

7 incorporated into a bounding external exposure 

8 calculation for the residual period.

9 The basis for this was some 

10 additional documentation that we found in the 

11 archives after we had prepared our review of 

12 Appendix AA, which suggested that there was 

13 slag still on the Hooker property after the 

14 operating period had been concluded. So, that 

15 was the basis for this.

16 Now I know that David has looked 

17 into this and prepared a response. So, I will 

18 turn it over to him.

19 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I did prepare 

20 that, that was the other document I sent. And 

21 it was Finding F under there.

22 And, basically, this has been a 
113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little bit of a point of confusion for several 

2 people, as well as DOL and a few others.

3 Hooker Electrochemical was the 

4 primary operator for Lake Ontario Ordnance 

5 Works from -- I don't know if I have got the 

6 dates handy here.

7 MR. BARTON: '53 to '58.

8 MR. ALLEN: '53 to '58. The Hooker 

9 site proper did this mag fluoride digestion in 

10 '44, '45, and '46. But these are two very 

11 separate sites --

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Physically.

13 MR. ALLEN: -- physically.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. 

15 That's what I thought.

16 MR. ALLEN: So, the problem was 

17 the AEC often referred to Lake Ontario Works 

18 as the Hooker site because that was the only 

19 Hooker site that they cared about in the 

20 fifties.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Because Hooker 

22 owned it -- or managed it.
114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And they were done 

2 with processing that Hooker data at their site 

3 by then. So, it got a little bit of 

4 confusion. It is usually ambiguous.

5 But I went through the documents 

6 that they had listed. It lists a number of 

7 chemical compounds of uranium, not just mag 

8 fluoride.

9 There are other Lake Ontario 

10 Ordnance Works documentation that lists those 

11 same contaminants or those same piles, I guess 

12 you would say, or waste products at that site.

13 And the one letter referenced also 

14 indicated that the material was shipped to 

15 Y-12.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 MR. ALLEN: And I got another 

18 document saying that the magnesium fluoride at 

19 Lake Ontario Ordnance Works was shipped to 

20 Y-12 in the late fifties. It all seems to 

21 link up that the references in question are 

22 talking about Lake Ontario Ordnance Group. 
115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There is no smoking gun in any of this, but it 

2 all seems to point to Lake Ontario Ordnance 

3 Works as the site where this material was.

4 MR. BARTON: I am just looking at 

5 your last quote here. Would you say that 

6 really that first sentence is kind of what 

7 does it because it talks about the site 

8 starting back up briefly in the '48-to-1949 

9 period? Could that be covered under the 

10 operational period?

11 Because in just reading some of 

12 these quotes, it really kind of seems like it 

13 could go either way. I mean, you have some --

14 MR. ALLEN: Some of them could. 

15 There's no smoking gun. Like I said, you have 

16 got to put all the documents together.

17 Which quote are you --

18 MR. BARTON: It is the last one 

19 you have there. It says, "The MED constructed 

20 uranium reduction in casting plant operated by 

21 ElectroMet in Niagara Falls, resumed 

22 operations for a brief period in 1948 to 
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1949."

2 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Yes, that's 

3 ElectroMet.

4 MR. KATZ: It's all mixed up.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. ALLEN: It is all interrelated 

7 because that is where the mag fluoride came 

8 from, that Hooker dealt with. But, in this 

9 case, in '48-'49, it was sent to Lake Ontario 

10 Ordnance Works, is my take on this whole 

11 thing.

12 MR. BARTON: But it doesn't really 

13 indicate, though, does it?

14 MR. ALLEN: Well, it does say 

15 casting operations "were piled on the ground 

16 adjacent to the fire reservoir in the water 

17 treatment plant," which is where other 

18 documents say it was located at Lake Ontario 

19 Ordnance Works.

20 MR. THURBER: Can you specifically 

21 identify the -- what was it? -- those two 

22 sites you just mentioned at Lake Ontario?
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: The fire reservoir and 

2 the water treatment plant? Yes.

3 MR. THURBER: Yes. You can 

4 specifically identify those facilities at Lake 

5 Ontario?

6 MR. ALLEN: I believe so. I 

7 didn't put it in here. And, honestly, I would 

8 have to refresh my memory, but I believe, yes, 

9 I have seen those before and seen them 

10 mentioned in other documents.

11 And, in fact, I take it back. 

12 This quote is from a Lake Ontario, I think, a 

13 Lake Ontario document, isn't it?

14 MR. THURBER: Well, that was the 

15 unknown 1971 document? I don't happen to have 

16 that open, Dave, but I've got it.

17 MR. BARTON: It does indicate and 

18 reference that it was from Lake Ontario.

19 MR. THURBER: Oh, okay.

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Yes, this is a 

21 Lake Ontario document.

22 MR. THURBER: All right. Okay.
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: I guess the question, 

2 then, is, I mean, those two sites were fairly 

3 similar. Is there any chance both of them had 

4 slag --

5 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think it comes 

6 down to there is no indication there was 

7 anything at Hooker after 1946.

8 MR. BARTON: Just sort of the 

9 ambiguous wording of the first couple of 

10 quotes in that?

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes. The only 

12 indication is this one memo, and the 

13 information I put here seems to be pointing 

14 that they are actually talking about Lake 

15 Ontario Ordnance Works.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is that 

17 treated as a separate site then?

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's definitely 

19 a -- it is one of our sites --

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: You will have 

21 a separate Site Profile?

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Oh, yes. Oh, 
119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 yes, it is one of our sites.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Yes.

3 MR. ALLEN: For a lot more than 

4 mag fluorides.

5 (Laughter.)

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Well, I 

7 mean, it sounds like a waste storage facility.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes. That's exactly 

9 what it is, yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, as far as 

11 the work on Hooker, what you are saying is 

12 those references, that implied that --

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Everything we 

14 know about Hooker was that the mag fluoride 

15 came in. The oversized stuff was redrummed 

16 and shipped out. The concentrate was shipped 

17 out. There is no reason to believe there was 

18 anything left over.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. 

20 All you have is residual?

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But now no 
120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 residual due to piles remaining?

2 MR. ALLEN: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

4 MR. BARTON: Well, I think Bill 

5 Thurber brings up a really good point in that, 

6 if we could actually identify this fire 

7 reservoir in the water treatment plant as 

8 being an area of the Lake Ontario site, I 

9 mean --

10 MR. ALLEN: Well, again, that is 

11 the 1971 document, which is an inventory of 

12 Lake Ontario Ordnance Works.

13 And my point was just that the 

14 letter you referenced saying there might be 

15 something left over to Hooker had an inventory 

16 of stuff that is similar to the inventory in 

17 that letter.

18 MR. THURBER: Oh, the Superior 

19 letter did have an inventory attached to it, 

20 David?

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, there was one in 

22 there. It lists K-65 material, L-30, L-50, 
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 R-10, R-10 iron cake, et cetera.

2 MR. THURBER: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Are you good, Andy?

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I am good 

5 with that.

6 MR. BARTON: It doesn't explicitly 

7 say it, at least I can't see it, but does that 

8 1957 Superior letter in its inventory list 

9 obviously list the slag? Because it says the 

10 1971 document definitely lists slag in its 

11 inventory, but it doesn't quite say --

12 MR. ALLEN: I think that is one of 

13 the L's, but let me call it up. It has been a 

14 little while since I have looked at it. 

15 Hopefully, I have got it here.

16 And I don't think I have it handy.

17 DR. NETON: Have you got an SRDB 

18 number?

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I have that.

20 DR. NETON: I can find it. I'm 

21 online here.

22 MR. ALLEN: I have got 6341.
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: That is an early one.

2 MR. ALLEN: I thought I put that 

3 on my drive here, but, apparently, I didn't.

4 Well, do we want to --

5 MR. KATZ: Do you want carry on 

6 while Jim searches the SRDB?

7 MR. ALLEN: Do you want to just 

8 come back to this issue or what do you want to 

9 do here?

10 DR. NETON: I will have it here in 

11 two seconds.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

13 DR. NETON: Just give me a couple 

14 of seconds.

15 All right, it's more than two 

16 seconds.

17 MR. KATZ: I was going to say, 

18 nothing's that fast with the SRDB.

19 (Laughter.)

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, unless he 

21 has got a faster connection than I do.

22 Removal of waste at Haist 
123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 property? Is that the one you are talking 

2 about?

3 MR. ALLEN: That might be it.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Low-grade 

5 residue stored at Niagara Falls, New York. 

6 Yes, that's it.

7 MR. ALLEN: Low-grade uranium 

8 residues stored in Niagara Falls site, New 

9 York.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, 

11 that's it. Okay.

12 I've got it right here, Dave, if 

13 you want to look at it.

14 MR. ALLEN: There should be a list 

15 on one of those pages. It is really odd. How 

16 many pages is this thing?

17 Oh, there you went by it.

18 Okay, we have got it here, and it 

19 has got one list of -- I think your question 

20 was whether or not the C2 slag was there?

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 MR. ALLEN: Go down. There is 
124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 another.

2 DR. NETON: Eighteen thousand 

3 kilograms of C slag.

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it's the top of 

5 page 2.

6 DR. NETON: I mean, clearly, this

7 is not, I mean when they start talking about 

8 the African ore, I mean that is the K-65 

9 material that went to Fernald from Lake 

10 Ontario Ordnance Works.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Closed.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We've got it.

15 MR. KATZ: Was that Finding E or 

16 F?

17 MR. ALLEN: That was --

18 MR. KATZ: You said it was F, 

19 David? You said it as F, David, but I thought 

20 --

21 MR. ALLEN: I think that was F.

22 MR. BARTON: I think we might have 
125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 skipped E.

2 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. All right.

3 MR. THURBER: Okay. We are on the 

4 resuspension factor then.

5 DR. NETON: What finding?

6 MR. ALLEN: I think you might have 

7 skipped Finding E, Bill.

8 MR. THURBER: Which is? Tell me 

9 what.

10 MR. ALLEN: I just got my notices. 

11 SLAPS data, bounding.

12 MR. BARTON: This was the St. 

13 Louis Airport measurements.

14 MR. THURBER: Oh, yes. Yes.

15 MR. ALLEN: It is very related to, 

16 well, the answer is very related to Finding D.

17 MR. THURBER: Yes.

18 MR. ALLEN: It is pretty much the 

19 same story. We didn't use that data. We used 

20 an MCNP run. But I think it goes about the 

21 same way as Finding D.

22 MR. THURBER: Right. Right, I 
126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agree.

2 The next one is, depending on 

3 employment history, use of a resuspension 

4 factor of 1E-6 per meter for the residual

5 period may not be bounding when calculating 

6 inhalation doses. If NIOSH believes that this 

7 resuspension factor is appropriate, they 

8 should provide justification describing, for 

9 example, cleanup practices conducted after the 

10 cessation of operations.

11 Again, we discussed this at some 

12 length in the context of the TBD, and NIOSH 

13 described the fact that the primary dust, the 

14 inhalation, the primary source of inhalation 

15 exposure was outdoors and that, given that, 

16 the 1E-6 number looked to be reasonable.

17 I don't know whether NIOSH wants 

18 to comment further on that.

19 MR. ALLEN: I think we closed this 

20 one. It was part of the TBD review. It is 

21 pretty much the same issue as, was it 8 and 9?

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, or 4 and 
127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 10.

2 MR. ALLEN: It was 8 and 9 on the 

3 TBD review.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, it closed.

6 MR. ALLEN: Next?

7 MR. THURBER: Everyone is 

8 satisfied on that?

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MR. THURBER: Okay. The final 

11 point was Observation A. NIOSH should explain 

12 why they accepted the petitioner's assumptions 

13 regarding the duration of the operating period 

14 since we are not aware of any evidence to 

15 support the extended operating period.

16 And I believe that David prepared 

17 a response on this which he provided to 

18 everyone a week or two ago, whenever.

19 David?

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it was the same 

21 White Paper as that Finding F we were just 

22 discussing. And it gets to be a confusing 
128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issue. But the official contract period that 

2 we used in the ER was the official operating 

3 period that DOE uses right now or is 

4 designated.

5 The period where they actually 

6 operated with contaminated mag fluoride was a 

7 fraction of that. It started later; it ended 

8 earlier.

9 So, our estimate is based on when 

10 they had mag fluoride there, and, then, after 

11 that we have a residual contamination 

12 estimate.

13 And DOE's operating period seems 

14 to be related to their chemical contracts, 

15 which are irrelevant as far as the dose 

16 reconstruction. We are going to try to get 

17 DOE to change their dates, but, either way, 

18 unless some new information comes up, it seems 

19 like our dose estimate will work, even if they 

20 change those dates. So, we haven't pushed it 

21 very hard. But that's why there is some 

22 confusion on that.
129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: Just as a sort of 

2 global question, of course, if an SEC was 

3 granted, you could have people being awarded 

4 who never even worked there when the 

5 radioactive material was there.

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, there's nothing 

7 preventing SECs in the residual period, too. 

8 It has actually happened.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Although the 

10 residual in this particular case --

11 MR. ALLEN: Does that answer that 

12 one?

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I think 

14 so.

15 So, have you asked them to change 

16 it?

17 MR. ALLEN: I have not.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Or are we 

19 waiting?

20 MR. ALLEN: I haven't, but, in all 

21 honesty, I suppose we should send a letter.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I mean, 
130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other than the review of the surrogate, I 

2 think we have pretty well closed out the 

3 issues here. So, I would think we would be 

4 near a recommendation. And if what we are 

5 reviewing is a period that is longer because 

6 that is what the --

7 DR. NETON: Well, no, it really 

8 doesn't have any practical bearing on what we 

9 are doing --

10 MR. ALLEN: Right.

11 DR. NETON: -- because as Dave 

12 indicated in their letter, prior to the date 

13 where we know material is there, we are just 

14 assigning zero dose.

15 MR. ALLEN: Right.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Oh, okay. I 

17 got you.

18 DR. NETON: And we are finding 

19 zero.

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

21 DR. NETON: Regarding the SEC 

22 issue, I mean, if someone wanted to grant an 
131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SEC, you could craft the dates to where you 

2 thought the exposures were anyway.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

4 DR. NETON: So, you wouldn't have 

5 to grant it the entire period.

6 MR. KATZ: You couldn't grant it 

7 when there is no exposure. So, you couldn't 

8 even add a Class for when there was no 

9 radioactive material there. But there would 

10 be no Probability of Causation.

11 DR. NETON: So, I think, you know, 

12 like Dave said, really, on a practical basis, 

13 it doesn't really make any difference for us 

14 right now.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It doesn't 

16 matter? Okay. But we need to be sure that, 

17 then -- I don't know, didn't we have public on 

18 the phone, but that petitioners understand. 

19 So, we will have to cover it at the meeting.

20 MR. ALLEN: And we have tried to 

21 discuss that in the TBD, and probably poorly.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Got you. 
132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay.

2 So, do we have any other issues?

3 (No response.)

4 So, what we have left is a 

5 discussion of the surrogate data evaluation? 

6 Do we want to do that? Yes, let's start with 

7 that.

8 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I tried to 

9 prepare -- I guess this is me?

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, 

11 well, it's your name. Your name is the only 

12 one on the document.

13 (Laughter.)

14 MR. ALLEN: I tried to prepare an 

15 evaluation based on the Board's surrogate data 

16 criteria. I sent it off April 7th, I think it 

17 was.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 MR. ALLEN: I don't know a lot to 

20 say about this because I don't necessarily 

21 understand the criteria the best. But the 

22 first criteria says hierarchy of data. I 
133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe that is talking about use some 

2 personal data first and, then, coworker, then 

3 area monitors, a hierarchy. Since we have no 

4 data, no radiological monitoring data, from 

5 Hooker, it is kind of a moot point. I am not 

6 sure what else that was looking at.

7 What I did do is look at the 

8 hierarchy of data we had at other sites where 

9 we used surrogate. We had Mallinckrodt, we 

10 had Fernald, and we had ElectroMet.

11 There is some bioassay data for 

12 those sites, but those sites dealt with a lot 

13 of different types of uranium, almost all of 

14 which, or probably all of which had a much 

15 higher concentration of uranium.

16 It is very unlikely that the 

17 uranium content in the urine of those workers 

18 was associated with mag fluoride. So, we 

19 didn't really consider that a reasonable 

20 surrogate.

21 Which, then, takes me down to the 

22 area monitoring for mag fluoride handling, 
134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which is what we used. That was --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, have we 

3 done any truly similar site in ore processing? 

4 I mean the ones you described are a bit more 

5 complex than most were.

6 MR. ALLEN: I am not sure what you 

7 are asking. I'm sorry.

8 MR. BARTON: That might be covered 

9 under the third one, where you discuss the 

10 same processes and the similarities between 

11 them.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Okay. 

13 Fine. Go ahead.

14 MR. BARTON: And that kind of goes 

15 with what you were saying. You know, if these 

16 guys are working with different materials that 

17 are going to give them different doses, you 

18 want to use their bioassay data over area 

19 monitoring, but you really can't because they 

20 are not similar. It is not relevant.

21 DR. MAURO: Is that explained in 

22 your criteria 1 hierarchy data, that you did 
135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look into using bioassay, but you had to 

2 reject it, for the reasons you explained? So, 

3 you had to go to a lower tier, namely, air4 sampling data, but uniquely associated with 

5 the mag fluoride operations? I mean that 

6 would be the way in which the story is told.

7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and that is what 

8 that is in there. Just a couple of sentences 

9 is all it took.

10 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean I could 

11 read one of the sentences. "The individual 

12 monitoring data at those sites would be driven 

13 by exposure to high concentrations of uranium 

14 compounds, not necessarily representative of 

15 work with mag fluoride." And he is talking 

16 about the bioassay data.

17 DR. MAURO: And that is it. There 

18 is a rationale to it. That was the intent of, 

19 by the way, the hierarchy, was to say, when 

20 you are going to go to surrogate data, if you 

21 could use surrogate data at the highest level 

22 of the hierarchy, great, but if you can't and 
136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you have to resort to a lower tier, you give 

2 the rationale. And you did exactly what 

3 should be done.

4 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The next 

5 criteria is exclusivity constraint. And I am 

6 trying to refresh my memory on what this is.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I can help out a 

8 little with context.

9 The exclusivity means that, when 

10 that was prepared and surrogate data was being 

11 entertained, the idea was that sometimes you 

12 would supplement site-specific data with data 

13 from other sites. But sometimes you did not 

14 have the luxury to do that. It was sort of a 

15 thought processing.

16 And so, if you have to resort to 

17 exclusively using other site data, well, then 

18 we are going to hold you to a little bit 

19 higher standard. And that was the thinking 

20 behind the term "exclusivity".

21 So, it is within that context 

22 where perhaps you go the extra yard in terms 
137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of making sure that your other data, you know, 

2 takes into consideration, listen, all your 

3 eggs are in one basket now. You don't have 

4 the luxury to draw upon on any site-specific 

5 data to help prop up your situation.

6 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: That is a nice summary, 

8 John. Thanks.

9 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and that is 

10 essentially what this says, is that we have no 

11 data. It is kind of a moot point. There is 

12 no data at Hooker.

13 Moving on to No. 3, site or 

14 process similarities, the majority of the 

15 airborne at Hooker for the estimate is based 

16 on handling of mag fluoride.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It's 

18 exclusively, isn't it?

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Yes, you're 

20 right.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I mean --

22 MR. ALLEN: Well, I was going to 
138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say the handling is the majority.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

3 MR. ALLEN: The dumping of the 

4 drums, digestion, et cetera --

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. I see. 

6 Okay. Yes.

7 MR. ALLEN: I don't think there is 

8 anybody else that digested mag fluoride, or at 

9 least I didn't find it. But, as far as 

10 handling dumping of drums, there is nothing 

11 real site-specific or anything. There's no 

12 special equipment other than conveyors.

13 We had area data from other places 

14 where they were shoveling, dumping, et cetera, 

15 for mag fluoride. So, that process seemed to 

16 be fairly similar, is essentially what I am 

17 trying to say here.

18 As far as the filter operations, 

19 that is also a fairly standard thing. Doing 

20 that with mag fluoride concentrate is not so 

21 standard.

22 We used a Christifano and Harris 
139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 analysis of ore digestion and used the filter 

2 operations out of that, which is filter it 

3 after concentrating uranium products. We 

4 settled on one that is a fairly well-known 

5 concentration of processed uranium. So, there 

6 is not a lot of radium, thorium, et cetera, 

7 other stuff in there. And, then, we adjusted 

8 that concentration. Either way, it is a wet 

9 or at least damp process. The airborne is 

10 fairly low compared to the drum dumping. So, 

11 we think that is satisfactory for surrogate 

12 data for that operation.

13 Temporal considerations is No. 4.

14 MR. KATZ: Before we go on --

15 MR. ALLEN: Sorry.

16 MR. KATZ: Oh, I guess this is all 

17 under process similarities? I'm sorry.

18 I was just going to say, I mean, 

19 if SC&A had any thoughts about that? Or 

20 questions?

21 MR. BARTON: Not from my end.

22 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Moving on to 
140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the temporal considerations, the data we used 

2 came from Mallinckrodt, ElectroMet, and 

3 Fernald. It was all collected between 1947 

4 and 1959. The operation at Hooker was 1944 

5 through 1946.

6 Looking at the 1947-through-1959 

7 surrogate data, the highest samples of the set 

8 were collected in 1958 at Fernald. The next 

9 highest were 1947 and 1949 at ElectroMet. And 

10 everything else fell in between.

11 This, again, is handling of the 

12 mag fluoride. It is not really specific to a 

13 site. So, it is not really specific to a 

14 timeframe, either.

15 And looking at the data, the 

16 highest is towards the end of that timeframe. 

17 The next highest is towards the beginning. 

18 It doesn't seem to have any temporal 

19 dependence on it.

20 And it is relatively contemporary 

21 with the 1945-46 timeframe. So, we think it 

22 is satisfactory as far as that goes.
141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So they, 

2 geographically, weatherwise, and the dumping 

3 and --

4 MR. ALLEN: Well, ElectroMet is 

5 located in Niagara Falls.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I mean I 

7 think they are --

8 MR. ALLEN: So, that is very 

9 close.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- sort of in 

11 the same. Fernald --

12 MR. ALLEN: Fernald is this area 

13 here.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

15 MR. ALLEN: It gets plenty wet.

16 (Laughter.)

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Well, so 

18 the operation --

19 DR. MAURO: You bring up a good 

20 point, indoor/outdoor. When these surrogate 

21 data criteria developed and the temporal issue 

22 came up, it was more toward the idea that, if 
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you have a process that you are doing in the 

2 1950s that you have no data for, and it is 

3 indoors, and, then, you have another process 

4 that is very similar, where you are doing the 

5 same kind of thing, but it is in the 1980s, 

6 well, you have got yourself a temporal 

7 problem. A temporal problem comes in because 

8 of substantial improvements that were made 

9 from the fifties to the eighties, especially 

10 in these types of activities, and engineered 

11 ventilation controls/practices, health physics 

12 practice, et cetera, et cetera. So, that is 

13 where this business of the time period comes 

14 in.

15 But now you have brought up an 

16 interesting perspective; namely, in this 

17 particular case, I think we are dealing with 

18 outdoors. And we really never discussed that. 

19 That is, you are outdoors now creating 

20 aerosols. There is reason to believe that you 

21 are doing the same kind of thing, and I like 

22 the point. You say, well, they were doing the 
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 same kind of thing and they were doing it 

2 outdoors, and they were doing it at the same 

3 time. You know, an argument could be made, 

4 well, that's pretty good.

5 You know, you are geographically 

6 the same. You are in the same time period, 

7 and you are doing the same kinds of things. 

8 So, this is a consideration that we really 

9 never engaged before. But a good point about, 

10 you know, now that we are outdoors, you would 

11 like to be in the same general time period and 

12 the weather is more or less alike. But I

13 don't know. It is just a new twist.

14 MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean some of 

15 that data was actually, at least a little bit 

16 of it was outdoors, and some of it was 

17 indoors, as far as the surrogate data goes.

18 And my impression of what it comes 

19 down to is the concentration of uranium in the 

20 mag fluoride was so low, nobody put any 

21 controls on it.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes.
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And I think that is 

2 probably more than anything else what makes it 

3 contemporary with the Hooker data.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, the 

6 sample, the surrogate data from Fernald and 

7 ElectroMet, do we know, I mean, what time of 

8 the year they were doing that? I mean the 

9 description at this facility was that dumping 

10 could be really dusty, and that the wet 

11 processing indoors was, you know, we have 

12 agreed that that would have been quite 

13 different.

14 It is kind of, how representative 

15 are these samples of what would have gone on 

16 and, when they did the sampling, were they 

17 under high-exposure circumstances? You know, 

18 was the dust visible at the Fernald, 

19 ElectroMet sampling? Do we know?

20 MR. ALLEN: I don't think I have 

21 anything that will tell me yes or no on that.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Well, we do know some 

2 of it was indoors; some of it was outdoors.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, some of 

4 the dumping was actually --

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes. At least some of 

6 it was outdoors. Most, I think, of the 

7 surrogate data was indoors. I am not positive 

8 about that.

9 But the Hooker operation went --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Was always 

11 outdoors?

12 MR. ALLEN: About 18 -- the 

13 dumping was always outdoors, but it was 15 or 

14 18 months or so.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

16 MR. ALLEN: Eighteen is what we 

17 have estimated for the whole duration. So, 

18 that is the whole gamut of the type of weather 

19 you would --

20 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. 

21 Well, it was more the representativeness of 

22 the surrogate data, that you are saying, you 
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, the highest samples were in 1958. Do we 

2 know the conditions when they did the 

3 sampling?

4 So, you have come up with your 95 

5 percent.

6 MR. ALLEN: I wouldn't say the --

7 I mean, we know the operation. The operation 

8 is like shoveling mag fluoride into a drum or 

9 dumping from a drum type of description on the 

10 air samples. Some of them say respirator worn 

11 or no respirator worn.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

13 MR. ALLEN: Not all of them.

14 What else do we know about it?

15 MR. THURBER: David, isn't it true 

16 -- this is Bill Thurber -- isn't it true that 

17 most of the samples were breathing zone 

18 samples? They weren't general area samples?

19 MR. ALLEN: I am thinking you are 

20 right, Bill, but I can't say that for sure 

21 right now. I don't recall.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I guess, just 
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as we move this forward, to defend the overall 

2 Committee, in the past, on surrogate data it 

3 has been raised, well, are these samples 

4 comparable to the -- you know, the good news 

5 here is the process is similar. The question 

6 would be, are the conditions under which the 

7 surrogate sampling was done, do they really 

8 bound the samples or the processes at Hooker?

9 We have the description at Hooker 

10 that it could be very dusty, which we don't 

11 know if that was the description at the sites 

12 that we are using. Because if there is a lot 

13 of visible dust, that could be quite different 

14 than when somebody is sampling and you are 

15 going to shovel a whole lot different.

16 MR. ALLEN: I guess the best I can 

17 tell you is, for the type of concentrations we 

18 saw in these air samples --

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean the 

20 concentrations were so low to start with --

21 MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean the 

22 concentration got up there some in these air 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 samples. And if it was with a low2 concentration material, then, yes, it was a 

3 very dusty operation.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: Is there a milligrams 

6 of dust per liter of air-type numbers that go 

7 along with all of this? The reason I ask is 

8 that there is an awful lot of knowledge out 

9 there of what is a dusty environment and what 

10 milligrams per cubic meter, not per liter. Is 

11 that part of your, I guess, suite of 

12 information that is available to you either at 

13 the site or at the surrogate site?

14 MR. ALLEN: I haven't seen that, 

15 no.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay.

17 MR. ALLEN: I have seen the 

18 activity airborne measurements.

19 DR. NETON: But it can be 

20 calculated if you know the concentration of --

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. Right. Yes, I 

22 was just thinking that, also. Once you get 
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 your gross alpha --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: If you assume 

3 that they were within compliance of the --

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 DR. MAURO: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I would 

7 suspect not.

8 DR. MAURO: No, no. Jim was 

9 starting to say something. If you have a 

10 default outdoor gross alpha per cubic meter as 

11 your default dust loading, and knowing the 

12 activity concentration, in theory, you could 

13 back out what that would be in milligrams per 

14 cubic meter.

15 They have so much data out there 

16 on dusty work environments of all sorts like 

17 this. You know, if you are talking about dust 

18 loadings that, in theory, you are assuming are 

19 on the order of many milligrams per cubic 

20 meter outdoors, well, that is very dusty, and 

21 especially if you are assuming it is chronic. 

22 You know, you are dealing with, you know, 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there is no doubt that that places an upper 

2 bound, especially outdoors. Indoors, you 

3 know, that would be, as a rule of thumb, your 

4 up there in 1 to 5 milligrams per cubic meter 

5 protracted outdoors. That is a very high 

6 protracted dust loading.

7 You can get short periods of time 

8 where it is much higher than that, but over an 

9 extended period of time that would be a 

10 bounding number. That would be one way in 

11 which I would sort of get my sense for whether 

12 or not we are in the right place.

13 MR. ALLEN: Well, the number we 

14 ended up using from the surrogate data, the 

15 95th percentile, was 800 dpm per cubic meter. 

16 And if you assumed .2 percent uranium, it is 

17 a choking environment, no doubt.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, I suspected as 

19 much.

20 MR. ALLEN: I don't have the 

21 number calculated, and I don't have it handy, 

22 but it is big.
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean that 

3 kind of, then, the downside to that is the 

4 plausibility becomes --

5 MR. ALLEN: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: That is always a 

7 problem. It is that window, you are trying to 

8 find out --

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I mean 

10 the dose is relatively low regardless, but the 

11 attempt to bound the maximum gets you into 

12 implausibly high --

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 MR. ALLEN: That is the next --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. I think 

16 we have beat this pretty good.

17 MR. ALLEN: And the plausibility, 

18 it comes down to these are actual measurements 

19 of mag fluoride, and it is in an activity. 

20 So, you are looking at, some of these are 700 

21 and 800 dpm per cubic meter measured values.

22 DR. MAURO: Are those the measured 
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 values that were taken indoors?

2 MR. THURBER: Not necessarily, no.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, not necessarily? 

4 Okay.

5 MR. THURBER: No. Matter of fact, 

6 they are in David's document here. Just a 

7 minute.

8 MR. BARTON: I don't know if there 

9 is enough data out there, but it might be 

10 instructive to maybe compare the surrogate 

11 data that was taken outdoors versus those 

12 taken indoors.

13 MR. ALLEN: Well, that is what I 

14 was just trying to look at. And I am on the 

15 ER right now looking at page 20, and I am on 

16 Fernald data. It has got one, top of the 

17 page, 1958, was high and low due to wind 

18 change, parentheses, that this was an outdoor 

19 operation. And that is 659, 519 and 262 dpm 

20 per cubic meter.

21 DR. MAURO: Anybody do a quick 

22 conversion for me, just to get that into 
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 milligrams per cubic meter?

2 MR. ALLEN: While somebody is 

3 doing that, I was just going to point out the 

4 next one is the second floor drum dumper. So, 

5 I am assuming that is indoors. And that is 

6 793, 829 and 425.

7 So, they are in the same general 

8 range. I mean there is less than a factor of 

9 two type of difference between those two 

10 activities.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes, and 

12 they are all personal samples, right?

13 MR. ALLEN: And those are BZs, 

14 yes.

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, those are BZs? 

16 Okay.

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Because 

19 outdoors, if you are dumping the dilution, it 

20 wouldn't impact it where an area would --

21 DR. NETON: In the sense that they 

22 are BZ samples, indoors or outdoors, it is 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really low, and, then, it is a generation 

2 issue.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Right. 

4 Exactly.

5 DR. NETON: It is not a room 

6 dilution --

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes. So, we are 

9 talking some big numbers indoors, some big 

10 numbers outdoors. Some samples are fairly 

11 high; some are fairly low. And I am not sure 

12 what the rhyme or reason is between them, 

13 other than just the operation that was 

14 actually done with these things.

15 MR. THURBER: It looks, you know, 

16 just eyeballing the Fernald data, it looks 

17 like the outdoor numbers are lower than the 

18 indoor numbers, looking at page 9 of your TBD.

19 MR. ALLEN: Well, that doesn't say 

20 indoor or outdoor. I have got to bounce back 

21 to the PER.

22 MR. THURBER: No. No, it does. 
155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It does.

2 MR. ALLEN: Most of them don't say 

3 indoors. There are four of them that say they 

4 are outdoors.

5 MR. THURBER: Yes. The higher 

6 ones are indoors, and the lower ones are 

7 outdoors. I didn't do an average or anything.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I understand.

9 MR. THURBER: But the four samples 

10 labeled outdoors go from 32 to 110, and the 

11 other ones go as high as 829 dpm per meter 

12 cubed.

13 DR. NETON: But Dave just read one

14 that was outdoors that was in the 200s.

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that is just what 

16 I was going to point out. If you look at the 

17 ER, there's a lot of samples, and I did not 

18 use all those samples. There were some of 

19 those that looked to me like it was cleaning 

20 out an empty gondola car, railcar. And I 

21 wasn't sure that was really indicative of a 

22 large pile rather than just cleaning up the 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 remains in a railroad car.

2 There were others that were --

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Were those 

4 lower or higher?

5 MR. ALLEN: I don't think higher. 

6 Mostly lower.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, 

8 because if you got that much and you were 

9 sweeping with a broom in a railcar, it would 

10 be pretty --

11 MR. ALLEN: But not all of them 

12 were.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

14 MR. ALLEN: I think, if you added 

15 them all up, you end up dropping the number 

16 some.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay.

18 MR. ALLEN: So, I excluded those. 

19 Then, there was chipping and grinding in some 

20 of these. I am not convinced that is really 

21 representative of dumping.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No.
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: As it is, I actually 

2 put those in there, added it up, and, then, 

3 excluded them. You get very close to the same 

4 number. Excluding them, actually, I think 

5 raised the number just slightly, if I 

6 remember, I mean within a few dpm per cubic 

7 meter.

8 MR. BARTON: The grinding 

9 operations were actually less dusty.

10 MR. ALLEN: It might have been. 

11 Some of them were high; some of them were low. 

12 The one I quoted here a little bit ago 

13 outdoors --

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Is it a fairly 

15 fine particulate?

16 MR. ALLEN: Well, it's created --

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean I have 

18 never seen a pile. So, this is just for my 

19 edification here.

20 MR. ALLEN: When it is created in 

21 the reduction process, it tends to be like 

22 hard rocks.
158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. ALLEN: But it is hard enough 

3 to where it can be pulverized and crumbled up 

4 pretty easily.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

6 MR. ALLEN: Or I don't know about 

7 easy, but it gets pulverized, crumbled up to 

8 something very fine, fairly fine.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Because this 

10 sounds like a lot of dust.

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, that is 

13 why you would think there would be -- is it 

14 all respirable? I mean, you are assuming it 

15 is 100 percent respirable.

16 DR. NETON: Yes, there is no 

17 correction for that.

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

20 DR. NETON: No, the ICRP doesn't 

21 have a correction for that, either.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. No, no.
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: But, I mean, just 

2 looking at the mix, the grinding, the 

3 chipping, even the gondola car, and the 

4 dumping and stuff, all seems to be in the same 

5 ballpark, and it is just essentially agitating 

6 a lot of mag fluoride dust with no controls, 

7 indoor or outdoor.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

9 MR. ALLEN: I mean it seems to be

10 all semi-consistent. There's some lower 

11 numbers, some higher numbers. And that is why 

12 we used the 95th in the TBD, to account for 

13 all the possibilities there.

14 And I am not sure where we are at 

15 now.

16 Anyway, my plausibility argument 

17 was essentially that these are numbers that we 

18 have seen working with this material. Just 

19 essentially mechanically agitating it is what 

20 it amounts to when you are dumping, shoveling, 

21 et cetera.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, the arguable 
160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plausibility was the plausible circumstances 

2 and the very fact that you have circumstances 

3 which are comparable. Obviously, by 

4 definition, they are plausible circumstances.

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and that is 

6 essentially all I put in the surrogate data 

7 justification there.

8 And that was the last criteria,

9 this one.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Now in your 

11 little writeup here you said ElectroMet values 

12 were averages?

13 MR. ALLEN: They were. All I had 

14 was --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: What we were 

16 just talking about really was the Fernald 

17 measurements, right?

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Which were 

20 individual samples?

21 MR. ALLEN: In the TBD, we 

22 actually used, the surrogate data we used came 
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from these ElectroMet samples as well as some 

2 from Mallinckrodt and some from Fernald. So, 

3 we used all three, put them all together, and 

4 came up with the 95th percentile.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

6 MR. ALLEN: So, these were used. 

7 Or not these solely used, not exclusively 

8 used.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

10 MR. ALLEN: But these two numbers 

11 were averages of some unknown number of 

12 samples. So, that is the type of airborne 

13 activity you got from this slag handling, 

14 barreling, weighing. And it is only a factor 

15 of two below this 95th that we ended up using.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, the range, 

17 I mean was pretty tight.

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, it must 

20 have been near saturation.

21 MR. ALLEN: They had to be high, 

22 yes.
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: For the cloud 

2 of exposure.

3 And the only other question I 

4 would have is, if you have such a high 

5 concentration of dust, you overload you 

6 filters. I mean, how are they measuring it? 

7 How are they collecting the sample? So, I 

8 mean, is this really your pump quits because 

9 you can't stop the dust --

10 DR. NETON: These are BZ samples, 

11 but in that era, if I remember, they are 

12 really high-volume air samples positioned 

13 near, as close as possible to the workers 

14 breathing them.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But it was 

16 breathing zone? Yes.

17 DR. NETON: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: With a high19 vol set?

20 DR. NETON: Right. Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

22 DR. NETON: It would only be like, 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what I call a short, like 20-minute sample.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, it would 

3 have to be --

4 DR. NETON: They would hold it as 

5 close as possible to the workers' breathing 

6 zone while they were working --

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

8 DR. NETON: -- and take sort of a 

9 snapshot as opposed to like we do today, the 

10 integrated measurement over the whole shift.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. 

12 Okay.

13 MR. ALLEN: And I was thinking I 

14 had those, but I don't.

15 Well, that was all I had on the 

16 surrogate data. I am not sure where that --

17 MR. KATZ: So, I think John and 

18 Bill and Bob need to think about just what 

19 sort of degree of further analysis they may 

20 want to do on these issues of surrogate data.

21 DR. MAURO: I would suggest that 

22 we do write something up, given the importance 
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the subject, rather than just say, oh, it 

2 sounds good. You know, we could maybe take a 

3 look at it. I don't think it would take very 

4 much time or very much cost, but I think it 

5 would be wise for us to get something in 

6 writing on the record, that we looked at 

7 David's writeup and explored these matters, as 

8 we have done on all the others.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: That sounds good.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, just

12 for me, Dave, you went through how you 

13 eliminated or you didn't include some and you 

14 did. I think a more robust, written 

15 description of how you did that will help when 

16 we get --

17 DR. NETON: A more independent 

18 review maybe.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Or a 

20 description, so that that will avoid the kind 

21 of questions that I raised when we go over to 

22 the full Board. Because this really is the 
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 key to this.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, we are 

3 saying, Dave, you might just add a little bit 

4 more text.

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, I mean 

6 we may tell SC&A, but I guess how you used, 

7 how you came to the surrogate data, and if 

8 somebody goes back to the core documents, they 

9 are going to say, well, your writeup here 

10 isn't consistent with it because you took out 

11 some and you didn't take out.

12 So, let's just be very -- I think 

13 you did it right. I mean I am supportive of 

14 what you did, but we need a document for 

15 others that are going to look at it, because 

16 this is the document we are going to send to 

17 the --

18 MR. ALLEN: You are talking about 

19 a review of what I did in the TBD, which is 

20 something for SC&A? It is not a go-to for me?

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Yes.

22 MR. ALLEN: Okay.
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: And just to be clear, 

2 you don't want us to reinvent the wheel here?

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, no. No, 

4 no.

5 MR. BARTON: Just a careful eye on 

6 this report?

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I am expecting 

8 you will probably have similar -- you know, 

9 you need to make this --

10 MR. BARTON: Flesh it out in 

11 certain places?

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Flesh it out 

13 in certain places. But I just don't want us 

14 to prolong this operation by we have another 

15 meeting, and, then, we talk about that, and, 

16 then, you have to -- I would like to have 

17 whatever you are going to write up, have SC&A 

18 comfortable with a revision.

19 MR. KATZ: So, if SC&A is going to 

20 review this, maybe you could write a memo or 

21 something to elaborate on whatever, on your 

22 process.
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Otherwise, we are going to have an 

2 SC&A review saying you need to do X, Y, and Z, 

3 which you have already addressed in this 

4 meeting. And, then, Dave is going to do that. 

5 And, then, SC&A is going --

6 DR. NETON: Well, it is pretty 

7 clear in Dave's writeup about what samples he 

8 used. I mean they are listed there.

9 MR. KATZ: So, what is it we want 

10 from Dave at this point, the kind of thing to 

11 elaborate?

12 MR. ALLEN: Well, I tell you what. 

13 Like I said, it is in the TBD, what I used. 

14 I can send my spreadsheet that I analyzed the 

15 data on, along with a couple of other --

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I mean, it may 

17 be in here, but what I was looking at is this 

18 review of the surrogate data is really what 

19 the Board is going to want to look at. And 

20 so, to say, well, go back to the TBD -- I 

21 think you can pull out, you may just want to 

22 do a copy and replace.
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Copy and paste.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Copy and 

3 paste, yes.

4 I don't remember what's here, but 

5 if you have it there, that's great, then.

6 MR. ALLEN: I am honestly not sure 

7 what's happening. I'm sorry.

8 DR. NETON: I think maybe reissue 

9 your surrogate analysis with a better --

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 DR. NETON: -- description of what 

12 samples were used.

13 MR. ALLEN: Okay. What was 

14 excluded and what was --

15 DR. NETON: I think actually what 

16 you used, which is in the TBD. Just cut that 

17 table and stick it right in there and say, 

18 "Here's what was used."

19 And, then, when SC&A reviews it, 

20 they can look at it and say, "Well, you used 

21 these samples, but we noticed that there were 

22 these other ones," and we think it is or is 
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not appropriate how you treated them.

2 MR. ALLEN: Okay. So, if I am 

3 getting this right, you want me to revise the 

4 surrogate data evaluation I did to put more 

5 detail into the air sample data that was used.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 MR. ALLEN: I will include the 

8 table out of the TBD, what was used. I will 

9 point out the stuff in the ER that was 

10 excluded and why.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Specifically, 

12 that would be --

13 MR. ALLEN: And I will add another 

14 column in here for --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- in No. 5.

16 MR. ALLEN: -- indoor/outdoor.

17 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It is in the 

20 plausibility.

21 MR. KATZ: Right. So, then, there 

22 will just be one-stop shopping for SC&A.
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: And, then, that is 

2 what you guys will review.

3 MR. KATZ: And that is what they 

4 will review. That way, we won't have an 

5 iterative process here.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. That sounds good. 

8 Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Any other 

10 issues with Hooker?

11 MR. KATZ: I think that is most 

12 all of them.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. That 

14 really is about it, yes. Good. We are making 

15 great headway here. All right, that's what I 

16 want.

17 And you will do this by?

18 MR. ALLEN: This I can --

19 MR. BARTON: Tomorrow.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. ALLEN: I think I can do this 

22 pretty quickly. So, hopefully, this week it 
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will be I will email it out.

2 MR. KATZ: That would be great. 

3 That would be great.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We are not 

5 going to get it by the 24th.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, no, but it is all 

7 right because they are going to give an update 

8 at this Board meeting anyway.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, yes, yes.

10 MR. KATZ: It wouldn't be time to 

11 report out --

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No.

13 MR. KATZ: -- for an action at 

14 this Board meeting --

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No.

16 MR. KATZ: -- because it is not on 

17 our agenda for that anyway.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: So, we would be aiming 

20 for August --

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: -- to report out.
172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's fine.

2 DR. NETON: But you could say we 

3 are close.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, that is 

5 really what I want to do.

6 MR. KATZ: You can give a good 

7 update.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay.

9 Bill, do you have any comments, 

10 Bill Field?

11 MEMBER FIELD: No, I am fine. I 

12 think what has been discussed is very 

13 reasonable.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, do 

15 we want to break for lunch?

16 DR. NETON: Sam just stepped out 

17 of the room for a second. He is ElectroMet.

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Should we just go ahead 

20 and break now?

21 Do you have a sense from Sam how 

22 much material we have?
173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: I have no idea.

2 DR. NETON: He has got a lot of 

3 new stuff.

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. There is a 

5 lot of --

6 DR. NETON: I believe he has got 

7 new stuff. But I think a lot of these issues 

8 go away, but I don't know how fast we will get 

9 through them.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Yes, we wouldn't 

11 want to break if he just had 20 minutes' worth 

12 of material.

13 DR. NETON: I can't really say. I 

14 mean I don't know how long it is going to take 

15 to go over the stuff.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Do we take 

17 questions?

18 MR. KATZ: Oh, we can talk about 

19 the name of the Work Group.

20 (Laughter.)

21 There is no longer a TBD-6001, and 

22 this Work Group is entitled TBD 6001 Work 
174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group. So, we had, I think, resolved on our 

2 own, if this works for you, too, Bill, to call 

3 this from here forward the Uranium Refining 

4 AWE Work Group, so that we are generically 

5 describing what we are about and not using a 

6 TBD that doesn't exist and might confuse 

7 people.

8 Is that good with you, Bill?

9 MEMBER FIELD: I like it.

10 (Laughter.)

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Of course, now 

12 all of the web storage facility sites are 

13 going to have to be renamed where all the 

14 documents are stored. Okay. We will do it.

15 MR. ALLEN: Change the title.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. 

17 What's the name again?

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. We are Uranium 

19 Refining AWE Work Group.

20 DR. MAURO: You know what else I 

21 find? I just had a thought that came to me. 

22 I noticed that whenever we talk TBD-6001, I 
175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 immediately have to go online and go look at

2 what are the attachments, you know, United 

3 Nuclear, Hooker. Because there are a lot of 

4 uranium refining AWE facilities that are not 

5 originally part of TBD 6001.

6 So, all I am doing is alerting 

7 everyone that the terminology that is used is 

8 certainly fine, but I suspect that there are a 

9 lot of other AWE facilities that don't fall 

10 within the purview of this Work Group.

11 MR. KATZ: Well, is there a better 

12 descriptor, John?

13 DR. MAURO: Other than putting the 

14 names of the five -- I think there are five 

15 sites that fall under, originally were under 

16 the TBD 6001 Work Group. There were specific 

17 sites.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 DR. MAURO: And we have been 

20 talking about a couple of them. All I can say 

21 is that, the degree to which we could capture 

22 that, it would make for a long name. But I 
176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't know. I am just bringing the thought 

2 up.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I don't like 

4 the GBP Work Group.

5 DR. MAURO: Well, see, the GBP I'm 

6 okay with because I remember the three.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Right.

8 DR. MAURO: And they are the only 

9 three that we are working with. There are no 

10 other GBPs.

11 MR. KATZ: That one actually goes 

12 by their names formally.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. Right.

14 DR. MAURO: I don't know. 

15 Whatever you folks are comfortable with, we're 

16 fine.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, let's just 

18 run with this and call up those other 

19 confusions when they come.

20 DR. NETON: I did speak with Sam 

21 about how much, and he thought maybe an hour 

22 and a half or so.
177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, then, it 

2 seems like it makes sense, if he is busy, we 

3 can break now.

4 The only other thing, United 

5 Nuclear, maybe give an update.

6 MR. ALLEN: That will be, well, I 

7 think the agenda was mostly for SC&A to -- let 

8 me find it.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, it was to sort of 

10 recap the status of things because it has been 

11 quite a while, and we just don't want to lose 

12 track of where we are. That would be a 

13 foundation for you to say what is coming.

14 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: What sort of time do we 

16 need for that?

17 MR. ALLEN: Not much.

18 MR. KATZ: How much time do you 

19 need --

20 MR. ALLEN: Not much on our end. 

21 I don't know --

22 MR. KATZ: How about SC&A, to just 
178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sort of recap United Nuclear, where we are at 

2 this point with the Work Group?

3 MR. THURBER: Well, I can run 

4 through the new points in the matrix, which I 

5 gave you an updated version of, in 15 minutes 

6 probably, 20 minutes.

7 MR. KATZ: So, do you want to 

8 knock that off before lunch? It is up to you 

9 all.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That's fine 

11 with me. My flight is at 5:00. So, I just 

12 need to get out of here by 3:30-4:00-ish, I 

13 guess.

14 MR. KATZ: Are you fine, Bill 

15 Field, with knocking that off now before lunch 

16 break?

17 MEMBER FIELD: Oh, I am fine with 

18 anything you want. I have some other meetings 

19 this afternoon. But if I have a reason not to 

20 go, that would be cool, too.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay, let's do 

2 it.

3 MR. KATZ: Go ahead.

4 MR. THURBER: Okay. If everybody 

5 turns to the United Nuclear Appendix D matrix 

6 in the memo I sent you all last week, we can

7 go through it.

8 A number of these things are 

9 closed. So that, we can cover those pretty 

10 swiftly.

11 Okay. Finding 1, current guidance 

12 for assigning occupational medical doses 

13 insufficiently prescribed. At the previous 

14 meeting, the issue was closed because it was 

15 determined that these measurements were made 

16 offsite.

17 MR. KATZ: Right.

18 MR. THURBER: Finding 2, current 

19 default doses for external whole-body and skin 

20 doses are based exclusively on summary 

21 statements of 1960 AEC inspection report and 

22 may be inappropriate.
180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And we reviewed the additional 

2 data that had been provided since the initial 

3 finding and determined that, basically, the 

4 issue was closed, but there was a proviso --

5 well, we determined it wasn't an SEC issue. 

6 And let's see, I don't remember what the 

7 proviso was.

8 MR. ALLEN: I think it is in the 

9 second-to-the-last column there, Bill. It is 

10 basically a better description of --

11 MR. THURBER: Oh, yes, there is a 

12 need for better documentation. That was the 

13 proviso that was left on the table when we 

14 determined or when the Work Group determined 

15 that the issue was closed last time. Okay?

16 Finding 3 dealt with potential 

17 issues related to the neutron exposures that 

18 weren't addressed in Appendix D. There was 

19 quite a bit of discussion about this last 

20 time. NIOSH agreed to attempt to gather 

21 additional information on exposure scenarios, 

22 so that an additional note of realism might be 
181 

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 added to the neutron exposure scenarios.

2 Finding 4, well, the initial 

3 finding -- I'm sorry -- Finding 4, initial 

4 intakes recommended by NIOSH may not correlate 

5 with empirical urinalysis. In deference to 

6 Jim Neton's concerns last time, we renumbered 

7 our subsequent findings as A, B, C, and D 

8 rather than having two number 4s, or whatever, 

9 which makes good sense.

10 And the Findings 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 

11 and 4-D were kind of discussed all together 

12 rather than individually. The bottom line was 

13 that NIOSH needed to or agreed to go back and 

14 look at these findings and review their 

15 position.

16 DR. MAURO: Bill, I'm sorry to 

17 interrupt.

18 MR. THURBER: Yes?

19 DR. MAURO: You went through 3 

20 very quickly. And I'm looking at the matrix 

21 right now, and it looks like that is still an 

22 open item.
182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: It is.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. It wasn't 

3 apparent from the discussion.

4 MR. THURBER: Oh, no, no. It said 

5 the action item from last time was NIOSH would 

6 agree to attempt to gather additional 

7 information on exposure scenario details by, 

8 among other things, some worker interviews.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you.

10 MR. THURBER: All right.

11 With regard to Finding 4-E, which 

12 related to the thorium work, the action item 

13 was that NIOSH needed to show that the air 

14 samples are representative of exposures during 

15 the thorium work. And so, that was an 

16 outstanding issue on the table.

17 DR. MAURO: Bill, is this the 

18 issue -- this is John again.

19 MR. THURBER: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: Is this the issue we 

21 were talking with Rich Leggett about?

22 MR. THURBER: No. The stuff we 
183 

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 were talking with Rich about primarily was the 

2 4-A, -B, -C, and -D kind of things, and partly 

3 related to the role of Type F exposure and 

4 partly related to the ability to reconstruct 

5 doses in that period in 1960-61 where there 

6 was a data gap --

7 DR. MAURO: Right.

8 MR. THURBER: -- and where there 

9 had been, presumably, for funding reasons or 

10 whatever, a reduction of the sampling. And t 

11 here were also some open issues related to the 

12 consistency between air-sampling and 

13 urinalysis data. So, there was kind of a 

14 collection of issues that were embraced by 

15 those four findings, 4-A through 4-D.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, I only bring it 

17 up because I did have a chance to talk to Rich 

18 recently, and I know he is especially 

19 concerned about the break where the bioassay 

20 was being done for a certain period of time --

21 MR. THURBER: Right.

22 DR. MAURO: -- and, then, all of a 
184 

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 sudden, it just stopped and they went to air 

2 sampling. And he felt that the air-sampling 

3 data especially was problematic.

4 So, just by way of context, this 

5 seems to be one of the hotter items that we 

6 are going to need to deal with.

7 MR. THURBER: Yes, and it was an 

8 item of extensive discussion at the prior 

9 meeting, no question.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. THURBER: This foray through D 

12 findings was probably the main focus of the 

13 United Nuclear discussion at the November 

14 meeting. 

15 Okay.

16 MS. EATON: Pardon my intrusion.

17 MR. THURBER: Okay.

18 MS. EATON: Are we allowed to ask 

19 questions while you guys are in discussion or 

20 make comments?

21 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, who's 

22 speaking?
185 

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 MS. EATON: Clarissa Eaton, on 

2 behalf of the petitioners.

3 MR. KATZ: So, what we are going 

4 to do right here is Bill is running through 

5 the issues, and Dave will talk about, then, 

6 status of deliverables, action items, for 

7 follow up here. But we will give you time 

8 after that, after we have it all on the table, 

9 to make some comments, if you would like.

10 MS. EATON: Okay, good, because, 

11 like he just said, that is a very important 

12 point as to the company made a business 

13 decision to stop those bioassays. And, you 

14 know, it is a very common procedure we see 

15 today, profits over safety.

16 I mean, you know, this was a 

17 conscious decision, and even though there were 

18 problems in the sixties and then later found 

19 by Oak Ridge that the concentrations were at 

20 times 800 percent higher than the maximal 

21 allowable concentrations. I think that is a 

22 very big issue with us as well.
186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And that is all I wanted to say. 

2 I'm sorry.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you. No, 

4 don't apologize.

5 MR. THURBER: Okay. Finding 5, 

6 this finding dealt with the fact that NIOSH 

7 provided insufficient information about the 

8 method used to calculate the inhalation 

9 intakes from residual contamination.

10 And it was agreed, or NIOSH said 

11 at the November meeting that there was an 

12 error in their calculations and that these 

13 calculations would be corrected when the Site 

14 Profile is issued. And the Work Group felt 

15 that the issue was closed with a proviso that 

16 the error be corrected and documented in the 

17 revised TBD.

18 DR. BEHLING: Bill, can I make a 

19 comment here? This is Hans Behling.

20 MR. THURBER: Please, Hans, yes.

21 DR. BEHLING: Yes, that particular 

22 issue goes back to one of the earlier comments 
187 

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 I included in my review of the original 

2 Rev. 0 and Rev. 1, which didn't change. And 

3 the error really was a twenty-nine-fold error 

4 between what was recommended as a value as to 

5 what it should have been, based on the 

6 protocol they provided. So, it was a 

7 substantial error. It was a twenty-nine-fold 

8 error.

9 So, it should be something that 

10 has to be looked at and make sure that we do 

11 correct it because it was not a small error.

12 MR. THURBER: And I understand 

13 that NIOSH is, indeed, committed to make that 

14 correction.

15 Any other comments on Finding 5 

16 before we go on?

17 (No response.)

18 Okay. Finding 6, we raised some 

19 questions about estimating external doses from 

20 residual contamination. We subsequently 

21 reviewed our calculations and said we had made 

22 a calculational error and that, therefore, the 
188 

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 issue should be closed.

2 DR. BEHLING: Yes, Bill, again, 

3 this is Hans.

4 MR. THURBER: Yes?

5 DR. BEHLING: When I went through 

6 the original calculation, I failed to include 

7 the short-lived daughters. And as a result, I 

8 made a comment that the dose was 

9 overestimated, but in review of my calculation 

10 and the realization that those short-lived 

11 daughters should have been included, I came to 

12 the conclusion that NIOSH's original 

13 calculation was, in fact, correct. And as you 

14 said, we withdrew that particular finding.

15 MR. THURBER: Okay. And we also 

16 had one observation, and that was there was 

17 concern that the United Nuclear site 

18 description was insufficient. Obviously, it 

19 is a complicated operation. And on the basis 

20 of the discussions at the previous Work Group 

21 meeting, the Work Group decided that the issue 

22 was closed, again, with the proviso that NIOSH 
189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would flesh out the site description when the 

2 TBD is issued.

3 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bill.

4 MR. THURBER: Okay.

5 MR. ALLEN: As far as our update 

6 on this, it is not much. We did do interviews 

7 for Finding No. 3. I just forwarded them to 

8 the Work Group, I think, Friday afternoon.

9 We have not done any type of 

10 evaluation or anything of those yet. Those 

11 are just the interviews.

12 There is some useful information 

13 in there. I am not sure it is going to narrow 

14 down the exposure scenario very much.

15 As far as Findings 4-A through -D, 

16 we do still owe a White Paper. We want to 

17 review the analysis that Leggett did in the 

18 review. We wanted to go through that and make 

19 sure -- it is kind of a complicated issue to 

20 where we wanted to get it all written down in 

21 a document and handed out ahead of time. And 

22 it is essentially just a matter of resources 
190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on getting to that issue.

2 MR. KATZ: Do we have a rough 

3 sense of when?

4 MR. ALLEN: No. This has been 

5 passed off to somebody else to try to enlist 

6 some additional resources -- is what we have 

7 been trying to do here. And I don't have a 

8 good timeframe on that one yet.

9 Also, we owe on Finding 4 --

10 MS. EATON: It's hard to hear.

11 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. I will try 

12 to speak up.

13 Also, on Finding 4-E, we owe 

14 something that evaluates the 

15 representativeness of the thorium air samples 

16 to the work. So, essentially, I think we are 

17 all on the same page. We owe something on the 

18 thorium representativeness, something on 4-A 

19 through -D, kind of all lumped together. And 

20 I think we owe, it is not specific, but I 

21 think we do owe some analysis of those 

22 interviews we did for Finding 3 for the 
191 

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 neutron.

2 And I don't have a good timeframe 

3 on when those are going to come. They are 

4 getting closer and closer to the top.

5 And that is essentially our update 

6 on that.

7 MR. BARTON: A question on 4-E. I 

8 know we discussed to some extent in the last 

9 meeting that you really needed to go in and 

10 flesh out whether the samples were breathing 

11 zone or general air process samples. Was that 

12 the only consideration we really needed to 

13 look at or was it also plant location? Like 

14 were these taken actually in thorium areas?

15 MR. ALLEN: I think it was 

16 representativeness in general, which would 

17 include both.

18 MR. BARTON: Okay.

19 MR. ALLEN: That's how we took it.

20 MR. KATZ: Any other questions?

21 (No response.)

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The public 
192 

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?

2 MR. KATZ: And do we have -- I'm 

3 sorry, ma'am, I forgot your name, but do we 

4 have more questions?

5 MS. EATON: Clarissa Eaton.

6 MR. KATZ: Ms. Eaton, Ms. Eaton, 

7 do you have any other questions or comments?

8 MS. EATON: Well, yes.

9 What testing was done for the 

10 alpha particles? And how much data is there? 

11 And for like the uranium, the thorium, the 

12 radon gas, all the alpha emitters, polonium, 

13 that are all present at the hematite, radium, 

14 how much data is there? Because my concern is 

15 about the alpha radiation, that even the NRC 

16 considers it to be 20 times more radioactive 

17 than beta or gamma.

18 And, you know, [identifying 

19 information redacted]had claimed in his 

20 affidavit -- or, no, I'm sorry. Back to in 

21 the report about the clothes that were given 

22 to the workers, that they were found to be 
193 

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 contaminated before leaving the site, and 

2 often they were sent just to wash their hands. 

3 You know, the thorium dioxide, which is water 

4 insoluble, I mean, what would even washing 

5 their hands have done for that? 

6 And so, I have questions about, 

7 you know, the data is so sparse. It's here; 

8 it's there. You know, we are just having a 

9 hard time understanding what data is available 

10 and the inhalation exposures. This is a very 

11 critical -- that would not have been measured 

12 by air samples, you know, as far as the type S 

13 material that is being considered.

14 I mean, like, for example, the 

15 thorium dioxide was odorless. You know, how 

16 would anyone know if they were exposed unless 

17 someone was monitoring them?

18 I don't know. I have a lot of 

19 mixed feelings about the way NIOSH is coming 

20 across with their information. I just don't 

21 see how it could even be reconstructed. I am 

22 having a hard time.
194 

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 know, there were a lot of 

2 spills. These workers were exposed to some 

3 hot stuff.

4 And again, I go back to the 

5 company's decision to stop this testing when 

6 in the sixties they knew they had problems, 

7 and, then, once later on, it wasn't even the 

8 company that brought up the testing again to 

9 resume. It was Oak Ridge.

10 And, then, in addition to that, 

11 when their inspections were done by the Atomic 

12 Energy Commission, they would cut production 

13 back 90 percent. I mean that is like, you 

14 know, closing the curtains temporarily, so 

15 that a fair estimation couldn't even be given 

16 on the inspections.

17 Do you see what I am saying as far 

18 as my concerns?

19 You know, the hottest areas, like 

20 the item room, that lacks data. There was no 

21 thorium or radon test performed on the 

22 petitioner at any time with the exception of 
195 

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 hiring, you know. I don't know.

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We thank you 

3 for your comments.

4 These actually are, a number of 

5 the issues you raise are the ones that we are 

6 in the process of working through as well. 

7 So, you know, we are far from finished on this 

8 topic. So, hopefully, we will be able to 

9 address a number of your concerns as we move 

10 forward here.

11 MS. EATON: So, as far as NIOSH, 

12 are they complying with the things you had 

13 asked for them back in the September 2010 

14 report? Has there been a site visit?

15 You know, the plant is under 

16 decommissioning right now. And the 

17 contamination has left the site. You know, 

18 there's numerous documents, even from the DNR, 

19 about the gross elevations that were found by 

20 the DNR even. These are all on record.

21 And, you know, has anybody, even 

22 in cahoots with anybody that is over the 
196 

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 decommissioning project? I guess that is my 

2 question.

3 Do you even know the background 

4 radiation level that they are using as part of 

5 the decommissioning right now? Because they 

6 are having to tear down the site. It is that 

7 hot, and it has been for some time.

8 And since there is such a big --

9 you know, there's lawsuits with the State of 

10 Missouri about this decommissioning plan that 

11 is in place that they are working on. And is 

12 anybody talking to anybody? Has there been a 

13 visit from NIOSH? Has anybody even set foot 

14 down there to see what is actually going on in 

15 the decommissioning process?

16 Because, you know, Westinghouse 

17 recently has been caught, they have been cited 

18 two or three times accidently shipping 

19 pallets. I mean NIOSH really needs to be down 

20 there right now because the workers that are 

21 there now are, in fact, you know, the 

22 housekeeping is not being done, still.
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Is it a covered 

2 facility at this point?

3 MR. ALLEN: Residual, I'm 

4 thinking, but I am not positive.

5 MS. EATON: You know, I tried to 

6 extend the date for the coverage period, but, 

7 according to the rules, I cannot do that. I 

8 have to give a set date, although my position 

9 was, since it is under decommissioning right 

10 now, and they keep moving the date as far as 

11 the completion, you know, but we should keep 

12 that open. But, unfortunately, according to 

13 the federal regulations, we have to have a 

14 date.

15 But, you know, right now there's 

16 workers being at risk in the decommissioning 

17 process that are at risk here because 

18 shipments of pallets are getting shipped out 

19 to metal recyclers. You know, all that stuff 

20 could end up in highchairs, be replacements.

21 I mean there is a problem going on 

22 today still, and I am just not sure that we 
198 

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 really even have a chance.

2 MR. KATZ: So, Ms. Eaton, thank 

3 you. I think we can address some of these 

4 issues.

5 So, Dave, are you saying 1973 is 

6 the end of the covered period?

7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I think we are 

8 getting outside the realm of our authority and 

9 we can and can't do in this program. We can 

10 only address the exposures associated -- we 

11 can address all the exposures from 1958 to 

12 1973, but after 1973 we can only discuss the 

13 contamination left over from the AEC 

14 operations, which were the scrap recovery.

15 As far as the --

16 MS. EATON: I'm sorry, I didn't 

17 mean to go off on the decommissioning, but, 

18 you know, these are concerns of mine. I 

19 apologize.

20 MR. KATZ: No, it's okay. We 

21 understand that people may have many concerns 

22 that don't fall within the envelope of this 
199 

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 program, but it doesn't mean they are not real 

2 concerns.

3 MR. ALLEN: It is just outside of 

4 our ability to do anything.

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 MS. EATON: So, back to my 

7 questions quickly, have there been any site 

8 visits from anyone, specifically NIOSH?

9 MR. ALLEN: Well, again, we are 

10 talking about the doses that were incurred 

11 1958 to 1973. And as you said, it is 

12 undergoing D&D. The question is whether there 

13 is much of any information we could gain now 

14 from what the conditions were like in 1973.

15 MS. EATON: Right.

16 DR. NETON: We have done 

17 interviews with workers, though, right?

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We have done 

19 interviews with workers specific on this, and 

20 we do offer an interview to every claimant, 

21 and some have some decent information and some 

22 not necessarily.
200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: So, point blank, Ms. 

2 Eaton, the answer is there have not been site 

3 visits because the program doesn't feel like 

4 those would be informative for the period that 

5 they are covering of operations.

6 MS. EATON: I see. Okay. I just 

7 thought, you know, because of the reason of 

8 the missing data, that anything they are 

9 finding today in their investigations and 

10 their compliances with the NRC, that maybe

11 there may be some assistance to what these 

12 workers were actually involved in. Because, I 

13 mean, the half-lives of, you know, some of 

14 these things are 75,000 years. You know, it 

15 hasn't went anywhere.

16 MR. ALLEN: Well, one of the 

17 biggest problems with looking at what is there 

18 now is that they had a great deal of 

19 commercial operation that is not covered 

20 during the residual period, and the commercial 

21 operation went on until not too long ago. And 

22 it tends to mask what is within our authority 
201 

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.

2 MS. EATON: Can I ask, is there 

3 any suspicion to you about why there were so 

4 many rotations down there? I mean 

5 because[identifying information redacted] had 

6 also expressed that, you know, when an area 

7 became too hot, that they were relocated to 

8 another area. Is that normal procedure to 

9 rotate like that?

10 DR. NETON: That is a fairly 

11 common practice in then nuclear industry. 

12 When workers start to approach their annual 

13 dose limits or quarterly dose limits, they 

14 will move people to areas of lower exposure,

15 so they don't go over the limit.

16 MS. EATON: Okay.

17 DR. NETON: That is a fairly 

18 common practice.

19 MS. EATON: Okay. Thank you.

20 I guess at this point --

21 MS. DREY: Well, could I ask a 

22 question?
202 

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 MS. EATON: Oh, I'm sorry.

2 MS. DREY: This is Kay Drey.

3 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, can you say 

4 your name again?

5 MS. DREY: Kay is the first name, 

6 K-A-Y. The last name is Drey, D as in David, 

7 R-E-Y.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes.

9 MS. DREY: I'm calling from St. 

10 Louis.

11 I wondered if you were going to 

12 address Clarissa's questions about alpha 

13 emitters. And the question is, what data you 

14 have found on this?

15 DR. NETON: Well, I think a lot of 

16 that is covered in the Evaluation Report, as 

17 to why we think it is feasible to reconstruct 

18 these doses.

19 MS. DREY: I am having trouble 

20 hearing. I'm sorry.

21 DR. NETON: I think our Evaluation 

22 Report that is on our website goes into some 
203 

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 discussion about why we think we can 

2 reconstruct the deltas, particularly for the 

3 alpha-emitting radionuclides. I can't comment 

4 much more beyond that at this point.

5 But I would encourage you to go 

6 out on our website, and all those reports are 

7 listed out there.

8 MS. DREY: Okay. Is there a 

9 particular report or something that you were 

10 thinking?

11 DR. NETON: Well, it is the 

12 Evaluation Report. It would be listed under 

13 the United Nuclear site.

14 MS. DREY: Okay. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Any 

16 other questions?

17 MS. DREY: Well, just, also, does 

18 the Evaluation Report cover the fact that they 

19 had materials from Paducah, and so forth, that 

20 were fission materials, like technetium-99? 

21 Do you cover those materials as well?

22 DR. NETON: I don't recall if 
204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there was a recycled uranium component at 

2 United Nuclear or not. I would have to go 

3 back and look. I haven't looked at it --

4 MS. DREY: That is very important, 

5 I think, you know, the fact that they did find 

6 technetium-99, and that surprised everyone at 

7 the time they found it.

8 MS. EATON: That they also denied 

9 initially upon telling everyone about the 

10 offsite contamination. They denied that for 

11 some time initially, Westinghouse.

12 MR. KATZ: Dave, are you familiar 

13 with this question?

14 MR. ALLEN: Which one?

15 MR. KATZ: The one they are 

16 talking about right now, the exposure to 

17 technetium.

18 MR. ALLEN: Oh, the exposure to 

19 technetium? That is a component of recycled 

20 uranium, along with plutonium, neptunium, and 

21 several others. I don't recall what the 

22 Evaluation Report says about it or whether it 
205 

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 accounted for in there.

2 It is normally a 1 or 2 percent --

3 MS. DREY: I can't hear you. I'm 

4 sorry.

5 MR. ALLEN: It is normally, it 

6 comes along with the uranium, and we have 

7 uranium urinalysis for a great deal of the 

8 timeframe. And it is typically a few 

9 percentage point increase in that dose. It is 

10 something that does need to be accounted for. 

11 It is not a big showstopper. It is a 

12 multiplier for the uranium dose.

13 But, yes, it does need to be 

14 accounted for. I just don't recall --

15 MS. DREY: I am just wondering 

16 about not just the uranium and its daughters, 

17 but when you have fission products like 

18 technetium-99, I wondered if those were 

19 assessed at all.

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and I can't 

21 remember off the top of my head whether that 

22 is included in there. It should be. It comes 
206 

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 along with the uranium. So, it is always a 

2 multiplier on the uranium dose.

3 MS. DREY: What do you mean 

4 "always?"

5 MR. ALLEN: They had no reactors 

6 at United Nuclear. They didn't process or 

7 intentionally gain any fission products. 

8 Where they would have come from is as a 

9 contaminant in the uranium. That is where 

10 they would have gotten it onsite, and that is 

11 where --

12 MS. DREY: They got it because 

13 they were given recycled uranium to process, 

14 which they weren't supposed to. It was 

15 supposed to have been refined at the fuel 

16 cycle.

17 So, it was a surprise to everybody 

18 when it was discovered in the evaporation 

19 ponds. I mean it probably wasn't a surprise 

20 to everybody, but it was certainly a surprise 

21 to the public.

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's what I 
207 

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 said. It is part of the recycled uranium. It 

2 is a contaminant in the uranium. That is 

3 where it has to be evaluated.

4 And I don't know the answer off 

5 the top of my head, how it is evaluated, but 

6 it does need to be --

7 MS. DREY: If it was evaluated.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It should be 

9 in that report on the website.

10 MS. DREY: The Evaluation Report?

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Right. And so, in any 

13 event, we can check on this, and at the next 

14 meeting we can report on that, whether that 

15 was addressed.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

17 MS. DREY: Thank you.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank 

20 you very much.

21 I think we are now going to break 

22 for lunch, and we will come back -- what?
208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: An hour?

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, or 40 

3 minutes.

4 MR. KATZ: Forty-five minutes?

5 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It will be 45 

6 minutes. About 1:15?

7 MR. KATZ: Is that good for 

8 everyone on the line?

9 (No response.)

10 Okay, 1:15.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 12:21 p.m. and 

14 resumed at 1:18 p.m.)

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
209 

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 

2 

3 

4 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

5 1:18 p.m.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good afternoon.

7 This is, I am still going to call 

8 it the TBD 6001 Work Group for this one last 

9 meeting, so I don't confuse anybody. We are 

10 going to be changing our name.

11 And we are reconvening after lunch 

12 to speak about ElectroMet. We have already 

13 covered United Nuclear and Hooker.

14 And we're on.

15 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We're on.

16 MR. KATZ: Let me just check to 

17 see, Bill Field, at least do we have you?

18 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I'm here.

19 MR. KATZ: Great. Thank you.

20 MR. BARTON: Okay. Well, should 

21 we handle this the same way we handled the 

22 first two sites?
210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. BARTON: And go through the 

3 findings?

4 Well, Bill Thurber, I have been 

5 leaning on you pretty heavy all day. So, if 

6 you want to take us home, that's fine, or if 

7 you're sick of it --

8 MR. THURBER: Okay. No problem. 

9 No problem.

10 (Laughter.)

11 Basically, I will go through, I 

12 can go through the matrix. But the way it was 

13 pretty much left last was that we did not get 

14 into an in-depth discussion of ElectroMet 

15 because NIOSH indicated that they had new data 

16 which they needed to evaluate before they 

17 could really get into a substantive discussion 

18 and critique of our findings. But I will go 

19 through the findings, and we will go from 

20 there.

21 Finding 1, NIOSH should discuss 

22 the issue of access controls explicitly in the 
211 

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 Evaluation Report to justify the basis for 

2 including all workers at ElectroMet, rather 

3 than just those who worked in the area plant.

4 You will recall that the uranium 

5 work, the reduction of UF4 to uranium metal, 

6 was done in a special plant called the area 

7 plant which was built specifically for that 

8 work by the AEC in 1943. It was located in 

9 the corner of a large site where the Electro 

10 Metallurgical company made a variety of 

11 ferroalloys, primarily for the steel industry.

12 And the area plant, based on some 

13 of the testimony, was fenced off and guarded 

14 and gated. Our concern was that, was it 

15 possible to identify the cohort of workers who 

16 were exclusively employed at the area plant as 

17 compared to the larger population of 

18 commercial workers on the rest of the 

19 facility. So, that was what was behind this.

20 And when this was last discussed, 

21 and I believe this dates back to June of last 

22 year, NIOSH indicated that they would try to 
212 

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 get some clarification from the Department of 

2 Labor on the exact scope of the population 

3 that was to be involved.

4 The second finding --

5 DR. GLOVER: Do we want to cover 

6 these or do you guys want to just do them all?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, we could cover 

8 them one at a time.

9 DR. GLOVER: Just go ahead and --

10 MR. THURBER: If you want to cover 

11 them one by one, that is fine.

12 MR. KATZ: Sure.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, why don't 

14 you?

15 DR. GLOVER: We have already done 

16 at least a segue to it.

17 MR. THURBER: Yes, no sense 

18 repeating it again.

19 DR. GLOVER: Yes, because I will 

20 have to refresh your all's memory by the time 

21 we get to some of these.

22 So, on this one, and this is going 
213 

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 drive where we are, Part A when we 

2 responded to this was we are going to contact 

3 the Department of Labor and see how they 

4 handled this. And I have provided, in the 

5 folder to the Work Group I gave you the 

6 Department of Labor's email back to us, which 

7 we can't put people in places.

8 And so, basically, if they are an 

9 ElectroMet worker, then we're not going to 

10 know that they were -- I mean we have some 

11 monitoring data, but we certainly don't have 

12 everything that we can call these people not 

13 ElectroMet. If they put them inside there, 

14 then that is how we are, as we said before.

15 The other part to this, though, is 

16 the source-term base. The model that is going 

17 to affect our discussion throughout the rest 

18 of this is that we have written a letter to 

19 the Department of Energy asking them to 

20 clarify the ore and thorium work that occurred 

21 at ElectroMet.

22 And so, without those pieces of 
214 

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, before I know, Bill, that I said 

2 that if it was outside of that area, then we 

3 wouldn't cover it. It is unclear where people 

4 are, and I think there is a little bit of a 

5 change in how we may deal with facilities like 

6 this when they can't put people in places, and 

7 they don't distinguish DOE ElectroMet from 

8 ElectroMet proper in the facility description. 

9 Plus, we are not sure exactly where the work 

10 occurred.

11 So, there are indications of tons 

12 of high-grade ore being sent to ElectroMet and 

13 worked on. We found several new references.

14 So, we are right now waiting for a 

15 response from the Department of Energy. I 

16 know they are working on it, looking at June 

17 or July, likely to give us a response.

18 And so, that is going to affect 

19 the source-term, and the source-term is going 

20 to drive our model.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: But they did 

22 respond to your letter?
215 

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. GLOVER: No, the Department of 

2 Labor responded to our --

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

4 DR. GLOVER: -- first request back 

5 somewhere in the end of 2010. This is a new 

6 letter we wrote last month.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay.

8 DR. GLOVER: And so, regarding 

9 specifics on the ore and thorium source-terms 

10 that are described.

11 MR. THURBER: Which obviously 

12 relates to the next finding.

13 Finding 2, research and 

14 development work on uranium ores was not 

15 mentioned in NIOSH 2009, which is the 

16 Evaluation Report. And there was some 

17 suggestion that there were ores that may have 

18 been worked on, and we felt it was important 

19 that NIOSH look a little further to see if 

20 that was, indeed, the case and what quantities 

21 might be involved.

22 And I think Sam has really covered 
216 

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 second point, but go ahead, Sam.

2 DR. GLOVER: Well, as you said, I 

3 think that covers it.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. THURBER: Okay. I didn't mean 

6 to put words in your mouth.

7 DR. GLOVER: No, sir, that's fine.

8 MR. THURBER: Finding 3, NIOSH 

9 should review the start and end dates for the 

10 operational period to ensure that all relevant 

11 documentation has been evaluated.

12 And one of the things behind this 

13 finding is that in the Petition Evaluation 

14 Report, as I recall, NIOSH said that the work 

15 at ElectroMet began in April of 1943, which 

16 was based on when the area plant actually 

17 started up.

18 But there was some documentation 

19 which we quoted in our review of the ER which 

20 indicated that, as early as December of the 

21 previous year, that ElectroMet had done some 

22 casting of uranium. Now whether it was done 
217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in their research and development lab as 

2 compared to the area plant, or what, I don't 

3 have any idea. But, on the basis of that, we 

4 felt that the start dates needed to be 

5 examined to be sure that the period over which 

6 AEC work was properly represented.

7 DR. GLOVER: And NIOSH concurs 

8 that those references are completely correct 

9 that you mentioned. They did start in late 

10 December or November of 1942. And so, we 

11 agree, as we develop a source-term-based model 

12 after the DOE response, we will certainly 

13 include early years, look at whether that is 

14 appropriate, yes. So, we agree.

15 MR. THURBER: Okay. Finding 4, 

16 the assumption that uranium metal production, 

17 reduction process, and associated industrial 

18 production, industrial hygiene conditions were 

19 unchanged from 1943 to 1949 may not be 

20 correct.

21 The changes that appear to have 

22 been made in 1947 would need to be 
218 

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 investigated before the assumption can be used 

2 to implicitly back-extrapolate post-October 

3 1947 data to the 1943-to-1945 period.

4 What underlies this finding is the

5 fact that, prior to about October 1947, there 

6 was not a great deal of monitoring information 

7 of any kind available. And after that, there 

8 was quite a bit of data.

9 And so, in the Evaluation Report, 

10 NIOSH chose to take the time period, post11 October 1947 time period, and use that as a 

12 basis for back-extrapolating to the beginning 

13 of operations in 1943.

14 And the argument that NIOSH made 

15 was it appears to us that the process was 

16 really unchanged over the period from when 

17 operations began until the time that there was 

18 a reasonable amount of air-monitoring and 

19 urinalysis data available.

20 And the argument that we made was 

21 that there was some evidence in the literature 

22 that NIOSH was -- I'm sorry, NIOSH, excuse me 
219 

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 -- ElectroMet was in the process of making 

2 some significant change prior to 1947, which 

3 suggested to us that things were not really 

4 constant, that they were, indeed, making some 

5 process improvements, and that aspect needed 

6 to be considered if one was to use this back7 extrapolation approach.

8 DR. GLOVER: Hey, Bill, we agree. 

9 I mean I agree with what you are saying. We 

10 are going to wait until the source-term letter 

11 is responded to, so we can have an overall.

12 At the end of this, I put four or 

13 five graphs to give folks a flavor for the 

14 data collection. I do agree with you there 

15 were health changes made. There are some 

16 health improvements.

17 There are some early bioassay data 

18 that we have, though, and we are actually 

19 going to explore with DOE/Oak Ridge whether we 

20 can -- we have a lot of unknowns, what their 

21 work title was. And so, we have a number of 

22 bioassay samples that were done in the 
220 

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 earliest years, 1943 and 1944, with an unknown 

2 occupation.

3 So, we are going to explore with 

4 DOE down at Oak Ridge, which has ElectroMet's 

5 medical records, whether we can get some 

6 additional work titles for these guys. So, we 

7 are going to check into that, as we look also 

8 into this source-term-based model.

9 You will see some things, though, 

10 in the air-sampling data. I tried to give you 

11 a flavor for the types of samples that were 

12 taken, BZs, what the active peers were. So, 

13 if you look at page 9, you will notice that 

14 one hassle is when the health and safety 

15 laboratory comes in. They have got samples up 

16 to almost 500,000 dpm per meter cubed. So, 

17 the location and types of samples that were 

18 done, there is obviously nothing that 

19 indicates those kinds of exposures in the 

20 beginning for the air samples that they chose 

21 to take. So, back-extrapolating, you know, we 

22 are going to have to be careful when we 
221 

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 recognize that.

2 So, we are reviewing the source3 term-based model. We do understand your 

4 concerns. We are trying to find out better 

5 how that uranium bioassay may or may not be 

6 used.

7 Right now, we have too many 

8 unknowns. But we are going to see if we can 

9 perhaps make some improvement with that.

10 But that five or six pages there 

11 is just sort of a feel for the types of urine 

12 data we have, when we have urinalysis data. 

13 On page 13, you see when we have it. I tried 

14 to make some feel for the type of occupations 

15 that we have. 

16 Many of those on page 14 show the 

17 unknowns. Most of those are from that first 

18 occupational period. So, we have about 57 

19 unknowns, bioassays associated with unknown 

20 worker types. So, that will kind of give us a 

21 better flavor for who was being monitored.

22 And I broke those out into a 
222 

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 series of graphs, basically, to show, as a 

2 function of time, when they were collecting 

3 bioassay.

4 So, there are just some initial 

5 fields. We have put a lot of that data 

6 together, as we had mentioned before. We are 

7 going to do all the SRDB documents, see all 

8 the external data, the internal data, so we 

9 can make sure that we are ready to provide our 

10 source-term-based model.

11 But we do understand the concern, 

12 Bill.

13 MR. THURBER: Okay. Finding No. 

14 5, this is not a particularly substantive 

15 issue, but there appeared to be some 

16 discrepancy in the text describing whether 

17 there were or were not sampling data available 

18 measuring internal exposure during the standby 

19 period. There was a period of a couple of 

20 years, I believe in 1948-1949, where the 

21 facility was on standby. There were some 

22 discrepancies in the text about that.
223 

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. GLOVER: And we agree, when we 

2 put that forward, we will make sure we address 

3 that, yes.

4 MR. THURBER: Clearly, not a 

5 substantive point.

6 Finding 6, NIOSH should take into 

7 account the difference between fixed-head 

8 samplers, process samplers, and general area 

9 samplers and the actual intake and 

10 uncertainties this creates for estimating 

11 bounding intakes.

12 And it wasn't clear that the 

13 analysis had taken into account that sometimes 

14 they may have done lapel samplers, but 

15 actually there also may have been fixed-head 

16 samplers, and there could be a considerable 

17 difference between what you measure with a 

18 fixed-head sampler that is kind of near where 

19 the operator's head is nominally and what you 

20 get with an actual lapel sampler. We felt 

21 that the question of what the samples, the air 

22 samples, truly represented needed to be very 
224 

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 carefully considered.

2 DR. GLOVER: Agreed. So, in our 

3 source-term or in our data, we now have all 

4 the descriptions of the types of samples and 

5 whether they are BZs and GAs and the 

6 descriptions.

7 MR. THURBER: Okay. Finding 7, 

8 NIOSH needs to establish the job titles 

9 corresponding to jobs actually done for the 

10 period of employment. NIOSH job title 

11 consolidation scheme would not produce 

12 bounding estimates for all workers in the 

13 proposed Class in the absence of such an 

14 analysis.

15 We had concern as to whether 

16 laborers did operator jobs or, you know, 

17 whether people moved around from job to job in 

18 the area plant and that sort of thing, and 

19 felt that if the source-term was to be 

20 developed by worker Class, that one needed to 

21 be sure that those things didn't happen or, if 

22 they did, they were accounted for.
225 

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. GLOVER: And we will, as we 

2 propose a model, we will make sure that we 

3 take that into account. Right now, there is 

4 not one on the table to revise, but we 

5 certainly will --

6 MR. THURBER: Yes, right.

7 DR. GLOVER: -- make sure we think 

8 about worker movement.

9 And I think 8.

10 MR. THURBER: Okay.

11 DR. GLOVER: I think 8 goes to 

12 kind of the same thing.

13 MR. THURBER: Yes. What we 

14 pointed out is that there are several 

15 techniques for calculating what the 95th 

16 percentile is. It happened, at least in this 

17 particular case, that the graphical method 

18 that NIOSH used gave the lowest of three 

19 alternatives that we examined.

20 And so, if one is saying that the 

21 approach is bounding for the Evaluation 

22 Report, one needs to be careful about the 
226 

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 basis upon which that consideration is built.

2 DR. GLOVER: Okay.

3 MR. STIVER: Bill, this is John 

4 Stiver.

5 I want to jump in here and mention 

6 something about the change in NIOSH's approach 

7 to using the DWE data in model construction.

8 Now, Sam, I think you indicated 

9 that you found a lot of bioassay data. So, 

10 the whole issue of when DWEs may apply may be 

11 a lot different than what I gathered from 

12 looking at the previous report.

13 But back last, I believe it was in 

14 October of 2010, NIOSH released a new paper. 

15 I believe it is Revision 3 that Bob Morris put 

16 out, a White Paper on the FMPC WDE reports. 

17 And this was in response to the review of 

18 Revision 2 of the NIOSH methodology that we 

19 put out in July of 2009.

20 And, basically, what happened was 

21 that NIOSH decided to go ahead and utilize the 

22 methodologies that were put out by Adam Davis 
227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and Dan Strom in the 2008 Health Physics 

2 Journal article, where they looked at the 

3 uncertainties associated with the DWE 

4 datasets. And they actually did use the 1948 

5 ElectroMet set in their analysis.

6 And what they did was they used 

7 Monte Carlo techniques, and they did a couple 

8 of different approaches. One was looking at 

9 discrete sampling of the individual task air 

10 samples, and the other was to fit those 

11 samples to a log-normal distribution and 

12 sample that.

13 And from that, they came up with 

14 estimates of GSD ranges that should be 

15 associated with the DWE set. Basically, they 

16 demonstrated that a GSD of five is actually 

17 pretty good for this type of data.

18 And the Morris Rev. 3, Revision 3, 

19 basically, abandoned this approach of trying 

20 to assign people into categories by job type 

21 and, also, looked at the other big issue that 

22 we had. You know, when you take a bunch of 
228 

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 DWEs and rank-order them and set a log-normal 

2 to it, and then pick off the 95th percentile, 

3 and we demonstrated in our review that in 

4 every single case we looked at we were missing 

5 the actual average with DWE for the highest 

6 exposed Class.

7 And, then, when you also 

8 considered that the DWE itself is an uncertain 

9 value with a very large uncertainty, I think 

10 that was probably the main reason why NIOSH, 

11 then, went to this new methodology. And it 

12 seems to have more global implications outside 

13 of Fernald. In a discussion in Weldon Springs 

14 last week, we went through this very same 

15 topic.

16 So, we really feel that it is more 

17 of a global issue. It is going to have to be 

18 addressed here as well.

19 That is really all I wanted to say 

20 about this right now.

21 DR. GLOVER: We will certainly 

22 look at that. They didn't propose that as 
229 

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 part of the ElectroMet stuff. They did that 

2 through Fernald. So, they had no internal 

3 review from our side, although maybe through 

4 Jim, but not as an ElectroMet - 

5 MR. STIVER: It is more of a 

6 global significance I think.

7 DR. GLOVER: Exactly.

8 MR. STIVER: It is really an 

9 overall methodology for using that type of 

10 data.

11 DR. GLOVER: Yes, and Jim didn't 

12 review it because he is conflicted at Fernald. 

13 So, this is an ElectroMet model. And we will 

14 see where the source-term-based thing leaves 

15 us.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 DR. GLOVER: So, I mean, where 

18 does that leave us for this? You know, the 

19 years that are in the SEC or not, or we will 

20 see where this goes.

21 MR. STIVER: This just has 

22 implications for Finding 6 through 8 and, 
230 

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 also, 10 about the reduction bomb explosions 

2 and those types of off-normal events and the 

3 uncertainties that would be associated with 

4 those.

5 DR. GLOVER: That was Morris' 

6 report, right?

7 MR. STIVER: Right.

8 DR. GLOVER: Yes.

9 MR. THURBER: Are we ready for 9?

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. THURBER: Okay. Nine doesn't 

12 really require much. What we pointed out was 

13 that the approach taken in Appendix C for 

14 ElectroMet was much more claimant-favorable 

15 than that in TBD-6001, but that was really a 

16 TBD-6001 problem, if you will. And so, it has 

17 gone away with the demise of TBD-6001.

18 DR. GLOVER: Agreed.

19 MR. THURBER: Finding 10, given 

20 the high frequency of blowouts at other 

21 facilities using the same equipment, NIOSH 

22 should reexamine the possibility that blowouts 
231 

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 occurred at ElectroMet.

2 We looked at the information that 

3 was on the O: drive and any other materials, 

4 and could not find any evidence of it, but it 

5 was still very difficult to believe that the 

6 same process, when practiced elsewhere, there 

7 were frequent numbers of blowouts. And we 

8 felt that this area, even though we didn't 

9 come up with anything, needed to have careful 

10 attention paid to it.

11 And we recently supplied to the 

12 Work Group the revised Appendix E to our 

13 ElectroMet report, which summarizes the 

14 interviews. I have to say that we were remiss 

15 in getting that out. It was ready to go, and 

16 it fell in the crack until Sam asked me what 

17 happened to the interview reports.

18 My feeling is that the interview 

19 reports are very inconclusive about whether 

20 blowouts occurred at ElectroMet. But I will 

21 leave that to the rest of you to judge after 

22 you have read the report or the appendix.
232 

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 Sam?

2 DR. GLOVER: I agree, yes, we 

3 could find nothing that supports blowouts. I 

4 did look through some of the interviews. The 

5 only thing I did notice was that they said, 

6 either in those interviews or in another 

7 document, that they were able to take 

8 advantage of the Ames Laboratory processes and 

9 make improvements on it as it was implemented 

10 at their facility. So, perhaps they were able 

11 to make -- but that is all conjecture. But, 

12 as of yet, I have seen nothing that really 

13 helps us with saying that blowouts occurred.

14 MR. THURBER: Right.

15 The next finding, that NIOSH 

16 should address the residual period, it was 

17 pointed out that this is a DOE site and, 

18 therefore, the residual period does not get 

19 included. And so, that finding is closed.

20 DR. GLOVER: Agreed.

21 MR. THURBER: Finding 12, NIOSH 

22 should provide more detailed information in 
233 

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 support of their position in the ER that, 

2 considering the intake scenarios established 

3 in TBD-6001, Appendix C, the calculated 

4 urinary excretion of uranium from these 

5 intakes was compared to the actual data and 

6 was found to be bounding in each case.

7 And we did some calculations, and 

8 we did not come to the same conclusion. And I 

9 believe we supplied the spreadsheet data.

10 DR. GLOVER: I think you gave me 

11 the external, the Riley file, Bill, but I 

12 don't think you sent me your --

13 MR. THURBER: Oh, yes, okay. I 

14 know, yes, the one that Karene Riley did, yes.

15 DR. GLOVER: Right. I would be 

16 more than happy if you want to provide that as 

17 we develop a model and look at what your all's 

18 concerns were.

19 MR. THURBER: Okay.

20 DR. GLOVER: So, if you please 

21 would send that to me, that would be great.

22 MR. THURBER: Yes.
234 

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. GLOVER: We certainly do have 

2 some early bioassay data. We will make sure 

3 that, whatever model we do propose, that 

4 pre-`48 model, we will make sure that we look 

5 at those concerns as we review this.

6 MR. THURBER: Okay. That is on 

7 our list.

8 Finding 13, the approach taken to 

9 bound external photon exposure values in Table 

10 C-4 of TBD-6001, Appendix C, appears to be 

11 reasonable for the operating period beginning 

12 June 1948. However, NIOSH must demonstrate 

13 that this approach is bounding for the earlier 

14 period where there is no film badge data 

15 available.

16 And this is similar to one of our 

17 earlier findings about the ability to back18 extrapolate from 1947 to 1943 kind of 

19 timeframe.

20 MR. BARTON: There is also the 

21 issue of unknown job categories in that 

22 finding.
235 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. THURBER: Yes, which also ties 

2 in with another one of our earlier findings.

3 Thanks, Bob.

4 MR. BARTON: Yes.

5 MR. THURBER: Finding 14, NIOSH 

6 should state in the Petition Evaluation Report 

7 that estimates of occupational medical 

8 exposure should be based -- oh, this is the 

9 photofluorography thing that we discussed 

10 earlier today.

11 I think that we, as John Mauro 

12 outlined this morning, we have a clear 

13 understanding of how this should be treated at 

14 AWEs in the absence of specific information to 

15 the contrary.

16 DR. GLOVER: And I agreed we would

17 look at it. We will make a formal -- but 

18 there are documents that discuss the medical 

19 program at --

20 MR. THURBER: And in those, as I 

21 recall, it did say X-ray, at least some that I 

22 looked at.
236 

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. GLOVER: That is correct.

2 MR. THURBER: Finding 15, SC&A 

3 independently developed a database for annual 

4 beta doses and found the 95th percentile value 

5 was in excellent agreement with that reported 

6 by NIOSH. However, the 50th and 5th 

7 percentiles were somewhat higher. And 

8 therefore, again, if you are categorizing 

9 people by job category, this might result in 

10 some understated results.

11 I think that this is the 

12 spreadsheet, actually, that I believe we 

13 provided to you, Sam.

14 DR. GLOVER: Yes, you did, and I 

15 appreciate that.

16 Also, as I said, we went through 

17 all the SRDB documents and tried to make sure 

18 we had all of the data. So, we actually have 

19 additional datasets which you guys have 

20 evaluated, Bill.

21 So, whatever we do choose to go 

22 forward with, we will make sure we use the 
237 

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 most comprehensive dataset we do have.

2 MR. THURBER: Right.

3 DR. GLOVER: But we will make sure 

4 that we include, depending on how we set up 

5 the job title or whatever model we choose to 

6 use, how that gets implemented, that we 

7 include that data, the appropriate analysis.

8 So, I understand your concern.

9 MR. THURBER: Okay. The thrust of 

10 the next finding I believe is that there 

11 wasn't sufficient guidance in Appendix E to 

12 address exposure to the hands and arms, and we 

13 that that needed to be considered carefully.

14 DR. GLOVER: I know that Dave 

15 Allen, we just came to that some resolution on 

16 this at another facility, the enhanced 

17 exposure, the Puzier effect. So, I need to 

18 make sure where that got left, Bill, for the 

19 other facilities. I think we had some 

20 agreement on that perhaps.

21 MR. THURBER: Yes. Well, we kind 

22 of talked a little bit about that this 
238 

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.

2 DR. GLOVER: Yes, ElectroMet 

3 clearly had enhanced exposure.

4 MR. THURBER: Yes.

5 DR. GLOVER: They discussed it 

6 very clearly. So, there is a lot of beta 

7 dosimetry or film badge.

8 MR. THURBER: Right.

9 DR. GLOVER: So, we do have some 

10 things. We need to make sure we take all of 

11 that into account.

12 But we do agree there were some 

13 significant opportunities for enhanced 

14 exposure.

15 MR. THURBER: Yes, we felt that, 

16 in particular, that it was the skin other than 

17 the hands and arms that needed to be 

18 addressed.

19 Okay. Finding 17, again, this 

20 ties in really with a point that we have made 

21 in a couple of earlier findings. NIOSH needs 

22 to provide convincing arguments that the 95th 
239 

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 percentile values based on 1948-1949 data are 

2 bounding for the period prior to December 

3 1947. And I think this has been adequately 

4 covered in discussion and comments by NIOSH on 

5 a couple of our previous findings here.

6 And that's the end.

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bill.

8 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The last word, 

9 Sam.

10 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Bill.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. THURBER: You're very welcome.

13 DR. GLOVER: Well, I am thinking 

14 from our standpoint we have to see what the 

15 Department of Energy is going to come back 

16 with, see where our source-term is. And at 

17 that point, we can update the rest --

18 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: A lot of these 

19 are source-term-related.

20 MR. KATZ: Do you have a rough 

21 sense of timeframe?

22 DR. GLOVER: I would say by July, 
240 

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 what they were saying.

2 MR. KATZ: By July is when you 

3 will hear from DOE.

4 DR. GLOVER: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: But, then, assuming you 

6 have to develop a --

7 DR. NETON: Well, but it depends 

8 on what the source-term ends up being. If it 

9 is an ore-type source-term, then we are going 

10 to be in a similar situation as we were at a 

11 lot of other facilities that are SECs. I am 

12 not saying it will become an SEC, but 

13 depending on if the source-term is of 

14 sufficient magnitude that we have like --

15 correct me if I am wrong, Sam -- a lot of 

16 thorium-230 --

17 DR. GLOVER: Yes, it is almost in 

18 the 100,000 pounds of Mallinckrodt material.

19 DR. NETON: If you end up with 

20 that kind of material, then I am not sure 

21 where we are going to end up at the end of the 

22 day.
241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, July for an 

2 update on where we are with this.

3 DR. GLOVER: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: So, if you can just, 

5 when you get a response, if you will send that 

6 to the Work Group when you receive it --

7 DR. NETON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: -- so, everybody will 

9 know where we are standing on this one.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes. And we 

11 haven't scheduled it, but I was thinking, if 

12 we are going to plan to have Hooker on the 

13 agenda in August, we should probably have a 

14 final meeting in July.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, July or -- yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Yes.

17 DR. NETON: When is the Board 

18 meeting in August, early August or --

19 MR. KATZ: No, I think it is the 

20 third week in --

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, we could 

22 do it earlier, but sometime --
242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I think it is the third 

2 week in August.

3 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, I would 

4 just try, if you were going to be done, and if 

5 we are going to have a meeting to finalize 

6 Hooker, if we could add this to it, it would 

7 be helpful. If it isn't, it isn't. You know, 

8 that's the way it goes.

9 DR. NETON: The Board meeting is 

10 at the end of August.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, then, we 

12 could push it off.

13 DR. NETON: We could push it off 

14 until a little bit later in July or --

15 MR. KATZ: We could, or even --

16 DR. NETON: -- early August.

17 MR. KATZ: -- before the Board in 

18 August.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

20 DR. NETON: Because it seems to me 

21 the Hooker resolution is going to be fairly, 

22 hopefully, straightforward.
243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: It wouldn't be too 

4 much of an issue to wrap things up in one 

5 quick meeting.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

7 DR. NETON: And depending on what 

8 comes out here, this could be fairly 

9 straightforward as well.

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: So, we will wait for a

13 notice in July.

14 I don't know if you want to 

15 tentatively book a date or not at this point.

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Sure.

17 MR. KATZ: Do you want to do that, 

18 Bill? Are you in a position to book a date?

19 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Let's look at 

21 our calendars.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, early 
244 

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 July, we have already got --

2 MR. KATZ: Well, we won't have 

3 notice even until --

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I've got 

5 GDP/BNL on the 6th and the 7th.

6 MR. KATZ: So, I am just thinking 

7 give us sufficient time, if you want to look 

8 at the week of August 8th?

9 DR. GLOVER: I will be out. You 

10 may want to do it anyway. I can always call 

11 in, but the week of August 8th I will be out.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Actually, that 

14 is a good week for me. 

15 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I will be out 

16 as well.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, that doesn't 

18 work.

19 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: It figures. 

20 It is good for me.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, and the week 

22 before doesn't work for me. So, what about --
245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The 22nd is 

2 when our meeting is, that week.

3 MR. KATZ: So, what about the week 

4 of July 25th? We will know where we stand at 

5 that point with DOE.

6 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: That week I am 

7 in Halifax.

8 MR. KATZ: The week of the 25th 

9 you're in Halifax?

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: That sounds nice.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: The 10th 

13 International Mercury Conference.

14 MR. KATZ: And did we already rule 

15 out the week of the 15th?

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Of?

17 MR. KATZ: August. How is the 

18 week of August 15th?

19 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, that works for 

20 me.

21 MR. KATZ: It works for me.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I could 
246 

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 do that, if we wanted to do it. Monday is 

2 completely free for me.

3 MR. KATZ: Is Monday best for you?

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

5 MEMBER FIELD: I will be getting 

6 back from vacation on that Sunday night.

7 MR. KATZ: So, how about August 

8 16th? Does that still work for you, Andy?

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes, I could 

10 probably do that. I have got a Board meeting 

11 I would just love to skip.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's 

14 everybody pencil in August 16th for the next 

15 Work Group meeting.

16 MEMBER FIELD: And what do we call 

17 the Work Group by that time?

18 MR. KATZ: And this will be the 

19 Uranium Refining AWEs Work Group.

20 DR. NETON: I think we should 

21 develop a symbol for it, though.

22 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Well, Jim 
247 

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 Melius said --

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, he had a funny 

3 one.

4 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: -- AWE --

5 MR. KATZ: It sounded like "GROG" 

6 or something.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: URAWG.

9 Okay. So, let's set that, then, 

10 August 16th.

11 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: All right.

12 MR. KATZ: Any other business for 

13 the good of the order?

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: I don't.

15 MR. KATZ: Anyone else?

16 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: What do we 

17 have for -- on our matrix we had Baker18 Perkins?

19 MR. KATZ: Right. That is a TBD. 

20 It is not an SEC, right?

21 DR. NETON: There was an SEC.

22 MR. KATZ: There was?
248 

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, that was the 

2 mixing uranium issue.

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 DR. NETON: Yes, and there was a 

5 residual. I forget what was being evaluated.

6 Can anyone from SC&A help me out? 

7 Baker-Perkins was --

8 MR. THURBER: Yes, that's mixers, 

9 that's right.

10 DR. NETON: Yes, but it is not an 

11 SEC --

12 MR. KATZ: It is not an SEC 

13 issue --

14 DR. NETON: The SEC was denied by 

15 the Board.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. Right.

17 DR. NETON: But it is a TBD issue, 

18 then, I guess, how we are doing the dose.

19 MR. THURBER: Yes, it is a TBD 

20 issue.

21 MR. KATZ: That's what I thought.

22 MR. THURBER: I put the matrix in 
249 

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 just for --

2 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. Because 

3 I seem to remember we closed it out.

4 MR. KATZ: So, if we have work 

5 ready, certainly, we can address it during the 

6 Work Group meeting as well.

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: But the SEC stuff 

9 should take priority, if we are choosing.

10 DR. MAURO: This is John.

11 The Baker-Perkins Site Profile 

12 review has been filed, but I don't believe it 

13 has been put on anyone's agenda.

14 Is Baker-Perkins underneath, one 

15 of the sites underneath TBD-6001?

16 MR. THURBER: No. No, it is 

17 Appendix P.

18 DR. MAURO: It is Appendix P, 

19 but --

20 MR. THURBER: Yes. No, period, 

21 that's all.

22 DR. MAURO: That's it? Oh, okay. 
250 

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 Let me know if it had a hold by way of a Work 

2 Group.

3 MR. KATZ: This Work Group.

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, it does? Oh, 

5 okay.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: That's good. Okay. 

8 Thank you.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, I 

11 mean I just saw that, and I don't think we 

12 talked about it the last time.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, what else 

15 are we assigned?

16 MR. KATZ: I don't think we need 

17 to review -- everybody's clear on their action 

18 items, right?

19 MR. BARTON: Yes, I think so. I 

20 am pretty sure.

21 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: So, do we have 

22 anything else?
251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Do we have any other 

2 sites assigned to this Work Group?

3 I don't believe so.

4 DR. NETON: I think he is 

5 volunteering.

6 (Laughter.)

7 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: No, I'm not 

8 volunteering. I am looking to close the 

9 Committee down before we change the name.

10 (Laughter.)

11 DR. MAURO: This is John.

12 This is, again, a Site Profile 

13 review that we are in the home stretch of 

14 delivering. It is called the DuPont Deepwater 

15 Works.

16 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

17 DR. MAURO: And I believe that 

18 also has a home here.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, that will have a 

20 home here, right.

21 DR. MAURO: But it is not -- I 

22 just wanted to make sure I know which -- I 
252 

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 always have problems with which ones belong 

2 where. But, okay, this one has a lot of 

3 sites, then. This Work Group has got more 

4 than any other sites that they are dealing 

5 with.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, you're right, 

7 John. So, that will come here.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Okay. 

10 Otherwise, I don't have any other issues.

11 MR. KATZ: We are adjourned.

12 CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: We are 

13 adjourned.

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 matter went off the record at 2:01 p.m.)

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
253 

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 

2