THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


BLOCKSON CHEMICAL
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on 


November 19, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
2 

C O N T E N T S
 

November 19, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 


DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, NIOSH 


THE BLOCKSON WHITE PAPERS 9 


ACTION ITEMS 15 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 24 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A 


BRANCHE, CHRISTINE, NIOSH 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


TOMES, TOM, NIOSH 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

NOVEMBER 19, 2007 


P R O C E E D I N G S


 (11:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 DR. BRANCHE: We’re going to proceed now with 


the meeting of the Blockson working group. Dr. 


Wanda –- Ms. Wanda Munn is the chair. Wanda, 


you’re on the line? 


 MS. MUNN: I am. 


DR. BRANCHE: Gen Roessler, have you joined? 


(no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Jim Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I’m here. 

DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Michael Gibson? 

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I’m here. 

DR. BRANCHE: Brad Clawson? 

MR. CLAWSON: I’m here. 

DR. BRANCHE: I’m Dr. Christine Branche. I 

didn’t introduce myself; I apologize. 


Other staff from NIOSH, would you please 


state your name. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 


DR. BRANCHE: Yes? 


MS. ZEAMER*: My name is Margaret Zeamer (ph). 


DR. BRANCHE: Are you a member of the public, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

Ms. Beamer (sic)? 


MS. ZEAMER: Am I what? 


DR. BRANCHE: A member of the public? 


MS. ZEAMER: Yes. 


DR. BRANCHE: Well thank you for joining the 


call. Anyone else who would like to introduce 


themselves? 


DR. NETON: Hi, this is NIOSH in Cincinnati. 


You’ve got Jim Neton here and Tom Tomes. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. 


 MR. MCGOLERICK: And Robert McGolerick with 


HHS. 


MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm with the CDC 


Washington office. 


MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with Labor. 


DR. BRANCHE: Anyone else who is not with -– 


any other federal agencies or anyone else who 


would like to state their name? Ms. Beamer, we 


already have you. Thank you. 


MS. ZEAMER: Thank you. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani, of 


SC&A. 


DR. BRANCHE: Would any of you who have a 


conflict with the Blockson site please state 


that? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

Okay, we do have a quorum. Ms. Munn, the call 


is yours. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you very much. Most of you 


have my e-mail, a reminder from yesterday. Is 


there any question with respect to what we’re 


going to do here? 


 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda, please forgive me; I need 


to interrupt you, please. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine Branche again. 


I’d like to ask all of us to please observe 


telephone etiquette, given the length of the 


call and the fact that there are so many 


callers. Unless you’re a speaker, if you could 


please mute your phone, that will allow all of 


us to hear every word that’s spoken by the 


person who is addressing the group. So if you 


would please mute your phone, unless you’re 


actually going to speak. Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: I am hearing a noise in the 


background still. 


(telephonic sound) 


MS. MUNN: There; someone muted. Thank you 


very much. 


I’m assuming that all of the principals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

have my comments, very brief comments from my 


e-mail yesterday, as to the order that we’re 


going to address? 


DR. NETON: Yes, we do. 


MS. MUNN: We all have the two documents that 


we had in reference to the question that’s been 


raised as to... 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


THE BLOCKSON WHITE PAPERS


 MS. MUNN: We’re going to address the white 


papers that were issued since those were the 


outstanding issues from our original charge. 


John Mauro? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I’m here. 


MS. MUNN: Did you get the opportunity to look 


at these things and -– Tom, I’m assuming you’ve 


had an opportunity now to see the responses 


that SC&A’s made. I trust there have been some 


communications off-line in the meantime about 


some of the finer points. Jim, would you like 


to take the lead on this, or would you like Tom 


to? 


DR. MAURO: I’m sorry, Wanda, did you ask Jim 


that question or me? 


MS. MUNN: I asked Jim that question. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, Wanda this is Jim. I think 


I’ll turn it over to Tom Tomes if you’d like us 


to summarize our –- you know what we prepared 


for the white paper that was issued on November 


13th
 . 


MS. MUNN: If Tom would do that very briefly so 


that John could then go on to SC&A’s review of 


that. 

DR. NETON: Okay, we’ll do that. Tom’s got the 

speaker. 

MR. TOMES: Okay, I’ll just summarize the 

(unintelligible) white paper that we prepared 


in response to the Thorium-230 issue. 


(Telephonic interference) provide a 


detailed evaluation of the Thorium-230 


concentration and exposures from raffinate of a 


certain stream, that being the (telephonic 


interference) filtering operations. And there 


was analytical data in some Blockson documents 


that we have, and so we’ve taken that data and 


analyzed that and came up with a Thorium-230 


concentration in that particular residue. And 


that data seems to be pretty strong and the 


results. And that’s the way we can actually 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

calculate a –- some distributions to see if it 


makes sense. And the data’s pretty consistent. 


 And so we’ve got this Thorium-230 


concentration in this raffinate that we can 


quantify, which is about 500 picocuries per 


gram. So we’ve taken that concentration and 


applied it to the screening analysis that SC&A 


provided to us in their paper dated November 


the 4th, I believe it was. This provides just 


a screening tool to see if it was plausible 


that the intakes of Thorium-230 could have been 


higher than what the TBD proposes. 


 So I’ve taken the data and I’ve taken 


off their evaluation and our data and 


transferred it to an hourly intake so I can do 


a direct comparison to (unintelligible) person 


was at the drumming station being exposed to a 


dry uranium or being exposed to the filter 


raffinate for our -- see which is the highest 


intake. And basically what I’ve concluded is 


that the drum will always be higher. Worst 


case scenario: If 100 percent of Thorium-230 


ends up in raffinate, which is really not 


plausible, but at worst case, then it would 


take an average of 10 milligrams per cubic 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

meter of total dust in the air from that 


filtering operation to equal the intakes we’re 


assigning from the uranium drum in the drumming 


operation. So we have concluded that for a wet 


operation it’s not really feasible for a wet 


filtering operation to average 10 


(unintelligible) per cubic meter. And for 


example if the Thorium-230, you apply the more 


realistic concentration, that means the air 


would have to be even higher than that. 


 So to summarize, we just concluded that 


that fact alone to us indicates that we have 


provided bounding intake. There are some other 


data (unintelligible) white paper which derives 


more details, but that’s really the bottom line 


which we believe supports what we’re doing. 


MS. MUNN: John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, we, SC&A, did perform a 


detailed review of the paper, and we actually 


did it independently. Arjun Makhijani, myself 


and Bob Anigstein reviewed the paper 


separately, did our own calculations looking 


into the supporting arguments, and in addition 


in order to make sure we did understand fully 


the paper, I did speak to Jim Neton just to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

confirm that we understood the points that were 


being made by Hans Holmes* in the write-up, and 


we did. We did understand them correctly. 


Bottom line is we all agree that the 


exposures as derived in this November 13th does 


-- it would take about 10 milligrams per cubic 


meter of dust loading in the what they call the 


filter press area, step one, before you could 


have an intake of thorium that could exceed the 


intake associated with I would say the 55 


gallon drum area. So we also believe that it 


is highly unlikely that you would ever get a 


dust loading of that magnitude in a chronic 


situation in an area such as the filter press 


area, so we are coming down in favor of NIOSH’s 


position that they’ve taken regarding the 


intake of Thorium-230 at the Blockson facility. 


And we do concur that the method that they’ve 


currently adopted is in fact bounding and 


scientifically sound and claimant favorable. 


 The one area that Tom had not mentioned 


had to do with the chemical form. And that may 


be the second item; that is, what chemical form 


is appropriately to be assumed, once you agree 


that the intake is bounding, and we do agree, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

that the intake that they’ve described is 


bounding, we also concur that using, and I 


believe that this is the position that they’ve 


taken, is that they will use either Type S or 


Type M thorium, depending on the particular 


cancer that’s of concern. So they’re going to 


use a more limiting assumption. Tom, is that a 


correct interpretation of your write-up? 


MR. TOMES: Yes. 


 DR. MAURO: And we concur with that. We think 


that is the prudent path to take. 


MR. TOMES: A close review and look at that 


issue, I believe we need to make revisions to 


TBD to specify that. 


 DR. MAURO: There was a third item related to 


this, and that has to do with I believe that 


your position is that the default intake that 


you’re adopting, 41 picocuries per day, for 


Thorium-230, would be applied not only to 


workers in Building 55. Is it also correct 


that you would apply that to all workers, 


including workers that might be working in 


Building 40? 


MR. TOMES: Yes, the intention of that in the 


TBD was to use whichever scenario provides the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

highest dose to the organ of interest, and 


quite frankly I have not calculated the 


possibilities for all the organs because 


there’s other isotopes and ratios that impact 


the final dose numbers, so it relates to 


whichever intake results in the highest dose. 


DR. MAURO: So on that basis and with that 


clarification, yes, across the board regarding 


the Thorium-230 issue that we’ve raised 


originally, we believe they’ve all been 


satisfactorily resolved. 


 MS. MUNN: This is the last item that I had on 


my list for resolution. Does anyone else have 


any outstanding items with respect to Blockson 


Chemical Company? 


ACTION ITEMS
 

All right. I have only one item on my 


Action List, and that is revision of the TBD to 


be done by NIOSH. Any other outstanding action 


item? 


DR. MELIUS: Yes, this is Jim Melius. I had an 


action item goes back about two meetings that 


John Mauro... It was a question I raised at 


one of the other work group meetings regarding 


the sort of how robust the basic monitoring 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

database was, and John had a like a verbal 


report but said he was going to give me a 


written report on that? 


DR. MAURO: We did not give you the written 


report and I have to say that we’ve been 


focusing on the thorium but Chick Phillips is 


on the line and he did look at the robustness 


of the bioassay data question. ‘Cause 


ultimately the question was okay, since 


everything related to intake is based on 


bioassay data collected from the workers 


involved with the uranium production activities 


in Building 55, yes, I did ask Chick Phillips 


to look into that, and that goes back a ways. 


That goes before two meetings ago. 


Chick, are you on the line? 


MR. PHILLIPS: I am, John. 


 DR. MAURO: Are you in a position at this time 


to provide any information regarding that? 


MR. PHILLIPS: I think your assessment is 


correct. I’ve looked at the bioassay data and 


concluded that based on the laboratory that 


analyzed that, to the best of our ability we 


believe that data is sufficient to do the 


analysis that were provided for it. That’s the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

short version. 


 MS. MUNN: Jim, would you like a one-paragraph 


written response from SC&A, outlining that for 


you? 


DR. MELIUS: I would like a report. John said 


he was -- it was back three meetings I’ve been 


waiting for my report. I want a report. 


DR. MAURO: We’ll take care of it. I think 


that we have now addressed the full spectrum of 


issues, and we are in a position now, 


especially since the latest report from Tom 


Tomes came in on November 13th, I think we can 


probably write a report, address all the issues 


-- Yes, Jim, we probably could have given you a 


report on the data reliability question for the 


bioassay data sooner. We hadn’t; we’ve sort of 


been holding off until we had a chance to talk 


about this last round of issues, but we will 


certainly take care of that at this time. 


DR. MELIUS: Okay, thanks. 


MS. MUNN: So what I’m hearing is, you have two 


action items. One is the TBD revision that 


NIOSH will do. Second is a final written 


report from SC&A, being that the concerns have 


been met and including a robustness report 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

specifically addressing that issue that was 


raised from Dr. Melius. Is that a correct 


statement? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John. Yes, we will 


prepare that report. 


DR. NETON: And sounds correct to us from the 


NIOSH perspective. 


MS. MUNN: Good. 


DR. NETON: I think the only revision we’re 


making to the TBD, as I understand it, is to 


acknowledge that we would either use Type S or 


M for the thorium intakes, whichever creates 


the highest organ dose. I think that’s all 


we... 


 MS. MUNN: Am I being overly optimistic that 


these two action items are sufficiently and 


already, that they could be completed prior to 


the conference call, the full Board call, on 


the 27th? Is that too optimistic, given 


holidays here? Are they essentially ready to 


go? 


DR. NETON: Ours is not ready to go, Wanda. 


This is Jim. But I think we can have it by the 


27th . It would be essentially a page-change 


notice, revision. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19

 MS. MUNN: Good. 


DR. MAURO: I guess, we should be able to -- we 


will be able to deliver our report. Should 


this report go to the working group, or should 


this be for the full distribution to the entire 


Board? 


MS. MUNN: I think in this case it should go to 


the Board. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: Because it is one of the items I 


would like to be able to make sure the agenda 


for the 27th meeting... 


DR. MAURO: I suspect it will be sent out 


electronically on the 26th . 


MS. MUNN: Was that all right with the other 


members of the Board? That’s certainly 


sufficient with me. 


That all right with you, Jim? 


DR. NETON: Yes, it is. 


MS. MUNN: Brad? 


MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. 


MS. MUNN: Mike? 


(no response) 


DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. What are we 


going to do on the Board call on the 27th? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20

 MS. MUNN: It’s my expectation to report to 


them that all of SC&A’s findings have been 


identified and they have all reached resolution 


at the change in the TBD and the incorporation 


of the white papers that have been generated 


during our deliberations will make it possible 


for us –- the Blockson Chemical Company 


recommendations of NIOSH to the Board at our 


next full meeting. 


 DR. MELIUS: So you’re talking about the 


January meeting? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 


MS. MUNN: That’s when we had originally 


planned to have the vote take place. 


MR. CLAWSON: Wanda, this is Brad. I just have 


one question. On this change to the TBD, I 


heard that it’s just going to be a small minor 


change and they’re going to be trying to figure 


out -– I guess I just wanted to make sure I 


just want to be able to see that or so forth. 


MS. MUNN: Would you be able to clarify that 


for Brad, Jim? 


DR. NETON: I’m sorry, you mean in the TBD or 


right now? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21

 MR. CLAWSON: No, I was just wondering, that’s 


the only change we’re going to be doing to the 


TBD? 


 DR. NETON: Well, the only change as a result 


of our deliberations right now is the change to 


Thorium-230 intakes to allow for either Type S 


or M, whichever creates the highest organ dose 


for the cancer under investigation. 


I was talking off-line with Tom Tomes. 


There are a few minor edits we need to fix 


while we’re doing this, but they’re really not 


substantive. We can prepare a summary of all 


the changes and provide it to the working 


group. 


MR. CLAWSON: I just, I guess I’m just having 


trouble with all these different work groups of 


trying to keep the changes that we are doing 


what changes to which TBD. 


DR. NETON: This is the Blockson Chemical TBD 


only. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Right, I understand that. I’m a 


lot like you; I have a lot of them running in 


together. I just wanted to make sure we’ve got 


that, that we saw what it was. 


MS. MUNN: I think a listing of those changes, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

Jim, would be very helpful. 


DR. NETON: And we’ll try to be careful. Every 


revision there’s a record of revision table in 


those documents. We try to be pretty specific 


in there as to what changes, so people will be, 


be easy to tell. Sometimes we get a little 


sloppy with that and don’t get real specific, 


but this time we’ll try to be very careful. 


And we’ll let the working group know as well as 


to what changes were made. 


MS. MUNN: Are you comfortable with that, Brad? 


MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: All right. Very good. Anything 


else for the good of the order? 


DR. BRANCHE: So Wanda, this is Christine, 


again. I just want to make sure that you are 


going to provide, you’re going to take time on 


the agenda during the work group updates to 


give an update on what’s proceeding with 


Blockson? 


MS. MUNN: It’s my expectation, yes. 


DR. BRANCHE: Okay, all right. 


MS. MUNN: We’ll look forward to receiving 


information from both of you on the 26th and 


hope everyone has an absolutely delightful 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

23 

Thanksgiving. 


DR. BRANCHE: Wanda, this is Christine, again. 


I would like to ask all of the people on the 


call, when you are sending out documents, if 


you’re going to send it to Dr. Wade, if you 


could please include me as well. I’ve been 


dropped off of several messages, and it makes 


it difficult for us to keep our logues here. 


Branche is like on a tree, with an E on the 


end. 


MS. MUNN: And does everyone have that on their 


e-mail list? 


MR. CLAWSON: I do. 


MS. MUNN: Good. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 


MS. MUNN: We’re good to go. Thank you all 


very much. 


DR. WADE: Thank you all. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 11:25 


a.m.) 

______________________________ 

24 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of November 19, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


19th day of November, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102