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
 

TECHNICAL CALL 


The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on 


November 2, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
2 

C O N T E N T S
 

November 2, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 


DR. LEW WADE, NIOSH 


TECHNICAL DISCUSSION 7 


THORIUM-230 12 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 59 

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 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KATZ, TED, NIOSH 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


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 2, 2007 


P R O C E E D I N G S


 (11:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 DR. WADE: So is Gen Roessler on? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Jim Melius? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Lew, I’m here. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, Mike, how are you? 


MR. GIBSON: Fine, how are you? 


 DR. WADE: So we have Munn, Gibson, Clawson 


DR. ROESSLER: And Roessler just checked in. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, Gen, how are you? 


DR. ROESSLER: Good. 


 DR. WADE: We are missing only Dr. Melius. 


We do have Ray up and functioning, right? 


COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: Well, Wanda, do you want to wait 


a moment or do you want to start, do the 


introductions and move on? 


MS. MUNN: I really want to go ahead and 


start because I want to make clear -- Ray, 

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 

we’re on the record now, okay? 


COURT REPORTER: Yes. 


TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
 

MS. MUNN: I want to make clear that this is 


not a standard meeting of the work group. It 


is instead a technical discussion of NIOSH for 


our contractor with respect to the last couple 


of items that are involved in Blockson site 


review. So we have these items discussed at 


our last full working group meeting. 


SC&A was asked to provide written 


documentation of their position with respect 


to some additional reviews that had been done 


of the materials. They have done that for us 


in a document dated October 24, a review of 


the white paper prepared by NIOSH entitled, 


“(Unintelligible) of Outstanding Issues on the 


Review of the Blockson Chemical Company, Basis 


Document and SEC Petition Evaluation Report.” 


This is intended to be specifically a 


technical discussion between SC&A and NIOSH 


with respect to these two points. But if we 


don’t have NIOSH on the line right now --


DR. NETON: NIOSH is here. 


MS. MUNN: Hi, how are you, Jim? 

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 

DR. NETON: Good, good morning, I got here a 


couple minutes late. 


 DR. WADE: So maybe we’ll just do a real 


brief set of introductions so we can be sure 


who’s with us and who’s not. And then, as 


Wanda said, this is a technical call. It is 


being transcribed. It is open to the public. 


So Board members Munn, Roessler, Gibson, 


Clawson are with us. Are there any other 


Board members on this call? 


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so we don’t have a quorum 


of the Board, and we can proceed. Let’s have 


the NIOSH/ORAU team that’s on the line 


identify themselves and as well as specifying 


if you have a conflict relative to the 


Blockson site. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton, no conflict at 


Blockson. 


MR. TOMES: Tom Tomes, I also have no 


conflict at Blockson. 


 DR. WADE: How about the SC&A team? 


DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro, SC&A, no 


conflict. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A, no 

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 

conflict. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, SC&A, no 


conflict. 


 DR. WADE: Is that the sum of the SC&A team 


and the NIOSH/ORAU team on the line? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Is there anyone else who would 


like to be identified for the record as being 


on this call? 


DR. MELIUS: Jim Melius. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, Jim, thank you for joining 


us. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Lew, this is Liz Homoki-


Titus with HHS. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Liz. 


MS. HOWELL: And Emily Howell with HHS. 


MR. KATZ: Ted Katz with NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, Wanda, you can proceed as 


you will. 


MS. MUNN: As I said earlier, this is 


specifically a technical call, a working group 


discussion, as we had intended it to be. We 


sent a note to Stu earlier asking that NIOSH 


lead off on this. I see the logical path 


forward, the NIOSH response to the information 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

of October 24th . 


Is that all right with you, Jim? 


DR. NETON: You sent a note to Stu you said? 


I didn’t see a note on this, but --


MS. MUNN: I’m sorry about that. Perhaps I 


didn’t copy you. 


DR. NETON: That’s fine. We can lead this 


off or SC&A can put forth their position. It 


doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. 


Whichever is your pleasure. 


MS. MUNN: Since we have SC&A’s white paper 


as we had requested at the last meeting of the 


work group. 


(Whereupon, loud classical music ensued.) 


 DR. WADE: I’m going to have to -- there’s 


music playing in the background on this call. 


Someone has to consider the fact that there’s 


music playing in the background, and we can’t 


continue if that remains. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I think somebody put us 


on hold, Lew. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s just call back in again. 


 DR. WADE: I hate to impose. Let’s wait one 


more minute, and if that doesn’t work, I’m 


going to have to ask you to call back in. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

Who’s answering my questions when I 


ask them, if I might ask? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Lew, this is Liz. I’m 


the one that’s been, they might have put us on 


hold. But I’m not sure who’s been answering 


questions. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Yeah, I understood that, 


but someone is answering my questions. 


Okay, I guess with apologies to all, 


could you please call back in, and then I’ll 


do a little speech when we start. Thank you. 


(Whereupon, the working group ended the call 


and called in again.) 


 DR. WADE: I’m sorry about that. So I 


assume the offending party is not on the line, 


but to any and all please be mindful of 


background noises. And if at all possible 


mute the instrument that you’re using so we 


can conduct our business. 


Wanda, are you back with us? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Let me do a quick roster check. 


Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 

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 

MR. GIBSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Melius? 


DR. MELIUS: Here. 


 DR. WADE: So please proceed, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: As I had said earlier when we 


were interrupted, our expectation is that this 


will be specifically a technical discussion 


and not necessarily a meeting and discussion 


of the work group per se. We’re asking that 


NIOSH ^ up on this because we have before us a 


white paper document that was provided by 


SC&A, a response made to a request made during 


our last working meeting. 


Go ahead, Jim, it’s all yours. 


THORIUM-230
 

DR. NETON: I think there’s a number of 


things I’d like to discuss, but I guess I can 


just sort of bracket our feeling and thoughts 


on this, the review of our position on the 


Thorium-230, which I think is the main issue 


we want to talk about today. 


DR. MELIUS: Excuse me, Jim, one quick 


question. Is this being transcribed? Or how, 

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 

what is the procedure for this particular 


call? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, Jim, it is being 


transcribed. But while Wanda has defined it 


as not a normal work group meeting, we did put 


out notice of it, and it is being transcribed. 


DR. MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 


MS. MUNN: Because we are so near to the end 


of our discussions, because the last standing 


items that we had, we felt that it was 


necessary for us to have a permanent record of 


the discussion that took place. 

DR. MELIUS: I’m not objecting. I was just 

asking. 

DR. NETON: I’ll continue then. I should 

mention that Larry Elliott has joined us at 


the table here in Cincinnati. 


In reviewing SC&A’s paper, it appears, 


you know, they’ve taken (telephonic 


interruption) some issues related to the 


bounding nature of the Thorium-230 


calculation. And I believe that we have 


sufficiently demonstrated that we’ve bounded 


it for all raffinate streams. And my take on 


this document is that they’re specifically, 

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 

and I think it specifically discusses 


raffinate streams that occurred in Building 


55. I think, I don’t sense from this paper 


that they’re insisting that there were other 


raffinate streams in the general plant that 


could have been higher in Thorium-230. If 


that’s the case, I think we’re on the same 


wavelength. 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, Jim? 

DR. NETON: Yes. 

DR. MAURO: This is John. Yes, you could 

tell by, we basically took off from the 


Elzermann report where he made reference to 


two filter locations in Building 55 which he 


calls Filter One and Filter, I guess, Step. 


He calls them Steps One and Step Four. And I 


think we felt that he did a good job in 


characterizing where the thorium might have 


gone. So we felt that those were the areas 


that were the most of concern. 


DR. NETON: Right, so there are essentially 


two steps, two other steps to look at here, 


and one is Step Four. And I think in our 


original white paper we wrote that we believe 


that Step Four by all accounts was sort of a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

liquid step. That is, that there was no, it 


was a raffinate step, but it was a liquid that 


was just pumped out of the building, I 


believe, into a holding pond of some type. So 


there really was no sort of traditional 


filtrate at that step. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, this is Arjun. I think 


there were three places where there were, 


well, in one place the raffinate was actually 


the uranium. And that’s the place where the 


filtrate was the waste. And that’s not the 


place that I think we’re talking about. 


DR. NETON: I think it is, Arjun. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I don’t have the diagram in 


front of me, but I can get it, but --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- this is Bob Anigstein. 


The step in particular that you’re referring 


to is on the, ^ Elzermann report ^. The 


simpler diagram is in the Figure 2 of the TBD. 


And there is the, at the very beginning in the 


upper right-hand corner of the diagram, there 


is a, I believe that’s what Arjun referred to 


as Step One, but there is -– (classical music 


interruption) here we go -- where it says heat 

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 

to 60 degrees Centigrade, and just below that 


it says filter cake going to waste. And then 


at the very bottom of the diagram, just before 


the end, there is another place where it says 


filter. So filter certainly applies to dry 


material, I mean, a solid material, not 


liquid. 


(Whereupon, classical music continued, and 


louder.) 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew again. We’re going 


to have to take some additional steps. 


Liz, could you do what you did before? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I would be happy to. 


Hang on one second. 


 DR. WADE: And with the possibility of then 


limiting calls onto this line. (Music stops.) 


And now it went away. 


Someone, if you’re still on the line, 


someone is putting this call on hold and is 


disrupting this call, and it really needs to 


stop. You need to disconnect from the call if 


you can’t conduct your business any better 


than that. So there is someone who’s putting 


this call on hold. It just stopped again. If 


that’s you, then please don’t do that because 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

we can’t continue this call if you do. 


DR. NETON: Okay, so we’re getting into this 


discussion about the different filters. And 


there are two filters listed. Let’s ^ right 


now is that we believe that was a liquid 


waste. Let’s just talk about that. 


There are three points here where 


Thorium-230 could concentrate. And I think 


Bob Anigstein raised a good issue here. We 


consider the uranium product sort of as an 


extension of the raffinate stream in itself. 


And what we’ve done in this document is dumped 


all of the thorium into that raffinate stream, 


and as it’s well known by now, we assume that 


that’s somewhere around 140 nanocuries per 


gram if it’s in equilibrium with the original 


uranium product. 


So our contention still remains, and 


aside from these calculations that SC&A has 


made about 23 millicuries per gram specific 


activity Thorium-230, that we are still 


unconvinced that there is any raffinate 


streams that could be generated here or 


anywhere in the DOE complex that exceeds a 


raffinate concentration of 140 nanocuries per 

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 

gram. I’m not sure that SC&A has agreed to 


that. 


DR. MAURO: Jim, let me give you 


conceptually why we, when we originally 


discussed this -- this is John -- I think your 


two arguments were very compelling. And, in 


fact, we even said that in our meeting on 


October 2nd, I believe it was. I’m not sure if 


it was the 2nd or 3rd . And basically the 


argument being the 140 nanocuries per gram. 


Certainly it’s a high number when you look at 


other raffinate streams. And also the fact 


that it’s likely that other raffinate streams 


are going to be primarily moist. 


Now what happened was when we 


regrouped after that meeting, and we said, 


well, let’s take a little closer look at it, 


maybe do some what-if calculations. What I 


did was I said to myself, well, if, in fact, 


what you’re saying is they’ve got this 


material that contains Thorium-230 at 142 


nanocuries per gram, and you’re also 


effectively saying that the dust loading that 


a person might be experiencing is on the order 


of 30 micrograms per cubic meter. In other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

words, that results in your 41 picocuries per 


day. 


DR. NETON: But, John, you’ve got to 


remember that’s a time-weighted dust loading ^ 


with that. 


DR. MAURO: My write-up acknowledges that. 


DR. NETON: And so it could be much, much 


higher than that if there was an episodic 


exposure of a half hour duration once a week 


or something like that. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, and I agree with that. 

DR. NETON: ^ to a hundred times higher. 

DR. MAURO: And I agree with that, and I 

actually support that. But in effect what 


happens is so these people, in other words, 


your bounding scenario effectively means that, 


well, we’re really not going to experience an 


intake of greater than 41 picocuries per day 


of Thorium-230. It’s very unlikely that other 


locations where there might be some raffinates 


containing some thorium could be higher than 


that. And then so what we did is we said, 


well, is that a compelling argument. And our 


first review said, yeah, it looked reasonable. 


But then we did some scoping calculations. In 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

fact, Bob Anigstein did one. We didn’t put it 


in the report because it was just that. It 


was just a what-if. And we found out we could 


easily come up with some numbers that could be 


higher than that. 


Bob, perhaps you can just give a quick 


rundown of --


-- really, this is the trigger that 


said that maybe we need to take a closer look 


at this. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, first of all let me 


answer Jim’s comment. If you have a filter, I 


mean, excuse me if I’m being didactic. If you 


have a filter, the filter is removing solid 


material. So if you have, according to the 


diagram and according to the Elzermann Report 


which we think is very definitive, he said 


there was a 30 percent chance of the thorium 


parting ways with the uranium during Step One, 


which I identify on the TBD diagram as the 


first filtration step in the upper right-hand 


corner. There is also something like an 80 


percent chance that the thorium may be 


separated from the uranium in Step Four, which 


I think is that last filtration step. 

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 

DR. MAKHIJANI: No, Bob, it’s the second 


last. I think that’s what’s confusing the 


thing. There are four filtration steps. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: And he refers, Elzermann 


refers to four steps. And Step Four is the 


one where there is another likelihood of 


taking out the thorium. There are four 


filters, and he has four steps, so I believe 


that’s it. But actually, it’s immaterial, 


Arjun. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, because of what Jim 


was saying, both those filters on the right 


side of the diagram --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Arjun, I’m talking about the 


one on the bottom. I believe that’s Step Four 


because it’s the last step, last filtration 


step. 


And in both cases it’s being removed 


as a solid. Now maybe I grant you it would 


be, we all agree, it would be a wet solid. 


But nevertheless it’s being taken away and in 


a very simplistic way, we think of it what if 


it’s loaded into a wheelbarrow and taken off 


to the waste dump. Being in an open area, not 


being treated as if it were a toxic material, 

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 

there is going to be some spillage. There’s 


very likely to be some spillage. And we 


calculated, I calculated that if you spill as 


little as one percent of it, and the spill --


and this is just again a scoping calculations. 


I’m just using powers of ten. So if you spill 


one percent, and if you then, say, you have 


100 kilograms --


DR. NETON: What concentration is the 


thorium, Bob? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, we’re assuming that --


DR. NETON: Is it pure thorium? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, that’s the thing. We’re 


not dealing with concentrations. 


DR. NETON: That makes a difference. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because if we simply say 


there is 3,000 pounds of uranium, of the 


equivalent, it’s not really that chemical 


form, but the equivalent of U-308, it’s being 


produced ^. So 85 percent of that is uranium 


which has specific activity of the uranium in 


that U-308 is approximately 10,000 Becquerel 


per gram. So therefore, you have 1.4 of ten 


to the tenth Becquerels per month of uranium 


being produced. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

So at the same time by the same token 


you have 1.4 times ten to the tenth Becquerels 


of Thorium-230 being produced. But when I say 


uranium, I mean Uranium-238. So then if we 


spill one percent, we’re spilling 1.4 times 


ten to the eighth Becquerels per month onto 


this floor. And again in round numbers, let’s 


say the floor has an area of 100 square 


meters, a big room ten-by-ten meters, 30-by-30 


feet. So now you will have an average surface 


activity of 1.4 times ten to the sixth 


Becquerels per square meter. And if we assume 


a resuspension of ten to the minus five per 


meter, then you end up with an airborne 


concentration of 14 Becquerels per cubic 


meter. 


DR. NETON: This is in picocuries. I’m not 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I’m sorry. I did this in 


Becquerels. 


DR. NETON: I know, but I prefer picocuries. 


It’s about three-tenths of a picocurie --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I’m looking at my 


spreadsheet. 


DR. NETON: It’s about four-tenths of a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

picocurie per cubic meter. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, 14 would be times 27, 


Jim, so it would be about 300 or 350. It 


would be about 350. 


DR. MAURO: Bob, certainly --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a second. I’ll happily 


give you picocuries, 385 picocuries per cubic 


meter. And then if we go again factors of 


ten, let’s say there’s a, over the month 


there’s an average occupancy of ten percent. 


Ten percent of the time there’s a, a worker is 


in that area. Then he could have an intake of 


300 based on a normal breathing rate of 370 


picocuries per day. Now, I’m not saying that 


this is an exact number. I’m just saying that 


conceptually it could be higher than the 41 


picocuries per day assumed in the TBD. That’s 


our point. ^ opportunity here. 


DR. NETON: I think you’ve sort of ignored 


the dilution of this material. Now I 


understand what you did. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: We’re not talking anything 


about dilution. We’re talking normal 


concentration. 


DR. NETON: I understand that, Bob --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

DR. ANIGSTEIN: We have so many Becquerels 


or picocuries if you wish being spilled, a 


certain fraction goes into the air. 


DR. NETON: I understand that, Bob, but if 


it’s diluted in a large matrix of material, 


the availability of it for resuspension is a 


lot less. I mean if you threw five million 


pounds, let’s take a crazy example, on the 


floor in that same area, the availability of 


it for inhalation is not as if it’s in its 


pure form. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree with that. 


DR. NETON: The dust loading is related to 


the amount of material that’s there to be resuspended, so --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: If you have --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, Bob, I have to go in a 


minute, so let me just put this on the table, 


and then I’ll have to leave. I did some 


scoping calculations on that, Jim, and I agree 


that if there is a huge, if you’re producing 


ten, twenty thousand tons of raffinate every 


year, then the dilution would be very great. 


But if you’re producing hundreds of 


tons I think the intake could easily exceed, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

easily exceed 41 picocuries per day. So there 


is, that’s why if you look at the white paper, 


you’ll actually see one of the things that we 


thought needs to be investigated is the amount 


of raffinate produced. That’s why that is 


there. I have to go, thanks. 


DR. MAURO: Arjun, thank you. I think the 


team ^ calculations that Arjun’s. You could 


see why we’re sort of holding onto this issue. 


We think that it needs to be explored further. 


DR. NETON: Let me ask another question 


here. You take a ten to the minus fifth of 


the thorium, but is that really a 


resuspension, ten to the minus fifth of the 


material that’s deposited on the floor? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, it is. 


DR. NETON: And so if it’s being diluted by 


a factor of a thousand --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, no, no. Even -- I 


agree. Typically, a resuspension is the top 


millimeter. I know there’s been some, 


according to -- I forget who’s the expert on 


from PNL that wrote on resuspension. 


DR. NETON: Bob, let me finish here. I 


think what you’re doing is you’re re­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

suspending ten to the minus fifth of all the 


thorium that went on the floor. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, no, ten to the minus five 

per meter. 

DR. NETON: Per meter, right. 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, in other words it’s ten to 

the minus five picocuries per meter cubed --


DR. NETON: But don’t you re-suspend ten to 


the minus five of the material that was 


deposited, not of the pure thorium? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Of course. 


DR. NETON: Well, then if it’s --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: But you don’t dilute it. 


We’re not talking, we’re not giving you grams. 


We’re simply saying whatever is on the floor, 


whatever mix, of course, it’s not pure 


thorium, but whatever mix is on the floor as 


long as it doesn’t exceed a millimeter 


thickness, and, of course, it wouldn’t because 


it would be stepped on -- (telephonic 


interruption) oh, oh, here we go. 


 DR. WADE: Yes, just hold on for one minute 


and see if it ends. 


Liz, could you make the call again? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Certainly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28

 DR. WADE: We’ve been doing well on calls 


until now. 


(Whereupon, telephonic interruption 


continued.) 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: They’re going to 


disconnect the line here. 


 DR. WADE: Is it possible that they could 


block a line? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I don’t know. Do you 


want me to go back on and ask the operator? 


THE OPERATOR: This is the operator. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: There’s the operator, 


Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Is there a way that you could not 


allow that line to connect again? Is that 


possible? 


THE OPERATOR: I can’t block it, but I think 


I just located it and muted it. I can mute 


disconnect it, but I can’t block it. 


 DR. WADE: Can you limit anyone calling into 


this line? 


THE OPERATOR: No, I don’t have the 


capability. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, well, thank you for that. 


Let’s proceed. After about five or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

ten minutes I’ll speak to the issue because 


right now it probably wouldn’t work, but okay, 


please continue. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: What we’re talking about is 


that we have an area of 100 square meters 


which means one million square centimeters. 


So if you had like one millimeter, let’s give 


it a bulk density of one which is probably not 


a bad number, so what we’re really talking 


about is you could have ten to the fifth grams 


on the floor, meaning 100 kilograms on that 


floor at any one time. And it would still all 


be subject to resuspension. It would not be 


such a deep layer that, you know, we’re not 


talking about knee deep in raffinate. So I 


think it’s a commonsense. I’m not defending 


it as mathematically accurate. It’s just 


conceptually such a situation could happen. 


DR. NETON: And it never would have been 


cleaned up in the --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I didn’t say, I would say 


like let’s say it accumulates until it’s about 


a millimeter deep at which point somebody 


says, hey, this floor is dirty. Let’s clean 


it. But I’m assuming once a month rather than 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

once a day cleaning. And talking to some, you 


know, I remember thinking about Blockson where 


they said the floor did not get cleaned on a 


daily basis. 


DR. NETON: That was a site-wide requirement 


I’ve been told that they hosed down the floor 


after every shift. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, that -- at Blockson? 


DR. NETON: At Blockson Chemical, yes. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see, well, then the number 


would be smaller, but it still could be, 


particularly if it’s intermittent, and 


particularly if we had ten to the minus five 


is probably a low, John will know what the 


resuspension factor is. He said it could be 


as much as ten to the minus four in an area 


which has traffic, not a dormant area, but a ­

-


DR. NETON: Well, exactly. I have trouble 


believing that calculation only because if you 


look at other areas, say, in the phosphate 


industry where they were dealing with radium 


and such, where there were large amounts of 


alpha activity in the filtrates, you don’t see 


this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

If you look at that Florida 


Institution of Phosphate Research Report where 


there are air samples throughout the chemical 


process area including one that was taken 


right at the filter change-out area, they have 


trouble getting air concentrations over a 


picocurie per cubic meter. So in practice I’m 


not seeing this in the literature. I 


understand your scoping calculations. They’re 


good for, I guess, some purposes, but it just 


doesn’t ring true with what we’ve been seeing 


in the literature. 


DR. MAURO: Jim, if you’re working with 


radium, I guess the radium is contained in a 


much larger bulk. Where I’m going with this ­

-


DR. NETON: This is a filter. One percent’s 


being spilled as you’re speculating here. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, but you’re saying, but I 


guess what it comes down to is that we see 


your argument, but these kind of scoping 


calculations where you assume something very 


simple. If there are some other places where 


raffinate is accumulated, where thorium is 


accumulating in raffinate, and I think there’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

good reason to believe Bob Elzermann’s report 


that that could very well be happening. In 


fact, it’s likely. I mean, I got the 


impression that his sense -- and by the way 


our own independent sense is similar that it’s 


likely. And I think the main dilemma here is, 


and Bob did it based on a resuspension factor 


approach. Namely, okay, if only one percent 


of the material or one percent of the thorium 


that’s going through the system finds its way 


onto the floor, I mean, that’s basically what 


we’re saying, and that’s just a number we 


picked out of the air. 


DR. NETON: That’s assuming 100 percent 


efficiency in one of those filter places. 


DR. MAURO: Right, and there’s one other 


steps, but we could assume one percent. We 


could assume something less than one percent, 


or we could assume ten percent. I mean, we 


just picked one percent --


DR. NETON: Yeah, I know. 


DR. MAURO: -- just to ask ourselves the 


question if we do this calculation, scoping 


calculation, and if we were to come back with 


a number that was a very small fraction of 41 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

picocuries per day intake, we would say, yeah, 


we’ve convinced ourselves that this is just 


not a scenario that’s plausible. But when we 


did this for just the way we said it, one 


percent of the thorium that’s being handled in 


we’ll say a wheelbarrow, fell down on the 


floor. It’s spread out, and then it has a 


resuspension factor of ten to the minus five. 


All of a sudden we have an intake rate that 


could posit that could easily be ten times 


higher than the 41 picocuries per day. 


And that left us a little bit off 


balance. And now we realize that the reality 


is that if you were to come out on a rather 


than a resuspension factor approach but on a 


mass-based approach where the volume of the 


raffinate is substantial; and therefore, the 


number of nanocuries per gram in the raffinate 


for the thorium is well below 140. It’s 


contained in much larger volume which might 


very well be the case. 


And then arguments could be made, 


well, even if the dust loading were on the 


order of a -- see, then I would take a 


different approach. If there’s some way 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 

34 

place, let’s say, an upper bound or a 


reasonable estimate of what the filter cake, 


for example -- let’s go with the filter cake 


and the diatomaceous earth step. That would 


be Step One. 


Let’s just assume that somehow we 


could come up with what the quantity of that 


material is produced each year or each month 


or each change out. Right now, of course, we 


don’t have that information --


DR. NETON: But what if we just use this 140 


nanocuries per gram though? That’s our 


position is that it’s no more concentrated 


than that. 


DR. MAURO: Well, here’s the problem --


DR. NETON: They could still fill a 


wheelbarrow full of this stuff. 


DR. MAURO: Just for a minute there’s 


another way to come at it. Let’s assume that 


some other place has 140 nanocuries per gram, 


but then we ask ourselves what dust loading do 


we assume that the person’s exposed to. Do we 


go with the 30 micrograms? Do we go with one 


milligram? 


DR. NETON: No, no, see, I think you take 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

the same wheelbarrow full, stick 140 


nanocuries per gram material, spread it out 


and see what you get. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: You know, the argument is 


that there is a large raffinate stream all 


told in the entire process, but at each 


particular filtration step I don’t know what 


the raffinate, how much filtrate, not 


filtrate, precipitate is being removed by 


these filter steps. And I’m thinking that 


there could be some filter steps where there 


is relatively little solid material and a high 


concentration of thorium. 


DR. NETON: I’d be surprised because we’ve 


not seen this anywhere else in the DOE complex 


as we reported. There would have to be some 


magical chemical processing step that would 


produce this --


MR. ELLIOTT: ^ search for thorium then that 


would have been the obvious --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I was able to get back onto 


the call. This is Arjun. 


I don’t think the concentration has to 


be 142 nanocuries per gram actually. The 142 


nanocuries per gram is an inferential 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

concentration that isn’t directly related to 


the 41 picocuries. The 41 picocuries is the 


number that you’re trying to compare it to, 


and a lot of it will depend on how much 


raffinate you have. You can have a 


concentration that’s quite a bit less than 142 


nanocuries per gram and still have intakes 


greater than 41 picocuries per day. 


DR. NETON: We’re not saying that the 


intakes are episodic intakes as we’ve 


calculated them. You’re --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Quite right, no, we agree --


DR. NETON: -- you’re assuming a chronic, a 


chronic --


DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 


DR. NETON: -- intake of -- let me get this 


straight though. You guys have calculated 


that it could be 350 picocuries per cubic 


meter for 365 days a year based on that 


spillage? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I was saying there would 


be a ten percent occupancy of that room. 


DR. NETON: What was that? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I was assuming ten percent 


occupancy, a one-tenth of the day average --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

DR. NETON: And that came out to 350? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: And that came out to, yeah, 


that came to an intake of 370 picocuries per 


day. 


DR. NETON: At a ten percent occupancy? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: I really have trouble. I’d like 


to -- and I wish you would have put this 


calculation in your report because I’d like to 


see all the assumptions that you’re --


DR. MAURO: Bob, why don’t you e-mail it? 


Then they have a chance to look -- remember, 


what this is --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it’s just a spreadsheet. 


DR. NETON: Well, I’d like to get all the 


assumptions down here because this does not 


ring true with industry practice that I’ve 


seen. I’ve worked in plants. I’ve looked at 


phosphate reports. I mean, I understand what 


you’ve done, but the assumptions just seem to 


be off base somehow in reality. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, Jim, and I understand your 


position. The way I see it is we went through 


this process, and we asked ourselves these 


questions, did some scoping. Arjun did some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

scoping calculations. Bob did some scoping 


calculations, and they made a very -- in other 


words, they didn’t say that this was 


definitely happening, but it raised enough of 


a question that we just could not set aside 


the possibility that these scenarios could 


occur. 


And there was really nothing in your 


report that would basically defeat these lines 


of calculations or assumptions. And so the 


way we wrote our white paper was I think these 


areas need to be explored. And we’ll 


certainly send you both Arjun’s and Bob’s 


what-if calculations, and if you could show 


why that just can’t happen, that’s great. 


But right now we walked away with the 


idea that, well, these really can’t be ruled 


out right now. And my sense is the best way 


to rule these out is to get a handle on what 


the mass volume might be, production rate, on 


these various filters and get what the 


concentrations of thorium might be in that 


material. 


And then do some analyses that 


demonstrate if some of that material somehow 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

became airborne did it dry out because it 


spilled or became airborne. Or whether you 


use a resuspension factor approach as Bob did 


or you use a mass loading approach where you 


assume a certain number of micrograms per 


cubic meter and demonstrate that under no 


circumstances would it even approach 41 


picocuries per day, I would then say yes, and 


you made your case. But right now we don’t 


have that. 


(Whereupon, loud radio music ensued.) 


 DR. WADE: Oh, we did it again, didn’t we? 


MS. MUNN: It looks like we missed our 


opportunity to catch the thief. 


DR. WADE: I wonder what it is. Liz, one 


more time, please. I’m sorry. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Certainly. 


 DR. WADE: I’m not sure I understand the 


mechanics that would lead to this. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I think it’s a person who’s 


putting us on hold. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: My guess would be that 


somebody has an incoming call, and they put it 


on hold so they can take the incoming call. 


 DR. WADE: But this is a message of someone 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

they’re calling. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: The operator’s going to 


take care of it. 


 DR. WADE: So I’ll try now, and I’ll try in 


five minutes. I assume you’re not on the 


line, but someone in Arizona is putting this 


call on hold and disrupting the call. If you 


hear this, please don’t do that, and I’ll set 


my watch for five minutes and come back and do 


this again, so please continue. 


DR. MAURO: Anyway, I was hoping that you 


did hear before --


DR. NETON: Yeah, I heard. I think we can 


get that write-up because we’re not going to 


answer the question here, and I’d just like to 


look at the assumptions because this is new to 


me. I mean, basically, the report I read said 


that it could happen. Now I see your basis 


that you didn’t provide. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, well, because it was as I 


would say, what I would call hypothetical 


what-ifs. But what-ifs in a way that say, you 


know, it’s not unreasonable to assume that 


this could happen. Quite frankly, the reason 


we did it was to see if we go through this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

kind of what-if, are we going to come up with 


something well below 41 picocuries per day. 


And that would have really convinced us, but 


it didn’t happen that way. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I’ll volunteer to have it ^ 


write up in a few hours. 


DR. MAURO: Arjun had something also. Arjun 


came out a little differently. He did an 


independent, another approach that was equally 


informative. 


Arjun, are you still on the line? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I’m on the line, but 


I’m on the road unfortunately. I can try to 


do something this weekend while I’m traveling 


and then send it to you early next week or I 


won’t --


DR. MAURO: We’ll get you Arjun’s as soon as 


we can, but certainly we’ll get you Bob’s. 


And that will at least get the thinking going, 


and you could see where we maybe have gone 


afoul. 


DR. NETON: My original comment here, I was 


going to say that all of this is pure 


speculation in your report, but it sounds like 


you’ve got some, at least some scientific 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

basis behind it because I didn’t see any of 


that coming out in this report. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah, like I said, we didn’t 


want to put this kind of material in here. In 


retrospect I’m sorry we didn’t. We could have 


put an attachment and characterized it 


appropriately that it was purely a 


hypothetical just to explore what the possible 


intakes might be. Yeah, that would have been 


more helpful. But we’ll get it to you. We’ll 


get it to you. 


DR. NETON: Okay. There’s one other thing 


that I’d like to go over. I might have 


misunderstood. Let me just see here. There’s 


this one paragraph on page four. I really 


just don’t get what you’re trying to say here 


when you calculate the specific activity of 


the thorium material could be greater than 


what was in the barrel. I mean, I don’t even 


see why that’s relevant to be honest with you. 


I mean unless you’re assuming somewhere in 


here that you’re going to have pure thorium. 


DR. MAURO: Let me tell you why this is 


here. One of the steps we went through is to 


say, okay, what’s the worst situation 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 

43 

could arise, including Thorium-232 was 


isolated all by itself. And during --


DR. NETON: Well, I don’t think that’s 


possible but --


DR. MAURO: I’m with you. Now, the reason 


we did that was my original thought was, well, 


if that comes in at a concentration that’s 


comparable to 142 nanocuries per gram, I think 


that solves the problem. 


DR. NETON: You know that wasn’t going to 

happen. 

DR. MAURO: You know, it almost did. It was 

only 20 fold higher because Thorium-230 is a 


very low specific activity. And quite 


frankly, I walked away from that saying even 


if the pure thorium, I was at the point where 


I said I think when we did this we came in 


about 20 times higher. And I actually wrote a 


paragraph that says if this happens, and 


you’re only 20 times higher, well, we know 


that there’s going to be some solid 


diatomaceous earth that’s going to 


substantially reduce the concentration, and 


we’re going to get well below. 


DR. NETON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

DR. MAURO: That’s where I came in on. And 


but then, quite frankly, we realized, based on 


this Koppinger* report, well, there’s a real 


possibility that Thorium-232 and Thorium-230 


are going to go their separate ways and not be 


entirely, so quite frankly, that left me in a 


place where, hmmm. 


So it’s possible that the Thorium-230 


is sort of on its own commingled with this 


diatomaceous earth. And the only way to get 


the concentration on the Thorium-230 in the 


matrix down is to have some sense of what the 


volume of the diatomaceous earth stream might 


be or whatever the raffinate stream is. 


And without that I felt as if we were 


sort of, it’s difficult for us to walk away 


and say this just can’t happen. So I was 


looking for ways in which I could convince 


myself that the 41 picocuries per day was, in 


fact, a plausible upper bound, and I have to 


say that I couldn’t based on these kinds of 


calculations and the kinds of things we’re 


talking about. 


DR. NETON: We’ll look at your write-up when 


it comes out. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

Finding 3 I was reading, and I’m not 


exactly sure what the point is of this 15 


percent versus 50 percent. Honestly, it makes 


no difference in the actual dose calculations 


whether we assume ten or 100 percent because 


it’s based specifically on bioassay data. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


DR. NETON: It makes no sense to me what 


this is talking about. 


DR. MAURO: I understand what you’re saying. 


And when we put this together, we just looked 


at the assumption regarding the uranium 


concentrations, but you base it on the 


bioassay, it’s irrelevant. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, this is an irrelevant 

finding. 

DR. MAURO: We could delete Finding 3. 

DR. NETON: We’ll delete Finding 3. 

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me, but doesn’t this 


feed into the 41 picocuries per day? Wouldn’t 


that be influenced? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, I think we’ll take 


Jim’s comment and go back and look at it. 


 DR. WADE: Let me just pause for a minute 


just in case. If there’s someone on the phone 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

who’s putting this call on hold periodically 


and being disconnected and having to dial in, 


and if you’re in Arizona, it seems like, stop 


that. Don’t put this call on hold. 


When you do, music plays, and we can’t 


continue our business. So if you’re hearing 


me, and you are putting this call on hold 


periodically, being disconnected and dialing 


in, you need to stop that. Don’t put this 


call on hold. If you can’t conduct your 


business otherwise then just leave this call 


because you’re being terribly disruptive. We 


sense it’s in Arizona somewhere. 


Thank you, guys. Go ahead. 


DR. NETON: I don’t think that affects the 


41 picocuries per day because that’s generated 


based on the pure uranium intakes --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, okay. 


DR. NETON: -- and for the air 


concentrations. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, I withdraw my comment. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, you’re right. And I think 


we should withdraw Finding 3. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I think that’s right. 


I just seem to get uncomfortable when it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

happens on a conference call. I think Jim is 


right though. We should look at it. 


DR. MAURO: We’ll look at it, but I 


understand what you’re saying, Jim. 


DR. NETON: Well, I think that’s all that we 


can, unless Tom Tomes sitting here or Larry 


has anything else to offer. I don’t think we 


can really do any more until we get a hold of 


some of the assumptions and look at them. 


DR. MAURO: Well, we still have the fourth 


item which has to do with Type M. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, that’s another issue that 

--

DR. MAURO: Well, let me just go ahead and 

say one point. If the working group, we would 


fully concur that the Type M-Type S issue 


would not normally be characterized as an SEC 


issue. But nevertheless, we do have some 


question as to whether or not going strict 


Type M is the most claimant favorable strategy 


for the reasons given here. 


If this is something that the working 


group would like to explore or discuss further 


even though probably, and, of course, that’s 


your judgment to make, but it doesn’t appear 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

to be something that, it’s certainly something 


that’s resolvable in terms of which model do 


you think is the most appropriately 


conservative. But in the end it’s certainly 


tractable. 


(Whereupon, a personal, private phone 


conversation ensued.) 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, someone’s on the phone 


talking right now. You need to hang up. You 


don’t belong on this call. 


Can you hear me speaking? No, you’re 


not on hold. You’re disrupting this call. 


You need to hang up. Who’s ever speaking now, 


whoever they’re speaking to, this call is 


being disrupted by you. You need to hang up. 


We’re telling you to hang up. 


You’re disrupting the call. If you 


hear me whoever’s just been speaking, you’re 


disrupting the call. You’re talking over the 


call. You’re putting the call on hold and 


disrupting it with music. You’re destroying 


the ability of this work group to conduct its 


business. You need to hang up. 


Okay, let’s try again. 


MS. MUNN: We’re on Finding 4. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, I was just asking the 


working group whether or not you’d like to 


discuss the Type M-Type S issue. I think we 


do have some differences of opinion on the 


degree of conservatism imbedded in the model 


selected. But at the same time I’d say this 


is a tractable question. It’s certainly one 


we could decide to go with the more liberal 


approach whereby you would have the dose 


reconstructor use either Type M or Type S, or, 


of course, NIOSH could make a case why Type S 


is really ruled out. What I mean by 


tractable, it’s something that could be 


resolved, and I guess in my opinion I don’t 


see that as an SEC issue. 


MS. MUNN: I thought we had put this to bed 


at our last meeting. I was a little surprised 


to see this. I would have to ^ what was 


actually said, but I thought we had agreed 


that NIOSH had a process that was agreeable to 


SC&A. Am I the only one who had that 


impression? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: No one else is speaking to it. 


DR. MELIUS: It wasn’t my impression. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

can’t say that you were the only one, Wanda. 


DR. ROESSLER: I thought that we had agreed 


that it was not an SEC issue. 


DR. MAURO: No, I think we did agree to 


that, but we still had, we did look at it 


after the meeting as something that, to see 


whether or not we felt that using M alone is 


defendable. And I guess we still had some 


reservations for the reasons explained in the 


write-up. 


And again, I’ll say this, if you feel 


that it’s something that really don’t need to 


discuss, it would be what we’d call more of a 


site profile issue than an SEC issue, then 


there really is no need to go further on it, 


but that’s your choice. 


MS. MUNN: My only concern would be that 


this question resurrect itself at some other 


point, leaving us in a lurch in another part 


of the forest rather than clearing it here. 


What’s the feeling of the other work group 


members? 


DR. ROESSLER: Wanda, I have a question, 


kind of a general question, of John Mauro. 


John, are you on? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

DR. MAURO: Yes, I’m here, sure. 


DR. ROESSLER: With regard to all of this 


but in particular the thorium issue, I’m 


wondering if you had Chick Phillips review 


this new information, the new hypothetical 


calculations that you’ve made? 


DR. MAURO: The last set of, yes, Chick did 


review the -- I guess the answer to your 


question is no. What Chick did review though 


was the Elzermann Report, and he did concur, 


he concurred that the Elzermann Report was a 


fair characterization. However, the scoping 


calculations that we just talked about he was 


not involved in that. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think I’d feel more 


comfortable if, since there are two different 


approaches in the hypothetical calculations 


and since we’re asking questions about it, I’d 


feel more comfortable if Chick did take a look 


at it. I know he has the appropriate 


background and could also report. 


DR. MAURO: Absolutely, I’d be glad to do 


that. 


MS. MUNN: With respect to Finding 4. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad, Wanda. One of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

my questions that I worry about, you know, 


we’re bringing this question up now and at 


some point we’ve got to put this to bed 


because what I don’t want to see is we get 


down the road, and then all of a sudden it 


rears its head again. I’d like to be able to 


make sure that we’re doing as thorough a job 


as we can on this. That’s just my opinion 


though. 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. If I could 


chime in though. If we can’t get past this 


Thorium-230 issue, the solubility issue is not 


an issue. I mean, it all goes away. I would 


prefer from a resource management point of 


view if NIOSH could focus on the Thorium-230 


issue to put this to rest and then it’s a 


matter of picking one side or the other on the 


M or S. But for us to go back and do more 


literature research and such at this point 


would take away from our ability to respond to 


this most latest --


MR. ELLIOTT: Let me echo Jim. This is 


Larry Elliott. The solubility issue is a site 


profile-related issue. It is not an SEC-


related issue. The working group has been 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

down this road, I think this is by my count 


the third time where I’ve heard those words 


stated by John or others at SC&A as far as 


work group members. And we really need to 


focus on what are the SEC-related issues so 


that we can move to closure on this SEC 


petition. 


MS. MUNN: John, is SC&A comfortable with 


removing Finding 4 at this time based on the 


fact that we have earlier agreed that it’s not 


an SEC? 


DR. MAURO: That’s certainly fine. I agree 


100 percent that it would be more 


appropriately categorized as a site profile 


issue, but I just wanted to make sure that 


everyone, that I’m not making that judgment. 


If everyone’s comfortable with that, that’s 


fine. I do believe it’s a site profile issue 


and not an SEC issue, and I believe all of 


SC&A feels the same way. 


MS. MUNN: And I feel quite sure though 


memory is sometimes tricky that we agreed to 


that at our early October meeting in 


Naperville. I believe that’s in the 


transcript that we all concurred it would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

an SEC issue. Although like Brad I have some 


concern that the entire thing will rise again 


and create some problems. I hope that doesn’t 


occur. 


Nonetheless for our current purposes 


and especially based on what Jim and Larry are 


saying right now, resources being of the 


essence, am I hearing correctly that your 


focus now needs to be on item three? 


DR. NETON: That would be our preference. 


MS. MUNN: Items one and two actually, item 


three --


DR. NETON: I’m sorry, yeah, the Thorium-230 


issue. 


MS. MUNN: Can we, an overriding concern 


here, we get this wrapped up in time for us 


for our next full Board? 


 DR. WADE: Wanda, I think you might have cut 


out, so please repeat. 


MS. MUNN: An overriding concern is that we 


put this thorium issue to bed prior to our 


next full Board call which I believe is in 


early December. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: The next Board call is November 


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 

55 

MS. MUNN: November 27th . Is the timing such 


that we can take care of the technical issue 


here and get back together very briefly to 


verify that we are ready for a report to the 


Board? 


DR. NETON: This is Jim. We can certainly, 


once we receive Arjun and Bob Anigstein’s 


write ups, we’d be prepared to turn this 


around as quickly as we could. And I’m 


thinking somewhere on the order of two weeks 


or less. 


MS. MUNN: Given the fact that Chick 


Phillips is involved here do we have any --


DR. MAURO: Yes, I’ll get Chick, I will 


certainly have Chick Phillips look at this 


immediately. In other words when we send this 


out to Jim, this material that Bob prepared, 


and I guess later, perhaps over the weekend or 


Monday, we will forward Arjun’s. He had a 


separate calculation which was completely 


independent but of the same ilk to explore the 


same kind of question. We’ll send that to 


you, also, Jim, as soon as it’s ready. 


Unfortunately, Arjun is on travel, but 


I think you’ll get it by Monday. And we will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

simultaneously send it off to Chick and have 


Chick look at it. I suspect, I know what 


these calculations are. I suspect, at least 


on our end, Chick will be able to review it. 


It won’t take very long, and we will be 


prepared for the next round of discussions 


whenever it’s convenient for NIOSH. 


MS. MUNN: It’s agreed then to tentatively 


say we will have another call like this one to 


be the 16th of November? Is that a reasonable 


timeframe for everyone? 


 DR. WADE: Let me check calendars. That 


will not work for me although that’s not 


essential. I can have someone else fill in 


for me. 


DR. NETON: I’m out of town that week, 


Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: Monday, the 19th? 


DR. ROESSLER: It works for me. 


DR. MAURO: I hate to be a problem, but I do 


have a doctor appointment that day, and I 


would like to be on the call. 


 DR. WADE: Is there a time on that that 


would work for you, John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I would be available in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

afternoon like after two o’clock. 


DR. NETON: I’m sorry, what date are we now 


talking about? 


 DR. WADE: November 19th, a Monday at 2:00 


p.m. is what’s on the table. 


DR. NETON: I think we’re okay from NIOSH’s 


end. 


MS. MUNN: Good. If that’s okay with NIOSH, 


then that’s okay with SC&A at issue here so 


2:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday, the 19th, same 


time, same station? 


 DR. WADE: I’ll set it up if that’s 


agreeable with the work group. 


DR. ROESSLER: Wanda, then you’re expecting 


the work group to be listening in? 


MS. MUNN: I hope so. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: I’d like to follow this pattern 


that we had of being ^ work group ^. I think 


it’s crucial at this point that the work group 


members hear these deliberations so we don’t 


have to go through this entire thing. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda and Lew, would it be 


inappropriate if for any reason Jim and I or 


some of the other folks at NIOSH and SC&A 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

exchange information or even talk to each 


other over the phone in the interim while 


we’re exchanging this -- my guess is we’ll 


send some material to Jim. Jim will have some 


observations. And some iteration might be 


useful to get us to a point where it would be 


more productive on the 19th or would you rather 


us not do that? 


MS. MUNN: Oh, I encourage that. We really 


would like to have as much technical exchange 


as is necessary so that we can come as close 


to a meeting of the minds as possible by the 


time we have this phone call. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you. 


MS. MUNN: Other comments? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: We have a request for the good of 

the Order. 

 DR. WADE: Well, thank you for your 

perseverance. I’ll schedule something for 


November 19th at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. 


MS. MUNN: Wonderful, thank you all. 


(Whereupon, the working group adjourned at 


12:05 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

59 

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 2, 


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 May, 2008. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102