NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

1

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

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

JUNE 7, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Richard Lemen, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

RICHARD LEMEN, Chairman

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

RONALD BUCHANAN, SC&A

DAVE HARRISON, ORAU Team

MONICA HARRISON-MAPLES, ORAU Team

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

KAREN JOHNSON

MARY JOHNSON

JENNY LIN, HHS

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU Team

MARK ROLFES, ORAU Team

BILLY SMITH, ORAU Team

TINA TRIPLETT
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

3

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Page

Welcome and Roll-Call/Introductions 4 

Work Group Discussion

Thorium exposures 4 

Radon model 50

 

Adjournment 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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

4

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

2 1:36 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Let's just then get 

4 started. This is the Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health Weldon Spring Work 

6 Group. We'll do a roll call with Board 

7 members, beginning with the Chair and please 

8 speak to conflict of interest since we're 

9 speaking about a specific site.

10 (Roll call.)

11 MR. KATZ: Okay then. We have an 

12 agenda. Very simple. It's two issues. It's 

13 posted on the web. It's Dr. Lemen's agenda 

14 and your meeting. Go ahead.

15 And let me just remind everyone on 

16 the phone when you're not speaking to the 

17 group, if you would mute the phones. It will 

18 make the audio much better for everyone. So 

19 press *6 to mute your phone and then when you 

20 want to come on you press *6 again. And that 

21 will take you off mute. Thanks.

22 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: This is Dick 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

5

1 Lemen. Let's start with the issue of the 

2 thorium exposures. I think we have -- the 

3 Petitioners have gotten together with SC&A. I 

4 believe you've produced at least five 

5 documents.

6 And I guess it would be best to 

7 turn that over to Ron Buchanan right now, if 

8 you would like to make any comments on the 

9 issue with thorium exposure and where we 

10 should go from here. Ron.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 

12 Buchanan, SC&A. Yes, the Petitioner submitted 

13 a total of six documents, one early on March 

14 13th and then five later on March 22nd. And 

15 these documents were submitted because there 

16 came up to question of, was thorium taken from 

17 the raffinate pits and recycled and processed.

18 And the reason that this was 

19 important was that this would indicate that 

20 the thorium would be in a different ratio to 

21 the uranium. Because Weldon Spring only used 

22 uranium urinalysis to assign internal dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

6

1 And the same way in dose reconstruction, they 

2 used a ratio, then, of the thorium to the 

3 uranium since there wasn't any thorium 

4 monitoring to speak of at Weldon Spring.

5 And so this is the reason that 

6 this was brought up. And if you did the 

7 raffinate and recycled it then it would be in 

8 a different concentration, a different ratio, 

9 from the uranium.

10 Looking through these documents 

11 there was -- if you read them and compared 

12 them, what I concluded --and I passed this by 

13 several other SC&A people to look it over also 

14 -- was that there was no indication that 

15 Weldon Spring there in `57 to `67 took 

16 raffinate material and reprocessed it with 

17 thorium.

18 Now I want to qualify that in that 

19 later documents used some terms that we didn't 

20 initially have in the TBD or I did not find 

21 in looking through any of the Weldon Spring 

22 documents. And we assumed -- it's always been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

7

1 assumed -- on the premise that thorium was a 

2 campaign-type processing in `63 to `66 in 

3 which thorium was brought in and processed for 

4 thorium metal and then sent out. And nowhere 

5 was it talked about in a recycled thorium as 

6 recycled uranium came into play at some of the 

7 sites.

8 And so I did notice that in some 

9 of the documents submitted by the Petitioner 

10 they used the word thorium residue, thorium 

11 recycled material, and thorium recycled 

12 products which is not clear what that is. And 

13 they use also scrap thorium.

14 I guess that was the main issue is 

15 during the thorium processing, the thorium-232 

16 processing, did they use anything besides 

17 thorium ore or did they take some scrap 

18 recycled material and bring it on site. That 

19 was one of the things that stood out that has 

20 not been addressed.

21 And number two would be the fact 

22 that the pits one and two apparently could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

8

1 have been uncovered during the dry stations. 

2 But apparently this was before the thorium 

3 products arrived in the `60s, `66. Pits three 

4 and four were used later on when the thorium 

5 processing campaigns were present, `63 to `66.

6 And I guess there is some question 

7 -- some of the documents say -- that these 

8 never went dry. And so you didn't have a dust 

9 or contamination that would be concentrated 

10 and anything to blow around if they were dried 

11 out. Did it dry out during the `56 to `67 

12 period where a worker could be exposed to the 

13 raffinate dust which would have a different 

14 thorium concentration and other radionuclides 

15 perhaps and uranium bioassays would indicate?

16 And so those were the two issues I 

17 summarized in the email I sent out at the 

18 latter part of March to Ted and he distributed 

19 to the Work Group.

20 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Does anyone have 

21 any answers to the question that Ron brought 

22 up?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

9

1 (No response.)

2 Can you hear me?

3 MR. KATZ: Yes. This is Ted. So 

4 that would be Mark Rolfes.

5 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Sorry. I was 

6 on mute. I started responding.

7 Yes, we've looked at the same 

8 references also and we didn't find any 

9 information that indicates that there was a 

10 separate process where thorium-230 was being 

11 extracted from uranium ore concentrates that 

12 were processed at the Weldon Spring plant 

13 which was the concern that the Petitioner had 

14 identified.

15 We are aware that there was 

16 earlier work and there was a confusing 

17 document which we had hoped to possibly learn 

18 some additional insight into why the document 

19 was written as it was because it was a little 

20 confusing. Because all thorium -- I think 

21 this came up as a result of all thorium 

22 exposures at both Mallinckrodt as well as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

10

1 Weldon Spring had been lumped into one 

2 document and considered for an epi study. So 

3 that's one of the pieces of background, one of 

4 the background reports, I guess that led to 

5 some confusion. And I just go back and look 

6 at this issue again.

7 As far as whether or not the pits 

8 dried up, I believe that the documentation we 

9 have seen indicated that the waste pits were 

10 usually underwater because -- I'd have to go 

11 back and look, but I think there were some 

12 documents that were written in the more recent 

13 time period in the 1980s during remediation 

14 and such which had said something about the 

15 possibility of waste pits drying up.

16 I don't have those documents right 

17 here at the time. And if I'm missing a detail 

18 on that, maybe I can call on someone from ORAU 

19 to help clarify anything I said.

20 The other aspect of if there's any 

21 recycled thorium on site, we have no 

22 indication that I'm aware of of recycled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

11

1 thorium being processed at the Weldon Spring 

2 plant. The thorium that came to the Weldon 

3 Spring plant would have come from Fernald. 

4 Fernald would have -- you know, we can look 

5 into if the Work Group would like us to look 

6 into the types of material that were sent from 

7 Fernald to Weldon Spring.

8 But the recycled thorium issue is 

9 sort of different than recycled uranium. And 

10 my initial impression for recycled thorium is 

11 that the dose metric impact of any recycled 

12 thorium contaminants in whatever may have been 

13 speculatively processed at the Weldon Spring 

14 plant. Since NIOSH is using the daily 

15 weighted exposure-derived thorium intakes, any 

16 observed activity from an alpha emitter would 

17 be assumed to be thorium-232 and would be 

18 assigned as thorium-232. So I'm thinking that 

19 would probably result in a bounding dose for 

20 that exposure scenario.

21 And the other aspect of this, you 

22 know we focused a lot on recycled uranium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

12

1 discussions with Fernald. And the recycled

2 thorium issue is what I'd consider to be much 

3 less of an issue than would be recycled 

4 uranium just because one of the concentration 

5 processes for some of the contaminants in the 

6 recycled uranium resulted as part of the 

7 isotopic separation in the gaseous diffusion 

8 plants. And then it's also a result of the 

9 fluorination of uranium at the gaseous 

10 diffusion plants, which concentrated some of 

11 those contaminants which were later sent back 

12 to Fernald.

13 Thorium isn't put through the 

14 gaseous diffusion process in the same way as 

15 uranium was. And so there wouldn't be as much 

16 of a tendency to concentrate some of those 

17 contaminants.

18 And once again, as I said earlier 

19 on, this is all just speculative because 

20 everything that we've seen indicates that --

21 you know, we've not seen any indication that 

22 the thorium that was processed at the Weldon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

13

1 Spring plant was recyclable uranium.

2 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: On the issue of 

3 the drying out from 1988-`89, is it clear that 

4 that did or did not happen?

5 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Can I --

6 MR. ROLFES: Monica?

7 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I was going 

8 to ask if I could speak to that. And I'm not 

9 sure who that was speaking just now.

10 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: That was Dick 

11 Lemen.

12 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Hi. The 

13 documentation that speaks about some of the 

14 pits drying out specifically calls out Pits 1 

15 and 2 could have possibly been uncovered, 

16 could have had some drying out periods, and 

17 that Pits 3 and 4 did not. They were marshy. 

18 There was no indication that Pits 3 and 4 

19 ever dried out.

20 Pit 4 specifically is where the 

21 raffinates and the thorium-232 campaign went 

22 into. So there should not have been any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

14

1 thorium-232 -- there would not have been any 

2 thorium-232 in Pits 1 or 2 if they had dried 

3 out. And that seems to be the concern that 

4 because the thorium-232 would be different in 

5 terms of ratio.

6 Could that Pit 4 have dried out? 

7 And we have absolutely -- well, I have not 

8 seen any indication that Pit 4 ever dried out. 

9 And I have seen documentation to say that it 

10 did not.

11 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Well, in the case 

12 of Pits 1 and 2 is there any potential for 

13 exposure from any type of radiation that might 

14 be considered by the Board?

15 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

16 Buchanan from SC&A. If Pits 1 and 2 even 

17 before they were used before the thorium 

18 campaign you could possibly have had thorium 

19 or other isotopes became airborne. You'd have 

20 an ambient environmental exposure, perhaps 

21 intake, that if you took uranium bioassays and 

22 then did a ratio for uranium to thorium, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

15

1 perhaps it wouldn't be the same in the dust as 

2 it would be in the raffinate in the plant.

3 Mark, do you want to speak to 

4 that? What if Pits 1 and 2 were dried out? 

5 What would be the environmental impact of 

6 that?

7 MR. ROLFES: Well, from my 

8 recollection, I do think we do have some 

9 samples that were taken from the pits during 

10 the remediation time period which would have 

11 shown the ratios of various isotopes within 

12 the chemical pits. And also I believe -- now 

13 I don't recall the exact dates, but the waste 

14 pits were not like in the center of the site. 

15 For example, they were off to the side of the 

16 site. I don't know if workers were routinely 

17 in that area to do anything or if they were 

18 sort of self -- you know, off by themselves.

19 Monica, do you happen to know? I 

20 think during the remediation time period, I 

21 think there were some samples taken to 

22 basically say here are the isotopic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

16

1 constituents of each of the pits. Is that 

2 correct?

3 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I believe 

4 that is correct. I believe that part of that 

5 information we used when we were looking at 

6 the assessment for the area around the 

7 raffinate pit. As you said, the geography of 

8 the plant is such that the raffinate pits were 

9 right up against the boundary of the operating 

10 area, but they were separate. And they were 

11 separated by a fence and personnel didn't too 

12 much travel between the two.

13 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Dr. Field, do you 

14 have any questions?

15 MEMBER FIELD: I guess I just 

16 wanted to clarify that if there was sampling 

17 done for Pits 1 and 2 that thorium-232 wasn't 

18 present in the quantities that you would

19 expect if it was recycled or disposed of 

20 there. Is that correct?

21 MR. ROLFES: Monica -- I didn't 

22 quite follow what you said, Dr. Field. And I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

17

1 know Monica probably is much more familiar 

2 with this than I. Monica, did you understand 

3 the question?

4 MEMBER FIELD: Let me phrase it 

5 again.

6 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

7 MEMBER FIELD: I was just 

8 wondering if there was analysis performed for 

9 thorium-232 at Pits 1 and 2.

10 MR. ROLFES: Let me take a look 

11 and maybe Monica could answer better than I.

12 MEMBER FIELD: It sounded from 

13 Monica about what you said before that there 

14 is no indication there was thorium-232. And I 

15 would just like to confirm that if there was 

16 sampling that took place.

17 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Right. I'm 

18 not sure if the sampling specifically looked 

19 for thorium-232. But I know that the Pits 1 

20 and 2 would have had the raffinates from the 

21 uranium processing and the thorium in that 

22 raffinate is the progeny from the 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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

18

1 MEMBER FIELD: 238.

2 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Right. 

3 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

4 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: So I don't 

5 know how 232 would have gotten in there. And 

6 we have no indication that 232 should have 

7 been in there.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

9 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I don't 

10 recall specifically what was analyzed for in 

11 the remediation period.

12 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

13 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: I don't want 

14 to speak without having the documentation 

15 right in front of me to verify it.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. And I haven't 

17 been on this Committee before. So I don't 

18 know of other specifics about the site. I'm 

19 trying to catch up a little bit. But was 

20 there air monitoring done in the vicinity of 

21 the pits at all that you're aware of?

22 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Billy, help 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

19

1 me out. I believe that the air monitoring was 

2 done around the perimeter of the facility.

3 MR. MORRIS: This is Robert 

4 Morris. We did find data periodically over 

5 the course of time which we used to derive 

6 intake rates for the environmental intake 

7 rates.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Right.

9 MR. MORRIS: Sometimes we had to 

10 use an atmospheric dispersion approach to 

11 relocate the concentrations to a location 

12 nearer the pit. But we revised the 

13 environmental site profile technical basis 

14 document for occupational environmental 

15 exposures.

16 MEMBER FIELD: I guess for the 

17 thorium-232, if it was indeed covered, then 

18 thoron should not have been a problem from the 

19 waste sites.

20 MR. MORRIS: We agree with that. 

21 That was one of our inherent assumptions.

22 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

20

1 reporter. Who were the last two people who 

2 were speaking?

3 MEMBER FIELD: This is Field.

4 MR. MORRIS: And I'm Robert 

5 Morris.

6 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: This is Dr. 

7 Lemen. If those were assumptions, do you have 

8 any backup for those assumptions other than 

9 just that they're assumptions?

10 MR. MORRIS: Well, I believe we 

11 do. You know it's been a year or more since 

12 we wrote that. But there were good bases for 

13 everything we did. If you want to open that 

14 conversations, then I'll need some time to 

15 look at those documents. I didn't realize 

16 that was on the agenda today.

17 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Well, I think we 

18 need to try and resolve these two issues and 

19 the thorium issue as to what we do about that. 

20 Does NIOSH feel comfortable at this time that 

21 they have enough data to make a decision on 

22 that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

21

1 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark, Dr. 

2 Lemen. And I'm looking back at a Weldon 

3 Spring environmental intake rates and external 

4 dose rates paper from April 12, 2011. And I 

5 think this is what Bob Morris was referring 

6 to. On page 16 of 38 of this document, 

7 there's a figure that shows the locations of 

8 particular air samplers, radon gas detectors, 

9 and some gamma monitoring stations.

10 I don't know exactly -- let's see. 

11 The air sampling it says ended in the year 

12 2000. And I believe it said that the air 

13 monitoring was done. Let's see. There are 

14 particulate concentrations from 1975 through 

15 1986 in our table. Let me flip to that.

16 There was monitoring data in the 

17 more recent time period, but not during the 

18 operational time period, is my recollection. 

19 But I believe that the approach that we've 

20 adopted is a claimant-favorable approach for 

21 assigning ambient exposures to workers from 

22 uranium and --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

22

1 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: When you said --

2 this is Dr. Lemen. When you say, Mark, that 

3 it's a claimant-friendly, can you explain that 

4 a little bit more so that the Petitioners that 

5 are on the line will understand what you're 

6 saying?

7 MR. ROLFES: Sure. In most cases, 

8 when we complete a dose reconstruction, that 

9 the ambient internal exposure pathways is very 

10 minimal in comparison to the approach that we 

11 would take for a worker that was involved in 

12 some sort of workplace operation. First and 

13 foremost, if we had an individual that was 

14 monitored for uranium exposure, we would use 

15 their uranium bioassay results.

16 And if you take a look back at the 

17 information I think we presented in our 

18 initial evaluation report, there was a large 

19 number of employees that were monitored for 

20 uranium internal exposure.

21 So really the ambient internal 

22 exposures are a small portion of the total 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

23

1 dose that we would assign. And usually we 

2 make assumptions as to the amount of time that 

3 the worker is on site. We usually choose the 

4 highest ambient concentrations from any 

5 location on the site if we have no idea where 

6 that person worked.

7 I'm trying to think of some other 

8 overestimating assumptions or claimant9 favorable assumptions regarding the assignment 

10 of ambient dose. But one of the biggest ones 

11 that we choose is to use the highest ambient 

12 exposure rates or air concentrations on the 

13 site if we have uncertainty as to where that 

14 worker worked in the outdoor environment.

15 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Okay.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

17 Buchanan. I just want to clarify. I think, 

18 Mark, there was environmental air samples for 

19 uranium taken during the operations period.

20 MR. ROLFES: Oh, yes.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

22 MR. ROLFES: Yes, definitely.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

24

1 DR. BUCHANAN: And so those were 

2 used in TBD 4 to set up an ambient intake 

3 level. So there was uranium air samples 

4 during `57 to `66 there.

5 MR. ROLFES: Yes. There were both 

6 uranium and thorium. That's correct. And I 

7 was looking at the more recent air sampling 

8 that was done in the later years and that was 

9 more perimeter air sampling in the later 

10 years.

11 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: This is Dr. Lemen 

12 again. Dr. Field, do you have any more to say 

13 on this issue?

14 MEMBER FIELD: No, I think -- I'm 

15 still trying to put all the pieces together, 

16 but not at this time.

17 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Ted, is it 

18 appropriate to let Petitioners make any 

19 comments they want to make at this time?

20 MR. KATZ: Oh yes. Of course. 

21 You can always invite the Petitioners to 

22 comment on the issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

25

1 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: That being the 

2 case, I'd like to ask the Petitioners that are 

3 on the line if they have any comments they 

4 want to make to NIOSH or to the Board about 

5 what has been said so far and if they have any 

6 suggestions as to what they want to see happen 

7 at this point.

8 Tina?

9 MS. TRIPLETT: I don't have 

10 anything at this point.

11 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: All right. 

12 Anyone else have anything?

13 MS. K. JOHNSON: This is Karen. 

14 And I'm not really sure what to say at this 

15 point. I hear a lot of I guess, I think, I 

16 believe, but I haven't heard any actual 

17 references to documentation. I would really 

18 like to hear some of those or see them in 

19 writing.

20 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Mark Rolfes, 

21 anyone from NIOSH, can address that question?

22 MR. ROLFES: Yes. This is Mark 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

26

1 Rolfes, Dr. Lemen. And regarding the 

2 references specifically for some of the air 

3 monitoring and for our environmental intake 

4 rates and external dose rates for Weldon 

5 Spring plant and our White Paper from April 

6 12, 2011, that is available on the NIOSH 

7 website and beginning on page -- let's see 

8 here -- 33 of 38 there are -- one, two, three, 

9 four, five -- four and a half pages of 

10 references that we've referred to and where 

11 we've gathered data, maps of the site, 

12 positions of the air monitoring locations.

13 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Is there any way 

14 that the Petitioners can get a hold of that? 

15 Can you send it to them? Or are you saying 

16 they should go to the website and just pull it 

17 up?

18 MR. ROLFES: If the Petitioners 

19 haven't seen a copy of this report, it is 

20 available on the website. I can also talk to 

21 someone here to see if the Petitioners have 

22 not received this document we can see if maybe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

27

1 we can send a copy to them either 

2 electronically or a hard copy, if they prefer.

3 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Would it be 

4 appropriate for NIOSH at this point in time to 

5 talk directly to Karen about her concerns and 

6 give her the document so she can look at it 

7 before you have that discussion? And then 

8 maybe we can come to some conclusion on this 

9 issue.

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes. This isn't 

11 something that's new to us since we have 

12 spoken with the Petitioners in the past about 

13 these concerns. And if there's new concerns, 

14 then we'd certainly be willing to --

15 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I can see where 

16 the Petitioner is coming from because I heard 

17 a lot of guesses and assumptions and stuff 

18 like that. I think that before we can come to 

19 final decision on this one issue that I would 

20 like to request if it's not inappropriate and 

21 tell me if I'm wrong, Ted, that NIOSH get 

22 together with Karen and any other Petitioners 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

28

1 to try and resolve any questions they might 

2 have about this issue before we make a final 

3 decision. Is that appropriate, Ted? Ted? 

4 Did we lose Ted?

5 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

7 Hinnefeld. I don't know what happened to Ted.

8 MR. KATZ: I was on mute, but go 

9 ahead, Stu.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I was just going 

11 to say that we can certainly send those to the 

12 Petitioners. If they'll just let us know now, 

13 would you rather have a hard copy or an 

14 electronic copy meaning an email with a file 

15 attached that has that document that Mark 

16 referred to from 2011?

17 MS. K. JOHNSON: This is Karen. 

18 Electronic would be fine. And I'm not sure 

19 that it is not something we haven't looked at 

20 before.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I understand. 

22 But if it's -- we're specifically discussing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

29

1 it here. You'll get this email then with one 

2 file attached.

3 MS. K. JOHNSON: Okay. That would 

4 be fine.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: And, Ms. Triplett?

6 MS. TRIPLETT: Yes, that's fine.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Electronic is 

8 okay?

9 MS. TRIPLETT: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Then we'll 

11 do that. Mark, you can talk to Josh.

12 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll send him an 

14 email and then you can talk to him about 

15 sending it to him to make sure he's getting 

16 the precise report you're talking about and 

17 then email it to them. And then we'll rely on 

18 Josh Kinman to get in touch with the 

19 Petitioners and arrange a call. How does that 

20 sound?

21 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: That sounds good 

22 to me. Dr. Lemen. I was wondering. I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

30

1 want to keep putting this off and off and off. 

2 If I could request at least from the Board if 

3 you could make that contact in the very near 

4 future before we have our meeting in Santa Fe, 

5 if that's possible.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: They should 

7 certainly have the file and we will at least 

8 be in contact to try to schedule the call 

9 before then. We have to deal with everybody's 

10 schedules including the schedules of our staff 

11 who will have to participate in that call. So 

12 we will certainly be in contact before the 

13 Santa Fe Board Meeting in terms of trying to 

14 schedule it. And maybe we can even have it 

15 done by then.

16 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I would really 

17 appreciate if we did go forward with that. 

18 Let me just ask the other Board Member on the 

19 phone, Dr. Field, if you're in agreement with 

20 that approach or if you would like to see it a 

21 different way.

22 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I think that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

31

1 makes sense. My concern though is that and my 

2 guess is that the documents that are going to 

3 be provided are things that they've already 

4 seen. But we'll find that out when they look 

5 at them again.

6 But what they'll probably -- I 

7 don't want to speak certainly on behalf of 

8 them, but I can anticipate that some of the 

9 questions that they may have may go back to 

10 how firm is the information on were these pits 

11 covered, just to use one example. And I'm not 

12 sure that's going to be in the materials 

13 provided to them. It just sounds like there's 

14 evidence from various sources that these Pits 

15 1 and 2 may have been open, that thorium-232 

16 was just in Pit 4. But as far as we know, 

17 that was never -- that never dried out.

18 So I think it may be hard to 

19 answer some of the questions that exist. And 

20 it may rely on some assumptions that there is 

21 no indication that these pits did dry out. So 

22 I guess it's at what level of confidence can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

32

1 you provide to answer questions about, you 

2 know, just a pretty basic question about were 

3 the pits covered the whole time. And, if not, 

4 which ones were not covered and for what years 

5 and what were in those pits?

6 I guess that's -- I'm not sure 

7 this will resolve the issue, but at least 

8 we'll know where the questions remain.

9 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I would like to 

10 give the Petitioners at least another 

11 opportunity to go over this and make their 

12 concerns known to NIOSH and to the Board so 

13 that we can at least have an open discussion 

14 on this at the Santa Fe meeting and get some 

15 resolution because this has gone on for quite 

16 a while. I don't want to keep it going on by 

17 pushing off decisions.

18 MEMBER FIELD: And I don't -- this 

19 is Dr. Field. I don't disagree. I want to 

20 make sure that this time is used in the best 

21 way it can be for the Petitioners and for the 

22 folks gathering this material. If it's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

33

1 the material that they're seeking, then it's 

2 not very helpful. But we won't know that 

3 until they look at it, I guess.

4 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: So I guess the 

5 last question I have on this to the 

6 Petitioners, is that an agreeable plan with 

7 you. Karen.

8 MS. K. JOHNSON: This is Karen. 

9 That is agreeable and I just want to thank 

10 you. I actually agree with both of you. For 

11 us, there is a lack of confidence and we 

12 desperately need that confidence to be 

13 comfortable with this.

14 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: All right. So I 

15 will leave it, Stu, for you to spearhead this 

16 with whoever you designate: Mark or whoever. 

17 And we'll readdress this maybe by telephone 

18 before the Santa Fe meeting but for sure at 

19 the Santa Fe meeting.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. This is Ted. I 

21 don't think we have enough time for another 

22 Work Group meeting before the Santa Fe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

34

1 meeting.

2 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I wasn't 

3 suggesting a Work Group meeting.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I was just 

6 suggesting maybe Stu could get back to me or 

7 something like that and let me know what 

8 happened.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. But let me just 

10 suggest this for a path forward. I mean Stu 

11 or his folks can organize providing these 

12 papers to the Petitioners and having that 

13 discussion with them. I would ask that, when 

14 they set that up, it would be nice for Ron 

15 Buchanan to be able to have an opportunity to 

16 join that since he's been --

17 DR. BUCHANAN: I would be very 

18 happy to do that.

19 MR. KATZ: I would like for that 

20 to happen and then at the conclusion of that 

21 meeting it would nice to just have a little 

22 brief email from Mark or whoever just sort of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

35

1 summing up that contact and so on. And then 

2 at the Board meeting, they can run over that 

3 as to what occurred with that discussion as 

4 well and then Petitioners, during their time, 

5 will have an opportunity to speak to that 

6 again as well.

7 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: That sounds good 

8 to me, Ted. This is Dick Lemen. So we will 

9 put that item off the table right now with 

10 that action plan in place.

11 And we'll move to the second item 

12 on the radiation. And I think, Mark, you had 

13 a presentation to make on that or were you 

14 going to address that first?

15 MR. ROLFES: I can run through 

16 really quickly those slides that I sent out 

17 this morning. I apologize for not getting 

18 those out earlier.

19 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Well, maybe -- I 

20 don't know. Does SC&A have something first or 

21 would you like to proceed with Mark going 

22 first and going after Mark?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

36

1 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

2 Buchanan. There is one piece of the thorium 

3 that we did not address or did not draw a 

4 conclusion on and that was -- Mark spoke to 

5 recycled thorium, and it wasn't an issue like 

6 recycled uranium and such.

7 I would like to see some short 

8 documentation of recycled or residue, thorium 

9 residue, or something kind of laid out on what 

10 Weldon Spring received, what that's referring 

11 to at Weldon Spring, and how that would be 

12 handled in the dose reconstruction because 

13 this was a new term that had come up since the 

14 TBD was written. So I would like to see 

15 something come forward on that either just to 

16 show that it is not of concern or was taken 

17 care of by the air sampling that was in place 

18 or something.

19 And so I'm wondering what we can 

20 work out on that, Mark. If you could do 

21 something short and concise on addressing the 

22 thorium recycled material.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

37

1 MR. ROLFES: Yes, we can work on 

2 that. I don't know that we'll be able to get 

3 anything prior to the Santa Fe Board meeting. 

4 I'm having trouble accessing some of the 

5 documents in our site research database. I 

6 would need to go back and check into it for 

7 some of the information. 

8 There were some bits and pieces of 

9 information where they had analyzed the hazard 

10 potential for recycled thorium in the 

11 contaminants being processed. And I believe 

12 this was done at Fernald in the `60s, some of 

13 this investigative work.

14 And, as I had mentioned earlier, 

15 the thorium that was processed at Weldon 

16 Spring came from Fernald. But we haven't seen 

17 anything that indicates that it's recycled 

18 thorium per se.

19 I think the more important thing 

20 would maybe be to look to see if we can find 

21 any kind of information for the shipments of 

22 thorium from Fernald to Weldon Spring and see 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

38

1 if we can get any kind of information along 

2 that line first.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: How long do you 

4 think that might take you, Mark?

5 MR. ROLFES: I wouldn't be able to 

6 give you a time estimate. It probably would 

7 take, I'd say, a few weeks at the minimum to 

8 go through some of the references and see if 

9 we can identify what types of thorium were 

10 sent.

11 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I'm just 

12 -- Can you hear me? Am I on mute?

13 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: I'm just a little bit 

15 confused here about this. Ron or Mark, I 

16 don't know where this is coming from. But, I 

17 mean, presumably you looked at what source 

18 terms were sent and processed at Weldon Spring 

19 to do your evaluation in the first place. I'm 

20 just a little confused as to what this is 

21 about.

22 Now you're talking about a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

39

1 possibility of this other source term. Can 

2 you explain this? I just don't really 

3 understand what's going on here with recycled 

4 thorium being shipped from Fernald if you 

5 didn't address it already in the Evaluation 

6 Report and so on.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

8 Buchanan of SC&A. In the past, it's always 

9 been assumed that the thorium was in an ore 

10 form. And then, these papers that the 

11 Petitioner sent in used the terms "thorium 

12 recycled material" and "thorium residue." So 

13 my question is: what does this refer to? Is 

14 this something different than what we have 

15 been addressing all along? 

16 Or is this a different terminology 

17 being used for what was already being 

18 processed? Or where does this term come from? 

19 And was it different than the thorium that 

20 was there and what we've worked up, you know, 

21 looked at the dose reconstruction for?

22 This just came to light in these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

40

1 papers. This terminology came out in these 

2 papers that the Petitioner recently sent us.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. And these --

4 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: This is Dick 

5 Lemen. I'm sorry. My phone went out.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. And these papers 

7 were papers that, Mark, your folks never saw 

8 these papers before and didn't -- can you just 

9 explain the other side of the story?

10 MR. ROLFES: I believe five 

11 references were provided and I believe we had 

12 seen maybe half of the references, two or 

13 three of those previously. I'd have to go 

14 back and look at the context just because 

15 we've seen hundreds of records before.

16 Maybe, Monica, if you recall. I 

17 know you had gone through and looked at some 

18 of the records as well that were provided, and 

19 if you have anything to add.

20 I don't recall the specific 

21 terminology and I didn't go back and look at 

22 this specific issue because I wasn't sure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

41

1 which aspect of thorium exposure was on the 

2 agenda that we were going to be discussing. 

3 So I would have to go back and look at the 

4 context of the statement.

5 I don't know if, for example, you 

6 know, it all depends, because sometimes when 

7 you're referring to thorium residues it could 

8 just be what's left over after they process 

9 the thorium if it was put through the process. 

10 I would have to go look at the context to 

11 figure it out.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 MR. ROLFES: I mean, I couldn't 

14 make a guess without seeing it.

15 MR. KATZ: I mean, I guess I'm 

16 just asking the question. Ron did review 

17 these papers that Tina provided, I think Tina 

18 provided, and you know we sent those around to 

19 everyone. And it's just sounding on this call 

20 like there was no follow-up to Ron's review of 

21 these papers. And so while we're thinking 

22 about what we might do to explore the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

42

1 questions that are open, it sounds like 

2 nothing was done to explore those in advance 

3 of this meeting.

4 MR. ROLFES: Ted, this is Mark. 

5 And I think what we originally had agreed to 

6 look into those references for was to see if 

7 there was any supporting evidence showing that 

8 thorium-230 had been separated from the 

9 uranium ore residues for the raffinates. And 

10 I think that was the review that we had 

11 conducted.

12 We didn't really go and look to 

13 see if there was information, additional 

14 information, about terminology referring to 

15 thorium. I think we looked at those 

16 references for a different reason.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. I see. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Ted, this is Stu. 

19 I think part of the difficulty here is the 

20 fact that this recycled is not really a 

21 standard term. And people can use the term 

22 "recycled" in a number of ways. And that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

43

1 what the confusion is. We don't know in these 

2 latest references that were provided by 

3 Petitioners how they used the term "recycled."

4 For instance, when we talk about 

5 recycled uranium, by and large in our program 

6 and at Fernald when we talk about recycled 

7 thorium, we're talking about materials that 

8 have been irradiated in a reactor and then 

9 reprocessed and repurified back to uranium or 

10 back to thorium. And in that process, there 

11 are some impurities that go along with it. 

12 And that's what we in our program have been 

13 talking about as recycled uranium or recycled 

14 thorium.

15 But that's just sort of a term of 

16 convenience for us. And that's not 

17 necessarily like the only acceptable use of 

18 recycled.

19 A common practice on the DOE's 

20 side was something called scrap recovery where 

21 they would take materials that are byproducts 

22 of a production material like uranium shavings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

44

1 or something, from metal turnings or the ends 

2 of cuttings that, when they're cutting uranium 

3 to a particular size you get some odd length 

4 pieces that need to be recovered. Or, maybe 

5 people might use the term "recycled" for that.

6 So the question is does the term 

7 "recycled" as used in these papers, at least 

8 one of which was written in the `80s by 

9 Batelle, really talking about material that 

10 went into a reactor and was reprocessed or is 

11 that just talking about some other sort of 

12 reclamation process that they were doing? So 

13 that's the basis for the confusion here.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, you're 

16 correct, Stu. That summarizes it good. 

17 Thanks.

18 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: This is Dick 

19 Lemen again. I got cut off. So I didn't hear 

20 all of that conversation, but it sounds like 

21 there is still a lot of work at least to be 

22 done on this second issue. And I hear a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

45

1 commitment from Stu and the rest of you at 

2 NIOSH that you're going to pursue that as 

3 rapidly as you can and try and have something 

4 at least to discuss on this second issue, 

5 maybe at the Santa Fe meeting also. Is that -

6 - did I hear right? Or did I miss something?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

8 Hinnefeld, and I think it will be difficult 

9 for us to have much to say at the Santa Fe 

10 meeting on this. I'm afraid this might take a 

11 little more research than we have days 

12 available.

13 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Can we get --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll see what we 

15 can do, but I don't know what we'll be able to 

16 do by Santa Fe.

17 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Okay. Can we get 

18 some kind of commitment to the Petitioners to 

19 you to set a little -- some type of time frame 

20 that you could say in a month you'll have 

21 something back? Or how would you like to 

22 handle that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

46

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the best I 

2 can do is we will have to scope this, right? 

3 Sitting here today, we don't really know what 

4 the scope of the task that we're looking at 

5 because we're not really sure where it's going 

6 to go. We'll have to scope this. And once we 

7 scope it, then we can have some idea of when 

8 we can be done.

9 We will provide that after we've 

10 had the opportunity to do that. We'll provide 

11 a projected schedule.

12 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I was really 

13 hoping that we could get things resolved by 

14 the Santa Fe meeting, because I thought we 

15 were closer than this. But I guess I was 

16 wrong on that, so we'll have to go by your 

17 time frame.

18 MS. M. JOHNSON: Hello?

19 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Hello.

20 MS. M. JOHNSON: This is Mary 

21 Johnson, the Claimant on the Petition.

22 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

47

1 MS. M. JOHNSON: We are wondering, 

2 when this comes to an end, how long does NIOSH 

3 have to prove, in their words, that we are not 

4 going to get this petition? We have waited 

5 and waited and waited and they always need 

6 more time.

7 Where is the preparation in this 

8 and how long do we have to be patient? This 

9 has just gotten ridiculous.

10 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I hear your 

11 concerns, ma'am. Stu, I was kind of hoping at 

12 this meeting today we would be able to resolve 

13 all these issues. But it appears that it's 

14 not going to happen.

15 Ted, how do you usually handle 

16 something like this when they're just putting 

17 stuff off?

18 MR. KATZ: Well, in a matter like 

19 this, when someone submits some papers that 

20 had some ratings and issues that hadn't been 

21 addressed before, I mean, that's the 

22 consequence of a new issue coming to light is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

48

1 that they have to pull the string on it.

2 And there is really -- I 

3 understand fully the frustration of that 

4 involving more time. But, I mean, there are 

5 two choices: ignore the new issue or to pull 

6 the string and find out whether that issue has 

7 any consequence or not.

8 But I don't think there's any way 

9 for the program to answer a question that's 

10 raised without looking into the documentation 

11 related to that new question. So I don't 

12 think you have much of an alternative unless 

13 you're going to ignore the issue.

14 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Well, I certainly 

15 don't want to ignore the issue. And I guess 

16 my question on this issue, one last time, 

17 would be: was there anything else besides this 

18 last issue that the Petitioners intend to ask? 

19 Or is there any issue that might come up 

20 again?

21 MR. KATZ: Dick, I think you 

22 missed because you were cut off, I guess.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

49

1 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Basically, we haven't 

3 heard yet about the radon model. We're still 

4 talking about thorium here.

5 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I know. That's 

6 what I'm talking about.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I'm talking about 

9 thorium.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I hadn't gotten 

12 to radon yet.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: So I am very 

15 sympathetic with the Petitioners. And I guess 

16 we'll bring this up at the Santa Fe meeting, 

17 at least the questions that are still open, 

18 and let the Board discuss that with NIOSH a 

19 little bit more.

20 MS. K. JOHNSON: This is Karen 

21 Johnson again. I just want to make a 

22 statement that these documents we've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

50

1 introduced came from our FOIA request from 

2 NIOSH. These aren't new. And they shouldn't 

3 be new to NIOSH. So I just wanted to throw 

4 that out there and make sure it's on record. 

5 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: Karen, I think what 

7 you're hearing from the NIOSH folks and the 

8 DCAS folks about this is that the terms that 

9 are in some of those documents that you're 

10 raising questions about a concern, I think to 

11 them those terms were not of concern. And 

12 that's why -- I assume they're aware that 

13 these materials existed, but they didn't have 

14 concerns about them, and now they're trying to 

15 address questions that you're raising related 

16 to those terms, which is why they have to go 

17 and do more research.

18 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Well, again, I 

19 would like to know how long the research is 

20 going to take and if we could get some 

21 commitment from NIOSH. But I don't think 

22 we're going to be able to.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

51

1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I understand the 

3 Petitioners' frustration on this and the best 

4 I can do at this time is to take it up with 

5 the whole Board at the meeting in a couple of 

6 weeks. I can't act by myself on this. I need 

7 the Board's support. Okay?

8 Can you hear me?

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, Dick.

10 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Is that all 

11 right?

12 MR. KATZ: Of course.

13 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Let's move on to 

14 the second issue, with this first one still 

15 unresolved. Mark, do you want to go ahead and 

16 make your presentation?

17 MR. ROLFES: Yes. At the last 

18 Board meeting, I guess -- I'll just go ahead 

19 and go quickly through these slides that I 

20 sent out this morning. They're available on 

21 the K: drive or O: drive under the AB document 

22 review folder for Weldon Spring. And most of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

52

1 this information came from the earlier 

2 presentation that we initially presented to 

3 the Advisory Board when the Special Exposure 

4 Cohort petition was issued.

5 Just to go through the Weldon 

6 Spring Plant Site History, the AEC contracted 

7 with Mallinckrodt Chemical to refine uranium 

8 at the Weldon Spring Plant between June 1957 

9 and December of 1966.

10 In 1967, the AEC returned the land

11 to the Department of the Army. And there 

12 really was no indication of any work being 

13 done during 1967, process work.

14 The covered period, we've got the 

15 operational period defined as 1957 through 

16 1967 and the actual processing was closed down 

17 by the AEC in 1966.

18 MS. TRIPLETT: I'm sorry. This is 

19 one of the Petitioners. Can you speak up? I 

20 can hardly hear you.

21 MR. ROLFES: I sure can.

22 MS. TRIPLETT: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

53

1 MR. ROLFES: Let me know. Is this 

2 a little bit better?

3 MR. KATZ: Much better.

4 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

5 MS. TRIPLETT: Yes, it is.

6 MR. ROLFES: All right. I 

7 apologize. There were no AEC operations or 

8 contractors from 1966 through 1975. And then 

9 in 1975, monitoring and remediation began and 

10 lasted up until 1984.

11 The operations at the Weldon 

12 Spring Plant, the primary activity involved 

13 the conversion of natural uranium ore 

14 concentrates into other uranium products. 

15 Let's see. They basically did some short-term 

16 thorium campaigns in the late 1960s. And the 

17 ore concentrates processed at Weldon Spring 

18 Plant were a relatively small source of radon 

19 because most of the radium in the ore 

20 concentrates was removed at an offsite mill 

21 prior to the materials being sent to the 

22 Weldon Spring Plant.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

54

1 Basically, some of the assumptions 

2 that we've put together in our radon exposure 

3 model came from the reference of Meshkov 1986, 

4 I believe it was. And they're laid out in the 

5 next couple of slides here.

6 Basically, at the January 2011 

7 Work Group meeting, NIOSH and SC&A agreed on 

8 the bounding radon exposure conditions for 

9 process workers. We had indicated that all 

10 radon release during the processing of the ore 

11 concentrates would be recirculated back into 

12 the process areas. And we assumed that the 

13 radon was steady state and that minimum 

14 ventilation would be involved in the 

15 buildings.

16 This approach establishes a 

17 bounding intake to perform dose 

18 reconstructions. Some of the bounding 

19 conditions from the Meshkov 1986 reference 

20 include the average annual uranium containing 

21 material being processed in the buildings. 

22 That was 12 million kilograms of uranium. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

55

1 radon that was released was directly related 

2 to the amount of uranium being processed each 

3 year.

4 We assume that 70 percent of the 

5 material being processed was uranium and that 

6 the radium activity in the ore concentrates 

7 which were processed was approximately one 

8 percent, which we believe is a conservative 

9 and upper end estimate of the radium content.

10 We've assumed equilibrium between 

11 radium and radon. And within this Meshkov 

12 reference, the radon release estimate for 

13 Weldon Spring Plant for the materials being 

14 processed at the site were in between 12 

15 curies per year and 34 curies per year. NIOSH 

16 chose the upper bound value of 34 curies per 

17 year.

18 And I know there was a concern 

19 previously expressed about whether surrogate 

20 data had been used. And there was no 

21 surrogate data that were used in this model.

22 And just the final slide is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

56

1 history of some of our discussions on the 

2 radon issue. And in January 2011, there was 

3 an agreement reached that the scenario in 

4 which all the radon released during processing 

5 was recirculated into the facility would be a 

6 bounding assumption. The maximum 

7 concentration of radon based upon the release 

8 estimate would be assigned for the intake.

9 And then in May 2011, there was 

10 some discussion and clarification and that's 

11 why these slides are being presented just to 

12 sort of recap and summarize the proposed 

13 model. If there are questions related to the 

14 slides or any other questions? I'll hand it 

15 back to you, Dr. Lemen.

16 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: All right. This 

17 is Dick Lemen. Ron, is there anything from 

18 SC&A on this?

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Yes. This 

20 is Ron Buchanan, SC&A. We have looked over 

21 this model and I've had several SC&A experts 

22 in radon look at this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

57

1 And just to summarize it real 

2 simply, there was no radon measurements taken 

3 at Weldon Spring during the operational 

4 period. And so this is a radon model which 

5 takes the throughput of uranium and then puts 

6 in an enclosed room where there is no 

7 ventilation. It lets it build up to maximum 

8 and then assign that intake.

9 So that's obviously an overly 

10 conservative model and assigns a higher dose 

11 than anyone probably received. And SC&A 

12 looked at the details, and the information 

13 comes from Weldon Spring and facilities and 

14 the throughput and such, and we do not have a 

15 problem with the model.

16 We brought it before the work 

17 group because in the past there had been 

18 problems, issues, with using a strictly 

19 modeled radon intake as opposed to having any 

20 benchmark measurements of radon.

21 And this was different from some 

22 of the other models brought forth to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

58

1 Advisory Board in that this does not take into 

2 any consideration or take any allowance for 

3 decay or ventilation. So there is stagnation 

4 and that sort of thing, separation, 

5 stratification, in the layers of radon.

6 And so this is an overly 

7 conservative model which we don't have a 

8 problem with. It's just if the Advisory Board 

9 will accept a radon model based on calculation 

10 as opposed to any benchmark measurements being 

11 made.

12 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Is that all you 

13 had, Ron?

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Dr. Field, do you 

16 want to comment on that? Hello? Dr. Field?

17 MEMBER FIELD: The mute got me 

18 again. Yes, just had a couple questions. 

19 More clarifications than I guess anything 

20 else.

21 For some of the assumptions, the 

22 70 percent of the materials assumed uranium. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

59

1 I was just wondering where that came from.

2 MR. ROLFES: This is actually out 

3 of the Meshkov reference as well, I believe.

4 Monica, could you confirm that? I 

5 believe that was one of the assumptions, and 

6 that's a pretty bounding assumption I want to 

7 say because most uranium content is -- that's 

8 a pretty good ore concentrate to have 70 

9 percent uranium in it. Let me see if I can 

10 pull that reference out.

11 MR. MORRIS: This is Robert 

12 Morris. Mark, do you think I can help that?

13 MR. ROLFES: Yes, please go ahead.

14 MR. MORRIS: Yes. You know, the 

15 uranium would have been mixed in with some 

16 kind of oxide and so those are consistent 

17 assumptions with some kind of part of the 

18 module as oxygen.

19 MEMBER FIELD: I see. So when 

20 you're talking about 70 percent you're talking 

21 it could be 100 percent uranium oxide, the 

22 yellowcake?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

60

1 MR. MORRIS: Sure. Yes. But radon 

2 would come from uranium atoms.

3 MEMBER FIELD: Right. So the 30 

4 percent then is just the other -- it's the 

5 compound that's associated with uranium, 

6 right?

7 MR. MORRIS: I think that's -- if 

8 I recall, it's been a long time since I looked 

9 at that one, but I'm pretty sure that's how we 

10 did it.

11 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. I'm just 

12 trying to figure out. If you think about 

13 yellowcake, you think about higher percent. 

14 But I see what you're saying with the 

15 compound. So you just looking at the, almost 

16 the elemental content. 

17 MR. MORRIS: Right.

18 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. And then 

19 Meshkov, I remember looking at this about a 

20 year ago or so. And I sent an email in just a 

21 short while ago. They assumed -- I thought it 

22 was 30 percent equilibrium, but then Mark said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

61

1 it was 50 percent.

2 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

3 MEMBER FIELD: What I heard it 

4 sounded like there was 100 percent equilibrium 

5 that you just discussed today.

6 MR. SMITH: This is Billy Smith. 

7 The equilibrium that Mark was talking about 

8 was that the equilibrium was between uranium 

9 and radon was 100 percent. So we had full 

10 equilibrium.

11 MEMBER FIELD: I see.

12 MR. SMITH: All of the radon in 

13 the uranium was released in the refining 

14 process.

15 MEMBER FIELD: And the equation 

16 you used for the tables is based on working 

17 levels or is it based on radon gas?

18 MR. SMITH: It's based on working 

19 levels.

20 MEMBER FIELD: Working levels.

21 MR. SMITH: Now the paper that you 

22 probably read has -- hold on just one second, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

62

1 please.

2 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

3 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: IREP 

4 operates on working levels.

5 MEMBER FIELD: That's what I 

6 thought.

7 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Yes.

8 MEMBER FIELD: What I was 

9 wondering was what was the equilibrium ratio 

10 between the radon and the decay products 

11 assumed in the room.

12 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Yes.

13 MEMBER FIELD: I assume that's 100 

14 percent?

15 MR. ROLFES: That was 50 percent.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Fifty percent.

17 MR. ROLFES: From the EPA document 

18 that I had sent to you. I think I sent it.

19 MEMBER FIELD: Right. Based on 

20 home, right?

21 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Correct. For 

22 indoor air.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

63

1 MR. SMITH: It's much lower than 

2 that for outdoor materials or in materials in 

3 buildings where the turnover rate is much 

4 higher. So we went conservative. I assume 

5 that the equilibrium back there was 50 

6 percent.

7 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

8 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

9 reporter. Who is this speaking, please?

10 MEMBER FIELD: I was just saying, 

11 when you assume that it's all decay and there 

12 was stagnation, that's why I assume you were 

13 using 100 percent. That there's no played out 

14 or nothing occurring.

15 MR. SMITH: No, that's not true.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Well, that's why I 

17 just asked you for clarification on that.

18 MR. MORRIS: Dr. Field, this is 

19 Robert Morris.

20 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

21 MR. MORRIS: We have looked at our 

22 model and I've just in the last day or so made 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

64

1 sure that we had it right. And we assumed 

2 that if all of the radon from the material of 

3 interest escaped into the building, completely 

4 mixed into the breathing air of the building, 

5 and was available for workers to breathe 2,000 

6 hours a year, we assumed 50 percent 

7 equilibrium between radon and radon progeny.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

9 MR. MORRIS: And we assumed 

10 variable ventilation rates, like you would see 

11 in a home, for example. So that all of the 

12 radon was removed from the ambient air 

13 exhaust. None of it from the process. Local 

14 exhaust ventilation, that would have been 

15 associated with capture velocity, fume hoods 

16 or unit process ventilation.

17 So when you take flow rates as low 

18 as that, then you're not going to get low 

19 equilibrium ratios like you would from a very 

20 highly ventilated building. Does that make 

21 sense?

22 MEMBER FIELD: I guess what I was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

65

1 just trying to figure out was the discussion -

2 - I understand completely why you use 50 

3 percent, because generally in larger building 

4 there are areas where there's work occurring 

5 like this. You have much higher air exchange 

6 rates than what you find in homes. So 50 

7 percent, I agree would be bounding.

8 But I thought what I heard during 

9 the presentation was that there was nothing 

10 assumed as far as ventilation. That it was 

11 assumed that it was a closed system. Maybe I 

12 misheard that.

13 MR. MORRIS: We may have said that 

14 a long time ago. In fact, I think we probably 

15 did a long time ago.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

17 MR. MORRIS: As it's written, we 

18 went through and made it more clear what our 

19 assumptions. We do have one air change per 

20 hour ventilation which is a minimal, sort of a 

21 tight home, kind of ventilation rate. And 

22 that would be very, very conservative for an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

66

1 industrial facility.

2 MEMBER FIELD: Right, I agree. And 

3 then for the Meshkov, I have to look again, 

4 but did they say what the emanation rate was 

5 based on the material as far as moisture 

6 content, that kind of thing? I'm just 

7 curious. These are some of the details I just 

8 hadn't checked up on.

9 MR. MORRIS: Do you mean how Mr. 

10 Meshkov came up with the 34 --

11 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I'm just 

12 wondering because the emanation rate from the 

13 material is going to depend on the content? 

14 And if it's yellowcake, you already assume a 

15 certain moisture content. I'm just wondering 

16 that there's a lot of differences with 

17 emanation rates from materials based on what 

18 the moisture content is.

19 MR. MORRIS: I don't remember how 

20 Mr. Meshkov came up with that.

21 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. I'll look 

22 over that again. Just trying to clarify some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

67

1 of those issues.

2 MR. MORRIS: If you want, we can 

3 sort of look over that, too, and give you a 

4 written response, if you choose.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. And that's 

6 all I had, Dick.

7 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Could I ask you, 

8 Bill, one last question? And that is: what do 

9 you feel about using a model such as this 

10 without any actual measurements?

11 MEMBER FIELD: Well, if these 

12 other questions make sense that I was asking 

13 just for clarification, I think it is 

14 bounding. You know, we went through this at 

15 other sites. Is this -- are the assumptions 

16 reasonable? And, yes, we had a lot of 

17 discussion just centered around previous sites 

18 like this.

19 I think this should be a bounding 

20 estimate based on assuming a rather low 

21 ventilation rate. It's something we want to 

22 look over, because the slides don't go into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

68

1 detail, but I think the report does. There 

2 are other documents that I've seen.

3 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Okay. At this 

4 time, do any of the Petitioners have any 

5 comments? Karen?

6 (No response.)

7 Tina?

8 MS. TRIPLETT: No, I do not.

9 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Okay. Does NIOSH 

10 have any further comments at this time?

11 MR. ROLFES: I don't believe so.

12 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Ron from SC&A, 

13 any further comments?

14 DR. BUCHANAN: No.

15 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I propose, as 

16 Chair of this Working Group, that we bring 

17 this up to the full Committee and see what 

18 their feeling is on using this model. If 

19 there are no dissensions from the Petitioners 

20 at this time, I suggest, Ted, we put it on the 

21 agenda as part of what the Weldon Spring 

22 presentation will be at the Board meeting in a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

69

1 couple of weeks.

2 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Weldon 

3 Spring is on the agenda already.

4 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I understand. 

5 But I mean, with this comment, that we bring 

6 it up to the Board.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, you'll 

8 be leading up the discussion.

9 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Correct.

10 MR. KATZ: I guess one suggestion 

11 is: there are some useful clarifications about 

12 the model in the discussion from Robert Morris 

13 which sort of laid out the parameters more 

14 clearly, and that might be useful to add to 

15 the presentation, Mark.

16 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: I agree.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, because the full 

18 Board was very interested in hearing more 

19 about the radon model. And I think the whole 

20 discussion here this afternoon was helpful in 

21 understanding how that model was designed.

22 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: So, Mark, could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

70

1 you put that in your presentation at the Board 

2 meeting?

3 MR. ROLFES: Yes, we could 

4 definitely -- there's a lot of information in 

5 the slides that might not even be important. 

6 I presume that I'm being asked to give this 

7 presentation to the full Board. Is that what 

8 I'm hearing?

9 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Yes.

10 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. We'll 

12 provide that presentation or modified 

13 presentation that actually focuses on the 

14 radon model and the specifics of the radon 

15 model.

16 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: That would be 

17 good.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And we will 

19 present that at the Board meeting.

20 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: All right. Are 

21 there any other questions on this radon issue 

22 at this time?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

71

1 (No response.)

2 If not, I think we've completed 

3 the agenda. And if there are no other 

4 questions or comments from the Petitioners, I 

5 would call this meeting to a close at this 

6 time.

7 Ted?

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. And, 

9 Dick, you're prepared to sort of lead off the 

10 discussion of this at the Board meeting?

11 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Yes, I am. And 

12 I'm a little concerned about the first issues 

13 that we talked about. But I'll talk to some 

14 people about that. So that's all I have at 

15 this time.

16 MR. KATZ: Sure. And we'll have a 

17 little bit more follow-up on the first issue 

18 after they've had a chance to talk with Tina 

19 and the Johnsons.

20 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Right. But I 

21 would like to show the Petitioners that are on 

22 the Board that as far as I'm concerned, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Weldon Spring Work Group for accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject tohange. 

72

1 need to move this through and get a decision 

2 made. Because I agree; it's been too long in 

3 the making. And I'll do everything I can to 

4 push that forward.

5 MS. K. JOHNSON: This is Karen. 

6 We truly appreciate it, because we have, we've 

7 been here since the beginning. So we 

8 appreciate some closure at this point.

9 CHAIRMAN LEMEN: Well, I'll work 

10 towards that, and I'll address this again to 

11 the Petitioners, I guess, at the Board meeting 

12 and to listen to NIOSH's presentation and hear 

13 what we have to resolve some of the issues on 

14 the first part of our agenda today.

15 With that, I'll close the meeting 

16 and thank everybody for participating. And 

17 we'll talk later.

18 Any final comments, Ted?

19 MR. KATZ: Nope. Thanks to 

20 everyone.

21 (Whereupon, at 2:48 p.m., the 

22 above-entitled matter was concluded.)