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

+ + + + +

GRAND JUNCTION FACILITIES WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY

AUGUST 7, 2017

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 1:00 p.m., R. William Field, 

Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Chair

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member
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

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

DOUG FARVER, SC&A 

JIM NETON, DCAS

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

TOM TOMES, DCAS
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

Welcome and Roll Call............................. 4

NIOSH Response to SC&A SEC Review Concern......... 5

Post 1990 monitoring (July 27, 2017 DCAS Memo).... 5

Petitioner Comments.............................. 16

WG SEC Recommendation for August Board........... 17

Meeting (1986-2010) and/or Path forward.......... 17

PER 47: SC&A June 22 Memo on Finding 3........... 21

Adjourn.......................................... 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 1:00 p.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call 

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome to everyone on the 

5 line. This is the Advisory Board on Radiation 

6 and Worker Health. We are the Grand Junction 

7 Work Group today.

8 The agenda and materials that we are 

9 going to be discussing today are all posted on 

10 the NIOSH website, under the Meetings page of 

11 this program, Schedule of Meetings, today's date, 

12 and if you go there, you can open up all those 

13 documents that are going to be talked about 

14 today, including the agenda. So, you're welcome 

15 to that.

16 Then, the other thing just to mention 

17 up-front, except when you're speaking, please 

18 mute your phones. And if you don't have a mute 

19 button, press *6, * and then 6, and that will 

20 mute your phone for this call and help everybody 

21 else out with being able to hear what's being 

22 said.

23 So, roll call. We're speaking about 
NEAL 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 specific site, so please just conflict of 

2 interest.

3 (Roll call.)

4 MR. KATZ: Bill, it's your meeting, you 

5 can take it from here.

6 NIOSH Response to SC&A SEC Review Concern 

7 Post 1990 monitoring (July 27, 2017 DCAS Memo) 

8 CHAIR FIELD: Thanks, guys. Since we 

9 met last in October of 2016 and at that time, had 

10 one finding that was regarding workplace air 

11 monitoring and data supporting the assumption 

12 that unmonitored radiation workers when they 

13 exceed 200 DAC-hours and non-radiation workers 

14 when they exceeded 40 DAC-hours in a year.

15 When we met, that was -- we were 

16 unable to resolve that issue and it was suggested 

17 that additional interviews be performed with 

18 employees familiar with the practices to obtain 

19 additional information about air sampling and 

20 bioassay programs.

21 In response to that, Tom and his group 

22 did some additional interviews with one employee, 

23 it looks like the employee was -- at two different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 times. And Tom presented a real nice summary of 

2 that interview. But, Tom, I was wondering if you 

3 could just discuss your memo and how that 

4 interview went and what findings you had for that 

5 review?

6 MR. TOMES: Sure. We interviewed a 

7 health physicist who worked at Grand Junction 

8 from 1991 through 2000, I believe it was. The 

9 period of time in question on this finding is 

10 starting in 1991. And so, we wanted to get some 

11 information to verify the program that existed.

12 And our approach to the bounding 

13 intake for unmonitored workers, that is workers 

14 who had no bioassay data, was that they would not 

15 be exposed to an average concentration greater 

16 than ten percent of the DAC.

17 And our position on that was based on 

18 the fact that they had a monitoring program that 

19 would identify all those workers. And the 

20 comments were that there was not --- we did not 

21 have sufficient background information and 

22 references to support those assumptions.

23 So, we interviewed the health 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 physicist. His job there was internal dose 

2 assessments and so, he was directly involved with 

3 assessing those people who were exposed.

4 As a matter of fact, his initial job 

5 there was January of 1991, the period where we're 

6 speaking of, and at that time, the program was in 

7 an interim bioassay program state, which was 

8 basically written in the late 1980s and 1990, and 

9 they were collecting a large number of bioassay 

10 samples from workers.

11 They were simply rotating workers 

12 through submitting samples. It was not a trigger 

13 level-based program, it was just a monitoring of 

14 -- randomly monitoring workers. And they had a 

15 large number of samples they were collecting and 

16 developed quite a backlog. And his particular 

17 task was --

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

19 went off the record at 1:07 p.m. and resumed at 

20 1:09 p.m.)

21 MR. KATZ: So, Tom, you got cut off 

22 about a minute, probably, before you realized it. 

23 But you can start again.
NEAL 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. TOMES: All right. The health 

2 physicist we interviewed, he went to work there 

3 in 1991 and his job was to, his initial job was 

4 to sort out all the large number, hundreds of 

5 bioassay samples that were being collected and 

6 the backlog of those.

7 And what they did at that time, they 

8 were also in the process of changing the program, 

9 which -- so, there's some documentation of what 

10 the program changed to. Which we provide 

11 references for that in the memo and we verified 

12 that by looking through some other documents in 

13 our database as well.

14 But the program changed in 1991 to 

15 reduce the number of samples, because they 

16 thought it was unnecessary to collect so many 

17 samples from unmonitored workers, because a large 

18 percentage of the work going on at Grand Junction 

19 did not have an airborne hazard associated with 

20 it.

21 There was a limited amount of airborne 

22 areas. It was basically just D&D operations at 

23 that time caused some elevated, and it was only 
NEAL 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 temporary situation. They also had some 

2 occasional radon airborne airs when the chamber 

3 was in use, but that was adequately addressed by 

4 posting and monitoring.

5 So, the program in 1991 changed to 

6 requiring a program of assigning airborne areas. 

7 If a worker entered an airborne area, he was 

8 required to be on a bioassay program, submit a 

9 baseline sample, and they had sheets to sign-in 

10 and they were submitted to the internal dosimetry 

11 people, who would also monitor their records on 

12 submitting samples. And we verified that by 

13 looking at some claim data and some other records 

14 that showed that they were tracking people.

15 And I've seen a couple situations in 

16 the records where they actually would require 

17 people to submit samples and, in some cases, they 

18 also took them off the list of bioassay, because 

19 they were no longer entering airborne areas.

20 And we actually found a couple claims 

21 where people had to sign saying they had not 

22 entered an airborne area in the past year and 

23 then they were taken off the requirements.
NEAL 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, there seems to be quite a bit of 

2 information to support that the program was 

3 implemented. It does take quite a digging to 

4 find that, because, as I said, a lot of the 

5 activities did not generate airborne hazards.

6 So, they have much more claims than 

7 they do people who were exposed, but if you dig 

8 through our database sufficiently, you do find a 

9 few incidents where people were monitored. The 

10 program in 1991 extended on out through the 10 

11 CFR 835 period, which I did not specifically 

12 evaluate.

13 But I focused instead on the 1991 

14 through 1993 period. And there seemed to be very 

15 few activities that generated airborne. So, I 

16 went through the records and identified the D&D 

17 projects that were ongoing at that time.

18 They -- the Grand Junction Project 

19 Office Remedial Action Project kicked off in 

20 approximately 1986 with the investigations that 

21 were going on. And then, they started some 

22 limited excavations of tailing and contaminated 

23 soils in 1989. And that was prior to a Record of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Decision for a remediation project.

2 So, they did some interim excavations 

3 onsite. And we had records of air sampling for 

4 that period. I looked at the buildings they may 

5 have demolished at that time and there were only 

6 four buildings that were demolished in the early 

7 1990s.

8 And two of those were the former Pilot 

9 Plants that operated in the 1950s. One of them 

10 was the Small Pilot Plant, which was a relatively 

11 small building. And the other one was the Large 

12 Pilot Plant, which was about 10,000 square foot 

13 building. Those two buildings and the other two 

14 associated small buildings were demolished in 

15 April of 1992.

16 And what I did not find, I did not 

17 find any air sample data in our records for that 

18 activity. So, we submitted a request from Grand 

19 Junction to do a search for data on the 

20 remediation project, looking for air samples and 

21 monitoring data.

22 They supplied NIOSH with a very 

23 lengthy list, I still have not read it all, but 
NEAL 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 one file is 200-something pages long. And 

2 these consist of titles and descriptions of the 

3 records that are available in the dozens and 

4 dozens of boxes out there in Denver.

5 And I did find records of RWPs and 

6 surveys and air monitoring for specific projects 

7 that we thought should have air sampling data. 

8 And we did not have that data, but there is data 

9 available for the period. And that seemed, to 

10 me, to settle the issue of whether or not they 

11 had a monitoring program. Because the last 

12 meeting we had, the question seemed to be that we 

13 could not demonstrate that they actually 

14 implemented the program.

15 So, based on the interview with the 

16 health physicist and the fact that we identified 

17 the activities that were ongoing at the time that 

18 had potential for generating airborne 

19 radioactivity and the subsequent list of records

20 that are available, we thought that that 

21 demonstrated that they had a sufficient bioassay 

22 program and an air monitoring program.

23 So, that is basically the quick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 version of what I supplied in the memo. The memo 

2 does provide several dozen different files that 

3 I have referenced, where this information comes 

4 from.

5 I would like to mention one other 

6 aspect of this. In addition to the worker 

7 monitoring program, they submitted an ambient air 

8 monitoring. And that program had select 

9 locations onsite, like most sites have perimeter 

10 monitoring, Grand Junction actually was onsite 

11 monitoring.

12 They had some in both the north 

13 section and the south section of the site. And 

14 they were placed at locations that would be in 

15 and around airborne generating activities. And 

16 we have those results from all those years and 

17 all those results are very low.

18 There was no high air concentrations, 

19 they were all much less than one percent of DAC. 

20 And so, we feel that the ambient air was low and 

21 we feel that the localized D&D activities were 

22 adequately monitored. And for those that -- when 

23 they established an airborne area, we believe 
NEAL 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 they required samples to be submitted, until 

2 such time as the person was no longer exposed.

3 And so, we do feel that the worker --

4 we have a claimant who was a D&D worker, we feel 

5 that if he was exposed to ten percent of DAC, he 

6 would have had a bioassay sample. And if he had 

7 no bioassay samples, we believe that ten percent 

8 of DAC would bound his intakes.

9 CHAIR FIELD: It seems like you sure 

10 got a lot more information. So, it looks like it 

11 was really a worthwhile effort to contact him and 

12 get this information. Do Work Group Members have 

13 any questions? No?

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: I have no questions, 

15 this is Gen.

16 CHAIR FIELD: Okay.

17 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta. I 

18 have no questions.

19 CHAIR FIELD: Okay. Doug, did you --

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is --

21 CHAIR FIELD: Yes, go ahead.

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: -- I don't have any 

23 questions.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR FIELD: Okay. Doug, did you have 

2 a chance to review this? Because I'd like to get 

3 your opinion.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes. That's -- first of 

5 all, it's a very good memorandum. It's very well 

6 intended, very good job of describing what they 

7 found. And there's even more information if you 

8 go back and read the interview.

9 I found that to be a very good 

10 interview. They had a lot of good information. 

11 And I agree, I believe that ten percent of the 

12 DAC should bound the dosage. Based on the 

13 interview and the other documentation.

14 CHAIR FIELD: Okay. So, from what I'm 

15 hearing, it sounds like this finding is resolved, 

16 then, to everyone's satisfaction. Is that right?

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey, I concur.

18 CHAIR FIELD: Okay.

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. I concur 

20 and I think, too, Tom did a very good job on the 

21 report. He gave some of the background, which 

22 helps when you don't have a meeting for a while.

23 CHAIR FIELD: It sure does. That was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 excellent.

2 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta. I 

3 concur as well.

4 CHAIR FIELD: Good. So, at this point, 

5 Ted, do we ask for the Petitioner? Is the 

6 Petitioner online that would like to speak to the 

7 group?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. That's the thing to 

9 check with first, before we go on.

10 CHAIR FIELD: Okay.

11 Petitioner Comments 

12 MR. KATZ: So, if we have the 

13 Petitioner on the line and you wish to make 

14 comments, this is the opportunity. And you'll 

15 also have the opportunity at the Board meeting 

16 next -- on August 23, I believe. We didn't hear 

17 from the Petitioner at the outset of the meeting 

18 --

19 CHAIR FIELD: No.

20 MR. KATZ: -- so I don't believe she's 

21 on.

22 CHAIR FIELD: Okay. So, I guess, at 

23 this point, the SEC recommendation from the Work 
NEAL 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?

2 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

3 WG SEC Recommendation for August Board 

4 Meeting (1986-2010) and/or Path forward 

5 CHAIR FIELD: Okay. So, it seems to me 

6 that there is very little information at this 

7 point to support an SEC. I think it should be 

8 denied, but that's my opinion. I'd like to hear 

9 the other Work Group Members.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: I agree with you, 

11 Bill.

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: Bill, I agree. Based on 

13 the report I read this morning, I agree with that.

14 CHAIR FIELD: All right. Loretta?

15 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta. I 

16 actually had the opportunity to go in and look at 

17 all the information that was corrected, the 

18 spreadsheet, so I agree. I agree.

19 CHAIR FIELD: Okay. Ted, so it seems 

20 like we have a consensus among the Work Group 

21 then.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bill. So, Tom, can you 

23 just help us out with a proper definition of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Class that's being, the additional Class that's 

2 being denied? 

3 MR. TOMES: Did you say, Tom, Ted?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, Tom.

5 MR. TOMES: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: So, just the actual, so we 

7 have on the record what Class we're speaking of.

8 MR. TOMES: Okay. Well, the Petition 

9 175 was to evaluate a Class from 1942 through 

10 2010. And we initially recommended a Class 

11 through January of 1971, I believe it was. And 

12 then, we came back and reevaluated the data and 

13 recommended extending it through 1985, which the 

14 Board agreed to and was added.

15 And the current evaluation was tasked 

16 to SC&A and the Work Group to review the 1986-

17 forward period. And the initial review from SC&A 

18 was they concurred with our methods for 

19 reconstructing bounding doses from 1986 through 

20 1990. And then we're at this current period, 

21 which is 1990-forward.

22 And so, the agreement that we can 

23 bound doses starting in 1991-forward, the current 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recommendation would be that we would deny a 

2 Class from January 1, 1986 through whatever date 

3 in 2010 the petition covered. I don't have that 

4 exact date in front of me, but I can look it up.

5 MR. KATZ: No, that's good enough, Tom, 

6 I think.

7 MR. TOMES: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: So, that's the motion on 

9 the table and it sounds like the Board Members 

10 concur. Okay. So, Bill, that takes care of --

11 so, I know we will need a presentation for the 

12 Board meeting. And I don't know if we discussed 

13 this before, but whether you want to prepare that 

14 Bill or you want help from SC&A in drafting that?

15 CHAIR FIELD: No, it would be great to 

16 get assistance for that.

17 MR. KATZ: So, John Stiver, can you --

18 do you think you can get that presentation 

19 together and someone on your staff, maybe Doug?

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, we'll go ahead and 

21 get that together.

22 CHAIR FIELD: Thanks so much.

23 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then, so, in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 terms of deadline for that, if you can get that 

2 to Bill and the Work Group, ideally by the close 

3 of business this Friday, that would be great. 

4 And then, he can look at it and give a thumbs up 

5 and we can get that posted before the Board 

6 meeting happens. Because that takes now -- we 

7 can't get those up overnight anymore. Does that 

8 sound reasonable to you, Doug and John?

9 MR. TOMES: Okay. You're talking the 

10 18th, then?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, this Friday.

12 MR. TOMES: Oh, this Friday?

13 MR. KATZ: No, this Friday, next Friday 

14 is too late.

15 MR. TOMES: Yes, okay. All right. 

16 We'll get that pounded out then.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you very much. 

18 And, Bill, that takes us to the remaining, the 

19 PER item. Do you want to have Hans present?

20 CHAIR FIELD: Yes, that would be very 

21 --

22 MR. KATZ: Hans, are you still on the 

23 line?
NEAL 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. BEHLING: Yes, I am. I was just 

2 on mute here.

3 MR. KATZ: Of, of course.

4 PER 47: SC&A June 22 Memo on Finding 3 

5 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I'll be discussing 

6 the memo that was issued back here in June of 

7 2017, this past June, that deals with Finding 3 

8 for the PER 47 for Grand Junction. And just to 

9 give you a quick overview of the historical 

10 issues, Finding 3 was identified in our first 

11 review of PER 47 back in February of 2015.

12 And just as a brief overview, Finding 

13 3 links to intakes of uranium, radium, and 

14 thorium for the years of 1989 through 2006. And 

15 those years correspond to the period of 

16 decontamination/decommission at the Grand 

17 Junction.

18 And the reason for the Finding is 

19 quite simple. Whenever we view a pamphlet or a 

20 TBD, we're always asked to review it to the level 

21 where we can verify each and all the numbers that 

22 will ultimately contribute to an assessment of 

23 exposure, internal and external.
NEAL 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 in this case, Finding 3 identified 

2 an issue that relates to internal exposure from 

3 inhalation and ingestion of those three 

4 radionuclides I mentioned, uranium, radium, and 

5 thorium, for the years 1989 through 2006.

6 And in the pamphlet, there was only a 

7 very, very oblique reference to the use of 569 

8 air samples that were the basis for the 

9 identification of intake values for Table 6 of 

10 the pamphlet.

11 And, of course, part of our assessment 

12 is to verify those numbers. As I said, there was 

13 no documented raw data that was included in the 

14 pamphlet, nor were there even references cited.

15 And as a result, we identified the 

16 Finding and the response to Finding 3, NIOSH --

17 and also in reviewing this issue in our 

18 Subcommittee meeting, identified to SC&A and the 

19 Subcommittee 15 references from the Site Research 

20 Database, back in April of 2015.

21 And we were given those particular 

22 references. And when, I reviewed those 

23 references, I realized the incredible amount of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information that was contained in extracting 

2 those 569 data points.

3 And I contacted Ted Katz on this issue 

4 and said, we're not in a position to support a 

5 complete review of thousands of pages that were 

6 part of those 15 SRDB references. And he agreed 

7 to the fact that we would simply request NIOSH to 

8 provide us with the statistical data that they 

9 used in analyzing those data as part of our 

10 verification.

11 And at that point, we received the 

12 reference and, actually, I looked at some of the 

13 data and I checked just for some of the things 

14 and also then, I looked at the data that were 

15 provided to us in summary fashion from NIOSH back 

16 in February 21 of this past year, 2017.

17 And what I want to do is quickly just 

18 go through this. I can jump ahead and tell you 

19 that when we looked at it, we actually verified 

20 these numbers. But let's go through some of the 

21 numbers. And is John Stiver in a position to 

22 provide me with Page 2 of the report, the draft 

23 report I submitted? John?
NEAL 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. STIVER: Yes, I can get it. Just 

2 hang on a second and let me pull it up.

3 DR. BEHLING: There were like four 

4 pages that I want to briefly make reference to in 

5 discussing our review and our conclusions. I 

6 think the first page is Page 2 of that draft 

7 report.

8 MR. STIVER: And for some reason, every 

9 time I try to do one of these during a meeting -

10 -

11 DR. BEHLING: If it's difficult, I 

12 think if some -- if all the people have had access 

13 to the report and maybe even have it available in 

14 their person, I can just reference the page 

15 number and briefly explain what that review 

16 consisted of.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, that actually might 

18 be easier to do that.

19 DR. BEHLING: Okay. For those who have 

20 the report in hard-copy form in front of you, I'm 

21 on Page 2. And what it really amounts to is that 

22 we received statistical data that involved two 

23 particular figures.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Figure 1 is the distribution of the 

2 air sampling data. And initially, it was 

3 identified there would be 569 air samples. But 

4 as it turns out, only, of the 569 air samples, 

5 only 519 samples showed air concentrations with 

6 a positive value.

7 And in the figure that was supplied to 

8 us, it was the collective of all 519 air samples 

9 that were identified and there was a graph that 

10 identified the normal distribution of those 519 

11 values.

12 And the first -- for those who have 

13 access to the actual Figure 1 on Page 5, two 

14 numbers were identified in the distribution. If 

15 you look at the XY plot there, the first number 

16 was the Y value of 1.97 E to the minus 13 

17 microcuries per ml, which is the 50th percentile 

18 value of that distribution.

19 And the second one is the value of X 

20 of 1.64, which is the value at the 95th percentile 

21 value, and that yielded a value of 2.66 E to the 

22 minus 12 microcuries per ml. So, we have two 

23 values, the 50th and the 95th percentile value.
NEAL 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 from that value, we can also 

2 assess how these numbers correlate to the actual 

3 numbers that we were questions that were 

4 identified in Table 1 of the report, which 

5 identifies the inhalation and ingestion value for 

6 each of the radionuclides, the uranium, radium, 

7 and thorium, at the bottom of the page, for four 

8 different categories of workers.

9 Also, in addition to the Figure 1, I 

10 just want to briefly mention was another set of 

11 data that were assessed in Figure 2 of the report, 

12 which identified the actual or latent attempt to 

13 segregate the 519 data points into data value or 

14 distribution for each new year.

15 And as it turns out, and I'll just 

16 briefly mention it, that because of gaps in the 

17 information, there was only one data point in the 

18 year 1989 and there were no data points, no air 

19 sampling measurements available for 1991 through 

20 1993.

21 As a result, it was concluded, NIOSH 

22 concluded that, rather than try to segregate the 

23 air sampling data by year over that period, 1989 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through 2006, they would simply assess the entire 

2 population of air samples that were represented 

3 by 519 samples into single distribution.

4 And that's really Figure 1, so we can 

5 dispense with Figure 2. And, therefore, use the 

6 95th percentile, that distribution, applied to 

7 all years, all the way from 1989, all the way to 

8 2006.

9 And the part of the verification 

10 issue, then, was really looking at the first 

11 figure, looking at the 95th percentile value for 

12 the actual microcuries per ml for the 95th 

13 percentile distribution.

14 And I will have to tell you, in going 

15 through and preparing for this meeting, I 

16 happened to look at my own report and realized 

17 that there is an error on Page 3 of the report, 

18 where I have the value of 0.87 E to the minus 4 

19 microcuries per year, it should have actually 

20 been 5.87.

21 There's a five that was substituted 

22 with a zero in the report, and I didn't catch it 

23 when we sent it in. But I will send up or submit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an errata sheet to correct that.

2 But in doing this value then, we 

3 looked at the 95th percentile value that was 

4 taken from Figure 1 and then applied for the 

5 uranium inhalation, as well as the radium and 

6 thorium inhalation, as prescribed by the 

7 pamphlet. And the annual inhalation is obviously 

8 based on the standard 1.2 cubic meters per hour 

9 and the 2,000 hours per year.

10 And when you take the 2.66 E to the 

11 minus 12 microcuries per ml as a 95th percentile 

12 value and apply it to the values that I just 

13 mentioned, the breathing rate and the hours in 

14 the year, and also the contribution, it was 

15 concluded that uranium contributes 50.2 percent 

16 of the alpha emission, and radium-226 and 

17 thorium-230 each contribute 24.9 percent, to make 

18 100 percent in terms of what the air samples 

19 actually were disclosing.

20 And in my write-up on Page 3, I 

21 verified the fact that the numbers that were 

22 cited in Table 1 on Page 4 of my report, those 

23 were identified on behalf of operators, because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those are the highest category of workers. And 

2 all the other workers are actually not 

3 necessarily identified by calculation, but it's 

4 strictly a scaling factor.

5 So, when I evaluated the actual 

6 numbers that I derived independently using the 

7 table and the data that was supplied to me from 

8 NIOSH, I verified each of the numbers in Table 1 

9 that identifies the operators, their internal 

10 exposure on an annual basis, based on the 95th 

11 percentile, and they absolutely concur with the 

12 numbers that were cited in the pamphlet.

13 So, in the process, I was able to 

14 verify all the numbers and I spot checked a few 

15 other numbers, just to be sure that they were 

16 properly also scaled to the operator, and they 

17 all came to the exact number that are cited in 

18 the number.

19 So, in summary, our assessment of the 

20 air data that was provided to us in summary 

21 fashion in Figures 1 and 2, I was able to verify 

22 that the 95th percentile was in fact used and was 

23 calculated or converted to the exact numbers that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appear in Table 1, in terms of annual exposures 

2 to the operators, as well as all the other three 

3 categories of workers, that include general 

4 labor, supervisors, and administrative 

5 personnel.

6 And as a result, our conclusion was 

7 that we verified the numbers as we were asked to 

8 do and we support the notion of closing out 

9 Finding 3.

10 CHAIR FIELD: That's excellent. And, 

11 so, Ted, as far as you're concerned, is there 

12 anything else we need to do on this?

13 MR. KATZ: No. There's nothing else we 

14 need to do on this, no.

15 CHAIR FIELD: Good.

16 DR. BEHLING: And, Ted, do you -- I 

17 only realize the mistake in preparation for this 

18 meeting. And this mistake, this error I 

19 identified, where a zero was substituted for a 

20 five, occurred -- I even checked my own original 

21 draft that I submitted for internal review and 

22 finalization with the personnel that looks for 

23 private -- compliance and all that stuff, it must 
NEAL 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 happened during that transition and I never 

2 went back.

3 Do you want me to resubmit that draft 

4 that I submitted earlier, that you probably have, 

5 which has that error in it?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, so the record --

7 DR. BEHLING: So that it's part of the 

8 public record?

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, no, absolutely, Hans. 

10 For the record, if you could do that, that would 

11 be great --

12 DR. BEHLING: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: -- just submit a corrected 

14 version with a note just on the front-end about 

15 what was corrected.

16 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: And that would be perfect 

18 for that. And the other thing I'll just ask is 

19 if either SC&A or Tom, whichever, if this is --

20 I assume this PER is in the BRS, the Board Review 

21 System, and it just -- that needs to be updated 

22 to show, then, assuming the Work Group's in 

23 concurrence, it sounds like they are, that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 PER review is concluded. And we'll --

2 DR. NETON: Ted, this is Jim. I 

3 checked, it is in the BRS, so it can be updated.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, very good. And then, 

5 I'll send a brief note to Wanda, even though it 

6 belongs to this Work Group, I'll send a note to 

7 Wanda to let her know that this is closed out. 

8 To the Procedures Subcommittee. 

9 CHAIR FIELD: Great. Thank you.

10 MR. STIVER: Ted, this is John. I've 

11 got a quick question for you. I was just looking 

12 --

13 MR. KATZ: Yes?

14 MR. STIVER: -- at the agenda for the 

15 meeting and there's no slot there for this 

16 presentation. I was wondering about how long you 

17 expect it to me and where it will --

18 MR. KATZ: Well, you have an old draft, 

19 I think. Hold on --

20 MR. STIVER: Maybe I do, maybe that's 

21 it.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, no, that's fine. 

23 Because this ended up replacing something else 
NEAL 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 we couldn't --- the Work Group meeting that 

2 we're not ready for. So, it's happening on 

3 Thursday and we have, actually we have an hour 

4 and 15 minutes for it.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: So, that's -- and by the 

7 way, John, while we're talking, this is off8 topic, but I'm stretching out the time for 

9 Fernald a little bit, so you're not quite so 

10 constrained.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay, that's good.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. All right. So, that 

13 takes care of that, I think. Bill, is there --

14 CHAIR FIELD: No, I think that takes 

15 care of everything for today.

16 MR. KATZ: Super.

17 CHAIR FIELD: Thanks, everyone, for all 

18 you've done. Excellent reports.

19 Adjourn 

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, everybody. 

21 And thanks for a very efficient meeting.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

23 went of the record at 1:39 p.m.)
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

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