This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON WELDON SPRING PLANT

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

JANUARY 25, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Michael Gibson, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Chairman

RICHARD LEMEN, Member*

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member*
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE*

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

JOSEPH FITZGERALD, SC&A

DAVE HARRISON, ORAU Team*

MONICA HARRISON-MAPLES, ORAU Team*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

KAREN JOHNSON*

MARY JOHNSON*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU Team*

GENE POTTER, ORAU Team*

BRYCE RICH, ORAU Team*

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

TINA TRIPLET*

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-TS

Welcome and roll-call/introductions........ 4 

Review history of Weldon Spring site....... 9 

Discuss petition and Site Profile

 issue matrix............................ 16

Adequacy of internal and external 

 dose records............................ 17

Completeness of monitoring/need for

 coworker models......................... 26

Daily weighted average concentration..... 117

Personnel contamination and egress

 monitoring............................. 128

Operations and monitoring during the

 1967 facility conversion............... 132

Reconstructing radon and thoron doses.... 134

Recycled uranium......................... 152

Reconstructing neutron doses............. 171

Reconstructing doses associated with 

 exposures at quarry and raffinate pits . 179

Occurrence and significance of off-normal

 conditions and high or unusual

 exposure incidents..................... 185

Extremity and close work exposures

 (badge geometry issues)................ 210

TBD Issues............................... 215

Recap action items and discuss timeframe . 259
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Scheduling............................... 263
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (9:03 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. We have our 

4 illustrious Chair. Let's get started with 

5 roll call if I can set up -- so remind 

6 everyone to speak to conflict of interest, 

7 too, beginning with the Board with the Chair 

8 in the room.

9 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

10 Chair, no conflict.

11 MR. KATZ: And Board Members on 

12 the line?

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: Robert Presley, 

14 no conflict.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Richard Lemen, no 

16 conflict.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Do we have any 

18 other Board Members on the line?

19 (No response.)

20 MR. KATZ: NIOSH-ORAU Team in the 

21 room?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld. I 

2 don't have a conflict at Weldon Spring.

3 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, NIOSH, 

4 no conflict with Weldon Spring.

5 MR. KATZ: NIOSH-ORAU Team on the 

6 line?

7 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris, ORAU 

8 Team, no conflict.

9 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: And Monica 

10 Harrison-Maples, ORAU Team, no conflict.

11 MR. POTTER: Gene Potter, ORAU 

12 Team, no conflicts.

13 MR. RICH: Bryce Rich, ORAU Team, 

14 no conflict.

15 MR. KATZ: Is that Bryce Rich?

16 MR. RICH: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you. SC&A 

18 members in the room?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Joe Fitzgerald, 

20 no conflict.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Ron Buchanan, no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conflict.

2 MR. KATZ: SC&A on the line?

3 MR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no

4 conflicts.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. And there are no 

6 other federal officials. There are no other 

7 federal officials in the room. Any federal 

8 officials or contractors to the feds, HHS or 

9 otherwise, on the line?

10 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

11 DR. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

12 DOE.

13 MR. HARRISON: Dave Harrison, ORAU 

14 Team, no conflict.

15 MR. KATZ: Last but not least, any 

16 members of the public, petitioners or 

17 otherwise, on the line?

18 MS. JOHNSON: This is Karen 

19 Johnson, petitioner, and my mother, Mary 

20 Johnson.

21 MR. KATZ: Welcome.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. TRIPLET: And Tina Triplet, 

2 petitioner.

3 MR. KATZ: And welcome, Tina, too. 

4 Very good. That sounds like a full deck, so 

5 let's get started. Let me just remind before 

6 I turn it over to the Chair, everyone on the 

7 line, please mute your phones except when 

8 you're speaking to the group. If you don't 

9 have a mute button your phone, press *6 to 

10 mute it, and then press * and then 6 again to 

11 unmute it if you want to come off mute. And 

12 please do not put the call on hold at any 

13 point, just hang up mind dial back in if you 

14 need to leave the call for a piece. Thank you 

15 very much.

16 And there's an agenda for the 

17 meeting that's on the website, and I hope has 

18 been emailed out to the petitioners. Mike, 

19 it's your agenda.

20 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Our last 

21 meeting we started going over the issue 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matrix, and there were some open issues or 

2 some issues that hadn't been addressed. And 

3 with Ted's help, we've -- he's identified some 

4 issues that were left open or unresolved the 

5 last meeting, so we'll just start with those 

6 open issues. And if we get through those, if 

7 there is anything that may have been omitted 

8 or otherwise left out, we'll discuss that 

9 then. So you want to start out with SC&A or 

10 NIOSH, the first issue?

11 MR. KATZ: Mike, let me just 

12 clarify what I did here is I didn't run 

13 through the transcript to see what might have 

14 been -- I don't recall what might have been 

15 put to bed, but I just comprehensively pulled 

16 from the list of SEC issues off of the matrix. 

17 So that's what you have on your agenda. I 

18 mean it's the same list, just written a little 

19 bit more differently, but it's the list off 

20 the matrix from November I believe.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Mike, what I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 propose is perhaps to get things kicked off, 

2 Ron can summarize where we were coming from 

3 and try to bridge from the last meeting and 

4 then identify what we've done since, then turn 

5 it over to NIOSH.

6 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Sure.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

8 Buchanan with SC&A, and I know it's been a 

9 while since we've addressed this site, and so 

10 for the members at the table and also on the 

11 phone, what I'd like to do is do a recap. And 

12 this recap applies to some of the details --

13 the SEC issues we'll get into later, so please 

14 bear with me.

15 What I'd like to go through as 

16 number one is a little of a history of the 

17 Weldon Spring site so we all see how these 

18 issues play in with the history of the site 

19 and also the document exchange that has taken 

20 place so far on the site. And then we can 

21 start addressing the individual issues.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so the Weldon Spring site is 

2 located outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It 

3 handled concentrated uranium ore. It operated 

4 from `57 to `66, was its official operating 

5 period. It was an old emanation depot plant 

6 before that. They did not receive any 

7 radioactive materials until apparently June of 

8 1957. They operated through December of 1966.

9 They were kind of a sister plant 

10 to the downtown Mallinckrodt Chemical Work 

11 Plant in St. Louis, and some of the workers 

12 out there. Some of the technology was 

13 transferred out there. It was to be a cleaner 

14 more modern plant than the one under the 

15 Manhattan Project downtown. And so it 

16 operated until December `66 when it was closed 

17 down.

18 Now, it had several years that 

19 kind of -- where it was going to be used for 

20 other things. `66 and `67 -- I mean `67 and 

21 `68, maybe `69, the Army was going to do some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 herbicide production there. Some of the 

2 facilities were decommissioned and was going 

3 to be turned over to other things. That did 

4 not work out after some modifications had been 

5 made. And so it went into just kind of a 

6 maintenance mode from about `68-`69 into the 

7 80's. Nothing much went on there.

8 Now Weldon Spring consisted of the 

9 main processing plant that received the 

10 uranium ore and concentrated it, melted it and 

11 turned it into uranium nuggets and such to be 

12 shipped out. Most of that material was 

13 removed, of course, at the end of the 

14 operation period.

15 Then in `80 to `85 and 90's 

16 timeframe, they came in and started doing 

17 characterization of the facilities. They had 

18 three -- the main plant. They had the 

19 raffinate pits for where sludge and the 

20 chemicals from doing the processing was 

21 pumped. There were a total of four of them 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which were evaporation-type ponds. And then 

2 they had the quarry which is located a mile or 

3 so away from the main plant where they 

4 essentially act like a dump ground for mostly 

5 downtown site and for the Weldon Spring site. 

6 And so those are three main areas that we 

7 want to address in our issues.

8 Then they did the cleanup and the 

9 D&D work was in the 90's and it was finished, 

10 I think, in 2002. I was there a couple of 

11 years ago, and most of this material, it's 

12 either a large pile of rock, a pyramid-type 

13 rock structure which a lot of it -- so the 

14 higher material is encased concrete, sludge 

15 inside. And so at any one time, they had 

16 about a maximum of 600 workers there the 

17 busiest period in, say, 1960 or so at the 

18 site.

19 Uranium was used -- they received 

20 uranium in the way of ore concentrate or 

21 yellowcake. They changed it into metallic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium. They did receive some recycled 

2 uranium. One of the issues that we'll talk 

3 about is they started receiving that in the 

4 early 60's. They did receive -- and this is 

5 mostly from Fernald. That has not been 

6 verified 100 percent. Most of their material 

7 came from Fernald. They had enriched uranium, 

8 received some of that in the 60's. They did 

9 process some thorium in the 60's. And so this 

10 is where some of the issues come from which 

11 we'll address.

12 And so the period we're discussing 

13 on the SEC is during the operating period, `57 

14 to `66, into `67 timeframe. Now in June of 

15 2005, the Site Profile was issued, Volumes 1 

16 through 6 covering the various internal and 

17 external and environmental site description.

18 In March of 2009, SC&A reviewed 

19 that Site Profile and issued their review of

20 the Site Profile TBDs, and I think there were 

21 something like 25 Site Profile issues that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SC&A identified.

2 In September of 2009, SEC Petition 

3 143 was qualified, and then in April of 2010, 

4 NIOSH issued the ER report which we are 

5 currently working on. And then in May of 

6 2010, the Advisor Board authorized a focused 

7 ER review by SC&A for the ER. And then in 

8 October of 2010, the first Working Group 

9 meeting convened on the SEC here in 

10 Cincinnati. At that time, we identified a 

11 list of action items for both SC&A and for 

12 NIOSH, and after the meeting on the 19th, 

13 there were some email exchanges between NIOSH 

14 and SC&A on the discussion of the action 

15 items. And SC&A issued a list of what they 

16 understood the action items would be.

17 And so one of SC&A's charters was 

18 to do a combined matrix since we had discussed 

19 some of the Site Profile issues at the meeting 

20 on the 19th. And most of the SEC issues, to 

21 keep them straight, SC&A issued a combined 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matrix for the Site Profile and the SEC on the 

2 10th of November 2010. Now the SC&A has not 

3 been tasked with the Site Profile issue 

4 resolution, but we included that so we 

5 wouldn't get the issues confused. Some of 

6 them overlap, of course, and so it did cross7 reference on that.

8 On the 10th -- in November of 

9 2010, SC&A issued their reply report to the 

10 ER. And then in December of 2010, SC&A issued 

11 the DWE paper on air concentration exposure 

12 paper which actually comes from Fernald. And 

13 we'll get into this in a little more detail in 

14 later issues. Just wanted to make you aware 

15 of that.

16 And then, of course, Weldon Spring 

17 has relationship to Fernald since they receive 

18 materials from there. And so resolution at 

19 Fernald DWE issue has applications to Weldon 

20 Spring, and I will go a little more in detail 

21 on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And of course, we have our second 

2 Work Group meeting today, and in our action 

3 items and our matrix list, we have nine major 

4 issues that were considered SECs.

5 So if anybody has any corrections 

6 or additions to that -- if not, I'll start on 

7 the matrix issues.

8 MS. JOHNSON: Ron?

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

10 MS. JOHNSON: This is Karen 

11 Johnson. I just wanted to add one thing that 

12 wasn't touched on last time, and that was that 

13 26-page report by Monte Mason. It was a note 

14 and summary of his visit in 1975 regarding 

15 uranium in urine values. I don't know if you 

16 recall that. I think Denise Brock sent a copy 

17 of it to everyone.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Karen. This 

19 is Ron. Yes, I obtained that reference and 

20 have read it.

21 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. That's all I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had. Thanks.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So if we 

3 want to start with the matrix. I hope 

4 everyone has a copy. Like I said, there's 

5 nine major issues. Issue number one has four 

6 parts to it, because issue number one is 

7 considered with the data -- the accuracy of 

8 the data and the adequacy of the data. And 

9 so, of course, we have four issues within that 

10 issue.

11 We can combine issue 1a and 1c 

12 which is internal and external data. So what 

13 SC&A needs to say, I think the Working Group 

14 needs to say is the trail of the data. For 

15 example, if the dose reconstructor receives 

16 information -- how was that data taken from 

17 the original recorded data at Weldon Spring in 

18 1957 through 1967? By the way, the SEC covers 

19 1957 through 1967.

20 Where is the trail, the paper 

21 trail so to speak? Where is the verification 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that that data is accurate and complete and 

2 what systems were used? You know, what 

3 storage systems were used? How was this 

4 transcribed to computer systems or whatever 

5 it's on, and what verification has been done 

6 to make sure it is accurate and complete.

7 MR. ROLFES: I just wanted to put 

8 a caveat out there that NIOSH hasn't provided 

9 responses to each of these findings yet, but 

10 we're actually going to respond and send that 

11 out in writing in the future here, shortly 

12 after this meeting. Hopefully, about mid13 February, we'll have our official responses, 

14 but we have prepared some draft responses at 

15 this time for discussion. So, basically, when 

16 we go out and complete a data capture, we will 

17 scan hard copy records into electronic files, 

18 into PDFs and upload them into our Site 

19 Research Database. We will also receive 

20 individual files from the Department of Energy 

21 that we request for each claim for a dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction.

2 Part of what we have done to 

3 compare the data to its original source is 

4 we've compared some of the data that we 

5 received for an individual claim to data 

6 within the CER database to check to make sure 

7 that the numbers were accurately transferred 

8 and entered. This is something that we also 

9 do during the dose reconstruction process.

10 A lot of the times the PDF files 

11 that we receive for an individual claim which 

12 have radiation exposure information in them we 

13 will enter that data into an Excel spreadsheet 

14 for use by the dose reconstructors, and that 

15 data is also checked before it's used in a 

16 dose reconstruction and is also, as part of 

17 the reconstruction process, additional 

18 individuals will be able to check that data to 

19 make sure there are no mistakes. There are 

20 several layers of review within a dose 

21 reconstruction to ensure that the data that we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 receive are accurately entered and used in the 

2 dose reconstruction process.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron, SC&A. 

4 Describe this CER database, how this verifies 

5 the data, that original data.

6 MR. ROLFES: Well, the CER 

7 database was based upon the original hard copy 

8 data, and hard copy data was entered into the 

9 CER database from that hard copy data. I 

10 don't know if Monica might be able to 

11 elaborate a little bit further on, you know, 

12 any checks that might be in place, if you 

13 might know firsthand of any of that quality 

14 assurance that might have gone into entering 

15 the data into the CER database.

16 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I can speak 

17 to the CER database somewhat. The database 

18 was originally developed for an epidemiology 

19 study, so it was an independent capture of the 

20 Weldon Spring data before this program ever 

21 began. Those numbers were verified through 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 several layers within the CER organization. 

2 They're well-known throughout the country for 

3 their epidemiology work. We used the CER 

4 database as a double-check and a comparison in 

5 order to verify that what we had entered into 

6 our -- you know, what we were using for dose 

7 reconstruction didn't have any kind of errors. 

8 And where things didn't match up, those 

9 individual results would be triply questioned 

10 I guess is how we used the CER database for 

11 dose reconstruction.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Very quick. This 

13 is Joe. Put another way, the CER database, 

14 even though it's a -- frankly, it was designed 

15 to be an epidemiological treatment, is used 

16 more of as a secondary check. It's not the 

17 primary check --

18 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: That's 

19 correct.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Because I think, 

21 you know, certainly epi database would not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have necessarily the QA that you would have 

2 for a verification for this program, but 

3 certainly it offers a secondary check.

4 So the primary check would be, I 

5 guess, a firsthand review by NIOSH. I'm 

6 trying to get a sense of how you actually 

7 validate, you know, the V&V validation and 

8 verification database. Or is there? I mean 

9 is CER basically how you validate?

10 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Oh, okay. 

11 I'm sorry. I wasn't following the question 

12 very well. No. As Mark alluded to, we 

13 repeated the data from the DOE files and from 

14 site data captures. That information is then 

15 entered into spreadsheets for the dose 

16 reconstructors, but the dose reconstructors 

17 also have copies of the original material that 

18 was received through the data capture and 

19 received from DOE. So as a secondary check, 

20 their procedures include them going back to 

21 the original data and verifying what they're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 using. If there's any kind of question, the 

2 CER database would be sort of a tertiary 

3 check.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron, SC&A. 

6 So the hard copy has never been transformed 

7 to an electronic database totally and used 

8 alone? You're saying that all dose 

9 reconstruction is done -- or the dose 

10 reconstruction has available to him all 

11 original, her scans and all of the original 

12 data. Is that correct?

13 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Yes. All of 

14 that is uploaded into the SRDB and is always 

15 available to the dose reconstructor.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: So when a dose 

17 reconstructor does it, a dose reconstruction, 

18 in those DOE files, there are photocopies of 

19 all that worker's handwritten doses or 

20 typewritten, whatever they were from the time 

21 they originated?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Everything 

2 that we've captured is available in the SRDB, 

3 yes.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. What has --

5 where are these physical records set? Is 

6 there any verification that these records are 

7 -- I guess, you know, the next point then, 

8 okay, so the dose reconstructor has scans of 

9 the original handwritten or typed results, 

10 biological or bioassays or external dose, has 

11 there been any verification to show that 

12 those records he has are all that's available? 

13 So what's been the chain of custody of these 

14 records from 1958 when they were written down 

15 to when he just, in 2011, did a dose 

16 reconstruction?

17 MR. ROLFES: Well, within each 

18 claim file -- I'm not sure exactly what you're 

19 asking -- but with each claim file, there are 

20 electronic spreadsheets that are used by the 

21 dose reconstructors, and those become part of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the administrative record for that 

2 individual's claim. Basically, any and all of 

3 the bioassay and/or dosimetry data is entered 

4 into an Excel spreadsheet for use by the dose 

5 reconstructor, and that is what becomes part 

6 of the administrative record. The firsthand 

7 receipt of data from the Department of Energy 

8 is also in the NIOSH-OCAS claims tracking 

9 system, and that's available to the dose 

10 reconstructor as well.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, but all of 

12 this was taken from original datasheets 

13 someplace?

14 MR. ROLFES: Correct, out of a DOE 

15 repository for example.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I guess my 

17 question is, is the scanned copies that the 

18 dose reconstructor -- go back and verify the 

19 spreadsheets with the site, how are they --

20 how do we know that they're all there? I 

21 guess the accuracy wouldn't be of question if 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're scanned copies, but the completeness 

2 of the records from the day -- you know, a guy 

3 worked there for five years or so, how do we 

4 know we have all his data scanned?

5 MR. ROLFES: I guess you can ask 

6 the question of anything, you know, how do we 

7 know we have everything. And there's no way 

8 to answer that yes, we have everything without 

9 knowing that there's something else out there, 

10 so --

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, I mean 

12 there's certainly some process in place to 

13 demonstrate that we have his records. You 

14 know, this is if the dose reconstructor had a 

15 photocopy of that individual's records, then 

16 he has the accuracy of the records, if they're 

17 readable, but he doesn't know that they're 

18 complete. And I guess that's a --

19 MR. ROLFES: Sure.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: A loop that we need 

21 to close is how do we verify that they are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 complete.

2 MR. ROLFES: So what we would need 

3 to do, for example, is take a look at an 

4 individual case, and if you had an individual 

5 that was employed doing the same job for the 

6 entire, you know, `57 through `66 time period, 

7 was monitored from day one via urinalysis and 

8 also wore an external dosimeter for, you know, 

9 the first three years, but then suddenly, 

10 there was a gap in his monitoring data, that 

11 would identify, hey, what happened here. That 

12 would attract our attention rather than, you 

13 know -- it would make us focus on what 

14 happened here, what do we need to look for. 

15 And in cases where we don't have 

16 data for that time period, there are several 

17 ways that we can address by assigning the 

18 surrounding dosimetry data to fill in that 

19 gap. We can also take a look at coworker 

20 data, for example, in certain cases. So when 

21 there are gaps that appear, that's normally 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 part of the dose reconstruction process that 

2 attracts our attention to it. For example, 

3 for a uranium bioassay result, if an 

4 individual routinely submitted samples, say, 

5 every six months, and didn't have one at the 

6 regular six-month interval, you can use those 

7 surrounding bioassay results to estimate the 

8 chronic intake that occurred over that time 

9 period when the individual wasn't monitored.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron with 

11 SC&A. I understand what you're saying, Mark, 

12 in that if there's some individual dose 

13 reconstruction and you extrapolate from other 

14 periods. Now one problem at Weldon Spring is 

15 that there were some periods where there were 

16 spot bioassays and covert badging, that sort 

17 of thing. But besides that, I guess what 

18 you're saying is that you're leaving it up to 

19 spot it in an individual dose reconstruction 

20 in filling the gaps, but there's been no 

21 verification, chain of custody so to speak of, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the records as an overall for Weldon 

2 Spring. We're taking it kind of on face value 

3 that the records that are there are complete 

4 or as complete as necessary.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu 

6 and I'm glad you modified the statement there. 

7 I don't know that we can ever take on face 

8 value that we have captured all the records 

9 generated at the time on any site. Okay, we 

10 can capture what we can capture. If in fact 

11 there are voids or gaps in a person's exposure 

12 record, then we have techniques for doing 

13 coworker dose reconstruction or whatever the 

14 appropriate approach is for filling in those 

15 gaps in that.

16 You wouldn't assume someone was 

17 non-exposed if you had a gap in their exposure 

18 record. There would have to be some other 

19 evidence, you know, a reason, like he was 

20 switched to an administrative job or he was 

21 laid off for a year or something like that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But there would have to be a reason to 

2 consider him non-exposed, and so his exposure 

3 -- and so we'd be doing that. I mean that's 

4 something we've done a lot. I mean we don't 

5 go into this, we can't go into this presuming 

6 that every record that was generated that we 

7 got, and so we make those adjustments to the 

8 dose reconstruction in those situations.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 

10 again. So the CER database, what was 

11 confusing me was on the CER database, because

12 it is not complete. We know that because it 

13 wasn't intended to be for dose reconstruction. 

14 And so you're saying you're just -- you take 

15 the original data, you put it into a 

16 spreadsheet for the dose reconstructor to use, 

17 and then you compare that to what's found in 

18 the CER to see if it matches that and if 

19 there's any missing from that or any 

20 discrepancy. Is that what you're saying on 

21 the CER database?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Essentially.

2 MR. ROLFES: On our Evaluation 

3 Report, we did compare the CER data to our 

4 data, but we're talking about the SEC 

5 evaluation versus the normal dose 

6 reconstruction process and they're slightly 

7 different. And I think we answered about the 

8 dose reconstruction process. If Monica could 

9 answer about the Evaluation Report, how we 

10 compared the data in the CER database to the 

11 hard copy data. Monica, do you understand 

12 what Ron's asking?

13 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: No. I'm 

14 sorry, I had to step away for just a second. 

15 Could someone repeat the question for me?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron 

17 with SC&A. The question is that their CER 

18 database was only used -- you just did some 

19 double-checking of your spreadsheets against 

20 the CER database. You did not use the 

21 database for dose reconstruction. You just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 were comparing your NIOSH's spreadsheets taken 

2 from the original data against the CER to see 

3 if there was any discrepancies or error 

4 between the two. Is that correct?

5 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: You're 

6 talking about in the ER evaluation, that is 

7 correct. Within the ER, we just used the CER 

8 database to double check.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So the CER 

10 database is not actually used during the dose 

11 reconstruction process?

12 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I can't say 

13 that it's not used ever. As I said earlier, 

14 if there is some sort of a question between 

15 things, it may be used as a check, but to the 

16 best of my knowledge, it's not ever used as 

17 the primary source of information for dose 

18 reconstruction.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you.

20 MR. ROLFES: Welcome.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I think that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 clarifies some points that weren't clear in 

2 the past. I'll move on. If there are any 

3 other questions, comments? I'll move on to 

4 the next issue.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dr. Lemen.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, go ahead, Dick.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: I had a couple of 

8 questions on what percentage of the estimated 

9 total workforce do you have records on?

10 MR. ROLFES: Dick, this is Mark 

11 Rolfes, and I have to check back in the 

12 Evaluation Report. I can pull it up here if 

13 you'd like to wait a minute, but we do have 

14 that detailed in our Evaluation Report. I 

15 don't know, Monica, you might be able to get 

16 it faster than I can. If you wouldn't mind 

17 taking a look as well.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Along with that 

19 same question, of those percentages of the 

20 ones that you have of the estimated, how many 

21 of those do you have individual dose data on, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what percentage? 

2 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: May I ask a 

3 clarifying question? You're asking how many 

4 people do we have dose data on for the entire 

5 workforce?

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

7 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: We don't 

8 collect dose data for the -- well, the CER 

9 database would have dose data for probably 

10 most of the entire workforce, but within the 

11 NIOSH project for dose reconstruction, we 

12 collect dose data for claimants, so --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes. I understand 

14 that but of the claimants, how many actually 

15 have dose data and not estimated data?

16 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: That I know 

17 -- that we do have in the ER report. Let me 

18 continue to look for my version of that.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: That's all I got. 

20 I'll wait for your answer.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I guess, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Mark, you're looking for the data.

2 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: While you're 

4 looking for the data, I'll go back to 

5 something Stu said earlier, which I think this 

6 is sort of a dilemma that we face with most of 

7 the SEC sites, knowing whether or not what DOE 

8 gives you is actually a complete set and how 

9 would you know if it weren't, which has pretty 

10 important implications for things like 

11 coworker dose. You want to make sure that you 

12 have a complete set to operate off of.

13 I'm hearing that you're using 

14 whatever documentation was captured, 

15 individual dose reconstructions, as you go 

16 through individual dose reconstructions. 

17 That's the answer you were referring to is the 

18 dose reconstruction answer.

19 For the SEC answer, you point to -

20 - I think you're pointing to things like the 

21 CER database as a check, you know, for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 completeness. Now the pause I have on that, 

2 and I'm just trying to think about this, is 

3 that I suspect that the CEDR project which 

4 generate the CER database, the epi project at 

5 DOE is probably relying on the same set of 

6 data that it made available to NIOSH and that 

7 acquisition of data for the site.

8 So there's a -- I'm a little 

9 concerned that you're using the CER database, 

10 but they all may come from the same source of 

11 what exists for the site and what's been 

12 presumed to be a quote, unquote, complete set 

13 of data for the site, although, you know, I 

14 don't think DOE necessarily -- I don't know 

15 for sure, this is something maybe it would be 

16 worth looking at -- has performed a validation 

17 that this, for all intents and purposes, 

18 represents the dose data that was generated at 

19 the site, and there are no gaps or no 

20 questions about individuals that may or may 

21 not have been monitored.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 From what I've heard, I don't yet 

2 get a sense that that loop has been closed, 

3 that you really know that what you got -- and 

4 I understand the frustration, you know, how do 

5 you know it's complete -- but I don't know 

6 whether DOE, before they generated the CER 

7 database, might have gone through some 

8 exercises. It's possible. I think some of 

9 the sites did do a V&V, a validation and 

10 verification of their data before they 

11 compiled it. I'm not sure about that though, 

12 and I'm not sure whether they might have done 

13 that before they sent the data to NIOSH. And 

14 so I think there is an inquiry that may or may 

15 not have been done.

16 To just figure out has anyone 

17 really gone through and tried to -- I think 

18 Dick Lemen was getting to the point I was 

19 thinking about too -- well, I'd like to know 

20 what the employee, you know, if you have an 

21 employee list by year, maybe even by work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 categories, there may be a way to get some 

2 sense of whether there's a consistency in the 

3 amount of individuals included in the database 

4 versus what you should be seeing by virtue of 

5 the employee list. And we've done this at 

6 other sites, but so far, I haven't really 

7 heard the kind of check that Los Alamos --

8 their V&V was going back through logbooks and 

9 just trying to make sure that anything that 

10 was earmarked as a, in that case, a bioassay. 

11 You could crosswalk and find a record, a dose 

12 record. So, you know, there's a V&V process 

13 that most sites go through. I don't sense yet 

14 that we have that. We may. I just don't 

15 sense so far that we have covered that, 

16 whether DOE has done it or whether you all 

17 have done it.

18 I think what you've been using is 

19 the CER as a check, but I'm concerned that 

20 that may actually be using the same understood 

21 data as a basis, so you'd be checking against 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the same data you're acquiring from the DOE.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This is Stu 

3 and I'm not as familiar with the situation as 

4 most of the people, but I want to make sure I 

5 understand where we're going here. So when 

6 you say the completeness of the database, the 

7 database, I guess, is the CER database. Is 

8 that true? Is that --

9 MR. ROLFES: No, no --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: What database are 

11 we talking about?

12 MR. ROLFES: We're talking about 

13 the database that DOE, when you go to each 

14 site -- and you did this 6-7 years ago and 

15 said, you know, we need the dose record for 

16 the site, and they ship over what they've got. 

17 And you collect through data capture other 

18 documents which would be used to corroborate 

19 during dose reconstruction. I'm going to the 

20 SEC context. I like that distinction you 

21 made. You know, SEC context says, okay, how 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do you know that you're dealing with a full 

2 deck of cards. Well --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now so 

4 there is another database, besides the ER, for 

5 Weldon Spring?

6 MR. ROLFES: I'm not aware of that 

7 and that's what I was going to say. Usually, 

8 when DOE, at least in the earlier years of 

9 this program, DOE would go back and pull hard 

10 copy records. They may have changed things 

11 now and put things into a database. I don't 

12 know if that's been done or not for this 

13 specific site. You know, for example, like 

14 with Fernald, they've entered all of their 

15 hard copy data into a database. As far as I 

16 know with the Weldon Spring site, there is no 

17 electronic database. It's all hard copy 

18 original records still. So --

19 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Mark, that's 

20 correct, there is no database.

21 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Thank you, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Monica.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: So in terms of is 

3 the database complete compared to an employee 

4 roster, the check that could be made there 

5 would be on the CER database? Does the CER 

6 database contain data for the employees or at 

7 least employees' job categories that you would 

8 expect to have monitoring data on? I mean 

9 that sort of completeness can be done. And 

10 that would be important because the CER data 

11 is used for the coworker approach?

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, no, no. My 

13 point was I would like to know that the CER 

14 database, if you're going to use it for that 

15 purpose, was validated when they put it 

16 together by DOE so you know you're not using 

17 the -- if the CER database was based on these 

18 hard copy files, then literally, what you got 

19 from DOE and the dose records and the CER 

20 database are one in the same, so of course, 

21 you would expect them to agree. You know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're using the same source of information.

2 But I would like to know that when 

3 they put the CER database together, just 

4 somebody said, you know, I want to make sure 

5 that we did -- this is as complete as it needs 

6 to be -- were records lost; are there gaps, 

7 certain gaps that we're seeing -- that 

8 somebody asked those questions. Very well 

9 they may have when they put the CER database 

10 together.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So the 

12 question here then is the CER database, did it 

13 faithfully capture all the records available 

14 and was there a sufficient QC done on that.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: If NIOSH proposes 

16 to use that as a means to validate that it's 

17 got what it's got and so that would be where I 

18 would look and say, you know, how was that 

19 actually compiled, and did somebody ask that 

20 question. Do we know we got what we need to 

21 have or not in terms of the actual dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records at the site.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: For what purpose 

3 are we using the CER database? I guess that's 

4 what's puzzling me.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: We don't use it 

6 right now for dose reconstruction. We rely 

7 upon the hard copy records that we received 

8 for each individual's DOE response. Separate 

9 from that, we did take, as a secondary check, 

10 as Monica had explained, we used the CER data 

11 to double-check to make sure that we received 

12 as much data as is available.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So now when we do 

14 that, what does that mean? We look, we see 

15 Joe Smith, and we've got a series of hard copy 

16 record for Joe Smith, which is what we got on 

17 his file. And we said, okay, we have this 

18 other source of data, whoever built the CER 

19 database a number of years ago also built a 

20 line. Let's see if they built a line for Joe 

21 Smith. Then look, they built a line for Joe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Smith. And look, his external adds up to 

2 higher than these individual hard copies we 

3 have. Is that what we do? I'm sorry, I just 

4 don't understand how it plays into the 

5 question at all.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, what we're 

7 hearing is that it's used as a secondary check 

8 on completeness. I don't disagree with that. 

9 I'm just saying that do we know that the CER 

10 database, which is an epi database, was 

11 constructed in a way which, in fact, examined 

12 the question of did we, in fact, collect all 

13 the necessary records or not.

14 At some point, somebody's got to 

15 ask the question how do we know we got the set 

16 of records which were generated at this site. 

17 And you said before, we'll never know. Well, 

18 I think that's part of the program that we 

19 need to ask those questions and to make that 

20 inquiry, because for something like a coworker 

21 approach where you're going to be relying on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the completeness to make some judgments.

2 So I'm just trying to go, step 

3 backwards to try to figure out, okay, I don't 

4 have any problems with certainly the CER 

5 database being that check on completeness, but 

6 I would want to know that somebody didn't just 

7 simply throw paper together and that was the 

8 CER database but really went through some 

9 process of validating the historic 

10 completeness of that, because a lot of sites, 

11 you know, and we've experienced this at 

12 different places, records were disposed and 

13 lost and discarded and you name it. And the 

14 question is how -- what gives you some 

15 confidence that you have a complete set or 

16 not.

17 MR. ROLFES: We can look into CEDR 

18 and see if we can possibly get some kind of 

19 information from them as to the quality 

20 assurances of the CER data. Monica, is this 

21 something that we should be able to get from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CEDR?

2 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I'm sorry, 

3 did you say me?

4 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I wondered if -

5 - 

6 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: First word 

7 got lost. I wasn't sure you called my name. 

8 I believe that we can go back to CER and to 

9 CEDR and try and find some sort of 

10 verification procedures from them.

11 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. I 

13 don't -- I kind of agree with Stu on this that 

14 you can't really trace -- I mean I'm not 

15 saying that's a bad idea is that you could 

16 look at CEDR, but since we don't use that for 

17 primary dose reconstruction, I think it should 

18 be focused more on the data we do use. We're 

19 using the scanned copies of the originals and 

20 then the NIOSH creates a database from that to 

21 be used in dose reconstruction. And the dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstructor has the originals to refer back 

2 to if he needs to. And checking the CER 

3 database verification would be okay and if 

4 that would be reasonably to do.

5 But I don't think that necessarily 

6 defines the root problem of do we have 

7 external data in the bioassays from the 

8 worker. And that almost goes back to the 

9 other sites we've looked at where you go in 

10 and do, you know, 20 or 30 claims and see if 

11 there are significant gaps in a worker's data 

12 that should have been monitored or think 

13 potentially should have been monitored. 

14 That's what we have been using in the past. 

15 So not that CER is a bad database, but I don't 

16 think it's the final answer to this question.

17 MR. ROLFES: So, Ron, what you're 

18 asking then -- this is Mark Rolfes -- would be 

19 a claim-specific dose reconstruction 

20 essentially, because that is what, in fact, we 

21 do during the dose reconstruction process is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 try to identify any of those shortcomings in 

2 monitoring and apply claimant-favorable 

3 assumptions to ensure that we've overestimated 

4 the person's potential dose rather than 

5 underestimating it.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: On an individual 

7 dose reconstruction, I agree with you. Now 

8 from an SEC point of view on the completeness 

9 of the data being used generally, to answer 

10 that question, the only sense, like Stu says, 

11 you can't be sure you got every box of files 

12 and stuff. You know, what we resorted to in 

13 past sites in this question is to go back and 

14 randomly select 20 or 30 claims and look at 

15 their records and see if they're recently 

16 complete for the periods that they would have 

17 been exposed. And I don't think that's been 

18 done in any way, you know, like we've done for 

19 other sites.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

21 I'd like to weigh-in just a little bit. The 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concern that's being expressed here is one 

2 that really gets to almost a ground floor of a 

3 process, that is when you initiate a process, 

4 whether it's to capture data to do dose 

5 reconstructions, to write a Site Profile, or 

6 to support an ER, you know, you rely on DOE. 

7 You make -- I've seen the letters. You send 

8 the letters out to the workers and material 

9 comes back on worker-specific data. Then 

10 there's a data capture effort where you try to 

11 capture hard copy or electronic everything 

12 that DOE has, and what shows up shows up, and 

13 you have this array of information available 

14 to you now to support the work that needs to 

15 be done.

16 It's my understanding that once 

17 that process begins for a Site Profile or an 

18 ER, you have -- there appears to be an ongoing 

19 data capture process which, I guess, now that 

20 we're having this discussion is sort of 

21 dawning on me that the idea that you have a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 complete data set is always a troubling issue. 

2 That is has DOE done everything they can to 

3 try to find relevant records that might 

4 pertain to either an individual worker or to 

5 the site in general when you're trying to do 

6 coworker development if that's necessary to 

7 fill in gaps? When you engage in this process 

8 for giving yourself a level of assurance that 

9 you think that you've done everything 

10 reasonable to capture all the data and that 

11 DOE has done everything reasonable to capture 

12 the data, is this something that's written 

13 down?

14 I have to say that I've always 

15 looked at it from the point of view, okay, 

16 here are the records that are available to us. 

17 We go into the site query database. We go 

18 into individual case files, and we use what we 

19 have to say something intelligent about 

20 whether we think the records are fairly 

21 complete and you can do a dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and/or build a coworker model or whether or

2 not there might be some sufficient 

3 deficiencies in perhaps certain aspects of the 

4 data. This is a deep question, and I have to 

5 say I don't know if we've had this 

6 conversation before. That is are there 

7 specific steps that NIOSH typically goes 

8 through to make sure that all parties 

9 concerned are being as exhaustive as possible. 

10 I remember visits to various record centers 

11 that were off site in different locations to 

12 capture records, whether it was air sampling 

13 data or any other -- those kinds of records, 

14 which became part of a data capture process 

15 but usually that was well into, let's say, a 

16 review cycle, like things that have been done 

17 with Pantex and Mound, et cetera. And 

18 Fernald, it happened with the thorium-232 

19 DWEs.

20 I guess the question is really and

21 now we have before us Weldon, and the question 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 becomes, "Okay, as this issue applies to 

2 Weldon, were there any steps taken to provide, 

3 whether DOE or NIOSH, to say, okay, are we 

4 fairly confident that we have captured all the 

5 data?" In this case, it sounds like hard copy 

6 data as opposed to some kind of electronic 

7 data, that there are some records that might 

8 be missing. The first question is do you 

9 folks at NIOSH have a procedure -- I haven't 

10 run into it quite frankly -- we reviewed a lot 

11 of procedures -- where you actually talk about 

12 what are some of the things that need to be 

13 done to try to be as exhaustive as possible?

14 MR. ROLFES: I guess that question 

15 was for us, John Mauro. This is Mark Rolfes. 

16 We've gone on a number of data captures for 

17 the Weldon Spring site, and originally, when 

18 we developed the Site Profile, we identified 

19 records in Oak Ridge. Subsequently, during 

20 the SEC evaluation process, we also identified 

21 additional records in the Oak Ridge vault. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There have been records that have turned up 

2 from Fernald and other sites across the United 

3 States. Anytime we go on a data capture trip 

4 to one of several tens of different DOE 

5 repositories, for any DOE site that we find 

6 information, we always capture that whether or 

7 not that's our original intent. If we're 

8 going out to look for Fernald data but happen 

9 to find something for Weldon Spring, we'll 

10 also capture the Weldon Spring data.

11 So we've gone on many data 

12 captures since the inception of this program 

13 looking back to the earliest days of the 

14 Manhattan Engineer District to look for and 

15 identify anything relevant to our program. 

16 And it's not just a one-time effort. If we 

17 learn about new data, we pursue that data and 

18 make sure that we do our best to capture as 

19 much as possible that's relevant to the dose 

20 reconstruction process.

21 DR. MAURO: Is there something 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that exists in any guideline or is it just not 

2 possible? In other words, is this -- the 

3 nature of the process is a form of research 

4 that unfolds before you as you dig? Or is 

5 there some set of -- there might be a 

6 procedure that says, okay, as our first cut, 

7 in addition to opening up the -- having your 

8 MOU with DOE and making your request for data 

9 -- protocol, are there other guidelines to 

10 help to search the one you just described? Or 

11 is it really something that is allowed to 

12 unfold as you learn more because, you know, 

13 depending on the site where there might be a 

14 repository, might be different?

15 I'm actually trying to get to 

16 something standardized. And if there is 

17 something that's standardized by way in which 

18 you folks at least give yourself a sense of 

19 assurance and therefore documentation that 

20 you've then exhausted and captured data as you 

21 can, that you did, in fact, follow that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 procedure, that that procedure was reviewed 

2 and approved and that, in fact, your staff in 

3 this particular application, on Weldon, in 

4 fact followed that procedure. Or is it really 

5 something that's not written down and it's 

6 really ad hoc and you document as you go 

7 along?

8 MR. ROLFES: I'd say most of the 

9 time, if we have a data deficiency, we would 

10 identify that either during a peer review at 

11 the Oak Ridge Associated Universities team or 

12 during the final review and approval of the 

13 technical basis document within DCAS. And, 

14 you know, if we have identified, for example, 

15 during the review of a TBD that there are some 

16 shortcomings in the thorium data or the dose 

17 reconstruction approach proposed in a TBD, we 

18 would ask the Oak Ridge Associated 

19 Universities team to go back and look for 

20 additional data. Or, you know, DCAS itself 

21 would go out and look for additional data to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make sure that we've got as much data as we 

2 possibly can to develop a technical basis to 

3 complete a dose reconstruction.

4 So there's not something that's 

5 written down, but if we identify deficiencies 

6 in a technical basis document, then we would 

7 go out and pursue additional data to look, to 

8 make sure that we've collected everything that 

9 there is. And once again, as Stu and I have 

10 said, we're never going to have every piece of 

11 data, but we do have a very comprehensive -- I 

12 think we've collected nearly 100,000 documents 

13 for this project only within our Site Research 

14 Database. That does not include the 

15 individual's dosimetry records that we have 

16 within our NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System. 

17 So we're not dealing with a small volume of 

18 records. It's a rather comprehensive and 

19 large number.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: John, this is Stu. 

21 To your question is there a procedure for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this completeness of search, I don't think 

2 that there is a procedure written like that 

3 and probably because different sites are sort 

4 of site specific.

5 DR. MAURO: You know, and I 

6 respect that and can understand that because 

7 I've seen the process at work. What I'm 

8 hearing though is that there is a degree of 

9 due diligence that you have brought to this 

10 particular case whereby, as Mark just 

11 described, the various things that were done 

12 to review the hard copy and perhaps the CER 

13 data, certain questions you posed to it, 

14 things you look for, certain data capture 

15 efforts that follow-up as a result of that 

16 process.

17 In other words, what I'm hearing 

18 is there may very well have been an aggressive 

19 effort to be as exhaustive as possible, the 

20 degree to which that can be recorded so that 

21 all folks concerned feel that there was a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 degree of significant effort made to make sure 

2 you're as complete as you can be, what I'm 

3 hearing is that perhaps the Site Profile --

4 and you can answer this for me because I got 

5 to say I haven't read the Site Profile, not in 

6 quite some time -- whether or not that kind of 

7 descriptive material on the various steps that 

8 were taken to confirm to try to make sure 

9 there are no people or types of data, whether 

10 it's bioassay, air sampling, film badge data, 

11 whatever, radiation work permit data, you 

12 know, that what steps were taken to make -- to 

13 try to be as sure as possible, working with 

14 DOE and their various records processors, that 

15 you've captured everything that, I guess, is 

16 reasonable to be done. Is that written up 

17 somewhere? I'm hearing that that is not 

18 written.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: John, this is 

20 Joe. I just sense that we're kind of getting 

21 off the mainstream topic on this one. There 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is no question that there was a high degree of 

2 due diligence in data capture, and we see this 

3 in most sites. I mean I think NIOSH has gone 

4 through a lot of effort to pick up whatever 

5 records are available.

6 Our point goes to something a 

7 little different, though, saying that quite 

8 apart from that due diligence and the process 

9 by which you collect as much as you can, at 

10 some point there's a question that has to be 

11 answered, which is, well, how do you know you 

12 have a complete set of the dose records 

13 themselves. Clearly, you take what DOE gives 

14 you, and I'm sympathetic to Stu's comment that 

15 it's hard to know if you got it all. But 

16 that's the charter that the Board has given 

17 itself as far as data adequacy and 

18 completeness because the implications that has 

19 for things like coworker dose model 

20 development and what have you is to answer the 

21 question, do you believe or have confidence 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that you have all the necessary records for 

2 dose reconstruction from that particular site, 

3 and how do you know that. And there are 

4 different ways to answer that. And we 

5 actually have answered that in different ways, 

6 different forms at different sites.

7 And some sites, DOE, and sometimes 

8 in conjunction with NIOSH, has gone through a 

9 lot of trouble to do a V&V, verification and 

10 validation, of that database before it's 

11 actually employed in dose reconstruction. 

12 Other sites NIOSH has done things, and 

13 actually SC&A has done on occasion, the kind

14 of sampling that Ron's talked about, which is, 

15 okay, let's query the database and do some 

16 sampling to see if we feel confident we have 

17 it all.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Let 

19 me just offer this. I've been -- to satisfy 

20 my own curiosity, I've luckily found a Weldon 

21 Spring claim that reported the exposure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 history, that we have their exposure history. 

2 I don't know if this is -- if they're all 

3 like this or one. This is the first one I've 

4 looked at. What we did on exposure record, 

5 when we asked the DOE for the exposure record 

6 from Mallinckrodt, we got freaking everything. 

7 We got the personnel security questionnaires, 

8 and it just goes on and on and on.

9 And then for the dosimetry 

10 section, we also have a handwritten, you know, 

11 image of a handwritten dosimetry card that 

12 shows the year, 1957, the weeks, and then 

13 every other week, there's an entry for beta 

14 and gamma. So this apparently is an image of 

15 the record kept at the site and for most 

16 years. And I haven't done a study and I've 

17 only looked at one claim, but in this case, 

18 there seemed to be data every other week which 

19 would indicate to me they run a two-week 

20 batch. Exchanging that a little later on, 

21 there's data once a month or something like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that.

2 And so from that standpoint, 

3 having received this, we can make a judgment 

4 if there's a data entry every two weeks, we 

5 currently have the complete record for this --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: For the 

7 individual, yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And so Ron's point 

9 a while ago was, you know, he suggested maybe 

10 that we take a random sampling of the 260 some 

11 odd claims and do that kind of check on those 

12 claims to see if, in fact, these tend to be 

13 complete, you know, there's not a year missing 

14 or a page missing or something like that. And 

15 then -- and so have some sort of report on 

16 that, and that would indicate that for at 

17 least this sampling of people that we have 

18 chosen, there seems to be some level of 

19 confidence that the exposure records that are 

20 retained by DOE and provided to us in response 

21 to requests are complete. Is that what is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 suggested here?

2 MR. FITZGERALD: That answers one 

3 of two dimensions to the issue.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That 

5 answers which one then?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you know, 

7 for example, at another site, Rocky Flats, we 

8 felt that the validation in terms of 

9 completeness, we had all the records, but then 

10 the question was did you have all the records 

11 for all the years that individual would have 

12 worked in a certain operation. So we, in 

13 fact, did the sampling that Ron brought up for 

14 that purpose, to answer that question.

15 But it doesn't answer the question 

16 whether or not you have all the individual 

17 records to begin with, that, you know, you're 

18 operating off this presumption that what you 

19 have is, in fact, 100 percent of the monitored 

20 workers at that site. I don't know if that 

21 question has been answered. Do you have --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: The question about 

2 do we have 100 percent of the monitored 

3 workers -- I'm trying to --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Records for those 

5 workers.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Do we have 

7 the records --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: For the records 

9 that you do have, they appear to be very 

10 comprehensive. You have everything from hard 

11 copy up to, you know, you have a whole file on 

12 every individual worker. So for the ones you 

13 do have, it looks like it's pretty 

14 comprehensive. The only question may be, 

15 similar to what Ron's raised, are there any 

16 gaps that may exist for those individual 

17 records.

18 My question is a little different. 

19 How do you know you have all the individual 

20 records to begin with and has that been 

21 validated by DOE before they made those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records available.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: All the individual 

3 records meaning that there are some people for 

4 whom you should have records that we didn't 

5 get.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Of course, at 

7 some sites over the ensuing history, some 

8 records were discarded, some records were 

9 lost. I mean that's been the nature of the 

10 beast for every site. And the question is 

11 what we typically do is establish has anyone 

12 done comparisons, for example, against 

13 employee lists, or has anyone looked at the 

14 documentation you've collected, done some way 

15 of -- is there anyone that appears that they 

16 should have been monitored or were monitored, 

17 did have records, but we don't have a file 

18 necessarily in this group of files that DOE 

19 sent over.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well, so 

21 that process would require then finding a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 roster, maybe several rosters, annual rosters 

2 or whatever, preferably with job titles 

3 because I don't know what they're monitoring 

4 practices were and if there were any 

5 unmonitored people or anything, finding on 

6 that roster all the claimants because we would 

7 only have the individual exposure records for 

8 the claimants, finding on that roster the 

9 claimants. And then for that list of 

10 claimants, all the claimants on the roster, 

11 did we get an exposure record from them.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: But you have 

13 exposure records not just for claimants, you 

14 have exposure records -- you would presumably 

15 get exposure records for everybody that -- I 

16 mean for all the records they happen to have 

17 at --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: They only sent 

20 you --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- why we would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have gotten that.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: They would only 

3 send -- most of the DOE sites have sent 

4 whatever they had in terms of records, and 

5 then you would cull them out for dose 

6 reconstruction --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no. Most 

8 sites send us a response to an individual 

9 claim request. For the individual exposure 

10 records, we get -- we ask what are the 

11 exposure -- what exposure records do you have 

12 for Joe Smith, and they send us Joe Smith.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That's how 

15 we get individual exposure records. On data 

16 captures, on occasion, particularly when we're 

17 building a coworker model, we may ask for the 

18 complete database, like this 20 at Fernald, 

19 for purposes like building a coworker 

20 database, or maybe if we're getting air sample 

21 data which aren't going to show up in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay record. So we may on occasion, at 

2 some sites, ask for the complete database. 

3 But that's not the routine, and not every 

4 place had an electronic database of all their 

5 records. So we don't, as a routine -- as a 

6 routine matter, we ask for Joe Smith. We get 

7 Joe Smith's record, and that's what's in that 

8 guy's file, and that's what I'm looking at 

9 when I see these data every other week.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: And there hasn't 

11 been an instance when you've had a claim that 

12 you haven't got a record back from DOE?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, now Ron 

14 suggested that we do that.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. I'm just 

16 saying that there hasn't been an instance 

17 where you requested a file that you didn't 

18 have dose data provided by --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, sure. I mean 

20 I don't know about Weldon Spring, but, yes, 

21 there --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I'm just 

2 saying for Weldon Spring. What I'm sort of 

3 getting at is, you know, we're looking at the 

4 completeness of dose records at Weldon Spring, 

5 and it's almost -- this is almost an empirical 

6 process where you sort of know if you -- you 

7 know, how complete it is by virtue of whether 

8 you get a positive response from the site 

9 every time you have a claimant come in.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: No. I think what 

11 we're saying is that if we don't get exposure 

12 record for a person, and I don't know if it 

13 happens at Weldon Spring, but I know a lot of 

14 sites it happens that people either weren't 

15 monitored, or we don't get a record, or the 

16 DOE can't find a record of the monitoring, in 

17 that sense, then we would have to make a 

18 judgment about this person's exposure 

19 potential. And usually, in that situation, we 

20 go to a coworker approach, and, you know, 

21 there are some levels then there which, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 guess, is a -- if that's going to be debated, 

2 it's probably a debate for a different group 

3 because it's used everywhere as opposed to 

4 just at Weldon Spring. But -- so that's what 

5 would be done in that circumstance for a 

6 person who fits into what looks like a 

7 monitored position, should have been monitored 

8 and for some reason, DOE doesn't have the 

9 exposure record. Then we would have to use 

10 some alternative for a dose reconstruction. 

11 Or if we feel like we can't build a sufficient 

12 coworker model that -- that's led to a bunch 

13 of SECs.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes, that's 

15 kind of where I'm headed to some extent 

16 because at some point, in order to fill in 

17 gaps where you don't get a response and you 

18 have to assign a coworker dose, perhaps by 

19 worker category, you do need to know what the 

20 dose distribution is across the monitored 

21 employees for the site. So that gets you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 passed the empirical just asking and getting 

2 to looking at the set of records, the 

3 monitoring dose records for the site and 

4 deciding whether or not you can do a 

5 distribution to support a coworker -- and that 

6 entails that you know you got them all or that 

7 you can at least --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It entails that 

9 the site records that you received do not 

10 inordinately discriminate against more highly 

11 exposed people, that more highly exposed 

12 people were not in some way systematically 

13 excluded from the record you got. It does not 

14 necessarily require that 100 percent of the 

15 records collected are there because --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: But --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you would 

18 expect them not --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: -- you're 

20 switching from individual records one at a 

21 time to looking at the body of dose records 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the site to come up with that 

2 distribution. I agree with what you're 

3 saying, but at some point, you do the macro of 

4 what records you got.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: If needed for a 

6 coworker.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Coworker dose. 

8 And it's conceivable, and this is another 

9 issue, but at some point, you're not going to 

10 get a response that you have a dose of record 

11 and it's somebody in a worker category who 

12 obviously looks like they should have been 

13 monitored but you don't have a record for 

14 them. You have to make an assignment and that 

15 will compel, I think, you to have to do that 

16 review or analysis to come up with the 

17 coworker estimates.

18 And I don't see how you get there 

19 unless you do what we were talking about, 

20 which is to verify that the complete deck of 

21 cards as far as the dose records for the site 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are available, we can look at it, and by 

2 worker category feel like we can come up with 

3 a distribution for certain worker categories 

4 and assign it as a coworker dose. See, at 

5 some point, you get to the point of having to 

6 make an assessment of the completeness of the 

7 data at the site.

8 MR. ROLFES: And to answer that, 

9 also, Dick had brought this up earlier, he had 

10 asked about the number of people that were 

11 monitored at Weldon Spring site, and this is 

12 presented in the Evaluation Report on page 14 

13 in Table 4-1. I just wanted to answer this 

14 really fast and also another thing that John 

15 Mauro had previously asked. Anyway, here 

16 we've got a description, the total number of 

17 claims submitted for dose reconstruction from 

18 the Weldon Spring site was 258 at the time of 

19 March 12, 2010. The total number of claims 

20 that were submitted which met the Class 

21 Definition for the evaluation of January 1, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1957 through December 31, 1967 was 244. The 

2 number of dose reconstructions completed at 

3 that time was 180, and the number of claims

4 for which internal dosimetry records were 

5 obtained for the years in that evaluated class 

6 was 207. The number of claims for which 

7 external dosimetry records were obtained was 

8 192. So 192 and 207 out of the 244 cases, if 

9 that helps.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, how many 

11 would -- are being deferred because there 

12 isn't a dose record and one would have to come 

13 up with maybe a coworker assignment? Do you 

14 have any that fall in that category?

15 MR. ROLFES: That's not presented 

16 in the Evaluation Report. That's something on 

17 an individual basis, as we had mentioned, you 

18 know, for example, if you expect someone such 

19 as a chemical operator, you would expect that 

20 they would have lots of monitoring data 

21 because that's a higher exposure category, we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 haven't gone through to look, you know, on an 

2 entire basis of how many chemical operators 

3 weren't monitored. However, that would 

4 certainly raise some suspicions. You know, if 

5 we had a chemical operator that never had any 

6 monitoring data, we'd say probably that 

7 individual was probably monitored but we don't 

8 have his data or -- so we'd need to focus on 

9 that individual's lack of data.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: And that's where 

11 this goes to. You, at some point, go from 

12 dose reconstruction to dose reconstruction 

13 where you're getting the records from DOE to a 

14 point where you have to do a coworker 

15 assignment or do something like that by worker 

16 category for whatever reason, you know, the 

17 record's not there, that DOE comes back, says 

18 no record. And when it's a chemical operator 

19 or something, you're going to have to make an 

20 assignment, and that assignment is going to be 

21 based on a dose distribution for chemical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operators at Weldon Spring. And you're going 

2 to be looking at, okay, do we have essentially 

3 all the data that we need for chemical 

4 operators and how do we know that's all the 

5 data, because this one person's missing data, 

6 you have to wonder, well, do we have half the 

7 data or three-quarters of the data, or is this 

8 the exception to the rule and we have most of 

9 the data. And that's what you're going to 

10 have to answer to come up with that 

11 distribution and to make that assignment.

12 And this is really conventional. 

13 I think we've been up against the same issue 

14 at every site, but in this case, you know, a 

15 judgment has to be made if, in fact, the dose 

16 records are complete enough to do that 

17 distribution. And what I said earlier was, 

18 well, you know, the CER database is an epi 

19 database, but my question is whether DOE, at 

20 the time, had gone back -- or I guess NIOSH 

21 did CEDR, right -- whoever did it --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe ORAU did 

2 CER separate from --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: -- whoever 

4 constructed the CER database, did they, in 

5 fact go back and answer that question, do we 

6 have everything, you know. And I'd be 

7 interested in knowing what the regime was, 

8 because certainly if it looks like a pretty 

9 systematic approach and they turned over the 

10 rocks and this is best as they can tell and 

11 lay out, that they've gotten all the data, I 

12 think that goes a long way to provide some 

13 confidence.

14 It may not answer Ron's question 

15 which is, okay, if you have all the data for 

16 an individual case, do you -- is there gaps. 

17 And, you know, of course, there may be gaps.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I think you can 

19 probably look at one of these files, and you 

20 can see whether or not there are weeks missing 

21 or exchanges missing or if there were maybe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 years with no bioassay data. I haven't looked 

2 through this whole record. There may be years 

3 with no bioassay, but then the guy's a 

4 chemical operator. That might be something we 

5 would hope to see.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: That's another 

7 question. So really, the central question of 

8 how you're going to assign a coworker dose.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: How is that -- I 

10 thought that was the question we were just 

11 asking. Now you've got this exposure from 

12 this guy. How do you know it's complete? I 

13 think you would know it was complete based on 

14 what it tells you, how many numbers you have 

15 in this record he told you, and does that fit 

16 what you would expect --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, within an 

18 individual dose record, you would answer the 

19 question as to whether or not the file is 

20 complete.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm going to a 

2 larger question which is how do you know you 

3 have a, in a broader sense, a complete set of 

4 records that would enable you to do a coworker 

5 dose model.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So in order to do 

7 something for someone that we don't get an 

8 exposure record for?

9 MR. FITZGERALD: That's right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I got that 

11 note.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: There's two 

13 facets to this, but the first one is pretty 

14 fundamental because, as you noted earlier, 

15 there has been a number of SECs awarded just 

16 basically because, you know, the database 

17 couldn't be shown to be complete enough to 

18 support coworker dose developments. You could 

19 not make that assignment with confidence, so 

20 that was an SEC.

21 So in this case, all I'm saying is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 how do we know that we do have a complete set 

2 sufficient that you can develop that coworker 

3 approach. That's all.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

5 MR. ROLFES: We've done a pretty 

6 good job at trying --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

8 we're going to settle it today, so I don't 

9 know if we need to keep arguing about it 

10 today. I'm just trying to get down exactly 

11 what that -- 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Clarifying --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, because when 

14 you start talking about the completeness and 

15 quality of data, and I'm staring at the 

16 handwritten record that they kept, apparently 

17 contemporaneously, with the guy's work, I'm 

18 thinking I don't know what I have to do for 

19 this. And that's what we use in this guy's 

20 dose reconstruction, but now we've kind of 

21 gone into a different approach of the unmarked 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- not a different -- help my understanding --

2 to understand that we are talking about people 

3 where we don't get the exposure record, and do 

4 we know we have a complete enough data set to 

5 deal with that.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: That's right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. If that's 

8 the issue, I've got that in my --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: That's right, for 

10 coworker --

11 DR. BUCHANAN: And tacked onto 

12 that -- this is Ron -- is if you go in there 

13 and you see that the individual had gaps that 

14 are more than just he didn't turn in his badge 

15 or missed a bioassay and stuff, you know, 

16 large gaps in, say, 20 or 30 cases, you see a 

17 lot of them have gaps that are chemical 

18 operators or whatever who should have been 

19 monitored, then that's going to tell you that 

20 probably there's some data missing someplace, 

21 that there are some handwritten files that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 didn't get transferred over and stuff. Yes, 

2 their monitoring was right. Either that or 

3 the monitoring wasn't done the way it should 

4 have been.

5 So, you know, you have two things, 

6 two aspects. Was each individual that should 

7 have been monitored, are the bioassay records 

8 available? And secondly, is the overall 

9 population monitored enough to get a coworker 

10 base out of it? So those are the two 

11 questions that we're asking.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John again. 

13 By way of process, I thought I -- hear a path 

14 forward that might help to achieve closure. 

15 And it may really go to a process that whether 

16 you're implementing it or not is the question. 

17 You make your request for data for individual 

18 cases. The data shows up, and you have an 

19 ongoing process of data acquisition from DOE 

20 which probably is protracted for individual 

21 workers and also for different time periods, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different types of activities, different types 

2 of data. So this goes on for some time. 

3 While that's going on, you're doing dose 

4 reconstructions for people where you can, and 

5 you're trying to move out to dose 

6 reconstruction. So there's a process at work.

7 What I'm hearing is there could be 

8 a useful linkage between the folks that are 

9 looking at the actual records for individual 

10 workers, and let's say they're doing some 

11 internal dose, gathering up the bioassay data, 

12 and as we've all seen, there are always 

13 periods of time where we don't have neutron 

14 data, we don't seem to have bioassay data, or 

15 we don't seem to have certain type of bioassay 

16 data that might be useful or helpful. At that 

17 point, typically, what happens is a coworker 

18 model is either developed or applied.

19 However, there could also be a 

20 trigger that says, you know something, I'm 

21 noticing that we're -- for this particular 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 worker, we would have expected to see 

2 quarterly urine samples collected and analyzed 

3 for uranium or thorium, but we're not seeing 

4 that. And it's almost as if there's a loop 

5 here by way of process that says, you know, 

6 there probably are some records out there that 

7 we're missing.

8 And I'm just sort of thinking out 

9 loud now that if that's, in fact, in place, 

10 that link between your DR people who are 

11 looking at the data and trying to do a good 

12 dose reconstruction and your data capture 

13 people who are always out there trying to 

14 scour for more data, if there's a link that 

15 one helps to steer the other, that would be a 

16 process that would go a long way to providing 

17 the step that gives everyone assurance that 

18 you're really doing everything reasonable to 

19 capture data, to have a complete record. 

20 Because in the end, everyone has to feel 

21 confident that you did everything reasonable 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to capture all the data that might be useful. 

2 And then at that point, you say, okay, 

3 really, this is all we've got, more might show 

4 up, but right now it looks like we've done the 

5 best we can.

6 And then you move forward from 

7 there and you build your coworker model once 

8 you find out where the holes are, and we're 

9 off and running into whether or not we've got 

10 sufficient data to reconstruct doses from this 

11 building or from this isotope whether it's 

12 neutron, beta, whatever it is.

13 But I think that whether you do 

14 this or not, I don't know, but it might be a 

15 good idea to use the dose reconstruction data 

16 for individual people, and when gaps show up 

17 that sort of say, look at this gap. I could 

18 see that feeding back to the data capture 

19 effort. Do you know whether or not that's 

20 done?

21 MR. ROLFES: John, this is Mark 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Rolfes. And we have a partial answer to that, 

2 I guess. If you take a look at the Evaluation 

3 Report that NIOSH has produced, I point you to 

4 page 79, and it has Attachment 1, Data Capture 

5 Synopsis, which identifies the information 

6 that we've gone out to look for in data that 

7 we've collected, when it was completed, and 

8 how many of those documents we've uploaded 

9 into the Site Research Database.

10 Now something prompted those data 

11 captures, and that piece isn't necessarily 

12 there. However, we've got 13 pages of 

13 information which explain all of our previous 

14 data captures and where those data captures 

15 occurred for the Weldon Spring plant.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: John, this is Stu. 

17 I would offer that I know what you're 

18 describing occurs. I don't know if it occurs 

19 religiously or not. I know that there have 

20 been many times over the course of the almost 

21 8 years since I've been working on this -- it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 only seems like 18 -- that there were 

2 technical holds put on dose reconstructions 

3 from a particular site because the dose 

4 reconstructors, when trying to do the dose 

5 reconstruction, says, "Holy cow, we don't have 

6 enough information to deal with this 

7 particular kind of dose, and therefore, we 

8 need to do some site research to see if there 

9 is a way to do it." And that was called a 

10 technical hold. Claims from that site were 

11 pended, and then site research had to go see 

12 if there was a way to find information to 

13 allow that to proceed.

14 So I know that has happened over 

15 time. I don't know for sure how much history 

16 I can reconstruct if you're interested in 

17 seeing that. I mean that's more of a general 

18 question. It's not a specific Weldon Spring 

19 question. But I might be able to get you some 

20 stuff that kind of shows some of that.

21 But I don't know that -- has that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- I mean have there been occasions when a 

2 dose reconstructor was doing a dose 

3 reconstruction, particularly at a place with 

4 not a lot of claims, and he said, "Well, I 

5 don't have this data. I will do something. I 

6 will do a model." Usually, when they do that, 

7 they try -- they get with a team leader or 

8 something if they would have to do that, if it 

9 is done. I won't ignore that it's done. If 

10 it would be done, it wouldn't be one dose 

11 reconstructor doing it. There would have to 

12 be an approach generated that would have been 

13 -- be generally useful because we try to do 

14 these things consistently.

15 MR. MORRIS: Ted, this is Bob 

16 Morris.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bob.

18 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I wanted to add 

19 one more thing and answer a question from 

20 previous. Each site has a lead dose 

21 reconstructor, and that person has the purview 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to see the issues popping up in all of the 

2 dose reconstructions from the sites. And I am 

3 confident that those people would be spotting 

4 gaps that were systematic.

5 But then specific to a question 

6 that was raised earlier about the procedures 

7 for data capture that ORAU Team worked 

8 against, there is ORAU Team Procedure 0025. 

9 It's called Data Reconnaissance and Data 

10 Capture. It was first issued in July of 2004, 

11 and it talks to the process of identifying the 

12 available records, making site contacts with 

13 people, and using the finding aids that are 

14 available for the sites, and it's an iterative 

15 process. Refer you to that for the answer to 

16 that question about systematic approach to 

17 data capture.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we've 

19 been on this quite long enough. Can we just 

20 get back to, I think, your thought that you 

21 would look at this issue of completeness in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the context of coworker models and all that.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: The notes I've 

3 taken that I think addresses what's been 

4 discussed here is one is to address the issue 

5 of for individual claims, are there holes in 

6 individual claims, you know, remarkable holes 

7 in individual claims.

8 We discussed doing a sampling of 

9 the Weldon Spring claims, and in going through 

10 these samples and seeing for these people and 

11 these job titles what does their exposure 

12 record actually look like. Were they 

13 monitored for external and, if so, was it 

14 complete for the years of their work. Were 

15 they monitored for internal, and if so, during 

16 what frequency during the course of their work 

17 and for what radionuclides. So we can do that 

18 and see if there is some sort of systematic 

19 omission in terms -- or even very commonly if 

20 things -- if there seem to be gaps in what you 

21 would expect to see. Okay, so we can do that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We can also develop for -- what is 

2 done for coworkers in terms of for people in 

3 the instance where we don't get an exposure 

4 record for a person, what do we do and how do 

5 we know that's okay. So in terms --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Stu, could I --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: But I'm not --

8 the process is less of -- you know, I think 

9 the process is laid out. I'm just -- my 

10 question is how do you know you have 

11 sufficient records to support a coworker 

12 assignment, in other words that you're -- you 

13 have to come up with a dose distribution that 

14 is based on a complete enough set of records 

15 that dose distribution --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm just 

17 not familiar enough with the criteria. I 

18 think they're out there.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: It's a question 

20 of representativeness. Can that dose 

21 distribution that you're going to assign 95th 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percentile to a coworker that doesn't have any 

2 records, is that reliable enough and 

3 representative enough? And the only way it's 

4 representative is you have a complete set of 

5 information so that distribution would be a 

6 sound representation for that particular site, 

7 for that particular worker category perhaps.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean this 

9 has been discussed a number of other places as 

10 well.

11 DR. MAURO: This is John. I think 

12 that it's important that we make a separation 

13 between data completeness in its essence, that 

14 is has everything been done and tests been 

15 placed on the data that we feel confident that 

16 we've captured everything that we humanly can 

17 capture. The second question is once you've 

18 done that, you know, are the data good enough 

19 to do dose reconstruction, to build coworkers, 

20 do we have SEC issues.

21 So I'd like to stick just for one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more moment to the first step. I heard three 

2 lines of attack that could be used to document 

3 that you were, in fact, thorough in making 

4 sure you've got all the data. The first is 

5 the one that you currently already do very 

6 well. You make a major assault on all the 

7 record centers, and you go out there and just 

8 scour, but it's really like just going, making 

9 sure if there are records on Weldon Spring 

10 someplace, at the Hanford's record center, 

11 we're going to go look for them.

12 The second piece has to do with 

13 Dick Lemen's point, roster information. I 

14 don't know how productive that could be, but 

15 that's another line of attack. Say, listen, 

16 we have information on the rosters of all the 

17 people that have worked there over this 10-

18 year period, and is there any way knowing that 

19 roster that we could pose questions to the 

20 data that we did gather that seems to be --

21 seems to indicate it. It's never proof but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's weight of evidence that we really did get 

2 most of the people that probably should have 

3 been -- that were on the roster and perhaps 

4 should have been monitored for something that 

5 is important to them. That would be another 

6 weight of evidence. So that's a roster 

7 concept.

8 One is the assault. The second is 

9 a roster. The third is holes in individual 

10 workers' records themselves. That would be 

11 the third leg of this stool that we're trying 

12 to build to stand on. The third leg would be, 

13 okay, when we look at the actual records for 

14 the people that we do have records for that 

15 have been provided by DOE, and our dose 

16 reconstructors are looking at it, and as you 

17 said, your lead dose reconstructor would be 

18 the person that would start to see something 

19 emerge, my goodness, it seems that we're 

20 missing a lot of data on this particular time 

21 period, this particular category of worker, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this particular process, et cetera. Probably 

2 should have seen some more bioassay data here. 

3 Maybe it's just lacking and that's that, but 

4 maybe it exists and we haven't found it.

5 So what I'm getting at is that I 

6 almost -- form in my mind while we've talked 

7 is a three-step element that makes up a 

8 process that when documented in your Site 

9 Profile or your ER report, will communicate to 

10 the world the things that you have done to be 

11 due diligent in making sure that you've 

12 captured the records that were out there and 

13 that you did the best you could.

14 Then you leave that subject and 

15 then you move on to the subject that Joe just 

16 mentioned. Okay, now that we feel pretty 

17 confident we got everything that's out there, 

18 now we have to ask ourselves the question is 

19 that data good enough to do the things that 

20 need to be done. And, of course, that's 

21 another subject altogether.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you know, 

2 listen, the SEC is a very specific set of 

3 inquiries, and the question is whether or not 

4 the data is complete enough to support dose 

5 reconstruction in the sense of a coworker 

6 model development. I mean I think we're 

7 conflating this by including things like due 

8 diligence and, you know, whether a good faith 

9 effort was made to turn over as many rocks as 

10 possible. I mean those are all worthy 

11 objectives, and certainly we take that at face 

12 value that, of course, NIOSH is going to be 

13 aggressive and look for paper. I don't think 

14 that's the central question.

15 Central question is whether you 

16 can demonstrate that your set of records is 

17 sufficiently complete to support dose 

18 reconstruction. That's the central question 

19 for the SEC, and there are two questions that 

20 are embedded in that. I think, Stu, you've 

21 written them down. One is for any individual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 record, how confident are you that there is 

2 not gaps that can't be filled. You know, 

3 that's one question.

4 The second question is at some 

5 point, you're not going to necessarily get a 

6 dose record back from NIOSH in a claim. 

7 You're going to have to turn, if it's a worker 

8 category that clearly should have been 

9 monitored, you're going to have to turn to a 

10 coworker assignment. How are you going to do 

11 that? That's a very specific question. How 

12 are you going to do that and on what basis?

13 And that basis should include an 

14 assessment of the completeness of the records 

15 that would enable you to construct a dose 

16 distribution for those worker categories, 

17 maybe time periods, too, to be able to then 

18 take that value, maybe 95th percentile, and 

19 assign it to that worker that doesn't have a 

20 dose record, which is, of course, SOP for all 

21 the sites that we've been up against.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If you can't do that, the records 

2 aren't complete enough, the data is not there, 

3 that has been a basis for an SEC award in the 

4 past. So very specific to those questions, 

5 you know, I think there needs to be some 

6 treatment by NIOSH on that to enable the Work 

7 Group to feel confident that, okay, that 

8 issue, which is central to the SEC, we can 

9 certainly answer that from a completeness and 

10 adequacy standpoint. You know, the data 

11 completeness and adequacy, I think, is a 

12 foundational question. Before you go any 

13 further, is the data there that would enable 

14 you to do that? That's pretty much it.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Those are things 

16 at least I can understand.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Hello, this is Dick 

18 Lemen again.

19 MR. KATZ: We can hear you, Dick.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: To follow up on my 

21 previous questions, I think this is relevant 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the discussion right now, you said on the 

2 table that you have 244 people that meet the 

3 Class Definition.

4 MR. ROLFES: I'm pulling the table 

5 back up, if you could give me just one second, 

6 please. That's correct.

7 MR. KATZ: Dick, are you still 

8 there? Dick, we can't hear you anymore. You 

9 cut off sort of suddenly. I don't know if 

10 your line broke or -- we've lost Dick. It 

11 sounded like it cut off, and he's not 

12 responding.

13 MR. ROLFES: I guess I've answered 

14 his question.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Moving on.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

17 recollection we were around 200 out of 244 was 

18 the number, so five sixths of the people in 

19 the covered period have monitoring data. Now 

20 that does not speak to the question, Ron's 

21 question, "Well, is it -- are there big holes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in that? Is there any pervasive holes in 

2 that?" I mean so there is --

3 MR. KATZ: It doesn't answer 

4 whether they all needed to be monitored 

5 either.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in fact, 

7 that's true. I mean there could be 40 people 

8 who had administrative jobs -- I don't know 

9 what Weldon Spring's monitoring regiment was. 

10 I don't know when they chose to monitor.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron with 

12 SC&A and, yes, they -- none of -- most of --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Hi, this is Dick 

14 Lemen again. I got cut off.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome back, Dick.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I understand you 

18 didn't want to hear my question.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MR. KATZ: We actually didn't -- I 

21 think you cut yourself off, Dick, because we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 didn't lose anyone else, I don't believe but -

2 - 

3 MEMBER LEMEN: No. I know I cut 

4 myself off. I don't know how I did it, but I 

5 did it. But anyhow, back to my question which 

6 I think is relevant to this discussion, there 

7 are 244 people that meet the Class Definition 

8 according to the table.

9 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: And if I read the 

11 report right, that table came from, there are 

12 nine buildings. Are those nine buildings all 

13 included in the Class Definition?

14 MR. ROLFES: It's the entire site, 

15 that's correct.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: And throughout the 

17 nine buildings, you have further in that 

18 broken down to ten job categories, correct?

19 MR. ROLFES: Could you point me 

20 what page you were referring to in the 

21 Evaluation Report?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LEMEN: Table 6-7. I don't 

2 know exactly which page that's on, but that's 

3 the table I'm looking at.

4 MR. ROLFES: Okay, I'm there. 

5 Thank you.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: And my question is 

7 of the 244, have you broken it down -- I 

8 didn't see it in the report, maybe you did and 

9 I missed it -- have you broken down how many 

10 of those 244 fit into the nine buildings and 

11 was there a lot of interaction between moving 

12 from one building to another during the work 

13 process? And the next question is in the ten 

14 job categories, how did the 244 fit into those 

15 ten job categories? Is there a sort of a 

16 preponderance, say, in -- do you know how many 

17 worked in each job category to start with? 

18 And then what percentage of the 244 represent 

19 each job category? Do you follow what I'm 

20 saying?

21 MR. ROLFES: I understand what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you're asking, and that's not something that 

2 we've done. That's something that is sort of 

3 done on an individual basis. We look at the 

4 individual's exposure history and work 

5 locations in order to assign a claimant6 favorable distribution for the energies to 

7 which the individual was exposed to, for 

8 example, whether it's 250 and above keV 

9 photons or 30 to 250 keV photons. We usually 

10 try to look at the buildings that the 

11 individual is working in and make a good 

12 judgment as to the radiation energies that he 

13 was exposed to.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: The question I'm 

15 really getting at is is there any -- in the 

16 ability to do reconstruction, are there any 

17 buildings that are really under represented? 

18 And secondly, are there any job categories 

19 that are really under represented?

20 MR. ROLFES: We haven't broken 

21 down a stratification of the monitoring data 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 by building, by job category if that's what 

2 you're referring to.

3 MEMBER LEMEN: Those two questions 

4 seem to me to be key as to completeness of 

5 data sets. That's all I got to say. I'd like 

6 to see that breakdown --

7 MR. KATZ: That garbled --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: He's saying he'd 

9 like to see that --

10 MR. KATZ: -- if possible.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

12 We'll have to go find out. I don't know if we 

13 have enough information to do that or not.

14 MR. ROLFES: Don't know if we'd be 

15 able to from an individual's exposure record. 

16 In order to do that, we'd have to have that 

17 building reported with each individual 

18 exposure history. And when we complete a dose 

19 reconstruction, we don't need to know what 

20 building an individual is in if we have the 

21 badge data and their bioassay data.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LEMEN: But doesn't the 

2 dose -- doesn't the job category have an 

3 important role as well as the building?

4 MR. ROLFES: Well, in establishing 

5 monitoring criteria for individuals, it does. 

6 However, in our program, it doesn't 

7 necessarily. If we have monitoring data, for 

8 example, for -- well, I guess it depends. For 

9 example, if we would see a chemical operator 

10 that had no monitoring data, that would 

11 certainly be important. However, if we have a 

12 chemical operator that has, you know, plenty 

13 of external and internal bioassay data, 

14 knowing what job category or building they 

15 were in and when they worked in this building 

16 or that building is not going to be important 

17 in the dose reconstruction process. We 

18 usually apply claimant-favorable assumptions 

19 based upon our Site Profile in order to 

20 interpret that individual's records.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think, Dick, where you're going, and I'm not 

2 sure that the program follows, but I think I 

3 want to understand the question and see what's 

4 possible and how we go with this. Where 

5 you're going is that you're looking for just 

6 the data that we have sufficiently 

7 representative of not only building location 

8 but also of job title --

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Absolutely. You 

10 said it better than I did.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And so I'm 

12 not 100 percent sure what we can do at Weldon. 

13 I'm not 100 percent sure, you know, what we 

14 can do at other sites as well on that. It has 

15 to do with how well we can reconstruct an 

16 individual's work history essentially because 

17 the data are going to be linked to an 

18 individual.

19 And so we would have to, for each 

20 individual, track their job assignments and 

21 sort of put them in a category by year 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 depending on what job they held that year, and 

2 then put them in a building by -- based on my 

3 experience, I suspect there will be job titles 

4 that will never be specific to one building 

5 but rather will be working throughout the 

6 plant, and maintenance is the obvious answer. 

7 Very few places that I am aware of would have 

8 kept a maintenance staff that worked in Plant 

9 4 and no one else ever went into Plant 4. You 

10 know, millwrights would work where a 

11 millwright was needed and whatever building 

12 that was in, by and large. So that would be 

13 my expectation at least.

14 So I think there would be some job 

15 titles that would be distributed. You know, 

16 their work experience would be distributed 

17 among the site, and there are some job titles, 

18 I would suspect, for some period of time would 

19 be restricted to one building. I would think 

20 a chemical operator probably was assigned to a 

21 specific chemical process and worked on that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 until the workload required that he move and 

2 do something else or until a more desirable 

3 job opened up that he could bid out to. This 

4 is my experience from a very similar plant is 

5 that's how things worked.

6 So that's -- it's a fairly 

7 complicated answer and even if it -- even to 

8 simplify it, I'm not so sure we have the 

9 information that would allow us to do it, but 

10 I'll see what we can do.

11 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: This is Mike. 

12 It seems to me that Dick's question has 

13 everything to do with you being able to verify

14 that you have sufficient data to do coworker 

15 modeling.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean this 

17 is going to be a broader question in terms of 

18 coworker, and I don't know if the Board's 

19 getting ready to take that up or not. I see 

20 coworker is on the Board's agenda for the 

21 February meeting, a coworker presentation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Coworker approaches, as we have 

2 generally done them up to now, provide 

3 essentially -- treat the population of the 

4 work site as the coworker, and for those 

5 categories of workers who are heavily exposed, 

6 they receive an exposure typically of the most 

7 -- that we would judge be heavily exposed. 

8 They would get a percentile of the population 

9 distribution, of that exposure distribution 

10 that equates to among the most highly exposed 

11 in the monitored population. 

12 For people who are intermittently 

13 exposed, for instance, I don't know what the 

14 examples we would use, rad tech maybe, maybe a 

15 transportation worker, who are in the work 

16 areas but not dealing with radioactive 

17 material all the time would probably receive a 

18 somewhat less level on that percentile.

19 And administrative workers would 

20 receive probably receive an environmental dose 

21 or a lower percentile of the monitored 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 population.

2 Now I'm only speaking here about 

3 people who are not monitored who fit into 

4 those categories. That heretofore has been 

5 the standard coworker approach, and when you 

6 start -- and the reason for that is that when 

7 you start subdividing your worker population 

8 the various ways you can, I mean you can slice 

9 and dice this worker population on more ways 

10 than just this, on job title and building, you 

11 end up with vanishingly small populations to 

12 try to draw a coworker distribution from.

13 And so you are essentially 

14 starting out trying to achieve something that 

15 on the face of it, you're not going to be able 

16 to achieve because you won't have the data in 

17 sufficient quantity to fill all these niches.

18 So that argument has occurred. 

19 That discussion has occurred. I don't know 

20 that there's been any resolution to it.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Going back to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Dick's comment, I mean, and what Mark was 

2 saying earlier, one approach would be simply 

3 chemical operators, a pretty central -- you 

4 know, there's enough population in there --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think 

6 there would be.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: -- think there

8 would be. I would say, okay, for chemical 

9 operators, how many rostered chemical 

10 operators did you have at Weldon --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- your question 

12 of --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- versus how 

14 many files, how many dose files did DOE --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: That depends on 

16 finding roster information.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, as I'm 

18 saying, you know, then you compare it against 

19 how many individual dose files do you have 

20 against that, and if you had 98 percent of the 

21 rostered chemical operators who you had dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 files for, I think your distribution's going 

2 to be pretty sound. You could use it to 

3 assign that one or two that are missing a dose 

4 record, just, you know, a coworker dose 

5 without too much qualification. But if it 

6 turns out there's 85 chemical operators 

7 rostered, you have dose files on 40, then I 

8 would say, yes, problem, because you don't --

9 you know, if you're looking for the 95th 

10 percentile, something up there, you don't know 

11 if you've captured it because you're missing 

12 half your records.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: That I certainly 

14 understand where you're coming from, and I 

15 don't object to it. You know, it's one of the 

16 things that I've noted here that we're going 

17 to try to do. I'm just feeling that -- and if 

18 we went with chemical operators and maybe a 

19 couple of other heavily exposed populations 

20 where you would expect they should have 

21 monitored these people, and you should have a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fairly complete set, I would think that we 

2 could do that.

3 Now when you start going down --

4 especially when you start bringing out 

5 maintenance crafts --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I agree with --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you're going to 

8 break down a millwright from an electrician 

9 from a pipe fitter from whatever else, you're 

10 going to have vanishingly small populations.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: It's population 

12 driven. Otherwise, the statistics get a 

13 little funky, so I don't disagree with that 

14 either.

15 MR. KATZ: So are you saying, Stu 

16 -- I just want to be clear about something. 

17 So are you saying, Stu, you can -- since you 

18 don't hold all these records, you only get the 

19 records as you get claims --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: -- but -- so are you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying that if you can get a roster, you can 

2 also go to DOE and ask them for all of their 

3 information on all chemical operators for 

4 Weldon Spring, or what have you, whatever the 

5 bin might be?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, whatever 

7 we're going to use for a coworker, you know, 

8 if we're going to have a coworker approach, 

9 whatever we are going to use for coworker, we 

10 would have to demonstrate is sufficiently 

11 broad. And so as a general rule, if we have 

12 250 or 240 claimants and there were how many 

13 people worked at Weldon Spring over the 15 or 

14 20 years it was open -- I guess a little less 

15 than that -- that 250 claimants we have may 

16 not be a very complete set. So the actual 

17 exposure -- building a database out of the 

18 exposure responses we got may not be 

19 appropriate. I don't know. We'd have to take 

20 a look at it.

21 But on the other hand, if, for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 instance, a CER database -- should be 

2 relatively complete in terms of the workers 

3 there, I would think. If you were going to 

4 use something like that in a coworker, and I 

5 don't know, I'm not saying we're doing that, 

6 but if you're going to do something like that, 

7 that you would compare that to some sort of 

8 rostering for completeness on that.

9 Whatever you're going to use for 

10 this coworker is what you have to demonstrate 

11 is sufficiently complete and sufficiently 

12 representative. That's what I'm saying.

13 MR. KATZ: My only question was 

14 whether you have access to the denominator --

15 whether the DOE can pull all that up.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

17 MR. KATZ: It sounds like it's 

18 hard copy. I mean it seems like --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know --

20 MR. KATZ: -- that would be an 

21 enormous effort for them to respond --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and that's 

2 where I was throwing out the possibility that 

3 they did do that for CER. I don't know but --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know and -

5 - 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and it is a 

7 lot of work.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It's generally not 

9 universally true that we know the roster of 

10 the workers or even the total number of 

11 workers.

12 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So it sounds 

13 like to me then for issue one, what we need to 

14 have at the next meeting and hopefully maybe 

15 satisfy SC&A and maybe close this, is DCAS is 

16 going to find out if there was any V&V done on 

17 the CEDR data, and also DCAS will present what 

18 information they have to show that they have 

19 sufficient data to generate coworker dose 

20 models. Is that --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And then the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other thing we said was that we would take a 

2 sampling of the responses that we got and do 

3 some sort of evaluation of whether there are 

4 pervasive holes in what should be there or 

5 just, you know, maybe on occasion, you know, 

6 somebody failed to turn in a badge --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: And you'd have to 

8 design that to some extent so it's a random 

9 over maybe several years, you know, just 

10 different years.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We would 

12 want to sample -- I'm sure there are sampling 

13 strategies that people who are smarter than me 

14 can think up and the size of the sample and 

15 everything be dictated by the number of 

16 claims.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: But going back to 

18 what Ted was saying, yes, I think maybe the 

19 biggest challenge will be whether or not, you 

20 know, if it's all hard copy, whether you can 

21 get that denominator --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, whether the 

2 denominator is knowable is an open question. 

3 I don't know if we --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: But that sort of 

5 opens the door to well, at some point, you may 

6 have to open that door and how would you do it 

7 in this case. And I don't think there's an 

8 easy answer. Maybe one possibility, as Mike 

9 was pointing out, that they, keep your fingers 

10 crossed, did something similar on CEDR, and 

11 that might be a big step forward. If they 

12 didn't do it, then nobody has actually done it 

13 at Weldon Spring, which is a real question 

14 mark.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if CER --

16 they may have made some statements about that. 

17 When they built that database, they may have 

18 made some --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: They may have 

20 gone back and done exactly this, said, how do 

21 we know we have all the chemical operators.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Since that was 

2 done for epidemiology, I would think that they 

3 would be looking for essentially the entire 

4 population. They would want to try to find 

5 out.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: They would want 

7 to make sure they had everybody.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, who do we --

9 you know, who's in this study.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: How do they find 

11 out if they had everybody.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Or if they can't 

13 get everybody, I guess, they would -- they 

14 could do their study on the monitored 

15 population. I don't know.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron. 

17 I'd like to move on. I did have a couple of 

18 clarification questions.

19 MR. ROLFES: Can we take a quick 

20 break before we --

21 DR. BUCHANAN: This is just to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finish this off.

2 MR. ROLFES: Can we take a quick 

3 break before we carry on, please?

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, wait. So, yes, 

6 we've been going on for almost two hours 

7 straight, so Mike is right, a 10 minute break. 

8 I don't have a watch on to tell what time it 

9 is right now.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: 10:51.

11 MR. KATZ: So about a little bit 

12 past 11, we'll get started again. I'm just 

13 putting the phone on mute, folks on the phone.

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

15 matter went off the record at 10:50 a.m. and 

16 resumed at 11:01 a.m.)

17 MR. KATZ: Let me just check and 

18 see that we have our Board Members on the 

19 line. Dr. Lemen and Mr. Presley?

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, I'm here. 

21 Ted?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, hi. Thanks, Dick. 

2 And, Bob, we have you, too?

3 (No response.)

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, no Mr. Presley 

5 right now. Anyway, carry on.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 

7 from SC&A. I just had two clarifying 

8 questions, and then I think we need to move 

9 on. Mark, when you said that there were 244 

10 claims that met SEC at Weldon Spring and 207 

11 had internal and 192 had external monitoring, 

12 now this, are you saying they were complete 

13 records, or if they had one point, one badge 

14 or one bioassay, it was counted as having --

15 do you know the details just briefly on that?

16 MR. ROLFES: Well, if they have 

17 external monitoring data, that would have 

18 counted as one. We don't look to see how 

19 comprehensive that data set is. Some 

20 employees, you know, there were some people 

21 that only had a few weeks of employment. You 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would only expect to have one point. Other 

2 people might not have had any because they 

3 might not have been a radiation worker. But 

4 within each individual case, that's not 

5 something that we've done for the SEC 

6 evaluation. We've just generalized or 

7 summarized the information.

8 However, on the dose 

9 reconstruction process, we do go through each 

10 claim to make sure that the data is complete 

11 and look to -- check to make sure that there 

12 is enough information to do a dose 

13 reconstruction there.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you. 

15 The other point I'd like to make is this is --

16 matrix issues number 1A, C, and D. A and C 

17 was the internal and external data 

18 verification. C was the coworker model, and I 

19 think that we have spent enough time on that. 

20 I would like to emphasize that the coworker 

21 model is necessary.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 From what I understand, the ER, 

2 when we get into the environmental section, 

3 there was a lot -- in the Site Profile review, 

4 there was a lot of environmental monitoring 

5 issues, and according to the ER, that they 

6 planned on using the workers' exposure to 

7 limit exposure to people that might not have 

8 been monitored from environmental exposure, 

9 and that that would cap -- limit -- would 

10 bound their exposure. And so the coworker 

11 model would be important if that's going to be 

12 used to bound the unmonitored person either in 

13 the workplace or in the environmental.

14 So with that, I'd like to move on 

15 to issue number 1B, which is the daily 

16 weighted average alpha concentration. Now I'd 

17 like to get a little bit of history on this.

18 The issue was that in the ER, they 

19 presented some hair sampling data for uranium 

20 and thorium, and if I remember correctly, said 

21 that that could be used for limiting exposure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for SEC purposes. And so there wasn't a whole 

2 lot of detail, but I believe that was the gist 

3 of it.

4 And now the daily weighted average 

5 of alpha exposure measurements has been an 

6 ongoing issue at Fernald. And so we didn't 

7 want to waste resources on recovering it at 

8 Weldon Spring just yet. And so what SC&A has 

9 done was since Weldon Spring received this 

10 material from Fernald, we wanted to work with 

11 the Fernald and see its outcome before we 

12 apply that directly to Weldon Spring or NIOSH 

13 applies it to their details at Weldon Spring.

14 I want to get a little bit of 

15 background on that so that you know where SC&A 

16 is coming from on that. At Fernald, in 

17 February of 2002, NIOSH issued a Fernald DWE. 

18 That was Morris reference 2009. We discussed 

19 this a little bit at the last Weldon Springs 

20 meeting. I need to go down through this list 

21 of documents at issue so you see where we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 stand today.

2 In July of 2009, SC&A issued a 

3 White Paper concerning the use of DWEs for the 

4 Fernald site. And then we had our meeting 

5 here on the 19th of October 2010, and that was 

6 discussed at that meeting, and SC&A was tasked 

7 to look at that for Fernald and extrapolate it 

8 to Weldon Spring.

9 November 2010, NIOSH issued 

10 Revision 3 of their White Paper for Fernald, 

11 and that was too late for SC&A to include that 

12 in their response to NIOSH's Revision 2 that 

13 came out earlier. It came out about the same 

14 time. And so SC&A, what they did, they 

15 reviewed NIOSH's Revision 2 and 3 in light of 

16 Davis and Strom's 2008 Health Physics article. 

17 And in December of 2010, they issued a report 

18 using Revision 2 of NIOSH's paper. And I 

19 talked to the head of that task, and they plan 

20 on taking NIOSH's Revision 3 into 

21 consideration and reissuing that now that they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have that in hand. That was planned on being 

2 done in February. I contacted them recently, 

3 and they said they weren't sure when it was 

4 going to be issued, but in the near future.

5 So for Weldon Spring, what SC&A is 

6 doing is waiting on that revision from SC&A's 

7 paper evaluation of NIOSH's Revision 3 and 

8 then look at that in terms of Weldon Spring. 

9 And so, of course, NIOSH will want to look at 

10 that Revision 3 reply from NIOSH and see how 

11 that affects their plans for their ER at 

12 Weldon Springs. And so that is pending really 

13 at this point.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe I missed 

15 it, but putting in perspective the White Paper 

16 that we did present, the Stiver-Chmelynski 

17 paper that was dated November, how does that 

18 bear -- I mean it's not up to date, or is that 

19 two different things?

20 DR. BUCHANAN: No. And, in fact, 

21 I think we're coming to some sort of an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agreement as NIOSH has went back and re2 evaluated their position in light of the Strom 

3 & Davis article of 2008. And I think SC&A is 

4 in agreement except for two points or so. I 

5 don't want to speak for the author of it, but 

6 I think we're coming to an agreement.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: So the paper that 

8 was provided in November that NIOSH now has 

9 from us is going to be tweaked based on 

10 Revision 3 --

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Right.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: -- but it still 

13 embodies a lot of the issues that we're 

14 concerned about relative to the Strom paper?

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Right.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: And so it appears 

18 that SC&A's first read of NIOSH's Revision 3 

19 looks like we're coming to very much of 

20 agreement except for a couple points they're 

21 going to point out.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Ron, this is John. I 

2 spoke to John Stiver this morning about the 

3 status of that report since we are also 

4 getting ready for the Fernald meeting. And we 

5 expect to have our new White Paper on this 

6 issue coming out, ready to go out toward the 

7 end of this week, early next week, along with 

8 some other White Papers, and that will address 

9 this issue certainly as it applies to Fernald, 

10 but, as you've mentioned, it has direct 

11 applicability, the technique that was 

12 developed. And in talking to John, we've come 

13 a long way to achieving closure on most of the 

14 important issues, but that's -- there are 

15 still a couple of things we do need to talk 

16 about. But we will have our draft Fernald 

17 report out real soon, and I think that should 

18 help out here.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thanks, John. 

20 And, John, make sure that Mark and Stu get 

21 copied on that when it's appropriate if you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would.

2 DR. MAURO: Very good.

3 MR. MORRIS: Ted, Bob Morris here.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, Bob.

5 MR. MORRIS: I have a question. 

6 John just referred to the draft report. Do 

7 these reports ever get marked as non-drafts?

8 DR. MAURO: I guess the answer is 

9 -- all our reports -- maybe I can help a 

10 little bit with SC&A's reports.

11 MR. MORRIS: Okay, please.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. SC&A reports go 

13 out for use in these types of deliberations 

14 that we're having right now, and there was a 

15 question that came up many years ago on do we 

16 try to then, as we move through this 

17 protracted process, like we're having now and 

18 that we will have in the future, try to 

19 somehow in the end finalize one of our reports 

20 and say it's a final report. And it was 

21 determined that it was impractical because of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the protracted nature.

2 The record that we are forming 

3 right now on the transcript and the matrix 

4 that we issue represent the documentation of 

5 the status of issues resolution regarding all 

6 of our reports. So our written reports, as 

7 they are put up on the web and as they're 

8 distributed to all interested parties, remain 

9 in draft form in perpetuity. And it is only 

10 the record that we are forming right now that 

11 will allow a person to see how -- and the 

12 matrix, which makes that a little easier --

13 how, in fact, the status of issues resolution 

14 and how, in fact, they ultimately were finally 

15 resolved.

16 I believe eventually, of course, 

17 some decision is made and judgment is made by 

18 the Board on, let's say, an SEC-related 

19 matter. And, of course, therein lies the end 

20 of the process when that recommended --

21 recommendation is made. But unfortunately, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 no, we do not try at that point to say, okay, 

2 let's revise our report. It's just not 

3 practical. And I believe, Ted, you were part 

4 of that conversation we had some time ago. 

5 Now do you feel that I characterized that 

6 properly?

7 MR. KATZ: This is correct, and I 

8 guess it's unfortunate. Up front and when 

9 this all got started, they probably should 

10 have just been called working papers. That's 

11 really what they are in a sense, working 

12 papers for the Board, and that's why, you 

13 know, in this other construction, they're 

14 called drafts, but they're working papers. 

15 But they move things along, but the Board's 

16 the one that's the actor in this process at 

17 the end of the day.

18 MR. MORRIS: Okay, thanks very 

19 much.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Bob, this is 

21 Stu Hinnefeld. If it relates to knowing what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to prepare -- what to use in preparation for 

2 these meetings, any product that SC&A delivers 

3 to the Advisory Board or a Working Group or a 

4 Subcommittee of the Advisory Board, they also 

5 copy us on those deliveries. And that is 

6 their contribution to the discussion. Whether 

7 it says draft or what it says, you don't worry 

8 about that. That's their contribution to the 

9 discussion, and that's the issues that we are 

10 to respond to or deal with. Okay?

11 MR. MORRIS: Excellent. Thank 

12 you.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: So let's move on to 

14 issue number two in the matrix --

15 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So just a 

16 minute. What was -- so what did we decide 

17 here about the use of the daily weighted 

18 average? Was --

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. In SC&A's 

20 response that will be issued next month to 

21 NIOSH's Revision 3, that will be sent to Stu 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and Mark to evaluate, and I will receive a 

2 copy and evaluate it and see if there are 

3 issues left at Weldon Spring or if we have 

4 reached agreement on it.

5 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So we'll 

6 have an answer to that at the next meeting 

7 then?

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Right, we should 

9 come to the next meeting either in agreement 

10 or hash out --

11 MR. ROLFES: That's assuming that 

12 we resolve it at Fernald.

13 MR. KATZ: So, Mike, there will be 

14 the SC&A contribution that's coming out that 

15 John mentioned, and there will be ultimately a 

16 NIOSH response to that out of the Fernald.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: And it's being 

18 done for Fernald, and we're taking advantage 

19 of that discussion for Weldon Spring, so to 

20 some extent, what Mark was saying is it's 

21 going to be debated at Fernald, and then we'll 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to figure out whether there are issues 

2 that are specific to Weldon.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Hopefully, it's a 

4 little simpler at Weldon, so it should trickle 

5 down. That's probably wishful thinking.

6 MR. KATZ: It's good thinking I 

7 think.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Is that sequence 

9 going to work out? Is there a Fernald Work 

10 Group meeting before --

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: -- coming up.

13 MR. KATZ: -- one coming up.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So that 

15 should work out then.

16 MR. ROLFES: About two weeks away?

17 MR. KATZ: Two or three weeks 

18 away, yes.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. So 

20 that'll be on the table --

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, so the quicker we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can get that Fernald paper, the better, John, 

2 for DCAS having time to consider it for this 

3 Work Group.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think it's 

5 going to go out -- this, that and others are 

6 going out this week.

7 MR. KATZ: That's great.

8 DR. MAURO: So we're in good 

9 shape.

10 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Are we ready 

12 to move on to Issue 2?

13 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Issue 2 in 

15 the matrix was the lack of personnel 

16 contamination and egress monitoring. And this 

17 consists of -- at Weldon Spring, they did some 

18 bioassay and they did some external monitoring 

19 as we briefly discussed. However, there was 

20 some contamination monitoring within the 

21 immediate work area where they handled the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium. However, back in the 50's, uranium 

2 was considered a chemical hazard and not too 

3 much of a radiation hazard, more of a chemical 

4 hazard. And so it wasn't controlled like you 

5 would see it in later years and today.

6 And so they did not have any 

7 portal monitors or hand monitors or anything 

8 like that as the workers left. And so of 

9 concern, especially in interviewing the 

10 workers, was that there was material that was 

11 in unwanted places outside the operating area, 

12 in the cafeteria, in the parking lots, on cars 

13 and stuff, and the workers left without 

14 monitoring themselves to much extent at all. 

15 They were required to wear some sort of 

16 protective clothing, and showers were 

17 available if they wanted them.

18 It wasn't a set rule that they had 

19 to shower before they left. And so workers 

20 could have left with the uranium in the 

21 creases and on their hands and stuff and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transported it to the other places not 

2 considered contaminated at the work site and 

3 also in their automobiles, in the home and 

4 stuff. And so even if they showered, a lot of 

5 this material could have stayed in the creases 

6 around the neck in the folds and stuff.

7 And so we are concerned that there 

8 wasn't any egress monitoring, and the last 

9 time we discussed this at the meeting, there 

10 was indication that this was a general problem 

11 at some of the other sites, too, and that 

12 NIOSH is going to look into how it was 

13 addressed at other sites.

14 MR. ROLFES: Yes, that's correct. 

15 I think Jim and Stu had agreed to take a look 

16 at that as a general across the complex type 

17 issue. To give you an answer specific to what 

18 we would -- you know, try to bring it to 

19 Weldon Spring plant. For example, I just 

20 drafted this and had these thoughts in my 

21 mind, so I just wanted to relay those as some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 working ideas, I guess.

2 You'd have to take a look to see 

3 what the probability that only the 

4 individual's skin was contaminated because if 

5 an individual was heavily contaminated, it 

6 wouldn't just be his skin that was 

7 contaminated. His badge would also be 

8 contaminated as well. So if an individual 

9 showered at the end of shift or when they got 

10 home, they'd wash the majority of that 

11 contamination off if any was present. 

12 However, the badge, if the badge was 

13 contaminated as well, wouldn't be washed. So 

14 the badge would continue to irradiated by the 

15 uranium deposited on it. And that would have 

16 triggered something when the badge was 

17 developed, and you can usually identify a 

18 contaminated badge. So you'd have to take a 

19 look at some specifics.

20 The other thing to consider would 

21 be what is the chance that that individual had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contamination on their skin and then was 

2 subsequently diagnosed with a cancer in that 

3 exact location where they had that skin 

4 contamination. So those are some of the 

5 things that you have to take a look at, the 

6 records that we have for individuals, 

7 individual statements. Those are some of the 

8 things that we do, in fact, look at in the 

9 dose reconstruction process.

10 It's usually also the direct 

11 radiation from working with hands-on 

12 radioactive material that would contribute the 

13 greatest majority of the individual's exposure 

14 that they received on their film badge or to 

15 their body rather than contamination. A 

16 contamination dose is not very significant 

17 from uranium just because of it's low specific 

18 activity.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess the bottom 

20 line though is we owe a written response.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provide it. Okay, issue number 3. If there 

2 are no questions on 2, we will pursue further 

3 information how NIOSH wants to handle that on 

4 issue number 2.

5 Issue number 3 is the lack of 

6 information for workers during 1967, and 

7 that's the reason I set the stage a little 

8 earlier on what happened at the site is that 

9 it closed down December 1966. It was pretty 

10 much idle for a number of years, 1967, perhaps 

11 `68, but the SEC goes through `67, so we'll 

12 just talk about that.

13 There was no -- I could not find 

14 any internal or external monitoring data for 

15 `67 for people that worked. According to 

16 their documents, they worked through `67. I 

17 think I found five individuals and could not 

18 find any data for `67 that they were 

19 monitored.

20 This was kind of a different 

21 situation in that it wasn't production and it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wasn't D&D. The Army had a contractor tear up 

2 some of the bricks. And the facilities where 

3 a worker could have been exposed, we have 

4 several interview reports on that and that 

5 there just wasn't any records. And so what 

6 they were going to see -- I think last time 

7 the action item was to check with DOL to see 

8 who was legally responsible for the site in 

9 1967.

10 MR. ROLFES: We said that we would 

11 provide documentation showing the transfer 

12 dates. We believe we had found a document 

13 that showed it was officially transferred in 

14 August of 1967, so we still owe SC&A that 

15 document.

16 Also, looking at the number of 

17 claims that we've received, I went back 

18 yesterday and looked at the number of claims 

19 in the NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System that 

20 had employment during 1967 at the Weldon 

21 Spring plant, and there were 17 cases that had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 employment. Of those 17, some might have had 

2 just a couple of days of employment in 1967; 

3 others worked the entire year. So, yes, we do 

4 need to check with the Department of Labor to 

5 determine whether it's a covered facility and

6 when the exact cutoff date is.

7 But taking a look at those 17 

8 cases that I had identified, 15 of those were 

9 compensable already. So it comes down 

10 essentially to the employment for two cases, 

11 and that's where we stand at the moment.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thank you. 

13 Issue number 4 in the matrix is the radon and 

14 thoron determination for both monitored and 

15 unmonitored workers. And a little background 

16 on that is that most of the material, if not 

17 all the material used at Weldon Spring was ore 

18 concentrate, which means it did not have a lot 

19 of radium in it like the material at, say, the 

20 downtown St. Louis facility had. And so there 

21 was no -- thought that there was no need to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitor for radon, and when thorium was used, 

2 they did not monitor for thoron gas.

3 And so the proposed method in the 

4 Site Profile and, I think, in the ER, too, is 

5 to do a calculation using the throughput and 

6 the probability of emission of radon from what 

7 radium might be present, and then do a 

8 calculation assuming that the indoor intake to 

9 the workers in the building did not come 

10 directly from the material, but it was 

11 exhausted outside, and then use a simple 

12 dispersion model outside to calculate the 

13 amount of curies released and the 

14 concentration, and then the inside 

15 concentration was equal to the outside 

16 concentration with a slightly larger 

17 equilibrium factor of .5 instead of .3.

18 For the thorium, when it was used 

19 in `63 forward, there was a similar type of 

20 model set up, but the calculations weren't 

21 actually done. It gave the parameters that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could be used.

2 And so SC&A found that there was 

3 no measured values. We did look at the 

4 downtown facility. There was a measured value 

5 down there showing that the indoor 

6 concentration was about four times higher than 

7 the outdoor concentration, and these aren't 

8 identical facilities, but it is the indication 

9 that perhaps this isn't a good assumption. 

10 And so we have an issue over the radon and 

11 thoron method used in the ER.

12 MR. ROLFES: The important thing 

13 in your comparison is you're comparing apples

14 and oranges, and you've got to take a look at 

15 the Destrehan facility, the indoor measurement 

16 where they were handling a large radium source 

17 term is completely different than the Weldon 

18 Spring plant where they're only handling ore 

19 concentrates where the radium was stripped 

20 down. So you wouldn't expect to have elevated 

21 air concentrations at the Weldon Spring 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facility as you would at the Mallinckrodt 

2 facility. There's a different source term at 

3 the Mallinckrodt facility than there is at the 

4 Weldon Spring facility.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: I agree, but when 

6 you got radon, regardless of where it comes 

7 from, it all comes from the radium. And the 

8 intensity may be much greater at the 

9 Mallinckrodt facility I realize. I agree with 

10 that. But I'm just looking at whether the 

11 equilibrium would be similar just to say is it 

12 a good assumption to assume that the indoor 

13 concentration is equal to the outdoor 

14 concentration and that very little escapes 

15 from the process to the worker inside. That's 

16 the assumption made is that the workers 

17 working at the vat or whatever, they got a 

18 hood over it, it sucks it out, and that none 

19 of that comes back to the worker -- or 

20 noticeable amount comes to the worker. All 

21 that comes back is what is sucked into the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 building from the outside. And the main 

2 problem is there were no measurements to 

3 benchmark it with. And so we feel that the 

4 radon and thorn method used in the ER and the 

5 TBD just is not sufficient to be showing that 

6 it's technically reasonable.

7 MR. ROLFES: Okay, technical 

8 reasonability versus claimant-favorable and 

9 bounding, we presented the bounding analysis 

10 in our Evaluation Report, and we feel that it 

11 is defensible based upon the source term data 

12 that we have. It would certainly be nice to 

13 have additional data to validate it, but this 

14 isn't something, you know, outside of what we 

15 would normally do. I don't know if there is 

16 anything else that maybe Monica or Bob might 

17 have to offer on the discussion.

18 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: No. I don't 

19 have any further thoughts.

20 MR. MORRIS: No. I don't have any 

21 other significant comments. It's a model 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distribution, and I agree, though, with Mark 

2 that using the Destrehan facility as a 

3 reference point is sort of arbitrary. It had 

4 a different process going on. Other 

5 industrial buildings might be better 

6 candidates for a comparison, some that didn't 

7 have significant radon source terms in them if 

8 that's necessary to come up with another 

9 comparison.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

11 guess I'm still at the same place I was at the 

12 last Weldon Spring meeting. I don't 

13 understand yet why radon is an issue if they 

14 didn't ever get ore, if all they got was 

15 uranium concentrates. I mean is there any 

16 data out there on radium concentration in 

17 uranium concentrates?

18 MR. ROLFES: I'm sure we can pull 

19 some out of a mill, you know, from the Western 

20 United States, but --

21 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron, and I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agree, and I wasn't trying to equate this to 

2 the downtown facility. I was just trying to 

3 use that as an example because there wasn't 

4 any measurements made. But perhaps a better 

5 way to approach it would be is there a 

6 facility that handled ore concentrate that did 

7 any radon measurements within the DOE complex 

8 at any time. I don't know.

9 You know, this model is a paper 

10 model that describes something, but we have no 

11 way to check it. Usually, you want some sort 

12 of benchmark to show this is true, and if we 

13 could find another facility that did at least 

14 a few radon measurements and say, yes, this is 

15 an overkill or it's reasonable, it would be a 

16 better deal. But the way it is -- and the 

17 dispersion model, I'm not a dispersion model 

18 expert, but according to those I've talked to 

19 is that using a simple dispersion model around 

20 buildings is not a viable technique.

21 And so I would just like to see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some sort of stake in the ground saying that 

2 this is a reasonable method to use by 

3 comparing it to something else that's similar.

4 MR. MORRIS: Excuse me. Robert 

5 Morris. With regard to the atmospheric 

6 dispersion modeling, we took some very 

7 conservative factors to make the assumptions 

8 that went into the model, which I think would 

9 certainly overwhelm any wake effect from 

10 buildings. So, you know, I think the model 

11 stands as written, and let's just see if you 

12 can find a reason to think the building wake 

13 effects that you're suggesting would be 

14 overwhelming of the conservative assumptions 

15 that we put in.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Help 

17 me out here. What did we do? What were those 

18 conservative assumptions that we used to --

19 MR. MORRIS: Well, we assumed 

20 pessimistic dispersion factors in terms of, 

21 say, the offsite -- or the fence line doses 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coning back into the center of the plant, and 

2 we used factors that are modeled out of recent 

3 NRC documents in terms of the dispersion 

4 factors themselves, the tabular look-up data. 

5 So we went back to nearby -- data from St. 

6 Louis and came up with relatively pessimistic 

7 assumptions about the atmospheric dispersion.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. We're 

9 talking about the radon coming from the 

10 process building, the stack at the process 

11 building and determining what the 

12 concentration was by throughput and the amount 

13 of radium that might have been present in the 

14 decay of radium into radon and its equilibrium 

15 and how much would have went out the stack and 

16 then -- but the dispersion would have been 

17 around that building and then drawn back into 

18 the facilities where they worked. Now this 

19 didn't go out to -- unless I'm wrong -- I 

20 don't recall this being a parameter of the 

21 site --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MORRIS: So you're saying 

2 about the intake back into the building? 

3 You're not talking about the fence line 

4 calculations we made otherwise?

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Correct. I'm 

6 talking about what's taken back in to the 

7 workers.

8 MR. MORRIS: I'm sorry. I moved 

9 on to a different topic that was closely 

10 related, but --

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Right, in the 

12 environmental.

13 MR. MORRIS: Right.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: No. I'm talking 

15 about the workers that were exposed inside 

16 working close to the material where there 

17 wasn't any radon measurements, and so they 

18 used this model instead.

19 DR. MAURO: This is John. I've 

20 looked at lots of radon issues, as you all 

21 know, for various facilities here and this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issue of releasing radon in the stack. Let's 

2 call it a stack at the top of a vent on a 

3 building. And, of course, on many occasions, 

4 we looked at, on this program and many, many 

5 other programs, this downwind dispersion. 

6 Just like Bob explained it, very conventional 

7 stuff.

8 But what was just brought up is 

9 something new, I believe, whereby, and new for 

10 this program in terms of discussing an issue, 

11 that is the re-circulation of effluent back 

12 into an air intake. Is that what I'm hearing? 

13 The question is is it possible that something 

14 that was coming out of the stack going to the 

15 atmosphere may very well have been caught up 

16 in the downdraft of the building wake effect 

17 and brought in close to the air intake on the 

18 building, and then that stuff comes back into 

19 the building again? Is that the issue we're 

20 talking about?

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Essentially, that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the way the model was set up.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. This particular 

3 question, which is something I do not believe 

4 that we've looked at -- I mean I haven't 

5 looked at on this program -- I have looked at 

6 it in other capacities at commercial nuclear 

7 power plants for example -- this is an issue 

8 that people have dealt with. And I'm just 

9 offering this up to let you know that there 

10 are concerns related to how you design 

11 buildings to avoid this. As you can imagine, 

12 you don't want to do this.

13 However, in some of the older 

14 designs, it's been my experience that this has 

15 happened in the past in some locations and 

16 that there are probably ways in which you 

17 could try to figure out what the consequences 

18 could be in terms of how much you might take 

19 back in again. Of course, now we're getting 

20 into the realm of assumptions models, and I 

21 know that's always a little troubling. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just to let everyone know that this issue that 

2 is being raised here is a real issue that has 

3 been raised in other venues and has been 

4 addressed in other venues. I do not believe 

5 we've yet addressed this re-circulation issue 

6 on any site under this program that I can 

7 remember.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron again. 

9 I think that one of the other issues is not 

10 only how much is drawn back in is that you 

11 don't account for any that's released into the 

12 room, that it's assumed that it's all sucked 

13 out the stack, negligible amount is in the 

14 room, and this may be true. I just don't see 

15 -- I'd like to see some verification of a 

16 measurement made in a similar situation or 

17 something that would support these 

18 assumptions. The assumptions may be 

19 conservative, they may be correct, but I just 

20 don't see anything that verifies them.

21 DR. MAURO: As far as the uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concentrates go, it's not unusual for the 

2 concentrates to have a little bit of radium3 226 and thorium-230 even though the 

4 concentrates, yellowcake, when they're 

5 shipped, have been, you know, long since been 

6 separated.

7 But there is, to varying degrees, 

8 I think there are data on the levels of 226 in 

9 thorium-230 that might be present in the 

10 concentrates. I'm not sure whether that gets 

11 up there, in other words, in terms of 

12 picocuries per gram, you know, how much might 

13 be in there if it's substantially elevated 

14 above, let's say, soil. I don't know. But I 

15 know that there is a little bit in there, so, 

16 yes, in theory, there could be some radon 

17 being emanated from the concentrates and 

18 either be released directly into the air in 

19 the room or going out a stack from the 

20 building.

21 But, yes -- but, of course, it is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nowhere near what you're dealing with when 

2 you're dealing with ore or even phosphate, 

3 whether it's ore, you know, with the uranium 

4 ore, crushed ore or even phosphate which 

5 itself has much lower concentrations of 

6 uranium and, of course, much lower 

7 concentrates of radium.

8 So this is a question that, you 

9 know, I don't recall us looking at before. 

10 But in theory, yes, there might be a little 

11 bit of radium in the concentrates.

12 MR. ROLFES: It may turn out that 

13 the background levels of radon in the area are 

14 actually higher than that which would be 

15 introduced to the plant from an ore 

16 concentrate as well. And we can take a look 

17 to see if we can find any information on ore 

18 concentrate radium concentrations and move on 

19 from there, I guess.

20 MR. POTTER: This is Gene Potter. 

21 If I might try and answer one of Stu's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 earlier questions?

2 MR. KATZ: Sure, go ahead.

3 MR. POTTER: The model that Ron is 

4 talking about came from NCRP Report 123, and 

5 what was used in there are the suggested 

6 defaults in the model along with some Weldon 

7 Spring specific data like average wind 

8 velocity. And this model does take into 

9 account building wake effects for close in 

10 receptors. So the screening model, 

11 undoubtedly, it is conservative, but, as Ron 

12 says, there's no benchmark for that. We have 

13 to rely on the NCRP's good judgment. I don't 

14 think that we can say that this is a complete 

15 fabrication on the part of the ER team.

16 DR. MAURO: And I would add to 

17 that. In addition to NCRP 123, if you really 

18 want to get conservative, you go with COMPLY. 

19 This is the EPA's screening tool for 

20 demonstrating compliance with the radionuclide 

21 NESHAPs for radionuclide emissions from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facilities. And there's a graded approach. 

2 The very first step in the process is simply, 

3 get ready for this, you simply say, okay, if 

4 you know the number of curies per second that 

5 are being produced by the inventory that you 

6 might have in your room of radium and, 

7 therefore, the decay rate of the radium, then, 

8 therefore, the production rate of the radon 

9 and that the discharge is going out a fanned 

10 exhaust that has a certain number of cubic 

11 feet per second. You dilute that radon, you 

12 know, curies per second into the cubic feet 

13 per second that's going out the stack, and 

14 that's the concentration in the stack. It 

15 can't be any worse than that outdoors.

16 So I mean that's a screening tool, 

17 by no means represented as being, for the 

18 purpose of COMPLY, and this is a compliance 

19 issue, there is no way that it could ever be 

20 higher than that outdoors. And, in fact, it 

21 really can't ever really be that high.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But you're correct. There are 

2 many, many ways of dealing with the downwind 

3 outdoor concentration of radionuclides that 

4 are released to the atmosphere, and any number 

5 of assumptions could be used that could place, 

6 certainly, an upper bound or a plausible upper 

7 bound. In my opinion, once you have a source 

8 term from a facility and you're interested in 

9 figuring out what the downwind concentration 

10 might be at the worst locations at any given 

11 distance or any given direction, this is a 

12 standard, very well accepted, widely used tool 

13 for doing dose calculations. And you can use 

14 any one of a number of assumptions to make it 

15 as conservative as you feel is appropriate.

16 This other issue that is mentioned 

17 about it coming back in the window or being 

18 actually generated within the building, that 

19 is a little bit more challenging. So I 

20 wouldn't say that there's not an answer to 

21 that, but it's certainly, the other part, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, the outdoor concentration is very 

2 conventional.

3 MR. POTTER: But John, you'd agree 

4 that it couldn't be worse than 100 percent 

5 recirculation.

6 DR. MAURO: Could not be worse 

7 than 100 percent recirculation, exactly right.

8 MR. POTTER: Which I think is what 

9 we modeled.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, is that right? 

11 Oh, okay. And you got the numbers then? You 

12 know the radium concentration in your

13 concentrates?

14 MR. POTTER: For this modeling, 

15 yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

17 MR. RICH: John, this is Bryce 

18 Rich.

19 DR. MAURO: That would be from 

20 recirculation though, okay. In other words, 

21 it could be worse than that from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recirculation.

2 MR. KATZ: Bryce, did you want to 

3 --

4 MR. RICH: Yes. This is Bryce 

5 Rich. Just as a data point, the radium in 

6 yellowcake typically is -- they were worked at 

7 Fernald and Weldon Spring of about a factor of 

8 hundred less than that in pitchblende ore. 

9 There was some but it was in the nanocurie per 

10 gram range of raffinate.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay, nanocurie.

12 MR. RICH: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: So it's well above 

14 what you would see in soil, but it's well 

15 below what you would see in ore?

16 MR. RICH: Yes. It's a couple of 

17 steps down from what you'd find in ore.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: So do we have an 

19 action item on issue number 4, on radon and so 

20 on? Does NIOSH feel they can find any 

21 benchmark at other facilities, or do you agree 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to do that or don't agree?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll consider 

3 what we're going to do. We may send a written 

4 position and we may decide based on what we've 

5 written, what we're going to stand on, so but 

6 we'll decide not in this room what we're going 

7 to do.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That brings 

9 us to issue number 5 which is recycled 

10 uranium. Two issues here. I think one can be 

11 cleared up very easy, and the other one we'll 

12 want to discuss is that in the different 

13 documents, the use of recycled uranium coming 

14 from Fernald, assumably, started in anywhere 

15 from 1960 to 1962. And so there are some 

16 inconsistencies in how that was worded. And 

17 so I don't know if you've looked into that or 

18 not, but SC&A would just suggest that you 

19 document when that date was and have it 

20 consistent in the TBDs and ERs and stuff so if 

21 a dose reconstructor is assigning it at the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correct the time.

2 MR. ROLFES: We can certainly 

3 double-check on the date when the recycled 

4 uranium would have arrived at the Weldon 

5 Spring plant. And I believe what we have in 

6 the TBD is 1961. There was some wording about 

7 pre 1962 or post 1962 in the Evaluation 

8 Report. We'll double-check on that for you 

9 though.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Several 

11 different documents, I quote them in the 

12 report, use different dates. Okay, that was a 

13 minor thing that just needs to be corrected 

14 for proper dose reconstruction.

15 The main issue with recycled 

16 uranium was that the way I understand it is 

17 that according to the TBD and according to 

18 Fernald's TBD which it took from, Weldon 

19 Spring took from Fernald was that the decision 

20 was to use 100 parts per billion of plutonium 

21 per uranium, and if a person had a uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay, then take that amount and add it to 

2 his -- because they were not bioassayed for 

3 plutonium at Weldon Spring -- and so to 

4 compensate for that, and the worker at Weldon 

5 Spring had had a bioassay for uranium, then 

6 take 100 parts per billion plutonium for 

7 uranium.

8 And there's an equation there that 

9 you can decipher and figure out how you 

10 actually assign that in the Fernald TBD and 

11 have that listed in the report and it is 

12 correct.

13 But what I have an issue with is 

14 that then in the ER, we come down to a table 

15 which lists like 2.9 parts per billion 

16 plutonium for uranium. In addition, I went 

17 back and looked at some of the dose 

18 reconstruction where the person it'll say was 

19 less than 50 percent, and he was not assigned 

20 any plutonium dose with the measure of uranium 

21 dose there in `63 to `66.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so I don't know where the 

2 number 2.9 came from in the ER and why it was 

3 less when -- for SEC to try and bound the 

4 dose, why that was less than what the TBD was.

5 MR. ROLFES: Okay. I'd be happy 

6 to explain that. If you took a look at the 

7 Fernald Site Profile and take a look at 

8 historical documentation on recycled uranium, 

9 the reactor sites, when they would reprocess 

10 uranium and send it back to a place like 

11 Fernald or Weldon Spring, tried to control the 

12 plutonium concentrations under 10 parts per 

13 billion on uranium S basis. And NIOSH had 

14 reviewed the recycled uranium data in 

15 preparation of the Fernald Site Profile and 

16 then subsequently for the Weldon Spring Site 

17 Profile.

18 And if you take a look, NIOSH 

19 found that some of the highest concentrations 

20 of transuranics in the recycled uranium being 

21 sent back to the Fernald site occurred in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more recent era of late 70's, early 80's. And 

2 those were not direct shipments back from the 

3 reactor sites but instead came from the 

4 gaseous diffusion sites. And it's a separate 

5 source term, a separate type of recycled 

6 uranium which really wasn't the recycled 

7 uranium that we refer to in the normal context 

8 of things. These were exceptions to recycled 

9 uranium. These are essentially waste left 

10 over, junk that came out of a fluoridation 

11 tower from Paducah that were sent back to the 

12 Fernald site. These were some shipments that 

13 had greater quantities of transuranics in 

14 them, because they concentrated them in this 

15 waste product from which they decided they 

16 wanted to try to recover the uranium from at 

17 Fernald.

18 We used that single shipment 

19 essentially or those couple of small shipments 

20 from the Paducah site to increase our defaults 

21 from the 10 parts per billion control level up 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to 100 parts per billion. And by default, we 

2 used that at the Weldon Spring plant. Now the 

3 Weldon Spring plant never received any Paducah 

4 tower ash like Fernald did, and so we provided 

5 a good basis for that in our Evaluation Report 

6 and put together a 95th percentile plutonium 

7 concentration in recycled uranium, and that 

8 was 6.9 parts per billion plutonium on a 

9 uranium S basis. We feel that the 100 parts 

10 per billion that we defaulted to is very 

11 conservative for the Weldon Spring site.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John. I might 

13 be able to help out a little, too, here. 

14 Certainly, RU is a very important issue. I 

15 would say the most important issue that we're 

16 dealing with right now at Fernald, and it's an 

17 important issue at Fernald because of just the 

18 reasons that Mark explained, that Fernald was 

19 the recipient of recycled uranium coming from 

20 a variety of sources, including the tower ash 

21 from Paducah and many other places. And so it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was sort of the starting point of okay, now 

2 we're going to be processing uranium that is 

3 recycled and what is the plutonium, neptunium 

4 and others, technetium, radionuclides that 

5 might be present there. And there's a long 

6 story that we need not go into.

7 However, once processed through 

8 Fernald, then of course, there were other 

9 subsidiary operations where they went off to 

10 other facilities after Fernald had to deal 

11 with it. I think what Mark just said, namely 

12 the output that might come out of Fernald that 

13 might -- now this is something that I think is 

14 -- I don't have the answer to, but in 

15 principle, if Fernald received its material, 

16 did what it did with its material and then 

17 moved it on to, let's say, Weldon or any other 

18 materials facility that would do some further 

19 handling -- now we know a lot about recycled 

20 uranium at Fernald, and we also know that, you 

21 know, once it has been diluted down and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 handled and then moved on for other management 

2 purposes, whether it goes through an AWE 

3 facility, for example -- whether it's true 

4 also for Weldon, I can't speak to that -- but 

5 the 100 parts per billion number is probably a 

6 very bounding number for facilities other than 

7 Fernald that were not receiving.

8 However, Mark, as we will see 

9 soon, we still have a lot to talk about 

10 regarding Fernald. I guess my question to the 

11 group here is did Weldon receive material, 

12 recycled uranium directly from Hanford, 

13 Savannah River, Paducah, or any material, RU, 

14 that went to Weldon, was that after it went 

15 through the Fernald dilution down and 

16 processing? 

17 MR. ROLFES: It was after it went 

18 to Fernald that it was shipped to Weldon. It 

19 wasn't received by Weldon Spring directly from 

20 the reactor sites.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, I have to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say, you know, my first reaction to that is 

2 favorable, that is not the 2.9 percent. I 

3 think the 2.9 percent probably is a very good 

4 overall average for what the plutonium might 

5 be. The 100 parts per billion plutonium as 

6 being an upper bound for a place that received 

7 material from Fernald after it was diluted 

8 down is a very good number.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. Yes, 

10 but John, the ER states 10.9 for average 

11 concentration and 6.3 as bounding for Weldon 

12 Spring. The 100 was removed.

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I thought I 

14 just heard Mark saying you were using 100 for 

15 Weldon. 

16 MR. ROLFES: That's what's in the 

17 current Site Profile which we've been using 

18 for dose reconstructions for the past 8 years 

19 I believe. The Evaluation Report we actually 

20 went back and did a site specific evaluation 

21 for the Weldon Spring plant and found that the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actual data for the Weldon Spring plant was 

2 much lower than what we had defaulted to in 

3 our claimant-favorable TBD.

4 DR. MAURO: You know, I would have 

5 no doubt, on average, the material, the RU 

6 that was received by Weldon or anywhere else 

7 was well below 100. However, there could have 

8 been -- well, when you look at the -- one of 

9 the problems we always run into in this 

10 situation is when you look at things in the 

11 aggregate over time and you look at the 

12 quantity that was handled and diluted and then 

13 produced, it averages out to some number, 6 

14 percent certainly a good number, perhaps even 

15 2 percent.

16 But on a case-by-case basis, 

17 shipment-by-shipment basis where a given 

18 worker might -- is it possible that there 

19 might have been some workers over some time 

20 periods that might have received 100. You 

21 know, right now I can't say -- I recall that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you used 10 at some of the AWE facilities, not 

2 --

3 MR. RICH: This is Bryce, John. 

4 May I just make a comment quickly?

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 MR. RICH: The tower ash that came 

7 from the gaseous diffusion plants was enriched 

8 as a result of the fact that plutonium was not 

9 volatile in the 6 form, and so it fell out in 

10 the tower ash and so it was elevated. It was 

11 -- they resisted taking that material in.

12 However -- and they were quite 

13 aware that it was coming in. The intent was 

14 to blend that tower ash in with virgin 

15 material like a processing material from 

16 yellowcake and others that they were 

17 processing at the time and blend it down so 

18 that the plant-wide transfer rate between 

19 plants of 10 parts per billion was always 

20 maintained so that, you know, they didn't ship 

21 anything from Fernald, and their sensitivity 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 following that receipt from the tails from the 

2 gaseous diffusion plants was very high.

3 DR. MAURO: I'd say I agree 

4 because I've looked at AWE sites, many of them 

5 and the end part per billion was 10.

6 MR. RICH: The stuff that they 

7 sent out of Fernald would have had to have 

8 meant the 10 parts per billion, not 100.

9 DR. MAURO: I agree. And I'm 

10 saying that I agree with you for the AWE 

11 facilities I looked at. I just can't speak to 

12 whether or not that also applies to Weldon. I 

13 certainly could speak to that 100 if that's 

14 what you were originally using for Weldon 

15 would certainly have been bounding. Backing 

16 off from 100 down to a lower number and if 

17 basically Weldon was receiving material just 

18 like other AWE facilities were receiving it 

19 after dilution down, 10 is probably a good 

20 number, too. But I can't speak to that 

21 specifically for Weldon, because I know there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was a special relationship between Weldon and 

2 Fernald and Malinckrodt, and I don't -- and 

3 when I talk about AWEs, I'm not talking about 

4 those facilities. Those were DOE facilities I 

5 believe. I'm talking about many of the AWE 

6 facilities that when we looked at that 

7 closely, we found the 10 number to be 

8 certainly a good number, 10 parts per billion 

9 number.

10 MR. ROLFES: I had a question also 

11 for you, Ron. This is Mark Rolfes. You had 

12 mentioned that there were some dose 

13 reconstructions that had been completed

14 without the recycled uranium constituents 

15 added in on top of the uranium intakes?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

17 MR. ROLFES: Do you remember the 

18 specifics of those dose reconstructions or 

19 was, for example, like the uranium bioassay 

20 data used to estimate the uranium intake --

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: And -- okay. So were 

2 there any other things that might help us to 

3 understand why that might not have been done? 

4 I was wondering for some additional details. 

5 You know, could it have been that it was a 

6 dose reconstruction completed during the 50's 

7 rather than the 60's that might have been the 

8 reason recycled uranium wasn't added in, or 

9 was the dose reconstruction compensable? I'm 

10 just trying to get a better understanding of 

11 why that constituent might not have appeared 

12 in there.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, this is Ron. 

14 I would have to go back and look at those. I 

15 have my notes here that we had -- SC&A 

16 reviewed the claims indicating this method was 

17 correctly applied in one of the full dose 

18 reconstruction best estimate cases. However, 

19 in several of the DR cases where the 

20 Probability of Causation is less than 50 

21 percent and a full DR should have been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 performed and the EE worked during the 1961 to 

2 1966 period, no internal intake from RU was 

3 assigned. I'd have to go back and get those 

4 case forms.

5 MR. ROLFES: Let me ask. Is it 

6 possible that we used OTIB-2, for example, in 

7 the completion of those dose reconstructions?

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Used what?

9 MR. ROLFES: OTIB-2 which would 

10 have been the application of the 28 

11 radionuclide worse case scenario intakes.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: I don't know.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I'd 

14 like to suggest if Ron can find those case 

15 numbers and refer those case numbers to us, 

16 that's the best way to proceed here, because 

17 if that happened, we'd need to figure out what 

18 happened.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I'll look 

20 for those and send you that information.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Thank you.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: But that still does 

3 not answer our main question. Is this 6.9 

4 bounding on Weldon Spring?

5 MR. ROLFES: Well, John Mauro did 

6 say that he agrees that the 100 parts per 

7 billion is currently bounding, and that's what 

8 we're currently using for dose reconstruction. 

9 We've just proposed the actual result site 

10 specific to Weldon. Because of the concerns 

11 from the petitioner about using surrogate 

12 data, we went back and looked at site specific 

13 data for the Weldon Spring plant, and it 

14 indicated much lower concentrations of 

15 plutonium in the uranium being sent to the 

16 Weldon Spring plant.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. And the case 

18 that I did review that did use it used 100.

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: But that was before 

21 the ER. You know, that was -- they used 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appropriate according to the TBD.

2 MR. ROLFES: So further, you know, 

3 make a statement across the board, recycled 

4 uranium doesn't contribute too much dose to 

5 the entire body as a whole but certain organs 

6 do have higher, not necessarily higher than 

7 the uranium doses, but can be significant to 

8 certain organs, certain metabolic organs. So 

9 for a systemic organ, for example, like the 

10 prostate or the skin or something like that, 

11 when you're calculating internal dose, the 

12 recycled uranium constituents are not 

13 significant in comparison to the uranium.

14 MR. KATZ: Can I ask 

15 clarification?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: This is an SEC issue at 

18 this point? I mean given that -- it doesn't 

19 sound like one since even, I mean, John just 

20 said 10 parts per billion is the most that 

21 would ever go out, so you're already 10 versus 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 6 and whatever is correct --

2 DR. MAURO: Let me clarify that a 

3 little bit, Ted. The 10 is for the sites that 

4 I did review which was not Weldon but for 

5 other facilities that received --

6 MR. KATZ: That's right, John. It 

7 was Bryce who said that they never -- they

8 wouldn't ship above 10 period off the site.

9 DR. MAURO: Right, and that's 

10 true. That's a spec that they worked from 

11 that other -- and we saw that at other AWEs, 

12 but what I'm hearing is there's a little 

13 ambiguity whether or not the -- whether 10 or 

14 100 is being used at Weldon. I could say 

15 right now if 100 is being used at Weldon, that 

16 is going to be bounding without a doubt. I 

17 can't really speak to whether, for Weldon, 10 

18 would be bounding.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: You're saying the 

20 TBD in place, the one that's actually being 

21 applied does use 100 as a default. Until that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 TBD is revised, then I would assume that 

2 you'll continue to use 100. And in what Ted 

3 was saying, it sort of sounds like we're in 

4 Site Profile space.

5 DR. MAURO: I mean we're sort of 

6 just --

7 DR. BUCHANAN: I think we are if 

8 we use it as stated in the TBD. If we go down 

9 to using an average of 2.6 or bounding a 95 

10 percent of 6.9 at Weldon, then we are in 

11 questionable --

12 MR. KATZ: It's still TBD.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: It is a question 

14 of what's appropriate and what the data 

15 supports. And I would think that it doesn't 

16 switch from 100 down to 2.9. I mean that's a 

17 pretty dramatic shift, and you'd have to 

18 provide some justification for lowering the 

19 default down to that level. And you said you

20 have site specific information. That would 

21 have to be presented. You know, I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's a due process on changing the TBD that 

2 way.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: I have no problem 

4 with leaving it as a TBD issue. I mean I 

5 don't think it's -- I didn't know it's a TBD 

6 issue, but not as an SEC issue as long as the 

7 ER doesn't override the TBD.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Doesn't sound 

9 like it.

10 MR. ROLFES: No. It wouldn't be 

11 used in completing dose reconstructions. We 

12 could certainly revise the TBD if the Working 

13 Group would like us to lower the plutonium 

14 intake that we're assigning, but I don't think 

15 we intend to do that. We just wanted to make 

16 sure that we've shown our basis.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well, I'll 

18 still send you those case numbers just for 

19 your information, so you can check out, you 

20 know, from a dose reconstruction point of 

21 view. You know, I might have missed something 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on it, because I wasn't doing a complete audit 

2 on it. I was just checking. And just to make 

3 sure that that is being incorporated 

4 correctly. Okay, that's issue number 5.

5 We have a little after 12. 

6 Chairman, did you want to continue or what?

7 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I guess we can 

8 move on to maybe 12:30 and then take a lunch?

9 MR. KATZ: I'm good with whatever.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Issue number 

11 6 was the neutron dosimetry, and I'd like to 

12 clarify that, set a little space there. When 

13 you use the enriched uranium of 1 or 2 

14 percent, then you have the possibility of 

15 alpha-N reactions in the material and net 

16 neutrons.

17 And so what SC&A -- I guess one of 

18 the questions we have right now -- they were 

19 badged, some of them that were working with 

20 this material and had NTA film, but 

21 apparently, they weren't recorded, or if it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was recorded, they weren't kept. And so there 

2 is no data for neutrons.

3 And so there have been several 

4 proposal methods in the TBD and in the ER for 

5 neutron dose assignments. And so I guess at 

6 this point, I'd like -- and they're different 

7 somewhat -- I'd like a clarification on when, 

8 to whom, and how you currently propose to 

9 assign neutron dose?

10 MR. ROLFES: Right now the current 

11 TBD has information from the study that was 

12 done at the Fernald site. They had placed 

13 some bubble dosimeters in areas of green salt 

14 drums, et cetera at the Fernald site and 

15 characterized, taken some measurements with --

16 I don't recall if it was rem ball or what it 

17 was -- I'd have to look back at the source 

18 documents, but we developed a proposed 

19 approach for the Fernald site and also applied 

20 that to the Weldon Spring site.

21 What we've developed is to assign 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a neutron dose equal to 10 percent of the 

2 photon dose received by the employee, and then 

3 the 95th percentile neutron to photon ratio 

4 would be .23 to 1 neutron to photon. We 

5 discussed this quite a bit at the Fernald site 

6 and came to agreement that that was, in fact, 

7 a bounding value to apply.

8 You know, for applicability to the 

9 Weldon Spring plant, there's not really 

10 anything unusual at the Weldon Spring plant 

11 which would negate us from applying that same 

12 neutron to photon ratio to the employees at 

13 the Weldon Spring plant. You know, for 

14 example, the types of materials, the 

15 quantities of materials and the composition of 

16 the materials that were received by the Weldon 

17 Spring plant were equal to or of lesser 

18 quantity or enrichment than the Fernald site.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. Now 

20 there was mentions of assigning missed dose. 

21 Was that in terms of strict definition of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 missed dose in the ER, assigning neutron 

2 missed dose? When there's no TLD -- I mean 

3 when there's no dosimetry record, you can't 

4 assign missed dose.

5 MR. ROLFES: No. We would really 

6 assign missed dose if an individual was shown 

7 to have been monitored for neutron exposures 

8 and we had a bunch of zeros reported to us, in 

9 that case, we would assign half of the limit 

10 of detection for that badge and multiply that 

11 by the number of badge exchanges recorded in 

12 their dosimetry information.

13 For an individual who was not 

14 monitored at all for neutrons, we would assign 

15 a neutron to photon ratio based upon what 

16 we've documented in the Site Profile at Weldon 

17 Spring, and that's what I mentioned before. 

18 The 10 percent is the median neutron to photon 

19 ration, .1 to 1 neutron to photon, and the 

20 95th percentile is .23 to 1.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: So when you use the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 term missed dose in the ER, you were talking 

2 about unmonitored dose, because there is no --

3 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Dosimetry records 

5 for neutrons. Okay. Now as described, and 

6 maybe this is a TBD issue, but we disagree 

7 with the method used to determine the neutron 

8 to photon ratio at Fernald. If I recall 

9 right, it was a one-time measurement done with 

10 certain geometry, and then a couple of years 

11 later, the gamma was measured, neutron was 

12 measured, and then a couple years later, gamma 

13 was measured. I don't remember all the 

14 details. And so I guess the question at this 

15 point is should we leave -- data is not 

16 recorded for neutron exposure? Okay, there's 

17 potential for neutron exposure but data is not 

18 recorded? They have come up with a method in 

19 the TBD to assign it using Fernald data which 

20 we disagree with, and do we want to leave this 

21 as a TBD issue or move it -- or keep it as an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SEC issue?

2 MR. ROLFES: We did close this at 

3 the Fernald site with SC&A's agreement that it 

4 was an acceptable approach and it was 

5 certainly bounding. We have to look back at 

6 the transcripts to pull that up, but we did 

7 close it for the Fernald Work Group.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

9 don't recall the gamma and neutron 

10 measurements not being taken together.

11 MR. ROLFES: They used bubble 

12 dosimeters at the Fernald site on tops of the 

13 green salt barrels I believe. Then I think 

14 they had also done some gamma surveys at the 

15 same time.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Should probably 

17 keep my mouth shut, because I'm conflicted --

18 DR. BUCHANAN: If I remember, the 

19 thing that sticks out is that they were done 

20 at separate times and, you know, usually, if 

21 you're going to do a N/P ratio, you're going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to do the measurements simultaneously. And I 

2 recall that was one fly in the ointment is 

3 that they weren't done simultaneously. But if 

4 --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Ron, can you find 

6 the evidence found, where you see the evidence 

7 for that because that does not sound at all 

8 familiar.

9 MR. KATZ: Sounds like we need to 

10 check the record, because Mark's saying that 

11 this was closed at Fernald, but you're 

12 remembering that it hasn't been closed --

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Oh, I don't know 

14 about Fernald. It might have been closed. I 

15 wasn't on Fernald. I'm just looking back at 

16 the data that was extrapolated to Weldon 

17 Spring which didn't seem the way you normally 

18 determine N/P ratio.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: If you could find 

20 back the evidence for your conclusion that 

21 they were taken at different times, that would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be interesting. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: It would be useful 

3 to look at the transcripts for the last 

4 Fernald meeting, but just that discussion to 

5 see if that issue surfaced. Sounds like it 

6 was closed which means sort of a little bit of 

7 double jeopardy if -- because if they're a 

8 buy-in, at least for Fernald, on the 

9 methodology, so it is sort of question, what 

10 exactly -- how did they decide that? John, are 

11 you on? Maybe not.

12 MR. KATZ: John, are you still 

13 with us?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Guess not.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. But checking the 

16 transcript is an easy thing to do.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, just to shed 

18 some light on that question, because they're -

19 - at different times, that would be a little 

20 harder to accept.

21 MR. KATZ: So that seems like a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 starting place. Let's look at the 

2 transcripts.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Right. I'll check 

4 and make sure of that.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe talk to 

6 John, just try to get some more comments. You 

7 don't remember that coming up, Mark, as far as 

8 questions of difference in times, timeframes 

9 for the gamma versus the --

10 MR. ROLFES: No, I don't remember 

11 that. It's been a few years probably since 

12 we've discussed that issue I believe, so --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so it's 

14 quite a while a back.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: And it's been a 

16 while since I've looked at the details of 

17 that, since the Site Profile really.

18 MR. KATZ: So are you saying this 

19 was closed at Fernald a few years ago?

20 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. So --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

192 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: So we'll take the 

2 action to research -- figure out which meeting 

3 it was.

4 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So SC&A is going 

5 to review the data and then you'll report back 

6 to us at the next meeting?

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Well, I'll 

8 send it out before so that they can see it if 

9 that's okay.

10 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. You can 

11 send a memo out to the Work Group and just say 

12 you looked into this, this is what you found, 

13 whatever it is.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: As long as it's on 

15 CDC website, right -- I mean computer? Okay. 

16 You don't remember, Mark, to save me a lot of 

17 hunting, when that was approved at Fernald?

18 MR. ROLFES: I'm taking a look. 

19 I'm trying to find the transcripts. I'll try 

20 to find them over the lunch break to see if I 

21 can get that to you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, because I'm 

2 not familiar with Fernald. I haven't been 

3 involved in that. Okay. So that was item 6 

4 on neutrons.

5 Item 7 is the issue of quarry and 

6 the raffinate pits exposures. As I brought up 

7 earlier, there are three main areas at Weldon 

8 Spring. There was the main processing plant, 

9 and they discharged to the evaporation ponds 

10 or raffinate pits, and there were 4 of those, 

11 2 small ones to begin with in the early years, 

12 and then pit 3 and 4 were larger ones that 

13 were pumped into in the later years. And then 

14 there was rock quarry down the road which had 

15 a hole and water in it, and they dumped a lot 

16 of stuff in it from the downtown site and also 

17 from the Weldon Spring site. And initially, 

18 when they started doing some cleanup, they put 

19 some stuff in there, and then they took all 

20 that back out and put it under the rock pile I 

21 spoke of early for D&D.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so what SC&A is concerned with 

2 with issue 7 was whether, you know, a person 

3 working out at the pits or down at the quarry 

4 probably wasn't considered an operation-type 

5 person, either laborer or something, and so he 

6 might or might not have been monitored. And 

7 to use the workers -- if you construct a 

8 coworker model for internal and external in 

9 the plant, would this be applicable to the 

10 people working in the quarry and the raffinate 

11 pit or around them or spending significant 

12 amounts of time around them, and so like 

13 maintenance workers, laborers and stuff, and 

14 so this is the issue on number 7.

15 MR. ROLFES: Okay. I guess we'd 

16 have to take a look at, you know, the specific 

17 individual, whether they spent a significant 

18 amount of time, you know, only at the quarry 

19 versus in the plant. And, you know, I'd put 

20 my money that if we assign doses based upon 

21 them working in the plant versus those in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

195 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quarry, I could almost guarantee that the 

2 doses in the plant would be higher than what 

3 we would assign at the quarry, so it would be 

4 more claimant-favorable to assume that they

5 were in the plant.

6 I think you had also mentioned 

7 about the radon. You had replied about the 

8 concern about decay products, and we had 

9 identified some radon measurements at the 

10 quarry of about .65 plus or minus .4 

11 picocuries per liter.

12 I took a look to see what the 

13 background outdoor concentrations of radon 

14 from naturally occurring radioactive material 

15 in the continental United States was, and it 

16 ranges from about .27 picocuries per liter up 

17 to about .81 picocuries per liter. So the 

18 measured result from the quarry at the Weldon 

19 Spring site falls within that range of 

20 naturally occurring radon outdoor values.

21 You know, furthermore, if the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quarry is wet, it's going to do a pretty good 

2 job at keeping dust down, keeping 

3 environmental exposure potential to a minimum 

4 versus a dry environment as well.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, the main 

6 concern was that the quarry received quite a 

7 bit of material from downtown, and so that 

8 would be different than what the material 

9 processed in the plant, so that worker, the 

10 operator in the plant, especially internal 

11 dose, would not -- you know, they might not 

12 look for isotopes and stuff of a guy working 

13 at the quarry or in the raffinate pits. Of 

14 course, contained discharges that would 

15 concentrate the byproducts, where they 

16 wouldn't be present in the operating realm, 

17 and so that was our main concern was not only 

18 the magnitudes but also the quantity or the 

19 radionuclides present would be different in 

20 the quarry and the pits than it would be in an 

21 operating plant.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: I think what we would 

2 have to do would be to look at some specific 

3 claims maybe to determine who was actually 

4 working at the quarry and didn't work at 

5 Weldon Spring or at Mallinckrodt, because as 

6 you said, Mallinckrodt dumped materials into 

7 the quarry as did Weldon Spring I believe, 

8 correct?

9 So, you know, the quarry is sort 

10 of unique, I guess, in that it's physically 

11 separated by a mile or more off the site, and 

12 it's almost a separate facility on its own. 

13 So I guess what we would need to do is look to 

14 see, you know, on a case-by-case basis, who 

15 worked at that facility and if they, you know, 

16 exclusively worked at the quarry versus in the 

17 plant.

18 Let's see, did I cover what you've 

19 asked here? Did you ask any other questions 

20 that I didn't address there?

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, is that an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 action item on your part?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we've got an 

3 action there.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Right. And also --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: We need to provide 

6 a written response.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Also, the Mason 

8 document of 1958 missed some quantitative or 

9 semi-quantitative information, and that can be 

10 compared to later years. I know some of the 

11 measurements, unfortunately, weren't made 

12 until the 80's when they started quantifying 

13 the site for D&D, and so very little was made 

14 earlier. Mason did have a document in 1958 

15 that does list some of the concentration 

16 values for the different radionuclide if I 

17 recall correctly, and that's their reference 

18 number 15016 which, you know, that would be 

19 kind of a milestone you could check and see if 

20 there was a large difference or significant 

21 difference between `58, which would be a very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 good year to compare it to compared to `88 or 

2 whenever, some of the later measurements were 

3 made, see if much have changed or not.

4 MR. ROLFES: Okay. We'll take a 

5 look at that and also provide a written 

6 response to that.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. The next 

8 one, number 8, is off-normal situations and 

9 accidents and incidents. I realize this is a 

10 very subjective subject and issue.

11 When I did the interviews at 

12 Weldon Spring couple of years ago, one of the 

13 main issues was that their accidents and 

14 things that today would be considered a 

15 radiological incident, accident were not 

16 documented in their files. And it was mainly 

17 if something happened, like a furnace blowout 

18 or an accident, they covered it from a medical 

19 point of view, and it might appear in the 

20 medical files, but there is no radiological 

21 measurements or incidents recorded from a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radiological point of view.

2 So I went through some of the 

3 files to see and I state there one had a very 

4 serious accident in 1960 and in the medical 

5 files, there was no radiological information 

6 in his dosimetry or anything. There was just 

7 a medical aspect, you know, cut or bruise or 

8 burns and that sort of thing.

9 And then there was another one 

10 that said there was another major accident, 

11 and there wasn't anything in the files. 

12 Fortunately, in that one, the dose 

13 reconstructor went back and looked at some of 

14 the records and was familiar enough to know 

15 there was an accident that took place at that 

16 time.

17 So I guess it's kind of an open18 ended question, but how do we know that these 

19 are being documented in their files and taken 

20 into consideration, not only the accidents but 

21 things that wouldn't be considered 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radiological hazard back then, such as, you 

2 know, some of the workers, maybe a truck 

3 driver or something transporting material from 

4 the downtown site out there, or going and 

5 picking up the irradiated -- they sent some of 

6 the uranium samples to betatron to be 

7 irradiated 25 MeV electrons to look at certain 

8 things, and back then, they probably just 

9 threw it on the truck and brought it back, and 

10 the airport site, some stuff was dumped there, 

11 and, of course, into the quarry.

12 Some of these workers, they 

13 weren't considered production workers. How 

14 can we determine whether these things are 

15 taken into account, and this is the issue.

16 MR. ROLFES: Well, as you pointed 

17 out, said the dose reconstructor was pretty 

18 familiar with the incident that had occurred, 

19 and so they did, in fact, account for this 

20 incident that you mentioned in 1960. I'm not 

21 directly familiar with it myself, but the one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

202 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 important thing that we would have to look for 

2 is did that individual -- you had said in the 

3 medical file -- now that's sort of separate 

4 from the dosimetry file -- do you recall if 

5 that individual had some uranium bioassay 

6 results in his dosimetry results from DOE?

7 DR. BUCHANAN: If I recall right, 

8 he had some. He had uranium bioassays and 

9 external monitoring but not necessarily 

10 connected with that incident. You know, it 

11 was like, if I recall right, it was like in 

12 the middle of a -- it wasn't like you could 

13 say, oh, yeah, it happened on the 23rd and he 

had bioassay on the 24th, 25th and the 26th 14 . 

15 MR. ROLFES: Sure. That's 

16 important to know that the bioassay data are 

17 there, because a previous exposure would 

18 certainly be integrated into a later uranium 

19 excretion quantity, and we certainly would 

20 look at that. And when we complete a dose 

21 reconstruction, we look at all the data that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we received, all the bioassay data and 

2 estimate an intake. If an individual was 

3 routinely being exposed, we will take that 

4 into account, and that's visible in their 

5 urinalysis data. We would assign a chronic 

6 intake which would typically account for that 

7 exposure that had occurred in a smaller 

8 incident.

9 If individuals have additional 

10 information, that certainly can help us focus 

11 in on a best estimate type of case for that 

12 specific incident. But usually, when we are 

13 completing dose reconstructions, we assign a 

14 chronic intake rather than multiple smaller 

15 acute intakes. And the way we do the chronic 

16 intakes, the chronic intakes usually result in 

17 more internal dose than evaluating specific 

18 acute intakes.

19 I'd need some additional 

20 information about this particular case, I 

21 guess, to make any kind of judgment as to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whether we've done a good job in estimating 

2 the radiation exposure that he potentially 

3 received from that acute intake versus how 

4 much we assigned in the dose reconstruction in 

5 a chronic intake, which is typically what we 

6 default to.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Is there an 

8 accident incident file for Weldon Spring?

9 MR. ROLFES: As far as something 

10 that we've developed, I don't know. We may 

11 allude to some specific occurrences in the 

12 Weldon Spring Site Profile. Sometimes we 

13 receive information from individuals that were 

14 directly firsthand involved in that incident 

15 such as during a telephone interview for a 

16 claim in a computer-assisted telephone 

17 interview report, the individual claimant 

18 might have said, you know, there was a furnace 

19 blowout or, you know, I was contaminated with 

20 uranium during this incident. So those things 

21 are available.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Also, we do have DOE records from 

2 our data capture efforts that will identify 

3 occurrences that have taken place where 

4 employees were exposed to higher than normal 

5 airborne uranium or something for example. 

6 You know, whether it's consolidated into one 

7 place, I couldn't say that it is 100 percent 

8 complete consolidated in one single location, 

9 but the important thing is if there is 

10 bioassay data associated with that intake from 

11 which we can use to complete an intake 

12 estimate in our dose reconstruction.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Ron, 

14 you said there was a particular case that you 

15 looked at that had to do with a furnace 

16 accident and there was information in the 

17 medical file?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: The medical aspect.

19 MR. POTTER: This is Gene Potter. 

20 I might offer a little information.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. POTTER: In the interview done 

2 at Oak Ridge with Monte Mason, he mentioned 

3 two individuals by name that had been involved 

4 in the most serious incidents at Weldon 

5 Spring, including one guy who had fallen or 

6 partially fallen into a vat of uranium-bearing 

7 material. And I was able to look those guys 

8 up in the CER data unambiguously. We just had 

9 their last names, and I didn't have an 

10 incident date. But both of those gentlemen 

11 were pretty heavily bioassayed.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Around the incident 

13 time or you don't know?

14 MR. POTTER: Well, I don't know 

15 what the incident time is, but I think I can 

16 see it, you know, in the bioassay results, 

17 fairly major peaks on both of those guys.

18 MR. ROLFES: So as long as we have 

19 that data, you know, the bioassay data is the 

20 key. It's a matter of our interpretation of 

21 the data, how we assign intakes, and we don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 necessarily have to have a written specific 

2 data, because if we have enough bioassay data, 

3 we can actually pinpoint it based upon the 

4 excretion curve. And on top of that, we 

5 always use the most claimant-favorable 

6 solubility for the dose reconstruction target 

7 organ during the dose reconstruction process. 

8 And we do this in an effort to make sure that 

9 we're not underestimating someone's actual 

10 internal dose to that target organ.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Chairman, I don't 

12 have any more specifics on that. It's just an 

13 issue that we were concerned with, and I guess 

14 at this point, unless we come up with other, 

15 we'll leave it open. If we come up with any 

16 other examples, we can bring them up. At this 

17 time, I don't have any other evidence to 

18 present. I don't have any evidence other than 

19 what the interviews told me, and so I can't 

20 really bring anymore than that on it.

21 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: You had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 interviews with workers that documented 

2 events, and do you guys have that information 

3 from those interviews, and did you consider 

4 that in your dose reconstructions or --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think what 

6 we should do is at least consider it in our 

7 response, because, you know, the next action 

8 here is our response. And I'm sure this is 

9 written more expansively in your review of the 

10 Evaluation Report than it is on this matrix. 

11 So the matrix provides summaries and findings, 

12 and those are written more expansively in the 

13 review of the Evaluation Report. So from our 

14 standpoint, I think we can take the action and 

15 go see that writeup. It could very well refer 

16 to interview summaries as references that 

17 would say, here are the summaries of these 

18 interviews. That would allow us to see the 

19 kinds of things that are being described.

20 I mean there have been instances 

21 where people will talk about chip fires in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this instance at a uranium plant, for instance 

2 a chip fire, and there were all these chip 

3 fires, and we just put them out and so on. 

4 And if it were an event like that, a bioassay 

5 record would provide probably an adequate way 

6 to reconstruct to doses for those people. 

7 There are a lot -- and what is an incident is 

8 largely in the mind of a person's personal 

9 experience. You know, something happens to me 

10 that did not usually happen to me, I remember 

11 that as an incident.

12 And in fact, it may be, 

13 unfortunately, consistent with the operating 

14 envelope expected for the plant and the 

15 programs set up for the plant so that a lot of 

16 metals plants really -- well, I'm sorry, the 

17 one uranium metal plant that I was familiar 

18 with, right up until the 1980's, had a certain 

19 view of inevitability of uranium chip fires. 

20 And so the expectation was that there was a 

21 sufficient bioassay program that exposures 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from those uranium chip fires would be 

2 captured and the doses reconstructed 

3 appropriately from that. Whereas if someone

4 was not, you know, did not have chip fires as 

5 part of their common experience, a chip fire 

6 would be an event.

7 So there is a little bit of that 

8 view, you know, that information you have to 

9 carry with you and read it, but I think it's 

10 really important for us to actually go look at 

11 those interviews and see those interviews and 

12 see if, in fact, we feel good about whether 

13 they're addressed by the exposure record or 

14 not, because there's no way to know unless we 

15 know what they said.

16 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, yes, and I 

17 guess -- and that's personally my concern 

18 here, and it's not necessarily just with 

19 Weldon Spring, but if you have workers giving 

20 input to the system that's specific about them 

21 and somehow even though it was given to SC&A, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean all of their information is owned by 

2 the government. And so for them to go ahead 

3 and have a dose reconstruction and then this 

4 information not be considered, that falls a 

5 little bit more into the worker outreach type 

6 thing that, you know, I'm just a little 

7 concerned about that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And it's 

9 possible that the interview that occurred with 

10 SC&A and we'd do the dose reconstruction 

11 later. I mean that's possible. I think 

12 oftentimes that happens all the way around, 

13 like we've done a dose reconstruction before 

14 that interview occurred.

15 But by all means, our walk away 

16 position, our walk away thought, though, is 

17 that we need to first of all carefully read 

18 the Evaluation Report, not the matrix part but 

19 the Evaluation Report's description of this 

20 including finding the interviews. If they're 

21 not referenced, we can get a hold of SC&A and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say what are the interviews that this finding 

2 is based on and sort of determine a reaction 

3 to those interviews and whether we feel like 

4 what we've done is appropriate or not or 

5 whether there's something different that needs 

6 to be addressed.

7 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So that's what 

8 you guys -- you guys want to do that and come 

9 back to us --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 MR. ROLFES: Now, Ron, do you have 

12 a separate report of interviews? I don't 

13 recall if you provided that. I know you 

14 provided some summary data in your writeup of 

15 the Site Profile review. I don't remember 

16 seeing individual interview reports.

17 MR. POTTER: Mark, this is Gene 

18 Potter. I've looked at SC&A's report and 

19 these interviews are summarized in an 

20 attachment I believe, but there is not enough 

21 information to identify the individuals 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 involved. So if SC&A can provide those to 

2 you?

3 MR. ROLFES: That's what I was 

4 getting to, Gene.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be 

6 important for an individual dose 

7 reconstruction. In terms of the broad 

8 question, do these incidents describe things 

9 that are beyond what we think would have 

10 happened and accounted for appropriately, that 

11 may or may not be necessary.

12 MR. ROLFES: I think as part of 

13 the Evaluation Report, we did consider some of 

14 SC&A's site expert interviews in our 

15 evaluation process, and I think we had 

16 included some analysis of what was said. 

17 Monica, do you happen to recall -- am I 

18 remembering this correctly that we did take 

19 some of SC&A's employee interview statements? 

20 One sticks in my mind here, and I think it 

21 was related to the receipt of pitchblende at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Weldon Spring site. There was an 

2 interview, I think, from SC&A that they had 

3 conducted, and the interviewee had said that 

4 pitchblende was processed at Weldon Spring. 

5 Does this ring a bell, Ron? Am I --

6 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I don't 

7 recall it the same way that you're going over 

8 it right now. I do recall there was some 

9 interview summary information that we received 

10 that talked about storage of some other 

11 material. It wasn't so much pitchblende as it 

12 was cylinders --

13 MR. ROLFES: Enriched uranium 

14 hexafluoride.

15 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: That's it 

16 and so we did a lot more investigation looking 

17 for that. We went out and we did some 

18 additional interviews asking other people did 

19 they recall any information about UF6 cylinder 

20 storage. So I do know that we did follow-up 

21 on anything that we received from their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 summaries that we hadn't received earlier.

2 MR. ROLFES: Then, Monica, could 

3 you answer one other thing? Did we put that 

4 in our Evaluation Report?

5 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I believe we 

6 did. I believe we referenced it and said that 

7 we followed up and that the additional people 

8 that we followed up with were not aware of UF6 

9 cylinder storage.

10 MR. MORRIS: Mark, Bob Morris.

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes, Bob.

12 MR. MORRIS: This topic you're 

13 were talking about, pitchblende. Actually, it 

14 came through as the uranium ore concentrates 

15 that were received were actually called "ore" 

16 by the local workers. And we followed that 

17 through to completion where we determined 

18 pretty conclusively that that was a misnomer. 

19 It was a local term, that they meant 

20 concentrates but they called it ore.

21 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Thank you, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

216 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Bob.

2 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Thank you, 

3 Bob. I didn't make that connection. You're 

4 right. That was another one we followed up 

5 on.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. I 

7 believe, Mark, that if I recall right, in the 

8 ER, the terms used -- the petitioner's 

9 concern. Now I don't know if he used that 

10 interchangeably with interviewee's concern, 

11 but I know in the ER, you said petitioner's 

12 concern, like you took those points from the 

13 actual petition, and so I didn't get the gist 

14 when I read it that it was taken from the 

15 transcripts of the interviews we conducted --

16 MR. ROLFES: We'd have to look 

17 back. I know that we had identified some of 

18 those issues as part of our Evaluation Report, 

19 and I thought that they had been -- you know, 

20 I thought maybe it might have been the same 

21 individual from an interview and also in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 petition, but certainly, we can look back at 

2 the interviews that you completed and take a 

3 look there to make sure that we've accounted 

4 for the statements. That might make a 

5 difference in a dose reconstruction.

6 MS. JOHNSON: Hi, this is the 

7 petitioner, Karen Johnson, one of the 

8 petitioners. I just wanted to make a 

9 statement too that I did have an interview 

10 with Monte Mason's right-hand man who did 

11 confirm UF6 cylinders stored on site.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

13 Hinnefeld. Do you remember his name?

14 MS. JOHNSON: I don't have offhand 

15 right now, but I can get it for you.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. If you 

17 could provide that to us at our -- are you 

18 familiar with our website and our email 

19 address?

20 MS. JOHNSON: Yes, I can get that.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And you send it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there or you could call our general phone 

2 number, or really, you can submit it to 

3 whomever you want and however you want. It 

4 will get to us. If there is anybody involved 

5 in this process you have contact information 

6 from, if you can provide it --

7 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. I might do 

8 that because I do have some contact with some 

9 other workers and there aren't very many 

10 living workers anymore, but they did talk 

11 about the frequency of blowouts and 

12 explosions. And I think you might want to 

13 probably talk to them as well. I'm not sure 

14 if anybody's ever talked to them before, but I 

15 can pass on their information as well.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That would 

17 be fine. Thank you.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. 

19 Karen, awhile back, you told me that one 

20 person said he seen Congo or pitchblende or 

21 something marked on a barrel. Did you find 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

219 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 out anymore information on that?

2 MS. JOHNSON: You know, I talked 

3 to him a couple of months ago at the Weldon 

4 Spring site, and I can give you his contact 

5 information. I think he had actually 

6 originally talked to one of the resource 

7 centers and they referred him to me. So I can 

8 give you his contact information if you want 

9 to contact him and ask him a question.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. He couldn't 

11 provide you with any further details than what 

12 you've provided me?

13 MS. JOHNSON: You know, I can't 

14 recall some, but he did talk about trucks 

15 coming on site with plutonium labels on them. 

16 And I don't know if they were heading to the 

17 quarry, but he said they often would stop off 

18 at the facility first.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well, if you 

20 could provide me with his information or 

21 contact later, I'll follow-up on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

220 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. JOHNSON: Okay, I'll do that.

2 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. That was 

3 all for number 8 then?

4 DR. BUCHANAN: I believe so.

5 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So do we want to 

6 take a break at this time and have some lunch? 

7 It's 12:40.

8 MEMBER PRESLEY: What time are you 

9 coming back?

10 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: About an hour or 

11 as soon as the restaurant can get us through 

12 depending on how busy they are.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So break until 

14 1:40? Is that what we're saying?

15 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you for 

17 hanging in there on the line, and we'll --

18 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick again. 

19 How much longer do you think it'll take to 

20 get through the rest of the stuff? Do you 

21 have any idea?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

221 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: We got one more 

2 issue and then the summary action item list.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: We have the TBD 

4 issues. It's up to you if -- we're certainly 

5 going to have time for Site Profile issues if 

6 you want to go through those, too.

7 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. I'd like 

8 to get as far as we can.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: All right, thanks.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks, Dick.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

12 matter went off the record at 12:39 p.m. and 

13 resumed at 1:43 p.m.)

14 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. This 

15 is the Weldon Spring Work Group Advisory Board 

16 on Radiation and Worker Health. We're just 

17 reconvening after lunch break. It sounds like 

18 from the number of people on the line that we 

19 have everyone back, but let me check on the 

20 Board Members.

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: Ted?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 MEMBER PRESLEY: I just talked to 

3 Dick Lemen. We both got cut off. Dick said 

4 he'll be back on in about 15 minutes.

5 MR. KATZ: You both were cut off. 

6 I mean we broke for lunch but --

7 MEMBER PRESLEY: Well, we were 

8 talking and all of a sudden, everything went 

9 dead.

10 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see. Okay. So 

11 he said he'd be back in 10 minutes? Is that 

12 what you said?

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: Fifteen.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, I think we 

15 should just go ahead and proceed, because we 

16 got a good bit ahead of us if we're going to 

17 go through TBD issues. Mike?

18 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. I think 

19 we've finished with the eighth issue just 

20 before lunch, so we'll turn it back over to 

21 SC&A and start on the ninth issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

223 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Mike, this is Mark 

2 Rolfes. If I could interject something here 

3 before we start again. We and been discussing 

4 about neutron monitoring before the lunch 

5 break at Fernald, and I pulled up a reference 

6 which was a neutron monitoring position paper 

7 that was written for the Fernald site. The 

8 Site Research Database Reference I.D. is 3568, 

9 and this issue was discussed during the 

10 Working Group meeting that was held in October 

11 of 2008. It was October 28, 2008.

12 To summarize the discussion, if 

13 you look -- well, I'm looking at page 365 of 

14 those transcripts, and John Mauro has 

15 identified last item under 4.5 has to do with 

16 neutron doses. SC&A had raised the issue 

17 about the neutron to photon ratio where they 

18 had looked at our ratio of .23 to 1. John 

19 Mauro indicated that they had looked at that 

20 ratio and had done some calculations. They 

21 assumed some different kinds of geometries and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 arrays of UF4, for example, in drums or piles, 

2 and they came up with a higher neutron to 

3 photon ratio. But he had indicated that they 

4 had made a mistake, said that they made 

5 certain assumptions regarding what types of 

6 materials were there and their assumptions 

7 essentially were so large that it would have 

8 caused a criticality issue.

9 He said they made a mistake and 

10 they redid the numbers, checked it again, and 

11 they concurred that the neutron to photon 

12 ratio of .23 to 1 was claimant-favorable. As 

13 far as their concerned, they no longer had an 

14 issue on that matter.

15 And then Hans Behling had also 

16 chimed in and had referred to a neutron 

17 monitoring position paper as well where they 

18 had detailed some neutron dose rates and 

19 photon dose rates. It was approved by Stu 

20 Hinnefeld at the Fernald site. And he said so 

21 rather than looking at theoretical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculations that are the basis for the .23 to 

2 1 neutron to photon ratio, he looked at the 

3 data in the neutron position paper, and it 

4 turns out the empirical data in that 

5 particular report, Hans' opinion was that the 

6 .23 was very claimant-favorable. And Hans 

7 reiterated what John had said, that they 

8 agreed that the .23 is a claimant-favorable 

9 dose ratio for neutron to photons and he 

10 things they should drop the issue. So that 

11 discussion took place over page 365 through 

12 367 of the transcripts. Thank you.

13 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mark.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: All right, thanks. 

15 Well, SC&A will look at that and confirm and 

16 send you the information.

17 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'm 

18 sorry, I picked up just a moment ago. You 

19 were referring to some exchange at Fernald?

20 MR. ROLFES: That's correct.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good, yes, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

226 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I do recall that exchange. Now how are we 

2 applying that here? I just didn't build that 

3 relationship between that discussion analysis, 

4 and I agree, by the way, with everything. I 

5 recall that and I just didn't pick up the 

6 applicability here to Weldon.

7 MR. ROLFES: The same -- we're 

8 using the same neutron to photon ratios for 

9 Weldon Spring plant dose reconstructions.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay, yes. So there 

11 wouldn't be any differences in, for example, 

12 the levels of enrichment? And I remember when 

13 we did that calculation, we made certain 

14 assumptions regarding levels of enrichment 

15 that would have been -- you're correct -- we 

16 would have had a criticality situation with 

17 the quantities that we were assuming, and, 

18 therefore, our original numbers were off. So 

19 you don't have any -- so you would have the 

20 same circumstance here. I'm just sort of 

21 getting myself oriented. Yes, I understand 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what you're saying.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So that 

3 brings us to SEC issue number 9, which is 

4 geometry and extremity monitoring. The 

5 geometry issue and extremity arises from the 

6 fact that at Weldon Spring, they did have 

7 monitoring badges on their chests for those 

8 working with radioactive material in general. 

9 However, there was no mention of geometry 

10 factors such as, for example, people that work 

11 in glove boxes, we're aware of that, TIB-10 

12 where that was calculated, how you would -- if 

13 your badge is on your chest and you have 

14 anything between you and the material, such as 

15 a person working on a lathe or that sort of 

16 grinder with radioactive material, say, at 

17 Weldon Spring, and then have even just a 

18 plastic shield, a physical protection for eye 

19 protection and stuff, then the lower part of 

20 the body would be irradiated more than what 

21 the badge would register for beta radiation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And one example I give in the 

2 report is that, you know, a simple plexiglass 

3 shield went from a very high rate down to 

4 background. And people working, say, in areas 

5 where the radioactive material was lower on 

6 the floor, a lower position than their badge, 

7 and unfortunately, there was an extremity 

8 dosimetry at Weldon Spring that I didn't find 

9 at all where the fingers and hands were 

10 monitored for people working, say, on 

11 machining and stuff.

12 And so I bring up the issue of how 

13 that can be corrected for the people that 

14 might have had that sort of exposure geometry.

15 MR. ROLFES: I think we had looked 

16 into this prior to the last meeting, and from 

17 what I recall, we had looked to see if there 

18 were any skin cancers on an individual's 

19 extremities and then on top of that to see if 

20 there were any that were non-compensable. 

21 Based upon our review that I did probably 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

229 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about a year ago, we didn't find any non2 compensable skin cancers of the extremities at 

3 that time. So that would be something that we 

4 would need to apply extremity doses and would 

5 need to develop the correction factors. If 

6 there's a non-compensable skin cancer case for 

7 an individual's extremity, we would need a 

8 method basically to assign shallow doses to 

9 the skin of the extremity, a way to correct 

10 for what might have been received by the hand 

11 versus what was recorded by the badge.

12 But from what I recall now -- and 

13 we can put together a number of -- we can look 

14 through the cases once again and put together 

15 a written report on this.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: What about geometry 

17 other than skin cancer or hand cancer if 

18 you're calculating the dose to other organs 

19 that may be under estimated by the badge on 

20 the chest? What about those situations?

21 MR. ROLFES: We did a similar 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

230 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 analysis for basically a cleaner 

2 contamination. We assumed that an infinite 

3 plane was contaminated with radioactive 

4 material. This is something that we can pull 

5 together and see what its applicability to 

6 Weldon Spring is. But we had done this 

7 similarly for the Nevada Test Site to look at 

8 correction factors for gamma doses from 

9 contaminated soils for example. And we can 

10 see if that would be applicable to the Weldon 

11 Spring Plant site.

12 And also, at the last meeting, I 

13 think we had agreed to look at the 

14 Mallinckrodt review that SC&A had done 

15 regarding unusual exposure geometries. And 

16 that work, ORAU Team's beginning to look into 

17 the review of the geometrical correction 

18 factors for gamma doses.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: So you're going to 

20 look at the Mallinckrodt geometry factors, how 

21 that was handled there?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

231 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: I think Arjun, at the 

2 last meeting, had asked us to take a look at 

3 their work on Mallinckrodt, on the review of 

4 Mallinckrodt TBD.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. There is a 

6 Mallinckrodt TBD procedure that describes 

7 certain geometry adjustments based on, I 

8 think, its three different source and receptor 

9 geometries, one of which is a lathe I 

10 remember.

11 And there are comments on that 

12 document in the Procedures Review 

13 Subcommittee, so I mean the entirety of it 

14 kind of has to be addressed for this. But I 

15 remember lathe as a specific one. An extended 

16 spill or a contamination, I think, on the 

17 floor I another one and then maybe an overhead 

18 source. I forget the third. There were three 

19 different source receptor geometries described 

20 in the existing procedure or TBD. And in 

21 conjunction with that, we would have to look 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at the review findings of that procedure TBD 

2 from that other Subcommittee and our response.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That is the 

4 nine SEC issues and that then leads us to the 

5 matrix on the TBD issues. Now the TBD issues 

6 were addressed starting on page 12 of the 

7 matrix, and this gets a little hard to 

8 coordinate all the TBD issues with SEC issues, 

9 because some of the SEC issues include some of 

10 the TBD issues, maybe more than one of them. 

11 And so I guess what I'll go over here, we 

12 mainly came prepared for the SEC issues. The 

13 TBD issues, we will go over and see if they 

14 will be addressed by the SEC issues, so 

15 there's no use rehashing them again if they 

16 will be.

17 And so number -- page 12 there 

18 where we have TBD finding number 10, this is 

19 lack of atmospheric monitoring, now we also 

20 want to consider number 10, 11, and 12 

21 somewhat together, because all this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 environmental. And so I guess what I'd like 

2 to ask is now in the original TBD, we had 

3 mainly three sections, the environmental, 

4 internal and external. And in there we had a 

5 lot of questions on the environmental, and we 

6 brought those out in the issues.

7 And then in the ER, the main gist, 

8 if I recall right, is that the environmental 

9 issues could be bound by the fact that the 

10 worker could be assigned an operator's dose. 

11 And so I guess the question at this point, 

12 which way will it be? Is the TBD-4 going to 

13 be revised any? Are we just going to assign a 

14 coworker dose of an operator? Where do we 

15 stand on that?

16 MR. ROLFES: The TBD, to cover 

17 those three topics that you had just listed --

18 what was it, 9, 10, and 11 here -- the 

19 environmental TBD, TBD-4 for the Weldon Spring 

20 site has been revised in its draft form at 

21 ORAU. What we'd like to do is pull out the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

234 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 relevant sections to answer those topics as a 

2 White Paper, and we'll send that over to SC&A 

3 to take a look at. And that should respond to 

4 your environmental ambient doses issues.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: And that answered 

6 item number 10, 11, and 12.

7 MR. ROLFES: Does Bob Morris or 

8 Monica -- does that sound okay? Does that 

9 sound like something we can do relatively 

10 easily is pull out information to respond to 

11 these three topics identified by SC&A into a 

12 White Paper in advance of the publication of 

13 our revision of the TBD?

14 MR. MORRIS: This is Bob Morris. 

15 I think we can do that. The topics that are 

16 in the revised TBD-4 are -- should cover all 

17 of this information in finding 10, 11, and 12. 

18 Yes, I think we can do that.

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Thank you.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Just offhand, I 

21 mean given the specific topics, are these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

235 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 topics that are addressed in the TBD? It's 

2 suggested that they are by how you're 

3 referring to them.

4 MR. ROLFES: I believe so. I know 

5 we've re-written quite a bit of the 

6 environmental TBD and the other TBDs as well 

7 as a result of the SEC Evaluation that we had 

8 done.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: You had the Site 

10 Profile review for a couple of years also so -

11 - 

12 MR. ROLFES: Right.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So SC&A will 

15 receive a White Paper outlining or revising 

16 TBD-4 to address those Site Profile issues 10, 

17 11, and 12. That brings us to page 14.

18 This is Site Profile issue number 

19 18, and this is uranium decay product. For 

20 the last meeting, I have a note here that you 

21 intend to revise the TBD to include this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 product and that the wording before initial 

2 processing would be explained. Have we 

3 arrived at that report?

4 MR. ROLFES: That is also in part 

5 of the revision to the TBD, and what we need 

6 to do is pull that out as a White Paper as 

7 well I believe. I wanted to check with ORAU 

8 on the status also, once again, to make sure 

9 that this is something that we can do. And 

10 Bob, we have revised part of the internal TBD. 

11 Do we know how complete it is or do we have 

12 information responsive to this topic in our 

13 current draft that we might be able to pull 

14 out into a White Paper as well?

15 MR. MORRIS: Let me refer to Gene.

16 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

17 MR. MORRIS: You there, Gene 

18 Potter?

19 MR. POTTER: This is Gene Potter. 

20 Sorry. Ron, could I ask what page you're on 

21 for this particular one?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Page 14. It's the 

2 SC&A TBD finding number 18. It's incomplete 

3 assessment of uranium decay products. You had 

4 a reply. In your TBD reply for the last 

5 meeting, it was your number 4.

6 MR. POTTER: Okay.

7 MR. ROLFES: Gene, this is Mark. 

8 I wondered if we might be able to -- I 

9 wondered if we had information responsive to 

10 the uranium decay product, Gene, in our 

11 current draft revision of TBD-5 that we might 

12 be able to pull out as a White Paper?

13 MR. POTTER: Yes. I believe that 

14 is the case. What we did was ratio to --

15 ratio some of the thorium 230 to the other 

16 radionuclides in the raffinate pits, and came 

17 up with a bunch of ratios there and an upper 

18 bound on them.

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay. So our action 

20 item is to basically pull that relevant 

21 information out of the TBD draft into a White 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Paper for SC&A.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And do you 

3 recall if the -- in that revision or did you 

4 check into what these changes will -- only be 

5 applicable to intakes before initial 

6 processing? Did you check into that wording, 

7 because I wasn't sure what they were talking 

8 about there.

9 MR. POTTER: This is Gene Potter. 

10 Was that question directed to me?

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, if you can 

12 answer it. This is Ron. In the TBD-5, they 

13 said -- your present wording is "These changes 

14 will only be applicable to intakes before 

15 initial processing," and we couldn't figure 

16 out on our last meeting what that really 

17 meant.

18 MR. POTTER: Right. I'm not sure 

19 if we've reworded that in the TBD draft of 

20 not, but the idea is that when the 

21 concentrates are received and they go through 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

239 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the initial processing in, what is it, 

2 Building 103 -- I'm probably incorrect in 

3 quoting from my memory -- but that's where 

4 they have all the other constituents, and 

5 basically, as the uranium goes down the line, 

6 it essentially becomes pure uranium and all 

7 the rest of it goes to the raffinate pits. So 

8 we could probably take another look at that 

9 description, but that's the idea.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Yes, if you 

11 can clarify that statement, it would help.

12 So that brings us to page 15, TBD 

13 finding number 20, solubility classes, and I 

14 think that we addressed that last time in that 

15 my question was how could you have all these 

16 solubilities for all the different things, 

17 because uranium is uranium, so you couldn't 

18 have different solubilities for the 234, 235, 

19 238, at Weldon Spring's condition anyway. And 

20 your statement was that they were all to chose 

21 from, however, they did not have to -- didn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

240 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean they were all present in that form. And 

2 so I don't know if he's going to put a 

3 clarification in the TBD on that or not. You 

4 know, you clarified that. I have no real 

5 further question on that.

6 MR. ROLFES: Yes. The dose 

7 reconstructors will chose the solubility class 

8 of the uranium materials that's most claimant9 favorable for the dose reconstruction target 

10 organ.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: So we really don't 

12 have an action item on that except for reply 

13 on primary finding number 20 in the TBD.

14 MR. KATZ: So is that one closed?

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. We can close 

16 that. So that brings us to page 15, still on 

17 page 15, TBD primary finding number 21. And 

18 this is internal missed dose, MDAs. I believe 

19 that in the figure that was going to be used 

20 in the TBD was 0.08 milligrams per liter 

21 value, and what SC&A wanted to know was how 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that was derived, you know, to sustain that 

2 number that was going to be used.

3 MR. ROLFES: Well, let's see. I 

4 think our response to the document -- I think 

5 this is something that we previously put in 

6 for the last meeting, and the response here 

7 was that the TBD doesn't contain a formal 

8 coworker study. We've summarized the urine 

9 data in Tables 528 through 517 for the dose 

10 reconstructors to use to estimate doses if an 

11 employee's do not contain data in a given 

12 period. And since we have the data 

13 distributions, we can always calculate a best 

14 estimate or a maximum dose that the employee 

15 received.

16 MR. POTTER: Mark, this is Gene

17 Potter. I have some information on that.

18 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Please go 

19 ahead, Gene.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick Lemen. 

21 I'm back on.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Welcome back, Dick.

2 MR. POTTER: I've started to look 

3 into this MDA issue. I think there was a 

4 discussion in the last Working Group meeting 

5 where it wasn't clear to SC&A how this MDA 

6 value was in there, but should be, 

7 incidentally, .008 milligrams per liter or 8 

8 micrograms per liter, the actual number. And 

9 what was done in the original TBD, and it will 

10 be in the Rev as well, was there was no use of 

11 modern MDA concepts, of course, in those days, 

12 so what the original authors did was to take a 

13 look at a site with similar technologies at a 

14 similar time and looked at the actual blank 

15 values and came up with that particular MDA.

16 Now at Weldon Spring, it turns out 

17 that that concept probably would never be 

18 used. In the CER data, I looked at the lowest 

19 non-zero value recorded for each year, and 

20 it's 1 microgram per liter, so a far lower 

21 value than what might be considered a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reasonable MDA from the blank values was being 

2 used. So if you have a zero at Weldon Spring, 

3 there were a number of things that the dose 

4 reconstructors could do, but the lowest 

5 recorded value would be 1 microgram per liter, 

6 so, for instance, you might use .5 micrograms 

7 per liter. I'm not saying that that is the 

8 policy, but it's a value much lower than what 

9 one would come up with for an MDA.

10 And then of course, since this is 

11 a uranium we're talking about, of course, 

12 you're not actually measuring zeros in the 

13 background population of workers. There is 

14 some exposure to uranium from diet and 

15 possibly drinking water, so I looked at the 

16 CER data again.

17 There are nearly 700 samples coded 

18 in a CER data as pre-job samples. A hundred 

19 and seven of those were zeros, and so I 

20 substituted a uniform distribution for the 

21 zeros so is an equal chance of between 0 and 1 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

244 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 microgram per liter. And those fit a log2 normal distribution fairly well with an r3 squared of .88. The median value was .4 

4 micrograms per liter. So this is the 

5 background of uranium you're seeing in your 

6 worker population.

7 What NIOSH is doing is assuming 

8 that the 1 microgram per liter is 

9 occupational. More than likely, those numbers 

10 are background numbers, but they're being 

11 treated as occupational doses. So that's why 

12 this is very conservative without, you know, 

13 having a modern MDA concept specific to the 

14 site. That's all I have.

15 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Gene.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. A 

17 little clarification here. You say the MDA 

18 value in the TBD is .008 milligrams per liter, 

19 8 micrograms?

20 MR. POTTER: Yes, sir.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And you say 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that the data sheets from the workers in the 

2 files show less than 1 microgram?

3 MR. POTTER: I'm saying what's in 

4 the CER data is either a 0 or the lowest non5 zero recorded number is 1 microgram per liter, 

6 and that's true over the whole site's 10-year 

7 history.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: And then you looked 

9 at 700 samples and they ranged from 0 to 1 

10 microgram per liter? Is that what you said?

11 MR. POTTER: No. I looked at 700 

12 samples that were coded as pre-job samples to 

13 the 50th percentile. Fitting those to a log14 normal distribution of 50th percentile was 4 

15 micrograms per liter.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Four micrograms per 

17 liter.

18 MR. POTTER: Now some of these 

19 folks, you know, way out on the tail may have 

20 come from other uranium sites, but the bulk of 

21 the data fits the log-normal pretty well with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

246 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a 50th percentile of 4 micrograms per liter.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So where did 

3 the 8 micrograms per liter actually come from?

4 MR. POTTER: That was some work 

5 done by the original authors of the TBD, and 

6 what they did was looked at the -- where they 

7 had actual logbooks of fluorometric data from 

8 a similar era at Rocky Flats so they could --

9 you know, how you would run a modern program 

10 would be to keep track of your blank 

11 population very carefully. And from that 

12 blank population, you would calculate a 

13 decision level which is the value that you 

14 would decide something is above background. 

15 Given that decision level, there is an MDA 

16 which is the value that you could reliably 

17 detect with that program given that blank 

18 population.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Is any of this 

20 written up in the Revised TBD-5?

21 MR. POTTER: I think the Revised 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 TBD, at the moment, has essentially the same 

2 writeup as was in Rev 0. We were planning on 

3 providing this information to Mark separately.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

5 MR. ROLFES: What we intended to 

6 do was to pull this information, once again, 

7 out of the TBD, since these TBDs are in draft 

8 form still, into White Papers for response to 

9 SC&A. And Gene, you are saying that this is 

10 documented in the draft revision of TBD-5?

11 MR. POTTER: Currently, the MDA 

12 description is the same as in Rev 0.

13 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

14 MR. POTTER: This work on looking 

15 at pre-job samples has just recently been 

16 done, and this is one of the things we were 

17 going to provide to you within the next week, 

18 a little writeup on this.

19 MR. ROLFES: Okay. And we'll take 

20 a look at that and then subsequently send that 

21 on to SC&A.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

248 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So that was 

2 the TBD Primary Finding Number 21, internal 

3 MDA. We'll move on to page 16 now, which is 

4 Primary Finding Number 26, and this says 

5 "badging policy not consistent." Now this is 

6 one that spills over into SEC issue on 

7 coworker dose. I mean the main reason this 

8 has been here is to determine whether coworker 

9 data would be adequate or not. And so unless 

10 you have anything to add to that, I would say 

11 this would probably be wrapped up in our 

12 coworker dose for the SEC.

13 MR. ROLFES: I don't think we have 

14 anything to add right now.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This moves 

16 us to page 17 of TBD Primary Finding Number 

17 27, and that's coworker data development. And 

18 that, again, is in Item 1D of the SEC.

19 Page 17 again, Primary Finding 

20 Number 3 for the TBD, individual exposure 

21 versus average exposure. Okay, when it was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evaluated on the TBD, we were looking at the 

2 enriched uranium and recycled uranium and the 

3 thoron, the radium and the radon and thorium 

4 such as being outside the normal uranium 

5 processing bioassays and such and external 

6 dosimetry. And so I would say that the issue 

7 there is covered in our various SEC issues 

8 concerning RU and other factors, the pits and 

9 the fire issues. Anybody disagrees with any 

10 of this, raise your hand.

11 MR. ROLFES: I had a little 

12 statement if you want me to summarize it.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

14 MR. ROLFES: I just put down in my 

15 notes, the current approach in dose 

16 reconstructions assigns a claimant-favorable 

17 natural uranium intake based upon the 

18 individual's bioassay. But the way that we 

19 calculate the internal dose, we use the 

20 isotope that delivers the largest dose in the 

21 isotopic makeup of natural uranium. That 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

250 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be U-234.

2 In addition to the uranium intakes 

3 that we assign, we also assign thorium intakes 

4 and other radionuclides, so we're not focusing 

5 on only assigning one radionuclide in a dose 

6 reconstruction. It's actually several we 

7 assign.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Number 6, 7, 

9 and 8 are medical X-ray questions. 

10 Apparently, at Weldon Spring, it was all the 

11 medical -- they did have a medical nurse there 

12 I guess, and they contracted all their medical 

13 MDs, exams and X-rays and stuff to the 

14 outside. And apparently, maybe they had a 

15 doctor come on site once in a while, but they 

16 did no medical X-rays on site as far as I can 

17 tell.

18 They were required to have certain 

19 X-rays at certain times. However, in the 

20 documents I had looked at, I could not find 

21 anything that lists anything specific for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Weldon Spring as far as the frequency and PFGs 

2 obviously did a much higher dose. At that 

3 time, they could have required them. They 

4 might not have and so we couldn't find out for 

5 sure, and the lumbar spine exams were often 

6 given to certain people with lifting and such. 

7 And so I could not find any information on 

8 what was required there. So I was wondering 

9 if NIOSH had determined any of those any 

10 further than what the TBD-3 said, which said 

11 essentially they didn't have any information.

12 MR. ROLFES: Well, if X-rays were 

13 not done on site at the Weldon Spring plant, 

14 they were outside of the covered facility, and 

15 so they wouldn't be included under EEOICPA in 

16 the dose reconstructions.

17 MR. ROLFES: So if they truly were 

18 all taken off site, we wouldn't be including 

19 those as covered exposures.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I don't 

21 think that that's the way it was done at other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

252 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sites, is it? I believe --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Not consistently. 

3 That's a fairly recent interpretation. The 

4 question was raised fairly recently to others 

5 outside of our office in NIOSH about what you 

6 do in this situation. And our advice back was 

7 that the law requires reconstruction of the 

8 dose at the site and doses received off the 

9 site can't be included. That was sort of to 

10 our chagrin. That's the advice we got and 

11 that's fairly recent advice we received.

12 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: That's a NIOSH 

13 decision? I mean that's not something that 

14 DOL or DOE -- DOL would make?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It is -- no, no. 

16 DOL gives decisions about how to reconstruct 

17 the dose, what doses to reconstruct -- they 

18 leave those up to us essentially. This is 

19 from -- this is an interpretation, a 

20 recommendation based on the specific language 

21 in the statute. And I could find it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

253 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 eventually and provide additional information 

2 about what this means, but I don't remember 

3 right off hand. But I do remember it is a 

4 recommendation to our division from others in 

5 -- well, others in HHS at least -- HHS about 

6 what that language in the statute, actually, 

7 it has to be interpreted.

8 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So since the 

9 decision came from within the Agency --

10 MR. KATZ: Within the Department.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It would have been 

12 the Department.

13 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It would be 

14 something that the Board could at least 

15 address and make a recommendation or --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I think they could 

17 advise the Secretary as they see fit. That 

18 would then be for consideration. You know, 

19 the entire consideration of it would be 

20 outside of our division but within HHS, so I 

21 would guess that would be true. I don't know 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

254 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exactly.

2 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Because, you 

3 know, it just seems odd that irregardless of 

4 where the X-ray took place, if it was required 

5 because of your employment, it looks like it 

6 should be --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Understand 

8 exactly. I'm not arguing the point.

9 MR. KATZ: That's exactly how we 

10 originally came out determining --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That's why we were 

12 doing things differently at other sites --

13 MR. KATZ: So that's why things 

14 had been done differently as you're thinking 

15 all along, but I gather -- I'm not familiar 

16 with this, but if this is current legal 

17 interpretation, I do -- I am familiar with the 

18 language in the statute that says it's at such 

19 facility, the exposure, so I can understand 

20 where that might be coming from.

21 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I mean this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

255 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could get into different areas. You know, for 

2 example, you had drivers at Mound that would 

3 take radioactive material in trucks and 

4 transport it off site to a different location, 

5 so from the minute they cross the boundary 

6 line of a site, we quit recording their dose 

7 or --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think in those 

9 situations, if you could do that, that we 

10 would be expected to do that.

11 MR. KATZ: Same with airplanes, so 

12 I think that's already in play. That already 

13 operates with people off site. They don't --

14 aren't credited with exposures that occur off 

15 site, even if they're doing their job.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I think they came 

17 up at Los Alamos with an airborne --

18 MR. KATZ: It did. But that's 

19 just a question of how the statute is written 

20 and how it can be interpreted.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: So essentially, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

256 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're saying, no one will be assigned medical 

2 dose at Weldon Spring?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: If there is 

4 definitive evidence that they occurred with 

5 the X-ray exposures, medical exposures 

6 occurred off site, then they would not be 

7 included in a dose reconstruction. If it's 

8 subjective, if it's a question, if we don't 

9 know where they were performed, then our 

10 presumption is we're going to presume that 

11 they were performed on the site and be done, 

12 and then we would have deal with the issues.

13 So in this instance, we expect --

14 we're relying on definitive evidence that they 

15 occurred off site in order to exclude them. 

16 If there is not definitive evidence, we 

17 consider as occurring on the site.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And so 

19 what's the dose reconstruction being done now 

20 or have been done --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Up to now, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

257 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe they're probably doing them according 

2 to the Site Profile, which was written before 

3 we got this advisement, so they're probably 

4 being included.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So how are 

6 addressing these different exam frequencies 

7 and PFG and lumbar spine.

8 MR. ROLFES: The Site profile does 

9 have a statement about photofluorography not 

10 being present on the site, so that technically 

11 is not included in dose reconstruction 

12 practice. And I believe the default that we 

13 have for medical X-rays would be to assign an 

14 annual X-ray dose for an employee for -- it 

15 basically would be a pre-employment exam, an 

16 annual physical, and then a termination X-ray. 

17 Unless we have records in the individual 

18 employee's medical history that they received 

19 more frequent X-rays, we would typically 

20 default to an annual X-ray.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and lumbar 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 spines are usually done when there's evidence 

2 of a lumbar spine. It's usually not assumed. 

3 But if there's evidence that lumbar spine 

4 exams were done, the screening exams, then 

5 those are included. And without evidence, 

6 they generally are not.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: So you're just 

8 assigning a PA --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, PA chest.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Now this -- with 

11 that ruling, I don't know that SC&A --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it makes 

13 some of this moot. I guess the question of 

14 ambiguity, you know, if there's no firm 

15 evidence which way it went, then we'll tilt 

16 toward including it. But if it's clear like 

17 PFGs, they were done definitely off site, 

18 they're out according to this rule.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: So that brings us 

20 to page 20, TBD Secondary Finding. Most, I 

21 think, of what's left here are secondary 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 findings which, you know, we had some 

2 questions on, but it wasn't necessary to 

3 change drastically a dose assigned. The 

4 primary findings we feel are -- would 

5 materially change the dose assigned to a 

6 significant number of workers.

7 So TBD Secondary Finding 14, the 

8 ratios used during operations should be used 

9 with caution. I don't know if -- I guess we 

10 were looking for some clarification on that. 

11 They say in the TBD-4, so again, if we're not 

12 going to use TBD-4 as is, we reviewed the Rev 

13 0. Do you know if anything has changed on 

14 that I guess would be the first question.

15 MR. ROLFES: If it is, I believe 

16 we will capture that in our White Paper that 

17 we pulled out of the revision of the 

18 environmental TBD, and we'll clarify the 

19 locations if we need to.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Finding 15 

21 on page 20 was the thorium-232 process. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

260 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think that with the SEC issues that we -- that 

2 would be involved in answering those questions 

3 unless NIOSH had anything else to add to that.

4 MR. ROLFES: I'd just put a note 

5 here that in addition to the uranium intakes 

6 that we assigned based upon bioassay data, 

7 NIOSH also assigns thorium-232 intakes as 

8 we've described in the Weldon Spring Site 

9 Profile which is currently approved, and we're 

10 going back to revisit that because of the 

11 additional data that were located since the 

12 TBD was written and also to be consistent with 

13 what we've said in our Evaluation Report.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Will that be in the 

15 Revised TBD or will that be in the White Paper 

16 also?

17 MR. ROLFES: This will be in a 

18 White Paper, I believe. I'll have to double19 check on that just because -- maybe Gene or 

20 Bob might be able to elaborate a little bit 

21 further. Did we consider thorium effluent in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our revision of the environmental TBD?

2 MR. MORRIS: This is Robert Stand 

3 by, and I'll answer that.

4 MR. ROLFES: If you'd like to move 

5 on to the next one, Bob can come back with --

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That takes 

7 us to page 21, top of the page, Secondary 

8 Finding 16 for the TBD. This is environmental 

9 dose used from Fernald. Now in the original 

10 TBD, there was data used from Fernald in that. 

11 Now I understand from the ER, you were not 

12 going to use that. Is that correct?

13 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. 

14 We've used site specific data for the Weldon 

15 Spring plant, and this will also be put 

16 together in our White Paper for -- we'll pull 

17 out a response from the revision of the TBD-4 

18 into a White Paper for SC&A.

19 MR. MORRIS: Mark, Bob here with 

20 the answer to --

21 MR. ROLFES: Yes, Bob.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

262 

NEAL 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. MORRIS: What will be included 

2 in -- there will be a table in the White Paper 

3 that you will receive that is entitled 

4 "Estimated Average Annual Inhalation Intake of 

5 Radioactive Particulates in Radon at Weldon 

6 Spring Plant, Weldon Spring Quarry," and it 

7 will have U-238, U-234, radon, and natural 

8 thorium and thorium-230.

9 MR. ROLFES: Great. So that should 

10 respond to the issue that they've identified.

11 MR. MORRIS: And then for a few 

12 years after the operational period, we'll have 

13 gross alpha and radon and -- yes, there will 

14 be an added column "gross beta and gross 

15 alpha" for those post op years.

16 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Bob.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: That brings us to 

18 page 21, Secondary Finding Number 22, "cost 

19 center codes may not be reliable for doses." 

20 That kind of brings us back to the question of 

21 the coworker and the validity of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

263 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 representativeness and stuff. There was a 

2 statement on one of the documents I think I 

3 quoted in our review where -- that the cost 

4 center codes were there, but they didn't 

5 really represent necessarily where the person 

6 worked and his job function.

7 And so I guess my question at this 

8 point with the revisions and stuff, are you 

9 using the cost center code for any 

10 categorization or anything that would affect 

11 dose assignment?

12 MR. ROLFES: No. To my knowledge, 

13 no. We would basically start off with the 

14 individual's own dosimetry records, his 

15 bioassay data and use those to assign a 

16 uranium intake, use his own dosimetry records 

17 to estimate his external dose and then apply 

18 claimant-favorable assumptions about how we go 

19 about calculating those doses to the target 

20 organ, including claimant-favorable assumption 

21 of the solubility class which results in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

264 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 highest internal dose to the target organs. 

2 So there is --

3 MR. MORRIS: Mark, Robert Morris.

4 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

5 MR. MORRIS: I'd like to add to 

6 that. That statement was attributed to a 

7 person regarding the operations of 

8 Mallinckrodt at the Destrehan facility. We 

9 specifically asked some of the people we 

10 interviewed who were in a position to know the 

11 quality of that data as they moved forward in 

12 time to the Weldon Spring site, and they said 

13 that they purposefully improved the quality of 

14 that data as they kept up with it much more 

15 rigorously in the later years and said they 

16 would have no problem with believing that they 

17 had it correct in the operational years at 

18 Weldon Spring.

19 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Bob.

20 MR. MORRIS: You're welcome.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, I guess my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

265 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question would be if the cost center code 

2 would be used in coworker dose determination 

3 or model or anything, there would be a caution 

4 you -- I don't know exactly what he's talking 

5 about there. You know, maybe it's true, but 

6 the cost center code might be checked before 

7 we use it to create any coworker model.

8 MR. ROLFES: We'll keep that in 

9 mind.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Number 23 on page 

11 22, thorium was not bioassayed for -- at 

12 Weldon Spring in vivo. There was one last -- 

13 just before they closed down, there was an in 

14 vivo portable counting facility came there and 

15 counted like 148 or something workers for 

16 thorium. This was used to determine -- a few 

17 had -- most had negative reports, of course, 

18 if they're MDA or they may not have called 

19 that MDA in that time but what they could 

20 detect. A few were on the borderline.

21 I guess I understand though that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you're not going to use this in vivo counting 

2 for any coworker or dose reconstruction 

3 directly.

4 MR. ROLFES: We agree -- NIOSH 

5 agrees with that, and we don't typically use 

6 the results of the in vivo thorium-232 counts 

7 during the dose reconstruction process.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: So -- or coworker--

9 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: So I think we can 

11 close that issue then.

12 MR. KATZ: And just for clarity, 

13 the issue before, it sounds like that -- is 

14 that closed, too, that we just covered, the 

15 coding? It's closed unless it comes into play 

16 for a coworker model.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Correct. That 

18 brings us to Number 24 on page 22, the last 

19 secondary TBD findings, and enriched uranium 

20 not -- addressed, and this is coming from the 

21 fact that this was taken from Fernald. We 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 used 1 percent enriched uranium, but SC&A 

2 really didn't see that it was documented well 

3 that this was an upper limit. In the dose 

4 reconstruction, we're using 1 percent?

5 MR. ROLFES: That's correct.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Do we have 

7 documentation showing that there was nothing 

8 else supplied to Weldon Spring above a 1 

9 percent, because in the Fernald, I think if 

10 you go back and read its TBD or some of its 

11 associated documents, they say 1 to 2 percent.

12 MR. ROLFES: Yes. We switched to 

13 2 percent as a default for Fernald. I believe 

14 the year was around 1965 or 1966, and that's 

15 separate from the Weldon Spring plant. If you 

16 take a look at the documentation, they 

17 actually have some procedure manuals for 

18 handling .85 percent enriched and .95; .947 is 

19 probably what it was actually. But anyway, 

20 you know, if you take a look at the 

21 probability that a worker was only exposed to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1 percent enriched uranium, I don't think you 

2 could find anybody that was routinely and 

3 exclusively exposed to 1 percent at the Weldon 

4 Spring site.

5 Looking back at the Fernald data 

6 that we had analyzed, we had identified some 

7 individuals who had been involved in handling 

8 some low enriched uranium during various 

9 campaigns that lasted weeks to months, and 

10 some of the enrichments were between 4 and 6 

11 percent. And we had taken a look at their 

12 lung counts, their in vivo lung results, and 

13 also had basically inferred from those data 

14 reported in the lung counts what enrichment 

15 they had been exposed to.

16 And if you take a look, even 

17 though they were working with some 5 percent 

18 enriched materials, on average, their lung 

19 counts showed that they were roughly under 1 

20 percent enrichment, pretty conclusive that it 

21 was maybe a slightly higher value than natural 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

269 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium but certainly under 1 percent 

2 enrichment. And I think during that time 

3 period that that work had taken place, we had 

4 defaulted to the 2 percent enrichment.

5 So I looked back in the Site 

6 Research Database as well for Weldon Spring 

7 data, and the maximum enrichment that I saw 

8 for any product at Weldon Spring was the .95 

9 percent enriched, and these were for some 

10 specific Hanford fuel cores. I think they

11 were the Mark V external cores.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: So these came from 

13 Hanford rather than Fernald?

14 MR. ROLFES: I believe the 

15 material came from Fernald for Weldon Spring 

16 to produce the cores for Hanford, but I'd have 

17 to take a look back in the procedure. I just 

18 happened to look through last night. And 

19 there is also a similar procedure for .85 

20 percent enriched. I might be able to identify 

21 the couple of Site Research Database documents 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

270 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if you like right now, if you can give me two 

2 or three minutes here hopefully.

3 Okay. The first one here is --

4 it's under Weldon Spring plant. It's 11814.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: 11814.

6 MR. ROLFES: Correct. And that is 

7 the Manual for Criticality Safeguards and 

8 Processing, and there's a typo. It says .086, 

9 but it should be .86 Percent Enriched Uranium. 

10 The second one is 11819, and it is Additions 

11 to the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works Manual for 

12 Criticality Safeguards and Processing .95 

13 Percent Enriched Uranium. I didn't see any 

14 other documentation of enrichments which 

15 exceeded that.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: And so you say the 

17 2 percent at Fernald didn't start taking place 

18 until what year, 60-what?

19 MR. ROLFES: From my memory, it's 

20 1965, I believe was the time period because of 

21 the requirements for the N reactor at Hanford. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

271 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If anybody knows differently, please correct 

2 me. And I believe most of that stuff wasn't 

3 even 2 percent. It was a very limited amount. 

4 It was actually 2.1 percent which was the 

5 requirement for the N reactor, I believe, and 

6 most of the stuff was .947 percent or 1.25 

7 percent enriched.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. I'll look at 

9 those two documents, you know, just to verify 

10 the 1 percent. Mr. Chairman, I'm done with 

11 the Site Profile issues.

12 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So are we 

13 all clear on what actions we got?

14 MR. KATZ: Do we need to run 

15 through the actions now before you guys trade 

16 emails on them and stamp them in concrete, or 

17 do you think you guys have good notes and --

18 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Need more 

19 clarification?

20 DR. BUCHANAN: I don't need more 

21 clarification. I think for the record, so we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

272 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would go back, look at the transcript. We 

2 don't have to go through 365 pages to find out 

3 what our action item was. So I will read off 

4 what I think I am to do, and anybody correct 

5 or addition to that. And then Mark can read 

6 off what he thinks he's going to do, and that 

7 way, it'll be at the end of the transcript, if 

8 that'll be okay with you --

9 MR. KATZ: Well, actually, I mean 

10 so if you want to do that, that sounds great, 

11 but what I'd like to do following this meeting 

12 then is once you've traded this discussion 

13 right now, just go back and trade emails so 

14 that we can actually just put out -- we don't 

15 have to wait for the transcript, which takes 

16 at least 30, more like 40 days to come out. 

17 So just trade emails so that we'll have an 

18 action list via email.

19 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob. 

20 Could you get that action list to us?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. The action list 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

273 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will go to the whole Work Group, of course, 

2 but they'll trade emails until they've got it 

3 where they're happy with what it says. 

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: Thank you.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Now the point of 

6 contact for NIOSH will be Mark. The point of 

7 contact for SC&A will be -- okay. So then we 

8 can distribute it to your group, and I'll 

9 distribute it to SC&A. Now who wants to 

10 distribute it -- do you want --

11 MR. KATZ: If you just send it to 

12 me, I'll distribute it to the whole Work Group 

13 --

14 DR. BUCHANAN: You'll get it to 

15 the Work Group?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's fine.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And we don't 

18 want to miss anybody.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. Thank you.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: If you want, take a 

21 short break or something. I'll have to go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

274 

NEAL 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 and see exactly what I'm supposed to 

2 do. Do you know exactly what you're supposed 

3 to do?

4 MR. ROLFES: I'll have to organize 

5 my notes. It might take me a little time 

6 because I'm probably going to have to request 

7 Stu's help here to make sure I've captured 

8 things.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Would it be 

10 better just to trade -- I'm not sure if we're 

11 going to gain --

12 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: If we're going 

13 to do what Ted said, do we really need to go 

14 over it here?

15 MR. KATZ: Unless you want to talk 

16 about it right now because some things are 

17 unclear and it will be easier, we can just do 

18 this off line by email.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: Either way.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: That will be fine 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

275 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with me. There's a lot of --

2 MR. KATZ: I took notes, too, so 

3 if both of you come up short on something, you 

4 can ask me, and maybe I'll have it.

5 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Is there 

6 anything else we need to talk about while 

7 we're here other than possibly another 

8 meeting?

9 MR. KATZ: I don't believe so. It 

10 sounds to me a little premature to schedule 

11 another meeting until there's -- unless you 

12 have a rough sense already -- and most of the 

13 action items are in your plate, Mark.

14 MR. ROLFES: Right. We're 

15 currently working to come up with dates for 

16 our responses, so without having those dates 

17 yet, I can't really give an idea of when the 

18 next Working Group meeting might be. As soon 

19 as we get the dates scheduled and our action 

20 items here, I'll try to get an update to the 

21 Advisory Board Working Group on when we hope 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

276 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to have those work products completed and sent 

2 over.

3 MR. KATZ: That'd be good, so when 

4 you do that, then we'll figure on -- we'll 

5 schedule once we --

6 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I'd like to at 

7 least think about no more than a couple of 

8 months, I mean just to keep this thing on 

9 track. There's so many of these Work Groups 

10 that have, at least mine, have got off track.

11 MR. KATZ: The other option is we 

12 can book something and then reschedule if it's 

13 -- if we want to look out a couple of months 

14 now, we can do that if you guys are prepared 

15 to do that.

16 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. Let's put 

17 something on there --

18 MR. KATZ: Let's put something on 

19 there then, and we can re-book if it doesn't 

20 seem feasible anymore once Mark's done his 

21 homework. Let me run out to March and see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

277 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what we have on the books already.

2 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: We got a Dose 

3 Recon on the 14th and then a Procedures on the 

4 22nd.

5 MR. KATZ: Procedures on the 22nd. 

6 The 22nd seems more closer to the ballpark of 

7 at least giving two months. I mean the 23rd 

8 right now is open for example. We don't have 

9 that much -- we don't have -- let's see, 

10 Procedures. And Dick is on Procedures, too, 

11 Subcommittee, so that might make things easier 

12 for him as well. Dick, are you still with us? 

13 Dr. Lemen?

14 (No response.)

15 MR. KATZ: Might have lost him, 

16 but I know he can make the 22nd, so how does 

17 the 23rd look for folks? This is March 23rd. 

18 That's a Wednesday.

19 Does that look okay to you? And 

20 Mark?

21 MR. ROLFES: As far as I know --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

278 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I know. This is just a 

2 place to start.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, 

4 it's okay for us. It's okay for me.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. So tentatively, 

6 we'll send out a notice for the 23rd, but I'll 

7 check with Dick before I do that actually. 

8 And, Bob, are you still with us?

9 (No response.)

10 MR. KATZ: so I'll check with Bob 

11 and Dick. If the 23rd looks good for them, 

12 we'll pencil that in for now and, you know, a 

13 few weeks down the road when Mark knows what's 

14 going on, we'll reconfirm. Very good.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll start at 9 

16 o'clock again?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: See if Ted can 

19 get us moved to Dayton by then.

20 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, but that's 

21 just -- actually, for this Work Group, that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Weldon Spring Work Group, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

279 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would work, but -- anything more for the good 

2 of the order or --

3 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I don't believe 

4 so. Nothing else, then we're adjourned.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then we're 

6 adjourned. Thank you everyone on the line 

7 that's out with this Work Group. Nice 

8 meeting. Take care.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 went off the record at 2:48 p.m..)