STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

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 

FERNALD

 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 

Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held in Redondo Beach, California, on 

Sept. 3, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

September 3, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

MR. TED KATZ, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 6 

MR. BRAD CLAWSON 

DATA INTEGRITY ISSUE 9 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 38 
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

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL (Acting)

KATZ, Theodore M., M.P.A. 

Program Analyst 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia 

MEMBERSHIP

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

BALDRIDGE, SANDRA, PETITIONER 

CHEW, MELTON, CAI 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

HOFF, JENNIFER, ORAU 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MORRIS, ROBERT, ORAU 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS 

ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH 
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

1 (4:15 p.m.) 

2 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

MR. TED KATZ, DFO

3 MR. KATZ: Is there -- is there anyone on the 

4 line, on the phone? 

5 MS. BALDRIDGE: Yes. This is Sandra Baldridge, 

6 petitioner, Fernald. 

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, great, Sandra, welcome. And 

8 we're -- we're about to start the workgroup -- 

9 Fernald workgroup, and I would just ask 

10 everyone on the line, while discussion is going 

11 on, to please mute your lines. Press star-6 if 

12 you don't have a mute button. 

13 Brad? 

14 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

15 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, this is the Fernald 

16 workgroup. I first apologize for this being 

17 such short notice. Sandra, I appreciate you 

18 calling in on this. This -- this is to be able 

19 to -- we tried very hard to be able to set up a 

20 workgroup meeting, and this perta-- this -- the 

21 issue that we want to just discuss, and we're 

22 only going to discuss one, is a little bit of 
7

1 data integrity. And earlier this -- this past 

2 month I -- being the work chair, I asked SC&A 

3 if they could give us a sample of what they 

4 wanted to do on this and this is what they're 

5 going to do tonight is show us what they've 

6 got, and this time we'll proceed and I'll turn 

7 this over to -- to you, Hans -- or Arjun, 

8 excuse me. 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm actually -- I'm actually 

10 filling in for Hans. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: It's hard to tell them apart, I 

12 know. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Well, you know, you guys all look 

14 alike. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now that I don't have any hair, 

16 anyway. 

17 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes. Ted, before 

18 we begin, should we introduce who's around the 

19 table and declare whether there's a conflict of 

20 interest? 

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, yeah, right, thank you. I'm 

22 falling down on my duties here. 

23 MR. ROLFES: And people on the phone. 

24 MR. KATZ: Right, so let's -- let's start with 

25 the -- the Board members, if you would just 
8

1 introduce yourself and whether you have a 

2 conflict or not. 

3 MR. SCHOFIELD: Phillip Schofield, no conflict. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, Fernald work chair 

5 -- group, no conflict. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, no conflict. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, no conflict. 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, no conflict. 

9 MR. CHEW: Mel Chew, ORAU team, document owner, 

10 no conflict. 

11 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, NIOSH, no conflict. 

12 MR. KATZ: Go ahead, SC&A. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, I've been 

14 declared to have a conflict by 

15 (unintelligible). 

16 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no conflict. 

17 MR. KATZ: And is there anyone on the line from 

18 the NIOSH/ORAU team to start with? 

19 (No responses) 

20 Okay, and then let's ask in the room, too, for 

21 NIOSH and HHS. 

22 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no conflict. 

23 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, conflicted at Fernald. 

24 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS, no conflict. 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, NIOSH, no 
9

1 conflict. 

2 MR. KATZ: And just for the record, Jeff Kotsch 

3 is sitting back there but he's a far -- he's 

4 far from the microphone. 

5 MR. KOTSCH: I'll sit out here. I don't -- no 

6 conflict. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

8 MR. MORRIS: My -- my telephone connection 

9 dropped out a moment ago. This is Bob Morris 

10 with Oak Ridge -- ORAU team, no conflict. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, and anyone else from SC&A or 

12 ORAU on the phone? 

13 MS. HOFF: Jennifer Hoff with the ORAU team, no 

14 conflict. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then finally if just -- 

16 if there's anyone else from the public on the 

17 phone who would like to identify themselves. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Sandra Baldridge. 

19 MR. KATZ: We have Sandra Baldridge already. 

20 (No responses) 

21 Okay, thank you then. You can proceed. 

22 DATA INTEGRITY ISSUE

23 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, John, this -- this is 

24 really -- I'm filling in for Hans 'cause he was 

25 not here, and unfortunately I'm feeling a 
10

1 little bit hampered since he's responsible for 

2 this job. I -- I worked on this with John 

3 Mauro after Brad asked me to prepare a little 

4 bit more -- 

5 UNIDENTIFIED: Ted, we can't hear him. 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Brad -- Brad Clawson asked me 

7 to prepare a little bit more extensive status 

8 than -- than -- so -- so I'll give you a status 

9 report, mainly focusing on the completeness -- 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: Ted, we can't hear him. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, one second. Let's see what's 

12 going on with the mike. Is yours live? 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Hello? It seems live. 

14 MR. KATZ: Can you hear him now? 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Can you hear me? 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: Say something. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I just did. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, yeah, we hear you. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Can you hear me? 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Yep. 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. All right. The main 

22 thing that I've been responsible for developing 

23 is the investigation -- completeness 

24 investigation, how much data there is, how 

25 complete it is, what the data gaps are in the 
11

1 external and internal monitoring. I worked 

2 with -- and that was delegated to me by John 

3 and Hans, and mainly to develop the plan. I 

4 sent an outline of the plan and what would be 

5 covered by the plan to -- to Brad and I believe 

6 the working group should have -- have it 

7 anyway, in May. We looked at a few cases to 

8 see how much time it would take per case to 

9 compile the data, and there's good news on 

10 that. We have a sampling plan from our 

11 statistician and I -- I can print that out and 

12 have time to put all the Privacy Act notices 

13 and so on on it and distribute it to you all, I 

14 hope by tomorrow, if you like. Or send it 

15 around by e-mail, if you prefer. But I can 

16 give you a summary of what's in it. 

17 The -- the main criteria for the sampling were 

18 -- there were a number of plants at Fernald, so 

19 whether the workers in the various plants are 

20 covered, some job designations and the various 

21 periods. The '50s were separated -- the '50s 

22 and early '60s were separated from the later 

23 periods in order to see whether the early 

24 period was adequately covered. The -- and then 

25 there was the Plant 7, which operated '54 to 
12

1 '57 -- anyway, a short period in -- in the mid2 '50s and then it was closed. And we asked 

3 Harry, our statistician, to see what kind of 

4 over-sampling might be needed in order to catch 

5 that period to make sure that the workers who 

6 worked in Plant 7 were monitored, or what their 

7 monitoring situation was. 

8 Of course the number -- number of people you 

9 sample depends on the level of precision with 

10 which you want the result, and that level of 

11 precision depends on -- mainly on two things, 

12 the number of workers and also the frequency 

13 with which they were monitored. So you need 

14 fewer workers if they were monitored weekly and 

15 more if they were monitored monthly, and even 

16 more if they were monitored annually, so -- or 

17 for the same number of workers, the precision 

18 for annual monitored workers goes down. So for 

19 a fixed level of precision, you need to monitor 

20 more -- sample more workers if they were 

21 annually monitored. Alternatively, for a given 

22 level of sampling, you sample 20 workers, 

23 you'll get less precision for those who were 

24 annually monitored rather than -- because you 

25 have fewer -- fewer datapoints, basically. 
13

1 Harry developed two -- and I'll -- I'll 

2 circulate the sampling plan and you all can 

3 comment on it. I'll circulate it in hard copy 

4 and soft copy, if you'd like. He developed two 

5 options. The first option would involve 

6 precision levels of three percent, six percent 

7 and 20 percent, or weekly, monthly and annual 

8 monitoring, respectively, and -- and fulfill 

9 all the other criteria of over-sampling for 

10 Plant 7 and job types and so on. And that 

11 involves examining the data for 275 workers. 

12 Now that seems like a lot of workers. Mostly 

13 the data has been compiled electronically, and 

14 our trial indicates that it would take one or 

15 two hours per worker to download and compile 

16 all the data, so it's not a lot of time per -- 

17 per worker. 

18 Then the -- if you want a higher level of 

19 precision, two, four and 15 percent for the 

20 weekly, monthly and annual, the -- the number 

21 of workers goes up drastically, about -- almost 

22 -- more than double that, 600 workers. And 

23 this does have the strati-- stratification for 

24 the periods and jobs and plants, so the reason 

25 that there are so many workers involved is that 
14

1 the samples are very stratified. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: What was the first option you 

3 said? 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: 275. So this sampling would 

5 address both internal and external dose. So 

6 that's -- that's sort of the largest work item 

7 that is outstanding that we've talked about the 

8 working group considering authorization for it, 

9 and so we've only proceeded to the point of 

10 developing the plan, being able to give you an 

11 idea of what it will take to complete it. 

12 If -- if there are workers in the '50s who are 

13 not in the electronic database, I think for 

14 those workers it's going to take somewhat -- 

15 somewhat more time to compile it. It'd be more 

16 like NTS, several hours for -- four hours -- 

17 four hours -- about four hours per record, 

18 although I'd more like one or one and a half. 

19 Okay, so that's the first item, are there any 

20 questions about that? I can go through the 

21 list and we can discuss, or we can discuss one 

22 by one. How do you want -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Is that the only item? 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, there -- there -- that's 

25 the only data completeness item for which -- 
15

1 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I also -- okay, that's 

3 fine. I also went through the matrix and -- to 

4 see what other items -- 

5 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: You -- you just want to focus 

7 on that? That's fine. 

8 DR. MAURO: Could -- could I bring up a concern 

9 that you spoke about briefly, and that -- if 

10 you recall, one of the really important issues 

11 that emerged in our original review was the 

12 reconstructing internal doses from thorium. 

13 Okay? And -- because of a lack of bio-- 

14 adequate bioassay data during a particular time 

15 -- 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, there was no bio-- no in 

17 vivo or bioassay data in the first period, up 

18 to '68, I -- right, Jim? 

19 DR. NETON: Right. 

20 DR. MAURO: Now -- and -- but, during one of 

21 our workgroup meetings NIOSH pointed out that 

22 they -- they were able to get (unintelligible) 

23 -- 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: You cannot be heard. 

25 DR. MAURO: During -- during -- is that better? 
16

1 Can you hear me now? 

2 During one of our workgroup meetings NIOSH 

3 pointed out that they were able to gain access 

4 to a large number, I believe somewhere on the 

5 order of 100 boxes of -- of records which were 

6 time-weighted air sampling data, and I think 

7 our sampling plan, as laid out right now, does 

8 not address that subject. And I guess it's a 

9 subject I posed to the workgroup whether or not 

10 that aspect of our sampling plan nee-- well, 

11 does our sampling plan need to be augmented to 

12 look at some sample of that data to see the 

13 degree to -- because it's my understanding that 

14 that is going to be the main tool or resource 

15 to be used to reconstruct internal doses to 

16 thorium. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I mean my feeling is we treat 

18 that as a separate -- it's a separate finding, 

19 it's a separate set of data and we need to look 

20 at that and consider it, but consider it as 

21 it's used in a coworker model and not as part 

22 of this data completeness sampling, so I would 

23 say keep them separate. That -- that's just my 

24 opinion. I mean -- first I've heard of it 

25 here, but... 
17

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark -- Mark, it would be 

2 separate. I went back, just in preparation for 

3 this -- this afternoon and looked at my notes 

4 from the matrix, and it is -- it is a separate 

5 item in the matrix. There are a number of 

6 items in the matrix that are still remaining to 

7 be discussed and -- and this is one of them. I 

8 don't know that we've had any follow-up on this 

9 item after NIOSH proposed and presented the 

10 data, which -- which appear to be quite 

11 extensive -- at least to my memory. 

12 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) Mark 

13 (unintelligible) address that. 

14 MR. ROLFES: We -- we had developed a 

15 methodology to assign intakes of thorium based 

16 on the daily weighted exposure reports which we 

17 had recovered. That information is undergoing 

18 internal peer review in OCAS, so as soon as 

19 that's available, that will be put onto the O 

20 drive as well for the Advisory Board's review. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) I'd say let's 

22 treat that as a (unintelligible). Can I -- 

23 sorry. 

24 (On microphone) Can I just ask -- this -- I 

25 think really what we want to achieve here is if 
18

1 we can task SC&A with doing this data 

2 completeness review, but before we even -- I 

3 think we sh-- the workgroup should discuss this 

4 and not, you know, hear NIOSH's input and 

5 others, but I -- can you, Arjun, tell me a 

6 little bit more about the 275 option, how -- if 

7 you -- I don't know if you can like -- maybe -- 

8 it would probably be helpful to look at the 

9 document, but to see the -- how it's stratified 

10 and how many -- you know, what -- what are your 

11 strata, maybe, and -- and -- 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) Each -- each 

13 stratum really contains (unintelligible) -- (on 

14 microphone) each stratum contains 25 worker 

15 years, and then -- and the strata are periods, 

16 job types and plants. And of course it depends 

17 on how many -- how many workers depends on how 

18 long averagely (sic) they worked, but -- but 

19 you would sample 25 worker years from each 

20 stratum and the number of workers is kind of 

21 derived from that. 

22 The -- that doesn't add up to 275 workers 

23 actually. Then you have to go back and see 

24 what the over-sampling has to be to cover the 

25 short period things like Plant 7 and so on. So 
19

1 it's a fairly complex exercise and I really -- 

2 I guess I should have tried to e-mail this out 

3 this afternoon from my room, but I don't know, 

4 I think (unintelligible). But I can do that 

5 tonight. I can send it to the working group 

6 tonight. 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Well, at the end of all 

8 this, when we get -- if -- if we decided to go 

9 with this route with this 270 workers, what is 

10 the end result that we were going to have to be 

11 able to -- to -- to bound this, I guess you 

12 could say. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, the -- well -- well, the 

14 end result is going -- you're going to have a 

15 fairly fine-grained look at how complete the 

16 monitoring was for internal and external for 

17 various groups of workers, how solid the 

18 coworker model that will be based on this for 

19 various periods would be, and whether in 

20 certain periods or -- the -- the gaps are so 

21 large that, you know, you can't construct a 

22 reasonable model. Now we should be able to 

23 catch things like, for instance, extremity 

24 monitoring, frequency, what periods you had 

25 extremity monitoring for external dose. We 
20

1 should be able to catch how many people were 

2 monitored for the in vivo after the in vivo 

3 started for thorium. Of course you don't have 

4 any thorium monitoring in the early period, so 

5 for that you won't be able to tell anything. 

6 But we would be able to tell for the -- any 

7 gross alpha -- no, for the fluorometric uranium 

8 monitoring that was done in the '50s. 

9 MR. ROLFES: Arjun, this is Mark. I did want 

10 to interject, there are some data prior to 1968 

11 for thorium in vivo monitoring that was done 

12 off-site. There were some individuals that 

13 were sent to the Wright-Patterson Air Force 

14 Base and subject to in vivo counts there, and 

15 also to the Y-12 facility. Furthermore, there 

16 were some individuals that were sent to the 

17 University of Rochester and they were given 

18 some thoron lung counts -- excuse me, thoron 

19 breath tests, and also I believe a -- an in 

20 vivo count there, and that documentation has 

21 been placed on the O drive as well, so -- 

22 MR. CLAWSON: That is correct, Mark, but one of 

23 the questions on that, and I believe we got 

24 into this in the workgroup, too -- some of 

25 these weren't actually workers. They were 
21

1 actually supervisors that they could tell had 

2 to go there. There was -- there was different 

3 -- and I think this is -- this is part of our 

4 issue that we got into, and with this strata 

5 like this we're going to be able to kind of 

6 represent this a little bit better manner, if 

7 I'm not -- not mistaken. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's correct. 

9 MR. ROLFES: That is correct, Brad. There was, 

10 for example, in one case I believe a supervisor 

11 was sent as a control, as a background subject 

12 as well, so -- 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Also, too, and correct me 

14 if I'm wrong, Mark, but a lot of this we -- 

15 we're coming up with a lot of different 

16 radionuclides that were going to be covered and 

17 so forth like this, and in our earlier 

18 workgroup to be able to take care of that we 

19 were going to use the urine data, if they 

20 showed up any uranium in their urine data, then 

21 we were going to assign these other isotopes. 

22 Was this... 

23 MR. ROLFES: I -- I think that's a slightly 

24 separate issue. For example, what we would do 

25 for reconstructing uranium intakes, we would 
22

1 use bioassay data -- for example, urinalysis 

2 data -- first. Then we would assume that the 

3 individual, from 1961 forward -- I believe we 

4 may be changing that, but we would assume that 

5 the individual was exposed to recycled uranium 

6 and we would add in intakes of plutonium-239, 

7 neptunium-237 and technetium-99 based on ratios 

8 that were documented in the recycled uranium 

9 mixtures that were received at Fernald, so... 

10 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I guess, you know, 

11 bottom line -- 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, just a comment on what 

13 Mark just said in terms of a few workers. I 

14 don't know how many there were, but if there 

15 were very few we would not expect this sampling 

16 plan to reflect that because that would 

17 essentially require -- you know, pick up a few 

18 workers would essentially require 100 percent 

19 coverage. You're not looking for that. If you 

20 want to look at that data you just have to pull 

21 those records and look at them -- look at them 

22 specifically and see what you can make of them. 

23 MR. CLAWSON: Is -- and I guess this is more 

24 asked of John or so forth like this, is this 

25 kind of the same strata type system that we 
23

1 were doing at Nevada Test Site? 

2 DR. MAURO: Exactly. We see, for -- that this 

3 approach to in effect ask ourselves the 

4 question are there sufficient data within each 

5 strata, and every site -- and this becomes a 

6 matter of understanding what took place at the 

7 site at a given time. And in theory what we're 

8 really saying is for -- for each group of 

9 workers -- and we did this at Nevada Test Site 

10 and we're doing it here -- do we have 

11 sufficient data to build a coworker model for 

12 that strata. So -- in other words, you -- you 

13 ask yourself, okay, we have a -- we have a 

14 group of workers that in theory were doing this 

15 type of job at this point in time and were -- 

16 were exposed -- let's say the inhalation of two 

17 percent enriched uranium. And -- and in 

18 theory, though perhaps they were not all 

19 bioassayed every month, they may -- we -- if we 

20 were to sample that -- take -- let's say we 

21 take 20 worker years of data from that 

22 population of workers, that strata, and we get 

23 back the results and we have a table for that 

24 strata, here are the results. And -- now that 

25 would in effect speak to us. Yes, you have -- 
24

1 you get a -- a distribution from which you 

2 could pick off the upper 95th percentile and 

3 feel confident that that upper 95th percentile 

4 is a claimant-favorable assignment to workers 

5 in that strata who perhaps were not complete 

6 monitored. So the -- to answer your questions, 

7 this philosophy is -- is exactly the same 

8 philosophy that we're trying to impose and use 

9 on every SEC petition review, and I think it 

10 goes to the heart of an SEC petition review, 

11 unlike the site profiles where you're asking 

12 questions of -- really of -- of science on is 

13 this the best scientific way to deal with the 

14 problem as opposed to do you have the data to 

15 even apply -- if you don't have the data, you 

16 know, you -- you can't reconstruct the doses. 

17 So -- so I guess the answer to your question is 

18 yes, we are trying to come up with a consistent 

19 strategy, and I call it the strata approach 

20 where the first step in the process is once we 

21 have an appreciation for the complexity of the 

22 site, and I think we have that appreciation, 

23 then we design -- we -- I -- we break up the 

24 site and the workers and the time periods into 

25 strata. And the purpose of this meeting today 
25

1 is to discuss whether or not we did a good job 

2 in creating the strata that we feel cuts across 

3 all the different time periods and categories 

4 of workers that need to be reviewed to give us 

5 the assurance that when we're done, yes, there 

6 is sufficient data in each strata so that we 

7 can construct bounding exposures for -- for 

8 each member of that strata. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: And I guess I -- I thought we 

10 would have those in front of us today, and I 

11 know this was last minute to expect this, so 

12 you had -- no, no, that's fine, that's fine. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't think we can answer 

14 that question without having something to -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, we need to look at the 

16 document and may-- I'm -- I'm wondering and 

17 asking Paul, maybe -- can we still schedule a 

18 conference call of our workgroup 'cause I know 

19 we're sort of limited on what -- face-to-face 

20 meetings beyond a certain date here, so I don't 

21 know if we can follow-up with this. Once -- 

22 once SC&A sends this document around, can we do 

23 a conference call. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: I think a conference call could be 

25 scheduled, could it not, Ted? 
26

1 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: As long as we're not traveling? 

4 MR. KATZ: Right. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- I would recommend that we 

6 consider a date for a conference call, after we 

7 have a little time to look at -- at the plan, 

8 and then -- just to address this issue or -- or 

9 -- well, I don't know if Brad wants to have a 

10 full workgroup meeting on a conference call, 

11 but -- 

12 MR. CLAWSON: No, I -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- I would say at least to 

14 address this. 

15 MR. CLAWSON: I would like to be able to 

16 address this because this has kind of been 

17 done, but -- but I agree with Mark, we -- I 

18 wanted to be able to -- I -- I kind of 

19 understood we were going to have a little more 

20 something to look at, and I know this was spur 

21 of the moment. That -- that was my fault. But 

22 to be able to look at this because between the 

23 270 and 600 people, that -- you know, that's -- 

24 that's -- like I said, that was a little more 

25 than what I wanted to be able -- but I wanted 
27

1 to be able to see what this -- this data had. 

2 Now this has not passed any Privacy Act or 

3 anything else like that. Correct? 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. No, we have not -- we have 

5 not sent this for any Privacy Act review, but 

6 we can certainly send it to you. So -- 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- the -- now the -- the 

9 different strata are defined in the May 5th 

10 memo that I sent you. 

11 MR. CLAWSON: Right. 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now you should -- you all have 

13 that, and I can remind you of what those are. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Was that -- was that a document or 

15 just an e-mail memo? 

16 MR. CLAWSON: An e-mail. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, it was a -- it was a 

18 Word -- it was a Word document sent as an e19 mail attachment to Brad in early May. I don't 

20 know the date that I sent it. The date on my 

21 document is May 12th, but I think I sent it a 

22 week -- I prepared it, then revised it, and I 

23 sent it maybe a week later. I can dig up the 

24 date. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: I think we need to look at that 
28

1 along with the spreadsheet you're going to send 

2 and consider the numbers alongside the strata. 

3 That makes more sense for me to look at it that 

4 way, so... 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: What -- what I might do is, 

6 since -- the -- these two documents I am 

7 familiar with. I was at a little bit -- it was 

8 a little bit more difficult for me to fill in 

9 Hans's shoes since I have not been tracking 

10 those issues, but this -- this is something 

11 that I've been responsible for, along with 

12 John, and I could -- I could easily have these 

13 two pieces of paper on your table at 8:30 in 

14 the morning when you start, so if you want to 

15 look at them and -- and proceed at this 

16 meeting, you know, I can -- I can certainly do 

17 that. Yeah, you need a phone call, okay. Then 

18 I'll just -- then I'll just e-mail both of 

19 these pieces of paper to you -- you know. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Before I leave. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) And we'll just 

24 (unintelligible) -- I don't know if you 

25 (unintelligible) (on microphone) check with 
29

1 dates now while we're all sitting here if we -- 

2 or you want to do it by -- by e-mail, it's up 

3 to you. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I -- I'd rather see what 

5 everybody's time's -- the problem I had with 

6 the -- the last -- trying to set up the 

7 workgroup meeting, I'd -- I'd prefer to hear of 

8 what would be the most convenient for -- for 

9 everybody here for a phone call. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I think it might be a little 

11 different for phone calls versus traveling to 

12 Cincinnati, so we might have a little better 

13 luck, hopefully. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and this might only take an 

15 hour or two. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, this should be -- just this 

17 one issue, yeah. 

18 MR. CLAWSON: And that's -- and I want to make 

19 that clear up front. This is the only issue 

20 that I want to be able to address at this time 

21 because I want to be able to get processing on 

22 this so that when -- when we are able to start 

23 workgroups again that -- that this has been 

24 taken care of and so forth. 

25 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry, Brad, I just wasn't 
30

1 clear about that. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: No problem -- no, it's my fault. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: So how far has SC&A gone? Have 

4 you simply defined the strata and that's it so 

5 far? 

6 DR. MAURO: And also the feasibility of 

7 implementing it. For example, the one hour per 

8 sample was -- okay, we've come up with the 

9 strata, the number of samples, how much time 

10 will it take per sample; can we do it? And the 

11 answer's yes, and I think this is -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And Brad is saying okay, how -- 

13 how much of this chunk do you want to have them 

14 do initially. Is that right, Brad? 

15 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, when -- when I was contacted 

16 about this and so forth and I'd seen this a 

17 little bit with the Nevada Test Site or so 

18 forth like that, as the workgroup chair I felt 

19 that I could ask them to give us a basis of -- 

20 of what -- what it was going to be, what -- 

21 what the strata was going to be like, but as a 

22 workgroup we all have to approve what we want 

23 to be able to do. And I wanted to see what -- 

24 you know, basically what -- what we were going 

25 to get, and that's kind of where we're at now. 
31

1 And so I -- I guess I'd like to entertain the 

2 option of what would work best for somebody on 

3 a phone call or so forth like that of a -- of a 

4 date and probably set apart a -- an hour or so 

5 to be able to do this. Is ther-- is there any 

6 area that would be better for some of you? 

7 MR. ROLFES: I'll work to make myself 

8 available. I will be out of town towards the 

9 end of September, I believe, so... 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I would think we could do this 

11 the end of next week maybe -- if we can find a 

12 time maybe we can try to do it the end of next 

13 week 'cause I -- 

14 MR. CLAWSON: What -- what does next -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: -- next Friday -- is Fridays bad 

17 or... 

18 MR. PRESLEY: How about Thursday? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I can't do a conference call 

20 on Friday. I'm tied up all day. 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: Me, too. 

23 MR. CLAWSON: You, too? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Actually all next week is -- 

25 really, for me is not good. Well, I -- 
32

1 actually I -- no, I'm traveling on Wednesday. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Well, let's -- no, I don't want 

3 to push into anybody. Let's look at -- I don't 

4 have a calendar with me. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: What about the week of the 15th? 

6 Can -- can we -- Arjun's asking if we can just 

7 get dates -- he doesn't have his calendar and 

8 maybe we can get with you tomorrow morning and 

9 give our dates -- 

10 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- in writing to you and you can 

12 come up with something. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: 15th, 16, 17th and 18th I'm -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Those are good? 

15 MR. PRESLEY: -- those are -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Those are good for me. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: -- an hour at work, no problem. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, those -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: That week's good for me, too. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- are good for me. 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, because we're going to be 

22 dealing with -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: 19th is bad. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: -- eastern time, I really can't 

25 do it before 10:00 o'clock 'cause that's about 
33

1 8:00 o'clock my time and I have to get some of 

2 my pre-jobs and everything else like that, so 

3 if -- if we just kind of plan like on a 10:00 

4 o'clock and if you'll get me the date -- 

5 MR. PRESLEY: 10:00 o'clock is fine with me. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: -- if you get me the dates or so 

7 forth like that by tomorrow, then we'll set up 

8 a -- 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Any -- any time that week's fine 

10 with me. 

11 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Focus on the 15th, 16th, 17th, 

13 18th for those, yeah. 

14 MR. ROLFES: To the best of my knowledge, I 

15 should be available that week as well, so... 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we'll get something. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Well, then we'll proceed -

18 - we'll proceed with that. And Arjun, you'll 

19 make sure that everybody gets it. Okay? 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think it should be. 

21 MS. BALDRIDGE: Brad? 

22 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, Sandra. 

23 MS. BALDRIDGE: I have a question. At the last 

24 meeting there was discussion about establishing 

25 a time line on thorium for 1955 and 1966 for 
34

1 the general plant area and 1960 for Plant 6. I 

2 didn't know how far into the development of 

3 that and review of the records that process is, 

4 and I was wondering if, for Plant 6, it could 

5 be changed from 1960 to 1961 since I'm not 

6 aware of when in 1960 the thorium processing 

7 began in Plant 6. And I think that it needs to 

8 reflect this full 12-month process, which 1961 

9 would. 

10 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I guess I'd have to refer 

11 this to -- to Mark. 

12 MR. ROLFES: Sandra, this is Mark. I'd have to 

13 take a look back at the records. We do have 

14 some documentation -- I believe you had 

15 provided some documentation to us as well. 

16 There was some burning of thorium sludge that 

17 occurred in a modified furnace in Plant 6 -- 

18 MS. BALDRIDGE: Right. 

19 MR. ROLFES: -- and we do have dates and air 

20 sampling data associated with that operation. 

21 We would make sure that we would account for 

22 all exposures that were incurred, whether they 

23 were only for a month or for a full year, so 

24 that information would be included to its 

25 fullest extent in our revised Technical Basis 
35

1 Document. 

2 MS. BALDRIDGE: Okay. 

3 MR. KATZ: Brad, back on the date question, 

4 15th, 16th -- if we could consider 15th, 16th 

5 or 18th, but the 17th -- all of the legal staff 

6 are -- are committed that day -- 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

8 MR. KATZ: -- so that -- that wouldn't be a 

9 good day. 

10 MR. CLAWSON: I've -- I've got a question. The 

11 15th is what, a Monday? 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Monday. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Would that -- would that work for 

14 everybody? Let's -- let's shoot for 10:00 

15 o'clock on -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: You need to check with Arjun, 

17 though. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: But we could tentatively set it. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Let's tentatively set it up for 

20 September 15th, 10:00 -- 10:00 a.m. Eastern 

21 time, and Arjun, you'll make sure that all of 

22 us have -- 

23 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'll let you know -- 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

25 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- tomorrow morning. 
36

1 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. If that -- 

2 MR. KATZ: Brad, do we want an hour, or how 

3 much time do you want 'cause we need to use 

4 that -- give that information. 

5 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I would give us at least two 

6 hours -- 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

8 MR. CLAWSON: -- just in -- just in case. If 

9 it ends sooner, then that's fine, but I would 

10 rather it go longer. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: 10:00 a.m. Eastern time? 

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. If there's no further 

14 questions or -- how about other members of the 

15 Board, do they have a question of -- of what 

16 we're trying to build here and so forth? Phil? 

17 MR. SCHOFIELD: No. No. I -- 

18 MR. CLAWSON: Robert? 

19 MR. SCHOFIELD: -- agree with what we're doing. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. And we'll -- we'll get 

21 this sent out to the rest of the members of the 

22 -- well, to the working group and also to 

23 NIOSH, so you kind of know. 

24 Okay, that should be it. Thank you for calling 

25 in, Sandra. 
37

1 MS. BALDRIDGE: Thank you. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Thank you. 

3 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 

4 p.m.) 

5 

6 
38

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 Sept. 3, 

2008; 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 

30th day of September, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102