1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON FERNALD

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

APRIL 19, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Frankfurt Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Bradley P. Clawson, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chairman

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member*

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ROBERT ALVAREZ, SC&A*

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

SANDRA BALDRIDGE

ROBERT BARTON, SC&A*

EVERETT "RAY" BEATTY, SR.

MEL CHEW, ORAU Team*

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A*

LOU DOLL

SAM GLOVER, DCAS*

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU Team*

KAREN KENT, ORAU Team*

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU Team*

GENE POTTER, ORAU Team*

BRYCE RICH, ORAU Team*

MARK ROLFES, DCAS 

DAVE SUNDIN, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

JIM WERNER, SC&A*

*Participating via telephone
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Page

Welcome and roll-call/introductions........ 5 

Work Group Discussion

Issue #3: Review of the recycled

uranium white paper dated

March 3, 2008 ....................... 14

Issue #4: Review of radon breath

data for adequacy for

reconstructing doses due to the

inhalation of Ra-226 and Th-230 .... 132

Discussion of Open SEC Petition Issues

Issue #6b: Use of chest

counts to reconstruct Th-232

exposures post-1968. ............... 188

Issue #6a: Review of breathing

zone and general air sampling

data and associated daily

weighted exposures (DWEs) being

used by NIOSH for the purpose

of reconstructing Th-232 intakes

(see NIOSH white paper dated

March 11, 2009) .................... 279

Issue #1: Review of the completeness

and adequacy of the uranium bioassay

data available for dose

reconstruction and supporting the

Fernald internal dosimetry

co-worker model (OTIB-0078)

dated November 6, 2007;

consider application to

construction workers ............... 330

Issue #5: Review of radon emissions

from the K-65 silos ................ 297
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Page

Discuss Work Group report to the Board... 352

Recap any remaining action items

and discuss timeframes................... 351

Scheduling............................... 362

Adjournment.............................. 364

 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:02 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning everyone. 

4 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

5 Worker Health, Fernald Work Group. We're 

6 going to get started, beginning with roll 

7 call, with Board Members in the room, and 

8 since we're talking about a specific site, 

9 please speak to a conflict of interest too.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I'm Brad 

11 Clawson, Work Group Chair for Fernald. No 

12 conflict of interest.

13 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phil Schofield, 

14 Work Group Member. No conflict.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Work 

16 Group Member, no conflict.

17 MR. KATZ: And Board Members on the 

18 line?

19 MEMBER PRESLEY: Robert Presley, 

20 Work Group Member, no conflict.

21 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bob, and we're 

22 not expecting Mark today. NIOSH-ORAU team in 
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the room?

2 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, health 

3 physicist with NIOSH. No conflict for 

4 Fernald.

5 MR. SUNDIN: This is Dave Sundin 

6 with NIOSH. No conflict.

7 MR. KATZ: And NIOSH-ORAU team on 

8 the line?

9 MR. ALVAREZ: This is Bob Alvarez, 

10 SC&A, no conflict.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. NIOSH-ORAU team 

12 for now, but thanks, Bob.

13 DR. GLOVER: Sam Glover, health 

14 physicist, NIOSH. No conflict.

15 MS. JESSEN: Karin Jessen, ORAU 

16 team, no conflict.

17 DR. CHEW: Mel Chew, ORAU team, no 

18 conflict.

19 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris, health 

20 physicist, ORAU team, no conflict.

21 MR. RICH: Bryce Rich, ORAU team, no 

22 conflict.
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. KENT: Karen Kent, ORAU team, no 

2 conflict.

3 MR. KATZ: Thank you, NIOSH-ORAU 

4 team. SC&A team in the room?

5 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

6 conflict.

7 MR. STIVER: John Stiver, SC&A, no 

8 conflict.

9 MR. KATZ: And SC&A on the line? 

10 I've got Bob Alvarez already.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, SC&A, 

12 no conflict.

13 MR. BARTON: Bob Barton, SC&A, no 

14 conflict.

15 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Harry Chmelynski, 

16 SC&A, no conflict.

17 MR. WERNER: Jim Werner, SC&A, no 

18 conflict.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you SC&A 

20 team. Federal officials in the room?

21 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

22 MR. KATZ: And this is Ted Katz, the 
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Designated Federal Official for the Advisory 

2 Board. No conflict. On the line? Any HHS, 

3 DOL, DOE?

4 (No response.)

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you, and 

6 members of the public in the room?

7 MS. BALDRIDGE: Sandra Baldridge, 

8 petitioner.

9 MR. BEATTY: Ray Beatty, former 

10 Fernald worker.

11 MR. KATZ: Welcome to both of you, 

12 and members of the public on the line who want 

13 to identify?

14 (No response.)

15 MR. KATZ: Very good. That's it. 

16 For all callers, let me remind everyone on the 

17 line to please mute your phones except when 

18 you're speaking with the group, *6, if you 

19 don't have a mute button, and then *6 again, 

20 to take yourself off of mute.

21 And Brad, the agenda is yours. The 

22 agenda is --
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Changed?

2 MR. KATZ: On the website, but we've 

3 changed the order a little bit, to accommodate 

4 some staff who have time conflicts. 

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, I 

6 appreciate this. As I said, I'm Barton 

7 Clawson. I'm the Work Group Chair for 

8 Fernald. Like Ted said earlier, we're going 

9 to change the agenda a little bit, to be able 

10 to accommodate some people that have some 

11 prior commitments. So we're going to start 

12 out with recycled uranium.

13 I'd like to tell Mark we appreciate 

14 him getting this out to is, but it was a 

15 little bit late, like usual. So we've done 

16 the best that we can on this, and we'll 

17 respond accordingly, and I'll turn it over to 

18 John.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is John 

20 Stiver with SC&A, and I'd like to briefly 

21 recap the RU issue from last February 8th 

22 meeting. At the end of that meeting, there 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were several action items that came up, and 

2 one published for NIOSH to review, our second 

3 report on recycled uranium, and really to 

4 address some specific issues that had not been 

5 raised previously in our original report.

6 That was in regard to the site7 specific data that we had found, which would 

8 tend to indicate that the current defaults 

9 NIOSH had been using for their method, were 

10 probably not clear about what qualifies as a 

11 workers at all times.

12 So the scene was really to look at 

13 this work data that were in the DOE mass 

14 balance report, which really especially the 

15 Ohio field office report, which really is the

16 fundamental underpinning of a lot of the 

17 validation for the default values.

18 We had one of our associates, Jim 

19 Werner, who was directly involved in the 

20 production of that document, and has a little 

21 bit of knowledge of its strengths, as well as 

22 many of its weaknesses. We laid that out in a 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fairly detailed manner in the RU report, and 

2 as Brad mentioned, Mark did provide us a 

3 review, and I'd like to talk a little bit 

4 about that. 

5 I mean there's good news and there's 

6 some bad news too. But I'd say the best thing 

7 about is in relation to the first issue, the 

8 defaults not being bounding for certain 

9 periods of time, NIOSH did acknowledge that 

10 it's probably true, based on the additional 

11 information provided.

12 What I was really happy to see is 

13 that for the first time there was an 

14 acknowledgment that we really need to take 

15 into consideration the large amount of 

16 variability in the data sets that were 

17 provided in the DOE 2000-B report.

18 They also acknowledged that the use 

19 of the arithmetic means that the DOE report 

20 had relied on were probably not adequate, 

21 given the types and the breadth of the 

22 distributions, and the statistical analysis 
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that was actually performed. 

2 So what they did was they went ahead 

3 and abandoned the bootstrap means or the 

4 arithmetic means, in favor of a log-normal fit 

5 to the data sets, and then picked 95th 

6 percentiles of that. That's in this table. I 

7 believe it's Table 2 on page --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you looking at 

9 their Table 2?

10 MR. STIVER: On their, their new 

11 paper here. It would be Table 2 on page 16, 

12 and you can see that it's very similar to the 

13 original table. This had the process 

14 subgroups, the 19 process subgroup means, and 

15 those bootstrap means are listed 

16 parenthetically.

17 Next to the left of each cell is 

18 the, they're at log-normal 95th percentile. 

19 So you can look -- really, the most important 

20 one here, for dosimetric standpoint, is 

21 plutonium, the second column over. You can 

22 see there's really about four of these 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subgroups.

2 MR. KATZ: John, I'm sorry to 

3 interrupt, but I mean I thought you were 

4 giving an overview. But I mean typically, 

5 DCAS will present its work, and then SC&A will 

6 respond.

7 MR. STIVER: All right. I just --

8 okay.

9 MR. KATZ: If you're planning to get 

10 to that, that's fine. But otherwise, it would 

11 be good to hear from DCAS, since they were 

12 working on this report.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay, okay. I'll just 

14 say it in broad brush strokes, then. We were 

15 happy with the use of a more realistic 

16 distribution. They have addressed the 

17 variability in the existing data.

18 However, we still have concerns that 

19 some of the data were not analyzed, and also 

20 that the uncertainty, which we feel is quite 

21 significant in this data set, in terms of 

22 missing data, just the lack of knowledge about 
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what was actually going on and various things 

2 like that, you know, process knowledge and 

3 terminations. 

4 All those involve a great deal of 

5 uncertainty, and that particular aspect was 

6 not addressed. Only the variability of the 

7 data, on certain parts of the data. 

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Why don't we turn 

9 it over to Mark, then.

10 MR. STIVER: So Mark.

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I'll just give 

12 you a quick overview of what we've done, based 

13 upon -- I mean this isn't something that we've 

14 been discussing just for a short amount of 

15 time. We've been discussing this issue for 

16 quite a long bit of time over the past several 

17 years. 

18 This response is only our most 

19 recent of probably ten different provisions. 

20 You know, it's probably been about six back 

21 and forths, you know, between NIOSH and ORAU 

22 and SC&A. So ultimately, this the culmination 
15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of many, you know, back and forth papers.

2 What we've done basically for this 

3 most recent revision of this White Paper, is 

4 to reanalyze the data and use the 95th 

5 percentiles of the transuranic contaminants in 

6 the recycled uranium that was sent to Fernald. 

7 It basically breaks it down by the 

8 various process subgroups, we mentioned on 

9 page 16 in Table 2, and we've got comparisons 

10 of the plutonium in parts per billion uranium 

11 at the 95th percentile, in comparison to our

12 previous bootstrap mean analysis results.

13 The end result of our recalculations 

14 increased the plutonium defaults by a factor 

15 of four. It increased the neptunium defaults 

16 by a factor of three, and it increased the 

17 technetium defaults by a factor of two.

18 So this is what we're proposing to 

19 use now for dose reconstruction, for the time 

20 period when the high transuranic contaminated 

21 materials from the gaseous diffusion plants 

22 were sent to Fernald, and that was roughly 
16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 early to mid-70's forward.

2 So we feel that this should result, 

3 you know, the back and forth discussion, 

4 because we're now using the 95th percentile 

5 rather than the average or bootstrap mean. 

6 That's my brief introduction, and thank you.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. Like I said, I 

8 was very happy to see that. However, I still 

9 keep getting back to the problem with the DOE 

10 2000-B report, and the limitation of that data 

11 set. I have some handouts that I printed out 

12 actually this morning, and couldn't get it 

13 last night or actually early this morning. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, before you go 

15 forward, I think you're moving beyond this 

16 now, right?

17 MR. STIVER: No. This is related to 

18 the same issue here.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay, okay. I 

20 just wanted to ask about the final factors. 

21 So did you sort of look at the averages or 

22 were those weighted averages when you got the 
17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 final factors, the four and the --

2 MR. ROLFES: Basically, the factor 

3 of four increased for plutonium on the uranium 

4 mass basis. We're now defaulting to 400 parts 

5 per billion.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

7 MR. ROLFES: And the basis of that 

8 is the 95th percentile of the various 

9 subprocesses.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: All of those?

11 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, okay. Was 

13 that coincidental? I haven't looked at the 

14 numbers precisely. It came out 400. Is that 

15 a coincidence?

16 MR. ROLFES: Probably rounded a 

17 little bit. We probably rounded up.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean what -- yes, 

19 okay.

20 MR. ROLFES: Someone on the phone 

21 actually could probably answer that a little 

22 bit better than I. Bryce? 
18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Some of these were a 

2 little more and some are a little less, it 

3 looked like, factor-wise. 

4 MR. RICH: This is Bryce Rich. We 

5 stayed with the subgrouping of the processes 

6 of the plant, and the 400 represents the 

7 maximum of the magnesium fluoride process, 

8 which still has two or three percent uranium 

9 in it. So the ratioing technique is still 

10 valid.

11 This represents the highest, with 

12 the exception of 10A process, which is the 

13 gaseous diffusion plant scraps, and primarily 

14 the tower ash that came in the highest in the 

15 mid-80's. But this represents the maximum 

16 values that you would see, with the exception 

17 of that one process stream, which was handled 

18 in the blending operation for a short period 

19 of time, and with additional care.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So Bryce, 

21 it's the -- other than that one then, it's the 

22 maximum of all of these. There wasn't any 
19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sort of averaging done?

2 MR. RICH: No this -- because of the 

3 fact, Paul, that we -- you cannot identify any 

4 given individual with a process for the entire 

5 operation. Even on the magnesium fluoride, 

6 for example, that operation itself dealt with 

7 loading uranium fluoride into the reactors, 

8 and that was probably the most, the highest 

9 air contaminant job.

10 But then the magnesium fluoride 

11 would be a subprocess to that. So we're just 

12 defaulting across the board for every, as John 

13 has said, one size fits all.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you, got you. 

15 Great.

16 MR. STIVER: Bryce, this is John 

17 Stiver. You mentioned the blending operation, 

18 when the Paducah tower ash was processed. I 

19 was trying to find out, by going through the 

20 source documentation, at what step did the 

21 blending take place? Was it during the, after 

22 it had gone through the, been dissolved in the 
20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nitrate? Was it then? Was that the point 

2 where the downblending occurred --? 

3 MR. RICH: My understanding, John, 

4 is that the stuff that came from primarily 

5 Paducah gaseous diffusion plants, but all of 

6 the gaseous diffusion plants, they were 

7 categorized into chemical-like, and then were 

8 prepared, so that they could be blended.

9 So in a variety of techniques, both 

10 in Plant 1 and elsewhere, they would be 

11 reduced to a particulate size that would 

12 facilitate blending.

13 Other blending operations generally 

14 took place in Plant 4, through a hopper fed 

15 operation that allowed them to blend with 

16 virgin material, primarily in the early days, 

17 and with other materials, to preserve the, not 

18 only the enrichment, but to blend down to a 

19 value close to the 10 parts per billion that 

20 they were working with, and in some cases they 

21 were well above, of course.

22 MR. STIVER: Okay. I just wasn't 
21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sure whether that took place before the 

2 dissolution in the refinery. It sounds like 

3 it was.

4 MR. RICH: It was, and if the -- and 

5 in some cases, of course, the materials that 

6 came were such chemically, they had to adjust 

7 it based on what they had. They got magnesium 

8 fluoride out of the gaseous diffusion plants 

9 also.

10 So in those cases, they were doing a 

11 leach process, and then winding up with a 

12 solution that would be blended in a solution, 

13 before it was entered into the extraction 

14 plant.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well thanks for 

16 clarifying that. There are a couple of issues 

17 we still have, and I'd like to pass these 

18 handouts out for -- there's not enough to go 

19 for everybody. If you're going to share that 

20 with Phil. There's one for you, Mark. I 

21 believe you guys have one as well.

22 What I've done is I gathered some of 
22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the summary statistics together for the 

2 subprocess groups that came out of the DOE 

3 2000-B report, and in addition to that, I went 

4 ahead and took a look at some of the data 

5 analyses for the Paducah tower ash. 

6 There was actually two different 

7 sets of data, two different analyses, one done 

8 by the Paducah plant, and also NLO did their 

9 own analysis. The first part is going to take 

10 a look at the histograms here. 

11 In Group 8, enriched magnesium 

12 fluoride, it would appear that for plutonium, 

13 at least, that the log-normal distribution 

14 would underestimate the high end. I mean it's 

15 not -- I understand that when you use it like 

16 that, you're going to, there's going to be a 

17 certain amount of acceptance of variation 

18 around that pit.

19 But it would appear that certainly 

20 above about 100 parts per billion, you're 

21 really starting to -- you see a real increase.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: What figure are you 
23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on?

2 MR. STIVER: I'm on the second page 

3 here. The heading is "Sort 8," and that would 

4 be Group 8, which is the magnesium fluoride. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

6 MR. STIVER: So I have a little bit 

7 of a concern --

8 MR. RICH: John, could I just 

9 interrupt and ask a question. You're aware, 

10 of course, that Appendix C in the Ohio report 

11 has a complete listing of all of the process?

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. That's a 

13 very good data set. It's probably the most 

14 comprehensive of the bunch. I think it was 

15 like 400 data points.

16 MR. RICH: Yes, and it lists the 

17 individual samples and, you know, the 

18 description of the samples.

19 MR. STIVER: Right. Maybe you could 

20 also clarify something. A lot of those are 

21 listed at NMC&A. Was that an analytical lab 

22 that tested for Fernald or what?
24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RICH: No. That was the uranium 

2 accountability system, I think.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay, okay. That makes 

4 sense. So that would be from any number of 

5 sites, and not just -- that wouldn't be site6 specific for Fernald.

7 MEMBER PRESLEY: That's correct, 

8 Bryce.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay, and a couple of 

10 pages later for the 10A, this is the Paducah 

11 tower ash, and for plutonium here you see it's 

12 very, very good. It's a really good fit to 

13 the log-normal plot, despite the fact there's 

14 only 39 data points there. It does seem to 

15 fit fairly well.

16 But the thing that kind of worries 

17 me a little bit, if we can go to the second 

18 set of data, or the tables here, the first one 

19 is Table 1, Recycle Beads, Paducah Ash," and 

20 this is from National Lead of Ohio. You can 

21 see over here on the far left-hand column, for 

22 16 different hoppers. 
25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If you just for a minute take a look 

2 at T-449, which is, I believe, the fifth from 

3 the bottom, and the plutonium on a part per 

4 billion uranium mass basis is about 7,000 in 

5 this particular assay.

6 Now you go to the next page, which 

7 came out of the DOE 2000-B report from 

8 Appendix C, and these are all Group 10A. This 

9 is the entire data set that they used, and the 

10 first number 2 through 5 are the feed hoppers. 

11 So these are actual measurements that were 

12 taken by -- GES would have been at Paducah.

13 Here, we have the number five is the 

14 T Hopper 449, and the plutonium assay here is 

15 940. So this calls into question the 

16 homogeneity of these samples, and we have two 

17 analytical laboratories, which we presume are 

18 fairly accurate in their analyses.

19 Yet, there's practically an order of 

20 magnitude of difference in the results in one 

21 given hopper of this material. So this kind 

22 of an illustration of the type of uncertainty 
26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're concerned with, with the DOE 2000-B 

2 report. You guys have done a good job, as far 

3 as I can tell, without going into the details.

4 But it looks like you're addressing 

5 the variability in the data sets. But what 

6 we're not seeing is any kind of analysis of 

7 the uncertainty involved, and this is one of 

8 our findings in our report, was that there was 

9 no independent review of the data, you know, 

10 we were able to go in and do a comparison last 

11 night at about midnight, and come up with and 

12 see, here's a discrepancy and here's something 

13 you can base an uncertainty factor, at least, 

14 for a given set of the data.

15 So posing the question in the 

16 homogeneity of the waste streams, the quality 

17 of the analytical techniques, all these things 

18 that factor into uncertainty. So that would 

19 have to be, in any distribution that's going 

20 to be used for dose reconstruction, we feel 

21 that there needs to be some kind of a robust 

22 uncertainty analysis that takes those types of 
27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 factors into account.

2 MR. RICH: John, can you take a 

3 comment at this point?

4 MR. STIVER: Certainly.

5 MR. RICH: If we go back to the 

6 description of the stuff that came from 

7 Paducah particularly, since they are the 

8 source of by far the majority of the RU 

9 contaminants, that stuff came in in all sorts 

10 of forms, and it had to be prepared. It was 

11 not homogeneous when it came, and so the 

12 analysis --

13 I'm not surprised that there's a 

14 great deal of variability at all. After it 

15 had been worked through so it could be 

16 blended, then the process stream had -- it was 

17 still had a great deal of variability, and as 

18 a matter of fact, I'd just comment as a 

19 footnote that we found, similar to what the 

20 Working Group found, even to analyze these 

21 process streams with a log-normal distribution 

22 is problematic, because of the spread in the 
28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data.

2 However, we've defaulted at the very 

3 top end of the scale, from a process 

4 standpoint, where both of the exposures 

5 actually would occur. Thank you.

6 MR. STIVER: You're welcome. Yes, I 

7 understand that. My concern really is the 

8 impact on attempting to bound the intakes, 

9 because you know, if you have an order of 

10 magnitude different than two measurements for 

11 one hopper, you've got to wonder if there may 

12 have been, you know, three or four other 

13 measurements that could have ended up in a 

14 factor of two or more higher than the 7,000. 

15 So we feel that that type of information needs 

16 to be --

17 MR. RICH: More likely you have ten, 

18 with much less activities, compared to five.

19 MR. STIVER: Right. I guess that 

20 could be true, but we just don't know, because 

21 we don't have the data to base that on. In 

22 this particular case, we have two data points 
29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for four of the hoppers, and in the other case 

2 we have -- and that also kind of calls into 

3 question why that wasn't, the NLO data wasn't 

4 used in the 2000-B analysis? The GES data was 

5 there, but not the NLO data.

6 So there was, that's the issue of 

7 data completeness there as well. I don't know 

8 if that was a decision by the Process 

9 Knowledge Team in putting this together. They 

10 felt these numbers were better. That still 

11 remains a mystery.

12 So once again, I hate to keep 

13 harping back to this, but we really feel that 

14 an uncertainty analysis is warranted here.

15 MR. ROLFES: Well, I don't think --

16 in the interest of time, I don't think we're 

17 going to go back and look at the original 

18 data, to develop an uncertainty distribution 

19 for the half a million results.

20 MR. STIVER: Well, I mean maybe not 

21 half a million results, but I think you could 

22 certainly do some scoping analysis, to get an 
30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 idea of what types of uncertainty factors you 

2 may be dealing with. I mean here's an example 

3 where you've got nearly a factor of ten. You 

4 have the other situation with the uncertainty 

5 in plutonium partitioning into raffinates. 

6 Originally, it was thought that 80 percent 

7 would go into the raffinates. It turned out 

8 only 20 percent did, but that was based on one 

9 study, on a single study.

10 So there's that issue. There's 

11 these different types of uncertainties that 

12 aren't reflected in the data that we have here 

13 in this table. So I guess that's what 

14 concerns us.

15 MR. ROLFES: I was going to say, 

16 correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that 

17 those subgroups that are reported in our Table 

18 2 on page 16 here, these individual process 

19 subgroups, do account for the different 

20 chemical processes and the different movement 

21 of materials throughout the Fernald site.

22 Basically, we've selected the 95th 
31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percentile of each of those results. So there 

2 could be a couple of points that exceed the 

3 95th percentile level, but that's still 

4 accounted for in the distribution.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes. I think we're 

6 kind of confusing variability and uncertainty 

7 here. I think you've done a good job, at 

8 least it appears to be. I've done some back 

9 of the envelope calculations; I can get pretty 

10 close to the numbers that he got.

11 Based on that data, we're talking 

12 about the data that's missing, decisions that 

13 were made about whether a data set or a 

14 certain data point belongs in Process A or 

15 Process B.

16 So that just throws in another whole 

17 level of uncertainty that's going to cause 

18 that distribution to drop. So and you know, a 

19 corollary to that is that stopping at 

20 magnesium fluoride, you know, we're willing to 

21 I mean just concede. But in our report, that 

22 was one of our main points of contention, was 
32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that the workers that ran this production, by 

2 virtue of this concentration process through 

3 Plant 1 recycling of material back into Plant 

4 5, to reuse in the production bottom liners 

5 and also the graphite mold and so forth, that 

6 these people were probably one of the most 

7 highly exposed groups.

8 So I'm glad to see that you took 

9 care of that particular issue. But then we 

10 also have the issue of the complete data set. 

11 In my opinion, and I'm certainly not a 

12 statistician, and Harry could probably weigh 

13 in on this better than I could, but you'd want 

14 to look at all the data, and not just, you 

15 know, not just rank them and then say okay, 

16 we're going to stop at this one because it's 

17 the highest. But really kind of combine them 

18 all using sort of a more rigorous analysis.

19 It includes all the data that were 

20 available, and also account for uncertainties 

21 that were involved. The end result is that 

22 you're going to end up with a higher number. 
33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It becomes a philosophical issue at that 

2 point. When is a number bounding? Is 400 

3 bounding? Well, you'd think from a 

4 standpoint, you know, a practical standpoint, 

5 sure. 

6 Who's going to get 400 parts per 

7 billion every day for year after year after 

8 year after year? Are there a category of 

9 workers that this data aren't really 

10 bracketing. Maybe there's uncertainties 

11 involved, or there may be certainly lower 

12 values. There certainly could be higher 

13 values as well.

14 So some sort of an effort to 

15 demonstrate that, I think, would go a long 

16 way.

17 MR. ROLFES: Well, when we choose an 

18 upper bound value at the 95th percentile, we 

19 usually don't assign an uncertainty to that 

20 value, because it's a bounding value.

21 MR. STIVER: Well, --

22 MR. ROLFES: In addition to that, in 
34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the dose reconstruction process for internal 

2 dose, our internal dose, annual dose 

3 calculations to the organ, we always default 

4 to a GSD of 3. So there's uncertainty built 

5 into our dose calculations already. So that's 

6 really all I have to add.

7 MR. STIVER: You'll be putting a GSD 

8 of 3 of the 400?

9 MR. ROLFES: That's on top of the 

10 annual dose calculations that we completed in 

11 the dose reconstructions.

12 MR. RICH: This is Bryce Rich again. 

13 Could I just make another comment? As we 

14 indicated, Process Group 10A defines, and that 

15 may be part of what you're referring to right 

16 now, John, was the values are higher than the 

17 400. 

18 We elected not to default for the 

19 entire plant to that stream that came in as a 

20 stream to the plant, because of the fact that 

21 the operation of the processing and blending, 

22 the operation of it was relatively short-term, 
35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and did not exist, you know, did not go on for 

2 days and weeks. Any individual hopper would 

3 be processed in a relatively short time 

4 period. Any individual would be on other 

5 standards, uranium streams in the plant.

6 And plus the fact that they were 

7 extraordinarily sensitive to the fact that 

8 this stuff was coming in from Paducah, to 

9 which they objected in the first place, 

10 because it represented a significant 

11 additional hazard.

12 So they were layer protected, and it 

13 did not represent a process stream that should 

14 be applied to the entire workforce, and I 

15 can't see any individual that would be working 

16 on that process in that operation, where it 

17 would be a legitimate, routine exposure.

18 But you'll notice 10A is 

19 significantly higher than the general bounding 

20 of the parameters.

21 MR. STIVER: Bryce, do you know 

22 about how long the blending operation went on?
36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RICH: In the blending 

2 operation, it went on for years, and they 

3 handled it -- you know, they didn't have the 

4 material to blend with in the first place. In 

5 the 70's, they were blending with virgin 

6 material, and later on -- but it was kind of 

7 hopper by hopper, until they worked it all 

8 off.

9 As a matter of fact, they lost track 

10 of several of those hoppers, and in the 80's, 

11 they discovered them and counted them, I 

12 think, because they had lost track of it 

13 because of a mislabeling issue.

14 So they were mindful of the column 

15 associated with that higher level stuff, that 

16 came from the gaseous diffusion plant. But it 

17 took, you know, they worked it off for a long 

18 period of time.

19 MR. STIVER: Now that particular 

20 batch that came in 1980 was the highest 

21 contaminated.

22 MR. RICH: Yes.
37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Do you know how long 

2 that took the process? Were any of those 

3 hoppers that were missed, were they included 

4 in --

5 MR. RICH: Oh no. Those came in in 

6 the 70's and got misplaced. 

7 MR. STIVER: But do you have any 

8 idea how long it took the process --

9 MR. RICH: The relative 

10 concentration of those missed metals were in 

11 28 to 30 parts per billion, rather than the 

12 thousand part per billion.

13 MR. STIVER: The reason I ask is 

14 that, you know, we went back and looked at the 

15 site boundary data. Remember in our 

16 originally report, we only had data for 1983.

17 MR. RICH: That was an excellent 

18 work there, John. I appreciate that. Because 

19 of the low levels, we just did not make a 

20 ratioing there.

21 MR. STIVER: Thank you. What I've 

22 discovered is kind of interesting, when you 
38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look at -- I can pass this around. I don't 

2 have copies for everybody, unfortunately. But 

3 you see that in 1982, you have a plutonium 

4 level of about ten parts per billion.

5 At '83, it gets up to about 200. 

6 '84, about 300, '85, you're back down to about 

7 12, and then it kind of stays down again. So 

8 --

9 MR. RICH: And that's typical of how 

10 they processed it.

11 MR. STIVER: So then it looks like 

12 you've got that one batch with a real high 

13 contaminant, you know, the high ratios, being 

14 processed over a period of about -- from '82 

15 to about '84, roughly.

16 MR. RICH: And any time you put a 

17 high concentration into the system like that, 

18 it stays with you until it works its way 

19 through.

20 MR. STIVER: Right, and also it 

21 tends to corroborate that 1985 baghouse dust 

22 sample, which would be --
39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RICH: Yes, yes, it does.

2 MR. STIVER: So it's nice to see

3 that this all fits together. But I guess my 

4 concern is really that you've got this one 

5 particular batch that we know is extremely 

6 hot, and for which, you know, a reasonable 

7 person or any kind of a coherent health 

8 physics program would probably try to control 

9 their exposures during downblending.

10 MR. RICH: And we have records 

11 describing the process, the procedure and the 

12 process for doing just that, including the air 

13 line respirators.

14 MR. STIVER: My only, my own problem 

15 with that is when you go to the 1985 task 

16 force report, they really are pretty highly 

17 critical of the health physics practices that 

18 were in place at the time. They mention 

19 respirators just being hung on the wall and 

20 not cleaned, you know; individual workers 

21 having to volunteer for bioassay if they think 

22 they were exposed, things like that.
40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RICH: John, that's true. There 

2 were periods of time when they switched, they 

3 initially had the workers clean their own 

4 respirators, and they did not stay with that 

5 very long. They took over that as a company, 

6 to bring them back in. It was a failed 

7 process there, but they didn't stay with it 

8 long.

9 MR. STIVER: Well, in my mind it 

10 just casts doubt on -- excuse me, go ahead.

11 MR. RICH: But a lot of the workers 

12 do remember that, and quite frankly, you know, 

13 it doesn't take a lot of admission to say, you 

14 know, it was an awareness of the high level 

15 that came in and three Work Groups that were 

16 established to make recommendations. They 

17 were a little slow in actually initiating a 

18 specific bioassay, and I'll just leave it at 

19 that.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes. It appears that 

21 finally when Westinghouse came on board in 

22 1986, they really kind of got things in order.
41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RICH: Well, this was in process 

2 before that, but a change of contractor is an 

3 excellent time to initiate a lot of changes.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay, and I guess I'm 

5 still a little concerned in the assurances 

6 that health physics was adequate to control 

7 these people's exposures. You know, there 

8 isn't any hard, fast evidence, you know, 

9 contrapositive evidence obviously, but there 

10 is just not any kind of data available that 

11 you could look at and say okay, yes.

12 It looks like they had a good 

13 program in place. These people were trapped. 

14 We've got the bioassay results. We've got, 

15 you know, breathing zone samples. Anything 

16 like that was just not there.

17 So you're kind of stuck relying on 

18 the assurance of well, don't worry, you know. 

19 We had it under control and these guys used 

20 air line respirators and so forth. But we 

21 don't know that.

22 MR. RICH: John, let me make just a 
42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comment there. You know, the default level 

2 approach says that okay, there could have been 

3 some deficiencies in relationship to 

4 controlling the transuranics as they came in, 

5 and significant increased values.

6 However, what we're saying is that 

7 there is no indication that the fundamental 

8 and the primary comprehensive program that 

9 they had in operation, the air samples and 

10 primarily the urine sampling for uranium. 

11 What we're proposing is that it is the ratio 

12 of the uranium urine program, which was sound, 

13 to a bounding default.

14 So it really doesn't matter if the 

15 program was completely adequate or not. We're 

16 saying that the bounding ratio to the uranium 

17 urine will cover, from a bounding standpoint, 

18 and for most of the plant it is enormously --

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, I understand that. 

20 But still, you have the issue of if the 

21 health physics controls were not adequate, 

22 then omitting this data set is probably not an 
43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 acceptable thing to do.

2 MR. RICH: But it was inadequate for 

3 a period of time for the transuranics, not for 

4 the uranium, and the uranium is the basis for 

5 the defaults.

6 MR. STIVER: I know, but the point 

7 being is that the default contamination levels 

8 and ratios could be higher, because there 

9 could have been people who were actually 

10 exposed to this material, despite what's in 

11 some of the historic recollections.

12 So omitting that based on not 

13 really, I'd hate to say the word "hearsay," 

14 but without any corroborating data --

15 MR. RICH: Well, there's a lot of 

16 hearsay back and forth on both sides. As we 

17 examined the history of the plant and the 

18 processes, we're convinced that if any 

19 exposure to materials that were above this 

20 bounding dose on a unique basis, it would be a 

21 short period of time, and covered by an 

22 exposure to uranium with much less levels of 
44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transuranics.

2 MR. STIVER: Harry, are you on the 

3 line still?

4 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I'm here.

5 MR. STIVER: What do you think about 

6 -- could you weigh in a little bit on 

7 constructing the distribution here? It seems 

8 to me that really all the data should be used, 

9 if there's any uncertainty at all about the 

10 potential for exposure, whether it be short11 term or long-term.

12 Then that data, then, could be used 

13 to generate an overall distribution. I don't 

14 think you can just outright eliminate the 

15 highest data set, based on some recollections 

16 and a few quotes from the health physics 

17 department, without any kind of corroborating 

18 evidence.

19 I mean how do you -- if you had to 

20 do this yourself, how would you construct a 

21 distribution from this data set?

22 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Well I guess to 
45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 begin with, I agree with your statement that 

2 there's a difference between calculating a 

3 distribution on the data you're looking at, 

4 and taking the 95th percentile. There's a 

5 difference between that and doing an 

6 uncertainty analysis.

7 An uncertainty analysis would 

8 question the data you're looking at, and 

9 that's the question John Stiver's raising 

10 here. If you're going for the 95th 

11 percentile, I think it's very suspicious to 

12 leave out the highest data set.

13 I haven't looked at this data in 

14 detail to look at those kind of questions. 

15 Indeed, nobody was looking at the 95th 

16 percentile when I looked at the data. We were 

17 comparing the arithmetic means and the log18 normal means, et cetera.

19 But I was only also looking at the 

20 data that we had at hand. So I'm a little 

21 concerned that I hear now that there's a lot 

22 of data we didn't look at.
46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Okay, thanks Harry. 

2 John, did you want to say something?

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think I was 

4 actually getting ready to pose a question. 

5 When we look at this process Subgroup 8, where 

6 it said that 342 parts per billion of 

7 plutonium, now am I correct that that 

8 particular group, that number, does that 

9 reflect this dolomite material?

10 MR. STIVER: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay, so in a way what 

12 we're saying here is we have some data 

13 characterizing the dolomite, a material that 

14 we all, I think we all understand the process 

15 now. It was looping process, where as time 

16 went on, that dolomite might have become 

17 enriched more and more. 

18 And there's some data, and obviously 

19 we have a certain number of measurements that 

20 comprise, that resulted in the, I guess the 

21 original geometric mean of 97 and now the 95th 

22 percentile of 342. 
47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Yes. That original 97 

2 is a bootstrap. I mean that's the arithmetic 

3 mean.

4 DR. MAURO: That's the arithmetic, 

5 okay. Now that number, 240, that came from 

6 how many samples?

7 MR. STIVER: That's 400 samples. 

8 That's probably one of the most complete data 

9 sets they've gotten.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay, that's important, 

11 now and those 400 samples were collected over 

12 what time period?

13 MR. STIVER: You know, it would be a 

14 question maybe Jim, do you know about that? 

15 What time period those data reflected over? 

16 It's not, and the summary report doesn't give 

17 you the period over which that was collected, 

18 I would assume. That would be one of those 

19 questions that you'd have to go back to the 

20 source data to answer it.

21 DR. MAURO: The reason I ask is, you 

22 know, I say okay. I've got a large number of 
48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 samples of dolomite. I consider that hundreds 

2 of sample. 

3 MR. STIVER: 402, I think, is the 

4 plutonium.

5 DR. MAURO: 400 samples is a large 

6 number of samples, and acknowledging that they 

7 represent, let's say someone actually by 

8 design, deliberately went in and sampled 

9 different batches, different times, different 

10 locations, so that they captured the 

11 variability in the concentration in that 

12 material, and then -- right? And it was 

13 designed that way from the beginning.

14 Then someone comes along and says 

15 okay, we're going to pick the upper 95th 

16 percentile, and say we believe that it's 

17 unlikely that any one individual could have 

18 been exposed to more than that for an extended 

19 period of time. I would say you're absolutely 

20 right. That's the way you do it.

21 But now what I hear is that well, 

22 we're really not quite sure whether the 400 
49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 samples is a good representation. That's a 

2 big term; I know they often use it. Is it 

3 representative of the population? And I guess 

4 no one has really, I haven't heard very much 

5 of the degree to which we believe those 400 

6 samples are representative of the population.

7 There's a real but unknown 95th 

8 percentile of the concentration of plutonium 

9 in the dolomite throughout this facility, 

10 throughout the life.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is just the 

12 estimated --

13 DR. MAURO: And this is some 

14 estimate, and what I'm hearing is, and this is 

15 really for me. I'm almost speaking to help 

16 myself get sorted out in my thinking. Is 

17 there a sense that the 400 number, 400 samples 

18 did in fact capture the variability of time 

19 and space, and therefore is a reasonable upper 

20 end value to apply to all workers?

21 Or is there a reason to believe 

22 that, you know, there could have been other 
50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 campaigns, other time periods, where the 

2 levels might have been substantially higher 

3 than that. You know, I'm looking. So I'm 

4 trying to zero right in on what the essence of 

5 the problem is.

6 If the answer is that the data we 

7 have is the data we have. We do not know how 

8 complete it is and how representative it is, 

9 how the universe of exposures that real 

10 workers may have experienced over this very 

11 long time period, we do have a problem, 

12 because we are basically saying we have a 

13 slice of 400 samples, and intuitively we say 

14 geez, that's not bad. 

15 But then you say but wait a minute. 

16 We don't know whether that captured the full 

17 range of operations that took place, and I 

18 haven't heard anything to that effect.

19 MR. STIVER: And that's why I 

20 brought up the issue of the samples in 10A, 

21 because here's a situation where you have one 

22 particular batch, one hopper of materials. 
51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Two independent measurements, different 

2 laboratories come up with a factor of ten 

3 difference. So you've got homogeneity in 

4 that. You tend to wonder does that carry 

5 though in the dolomite, in very different 

6 time periods?

7 I mean the dolomite issue is 

8 something that's going to go all the way back 

9 to the beginning.

10 DR. MAURO: Right.

11 MR. STIVER: Remember, after the 

12 70's and 80's, when this highly contaminated 

13 stuff came in, it was still downblended before 

14 it ever got to the metal shop. So what you're 

15 seeing in the 80's is probably pretty 

16 reflective of what was going on before, 

17 assuming downblending is effective and they're 

18 claiming that it was. 

19 So you have a situation where is 

20 that data that were collected primarily in the 

21 1980's and possibly in the 70's, 

22 representative of what went before? You could 
52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 probably make an educated guess that it is. 

2 But the question being in my mind, is what's 

3 the uncertainty that should be factored into 

4 that distribution?

5 Not just looking at the data, but we 

6 know there's missing data. Now you can do 

7 that by taking a log-normal and extrapolating 

8 it out. But the nice thing about a log-normal 

9 distribution is your upper bound is usually 

10 the higher, the highest value you can measure.

11 When you look at the histogram for 

12 magnesium fluoride, it takes a big slice, 

13 right around 100 parts per billion. So the 

14 log-normal is actually under-estimating. So 

15 there's a situation where you might want to 

16 consider using an empirical distribution. 

17 Don't make any assumptions about it.

18 MR. RICH: This is Bryce again. 

19 Could I make another comment, just from a 

20 background standpoint? You're right, the 

21 primary data in the -- is in the 70's and 

22 80's, mostly in the 80's when the major influx 
53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hit. The team that they put together, with 

2 the DOE 2000 team, was put together from the 

3 best that they had, and they categorized these 

4 samples based on a knowledge of where they 

5 came from, and how they related.

6 Now the magnesium fluoride is 

7 identified as an enrich uranium magnesium 

8 fluoride, which is the highest that you would 

9 find. The enriched uranium had the higher 

10 levels of recycled uranium. So this stream of 

11 magnesium fluoride represents a higher stream.

12 So the data on, I think it was 11. 

13 No, not 11. It was 10A, that identified the 

14 material, the samples that were representative 

15 and reliable from both Paducah and Fernald, 

16 were included in this data set, to describe 

17 the incoming activity out of Paducah. Based 

18 on the judgment of that team, I can accept 

19 that as representative. 

20 The other thing I'd really mention 

21 too, if you look at Subgroup 6A, that 

22 represents U03 that was straight out of the 
54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 primary site, out of Hanford, and was 

2 unblended. So you can use that stream for the 

3 input from the primary site.

4 So there's a lot of you can do with 

5 this data set, when you assume and accept the 

6 fact that this DOE team that they put together 

7 was not only knowledgeable but had excellent 

8 operational background.

9 MR. STIVER: Jim Werner tended to 

10 agree with you on that, and correct me if I'm 

11 wrong, Jim, but it said the Process Knowledge 

12 Team was probably about the best you can get 

13 at the time. So there was probably less 

14 uncertainty involved in the assigning data to 

15 a given process stream, as there is in -- what 

16 are the actual data that you got?

17 MR. RICH: And I'm personally 

18 familiar with that process, as they put that 

19 report together. 

20 MR. WERNER: This is Jim Werner. If 

21 I could, I just wanted to address a couple of 

22 comments, and maybe at the outset, to try to 
55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reiterate the compliment, I think, that I am, 

2 that the SC&A review is built generally on the 

3 very good work in the team and the hard effort 

4 that went into that DOE 2000 report. 

5 But in my involvement in reviewing 

6 that before it went out, and in some other

7 work, again, I think that notwithstanding that 

8 very good work and the terrific team that put 

9 it together, it's still, I think, falls short 

10 of the mark of the certainty, and the 

11 difference between certainty versus 

12 variability in the data.

13 Then just chronologically going 

14 back, any of the data from the 70's and 80's, 

15 frankly I look at with some skepticism and 

16 think that one would really need to look at 

17 the pedigree of that data particularly hard. 

18 The findings of both the environmental survey 

19 that I was involved with as an independent 

20 contractor, and of the Tiger Team later on, 

21 both found very serious problems in the QA/QC 

22 process for many of the sites, including 
56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Fernald, that there really was not a 

2 significant amount of confidence in that.

3 What was particularly problematic, I 

4 think, from a management point of view is that 

5 there was quarterly reports done by the Oak 

6 Ridge Operations office that was supposed to 

7 have caught those issues and they didn't. So 

8 that really lingered for quite a long time. 

9 It doesn't tell you that the data is bad, but 

10 it does tell you that there are reliability 

11 problems.

12 This is at a time, remember NLO ran 

13 it, and NLO, you know, this was not just a 

14 normal switch of a contractor. The NLO 

15 contract really was shifted, with prejudice. I 

16 mean they just had very serious problems at 

17 the site. So it was not just a routine change 

18 of contractors and one contractor came in with 

19 a better bid offer or a better team or a lower 

20 price.

21 There were pretty serious, 

22 widespread problems with NLO, and maybe Bob 
57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Alvarez can get into that in more detail, in 

2 switching to Lockheed Martin. Then lastly, 

3 you mentioned the Hanford data, and those were 

4 among the issues that some of us thought it 

5 was appropriate to get into, in terms of 

6 variability.

7 One really can't just defer solely 

8 to Hanford sets, if there were really any 

9 processes going on there, that if the 

10 facilities, anything within the facility they 

11 changed over time.

12 That level of granularity really was 

13 not pierced in the DOE 2000-B report, that we 

14 got the data that was pulled together, and 

15 what people did. I don't know what it says 

16 for the heavy lifting. There was a lot of 

17 people working very hard to do it. 

18 But at a certain point, many of us 

19 did question it and say well, hold it. This 

20 is a lot of good data from particular 

21 processes, and I don't know if it's 

22 appropriate technically to call it anecdotal, 
58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but it certainly was by no means what people 

2 thought was necessarily representative, that 

3 when many of the reviewers asked questions 

4 about well, but didn't the process change over 

5 time. 

6 Didn't they change the efficiency? 

7 Didn't they change the facilities? Didn't 

8 they, you know, and all that's, of course, 

9 documented in the safety analysis report. The 

10 answer is yes, but there was really no time 

11 then to go back and start pulling the threads 

12 and getting into those details.

13 So again, we have enormous respect 

14 for the hard work that went into it, it simply 

15 didn't meet the mark of number one, 

16 confidence, and number two, 

17 representativeness.

18 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John Mauro. 

19 Let me ask you a question. I like zeroing in 

20 on this Process Subgroup 8. In effect, what 

21 we have is 400 samples were collected and 

22 measured. I guess we're not quite sure when 
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that was done and does it represent a cross2 section, and out of those comes a 95th 

3 percentile.

4 Here we are sitting around the table 

5 saying okay, listen. I've got myself 400 

6 numbers that were collected. But you have a 

7 sense of the incompleteness. You were there. 

8 You worked the problem.

9 Now in effect what I'm hearing from 

10 you is that well, you know, notwithstanding 

11 the fact that we have 400 of those dolomite 

12 analyses, it's your sense, that I'm hearing, 

13 that if you were to go back in time and maybe 

14 take another 400 samples some place else at 

15 another time, do you believe you'd come up 

16 with a 95th percentile that's substantially 

17 different?

18 Do you think it's possible that you 

19 could come up with a 95th percentile from 

20 another batch of 400 that you just went out 

21 there and grabbed again, based on the world 

22 you lived in at the time you worked the 
60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 problem, that would be different, 

2 substantially different than this 400 or 342 

3 number?

4 I guess that's where I'm headed, 

5 because what I'm hearing is we've got the data 

6 set that we have, that everyone acknowledges 

7 that it's incomplete. But it's still a lot of 

8 data, but it's incomplete, and there was --

9 and everyone agrees that the data that we do 

10 have shows a lot of variability, which creates 

11 a circumstance that can we really be that 

12 wrong?

13 That is, could the real but unknown 

14 95th percentile for dolomite over that time 

15 period, or in any given year, another way to 

16 look at it, another given year, because 

17 they're all people that may have worked there 

18 a couple of years. I mean they're assigned an 

19 exposure.

20 Is it possible that at certain 

21 locations in certain years, that that person 

22 actually experienced something that was 
61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 double, triple, quadruple that for an entire 

2 year, or is that just something that can't be, 

3 you know? Because what I'm hearing is the 

4 essence of the problem is we could sit around 

5 here and discuss should we use 400, 500, 600. 

6 But maybe that's not going to solve our 

7 problem.

8 If our sense is that the data are 

9 just too incomplete, and our knowledge of what 

10 took place is too incomplete, that all we're 

11 doing is sort of fishing in the dark, to pick 

12 a number that we think we could agree upon, 

13 you know.

14 I think what I'm concerned about is 

15 we could work on this problem forever, and 

16 given the concerns regarding the completeness 

17 or inadequacy of the data, we're never going 

18 to come to a place that we could be confident 

19 that we've captured it, or do you feel that, 

20 and I'll go back to my first question, or do 

21 you feel that, you know, if you did take 

22 another 400 samples of dolomite with the 95th 
62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percentile, it would be much different than 

2 the one we're looking at right now?

3 MR. WERNER: Well John, you've asked 

4 a series of questions. I appreciate you 

5 rewording one of them, because the question of 

6 would it be different, I have no idea whether 

7 it would be different, and I wouldn't even 

8 begin to speculate about that.

9 I guess I go back to the 

10 methodology, that in real technical 

11 operations, that presented, I think perhaps 

12 the most significant area of unanalyzed 

13 variability, was the reprocessing operations

14 themselves, as we described in the report.

15 The reprocessing operation changed 

16 among the different sites and over time, and 

17 the result of that was, you know, from the 

18 perspective of where we are now, changes in 

19 the plutonium and transuranic concentration. 

20 From the perspective of back then, you know, 

21 the goal was to maximize the useful fissile 

22 materials or other nuclear materials you're 
63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 extracting out of it. 

2 And I again can't emphasize enough 

3 how ingenious the chemical engineer and 

4 operations staffs were at coming up with 

5 improved methods for producing supergrade 

6 plutonium through integration with the 

7 reactors and the reprocessing operation, that 

8 there was just a lot of changes that went on 

9 at the time.

10 That's the level of detail that 

11 2000-B didn't have time to get into. The 

12 turning back the clock wouldn't be to 2000-B. 

13 It's not realistic to say you could have done 

14 it in the amount of time. Again, our goal 

15 wasn't to -- the goal of the report was not, 

16 absolutely was not to provide all the details 

17 that would support a thorough dose 

18 reconstruction.

19 At the time, the goal of that report 

20 was quite different. It was a lower 

21 threshold. It was simply to document and 

22 necessarily know what their, you know, 
64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 particularly the percentages, when you talk 

2 about uranium, and also was that, you know, 

3 kind of order of magnitude, a sufficient 

4 problem that would warrant enactment of the 

5 worker comp legislation that we're now trying 

6 to implement, and was the amount of money such 

7 that it would, you know, break the bank. I 

8 mean just a bounding analysis.

9 There were people from both sides of 

10 that argument. Some said well, the problem 

11 is a minor problem. Well, the report shows it 

12 was not a minor problem. Then there were 

13 other people who said well gosh, we can't 

14 begin to go pay everybody everything, you 

15 know. It would just bankrupt the country.

16 I think the analysis also showed, in 

17 bounding analysis, you know, it wasn't 

18 everywhere. I think the report was a success, 

19 and it went further than that, just the fact 

20 that we're even trying to use that data to do 

21 dose reconstruction is sort of an 

22 extraordinary thing by itself, that such an 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 enormous amount of data was put together in a 

2 very short period of time.

3 So I wouldn't turn back the clock 

4 now. I would turn the clock back to, you 

5 know, after 2000, for the next several years, 

6 and you know, it's just too bad that there 

7 wasn't more effort then, while people were 

8 still alive frankly, to use some of that 

9 detail process knowledge and, you know, where 

10 the bodies are buried, so to speak, where the 

11 data might lie, to get into the well, when did 

12 this process change? Did it really have an 

13 effect on the concentration of transuranics, 

14 and then get the records for that?

15 It would kind of go into that next 

16 layer of detail. And remember, the other 

17 thing that was going on, aside from the 

18 legislation being debated on the Hill, was the 

19 legal action against Lockheed Martin for the 

20 qui tam lawsuit. Somebody wondered earlier, I 

21 think John, why didn't we go back and use the 

22 NLO data?
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Well, you know, there was just a lot 

2 of concern about where the barriers existed 

3 between Lockheed Martin and NLO from just the 

4 data. All of it should have been government 

5 property, but sometimes it was just hard 

6 piercing the corporate veil to get access to 

7 it in that short a period of time again. It 

8 was all very time-dependent.

9 But you know, Lockheed Martin might 

10 have used it, those problems were inherited 

11 from NLO, and NLO could have said it was, you 

12 know, Lockheed Martin's responsibility during 

13 the time of new DOE orders, you know. I'm not 

14 a lawyer to get into that, but it was sort of 

15 an issue at the time that, you know, the 

16 simultaneous putting together a report during 

17 the legislation.

18 DR. MAURO: Let me -- I did have 

19 another, I want to ask the same question of 

20 Bryce, because you see, where I'm coming at, 

21 and I'll step out and let you get back in. 

22 But clearly, what we have is an opinion, a 
67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very well-informed opinion from Jim, that he 

2 doesn't believe he would hang his hat on the 

3 400 number, as being a good upper 95th 

4 percentile that would capture the range of.

5 I would like to know what apparently 

6 Bryce feels and Mark feels, no. I think that 

7 probably is a pretty good number to hang your 

8 hat on, what the upper bound is. It's very 

9 interesting that we have two separate people 

10 who are very versed in the subject.

11 One would say I think you caught it, 

12 and one says I have no idea whether you caught 

13 it. 

14 MR. RICH: John and Jim, I've 

15 appreciated the comments. But can I make just 

16 a different perspective comment? My 

17 background, Jim as I started out as at the 

18 Idaho chemical processing plant in 1953. So 

19 I'm familiar with that process and the process 

20 of Hanford and the others.

21 The data does show from Hanford that 

22 there were process improvements. The data 
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 show that their record of parts per billion 

2 gradually decreased by several parts per 

3 billion over the years. The Savannah River 

4 plant was built, as an additional 

5 technological advance, and their results were 

6 in the three parts per billion range.

7 The chem plant never did put their 

8 recycled uranium into the general system. It 

9 went straight Y-12, and then wound up in -- it 

10 never did make it back into the general system 

11 at all. I will say something from my own 

12 personal experience, on the way the Working 

13 Groups worked at Fernald, and other places, 

14 because I was involved in a review capacity in 

15 2000.

16 The effort of these teams was to 

17 default high. They were looking for the 

18 highest points in the process. So there was a 

19 conscious effort on the part of those teams to 

20 identify high levels, the higher levels, and 

21 they were competent in identifying samples 

22 that were alike in certain processes.
69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So my personal opinion of the 

2 reliability and the value of the processes, 

3 and particularly in what we're trying to do in

4 a bounding sense, I think they're good. I 

5 think they're adequate, and I guess I'll 

6 probably just leave it at that.

7 MR. STIVER: So Bryce, I'm going to 

8 play the NIOSH advocate a little bit here. 

9 You know, Jim's brought up a lot of issues 

10 about the feed material, you know, the source 

11 term coming into the plant being highly 

12 variable over time, as well as the space and 

13 from different sites and different processes.

14 But when you start getting into the 

15 production plant, the metals productions in 

16 Plant 5 at Fernald, doesn't that kind of 

17 become a moot point in a way, because 

18 materials that came in that were, you know, 

19 that were high are going to be downblended.

20 I assume there's eventually a 

21 saturation point with magnesium fluoride, 

22 where you can't -- it can't absorb more and 
70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more plutonium and strontium and other 

2 elements indefinitely. You're going to be 

3 kind of -- it's going to be kind of a sigmoid 

4 curve and you're going to build up, and 

5 eventually you're going to plateau out in a 

6 saturation point.

7 So maybe those data, as John's 

8 saying, are these 400 data points, are they 

9 representative? Could you have another batch 

10 of magnesium fluoride at another period in 

11 time, that might be an order of magnitude 

12 higher, or two or three times higher, 

13 something that would make a big difference in 

14 trying to assign a bounding dose?

15 Or is that going to pretty well be 

16 representative of what you'd find in that type 

17 of process? 

18 MR. RICH: Let me just give you a 

19 line of reasoning here. The activity that 

20 came in from Paducah, from a plutonium parts 

21 per billion standpoint, was upwards of 4,000, 

22 four parts per million. And if you take a 
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look at the process streams in that period of 

2 time, we see that the maximum levels in 

3 magnesium fluoride, which is high, the ratio 

4 is high because the amount of uranium is less.

5 But that's going to be in the four 

6 or five hundred parts per billion. So it's a 

7 factor of ten down, of what came into the 

8 plant. Now I don't think you can apply that 

9 same ratio of decrease to the average plant 

10 from the maximum that came in, to the average 

11 that came in from Hanford, for example, 

12 because they handled that in quite different 

13 ways.

14 The U03 that came in from Hanford, 

15 example, had a certain parts per billion, 

16 generally in the five parts per billion range. 

17 Then it went a number of ways. It was either 

18 sweetened by material enriched uranium from 

19 the gaseous diffusion plants directly; in 

20 other words, it was blended up to a higher 

21 enrichment area, and never run through the 

22 extraction plant again. It was pure when it 
72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 came in.

2 There was a time period, then, when 

3 shortly after that, then they took the U03 

4 from the production site at Hanford, and used 

5 it directly in the plant, again it did not 

6 frequently -- it was not reprocessed through 

7 Plants 2 and 3. It did not go through the 

8 extraction column, because that was a PUREX 

9 plant, and it had come free of contaminants 

10 from the other site.

11 So and because of the fact that it 

12 was at five parts per billion, certainly less 

13 than ten, then their concern in blending was 

14 less than what you had when you received the 

15 acknowledged extremely high activity levels 

16 from the trash from Paducah.

17 So as a consequence, you can't do 

18 this straight downblending. But you can look 

19 at Process Group 6, which is a direct 

20 correlation of the activity in the U03, and 

21 that went to places like Weldon Spring. I 

22 don't know whether those are helpful or not, 
73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but I have a lot of confidence in the fact 

2 that the records from the production plants 

3 are good.

4 They define, plus the Savannah 

5 River. Of course, we had some different, and 

6 I would just add one other thing too. As we 

7 look at the record, it turns out that there 

8 are a number of study groups that were formed 

9 in '73, and a number of them specifically 

10 directed at -- and the Oak Ridge operations 

11 office was involved in all of these, highly 

12 coordinated and had numerous meetings on what 

13 would come into the plant and whether it was 

14 safe or not.

15 So there was a '73 working group. 

16 There was an '85 working group that was 

17 appointed and had a program, a specific 

18 objective program to examine the material that 

19 came in from West Valley, because that was 

20 different. That came out of commercial fuel 

21 reprocessing.

22 So the DOE 2000 team had access to 
74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all of those previous reviews. So I would 

2 just indicate to you that my opinion is that 

3 the objective was to look for the highest 

4 levels to bound the problem for the 2000 

5 report. Now we've taken their results and 

6 bounded it one step higher.

7 We've taken the maximum level that 

8 you find in a process stream, and use that for 

9 every worker that had uranium results. 

10 MR. WERNER: This is Jim Werner, and 

11 I appreciate your restatement very well of the 

12 sort of background, and then the bottom line, 

13 that the idea was to provide a bounding 

14 estimate.

15 But again, with respect to the 

16 groups, the people could only work with the 

17 resources they had, and for example, the '85 

18 report that pulled together information and 

19 went around and surveyed plants at that time.

20 In fact, they -- you know, as you 

21 said, the notion was that, for example, what 

22 valley reprocessed commercial fuel and they 
75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did do commercial fuel reprocessing, and that 

2 was its main mission. But in 1995, of course, 

3 we released previously classified 

4 documentation, that is DOE did, that indicated 

5 that in fact that it's more than commercial 

6 fuel.

7 They received some material from the 

8 DOE facility in terms of input, and in terms 

9 of the output, the report also revealed 

10 previously classified information that would 

11 be classified at that time.

12 West Valley also shipped out some of 

13 the extracted plutonium and material that was 

14 used in weapons tests out in Nevada, and that 

15 was one of the data used in, and later on I 

16 will give the details of it, but that show 

17 that in fact you could construct an operable 

18 fission device with material out of West 

19 Valley.

20 So the report was then necessarily 

21 incomplete, and that's why I'm saying that, 

22 you know, that people could only do what they 
76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had access to at that time, in time to analyze 

2 and there really wasn't time to untangle all 

3 of that, and it should have been done later, 

4 to give you greater confidence in the bounding 

5 estimates.

6 MR. RICH: That's true, Jim, and of 

7 course in addition, of course they were doing 

8 neptunium separation during a period of time, 

9 and they had a number of things going on. 

10 What I'm saying is that there was an effort to 

11 bound and find the higher doses, and I feel 

12 like what we've done is bounding. So that's 

13 my personal opinion, based on my own 

14 experience.

15 MR. ROLFES: And that's what the 

16 data support. This is Mark Rolfes. The data 

17 that we've seen supports that our situation 

18 that we're using this proposed approach is a 

19 bounding approach. It's the 95th percentile 

20 level. We can go on about, you know, whether 

21 the data is complete or not all day. We had 

22 these discussions. Well, what about the data 
77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we don't have. You know, is there other 

2 data sets out there.

3 To me, based on my quick look at it, 

4 it appears that the data -- now correct me 

5 please if I'm wrong, Bryce. But it appears 

6 that the data in that Group 10A, the magnesium 

7 fluoride. 

8 MR. RICH: That's Group 8.

9 MR. ROLFES: Okay, 8. Okay, looking 

10 at my wrong sheet here. The 342 parts per 

11 billion in Subgroup 8, was that data collected 

12 after the processing of the Paducah tower ash?

13 MR. RICH: Yes.

14 MR. ROLFES: Okay. So that is the 

15 highest contaminated material ever to come on 

16 the Fernald site?

17 MR. RICH: Yes.

18 MR. ROLFES: And it subsequently 

19 resulted in that 342 parts per billion. We're 

20 proposing to default 400 parts per billion. 

21 So we are exceeding the highest concentration 

22 of enriched magnesium fluoride for all time 
78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 periods. We know that Fernald never received 

2 concentrations of plutonium which exceeded the 

3 Paducah tower ash.

4 DR. MAURO: Great, great. So you 

5 just gave the reason why you believe the 342 

6 or the 400 number is probably at the high end, 

7 because it happened to be the samples that 

8 were taken, and this is a heuristic, after I 

9 guess the tower ash. 

10 MR. STIVER: There's a problem with 

11 that.

12 DR. MAURO: Oh yeah?

13 MR. STIVER: Because even though 

14 that would happen during that time period, 

15 that material was downblended. So what was 

16 actually being produced in the metal was not 

17 exceedingly enriched in plutonium, if the 

18 downblending was conducted in the way it 

19 should have been done.

20 DR. MAURO: I see.

21 MR. STIVER: So it's probably 

22 representative, and that may be a good thing. 
79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It may be representative of what's going on 

2 in the 80's, as well as in earlier times. 

3 DR. MAURO: So the downblending 

4 really takes the chief out of the argument you 

5 made. See, the downblending is taking place, 

6 so that once you do go into the dolomite 

7 production process, you're really working with 

8 the same material, in other words.

9 In effect, you don't go into your 

10 bomb. That's as you inspect it, to the place 

11 where you want it to be. So you're going to 

12 start with whatever your spec is for the 

13 uranium that you're trying to reduce. Okay. 

14 So that really does take a little bit away 

15 from the post --

16 MR. RICH: John, I appreciate those 

17 comments, and also, just to add one more 

18 thing, they were still bound by keeping their 

19 product at a certain level, below ten. On 

20 occasions, it was above. But they were 

21 blending and operating in such a way that the 

22 product would meet the standards.
80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: So then the dilemma 

2 becomes -- fine. Let's say you're working 

3 with -- you're not going to go into the 

4 reduction process unless you get your uranium, 

5 I guess it's uranium, the green salt.

6 MR. STIVER: Basically, the U04.

7 DR. MAURO: You get the U04 to the 

8 place where you want it, and then you go with 

9 it. And of course, and that's going to 

10 contain some level of residual plutonium, 

11 let's say, or neptunium. Then that dolomite 

12 is used over and over again.

13 But you're saying at some point 

14 they're going to stop using that dolomite. 

15 It's exhausted. 

16 MR. STIVER: Well, I think it was 

17 about a third or so would go into waste, and 

18 then the other would be --

19 DR. MAURO: Okay.

20 MR. STIVER: So a certain stream 

21 would go for recovery for uranium. Another 

22 batch that was evidently no longer usable 
81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be waste, and then about half would then 

2 be reused. So you have a little bit of a loss 

3 rate each pass, but then you're adding more 

4 material in.

5 So I guess that gets back to my 

6 question about, you know, the radiochemistry 

7 of magnesium fluoride absorption with 

8 transuranics. What does that look like, and 

9 when do you reach a saturation point to where 

10 if you do, then you probably are not going to 

11 see these big excursions from that at some 

12 other point.

13 DR. MAURO: You see, that argues 

14 too. It's unlikely that they missed the high 

15 end. In other words, I'm really trying to 

16 listen to this with an open mind, and the 

17 sense that the green salt that went in was 

18 under controlled conditions. It was 

19 controlled condition.

20 You got 400 samples of the dolomite. 

21 We recognized there's going to be variability 

22 in the dolomite depending on its age and the 
82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number of cycles it went through. But it 

2 sounds like we have some affirmation that says 

3 it only went through a certain number of 

4 cycles before it was exhausted.

5 And we're asking ourselves is it 

6 possible that we missed the high end with 

7 these 400 samples? I mean maybe I'm making it 

8 too simple, but it seems to me, I find it hard 

9 to believe that you missed the high end.

10 MR. RICH: John, I appreciate those 

11 comments too. Let me just add a couple of 

12 things about the magnesium fluoride stream. 

13 Obviously, they did an analysis to see if 

14 there was enough uranium left that it was 

15 above or below the discharge limits. So they 

16 reprocessed it with a leach process, and then 

17 run it through the extraction columns in Class 

18 2 and 3, if it was worth recovering.

19 Of course, the enriched uranium, 

20 which had the bulk of the -- it had the higher 

21 levels of contaminants, was the most costly. 

22 So they processed those, and going through, of 
83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 course, the extraction columns, there were 

2 some that came out, we're not real sure 

3 whether it was 80 percent or 40 percent.

4 But nonetheless, it came back and 

5 were used. But eventually, it was discharged, 

6 and so it did not stay in the system forever. 

7 You know, it was a discharge plan based on a 

8 number of criteria, one of which being below 

9 the discharge limits for uranium, but also 

10 other chemical and viability characteristics 

11 of recycling.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Basically, this 

13 is Brad. You know, we could debate this and 

14 we've been debating this, I believe, for four 

15 to five years now, and basically we haven't 

16 gone anywhere. Mark Griffon wasn't able to be 

17 with us, but he sent in an email that I'd like 

18 to read to you.

19 "Fernald Work Group Motion. Brad, 

20 unfortunately, I'll be unable to attend the 

21 Work Group. I have, however, reviewed the new 

22 approach offered for recycled uranium by 
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH, and remain concerned about the 

2 approach.

3 "Some of the concerns include No. 1 

4 still remains under excessive. How much data 

5 is from Fernald, not other sites such as 

6 Hanford? 

7 "No. 2. Some subgroups categories 

8 of great interest, incinerator ash, ICP, and 

9 tower ash 9 and 10A. Have a small number of 

10 samples and a very wide distribution of 

11 results. Probably applies mostly for the 70's 

12 and 80's.

13 "No. 3. 1953 to 1960, there is no 

14 data. Still appears to be relying on Hanford 

15 production specifications, 100 parts per 

16 million. Because of these concerns, I would 

17 like to make a motion as follows:

18 "I move that a Class be added for 

19 all workers who have had the potential to be 

20 exposed to RU for the period from 1953 through 

21 1985. If possible, could you read this motion 

22 for consideration by the Work Group at the 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting tomorrow? I may be available

2 periodically during the day tomorrow. You can 

3 reach me," and he gives me his email.

4 Basically, I'd like to second that 

5 motion, because we've basically been here for 

6 four to five years. We're not going to come 

7 to a sense of closure on this. The Work Group 

8 like I say, is not the final say, but I think 

9 we've got to bring it before the Board.

10 So I'd like to make a second to this 

11 motion that Mark has just made, that we add 

12 this Class. Is there any discussion by the 

13 Work Group?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it seems to me 

15 that motion is premature. We have some other 

16 issues that we haven't discussed here, that 

17 were brought to us just over the weekend.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is only 

19 recycled uranium. All the other ones that 

20 basically came back, the only thing that I saw 

21 any kind of movement on is the recycled 

22 uranium, which they moved a little bit on. 
86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The radon, K-65 silos, basically it's the same 

2 thing that we've had for the last two to three 

3 years.

4 MR. ROLFES: To address some of the 

5 things, this is the first time I've heard 

6 about Mark's email. I hadn't seen it, but I 

7 sent it --

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: He just sent it 

9 to me.

10 MR. ROLFES: Okay. There were a 

11 couple of things that I caught in there. 

12 There were some questions about the 1953 to 

13 the 1960 time period. Fernald actually did 

14 receive some uranium back from the Hanford 

15 site during that time period, but it wasn't 

16 processed until 1961. So none of the recycled 

17 uranium actually was in process at Fernald 

18 until after 1961.

19 I think you said a control level at 

20 Hanford of one parts per million? 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: 100 parts per 

22 million.
87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Okay. It's actually 

2 100 parts per billion.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Per billion, 

4 okay.

5 MR. ROLFES: Regarding the data for 

6 Fernald, we actually just asked DOE legacy 

7 management about the quantity of data. We 

8 asked for some analyses and such from the 

9 Fernald site, regarding isotopic analyses for 

10 some of the transuranic contaminants, and 

11 uranium specifications, isotopic analyses and 

12 such, and we got 450 boxes of records back, 

13 listed to us as having data responsive to our 

14 request on recycled uranium.

15 So there's certainly no shortage of 

16 data, but the way that data's presented, it 

17 would take quite a bit of time just to get 

18 through the data, and also to link it to 

19 specific processes. We'd be basically redoing 

20 the exact same thing that DOE completed in 

21 2000, with essentially, I guess the end result 

22 being the same.
88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But what we've done, in the interest 

2 of, you know, claims favorability, from the 

3 very beginning we started off with a default 

4 which was a factor of ten higher than the 

5 control level at Fernald of ten parts per 

6 billion for plutonium on a uranium mass basis.

7 We started off with the 100 parts 

8 per billion. Because of the higher potential 

9 in the later time period to process uranium 

10 and concentrate some of those transuranic 

11 contaminants. So we, from the beginning, 

12 started off with the claimant-favorable 

13 approach.

14 Just because of, you know, the 

15 continuing concern from the Work Group, we 

16 reanalyzed the data, came up with the 95th 

17 percentile, for each subgroup of chemical 

18 processing. We're using this new 400 parts 

19 per billion, we'll use this to complete dose 

20 reconstructions.

21 Now I can point out that recycled 

22 uranium across the board, the concern of the
89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transuranic contaminants for the majority of 

2 the organs, it doesn't substantially affect 

3 it. SC&A has identified four organs where 

4 some of the transuranic contaminants can 

5 result in higher internal doses than the 

6 uranium itself.

7 We're aware of that, and typically 

8 in the dose reconstruction process, the 

9 intakes that we assign typically already 

10 exceed and account for those correction 

11 factors of three to five. So the dose 

12 reconstruction process itself, exclusive of 

13 the uranium or excuse me, exclusive of the 

14 transuranic contaminants, the uranium intakes 

15 in dose alone usually account for the 

16 uncertainty from the contaminants.

17 Let's see. I'm trying to think if 

18 there's anything else that I wanted to point 

19 out here. 

20 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, Mark. I have 

21 to disagree. 

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, I 
90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand that. But I want to come back to 

2 something. You say you've got 450 boxes on 

3 recycled uranium data, and you haven't used 

4 them?

5 MR. ROLFES: Yes. We haven't 

6 collected -- we haven't collected it yet. We 

7 had basically been using the DOE 2000 report. 

8 We've looked at some of the results, just to 

9 see what kind of information is available to 

10 us. I haven't seen anything that exceeds our 

11 default.

12 So I'm comfortable with the 400 

13 parts per billion. That's the 95th percentile 

14 level, and that's, you know, as good as it's 

15 going to get then. You can make, you know, 

16 whatever -- we'll continue to discuss it, and 

17 you can make your decision. But the science 

18 is here.

19 MR. STIVER: Mark, about these 

20 boxes. How long have you had them? Is this 

21 something that recently --

22 MR. ROLFES: We have not collected 
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 these boxes. We had inquired with the 

2 Department of Energy legacy management about 

3 the data being available, and because of the 

4 timeliness issue, we didn't feel that we 

5 should go and look through 450 boxes.

6 MR. STIVER: This is a relatively 

7 recent development?

8 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

9 MR. ALVAREZ: This is Bob Alvarez. 

10 I'm curious. Have you screened the boxes to 

11 know their sources and content?

12 MR. ROLFES: We've done a limited 

13 review of some of the -- a limited sampling of 

14 some of the information contained in the 

15 boxes. 

16 MR. ALVAREZ: Do you know whether or 

17 not the boxes contain any sampling data for 

18 residual ash and black oxide sent from the 

19 gaseous diffusion plants during the cascade 

20 improvement and cascade upgrade programs?

21 MR. ROLFES: I would have to go and 

22 look at the data. I couldn't tell you that's 
92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a pretty specific request.

2 MR. ALVAREZ: Well, that's a very 

3 important set of information, because it 

4 involved the essential removal and 

5 decontamination of something on the order of 

6 2,400 converters over a period of a decade, 

7 and there's subsequent D&D and recycling of 

8 residual contamination in the converters, you 

9 know, in the barriers and all the innards of 

10 these GDPs, and a substantial amount of this 

11 material was sent to Fernald in a manner that 

12 appeared to be concurrent with the POOS 

13 material.

14 You would at least intuitively might 

15 want to consider that that material might have 

16 larger than expected quantities of especially 

17 transuranic contamination.

18 MR. WERNER: Bob, this is Jim. As 

19 we've discussed before, you're right. That 

20 would be a rich source of data to try to focus 

21 on the question at hand. But as I understood 

22 it, the 400 boxes, the Fernald-specific 
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 material from LM, and as I recall the way the 

2 records. There's a DOE order regarding 

3 records preservation. 

4 LM is responsible for implementing 

5 much of that with regards to old facilities 

6 that have been cleaned up. This was in 

7 Fernald. So it wouldn't include, for example, 

8 from the kind of horizontal records point of 

9 view, they're complicated and would come from 

10 the GDP in Portsmouth, Paducah and K-25.

11 Normally, it would include materials 

12 that had already gone to NARA, the National 

13 Archives and Records Administration. Four 

14 hundred boxes is really just a, kind of a 

15 slice vertically and a slice horizontally, and 

16 I share the concerns that I think somebody 

17 just expressed, that yes, this load of data, 

18 it would have make sense to go back and 

19 examine them.

20 But boy at this point, there's 

21 really -- the 400 boxes will just be open and 

22 forgotten.
94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RICH: This is Bryce Rich. Then 

2 there's a section in the 2000 report that 

3 talks about the receipts in K-25, and so it's 

4 not that, you know, they document the receipts 

5 from Paducah as well as -- and Portsmouth.

6 MR. STIVER: I believe Bryce, that's 

7 Subgroup 9. It has a lot of that --

8 MR. RICH: Yes. Well, it's 9. But 

9 it's also an appendix in the 2000 report that 

10 specifically documents the material that came 

11 from K-25. 

12 MR. STIVER: I think we had been 

13 over this in a previous meeting, and there's 

14 one subset of that data that didn't make it 

15 into the 2000-B report. I think it was a 

16 total of about 80 metric tons, and it might 

17 have been about 20 that were not accounted 

18 for, if my memory serves.

19 So it gets back to the issue of the 

20 uncertainty in the available data. It's 

21 something that I really firmly believe, that 

22 if we're going to pursue this, that needs to 
95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be done.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have a 

3 question for SC&A. Well, maybe it's two 

4 questions. Number one, does SC&A still have 

5 concerns about the 10A category or subgroup, 

6 or were you satisfied that that could be 

7 omitted because of its limited --

8 MR. STIVER: I think for a robust 

9 statistical analysis, Harry would agree with 

10 me on this, that all the data needs to be 

11 reviewed.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. That's one 

13 part of it. Now aside from 10A, I guess it 

14 was Subgroup 8 was -- 

15 MR. KATZ: Can you hold, because we 

16 lost the lines.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: We lost it? Okay. 

18 MR. KATZ: Hello, everyone on the 

19 phone. We have a lightening storm here and it 

20 killed our power and killed our line for a 

21 second. But we stopped the conversation, so 

22 you haven't actually missed anything.
96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 PARTICIPANT: Okay, you're back on 

2 now?

3 MR. KATZ: We're back on now.

4 PARTICIPANT: Okay, thank you. We 

5 were wondering.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, this is Ziemer 

7 again. So the question I was asking is two 

8 parts. One had to do with Subgroup 8, which 

9 seems to be the basis for the 400 parts per 

10 billion, and the other had to do with sort of 

11 the question of should 10A be included or not. 

12 Bryce has indicated that one reason or the 

13 rationale for excluding 10A was very limited 

14 use of that. Basically, to extend that over 

15 all time periods didn't make sense. 

16 Now what I want to ask, this is just 

17 a practical question, if 10A were excluded, 

18 assume for the moment that it's okay to 

19 exclude that, would NIOSH, in using the 400 

20 part per billion value, what you're doing then 

21 is based on the uranium information for each 

22 individual, or you're going to assign it 
97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 across the board. How are you going to do 

2 dose reconstruction? If people agreed to the 

3 400, what would you do?

4 MR. ROLFES: Well, what we do in 

5 dose reconstruction, for the reconstruction of 

6 internal dose from uranium, we would take that 

7 individuals on uranium urinalyses, and the 

8 uranium urinalyses were reported in units of 

9 mass at Fernald. So we would convert the mass 

10 units into an activity. We'd multiply that 

11 value by 1.4 to account for the urine 

12 production rate for the entire day, 1.4 liters 

13 per day.

14 During the time period that this 

15 material was processed, we'd defaulted to a 

16 two percent enrichment. So we're using a 

17 specific activity of two percent enriched 

18 uranium to essentially multiply another factor 

19 onto the activity being excreted. 

20 We'd take those series of uranium 

21 urinalyses over the individual's operational 

22 work, say at the individual work from 75 
98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through 85. We would assign an intake for the 

2 entire time period, from 1975 through 1985, of 

3 the uranium isotope that results in the 

4 highest internal dose, and also the solubility 

5 Class that results in the highest internal 

6 dose to that particular target organ in the 

7 dose reconstruction.

8 So once we've done that, we would 

9 add in now 400 parts per billion of plutonium 

10 on the uranium mass basis. We would add in 11 

11 parts per million of neptunium on a uranium 

12 mass basis, and 20 parts per million of 

13 technetium on a uranium mass basis. Then we 

14 would have the internal dose.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Now what I 

16 was trying to get a feel for is suppose you 

17 said okay, during that limited time period, 

18 whatever those couple of years were, that 

19 people might have been exposed to the values 

20 for the 10A group? If you did that, in other

21 words, here's a guy that's worked for 30 years 

22 or something, and you have this default value.
99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Suppose you had a different default 

2 value for a very limited amount of time? How 

3 would that affect things? 

4 MR. ROLFES: So then you have a two5 year period --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whatever you can 

7 identify with 10A, and I also would ask Bryce 

8 if that would make sense. I'm not sure how --

9 because the way you do dose reconstruction 

10 when you're talking about it, you take these 

11 points, but you're going back from when the 

12 bioassay was made, and you're assuming the 

13 worse possible intake that could get you to 

14 that point.

15 So there's kind of a smoothing, but 

16 it's very much on the high end. If you 

17 superimpose higher intake for those few years, 

18 it may have almost no effect. I don't know 

19 that it would, but I'm sort of thinking about 

20 it that way, and John, maybe you could react 

21 to that. 

22 But the idea of saying okay, let's 
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 include a higher default value in a certain 

2 way, but it doesn't make sense to include it 

3 over the whole time period.

4 MR. KATZ: One second, one second. 

5 Someone on the line has a dog barking. Could 

6 you please mute your phone -- *6 if you don't 

7 have a mute button, but I'm very concerned 

8 that other people on the phone won't be able -

9 - 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'll translate his 

11 remarks.

12 MR. STIVER: Maybe he's saying 

13 something inspiring.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Make as much sense 

16 as what I'm saying. I don't know.

17 MR. RICH: Well, this is Bryce. The 

18 high level stuff from Paducah was processed 

19 sporadically through a period of years, as has 

20 been stated, and it was mindful, during all of 

21 that period of time, identified as a specific 

22 process string. 
101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Personally, I don't think that that 

2 is either viable or technically realistic to 

3 assign any individual that high levels for 

4 that period of time, and particularly everyone 

5 on site.

6 The 400 parts per billion is going 

7 to default enormously high, particularly in 

8 the case when you do a blending of a 

9 container, a few metric tons of prepared waste 

10 from Paducah. It only takes an afternoon or 

11 less, a few hours.

12 Then the individual is right back 

13 with a uranium fluoride or some other process 

14 stream, which is probably a couple of orders 

15 of magnitude less ratio. So it doesn't make a 

16 lot of sense to me to find a high dose for a 

17 period of time, to accommodate the higher 

18 levels that are seen in incoming material from 

19 Paducah.

20 MR. STIVER: Bryce, this is John 

21 Stiver again. You know, the way I would 

22 envision this going, if you have the ideal 
102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose reconstruction methodology, you would 

2 have, I'd say, from 53 to 73. 100 parts per 

3 billion would probably be reasonable for that 

4 period.

5 You know, once the other materials 

6 start coming in, you know, you'd go for 400 or 

7 whatever. But I believe that data shouldn't 

8 be excluded. But how about, I would propose 

9 doing some kind of a weighted average during 

10 the period of time during which that material 

11 was accessible, and could potentially have 

12 resulted in end dose.

13 I don't know how you would go about 

14 doing that statistically, but instead of just 

15 defaulting to that highest value for however 

16 many years that the 10A group was being 

17 processed, you know, have some sort of a 

18 weighting factor that would account for it, 

19 and would at least give it some recognition 

20 later in the reconstruction, in proportion to 

21 its contribution to dose.

22 DR. MAURO: You just jumped -- yes. 
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Let's get back -- you jumped.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think what 

3 Bryce is saying, that I was thinking about it, 

4 that they might be working there for a couple 

5 of years. But I think Bryce is saying that 

6 whenever they did those runs, they were so 

7 limited that to assign it for that year 

8 wouldn't make sense if they were working there 

9 for an hour.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, it may spike for 

11 maybe a day.

12 DR. MAURO: So what I'm hearing is 

13 that a --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: You see, if you 

15 weight it that way, if you weight it -- if you 

16 said they worked that year and throw in a few 

17 hours, it's almost not going to affect it.

18 DR. MAURO: So in a way, no, I think 

19 I was right. What I was hearing from you is 

20 that okay, we're coming up with this concept, 

21 and it sounds like I for one buy in on eight 

22 on 400, for the reasons we've just discussed, 
104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 okay.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I do too. I do 

3 too, and I was just worried about the 10A.

4 DR. MAURO: Now we're going to say 

5 -- you know what we're going to do? We're 

6 going to give that to everybody, as if 

7 everybody was at the 400.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

9 DR. MAURO: And then you asked the 

10 question, and this is where I think you were 

11 going, and that's where I started to go as 

12 soon as you started to move in that direction. 

13 Okay. Along comes this other stuff, this 

14 nasty stuff. Now right now, they've got 1,732 

15 parts per billion. Sounds like we've got a 

16 little debate going on, was that the real 95th 

17 percentile or not.

18 But let's for a moment presume that 

19 we went in to grab a lot more data and yes, 

20 that holds up pretty good, just for the sake 

21 of this. But we also know that it was there, 

22 what I'm hearing is it really was, there was 
105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 no individual that was going to be 

2 continuously exposed at this level through the 

3 years.

4 So all of the sudden what happens is 

5 that all, when you're assuming, if a person's 

6 working there 30 years, 20 years, and you're 

7 going to give them 400 parts per billion every

8 year after year, which you know probably is 

9 not reality, but you're going to give them 

10 that anyway, that more than accounts for the 

11 fact that maybe a couple of hours a day this 

12 year, and a couple of weeks per year that 

13 year, you might have got hit with some of this 

14 higher stuff.

15 So what you're saying is sort in the 

16 buffer, that takes care of the uncertainty 

17 that lies in the special CIP/CUP. I guess 

18 this is the CIP/CUP material?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I wasn't 

20 saying it was. I was kind of asking this 

21 question, and I think based on Bryce's 

22 remarks, it makes me feel pretty confident in 
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the 400, that those brief times probably 

2 couldn't impact the distribution, particularly 

3 the way they calculate internal dose, where 

4 you take the urinalysis value and then you 

5 back up say and what have the intake, what 

6 would the intake be way back since the last 

7 one, to get you where you are here.

8 MR. STIVER: I have to tell you guys 

9 here. I think the 400 for the Group 8 is a 

10 pretty solid number. The issue is really, you 

11 know, how do you handle those potential 

12 sporadic higher exposures? In fact, you're 

13 giving this for somebody for a period of 20 

14 years, 10 years, whatever, and then you're 

15 also throwing a GSD of 3 on the end result?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I thought at 

17 first Bryce was saying that it only occurred 

18 during a couple of years. I think Bryce, 

19 you're saying it may have gone on throughout 

20 the period, but only for very limited times. 

21 Is that, am I --

22 MR. RICH: That's correct. Your 
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understanding is correct.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, thank you.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes. The two years 

4 came from this site boundary data here, that 

5 shows a spike in plutonium in '83 and '84, and 

6 that's where we got --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you, Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: You know where that 

9 leaves us? That leaves us that we trust that 

10 that 1,732 is a good 95th percentile. In 

11 other words, we just constructed a model for 

12 how to simulate, that really everything hangs 

13 right now on do we trust. Because it sounds 

14 like we do trust the 400, for the reason we 

15 discussed.

16 Are there reasons why we can't trust 

17 the 1,732, because there may be other batches 

18 out there, other things that were going on 

19 that might have missed it?

20 MR. STIVER: Well, the issue was 

21 that was the high degree of uncertainty.

22 DR. MAURO: All right. That's what 
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I was --

2 MR. STIVER: There's very few 

3 samples. The one hopper we did look at is an 

4 order of magnitude difference in the two 

5 measurements in the laboratories. So it's not 

6 homogeneous. You've got to wonder, you know, 

7 what uncertainty would have to be applied to 

8 that. But then to counter that, you have 

9 sporadic exposure. You don't have to --

10 DR. MAURO: Right. See, I think 

11 we're zeroing in on the model in our heads 

12 about, you know, given the inadequacy of the 

13 data, can somehow we live with this and the 

14 incompleteness of the data now? But I also 

15 hear we have all these boxes that really can 

16 help us answer that question. I mean from all 

17 specific --

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, let me jump 

19 in on something. We've been at this for four, 

20 five years now, and all of a sudden, the boxes 

21 pop up. I'll use Mark's reference here when 

22 he says "I guess." One thing this 
109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 compensation program, this isn't something 

2 that's 101 or whatever else like this.

3 For me to be able to find out now 

4 that there's 450 boxes of information, is kind 

5 of frustrating to me. I thought that we were 

6 supposed to start out on this, be able to gain 

7 all the information that we basically could on 

8 this. To tell you the truth, I was going to 

9 call this untimeliness, but Mark beat me to 

10 the punch on this. 

11 The other thing is, is you're right. 

12 They did sporadically, throughout the years, 

13 they had other ash coming in. We don't have 

14 an idea for it. This whole thing comes back 

15 to that we have been sitting here for four or 

16 five years, going around in circles on this 

17 whole thing.

18 The bottom line is yes, we've got 

19 some data, yes, it's questionable. The bottom 

20 line is this is very questionable, in my mind. 

21 So I guess that there's no way that we're 

22 going to be able to get to this point, and you 
110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, I appreciate Bryce's comments on this 

2 and stuff too, because I basically have worked 

3 at the chem plant too, and I'm still dealing 

4 with the transuranics that we have out there, 

5 and some of those are pretty interestingly 

6 quite high.

7 The issue is to me right now that 

8 there has been a motion put out onto the table 

9 by Mark.

10 And my thing is it really upsets me 

11 that at the 11th hour, all of the sudden we 

12 find 450 boxes. Even if Mark doesn't make 

13 this motion, I'm going to make a motion on 

14 recycled uranium, bottom line.

15 MS. BALDRIDGE: Can I interject? 

16 This is Sandra. When the Site Profile was 

17 initially made for Fernald, you know, in there 

18 it says I'm going to jump to the thorium. The 

19 records have been destroyed. We don't have 

20 any thorium. We have reconstructed data based 

21 on the best science available.

22 Then I present the petition that has 
111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I don't even know how many documents for 

2 thorium data, that was all stored in 

3 Cincinnati, that they totally missed up until 

4 the petition was presented in 2005. Now to 

5 find out if they know that there's more 

6 information, not the thorium, but something 

7 else that they haven't bothered to get?

8 That's really disturbing. You know, 

9 as a person eligible, my mother is 97 years 

10 old, and she is fighting day by day for her 

11 life to see this resolved, for claims that 

12 were submitted in 2001, that now 11, 10 years 

13 later there are still boxes of data that apply 

14 to these workers, that they haven't bothered 

15 to get? You know, I just --

16 MR. ROLFES: To clarify, the boxes 

17 of data are not health and safety data. We 

18 have all of the health and safety data 

19 available to us from the Department of Energy. 

20 That does include plutonium bioassay for the 

21 period following the processing of the tower 

22 ash. So we have several hundred plutonium 
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassays. There's not a lack of data.

2 We've looked at the plutonium 

3 bioassay, and there's no one that had any 

4 intakes of significance. You know, if we're 

5 talking about an operational period during the 

6 1980's, followed by a bioassay sample in 1986, 

7 was the first year that they were bioassaying 

8 people for plutonium, if there were 

9 significant exposures, you would still be able 

10 to detect plutonium in urine.

11 And I believe out of the several 

12 hundred results that we have, there were some 

13 which were right at the decision level, or at 

14 the minimum technical level of the uranium 

15 urinalysis method. Those people were counted 

16 in an in vivo counter at PNNL or Hanford, I 

17 believe. They were hand-selected, because 

18 they had borderline results that were right 

19 around, you know, whether or not they could 

20 have been exposed to plutonium. 

21 And their lung counts came back as 

22 not-positive. They showed no plutonium in 
113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 their lungs. So there is additional data on 

2 top of what we've already discussed, that can 

3 be used for dose reconstruction and bounding 

4 plutonium intakes.

5 DR. MAURO: How many people who have 

6 plutonium vis-à-vis the chest count? What is 

7 the plutonium?

8 MR. STIVER: I think what you're 

9 talking about is after 1986, when they started 

10 processing that stuff again, they had a pretty 

11 robust set of procedures and processes in 

12 place. They did a bioassay to begin with, 

13 before working with the POOS. They did it at 

14 six month intervals and at the end, and I 

15 think they had somewhere over 1,000 workers.

16 DR. MAURO: 1,000 workers.

17 MR. STIVER: Now this is after 

18 Westinghouse came in and cleaned up house.

19 DR. MAURO: These are workers that 

20 were --

21 MR. STIVER: This is from about '86 

22 to '89, primarily in Plants 4 and 8. Now this 
114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 doesn't -- we're not talking about the people 

2 -- we also did No. 5. We also did Plant 5. 

3 Basically, every place that the stuff was 

4 being made. That's why I asked about when it 

5 was downblended. 

6 If it had already been previously 

7 downblended, it seemed like an awful lot of 

8 concern over POOS, unless the downblending 

9 wasn't successful and they didn't have the 

10 data they needed. But during that period of 

11 time, Mark's right. There was a few values 

12 that were thought to be positive. They sent 

13 them out for chest counts and they came back 

14 negative. But this is post-'85, and we're 

15 talking about up to '85, when NLO was still in 

16 charge.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer 

18 again. I agree with Sandra and with Brad on 

19 the timing of this issue, and I think it would 

20 be a mistake for us to, you know, start 

21 digging into another set of boxes and go 

22 through, stretch this out. I don't think 
115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're going to be that productive, number 

2 one.

3 Number two, that will add some more 

4 years to this process, and I think almost 

5 every site we can think of, and I have the 

6 same issue with some other sites I'm involved 

7 with, there's always going to be something 

8 that you didn't find. At some point, you've 

9 got to say okay, we have, we've got to make 

10 the decision.

11 This is one. It has gone on for 

12 quite a few years. I think we have a lot of 

13 data here. I don't support the motion, but I 

14 support the idea of going ahead with what we 

15 have.

16 I'm very comfortable with the 400, 

17 based on the data set that we have and the 

18 values we see for most of the runs, and the 

19 idea that this will, this is extremely 

20 claimant-favorable on making these levels of 

21 assignments to all the workers on the uranium, 

22 plutonium and so on.
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I do think it's time we come to 

2 a decision point, however we fall down on 

3 that. You know, I speak against the motion, 

4 but I'm in favor of going ahead.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand 

6 Paul, and that's your personal opinion.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, sure.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I basically, 

9 I agree 100 percent, because to tell you the 

10 truth, until I got this email, I was going to 

11 call a time limit on this today, because I 

12 made it very clear in our last Work Group 

13 meeting that we're basically to the end, and 

14 now I hear 450 more boxes. 

15 Basically so what I want to be able 

16 to do at this point, and we've still got other 

17 topics to be able to talk to and stuff like 

18 that. But I've already put a motion onto the 

19 table, because the Work Group here is not the 

20 final say on it. It's the Board.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: The bottom line 
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is as a Work Group, we do the preliminary 

2 work, putting our findings to the Board and 

3 they're going to make the decision. That's 

4 also why I asked for all the information from 

5 SC&A and NIOSH, that the information be put 

6 out on the O: drive so they can review it, 

7 which I appreciate you both putting out there.

8 So basically, I seconded the motion, 

9 to be able to take this to the Board at the 

10 May meeting.

11 MR. KATZ: Just to add to the 

12 discussion about the motion, the motion, as 

13 Mark wrote it, I thought again in '53 or 

14 something like that; is that correct?

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, '53 to 1985.

16 MR. KATZ: And then Mark made the 

17 point that there was no processing before '61 

18 on --

19 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

20 MR. KATZ: You need to at least 

21 discuss that matter, because it doesn't make 

22 sense to begin in '53. You don't want to go 
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forward with the motion that doesn't have any 

2 support to it.

3 MR. STIVER: I can weigh in on that.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean I just think 

5 you need to discuss it. I'm not --

6 MR. STIVER: We had discussed this 

7 in previous meetings, and there was about 45 

8 metric tons between, that arrived between '53 

9 and '61, and Mark indicated that it didn't go 

10 into processing until that point, but you 

11 still have material being handled, you know, 

12 until it got to the Plant 1 -- those 

13 activities, which would involve some potential 

14 exposures.

15 That's why we felt that '53 was 

16 probably a better number to start with than 

17 '61. That's been one of the points that got 

18 lost, you know, when these bigger issues came 

19 up. I know it kind of fell by the way. But 

20 the starting point for the period.

21 MS. LIN: Can we check if Mark on 

22 the phone. We're a little concerned with 
119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 someone who is not participating and then 

2 making motions.

3 MR. KATZ: Mark Griffon, are you on 

4 the line?

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: He was going to 

6 try to mail in. He just emailed me this. 

7 Actually, he emailed it last night.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. He had an eight 

9 o'clock plane.

10 MR. KATZ: I mean if he's not 

11 available, you can just call it by -- someone 

12 else can make the motion and someone else can 

13 second it, to keep processes square.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I'll make, you 

15 know. One of my questions, you brought up 

16 something, the 1960, the '61 to 1953. Do we 

17 have -- and he calls out in this that 1953 to 

18 1960, there's no data, no samples; is that 

19 correct? No data for --

20 MR. ROLFES: No. There's data 

21 showing basically -- one of these, and Bryce 

22 is probably the best person to explain this, 
120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but he had addressed, there were some 

2 shipments from Hanford back to Fernald 

3 beginning in, I think, 1953, around there, and 

4 that material was sent back to Fernald but was 

5 not processed until after 1961.

6 If you take a look at the levels of 

7 transuranic contaminants in that material, 

8 that was some of the cleanest material that 

9 was sent into the Fernald site, which was 

10 designated as recycled uranium. I think it 

11 was around three or four parts per billion of 

12 plutonium on a uranium mass basis.

13 MR. RICH: That's right, Mark. It 

14 was in the five parts per billion range.

15 MR. ROLFES: Five. Thank you, 

16 Bryce.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if you were 

18 doing dose reconstruction for those years, 

19 what would you do?

20 MR. ROLFES: We've already defaulted 

21 for all those reconstructions to 100 parts per 

22 billion, which is a factor of 20 times higher 
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 than the material coming in.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: For that period.

3 MR. RICH: Mark, in our recent 

4 table, we default at six.

5 MR. ROLFES: That's true. We did go 

6 back and look at the actual data for the 

7 earlier time period, and based upon the 

8 analysis of the actual data, we've recommended 

9 changing the earlier time period to six. 

10 However, we've already completed, you know, 

11 90-something percent of the dose 

12 reconstruction for the Fernald site at 100 

13 parts per billion. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Even though there 

15 was nothing here that was that high?

16 MR. ROLFES: That's correct.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Is this the 

18 paper?

19 MR. STIVER: Actually, according to 

20 Table 3 here, you're going to do this from '61 

21 through '73. I've got a real issue with that. 

22 I mean if we agree, say for the sake of 
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 argument we agree with the 400 from '73 to 

2 '85. I think that part of that, because of 

3 the issue with magnesium fluoride not being 

4 influenced by the arrival of highly 

5 contaminated materials used for downblending.

6 I think you're going to have the 

7 same problem in the earlier years as you had 

8 in the later years. Because you get the 

9 highly contaminated materials does not cause 

10 the magnesium fluoride issue to increase as 

11 much as the downblending. That's part of --

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Is this the 

13 information that you were saying? 

14 MR. STIVER: This is an NLO report.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: NLO?

16 MR. ROLFES: That's part of it. 

17 What's your question regarding that?

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No data for 

19 plutonium.

20 MR. ROLFES: I can't quite see here.

21 MR. STIVER: This is the NLO report 

22 that was in, I think it was --
123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Oh, 1985. This is the 

2 1985 report, correct.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes. It doesn't show 

4 that no plutonium content prior to '65 here.

5 MR. ROLFES: Right. That's actually

6 representative of the content of plutonium. 

7 There wasn't a measurable quantity. I mean 

8 we're talking, the first reported quantity 

9 here is .019 grams, versus nearly a million 

10 kilograms of uranium.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MR. ROLFES: I'm sorry, I was 

13 speaking. I didn't hear you.

14 MR. STIVER: Oh, I'm sorry. I was 

15 wondering if that was because it was below the 

16 detection limit or it just wasn't measured?

17 MR. ROLFES: Well, it appears to me, 

18 since there's nothing entered in here. We've 

19 got in 1964, there's 780,000 kilograms of 

20 uranium that came into the site, and there's 

21 no plutonium recorded. The next year, 1965, 

22 is 8,174 kilograms of uranium, of they've 
124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recorded .019 grams of plutonium.

2 So we're several orders of 

3 magnitude, and the total plutonium and parts 

4 per billion for 1965 was two parts per billion 

5 of plutonium on a uranium mass basis.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So on the same 

7 theory that you're using, let me ask you a 

8 question here. Did they sample for plutonium? 

9 Are you sure that they sampled, or --

10 MR. ROLFES: From the very 

11 beginning, every shipment that left Hanford 

12 was sampled for plutonium, before it was sent 

13 to Fernald.

14 MR. STIVER: My concern here, Mark, 

15 was that maybe it's not that there wasn't 

16 plutonium, but it just wasn't measured or it 

17 wasn't accounted for, that there weren't 

18 measurements available, for the summary table 

19 put together in '85.

20 MR. ROLFES: I can't answer the 

21 question. I don't know the answer to that.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, you know, I 
125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand your concern for it, so basically 

2 I'll make the same motion. I move that we 

3 have a Class for SEC to be added for all 

4 workers who have the potential exposure to RU 

5 for the period of 1953 through 1985. 

6 Basically, that's what I'm proposing.

7 Like I say, when this gets to the 

8 Board, we maybe will want to discuss this area 

9 more. But that's the motion that I put on the 

10 table.

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'll second that 

12 motion.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just, you know, I'm 

15 going to be opposed to the motion, but the 

16 wording. Is it the potential for exposure or 

17 --

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. Exposure 

19 potential --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean that's the 

21 wording, but is that something that, for 

22 example, the Department of Labor would be able 
126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to determine potential for that?

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Actually, I don't 

3 --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: How would it be 

5 applied in practice? 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: As far as?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it individuals 

8 for whom there's --

9 MR. ROLFES: I honestly can't speak 

10 for the Department of Labor as to how --

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I think this is 

12 the whole thing we've always got into. How 

13 are you going to be able to take people and 

14 put them into one of the things? One of the 

15 things that I find interesting is the site 

16 boundaries.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I guess I'm 

18 asking, is it everybody on site? Does 

19 everybody have --

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That's what I 

21 would propose.

22 MR. STIVER: On site during that 
127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 period of time.

2 MR. KATZ: And I think that can get 

3 sorted out.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, they'll sort it 

5 out. I guess, yes.

6 MR. KATZ: When there's discussion 

7 about this at the Board level, because this 

8 won't be the place to define a Class, if 

9 there's a Class to be added.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I guess, do you 

11 want to -- I don't know how we do this, if 

12 it's a roll call or --

13 MR. KATZ: Do we have -- Bob 

14 Presley, are you still on the line?

15 MEMBER PRESLEY: I'm here.

16 MR. KATZ: Oh, and Mark Griffon, let 

17 me just check, are you still on the line? I 

18 mean are you on the line? 

19 (No response.)

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Do you need to a 

21 vote?

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I'm going to take 
128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the vote, I guess, by a show of hands. Who 

2 supports this motion?

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: I'd like to hear 

4 the motion again, please.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I move 

6 that a Class, that an SEC Class be added for 

7 all workers who had the potential to be 

8 exposed to RU, from the period of time from 

9 1953 through 1985. So Robert, how is your 

10 vote? Mr. Presley?

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes, I'm here. 

12 MR. KATZ: Well, so why don't we 

13 start in the room? 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Brad?

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Phil?

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Paul?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

21 MR. KATZ: And Bob?

22 MEMBER PRESLEY: No.
129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. It's 2-2.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: 2-2. 

3 MR. KATZ: It's a split vote.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Split vote, and 

5 do you want to call and get Mark's, or do you 

6 want me to email him?

7 MR. KATZ: Jenny, is there --

8 MS. LIN: Well, how do you guys 

9 usually handle it, because I don't how you 

10 collect the votes.

11 MR. KATZ: Sorry?

12 MS. LIN: I don't know if we ever --

13 MR. KATZ: So with Work Groups 

14 though, we don't typically collect votes from 

15 absentee Members after the fact. We haven't 

16 done it on other Work Groups.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So basically 

18 we've got a split vote, but as the Work Group 

19 chair, I want to be able to bring it forward 

20 before the Board in the May meeting.

21 MR. KATZ: That's fine, that's fine. 

22 We don't need --
130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think you just 

2 report the vote, and Mark will be there --

3 MR. KATZ: Right, exactly.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And he can indicate 

5 his position on it, so it will be clear. It's 

6 going to be --

7 MR. KATZ: I mean the problem for 

8 any absentee Member is that they've missed the 

9 discussion. So they'll get a recap of that.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: The years were '51 

11 through --

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: '53 to '85.

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: '53 to '85. 

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So Mark, you 

16 needed some of this changed? You wanted 

17 uranium first. Is there another one that you 

18 needed?

19 MR. KATZ: How about a comfort 

20 break?

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No way. I'm 

22 going to hold you guys here until --
131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 MR. ROLFES: Yes. If there's any 

3 discussion of the raffinates -- 

4 MR. STIVER: That was Issue 4, the 

5 radon raffinates.

6 MR. ROLFES: Correct, yes.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So those are --

8 when do you want to discuss it, next?

9 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

11 MR. ROLFES: We'll do that.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we're taking a 

13 15 minute comfort break, and we'll be back at 

14 -- what time is it now? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's 11:10.

16 MR. KATZ: 11:45, 11:30. You said 

17 what time?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's ten after.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry, 11:25. 

20 Sorry, sorry. 11:25, we'll be back. I'm just 

21 putting the phone on mute.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 
132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matter went off the record at 11:10 a.m. and 

2 resumed at 11:28 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Are you ready Brad?

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Are you ready Paul?

6 MR. STIVER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. So this is the 

8 Fernald Work Group. We're just reconvening 

9 after a short break, and we've been through an 

10 RU issue and moving on. Brad.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I'm going 

12 to turn this over to John, but the next one 

13 that we want to discuss is out of sequence on 

14 the agenda, and that was thorium.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. This was Issue 

16 No. 4, the radon breath data for adequacy in 

17 reconstructing doses using inhalation of 

18 radium-226 and thorium-230. This is one we 

19 have prepared a response in May of 2010. This 

20 entailed the review of the NIOSH White Paper 

21 on thorium-230 and other associated 

22 radionuclides. 
133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The action item, I believe from the 

2 last meeting, was for you guys prepare a 

3 response on that.

4 MR. ROLFES: I believe our response 

5 is contained within Report 52, which is the 

6 consolidated report on internal dose topics at 

7 the Fernald site. That was sent out on Friday 

8 of last week, I believe. Well, I think we 

9 basically have fine-tuned our results of 

10 basically the notable things in this report.

11 SC&A, one of the questions we got 

12 previously was about the use of radon breath 

13 data to estimate the radium body burden and 

14 associated radionuclides from Silos 1 and 2, 

15 and we have basically put our radon breath 

16 data together and developed essentially a 

17 coworker intake model to, based upon the 

18 bioassay data, to reconstruct exposures to the 

19 raffinate materials.

20 This approach actually, based upon 

21 the bioassay data, we went back and compared 

22 the bioassay data approach to the approach in 
134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our Site Profile, that we originally had 

2 written back in 2003 or 2004. It turns out 

3 that the use of the bioassay data, I don't 

4 have the report pulled out right in front of 

5 me at this second, but I believe the Site 

6 Profile approach was about a factor of five 

7 higher than the actual bioassay data had 

8 indicated.

9 I don't know if we still have ORAU 

10 on the phone, possibly to point out any other 

11 updates maybe that we've made. I'm not sure 

12 if Bryce or Bob are out there possibly. 

13 MR. RICH: I'm on the line.

14 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Bryce, have I 

15 captured everything that we've put together in 

16 Report 52 correctly?

17 MR. RICH: You know, just to review 

18 just a little bit, they had the first part, 

19 they discharged the raffinates directly into 

20 the silo through a mixing and transfer 

21 station. They took air samples and they 

22 determined that they would take radon breath 
135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 samples, which they sent to Rochester.

2 Comparing the maximum breath 

3 samples, as you indicated, I think, to the 

4 radon samples, the results came out reasonably 

5 close. So there were some other issues 

6 associated with handling pitchblende ores in 

7 the Fernald site itself, which had radium in 

8 quantity, of course, and so we added to that 

9 the thorium, the possible thorium-230, and 

10 again defaulted high. So that's the basis for 

11 that write up.

12 MR. STIVER: I think I wasn't 

13 involved directly in this particular item. I 

14 have some listings through our findings, that 

15 maybe you guys can address. Category 1, we 

16 have four different categories of workers 

17 here, I believe. Category 1 were areas where 

18 uranium-238, thorium-230 and uranium-226 were 

19 present. 

20 For example, in the pilot plant, a 

21 Plant 1 sampling, Plant 2 and 3, processing of 

22 uranium ores and so forth. For that one, the 
136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finding was that reconstructed thorium intakes 

2 are valid for workers who did not perform the 

3 job or spend time in the raffinate areas of 

4 the plant or the silo areas, where exposure to 

5 uranium was negligible.

6 So the idea being that you'd have to 

7 be continuously exposed to uranium, in order 

8 for this method to be valid. If you were in 

9 the raffinate area, where the uranium had 

10 already been separated, you can get a 

11 potential thorium intake that would not be 

12 accounted for, and this is similar to what 

13 we're doing with the recycled uranium. We've 

14 added it back into a uranium bioassay value.

15 So if a worker is miscategorized 

16 with respect to their location, the thorium 

17 body burden could be significantly 

18 unaddressed. Category 2 type exposures. This 

19 is the raffinate area located in Plant 3. 

20 Radium will be present in some but not all, 

21 and I believe you guys -- hang on just a 

22 second here. I think that the problem here 
137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was that raffinates were supposedly in a 

2 contained, in a piping system, and the NIOSH 

3 position was that that would not be a source 

4 of exposure. 

5 But evidently, there were some 

6 documents that indicated there were leaks from 

7 these pipes in areas that could have 

8 constituted a source of exposure. So we had a 

9 problem with that. Let's see.

10 Category 3, I believe, was silo 

11 areas 1 and 2, where thorium and radium-226 

12 were present for a short period. Okay. So 

13 this is where you have from 1953 to '58, you 

14 have radon breath data. The White Paper does 

15 not make any reference to how to calculate the 

16 thorium or radium-226 doses to workers in 

17 jobs, involving other jobs related to silos 1 

18 and 2 besides the transfer of 13,000 drums of 

19 raffinate.

20 So I guess it's a completeness 

21 issue, of how doses would be calculated, for 

22 personnel who weren't working on those 
138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 particular tasks for which they were 

2 monitoring at the time. 

3 MR. ROLFES: Our response, I guess 

4 basically, is we've developed a coworker 

5 intake model to be used, based upon the breath 

6 data that we've collected, assembled and 

7 analyzed. We've got the intake levels 

8 documented here in this report.

9 DR. MAURO: When I looked at that, 

10 my question was, you know, we're comfortable 

11 with the radon breath analysis as a way of 

12 getting body burdens for uranium-226 and for 

13 the thorium-230, when you have to the two 

14 together, you know, in equilibrium.

15 And we're also comfortable with the 

16 fact that there probably are, probably some 

17 workers then you say clearly -- of course, the 

18 ones you have the radon breath analysis data, 

19 you use it. The question is are there other 

20 workers that may have been involved in these 

21 types of activities, where you don't have 

22 radon breath analysis, and in effect you're 
139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to have to use these data as a coworker 

2 model.

3 I assume there are some workers that 

4 you're going to have to assign a body burden 

5 of radium and thorium, that might have been 

6 exposed to this material, but were not, did 

7 not have radon breath analysis. You have that 

8 problem, that is, knowing who you're going to 

9 put into that box.

10 MR. ROLFES: That's very possible, 

11 and you can also identify the individuals who 

12 had the highest exposures, because of their 

13 recorded gamma doses in those early years, 

14 dealing with the K-65 materials. So yes, if 

15 there's an individual that does not have a 

16 radon breath sample during that time period 

17 and has a high gamma dose, that would point us 

18 to, you know, that particular claim.

19 DR. MAURO: That will be a trigger 

20 to bring in the coworker model.

21 MR. ROLFES: Exactly.

22 DR. MAURO: And if you go with a 
140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker model for something like this, where 

2 you do have the radon breath analysis, are you 

3 going to go with the full distribution or the 

4 upper end?

5 MR. ROLFES: I can't recall if we 

6 put the 50th and 95th percentiles into this 

7 document. Let me see if I can pull up the 

8 page here, and --

9 DR. MAURO: That's more a Site 

10 Profile --

11 MR. ROLFES: That's a Site Profile 

12 decision.

13 DR. MAURO: Right, okay.

14 MR. STIVER: I guess the other issue 

15 is situations where you have people who are 

16 working in the, predominantly with the 

17 process, the hot and cold raffinates that have 

18 been processed and extracted for the uranyl 

19 hydrides or nitrates, excuse me. And then say 

20 you have a situation where you have thorium 

21 that wasn't extracted, but yet the radium is 

22 also depleted, as well as the uranium. So you 
141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really can't use the radon breath sample for 

2 that particular category of workers.

3 So in other words, the question of 

4 how would you go about doing that?

5 MR. ROLFES: Well, what we've done, 

6 we looked back, if you recall, at the daily 

7 weighted exposure reports, in the area of the 

8 plant that had calcined thorium-230 raffinates 

9 that were depleted of the radium-226. That 

10 material was lifted via airline to Silo 3. 

11 There is still uranium available in 

12 that material. It's a very low percentage. 

13 It's about five percent uranium that's still 

14 within that material, which you know, it 

15 doesn't preclude us from using a ratio for an 

16 individual on an appropriate basis, where we 

17 have an indication of thorium-230 exposure 

18 regarding an incident, for example.

19 We can also, you know, develop a 

20 ratio. We can use that ratio to apply a 

21 thorium-230 intake, based upon their uranium 

22 intake. But separate from that, if you take a 
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look at the actual daily weighted exposure 

2 data in the area of the plant, where the 

3 thorium-230 raffinate would have been 

4 processed, that is one of the, you know, 

5 cleanest areas in the facility. The average 

6 air concentrations are very low and typical of 

7 ground concentrations around the site.

8 DR. MAURO: I've got two questions 

9 along those strategies, and I wasn't aware of 

10 those strategies. So the first strategy is 

11 that along with the thorium-230 that's been 

12 sort of separated, there is some small amount 

13 of U-238, that in theory, since most people 

14 have bioassay for uranium-238, you could say, 

15 you could develop a ratio.

16 I suspect you might find yourself in 

17 a situation where it's below the limit of 

18 detection. That is, you don't see any uranium 

19 in the urine?

20 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

21 DR. MAURO: You would then -- you 

22 would say, you would just, I guess, assign a 
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 default value for, let's say, one-half the MDL 

2 or whatever, and then use the ratio on top of 

3 that?

4 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. Even 

5 if it's a non-positive uranium urinalysis, we 

6 can still assign a missed intake. All it's 

7 going to do is drive up the internal dose.

8 DR. MAURO: I hear you. I just 

9 wanted -- and the last thing was the air 

10 sample. You're saying that you do have 

11 breathing zone samples for the workers that 

12 might have been exposed to this situation?

13 MR. ROLFES: If you recall, there's, 

14 I think, around 170 evaluated exposure reports 

15 from the beginning of operations in 1953 

16 roughly, up until 1967. So that area was one 

17 of the areas that was sampled in the valuation 

18 of air concentrations that we used to prepare 

19 those --

20 DR. MAURO: So that puts you in a 

21 position where, okay, you have a breathing 

22 zone sample that's been counted. It could be 
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 uranium, thorium-232 or thorium-230, right? 

2 So you're saying that if there's reason to 

3 believe, it's possible that thorium-230, which 

4 might very well give you the worst, highest 

5 intake, the highest dose, you're saying you 

6 would go with that approach.

7 So somehow that breathing zone 

8 sample, I'm not sure of that. But you're 

9 saying somehow the breathing zone sample, 

10 where you've got, I guess, a gross alpha 

11 analysis is a hook, as to what the thorium-230 

12 might have been for those workers? Is that 

13 what I'm hearing?

14 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. I mean 

15 there's nothing that would preclude us from 

16 using a BZ or a GA area sample, air sample 

17 excuse me, that was counted. For gross alpha, 

18 we can interpret that, you know, if it's in an 

19 area where thorium-230 or thorium-232 were 

20 present, you know, we could use whichever is 

21 the bounding radionuclide.

22 MR. STIVER: It's going to be 
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 analogous whether the thorium-232 --

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, got it.

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: I have a question. 

4 This is Sandra. When I was reading the ATSDR, 

5 I don't know if I've pronounced it right. 

6 MR. ROLFES: ATSDR.

7 MS. BALDRIDGE: Right, report on 

8 thorium, it says that -- in the area of 90 

9 percent of it goes to the gastrointestinal 

10 system.

11 So when you're measuring what's 

12 coming through in urinalysis, how does that 

13 account for particulates or whatever, that do 

14 not pass through the gastrointestinal system, 

15 but in fact become lodged or deposited because 

16 of a condition in the bowel or so forth? How 

17 is that exposure accounted for in the dose 

18 reconstruction process?

19 MR. ROLFES: Well, regarding thorium 

20 dose reconstruction, for the earlier years, 

21 we're not using urinalysis data to interpret 

22 thorium exposures. We're actually using the 
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 air monitoring data to assign thorium intakes. 

2 So that would be something to consider, and 

3 it's considered in the biokinetic modeling 

4 that we use for dose reconstructions.

5 These are models that are developed 

6 by international committees, and they're

7 contained within a computer code that we use 

8 to do intake calculations and internal dose 

9 calculations. It's called the integrated 

10 modules for bioassay analysis. That is 

11 something -- biokinetic modeling is built into 

12 this program, and that is something that is 

13 considered in the dose reconstruction process.

14 MS. BALDRIDGE: So you're relying on 

15 the reliability of the air monitoring for 

16 thorium?

17 MR. ROLFES: For the earlier years, 

18 that is correct. For the most recent era, 

19 post-1968, we're using the in vivo counts that 

20 were done.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: How many in vivo 

22 counts did we have?
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Tens of thousands. I 

2 couldn't put a number on it at this time, but 

3 it was conducted from, you know, 1968 forward. 

4 I don't know if anybody on the line. I don't 

5 know, maybe Bob Morris. 

6 Oh actually, you know, I take that 

7 back. I think we may have summarized the 

8 number if in vivo counts in one of our 

9 previous responses. Let me pull it up here. 

10 Let's see, "Thorium In Vivo Coworker Study for 

11 the Fernald Site," from back in 2008.

12 Let me see here if I can pull up 

13 some numbers. Well, the way it's reported 

14 here, I couldn't really add it up. We've got 

15 it broken down, specific to thorium. We've 

16 got the samples broken down for thorium-232, 

17 and then a couple of thorium daughters or 

18 progeny, which are lead-212 and actinium-228.

19 This is discussed in our Fernald in 

20 vivo coworker study here. If you want to move 

21 on to that or discuss it?

22 MR. STIVER: Getting back to the 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DWEs, I've seen that you would now calculate 

2 the exposure amount based on the 50th or an 

3 average value, but using the methods of Davis 

4 and Strom.

5 MR. ROLFES: I'll have to take a 

6 look. Bob, do you happen to know the answer 

7 for the specific area of Fernald, where we 

8 have the DWEs, where thorium-232 or thorium9 230, excuse me, would have been one of the 

10 controlling radionuclides? Have we documented 

11 this in our most recent Report 52 here?

12 MR. MORRIS: I don't know the answer 

13 off the top of my head. Billy, have you read 

14 that recently?

15 MR. RICH: This is Bryce. I think 

16 we indicated that thorium-230 exposure would 

17 be added to, and since we assume an 

18 equilibrium with the uranium. So in the front 

19 end of it, operation end, including the 

20 sampling operation and Plant 8, any uranium 

21 results would have an equilibrium 

22 concentration of thorium-230 added.
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Since the DWE samples at the tail 

2 end of the process were essentially zero, then 

3 we said that that would not -- in a raffinate 

4 condition, exposures would be so low that that 

5 would not affect the very conservative 

6 addition of thorium-230 to the uranium.

7 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Bryce.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So is this 

9 different than what you just mentioned to us? 

10 I thought --

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. I was wondering 

12 whether you had used the same approach that 

13 you did for --

14 MR. ROLFES: According to what Bryce 

15 just said, no. So we didn't look at the data 

16 from the area where thorium-230 was the 

17 controlling radionuclide, and I didn't know if 

18 we were going to add a separate intake there. 

19 But based upon the review of the data, it was 

20 essentially indicated that there was no 

21 exposure potential.

22 MR. STIVER: I guess that's the 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other issue here. In the raffinate areas, 

2 Finding No. 8 concerning the airborne dust 

3 loading of thorium-230, and the raffinate 

4 areas were substantially higher than assumed 

5 by NIOSH, and thus the method of dose 

6 calculation of thorium-230 should be available 

7 for dose reconstructors in those areas.

8 A corollary to that was that, 

9 questioning the veracity of the DWE data, 

10 documents here. It was Wing and Halcomb in 

11 1958, and they show that from the period 1955 

12 to 1958, the air sampling of the hot 

13 raffinate, when combined with the raffinate 

14 areas, was only GA sampling. There were no 

15 breathing zone samples at all.

16 So the problem there, DWEs being low 

17 because they weren't sampling the --

18 MR. ROLFES: Well, keep in mind, 

19 though, for that time period, we're using the 

20 radon breath data to estimate intakes for the 

21 hot raffinate area. 

22 MR. STIVER: But in the combined 
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 raffinate area, you have the depletion of 

2 radium.

3 MR. ROLFES: Correct. However, it 

4 didn't specify the cold raffinate area there 

5 in your report.

6 MR. STIVER: Oh, the same for the 

7 situation where we have the cold raffinate. I 

8 mean we're relying on DWEs, but they're based 

9 only on general air samples. Could be a 

10 little problem there too.

11 MR. ROLFES: That's, you know, 

12 another method of interpreting the data. So I 

13 mean it's another correction factor, as to 

14 whether --

15 MR. STIVER: Seems like more of a 

16 Site Profile issue in any case. Let's see. 

17 Okay. Here's one I can see. Finding 11 is 

18 kind of related to the Silo 3 area again, and 

19 its concern is regarding the thorium-230 

20 exposure to people who are involved in Silo 3, 

21 basically after the raffinate extraction 

22 separations.
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 You're having about 138,000 cubic 

2 feet of raffinate, and you had concentrates 

3 from a variety of uranium mills in the U.S. 

4 and abroad, of course. It was stored as fully 

5 oxidized fine powder, in contrast to the K-65 

6 drills in Silo 1 and 2, that were about 30

7 percent moisture. 

8 So we're concerned about the 

9 potential scenario of enhanced inhalation 

10 capability, or enhanced airborne concentration 

11 of this particulate material, as opposed to 

12 the other raffinates that were in Silos 1 and 

13 2, if there's any accounting for that, any 

14 type of correction.

15 MR. ROLFES: I think I addressed 

16 that earlier on, about Silo 3 material that 

17 was air lifted via an air line, enclosed air 

18 line after it was calcined to Silo 3. You 

19 know, in the event of a case-specific release, 

20 there have, you know, if there is an 

21 indication that an individual was exposed to 

22 that material, there's nothing that would 
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 preclude us from applying an intake of 

2 thorium-230, based upon the quantity of 

3 uranium contained within that silo.

4 On a mass basis, there's about five 

5 percent uranium still within the Silo 3. So 

6 we can develop a ratio based upon case7 specific information, if needed, to make sure 

8 that our dose estimate is claimant-favorable.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So you say from 

10 the individual, to show the science of this, 

11 what would be, I guess I'm trying to figure 

12 out who you're going to pick out of this?

13 MR. ROLFES: An incident report. 

14 MR. STIVER: There just happened to 

15 be some sort of a breach in the containment 

16 system?

17 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

18 MS. BALDRIDGE: I mean we already 

19 know that all the incidents weren't always 

20 reported, because a lot of times the worker 

21 didn't realize it was an incident, and the way 

22 they monitored with the urinalysis and the 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mind set to keep the cost down, they sample 

2 monitored people within an incident group.

3 The case of -- there was about one 

4 of the documents talked about the fire. Well, 

5 and they also talk in the National Lead 

6 documents how they would go in and maybe pick 

7 five people out of 20 to monitor.

8 Well, the other 15 people don't have 

9 those incidents listed in their worker 

10 records. So how do you assign based on when 

11 it appears that someone may have had an 

12 exposure? We already know their recordkeeping 

13 was atrocious.

14 MR. ROLFES: But those allegations

15 haven't been supported in my review as a 

16 health physicist. So I disagree with you, 

17 unfortunately. I'd be happy to make any 

18 effort to explain the quantity and 

19 availability of records from the Fernald site. 

20 I've spent, you know, the past eight years 

21 responsible for the Fernald site and several 

22 others.
155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Based upon my review, I mean we've 

2 got, you know, this is one of the facilities 

3 where we have the most data and, you know, as 

4 far as if there's uncertainty as to whether an 

5 individual is involved in such an incident, we 

6 would assume that they were in that incident, 

7 and we would give them dose credit.

8 If there's uncertainty involved in 

9 the dose reconstruction process, the claimant10 favorable assumption is made to use that 

11 uncertainty to the benefit of the claimant.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know, that 

13 brings up a question. How many years did you 

14 work there?

15 MR. BEATTY: Fifteen.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: What do you feel 

17 on what was just said?

18 MR. BEATTY: This is Ray Beatty. I 

19 do have a comment with regards to what Sandra 

20 brought to your attention about records. 

21 Specifically Mark, and I'll bring another side 

22 of that issue to your attention. It goes back 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to something known as Day v. NLO, a federal 

2 lawsuit that was filed on behalf of all 

3 workers at Fernald, from 1953 through 1985, 

4 NLO days.

5 Out of that lawsuit was born a 

6 medical monitoring program. Some compensation 

7 was given to the workers. In her petition, 

8 she uses actual exhibits from the lawsuit as 

9 support documentation. I would think that 

10 those would speak for themselves as well.

11 Also, one other thing, and this goes 

12 out of the petition cohort era, on past '85 or 

13 even '89. I've got a NIOSH report given the 

14 Board, the Federal Advisory Board. It was 

15 conducted by the NIOSH organization. It 

16 basically had four questions they wanted 

17 answered.

18 By looking at records at other 

19 sites, Fernald being one, Mound, Rocky Flats, 

20 Savannah River, Hanford, Oak Ridge, Idaho 

21 National Engineering and Environmental Lab. 

22 Four questions, and this is remediation 
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 workers now, talking about recordkeeping and 

2 accurate records.

3 Can remediation workers be 

4 identified? Are adequate exposure, work 

5 history, medical data available for 

6 remediation workers? Can individual workers 

7 be linked to their exposure and medical data? 

8 With current knowledge and 

9 understanding as described in this report, can 

10 epidemiological exposure assessment or hazard 

11 surveillance studies of remediation workers 

12 and the technologies they employ be conducted 

13 now or in the foreseeable future?

14 You read the report, the short 

15 answer to all these in report findings is no. 

16 Some remediation workers that have worked at 

17 DOE sites cannot be identified. Accurate and 

18 complete exposure, work history, medical 

19 record data are not available for this 

20 population.

21 The individual workers cannot 

22 consistently be linked to their exposure and 
158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 medical data. This is NIOSH report.

2 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

3 MR. BEATTY: One other thing I want 

4 to bring up, and I think it's been mentioned a 

5 couple of times, are the radon studies. A lot 

6 of people want to talk about K-65 radon 

7 releases, which they were, it was bad. 

8 But the Q11 silos too needs to be 

9 mentioned here. I plan on attending the May 

10 meeting, and bringing some documentation with 

11 me, including a copy of this report for all 

12 Board Members again.

13 This is important, and the Day v. 

14 NLO, you can look that up yourself. That's 

15 pretty easy to find. It's on the website, and 

16 those records should speak for themselves. 

17 Thank you for allowing me to comment.

18 MR. ROLFES: Thank you Ray, and 

19 regarding the Day v. NLO trial, it wasn't a 

20 trial, excuse me. I'm very aware of that, and 

21 I have seen records that have been presented 

22 to us in the petition, as well as much of the 
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information and sources of information.

2 I've seen, we've gone through quite 

3 a bit of effort to address those specific 

4 issues that were identified by the plaintiffs. 

5 We've responded over the past several years 

6 in the Work Group meetings. The transcripts 

7 of our responses are available to the specific 

8 issues on our website, excuse me.

9 We've gone and discussed many of the 

10 plaintiff's exhibits that Sandra has presented 

11 to us. I wanted to point out also that this 

12 Day v. NLO never went to court. It was 

13 settled out of court, so there was really no 

14 cross-examination of the data. It was sort of 

15 a one-sided story at that point, and a 

16 settlement was made.

17 But I thank you for your comments, 

18 and one other thing. I am familiar with the 

19 report somewhat that you have presented to us. 

20 I'm aware that it was written by NIOSH. It 

21 has been previously identified to us. I don't 

22 recall any of the -- they were basically 
160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking into an epidemiologic study, I think, 

2 at the time.

3 I don't know. Dave, do you -- are 

4 you familiar with the report? Okay. If 

5 there's something specific in there that you 

6 would like for us to respond to, we'd be happy 

7 to do that. I am aware of what the report 

8 says, and I need to go back and look at the 

9 report, in order to respond to you and your 

10 concerns.

11 I did want to point out that the 

12 remediation efforts took place after basically 

13 the site was shut down, and right now for the 

14 SEC discussions that we're having, the 

15 remediation effort is outside of the SEC 

16 proposed time period. It's separate right 

17 now.

18 But it is an important thing to look 

19 at for dose reconstructions, for remediation 

20 time periods post-1989. So but thank you.

21 MS. BALDRIDGE: I'd like to make one 

22 comment. What it does show is the importance 
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that they put on the records. Whether they 

2 kept them, whether they disposed of them, 

3 whether they didn't keep them, whatever. They 

4 weren't deemed important enough to set aside, 

5 to make sure they were accurate, to make sure 

6 they were available, to make sure they were 

7 usable. That's the point.

8 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Sandra, and 

9 regarding the records review that I've 

10 conducted over the past several years for the 

11 Fernald site, the information that is required 

12 for dose reconstruction has been available to 

13 NIOSH.

14 Our previous efforts with the Work 

15 Group, including even going back to the 

16 original hard copy data for bioassay 

17 information, and comparing that to the 

18 electronic database from which data is 

19 extracted for us to use for dose 

20 reconstruction.

21 I think both SC&A and the Work Group 

22 Members would agree with us, that we found 
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that the data are valid and essentially 

2 complete for the development of a coworker 

3 intake model for uranium.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know, we have 

5 done work on the HIS-20 database. If what 

6 Mark says is correct, that what we've checked 

7 is good. But kind of go back to the bottom 

8 line too, is it's only as good as what was put 

9 in there.

10 One of the questions is, and it 

11 always comes to every site, is recordkeeping. 

12 Then the findings of the Tiger Team report. 

13 Well, they were mainly hitting on one Tiger 

14 Team report was when they came out to check 

15 Fernald, basically their recordkeeping was in 

16 question too. This is when the new contractor 

17 came in.

18 People can surmise what they want 

19 from it, but when the new contractor came in, 

20 the whole RadCon program took a totally 

21 different change and went from there. 

22 Granted, it took a few years to get there, but 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it did take a drastic change.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's the bottom 

3 line on Issue 4?

4 MR. STIVER: Well, our main concern 

5 was whether they were able to bound doses for 

6 the category of workers who were -- may have 

7 been exposed to thorium-230, with depleted 

8 levels of U-238 and radium-226, where you 

9 couldn't use the radon breath data and you 

10 couldn't use urine bioassay.

11 And what Mark said about using the 

12 DWE data to bracket dose to start with. 

13 Correct Mark?

14 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

15 DR. MAURO: Or the bioassay data.

16 MR. STIVER: Correct.

17 DR. MAURO: So you have --

18 MR. STIVER: Well, the bioassay, it 

19 probably wouldn't work. I mean you could be. 

20 It would be --

21 DR. MAURO: Well, we'd make -- 

22 MR. STIVER: This would be a sub-MDL 
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 type thing --

2 DR. MAURO: Well, as long as you 

3 could say I could put an upper bound on the 

4 ratio of the U-238 to thorium-230 in the 

5 source, you probably, you know, if you're 

6 comfortable with being able to do that. In 

7 principle, it could be done.

8 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But my 

10 understanding was if it was below the 

11 urinalysis data, then we would have to have an 

12 incident data report to be able to --

13 MR. STIVER: If there was an 

14 incident where there could have been a, you 

15 know, an accidental exposure, some kind of an 

16 event that took place. But in general, if 

17 there was just a sub-MDL kind of a situation, 

18 well then they would just do a missed dose 

19 calculation.

20 MR. ROLFES: I guess I should 

21 clarify that just a little bit because we 

22 don't necessarily have to fully rely on an 
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incident report to identify a person who's 

2 potentially exposed. We've addressed this 

3 issue. We've identified specific areas at the 

4 Fernald plant where thorium-230 would be the 

5 controlling radionuclide.

6 So if an individual was working in 

7 that plant during that time period, we would 

8 apply the thorium-230 intake.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So then that 

10 takes placing that person in that area?

11 MR. ROLFES: That's -- not 

12 necessarily.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, I don't 

14 mean to interrupt you, but I guess I'm looking 

15 at this from a common standpoint of how you're 

16 going to give this to people, and it comes 

17 back to the old thing that we've always been 

18 battling on this. How are you going to place 

19 a person in that area?

20 And as we've heard from the workers 

21 and everything else like that, and especially 

22 construction workers or whatever, they were 
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 everywhere. I would clearly have a hard time 

2 of how you're going to implement this.

3 MR. ROLFES: When there's 

4 uncertainty as to the work location, NIOSH 

5 chooses the location across the entire site 

6 which would result in the most claimant7 favorable dose outcome for them. So if 

8 there's any uncertainty as to whether that 

9 person worked in that area, we would choose 

10 that area for a dose reconstruction, unless 

11 there are records that show that they were not 

12 in that area. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And the dose 

14 reconstruction people would understand this? 

15 Being on the Dose Reconstruction Group, you 

16 know, that's just kind of at some of the 

17 points we're finding too is what pushes the 

18 dose reconstructor to do these things? I 

19 guess that's kind of where I have my 

20 heartache, of how, where we're going with this 

21 one.

22 You know, I just have a hard time of 
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 how we're going to put it to the people, 

2 especially with Fernald because the people 

3 went everywhere. 

4 MR. ROLFES: I just said we would 

5 choose the area of the site that resulted in 

6 the highest dose. I mean that's -- there's --

7 you can't get any better than that. 

8 MR. STIVER: It's kind of a one9 size-fits-all approach where you just take a 

10 bounding situation.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So everybody's 

12 going to get it?

13 MR. ROLFES: If there's nothing that 

14 says they were not exposed to that, then they 

15 would be assigned a thorium-230 intake. Let 

16 me make sure we clarify something here because 

17 we're talking about a very, you know, very 

18 limited, small fraction of most workers' 

19 exposures. The driving exposures at the 

20 Fernald plant were typically uranium, followed 

21 by thorium, and then some of the other lesser 

22 radionuclides, some of the other, you know, 
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 raffinate materials.

2 When we complete a dose 

3 reconstruction, you know, for a lung cancer, 

4 for example, it's usually, you know, 90-

5 something percent of the lung cancers at the 

6 Fernald site have been compensated. So it 

7 doesn't matter about thorium exposures. We 

8 don't need to assign thorium-230 exposures if 

9 the uranium alone makes it go over 50 percent. 

10 So that's an under-estimate. We 

11 don't consider all sources of exposure in the 

12 dose reconstruction if a portion of the 

13 individual's exposures create a Probability of 

14 Causation greater than 50 percent. If the 

15 Probability of Causation is less than 50 

16 percent, we give every benefit of the doubt. 

17 We assign a bounding over-estimating 

18 dose to make sure that we've considered any 

19 and all sources of radiation exposure of 

20 significance that could potentially make an 

21 outcome difference in the case.

22 So when we say we do an over-
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 estimate, we assign worst case scenarios and 

2 assumptions in a dose reconstruction process 

3 to make sure that the benefit of the doubt is 

4 given to the claimant if we have to turn that 

5 claim down. 

6 MR. DOLL: Brad?

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

8 MR. DOLL: The gentleman that was 

9 here last month instead of me, he filed and he 

10 went through NIOSH, and he met with them and 

11 they had the conversations about what he 

12 thought his exposures and stuff were. I think 

13 he submitted a letter of response back from 

14 NIOSH.

15 And there's no records on him. He 

16 was down there from 1982. I got there in '83. 

17 We worked in all those buildings, 2, 3, the 

18 full nine yards. Wherever other people didn't 

19 want to go, we kind of found our way in there, 

20 and sometimes two and three times a day to 

21 different places. That was just our job. 

22 In that letter, he was told that he 
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got more dose from 1993 on than he did when 

2 he was -- as a superintendent, than he did 

3 when he was working in the field in all these 

4 buildings as a pipefitter. Now if you're 

5 doing this, I just -- maybe I'm just not 

6 understanding the process, where you're 

7 assigning dose to somebody at the worst case 

8 scenario.

9 I just have a problem with how can 

10 his dose be less, as a superintendent for 

11 Fluor, after everything's been put in 

12 position, sitting in a trailer or walking 

13 around, versus him working inside these 

14 buildings getting exposures. I wish you could 

15 explain that to me.

16 MR. ROLFES: Well, I would really 

17 like to. Unfortunately, I can't discuss an 

18 individual claim's information openly.

19 MR. DOLL: Well, I understand. But 

20 just make it John Doe.

21 MR. ROLFES: Well, there are some 

22 specific things. One would have to take a 
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look at the data contained for each claim 

2 file. I have heard many concerns about in 

3 general, availability of data for individuals, 

4 and specific to subcontractors. 

5 That is something that we heard 

6 first. It wasn't something at the original 

7 SEC petition that we received regarding 

8 subcontractors specifically.

9 But that is something that was 

10 presented to us in the Working Group process, 

11 I believe for the first time back in January 

12 of last year, in 2010. So that is something 

13 that we have been looking into. We've been 

14 looking into hard copy records specific to 

15 subcontractors to see if there might be data 

16 missing.

17 We haven't produced a finalized 

18 report yet, but we are actively looking into 

19 that. But I've heard many concerns about the 

20 not having data available or only having, you 

21 know, bits and pieces of data for specific 

22 claimants. I haven't looked at the numbers 
172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specific to Fernald in probably a year, but I 

2 think there's around 1,200 or so claimants 

3 that have filed with the Department of Labor 

4 that require a dose reconstruction for the 

5 Fernald site.

6 Out of those 1,200 people, I think 

7 we identified just under 100 people that 

8 didn't have bioassay data in their files. So 

9 what we did at that point, we developed, using 

10 the HIS-20 data, we developed a coworker 

11 intake model for uranium, to assign uranium 

12 exposures to people who did not have 

13 monitoring data, but had an exposure 

14 potential.

15 So the concern about subcontractors 

16 specific to that approach was identified. I 

17 believe, Ray, you might have identified that 

18 at the previous or maybe two Working Group 

19 meetings ago. That's something we're looking 

20 at.

21 We had pointed out that the HIS-20 

22 database did not appear to contain 
173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subcontractor bioassay results. That's true 

2 for the earlier years, but they are in there 

3 for post-December 1985. So that is one thing 

4 that we've been able to find in our closer 

5 look at this.

6 Once again, I did want to say that 

7 it is something that we're looking into.

8 MR. DOLL: You just made a comment, 

9 post-1985. But I mean what you're saying is 

10 National Lead walked in the door and had all 

11 this set up? Or how long did it take them to 

12 get to that point?

13 MR. ROLFES: This is only specific 

14 to subcontractors. We do have hard copy data 

15 for subcontractors, which is not in the HIS-20 

16 database, which I should specify. So that's 

17 one of the things that we're going back to 

18 look at to see if we've got all of the hard 

19 copy subcontractor bioassay data, hard copy 

20 sheets. The HIS-20 database, that was 

21 something that was developed in the more 

22 recent era.
174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There was a previous database where 

2 all of the uranium bioassay data was entered 

3 electronically. Then prior to that, it was 

4 only in hard copy. But we found that the hard 

5 copy data, in our review and evaluation of 

6 that data that went into HIS-20, we found that 

7 it was actually relatively complete, and both 

8 SC&A, the Work Group Members and NIOSH have 

9 agreed that there's nothing that would 

10 invalidate its use for dose reconstruction.

11 MR. DOLL: Was that hard data of 

12 construction workers, or was that all workers?

13 MR. ROLFES: We have both hard copy 

14 data for subcontractors, construction workers 

15 and all full-time employees at the site, and 

16 partial. So it's not, you know, the first 

17 thing when they would request a urine sample 

18 from a worker, they would actually give you a 

19 urine sample request card, where you'd have 

20 to, you know, go to report and provide a urine 

21 sample at a given date and time at the site.

22 So that request card would have your 
175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 name, who you worked for, and where you were 

2 to report, and then also would have the 

3 analysis results. That was the way it was in 

4 the earlier days. But then subsequently, that 

5 information was all entered into electronic 

6 databases, and we have reviewed those 

7 databases and compared the database 

8 information to the hard copy data.

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: How often did 

10 people give urinalysis?

11 MR. KATZ: Before, Phil, can I ask, 

12 can you identify yourself? I'm sorry, but you 

13 --

14 MR. DOLL: Lou Doll. I've been here 

15 --

16 MR. KATZ: No, I know you've been 

17 here, but you weren't here when we started. 

18 So for the record.

19 MR. DOLL: Okay, I'm sorry. 

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

21 MR. ROLFES: Phil. Phil had a 

22 question. As far as the number of urinalyses, 
176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some people may have given them once a year. 

2 Some people might have given them several 

3 times a day. It all depends upon, you know, 

4 if there's an incident, for example, and the 

5 individual has a high, you know, above 50

6 micrograms per liter, for example, they would 

7 resample that individual to make sure that it 

8 was a valid result and check to see if it was 

9 decreasing at all. So it's all, you know, 

10 based upon the previous result, the potential 

11 for exposure and such. So it varied, 

12 depending upon --

13 MR. STIVER: All right. I don't 

14 really have any other questions about Issue 

15 No. 4. Joyce, are you on the phone? 

16 DR. MAURO: Apparently, she wasn't 

17 able to --

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, I'm here.

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, she is. 

20 MR. STIVER: She was able to get on. 

21 I got an email from her. I thought I told 

22 you.
177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Was there anything that -- I know 

2 you were the principle author of the Rev. 7 

3 review about the radon breath data. Was there 

4 anything else that you'd like to add to the 

5 discussion?

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, no.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay, okay. In that 

8 case, I have nothing else really to say about 

9 Issue No. 4. 

10 MR. KATZ: So can I just ask is 

11 there sort of a bottom line for the Work 

12 Group. I mean if you're going to be reporting 

13 out to the Board on issues, is this an issue 

14 you're going to address in your report out to 

15 the Board?

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I think 

17 we've -- yes, we're going to be addressing 

18 where we got to on it. We're going to 

19 basically go over how we've gotten to this 

20 point and what we've done. But that's 

21 basically the bottom line.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, but let me 
178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ask. I think I heard you saying that you 

2 agree that you can bound this data set?

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, the one category 

4 that we were concerned about would be those 

5 who didn't have adequate radon concentrations 

6 or radium concentrations. So in that case, 

7 you know, they would default to the bioassay 

8 if they had a missed dose for chronic exposure 

9 or to the DWE data. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, they had a 

11 tractable situation. There's the issue of if 

12 it's incident-driven, that doesn't raise a 

13 question about yes, you can. Once you've 

14 identified a person that you think might have 

15 been exposed to thorium-230, what we just 

16 heard is that you have two strategies that in 

17 theory would allow you to get a hook on the 

18 intake.

19 The issue always is well, who are 

20 those people, and when are you going to assign 

21 it, and that's certainly -- and the response 

22 we heard was that that most likely would have 
179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 occurred under an unusual circumstance, which 

2 would be part of a record of transients. Am I 

3 correct? Am I characterizing this fairly?

4 That is -- or you would assign it 

5 broadly for people who even might have been 

6 exposed?

7 MR. ROLFES: We have some details on 

8 the specific areas of the Fernald site where 

9 thorium-230 intakes could have occurred, and 

10 if there's any doubt as to whether that 

11 individual worked in that plant, then we would 

12 assume in a worst case dose reconstruction 

13 that they were in that plant. 

14 DR. MAURO: And SC&A's position, you 

15 can't do more than that.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, I have no problems 

17 with that since they were using a bounding 

18 approach. So I think we can close that one 

19 out. 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: How about --

21 looking at the time right now, let's --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: 12:15.
180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: 12:15.

2 MR. STIVER: We have, you know, the 

3 thorium issue and in vivo thorium coming up. 

4 That's probably going to be a relatively big 

5 one, so it might be better to -- 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Take a break at 

7 this time?

8 MR. STIVER: Take a break. 

9 MR. KATZ: A lunch break?

10 MR. STIVER: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: And Joyce will be 

12 available for that?

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. I'm here.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, good. We'll be 

15 talking about the chest count. I presume 

16 that's what we're referring to, the post-'69 

17 chest count data. I know that you were very 

18 close to that.

19 MR. STIVER: Actually, very much so, 

20 and I heard Bob Barton -- or if you're looking 

21 particularly at the mass specs on that issue. 

22 So about an hour from now, I guess we will be 
181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 MR. KATZ: About 1:20, we'll 

3 reconvene. Thank you, everyone on the line, 

4 for hanging in with us, and we'll be back 

5 around 1:20.

6 (Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the 

7 above-entitled matter went off the record and 

8 resumed at 1:23 p.m..)

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 1:23 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good afternoon. 

4 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

5 Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, and we are 

6 reconvening after a lunch break. Let me just 

7 check on the line for our Board Member. Do we 

8 have Bob Presley again?

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Great. Welcome back, 

11 Bob. We're glad you could make it. I know 

12 you had an interruption at some point. Do we 

13 have any other Board Members? 

14 (No response.)

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, then, Brad, carry 

16 forward.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Now we 

18 just got done with the thorium, is that 

19 correct, and that was Issue 4.

20 MR. STIVER: Actually, we finished 

21 Issue 4, which was the radon breath data, and 

22 now we're going to start with 6B, which is the 
183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium in vivo.

2 MR. ROLFES: John, I'm sorry. 

3 Before we get into it, I wanted to add 

4 something. You can continue and I can come 

5 back in a second, but I just wanted to -- 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, go ahead.

7 MR. ROLFES: While we were away on 

8 lunch, I looked for the report, the NIOSH 

9 report that you had referenced, Ray, and I was 

10 able to pull that up. I knew I was familiar 

11 with it to some extent, and I knew I had 

12 recalled the report. But I couldn't exactly, 

13 you know, put all the pieces together in my 

14 head.

15 But I was able to find a copy of the 

16 report, and in the NIOSH Summary of Findings, 

17 this is available on the cdc.gov website under 

18 NIOSH. In the NIOSH Summary of Findings, in 

19 the Fernald edition, there were four findings 

20 reported here. 

21 The first finding was "Some 

22 remediation workers who have worked at DOE 
184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sites cannot be identified," and it basically 

2 says that "complete rosters of current and 

3 former remediation workers do not currently 

4 exist. Reconstruction of rosters from 

5 multiple data sources at the site is labor6 intense and it may exclude some groups of 

7 workers."

8 The second point was the one I think 

9 that is most important to the discussion here, 

10 and it says "Accurate and complete exposure, 

11 work history, and medical records data are not 

12 available for this population." It goes on to 

13 say "Although radiation exposure records 

14 appear to be complete, decentralized 

15 responsibility for chemical exposure 

16 assessment and other records has led to gaps 

17 in exposure, work history, and medical data."

18 So the shortcomings in the records 

19 appear to be speaking towards the chemical 

20 exposure aspect, rather than the radiation 

21 exposure records. I just wanted to point that 

22 out because that is something that we have 
185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 followed up on quite a bit, and it is an 

2 important issue, and I'm glad you did bring 

3 that up.

4 But I wanted to insert that 

5 clarification, so thank you. Oh, one other 

6 thing. It was for -- I apologize -- it was 

7 for, I think, to determine whether or not an 

8 epidemiologic study could be conducted for the 

9 remediation work force.

10 MR. STIVER: Okay. We've pretty 

11 much laid Issue 4 to rest, and we go on to the 

12 issue of thorium-232 intakes. We have already 

13 been through Issue 6A, which was the use of 

14 DWE data. 

15 We feel that's fairly well resolved, 

16 and we're going to push that one back to after 

17 6B, which by virtue of its position in line, 

18 is in the last three meetings, has never been 

19 discussed to any level of detail, and we want 

20 to go ahead and make sure that we have a 

21 chance to address that one in the level of 

22 detail that it deserves.
186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Basically in 1969, I believe, '69 

2 through '89, the site acquired the mobile and 

3 in vitro -- or in vivo laboratory, and were 

4 able to do chest count data, which they then 

5 used to assess intakes of uranium, thorium, 

6 and -- but mainly uranium and thorium. But in 

7 this particular case, we're interested in 

8 thorium-232 exposures that may have taken 

9 place during this time period.

10 There's really two periods of 

11 interest here. It was 1969 to '79, and 1979 

12 to 1989. 1979, a different technique was 

13 introduced for assaying the thorium-232, and 

14 from '69 to '79, basically they used, reported 

15 the data in basically in units of milligrams 

16 thorium.

17 We believe that was based on the 

18 actinium-228 activity. There were some 

19 problems with that, which Joyce Lipsztein will 

20 discuss in a minute. There were issues 

21 related to that and also related to the choice 

22 of the minimum detectable amount and its 
187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 relationship to the distribution of chest 

2 count data.

3 Post-1979, they used a different 

4 technique, which basically measured the lead5 212 from thorium-228, and it was felt that was 

6 probably a more robust measure. It's less 

7 subject to problems associated with 

8 disequilibrium between thorium-232 and its 

9 daughter products.

10 However, there still remain

11 significant issues regarding the minimum 

12 detectable amount, MDA, and also its 

13 relationship to the distribution. The area of 

14 overlap between the two measures indicate 

15 there may be some discontinuity there. So, 

16 Joyce, are you on the phone now?

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, I am on the 

18 phone.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. Would you like 

20 to go ahead and take it from here?

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. I'll 

22 discuss the technical parts of the 
188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measurements, and then the statistical part I 

2 think Bob Barton will come along, right? 

3 MR. BARTON: That sounds good, 

4 Joyce.

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I'm sorry? Okay. 

6 So I'm discussing the years of chest count 

7 regarding thorium-232, and basically they were 

8 chest counts made available from '68 until 

9 1988. But from 1968 to 1978, the lung burden 

10 was reported as thorium mass, milligrams of 

11 thorium-232, in nearly all cases.

12 After 1978, during 1979 to 1988, 

13 thorium lung burden was reported of actinium14 228 and lead-212. So we have different 

15 aspects because one of them we don't know, we 

16 don't really know how this thorium mass was 

17 really measured. 

18 MR. ROLFES: Was that it, Joyce? 

19 Excuse me? Joyce?

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. I'm here. 

21 I'm just pulling out my notes. 

22 MR. ROLFES: Okay.
189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So let's first focus 

2 on the period of '68 to '78, when the thorium 

3 lung burdens were recorded as milligrams of 

4 thorium. We don't know how this milligrams of 

5 thorium were acquired, how people measured, 

6 because thorium itself, I think everybody 

7 knows, but thorium-232 itself cannot be 

8 measured by in vivo counts. 

9 So you have to rely on the 

10 measurements of the daughter nuclides, and 

11 they could have been measured through 

12 actinium-228, which when thorium is in 

13 equilibrium with the daughters, is the at best 

14 look like, to measure and to associate with a 

15 dose of thorium-232 because you don't have to 

16 pass through the radium emission, which it 

17 will disperse like the lead-212.

18 The problem is that we don't know 

19 when the thorium was separated from the 

20 daughters. So the measurement through 

21 actinium-228 might under-estimate a lot the 

22 thorium lung burden. This issue was not 
190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 solved. There is no proof, nothing, of how 

2 the thorium in milligrams were reported.

3 We have just some figures of in vivo 

4 data for some Fernald workers, and of the 

5 measures in milligrams. We can see that there 

6 is a curve that is an increasing activity of 

7 thorium.

8 This could be consistent either with 

9 the measurements of actinium-228 because it 

10 will be increased in activity, the actinium11 228 would increase in activity in the lungs, 

12 after the intake of thorium that has been 

13 chemically separated from the daughter 

14 nuclides.

15 Or it could also be the result of 

16 someone that was in a chronic intake because 

17 the person would be chronically exposed. So 

18 he would have an increasing level of exposure 

19 to thorium over time. So there is a lot of 

20 uncertainty on this data, on milligrams of 

21 thorium, because we don't know how to 

22 interpret it.
191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If there is a consistent, there is a 

2 thorium intake and then the exposure of 

3 thorium with the increase over time, or if we 

4 are seeing this increasing in milligrams 

5 because it would be we're measuring actinium6 228, and there were an increased activity of 

7 actinium-228.

8 There was a brief response from 

9 NIOSH from this comment, saying that the 

10 workers were measured through lead-212. But 

11 we don't know why and how this conclusion was 

12 reached. Also because on the data, after '78, 

13 both results are given, actinium and lead-212. 

14 There are some documents after '78 that say 

15 that they use both data to calculate the 

16 thorium in the lungs.

17 So I think this data has a lot of 

18 uncertainty to really be used to determine 

19 data. The other thing is that NIOSH cites 

20 that there is a consistency between the data 

21 after 1979 and the data before '79. When the 

22 data were -- when you had the measurements in 
192 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nanocuries of lead-212. Can you follow me?

2 MR. STIVER: Yes.

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. We have 

4 measured -- we have the data from 22 

5 individuals that were measured, that had both 

6 measurements, a measurement in mass and a 

7 measurement in lead-212, 1979, because we had 

8 the both measurements.

9 If you calculate the activity of 

10 thorium by -- you have the resulting 

11 milligram. You calculate the activity in 

12 thorium using the conversion factor that NIOSH 

13 uses of, to convert it to a nanocurie of 

14 thorium-232.

15 Then you have the nanocuries of 

16 lead-212, and you transform it in the 

17 equivalent activity of thorium from this 

18 measurement of lead-212. Then you had ratios 

19 of activity that varied widely. For example, 

20 from minus 76.82 to 12.8.

21 So I have, you know, the same person 

22 you calculate the thorium activity nanocurie 
193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 by the milligram result and by the activity 

2 that was measured from lead-212.

3 The ratio of the two types of 

4 activity that should be the same. They vary. 

5 Like for example, I have .10, then 1.71, then 

6 4.27, then 12.8, and like -- and goes on and 

7 on. So we cannot really rely on those 

8 activities in milligrams.

9 The other thing is that we have seen 

10 that for some of the workers -- so another 

11 issue. Some of the workers that have the in 

12 vivo measurements recorded in milligrams of 

13 thorium, they have implausible large changes 

14 from inhaled thorium over brief periods of 

15 time. 

16 What happens is with the biokinetic 

17 of thorium will predict that it will stay for 

18 a long time in the lung. So you cannot have 

19 from one, the measurements taken one month 

20 after, a very big change of thorium in lungs. 

21 So for example, I have -- I'll just cite one 

22 example.
194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I have one that was measured 10.2 

2 milligrams of thorium in March, for example, 

3 and then 40 days later it was .2. You cannot 

4 have that variation. It doesn't match the 

5 biokinetics of thorium. And as a result of 

6 the last Working Group meeting, I was asked to 

7 furnish some data where I found this large 

8 difference, that it's not -- it does not 

9 comply with the biokinetic of thorium.

10 So we sent a memo. It's just a 

11 memo. It's nothing to be added to our review, 

12 but just showing number of cases where this 

13 happened, where the biokinetic of thorium 

14 doesn't match with the measurement results. 

15 It was a large variation in measurement 

16 results in a small amount of time.

17 Then the other issue, still on the 

18 thorium in milligrams, is that we have -- we 

19 were given by NIOSH an MDA of six milligrams 

20 for thorium-232. There is no explanation on 

21 how this minimum detection activity was 

22 derived, nor which nuclide was used to derive 
195 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the minimum detection activity, or how was the 

2 counting time, if there was a counting time --

3 a standard counting time.

4 The problem is that when we looked 

5 at the table of in vivo counting, we see that 

6 about 84 percent of all the -- in all years, 

7 except for '68. 84 percent of all 

8 measurements are below six milligrams of the 

9 MDA. I know that the MDA is not used for a 

10 coworker model.

11 But the problem is not that; it's 

12 that if you have a six milligram minimum 

13 detection activity, you couldn't have reported 

14 as positive results, 84 percent of the data 

15 that we have.

16 So there is a lot of uncertainty on 

17 this data on milligrams, reported on 

18 milligrams of thorium-232. I don't think they 

19 were solved in a convincing way so that we can 

20 use them to calculate Dose for the workers.

21 Now if we could see it, we have the 

22 data for the period from '79 to '89. We also 
196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have a lot of uncertainties. First, we have 

2 data also. 84 percent of the results are 

3 below the minimum detection level for lead4 212. Now I'm talking about the period where 

5 we have actinium-228 and lead-210 results, and 

6 NIOSH used the lead-212 results to calculate 

7 the thorium lung burden, which is correct of 

8 using lead-212 instead of actinium-228. 

9 But even so, we have a lot of 

10 uncertainties on these measurements of lead11 212. The MDA, the minimum detection activity 

12 for lead-212, is about .9 nanocuries. That's 

13 what was reported. But when we see the 

14 results that are below the minimum detection 

15 activity, then that's 84 percent of the 

16 results are below the minimum detection 

17 activity.

18 So how would they report so many 

19 positive results if the minimum detection 

20 activity was really .5 nanocuries. Here, I 

21 have another thing, because when one of the 

22 questions that we asked NIOSH and we had a 
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fast response from them, with how long did 

2 they count the people, the workers. 

3 The answer was that they counted 

4 about 20 minutes in the model whole body 

5 counter. I work a lot with thorium, and I 

6 don't think you can achieve a minimum 

7 detection limit of .5 nanocuries with 20 

8 minutes counting in a model whole body 

9 counter. I think it's too low. 

10 Generally to have this detection 

11 limit, we would have to count the persons in a 

12 shielded room for at least 60 minutes. So, 

13 you know, there are some uncertainties maybe, 

14 but a lot of uncertainties of how this minimum 

15 detection activity was calculated and if it 

16 was calculated using the same time as the 

17 worker was monitored.

18 So I think there are a lot of 

19 uncertainties. Thorium is a very difficult 

20 nuclide to measure, and very difficult nuclide 

21 to measure in lung also. The other thing is 

22 that it's assumed that lead-210 -- 212, I'm 
198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sorry, lead-212 is in equilibrium with --

2 there was an equilibrium assumed for lead-212 

3 and thorium-232, which was .711, which was the 

4 mid-point of a theoretical range.

5 This is correct for the thorium in 

6 air. The problem is that the daughter 

7 nuclides of thorium-232 don't behave in the 

8 same way in the lungs. They don't have the 

9 same kinetics of thorium-232, and there might 

10 be a big uncertainty on this.

11 If you assumed the same equilibrium 

12 that you have in errors -- on the source --

13 what's happening in the lungs, then you might 

14 infer of errors that might even go to two 

15 times or more for when you convert the 

16 activity to thorium-232.

17 MR. STIVER: Joyce, could you 

18 mention a little bit about the magnitude of 

19 those uncertainties?

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Those uncertainties 

21 would be, from calculating the dose from base, 

22 that lead-212 and all the daughters, not only 
199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lead-212, but you have radon here and you have 

2 radium, and you have actinium, everything on 

3 the lung, if you assume that they have the 

4 same behavior, the daughters have the same 

5 behavior as thorium-232, you might incur 

6 errors that goes from two to ten times, 

7 depending on the solubility of thorium.

8 If it is, for example, thorium 

9 nitrate, you can incur to ten times errors. 

10 If it is dioxide, then it's about two to three 

11 times. 

12 MR. ROLFES: That's for internal 

13 dose calculations, the same order of 

14 magnitude's actually pretty good. So if 

15 we're, you know, talking about a factor of two 

16 or a factor of ten, we're in the right 

17 ballpark, I mean, in my opinion.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I don't know. If 

19 you calculate a dose that is ten times higher?

20 MR. ROLFES: If you calculate a dose 

21 that's ten times higher --

22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The uncertainty --
200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm sorry. Ten times lower because it would 

2 have, you know, the daughters would have lived 

3 long. So I think this is a big problem with 

4 thorium measurements every place, and there is 

5 no real solution to this, unless to say that 

6 the uncertainty is high and put a very, very 

7 high uncertainty on this.

8 Thorium is really very difficult to 

9 measure, and the results that we have, that we 

10 can work with, are very difficult because we 

11 don't know exactly how much was, and we don't 

12 have urine data. At the same time, we don't 

13 have fecal data. At the same time, you know, 

14 to reduce those uncertainties. You just have 

15 the lung activity.

16 To rely on the lung activity of 

17 lead-212 to thorium-232, it's a big, big 

18 uncertainty.

19 MR. ROLFES: I wanted to make a 

20 clarification, Joyce. We actually do have 

21 some urinalysis data that was basically 

22 collected and analyzed for thorium using 
201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutron activation analysis. That was done in 

2 around 1965. There's also some thoron lung 

3 breath studies that were done in the earlier 

4 time period as well, as well as an off site 

5 whole body counting or lung counting of 

6 Fernald employees.

7 Basically, you've identified many 

8 uncertainties, and I believe we've responded 

9 to them previously. I've got a response here 

10 from January 19th of 2011, and also another 

11 response, where we have addressed your issues 

12 that you have presented to us.

13 So basically, I think you're just 

14 summarizing what we've already discussed at 

15 the last Work Group meeting.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, but we didn't 

17 really discuss the answers to that, and some 

18 of them are discussed here. I don't believe 

19 it is, you know, answered in a satisfying way.

20 MR. ROLFES: Okay. At the last Work 

21 Group meeting, you had indicated that you had 

22 an individual who had a thorium lung burden of 
202 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 40 milligrams that had dropped down to .5 

2 milligrams within 30 or 40 days. 

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Right.

4 MR. ROLFES: And we did subsequently 

5 receive your memo regarding the, you know, 

6 large variations in the measurements over 

7 time. I didn't see any measurements that were 

8 as high as 40 milligrams. The highest I saw 

9 on your report was 10-1/2 milligrams, that had 

10 dropped down to a half a milligram.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I didn't pick all 

12 the data. I just put some so that you can 

13 see.

14 MR. ROLFES: Well, that was one of 

15 the focuses of last Working Group meeting, 

16 that you were going to provide that individual 

17 --

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes, and I did. 

19 I think I did a lot of, you know, I provided 

20 you with a lot of individuals, so that you can 

21 see how this dropped.

22 MR. STIVER: Mark, this is a 
203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 representative data set for 30 different 

2 workers. I think the point here wasn't to 

3 really worry about the magnitude of any 

4 particular number, but just to show the 

5 difference in time and how that doesn't 

6 comport with biokinetics.

7 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

8 MR. STIVER: Just to illustrate the 

9 uncertainties.

10 MR. ROLFES: I just wanted to make 

11 sure that we're not talking about somebody --

12 I mean what she said is a 40 milligram lung 

13 burden that dropped to .5. So we're talking -

14 - 

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, but you had 

16 already that data. That's why I didn't put it 

17 again.

18 MR. ROLFES: I'm sorry?

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And I, you know, I 

20 didn't analyze the whole set of data because 

21 it would take a long time, and I don't think 

22 that was the purpose of it. So I took some 
204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data and I thought, well, I have, I read the 

2 sensitive number. You can see how it varies.

3 MR. ROLFES: I did look at your 

4 summarization, and the highest result that I 

5 recall seeing in the summary in the memo was a 

6 10-1/2 milligram thorium lung burden, which 

7 dropped down to about .5 milligrams, which was 

8 below the limit of detection at the time, the 

9 six milligram limit of detection.

10 Something that would drop from a 10-

11 1/2 milligram lung burden down to less than 

12 the limit of detection of six micrograms 

13 sounds -- doesn't sound abnormal to me. It 

14 sounds like a normal excretion pattern for 

15 something that's moderately soluble. You 

16 know, there were certainly some short-term 

17 thorium processing campaigns at the Fernald 

18 site, that may have --

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No. Thorium never 

20 can be soluble. Thorium either is Type M or 

21 Type S.

22 MR. ROLFES: That's correct, and I 
205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said Type M, moderately soluble.

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. I don't 

3 think, you know, you can't go -- if you do the 

4 biokinetics of it, you'll see that those 

5 results are not possible.

6 DR. GLOVER: So this is Sam Glover. 

7 One brief explanation, one is this external 

8 examination. Obviously, somebody who's 

9 externally contaminated, if they come back in, 

10 because obviously we -- I don't know what all 

11 the full history of this person's exposure. 

12 Usually, they'd reassess, perhaps, at that 

13 level. So external contamination can account 

14 for that. 

15 Also the large particles being 

16 cleared from the upper respiratory tract can 

17 also account for a rapid clearance.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: It depends on how --

19 okay.

20 DR. GLOVER: Yes. I'm just saying 

21 it's not a complete impossibility.

22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, no, no. Okay, I 
206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agree that external contamination could 

2 account for it. But I was told at the last 

3 Working Group meeting that the external 

4 contamination was not possible because they 

5 wanted to make sure that that's true. A whole 

6 body count is they want to make sure that the 

7 people is clean, has clean clothes and okay.

8 As for the large particle, yes it 

9 could, but the people would have to have been 

10 measured immediately after they left work, to 

11 account for the large particle that would be 

12 excreted in the feces. 

13 So that's why with thorium, if you 

14 want to count the lung, you have to have the 

15 excrete measurements at the same time, to 

16 really have something near to reliable 

17 interpretation of monitoring results for 

18 thorium.

19 MR. STIVER: Sam, I might also add 

20 that you see this so frequently that, you 

21 know, it's something that would be kind of an 

22 off-normal event, like a contamination event 
207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or, you know, large particle inhalation. You 

2 wouldn't expect to see the same pattern in so 

3 many different workers for the same data, type 

4 of data.

5 So I think the issue of the high 

6 level of uncertainty is certainly a valid one. 

7 Mark does have a point. A lot of them are, 

8 you know, definitely below the detection 

9 limit. So you know, you're looking at a 

10 situation where you have a probability 

11 anywhere from zero to the detection limit of 

12 about -- where basically you're getting 

13 numbers out of the detector that just are 

14 really meaningless in terms of an actual 

15 intake.

16 But I think probably the more 

17 important issue is this idea that the 

18 equilibrium ratio can vary so much based on 

19 those actual studies that were conducted. I 

20 mean you know, theoretically if you're in a 

21 closed system, you know, the lowest ratio of 

22 .42, I mean of 228 or excuse me, lead-212, 
208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 starts to come back up again, is probably 

2 valid.

3 But you know, as Joyce brought up, 

4 you know, you've got a Group 2 element of the 

5 radium, which is giving rise then to the 

6 thorons. There could be some migration, you 

7 know, out of the immediate area. Even though 

8 the thoron only has a half life of about a 

9 minute, there can be some migration that could 

10 account for these high amounts of variation 

11 in the equilibrium ratios.

12 So the fact that you can under13 estimate dose by factors of five or ten, I 

14 think, is a pretty serious thing that needs to 

15 be addressed.

16 MR. ROLFES: Well, what we've got 

17 right now, you had mentioned lower. You had 

18 identified the range of correction factors, 

19 basically, based on ratios of lead-212 to 

20 actinium-228 -- the thorium-232 activity, 

21 excuse me. We've got a midpoint right now of 

22 .71, which falls in between .42 and 1. We can 
209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 always adjust that based upon, you know, 

2 information. 

3 If there's evidence that supports, 

4 you know, adjusting the correction factor to 

5 this or that. But keep in mind how the NIOSH 

6 dose reconstruction process works. We're 

7 talking about a factor of two or five. You 

8 know, for internal doses, that's pretty good. 

9 When NIOSH receives that information, rather 

10 than just assume, you know, many of these 

11 thorium campaigns were short duration.

12 Some of them did last, you know, a 

13 couple of years in duration. But if you take 

14 a look, we've got a short duration project and 

15 a thorium lung measurement following it, and 

16 for us to interpret that data, rather than 

17 focus on only assuming that there was an 

18 exposure that occurred for two weeks for that 

19 campaign of thorium, we would take that lung 

20 result and use that result to assume that they 

21 were chronically exposed, you know, back to 

22 the previous lung count, if there is one in 
210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that case.

2 So if we have a two-week project but 

3 we're assuming a full year of exposure, we're 

4 talking about 52 weeks rather than two weeks. 

5 So that factor is 25 times greater. The 

6 actual intake, you know, is going to be 25 

7 times greater than --

8 MR. STIVER: I understand, you know, 

9 the approach of using claimant-favorable 

10 assumptions in reconstruction, as I hope, you 

11 know, achieving a bounding value to where you 

12 don't have to deal with uncertainties to the 

13 same extent.

14 But I think in this case, you're 

15 looking at uncertainties that I think would 

16 have to be factored into the model, either 

17 through a higher GSE or some kind of a -- some 

18 combination thereof.

19 MR. ROLFES: Right, we agree. I 

20 think we agree on that, and it's just what the 

21 correction factor is.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes. It's just a 
211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 matter of determining what it's going to be.

2 MR. ROLFES: We agree on that 

3 completely, and we've said that, you know, we 

4 can certainly adjust the correction factor we 

5 proposed. Let's see. Well, that's not 

6 specific to this correction factor, but we 

7 have made some bias adjustments to the -- this 

8 is another portion. I know Joyce presented a 

9 lot of, you know, different areas without 

10 really given us the opportunity to respond to 

11 each of the issues.

12 One of the responses here that we 

13 have made corrections to the in vivo count 

14 biases, and I can read that if you'd like. 

15 This is out on the page where I've also -- or 

16 O: drive, excuse me, for the Advisory Board. 

17 It's been sent out, dated January 19th, 2011.

18 It says "In Finding 8 of their June 

19 2010 report on in vivo chest count data, FMPC, 

20 SC&A identified an apparent negative bias in 

21 the FMPC in vivo chest count data for lead-212 

22 that was used in the proposed FMPC in vivo 
212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker model. NIOSH agrees and will make a 

2 bias adjustment to the coworker model for 

3 thorium for the period of 1978 through 1988.

4 "Inspection of the data used in the 

5 coworker model reveals that nearly 75 percent 

6 of the lead-212 data were reported as less 

7 than zero. Only the lead-212 data were used 

8 in the proposed coworker model. In an 

9 unexposed population, one would expect half of 

10 the results to be less than zero and the other 

11 half to be greater than zero.

12 "Given this information, combined 

13 with the assumption that monitored individuals 

14 had some potential for intakes, there is 

15 clearly a negative bias in the data set. A 

16 bias adjustment to the coworker model will be 

17 accomplished based on data collected in 1978 

18 and '79. 

19 "In those years, data were reported 

20 for both thorium and lead-212 lung burdens. 

21 The median thorium lung burden was .22 

22 nanocuries, and the median lead-212 lung 
213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 burden, which is taken to be equal to the 

2 thorium lung burden, was zero nanocuries.

3 "The lead-212 lung burden for years 

4 1978 through 1988 will be increased by .22 

5 nanocuries, and the subsequent intake rates

6 will be revised for the in vivo coworker model 

7 prior to its use in formal publications."

8 MR. STIVER: I read that response. 

9 Now in my mind, that is related more to the 

10 issue of the elevated background for possible 

11 site irradiation from bone and that kind of 

12 thing. That's a different issue altogether --

13 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

14 MR. STIVER: -- this particular 

15 factor. But I think this factor, the 

16 equilibrium ratio for daughter products seems 

17 to be accounted for as well.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, and another 

19 thing is that we cannot mix the data after '78 

20 and the data before '78. The data before '78 

21 were at the time -- results are in milligrams. 

22 We don't know how this data was acquired.
214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I didn't have any satisfactory 

2 answer or document telling me how this data 

3 was acquired. If you look at all the 

4 conversion factors, they have so much 

5 uncertainties that we cannot rely on them. We 

6 have a resulting milligrams of thorium. We 

7 don't know how it was done.

8 The second part of this is the 

9 results of lead-212 being used to calculate 

10 the thorium-232 activity in the lung. Then we 

11 have a problem that is common even nowadays, 

12 when you rely on the daughters to calculate 

13 the dose to thorium-232.

14 It's a problem. It's not resolved 

15 in general. It can only be resolved when you 

16 have additional bioassay data. But that's a 

17 different problem from the first one. The 

18 first one, it's so uncertain that we don't 

19 know anything.

20 So we cannot assume something like 

21 put some error factor to be on the safe side. 

22 But you just don't know where this data comes 
215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from and how it was calculated and everything 

2 else. 

3 MR. ROLFES: Well, we prepared 

4 responses to each of these issues. We've sent 

5 them to the Advisory Board Work Group, and 

6 what I was trying to get us back to is there 

7 were a couple of action items at our last Work 

8 Group meeting. 

9 The one thing that we were asked to 

10 do was to contact Y-12 regarding -- we were 

11 given a specific individual's name to contact 

12 at Y-12 to see if we could obtain any 

13 additional information on calibrations and 

14 operations of the mobile in vivo radiation 

15 monitoring laboratory at Fernald. 

16 We've done this, and I received an 

17 email just late last night saying that the 

18 information has been sent to us. I haven't 

19 had the opportunity to review that. Our team 

20 hasn't had the opportunity to review that, but 

21 we certainly want to take a look at that 

22 information to see if there's anything that 
216 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can help to, you know, further support our 

2 position one way or the other.

3 As far as uncertainties, I mean if 

4 there's uncertainties that we can characterize 

5 and quantify, then we would use those 

6 uncertainties to the benefit of the doubt of 

7 the claimants. Let's see. I think what we 

8 had captured, back to the data from Y-12, we 

9 had gotten roughly 300 pages, which also had

10 some Fernald-specific information in it.

11 At this point, I'd also like to ask 

12 Bob Morris to chime in, to see if he has 

13 anything that he might be able to add to the 

14 discussion on thorium in vivo counts.

15 MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Mark. My 

16 only addition would be to say that, you know, 

17 we have papers that were produced by Hap West 

18 and his crew at Y-12, 1965 time frame, where 

19 there was an installed chest counter using 

20 nine-inch diameter, four inch thick sodium 

21 iodide crystals above and below a worker who 

22 was lying down.
217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We know that that is the same 

2 geometry that went into the mobile in vivo 

3 laboratory counting, and we actually have a 

4 pretty good handle, at this point, on how that 

5 installed system at Y-12 was calibrated and 

6 how the data were interpreted from there.

7 We're hopeful that this information 

8 that we've now been able to locate at Y-12 

9 that is specific to the mobile counter will 

10 validate our belief that the calibration for 

11 the mobile lab was similar or identical to the 

12 one that was installed at Y-12. If that's the 

13 case, then I think that we've got a pretty 

14 good method in mind that will bring us to the 

15 ability to define the uncertainties and 

16 specify exactly how the calculations were 

17 accomplished.

18 If not, we'll just find out what is 

19 in that data now that it's been obtained and 

20 reviewed by a classification officer. So I 

21 think the information is just now becoming 

22 available to us from Y-12 on that mobile 
218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calibration. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Bob. 

3 MR. STIVER: Mark, when you have a 

4 reading for a particular individual at less 

5 than six milligrams for this period, you 

6 didn't then default to one-half the MDA and 

7 provide a chronic exposure like you would for 

8 any of that --

9 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. So 

10 yes. I mean even if you have an individual 

11 with a positive result, we would consider that 

12 positive result and any values reported below 

13 the limit of detection --

14 MR. STIVER: They still get a --

15 MR. ROLFES: And we would assign 

16 either a full intake based upon a positive 

17 result. If they didn't have any positive 

18 results, we would still calculate a missed 

19 intake, which could have resulted at a level 

20 that didn't deposit enough thorium in the 

21 lungs to result in a positive whole body 

22 counts.
219 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Their value would be a 

2 -- default to one-half the detection limit?

3 MR. ROLFES: That's typically the 

4 way we --

5 MR. STIVER: That's what I thought. 

6 I just wanted to make sure that this would 

7 still apply in a particular situation.

8 MR. ROLFES: We wouldn't take that, 

9 you know, for example, the value that Joyce 

10 had pointed out as .5 milligrams, we wouldn't 

11 use that. We would use half of the limit of 

12 detection of six milligrams, and so default to 

13 three milligrams for a missed intake.

14 MR. STIVER: Well, Joyce, I noticed 

15 that some of the data are very extremely high 

16 values, and, you know, given the uncertainties 

17 that are involved, is there a particular 

18 number?

19 I don't know. I just kind of put 

20 you on the spot. But I mean is there a value 

21 that you feel would be high enough to where 

22 the uncertainties that exist might -- would 
220 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have some confidence that that would be a 

2 bounding value?

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I don't know because 

4 I don't know what's spurious, what is external 

5 communication, how it was derived. So we 

6 don't know. My problem is that I really don't 

7 know. One thing is the data after '78, which 

8 we are using the lead-212 results. The other 

9 thing is the data before '78. So before '78, 

10 there's so much uncertainty.

11 If you calculate, you know, even 

12 when you have in '78, you have the two results 

13 of lead-212 and in milligrams of thorium, we 

14 saw that the variation in calculating the 

15 thorium lung burden by the two measurement 

16 results, they vary so much, almost 100 times, 

17 you know, the thorium to thorium ratio, 

18 calculating one way and calculating second 

19 way.

20 So I think we don't know anything 

21 about that thorium in milligrams. When you 

22 come to the period after '78, when you have 
221 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really the lead-212 results, even if you don't 

2 know how they calculated at the time, now we 

3 have a lead-212 results. Then we can, you 

4 know, say well, the uncertainty because of the 

5 daughters could be as high as and apply the 

6 uncertainty on the counting measurement 

7 because they were only counted for 20 minutes, 

8 can be as high as -- but we have, you know, we 

9 know where we stand for. We are doing all the 

10 calculations based on lead-212 results. But 

11 on the period before that, we don't know. We 

12 don't know what they used. I read some papers 

13 after '78, that were after '78, where they 

14 were using both actinium and lead-212.

15 MR. STIVER: It appears, at least 

16 from the Technical Basis Documents that you 

17 quoted in the report that pre-'78, they were 

18 relying pretty much on actinium-228.

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, I saw that. 

20 MR. STIVER: That seems to be 

21 extremely problematic, I would think.

22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. Then 
222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH modified its answer, so I don't know 

2 where we stand for it. But anyway, you know, 

3 it's a lack of information. Without knowing 

4 that, we don't know what these results mean.

5 MR. ROLFES: I think we pointed out 

6 that lead-212 was used for the earlier years, 

7 not actinium-228.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: As well as the later 

9 years.

10 MR. STIVER: So it's for both 

11 periods? I thought it was only for the post12 '78.

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. Well, that was 

14 post, that lead-212 was used. On the answer, 

15 we had a response to SC&A comments, saying 

16 that the lead-212 was used. And that's it. 

17 There was no other, you know, document or 

18 anything like that, saying why.

19 I personally had read some documents 

20 that were posted on the O: drive, where they 

21 used after '78. There is no information on 

22 before '78, saying that to calculate the 
223 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 activity of thorium, they would use both 

2 actinium-228 and lead-212. I think that's 

3 true because they have both nuclides listed 

4 and we have a measurement value for actinium 

5 and for lead-212. 

6 Now then, after '78, the actinium7 228 result is not used, was not used by NIOSH, 

8 and only the lead-212 result was used, which 

9 is the correct thing to do. But when we have 

10 the results in milligrams, if people used both 

11 nuclides, you know, there is an error here, 

12 and we don't know what they did and what they 

13 have done.

14 So what I'm trying to say is that if 

15 we can quantify an uncertainty, it's only 

16 after '78, not before. 

17 MR. MORRIS: Mark, this is Bob 

18 Morris.

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes, Bob.

20 MR. MORRIS: We do know that in 

21 1965, according to the paper by West and 

22 others, that lead-212 and actinium-228 were 
224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 considered. There were two regions -- three 

2 regions of interest that were defined, along 

3 with a control region of interest for each 

4 one, that was used to define the lung burden.

5 We also know that, from the 

6 documents that we have on file, that they were 

7 able to make better assessments of the lung 

8 burden if they knew the operational history of 

9 the counting, of the person being counted and 

10 the material they were exposed to.

11 So we know that there was the 

12 capability and really the desire to talk to 

13 the health physicist that was assigned to the 

14 area in order to understand the kinds of 

15 material that were being used and the 

16 potential for disequilibrium. 

17 Now having said that, I'll just 

18 repeat what I said before, is we hope to find 

19 in the documents that have just now been 

20 released by Y-12, the information specific to 

21 the calibration used at Fernald in the early -

22 - in the first ten years of use of the mobile 
225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in vivo radiation monitoring lab.

2 DR. MAURO: This is John. Did the 

3 breathing zone data that was collected pre-'69 

4 continue past '69?

5 MR. MORRIS: No, it didn't. That 

6 really was -- I'm putting two and two together 

7 to try to figure this out. But it appears to 

8 me that when the mobile in vivo radiation 

9 monitoring laboratory became available, that 

10 daily weighted exposure efforts went down 

11 drastically, the effort that went into that.

12 So we actually see a clear break 

13 point in time where the DWE data dwindles to 

14 zero and then we've got this, a campaign that 

15 started in 1968 to count every thorium worker 

16 of record that was on site. That was the 

17 first plan of use of the in vivo laboratory 

18 when it came in 1968 was to go back and 

19 capture thorium workers.

20 Then going forward, they had the 

21 laboratory on site every 6 to 12 months. 

22 MR. STIVER: Okay. You know, this 
226 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is John Stiver. Given the importance of this 

2 calibration information, it would be great if 

3 you guys could provide that to us when you get 

4 it. I'd really like to see that here. It 

5 seems like everything hangs on the validity of 

6 this MDA value and the calibration methods.

7 MR. MORRIS: I don't think the MDA 

8 value is that important.

9 MR. STIVER: Not the MDA, excuse me, 

10 but basically the uncertainties involved in 

11 the type of calibrations that were done, 

12 whether it was actinium, lead. From what you 

13 said about the West article though, it sounds 

14 like they had a pretty robust system here.

15 MR. MORRIS: Yes. The West article 

16 in 1965 was several on the topic.

17 MR. STIVER: That's 1965, so that 

18 sounds like good news, as far as being able to 

19 reconstruct the doses, at least at this point, 

20 without having seen the information.

21 MR. MORRIS: The West article has 

22 been in our data set all along.
227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: You have the SRDB 

2 reference for it by any chance?

3 MR. MORRIS: Yes.

4 MR. ROLFES: One of the documents, I 

5 don't have the Site Research Database number 

6 here, but it's a Y-12 document, Health Physics 

7 Considerations Associated With Thorium 

8 Processing, Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear 

9 Division, Report No. Y-KB-53 C.M. West, 

10 3/25/65, and it's part of our previous 

11 responses to SC&A's review. This is also one 

12 of the sources where it cites the 20 minute 

13 count in the mobile in vivo lab.

14 MR. STIVER: I think I might 

15 actually have that one. 

16 MR. ROLFES: But that document also, 

17 I believe, is the same one by Hap West. He 

18 has quite a bit of discussion about the 

19 disequilibrium and corrections to equilibrium 

20 factors for thorium-232 progeny. 

21 MR. STIVER: Bob Barton, are you out 

22 there?
228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: Yes, John, I'm here. 

2 MR. STIVER: Yes. Could you see if 

3 you can find that on the SRDB at some point?

4 MR. BARTON: Sure. Can I have 

5 someone repeat that number?

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. ROLFES: Search for West.

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: From the documents 

9 that I read also, even if they were after the 

10 period '68 to '78, they confirm that both 

11 actinium-228 and lead-212 were measured, and 

12 they would, you know, use both data to get

13 into the activity of thorium.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: They probably 

15 developed some sort of ratios of those two, to 

16 get at it. But could I ask a question? I'm 

17 trying to understand fully Joyce's issue. So 

18 and Mark, maybe you can help me understand the 

19 process here.

20 So now let's say they get a lead-212 

21 count. In reality, you've got to go back with 

22 the biokinetic model to the previous intake 
229 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time, right? That will be different. It will 

2 be different for the lead than the thorium. I 

3 think that's --

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: That's for the 

5 period where we have the lead-212 results, 

6 yes. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The lead-212, you 

9 know, the amount of lead-212 in the lung will 

10 under-estimate the amount of thorium-232 in 

11 lung, because of the different behaviors, the 

12 daughters, radium and radon will disperse from 

13 the lung more fast than --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But you can 

15 use a specific biokinetic model for each of 

16 those. So I think in principle, you can do 

17 that. But you still have the issue of the 

18 starting ratio, I guess, of what those were 

19 when they came in.

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, right.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: But on a given 

22 person, you're able to track --
230 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: You have multiple data 

2 points.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: You've got multiple 

4 data points. So you at least have that for 

5 the lead.

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And in principle, 

8 then, you can track the other back by a 

9 different kinetic model to some start time. 

10 But you still -- I think those parts, it seems 

11 to me in principle, you can handle it. I 

12 guess my concern is the initial ratio when 

13 they first enter the body, and that would be 

14 the only uncertainty that I see.

15 I think you can handle the rest, and 

16 the counting uncertainty is very 

17 straightforward. That's simple accounting 

18 statistic. So that --

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. That's --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's just, you 

21 know, the count rate and the total. So I 

22 think the uncertainty that I'm worried about 
231 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is that initial ratio, and I'm trying to 

2 understand how you handled that.

3 MR. ROLFES: Then we're right in the 

4 middle because --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: The calibration 

6 might help you on that.

7 MR. ROLFES: It could, it could.

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The problem, I don't 

9 know if I'm interrupting someone.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, go ahead.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The problem with the 

12 lung biokinetics is there is not a well13 established model, you know, to go back. We 

14 just know that there are a lot of 

15 uncertainties. So the only way to really get 

16 rid of those uncertainties is by measuring 

17 feces and lung at the same time, and if you 

18 have -- it's impossible to have had thorium 

19 measured in urine at that time, because there 

20 was only with some mass spec -- data from 

21 today.

22 But if you have feces data, you 
232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could compare with the amount in lead, and 

2 then come to a reasonable conclusion of what 

3 is in the lungs. But that's a real problem. 

4 Trying to switch to is very, very difficult, 

5 until nowadays.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes. Joyce, 

7 even if you had that data, I think if there's 

8 another compartment in between the final 

9 excretion, you still may not know the rate at 

10 which it leaves the lung because it may go to 

11 another compartment. 

12 Yes. Well, okay, but I think that 

13 calibration data will be very important.

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Oh yes, especially 

15 you know, for the '68 to '78, we really don't 

16 know anything, how they did, how did they 

17 account for both the actinium-228 and the 

18 lead-212. 

19 MR. ROLFES: So well, without 

20 reviewing the data, I can report back to the 

21 Work Group after this meeting as to what is 

22 contained in the new information we've 
233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 received. Hopefully, we can move on from 

2 there. So that's, I guess, the action item 

3 that I'll report.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: How much, in the 

5 early years, how much thorium went through 

6 Fernald? You know, you mentioned small little 

7 campaigns, one or two days here and one or two 

8 days there.

9 MR. ROLFES: Right, right. Let me, 

10 yes. I've got to pull out my time line here.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. Bob Morris put 

12 together a time line back in 2008, and it's 

13 got a nice little graph in the -- this little. 

14 It shows the amounts, the plants and the 

15 process that took place.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where is that?

17 MR. STIVER: This is on the SRDB if 

18 you want to take a look at it.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: The reason why I 

20 brought that up is because when you had 

21 mentioned small little runs here and there, I 

22 found in the 1960s railroad cars, not --
234 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 railroad cars, five railroad cars.

2 MR. ROLFES: Sure. Thorium nitrate 

3 tetrahydrate is probably what you're referring 

4 to.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Being sent up 

6 there, and it surprised me, and this is a 

7 Hanford document.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. You look at the 

9 values here. There's metric tons here.

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The dose per unit 

11 intake for thorium is very high. So it's very 

12 problematic because even if there are small 

13 quantities of thorium inhaled, the dose is 

14 very high. It's comparable to the problems 

15 with plutonium. Thorium is one of the worst 

16 elements.

17 MR. BARTON: This is Bob Barton. 

18 Just for everyone's benefit that time line 

19 that Bob Morris put together. It's on the O: 

20 drive in the AV document review folder under 

21 Fernald, and the title is Thorium Time Line 

22 With AA, and it's dated 2/29/08. That shows a 
235 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nice table with the plants and the years and 

2 some information on how much was processed.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: When we mentioned 

4 earlier, it surprised me to see this type of 

5 tonnage, and that kind of took me by surprise 

6 on that. But didn't Fernald actually become 

7 the nation's --

8 MR. ROLFES: That's what I was going 

9 say. In 1972, Fernald was designated as the 

10 thorium repository for DOE. So essentially 

11 any unused thorium was sent to Fernald for 

12 storage.

13 MR. MORRIS: If I recall -- this is 

14 Bob Morris, excuse me. Brad, if I recall 

15 correctly, that thorium nitrate in the rail 

16 cars was received but not processed. I mean 

17 they didn't actually purify it.

18 That was one of the things that our 

19 interviews revealed is that the chemical 

20 engineer involved said, you know, it was a 

21 real thing of contention whether they should 

22 actually purify that big source of thorium 
236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when it came in or not. And I think, if I 

2 recall correctly, that they didn't.

3 MR. STIVER: That was Kispert?

4 MR. MORRIS: Well, I'll leave that 

5 alone for now. But we do have, in our 

6 interviews with some of the chemical engineers 

7 associated with the site, that that was --if I 

8 recall it correctly, that that was not 

9 purified material at the Fernald site. It was 

10 brought in and then disposed, if I recall. 

11 Mark, do you remember it?

12 MR. ROLFES: I don't recall. I 

13 remember seeing a shipment of roughly 33 rail 

14 cars, railroad car loads of thorium nitrate 

15 tetrahydrate coming into the Fernald site, and 

16 I don't remember the fate of that specific 

17 material. I do remember, you know, seeing 

18 that, and it didn't seem as a surprise to me 

19 since Fernald was in fact designated as the 

20 thorium repository.

21 MR. MORRIS: Well, sorry to divert 

22 that, but we do have information specific to 
237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that example you brought up, Brad.

2 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: Can I make a 

4 comment?

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: They were designated 

7 the national repository in '72. But there's a 

8 document in the petition that states in the 

9 50s, they were asked to start stockpiling the 

10 thorium.

11 So you're looking at from '72 back 

12 to '60 is 12 years, and then back into the 

13 50s, possibly another three years. So we're 

14 looking at at least 15 years that they were 

15 stockpiling, before they were designated the 

16 repository.

17 MR. ROLFES: You're right. We're 

18 not trying to say that there was no thorium on 

19 site prior to 1972. That's not at all what 

20 we're pointing out because we do recognize 

21 that within -- across the entire United 

22 States, we wanted to start stockpiling thorium 
238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because of its interests in the nuclear fuel 

2 cycle.

3 You know, they were trying to 

4 purchase it from like GSA and from some 

5 private industries who were extracting, you 

6 know, heavy metals from different ores. And 

7 you know, we're not trying to say that there 

8 was no thorium at Fernald.

9 MS. BALDRIDGE: But the fact that it 

10 was there, it was a hazard, based on the 

11 condition of the containers that it was kept 

12 in, and it was a bad enough hazard that there 

13 were documents where it actually burned 

14 through concrete floors and pads that it was 

15 stored on.

16 MR. STIVER: I think that was the 

17 issue of the drum deterioration and some of 

18 the oxides and some fires and things like that 

19 would take place from time to time.

20 MR. ROLFES: I don't disagree with 

21 that either. I mean I understand. 

22 MR. STIVER: We brought that up in 
239 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our thorium paper.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, the only 

3 reason I brought that up, Mark, is because you 

4 were talking about small campaigns, you know, 

5 of two weeks here and two weeks there. I read 

6 through these documents and also some Hanford 

7 documents that were discussing this. They 

8 were talking about the degradation of all the 

9 drums and what they were going to do.

10 They had campaigns to recapture this 

11 because the drums were deteriorating and 

12 falling to pieces. They had redrumming 

13 operations, and they were having to get it 

14 into a form that would actually hold up in the 

15 drums.

16 MR. ROLFES: Right. They had to 

17 stabilize them.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And that was my 

19 question because I kept hearing you refer to 

20 they had a little thorium run here and a 

21 little thorium run there. I'm sitting there 

22 looking at 460 tons. 
240 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, particularly when 

2 you compare it to the uranium that was 

3 processed, it's fairly small.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: It's a large 

5 volume. 

6 MR. STIVER: It's a huge amount, but 

7 not compared to a lot of the other materials -

8 - 

9 MR. ROLFES: A very dense material. 

10 If you compare it to water, you're talking a 

11 difference of, you know, 19 grams per cc, 

12 versus one gram per cc. So much more dense 

13 material than we're typically used to. It's 

14 very dense material. So thorium, uranium as 

15 well.

16 MR. STIVER: I guess the issue here 

17 is the high uncertainty and how to deal with 

18 that. I think we've done some of -- about the 

19 equilibrium ratio, that we might consider 

20 looking at some kind of a correction factor 

21 that would account for the increase in the 

22 GSDR. 
241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So the action 

2 item for this is actually we'd like to see the 

3 data that they just got.

4 MR. STIVER: The Y-12 calibration 

5 data.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Now does this 

7 need to go through any kind of a process? 

8 It's already been cleared, or can they just 

9 send that over, as is?

10 MR. ROLFES: We can send the data 

11 that we've received and the data that we have 

12 as is, or we can identify it. It might be, 

13 you know, quantity-prohibitive. It could be 

14 several hundred documents.

15 MR. STIVER: Is it something that 

16 can be posted?

17 MR. ROLFES: I can post whatever you 

18 like.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, just so 

20 that you guys can see this.

21 MR. STIVER: Once you get as far as 

22 the Y-12 calibration data, I'd certainly like 
242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to see that.

2 MR. ROLFES: Okay, all right. 

3 MR. STIVER: So let's see. The 

4 second general comment was related to the --

5 not the data quality, but assuming the quality 

6 is acceptable, is there a sufficient quantity 

7 of data to characterize exposures for the 

8 categories of workers and buildings at the 

9 various times? The same kind of a problem 

10 that we saw with the DWE data.

11 Bob Barton has looked at this pretty 

12 intensively. So, Bob, I'd like to go ahead 

13 and turn it over to you.

14 MR. BARTON: Thank you, John. Like 

15 he said, what we did is we wanted to go ahead, 

16 dive into this database and see, you know, 

17 what groups of workers were monitored, what 

18 exposure potential there was to these groups 

19 and whether, you know, you find a group of 

20 workers who had a high exposure potential, but 

21 maybe wasn't really monitored as much as some 

22 other groups, which could throw off your 
243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distributions and ultimately skew the coworker 

2 model so that it's not quite claimant3 favorable anymore.

4 I'd like say, before we kind of dive 

5 into this whole thing, from where I'm sitting, 

6 and I think my SC&A colleagues would agree 

7 with this, this seems like a tractable 

8 problem. But we felt it didn't really get 

9 enough time last time in the meeting. You 

10 know, we only really had a few minutes to 

11 quickly go over and discuss it.

12 So I'd like to go into a little bit 

13 more detail of what kind of analysis SC&A 

14 performed and what implications we can derive 

15 from that.

16 So as a starting point, kind of 

17 intuitively we said all right. We want to try 

18 to see if there's a group of workers out there 

19 who had high exposure potential but maybe 

20 wasn't monitored frequently, or you know, the 

21 monitoring program was not targeted towards 

22 that group of workers.
244 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We started with workers who had 

2 actually handled the thorium, and for lack of 

3 a better term, I'll refer to them as the 

4 thorium workers, even though we know that's 

5 not a real job title, that sometimes the 

6 workers moved around from job to job.

7 So we went in, and the first piece 

8 of material that we found that identified 

9 thorium workers was a memo by Bob Starkey at 

10 the very end of 1967, which basically listed 

11 51 workers who were involved in thorium 

12 operations. The purpose of that memo was, 

13 when they wanted to start in vivo counting in 

14 1968, they specifically wanted to look at this 

15 group of people.

16 That information came from the 

17 interview that I believe actually involved Mr. 

18 Starkey, in which that was really deemed the 

19 intent of this list, which is a very valuable 

20 piece of evidence because we actually could 

21 link people who worked with thorium with a 

22 specific year, and then look at how many of 
245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them were monitored and what the results of 

2 that monitoring were.

3 So as it turns out, in 1968, there 

4 were these 51 workers, and about a little over 

5 half of them were monitored that year. The 

6 first thing we did was okay, let's take those 

7 monitored workers who were identified with 

8 thorium operations. Let's just do a simple 

9 rank order of the in vivo counts that they had 

10 in 1968, and let's compare it with the rest of 

11 the workers in that year.

12 You rank order it and you take a 

13 look at it and you see, okay, not that 

14 surprisingly, the workers who were identified 

15 with thorium operations had higher lung 

16 burdens than the rest of the overall 

17 population.

18 So that's good. We have information 

19 from 1968. We can show that at least half the 

20 workers were monitored. They had a higher 

21 exposure potential, but at least we know who 

22 they were.
246 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The second piece of evidence we 

2 found became a little more problematic. This 

3 consisted of a series of in vivo log sheets 

4 covering 26 workers. In the top right corner 

5 of the log sheets, it's handwritten in either 

6 thorium or former thorium worker. Now we 

7 don't exactly know when these labels were 

8 applied, what work period they were applied 

9 to, when these workers might have been 

10 involved in thorium operations.

11 What I can tell you is that of the 

12 26, 17 of them were labeled as former thorium 

13 workers, and the rest, nine workers, were 

14 labeled as thorium workers. Now like I said, 

15 we don't know.

16 Those labels could have been applied 

17 the first year they were counted, in 1968. 

18 They could have been applied anywhere in their 

19 employment period. They could have been 

20 applied at the end.

21 One piece of evidence that I would 

22 point to that might suggest that they were 
247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 applied at the very start of counting is that 

2 of those workers who were labeled as "former 

3 thorium workers," and again there were 17 of 

4 them, 16 were also contained in the Starkey 

5 memo.

6 So that kind of piece of evidence 

7 would kind of suggest that okay, if they were 

8 listed as thorium workers at the end of 1967, 

9 presumably so they were counted in 1968. But 

10 if they were listed as former thorium workers, 

11 how do we know that they continued 

12 operations, you know, throughout the rest of 

13 their employment history?

14 So you're kind of left with then ten 

15 workers who are not or who weren't in the 

16 Starkey memo, nine of which are listed as 

17 thorium workers. So again, it gets more 

18 problematic as you get out of 1968 because we 

19 just don't have information on which workers 

20 handled thorium, when they handled it, whether 

21 they were counted.

22 So there's a lot of, and I hate to 
248 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 use this word, because it's already confused a 

2 lot of people today, but there's a lot of 

3 uncertainty about whether you're covering the 

4 right people with this monitoring program. In 

5 fact, when you look at the data, every thorium 

6 count is accompanied by a uranium count. So 

7 it almost appears as if thorium was just 

8 counted along with uranium as sort of a 

9 complementary thing. 

10 But there doesn't seem to be any 

11 indication that they tailored the monitoring 

12 program for thorium, to specifically look at 

13 high exposure jobs in the thorium operations. 

14 So basically what we did at that point, we 

15 said, okay. Don't have a lot of information 

16 here for us to say these workers were working 

17 with thorium here. Here are their lung 

18 counts. Let's compare them.

19 So we kind of took, made some broad 

20 assumptions and said all right. We have 51 

21 workers in the Starkey memo, and 26 in these 

22 in vivo log sheets, and of course there's the 
249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 overlap I mentioned, with the former thorium 

2 workers. You end up with 60 total workers 

3 that we can say at one time or another, they 

4 were labeled as a thorium worker.

5 Let's take a look at their doses, 

6 and in particular we're looking at the 

7 production period, which only lasted until 

8 about 1979.

9 So let's just take all of these, 

10 let's assume that these people who were 

11 labeled at one time or another, worked with 

12 thorium the entire time, let's take their 

13 doses, let's compare them to the rest of the 

14 workers, and lo and behold again, you find 

15 that this group of 60 has a higher exposure 

16 potential, as evidenced by their lung burdens.

17 That's, again, you rank order the 

18 data; very simple, quick, and in almost every 

19 single percentile of value, you find that the 

20 people who are labeled as thorium workers, 

21 even though we don't know if they were 

22 actually working with thorium at what point 
250 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during their career, they still had the higher 

2 exposure potential.

3 By making that assumption that they 

4 worked -- through their whole career, you kind 

5 of see well, that's -- they're trying to look 

6 at the premise that thorium workers had a 

7 higher exposure potential. By saying that 

8 they were always working with thorium, you're 

9 almost diluting the results. 

10 But even with that taken into 

11 account, you still see that those that were 

12 labeled as thorium workers had a higher lung 

13 burden. 

14 So that's kind of the meat of it. 

15 You have evidence that thorium workers were 

16 not targeted. We don't know who they are, but 

17 there's certainly some evidence presented in 

18 the paper to suggest that they weren't 

19 specifically looking, when monitoring for 

20 thorium, at thorium workers, which is not that 

21 surprising, and in NIOSH's most recent 

22 response, they said they didn't specifically 
251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 look for thorium workers, as we posited, but 

2 rather they looked at chemical operators.

3 It was also posited at the last 

4 meeting that chemical operators are actually 

5 the Bounding worker class. So it doesn't 

6 really matter whether you can identify who 

7 worked with thorium or not because the data 

8 has a lot of measurements for chemical 

9 operators. So that is something that we took 

10 and we're going to take a look at and see 

11 again, what can the data tell us about this.

12 And, John Stiver, were you able to 

13 print out those charts?

14 MR. STIVER: No, I wasn't able to, 

15 but I can direct --

16 MR. BARTON: Okay. It would be 

17 easier to have that kind of visual aid to look 

18 at.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. It would be under 

20 the O: drive under Stiver, Fernald WG 110419, 

21 and you'll see the little subfolders there by 

22 issue. So go to Issue 6B, Thorium Intakes 
252 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 From Chest Count Data, and you have 

2 ChemicalOperatorChartsnew.docx.

3 MR. MORRIS: Bob, this is Bob 

4 Morris. May I ask a question please?

5 MR. BARTON: Sure. Go ahead, Bob.

6 MR. MORRIS: Doesn't this, just on 

7 the face of it, the fact that you can actually 

8 find a positive correlation between thorium 

9 workers and these lung count data, suggest 

10 that in fact counts, the lung counts are 

11 valuable and can be used to gather information 

12 about workers and that the uncertainties are 

13 not so large that the data's not useful?

14 MR. BARTON: Well, as I tried to 

15 make clear, I don't personally feel that this 

16 is an intractable problem. We feel that there 

17 is probably a way that you can assuredly bound 

18 doses to the unmonitored thorium workers 

19 because as, again, the evidence suggests even 

20 in the year when they were explicitly listed, 

21 with the intention of monitoring them, you 

22 still only got about half of them.
253 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MORRIS: Right.

2 MR. BARTON: And you couldn't find 

3 them in later years. There are some very 

4 limited -- and, again, all this analysis is 

5 based on assuming that these workers, who most 

6 of them are only associated with 1968 or being 

7 former thorium workers, which we really don't 

8 have a definition for what that entails; but 

9 there's some indication that it just means 

10 they were part of the 1968 crew.

11 The question is what happens in the 

12 later years of production when you really 

13 don't have any information on who was handling 

14 it, whether they were monitored, and whether 

15 you captured the highest exposure potential. 

16 The fact that when we make this kind 

17 of broad assumption, that even though a lot of 

18 them were probably only involved with thorium 

19 for part of their employment, and you're 

20 diluting the essentially exposure potential 

21 from thorium operations by assuming that even 

22 when they were just working with uranium, 
254 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're still thorium workers, you still get 

2 that sort of bounding nature for thorium 

3 workers versus the all-worker population. 

4 Second, I hope we can look at, I'll 

5 look at a comparison we also did with chemical 

6 operators. 

7 MR. MORRIS: Well, I think my point 

8 in making that question was to just show that 

9 without regard to whether we were reporting in 

10 milligrams of thorium or lead-212, there is 

11 still a useful set of data there that can 

12 actually demonstrate that thorium workers got 

13 more thorium exposure.

14 MR. BARTON: I absolutely agree with 

15 that, Bob, and one of things John Stiver 

16 mentioned at the outset was this type of 

17 analysis was completely aside from any quality 

18 issues brought up by Joyce. We took the data 

19 and just assumed it was all fine, and took it 

20 at face value and performed this analysis.

21 MR. MORRIS: So I think I would sum 

22 up at this point to say now we're not talking 
255 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about whether the data are useful; it's about 

2 what the correction factors that are applied 

3 to the data would be?

4 MR. BARTON: I personally would 

5 agree with that. I don't know if anybody else 

6 on the SC&A team has any additional comments.

7 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. I 

8 think the issue we have here, this is real 

9 analogous to the HIS-20 construction worker 

10 subpopulation issue, and that is do you have a 

11 homogeneous population within all these 

12 workers who were monitored for thorium?

13 Is there a subset that's up at the 

14 high end of the distribution, so when you take 

15 the complete distribution, you try to pick off 

16 the 84th percentile or whatever, the 90th 

17 percentile.

18 That particular subset is being 

19 under-represented by that value to where it's 

20 really not a bounding intake for that subset 

21 of highly exposed workers. I think that's the 

22 issue here. You know, the graphs, the 
256 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cumulative distribution functions that Bob has 

2 put together, demonstrate that, yes, there is 

3 a subpopulation of highly exposed workers.

4 Whether they're actually labeled as 

5 thorium workers or if they had previously 

6 worked with thorium and then at the time they 

7 were entered into a system, they may have 

8 moved on to another job, but still retained a 

9 significant lung burden, that's another 

10 possibility.

11 But I think these graphs do show 

12 that there is a subset of more highly exposed 

13 workers that need to be addressed in the 

14 coworker model.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was the paper 

16 reference on that again, John?

17 MR. STIVER: Oh, for that particular 

18 graph?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: You gave us a 

20 reference a minute ago. I was going to pick 

21 it up in the O: drive.

22 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. Did you get 
257 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the right folder? It's under Stiver.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what I was --

3 oh, a folder called Stiver?

4 MR. STIVER: O:, Stiver, and then 

5 under that, Fernald WG 110419. 

6 MR. ROLFES: So this is something 

7 that we haven't seen before. This is the 

8 first I've seen it in your folder. It wasn't 

9 emailed to us prior to the Work Group meeting.

10 MR. STIVER: This is one of the 

11 things that we just put together, you know, 

12 kind of like you guys were doing at the last -

13 - 

14 MR. ROLFES: I really can't comment 

15 on anything. I haven't seen it, you know.

16 MR. STIVER: Well, we don't expect 

17 an immediate response. This is just to 

18 demonstrate that, you know, there is an issue 

19 here. We talked about it briefly at the last 

20 meetings, and we really didn't have time to 

21 explore it in the detail that was warranted. 

22 Were you able to find it, Paul?
258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I don't find the 

2 Stiver folder.

3 MR. MORRIS: I think not under AV 

4 Document Review, it would be just under the O: 

5 drive.

6 MR. STIVER: I could help you find 

7 it.

8 MR. BARTON: Are these the same 

9 graphs that are in the June 28th, 2010 report?

10 MR. MORRIS: No, Bob. These are 

11 really in response to the brief discussion we 

12 were able to have at the last Work Group 

13 meeting.

14 I quickly glossed over what we had 

15 done, essentially saying that we thought there 

16 was a subgroup of thorium workers out there 

17 who were under-represented, but had a high 

18 exposure potential. It was suggested that it 

19 didn't really matter whether you knew who the 

20 thorium workers were. They were the chemical 

21 operators, and the chemical operators are all 

22 well represented in the database.
259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MORRIS: Okay, thank you.

2 MR. KATZ: John, would you just, 

3 after the fact, after the meeting, if you 

4 would just, through Nancy, send that document 

5 formally out to the Work Group. Then they'll 

6 get it by email at some point.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay, okay.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

9 MR. STIVER: So, Bob Barton, we 

10 probably want to kind of format it and put it 

11 into a formal presentation, with maybe some 

12 discussion of what's going on.

13 MR. BARTON: Sure, John.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay, and then get it 

15 to the Nancy, and we'll get it to the Work 

16 Group. That will be an action item for us.

17 MR. BARTON: Okay. Do people have 

18 the charts open in front of them? We can 

19 quickly go through them just to see what the 

20 data kind of says about chemical operators 

21 versus thorium workers. What we did is I 

22 guess I'll just give a little background, is, 
260 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 again, what we did at first was we said all 

2 right, we have a group of 60 who were involved 

3 in thorium operations at some time or another.

4 Again, we're going to take all of 

5 their records, and then we're going to compare 

6 them against all of the chemical operators 

7 that are in the database because fortunately, 

8 in a lot of cases, job titles were provided, 

9 so that the comparison wasn't too difficult.

10 Also, as a first step, we separated 

11 out those chemical operators who were not part 

12 of the 60 thorium workers we had identified, 

13 just to see how those people who were 

14 identified as chemical operators, but never 

15 had any indication of thorium work, which 

16 again, the indicators are very limiting post17 1968.

18 One could say that you only really 

19 have your 51 from the Starkey, and then you 

20 have some overlap, and then you only have nine 

21 workers who are identified as thorium workers 

22 on their in vivo count. 
261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Everybody else was a former thorium 

2 worker, and everyone pretty much got counted 

3 in 1968. So if we kind of make the jump and 

4 say that label was likely applied when they 

5 first started counting, you know, you're 

6 entering their name, their badge number, and 

7 they specifically wanted to look at thorium 

8 workers, it seems likely that's when the label 

9 was probably applied.

10 As an aside, while everybody's kind 

11 of getting this document open, another 

12 approach we took to try to get a handle on 

13 this was we took Bob Morris's time line, in 

14 which it shows what building or what plants 

15 and what years thorium was produced and said 

16 okay, there's information in the in vivo 

17 records that gives the plant number for 

18 workers.

19 So aside from whether they had the 

20 label of thorium worker or not, we'll just 

21 look at the plants that thorium was processed 

22 in. Now I don't think, to my knowledge these 
262 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plants ever exclusively processed thorium. So 

2 you can't just assume that the records for say 

3 Plant 4 or Plant 1 in 1968 reflected thorium 

4 work.

5 But we took a look at it, and what 

6 we found is there's certainly no bias towards 

7 these plants, as far as thorium monitoring was 

8 concerned. So again, that was another piece 

9 of evidence for why it appears the monitoring 

10 program was not centered on thorium operations 

11 per se, but rather probably the larger 

12 operations involving uranium.

13 But just to add a caveat to that, 

14 Mark Rolfes aptly pointed out in his first 

15 response from NIOSH, because the mobile 

16 laboratory was not on site at all times, it's 

17 quite possible that even though the record 

18 indicates the workers in a plant that produces 

19 thorium, or maybe the record indicates it was 

20 in another plant, it doesn't necessarily mean 

21 that he wasn't involved in thorium operations.

22 It's just that when they were 
263 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scheduled to be counted, they happen to be in 

2 that plant. So that connection is a little 

3 tenuous, but it was worth checking out to see, 

4 again, the weight of evidence argument, but 

5 see what the data tells us.

6 What it seems to tell us is that the 

7 group of thorium workers and, again, this 

8 isn't a job title. These are workers who 

9 handled thorium, had the higher exposure 

10 potential, and it doesn't appear that the 

11 monitoring program was ever centered on those 

12 workers, with the exception of possibly 1968, 

13 when it was explicitly stated and a memo was 

14 put out listing workers for the purposes of 

15 counting them.

16 MR. STIVER: Bob, this is John 

17 Stiver again. Back up just a little bit. Now 

18 you said that for the records you're looking 

19 at, you have a particular worker, and it 

20 identifies a building, and we're saying we 

21 don't know whether that's the building they 

22 worked in or that was the building where the 
264 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assay was conducted?

2 MR. BARTON: That's correct, or if 

3 you changed buildings, perhaps that building 

4 that went on the in vivo record we -- there's 

5 just no --

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. So that's not 

7 necessarily --

8 MR. BARTON: -- definite connection 

9 between the building number listed on the in 

10 vivo record and a time frame that they 

11 actually worked in that building. You can 

12 certainly assume that they were counted in 

13 closer proximity to the building number listed 

14 on the in vivo record, and that's certainly 

15 something we looked at, and that's how you 

16 sort of get that, again, a weight of evidence 

17 argument that says it really didn't look like 

18 the buildings that were processing thorium 

19 were being focused on by the thorium 

20 monitoring. It really just appears as though 

21 the thorium counts were incidental to uranium.

22 MR. STIVER: Does everybody have the 
265 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 graphical file open? Would you like to just 

2 kind of walk through each of the figures and 

3 talk about them just for a minute? Because 

4 everybody, I think, has the file opened now.

5 MR. BARTON: Okay, good. So the 

6 very first figure is kind of what I was 

7 talking about. We have a group of 60 thorium 

8 workers, and those are represented by the blue 

9 line, and, again, those 60 are just they were 

10 involved in thorium operations at some point.

11 Then the red line there is all of 

12 your chemical operators, which are going to 

13 include some of those 60 thorium workers who 

14 are also chemical operators. Then the final 

15 line there is the green curve, which are 

16 thorium workers or, excuse me, chemical 

17 operators who were not part of the 60 who were 

18 ever identified with thorium operations. 

19 Then you can see the two groups of 

20 chemical operators are very close. But when 

21 you include those chemical operators from the 

22 60 thorium workers, it becomes rather 
266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 limiting. But even more poignant is the 

2 thorium workers themselves, that blue line, 

3 which is clearly below both chemical operator 

4 groups.

5 Now if we scroll down to the second 

6 page, if everybody's ready, there was just 

7 another test where we pulled out all the 

8 chemical operators, and, again, this will 

9 include some of those 60 thorium workers, and 

10 we just compare it to the all-worker average.

11 The two cumulative functions 

12 essentially overlap each other. So it appears 

13 that chemical operators aren't really a 

14 bounding job category, but rather they could 

15 almost be the normal exposure pattern for all 

16 the other workers. Which is not entirely 

17 surprising. When you look at the records for 

18 thorium lung burdens, again milligrams 

19 thorium, chemical operators constitute almost 

20 40 percent of the counts that were taken. 

21 The remainder of the 60 samples also 

22 mirror the chemical operator lung burden 
267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 almost exactly. You see the two curves, but 

2 they're almost right on top of each other. 

3 MR. STIVER: Essentially the same 

4 population.

5 MR. BARTON: Right. 

6 MR. ROLFES: John, excuse me. Bob 

7 on the phone, my apologies, Bob Barton. One 

8 thing I wanted to point out is possibly, you 

9 know, if you look at the individuals' lung 

10 count data, it identifies them as someone 

11 other than a chemical operator.

12 The one shortcoming that could be 

13 there is if someone was a chemical operator 

14 but, you know, received a promotion and became 

15 something other than a chemical operator, 

16 after you know, that particular job.

17 So I mean we've got to be cautious 

18 about using job titles to quantify exposure 

19 potential.

20 MR. BARTON: That's a good point, 

21 Mark, but I will say that this job title data 

22 was essentially on a measurement by 
268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measurement basis. They list the job title, 

2 as well as the plant, and the count results, 

3 the date, all in one line on these in vivo 

4 count sheets. So the job title should reflect 

5 the actual data point.

6 MR. STIVER: That could be a problem 

7 in later years, though, when you don't have 

8 the identifiers.

9 MR. BARTON: It's actually more of a 

10 problem in the earlier years, when the first 

11 counts in 1968. A lot of times they didn't 

12 list the job title, and in fact, in a second 

13 we're going to look at the 1968-only data, and 

14 for that, a lot of job titles I had to 

15 identify, based on that Starkey memo.

16 So a lot of times they wouldn't have 

17 a job title specified in the actual in vivo 

18 record, but from the Starkey memo, I knew they 

19 were a chemical operator or a machine tool 

20 operator or whatever it may have been. 

21 MR. STIVER: So this is Figure 3 

22 we're looking at now?
269 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. BARTON: Yes. If we scroll down 

2 to Figure 3, this is looking only at the 1968 

3 data, which is a little more valuable, because 

4 again, we have a direct correlation between 

5 year and who was designated as a thorium 

6 operator. 

7 MR. STIVER: And it's a pretty 

8 sizeable difference there, isn't it?

9 MR. BARTON: Well, some of the 

10 percentiles you can see sort of at the lower 

11 percentiles, they're a little bit closer, you 

12 know. Then you get into the 20th, up to about 

13 the 65th, 70th, there's some distance before 

14 the other chemical operators kind of merge 

15 with them, and then again in the 90th 

16 percentile, they kind of merge away again.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes. The 90th 

18 percentile for all workers is correlating with 

19 about the 60th percentile for the chemical 

20 operators identified in the memo. A pretty 

21 sizeable difference. Then Figure 4 is --

22 MR. BARTON: This is, what 
270 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially I did here, because I felt that 

2 Figure 3 might be confusing, since you're 

3 looking at it's not all of the Starkey 

4 workers. It's only the chemical operators in 

5 the Starkey memo, versus the other chemical 

6 operators in 1968.

7 The reason I did this is I did not 

8 want to include all chemical operators in 

9 1968, because of what I was just speaking to. 

10 A lot of the job titles were not there, so in 

11 order to do an all chemical worker category, I 

12 would have had to add in all the Starkey 

13 workers, which would have, you know, really 

14 muddied things up, because then you're going 

15 to have a lot more overlap. 

16 What I did was I just compared the 

17 chemical workers from each data set, and you 

18 kind of see there's not that many data points 

19 for the other chemical operators. But if I 

20 added in all of the Starkey ones, they 

21 probably would have overlapped a lot more, 

22 which is kind of counterproductive to what 
271 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're trying to get at.

2 So just to show that if I include 

3 all of the workers in the Starkey memo and do 

4 the same plot, and again only compared to the 

5 chemical operators who are not identified as 

6 thorium workers in that year, it's essentially 

7 the same distribution. So that's really what 

8 I was trying to show there, just so it didn't 

9 really raise eyebrows as to, you know, what 

10 you're looking at.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, that was 

12 very instructive, Bob, and we're certainly 

13 seeing that there is a more highly exposed 

14 population that you've identified here. I 

15 think that has implications for the coworker 

16 model, as it's applied.

17 You know, we need to obviously, 

18 NIOSH needs to look at this, so we'll go ahead 

19 and do our formal review, and send it through 

20 the right channels and deliver it to the 

21 Board.

22 MR. BARTON: John, if I could make 
272 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one other suggestion? One other sort of 

2 contention that was put forward is that 

3 workers were chosen because of their exposure 

4 potential. I just wanted to ask NIOSH if that 

5 contention was based on worker interviews, or 

6 was it documentation regarding the bioassay 

7 program? Or if you came to that conclusion 

8 from the data itself.

9 MR. MORRIS: This is Bob Morris. We 

10 have that documented in interviews.

11 MR. BARTON: Okay. Oh, I mean 

12 that's good. I would say it might be 

13 instructive to look at the data and see, 

14 because that might be true for uranium 

15 monitoring, if the monitoring program is 

16 really geared towards uranium.

17 It might be instructive to look at 

18 the thorium records and say all right, who had 

19 the most frequent monitoring? Did they really 

20 have the higher lung burdens, and something 

21 like that might go a long way towards telling 

22 us, you know, what kind of a problem we have 
273 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here.

2 MR. MORRIS: Perhaps for those of us 

3 on the phone who didn't get to see this stuff, 

4 if you could like sum up real quickly what you 

5 think -- John just said this could be a real 

6 problem, and you said it's tractable. I 

7 actually had trouble following, and I was 

8 hoping you could like tell us what you think 

9 the approach is that you have envisioned?

10 MR. STIVER: Is this Bob Morris?

11 MR. MORRIS: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John 

13 Stiver. I didn't mean to imply that it was a 

14 real problem in terms of like an intractable 

15 problem. I think it means is that there has 

16 to be some adjustment to the coworker model at 

17 some point, I think, to account for this 

18 subpopulation that we're dealing with. But I 

19 think it's an tractable problem.

20 MR. BARTON: And there is some 

21 information provided as to how much the 

22 exposure potential increased. I don't know if 
274 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we can maybe extrapolate that 1968 operational 

2 data to other years, or maybe you could have a 

3 location-specific modification. I mean it's 

4 really not our place to say how this problem 

5 can be dealt with. 

6 I guess the point of saying was it 

7 don't seem like it's, you know, the killing 

8 stroke here, you know, the end game. It just 

9 seems like it's something that really needs to 

10 be addressed, and if the coworker model isn't 

11 modified, you probably need to provide some 

12 rationale for why you think it's going to 

13 bound doses for this group of workers.

14 Because down the line, you're going 

15 to come up with a situation where you have an 

16 unmonitored thorium worker only. You're not 

17 going to know that they're a thorium worker, 

18 and if you kind of employ the coworker model 

19 just as is, that's probably not going to be 

20 claimant-favorable to that worker.

21 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Well, we already 

22 know that we have an adjustment to make in the 
275 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker model, based on the bias of lead-212 

2 that SC&A identified and we agreed with.

3 MR. BARTON: Right, and this is 

4 really a separate issue. Like I said, this is 

5 completely independent of the quality issues 

6 that Joyce raised. This is simply who was 

7 monitored and is there a worker population out 

8 there that could be underestimated, and how do 

9 you account for that worker population, which 

10 evidence suggests had unmonitored workers, 

11 who this coworker model is certainly going to 

12 apply to.

13 MR. ROLFES: I guess the important 

14 part of this is that the data are out there 

15 and available for us to analyze and come up 

16 with a correction factor, if need be.

17 I don't want to state that we need 

18 one without seeing the actual report that

19 you're going to send to us. But you know, 

20 that's the important part, that the data are 

21 available to us, and it's just a matter of, 

22 you know, looking at the data to determine 
276 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whether a correction factor is needed.

2 MR. STIVER: And we'll get on that.

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: I have a question. 

4 Will you use this same type of data for those 

5 who did have lung burdens with the thorium 

6 work, to apply to those prior to '68, that you 

7 don't have any data on? Or is there another 

8 way you're going to assign dose to prior than 

9 '68 people?

10 MR. ROLFES: Right, and that's 

11 probably the next issue that we're going to 

12 discuss, about pre-1968 thorium intakes. 

13 Those are based upon daily weighted exposure 

14 reports conducted throughout the Fernald site, 

15 from 1953 or '54 until, right up until '67-'68 

16 time period. 

17 What we're referring to here in this 

18 discussion is 1968 through 1988 time period.

19 MS. BALDRIDGE: And you would also 

20 expect those to show the same type of exposure 

21 potential, as those who were given the, had 

22 the lung monitoring?
277 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: We wouldn't say that 

2 they had no exposure. Based upon the air 

3 monitoring data that we've looked at, that's 

4 what we're going to discuss up next here. The 

5 air monitoring data has been taken from 

6 various operations and places in the plant, 

7 and we've developed an approach basically to 

8 assign thorium intakes, by assuming that an 

9 individual was present in that area. 

10 What we're going to do for the early 

11 time period, we've got a series of air 

12 monitoring results for the buildings that were 

13 involved in processing thorium, and what we've 

14 done, basically we're using the highest result 

15 for that building for that year, to assign 

16 intakes to people.

17 We're not considering any reduction 

18 in the exposure potential based upon 

19 respiratory protection, or based upon, you 

20 know, some of the airborne data. For some of 

21 the airborne thorium, there's a bunch of 

22 different particle sizes. We're assuming it's 
278 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all respirable. 

2 So any activity that's in the air 

3 that's measurable, we're assuming the worker

4 was exposed to at the full concentration, and 

5 at the highest value in that building for that 

6 year.

7 MR. KATZ: Before we go into this, 

8 can we have a comfort break?

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I was just 

10 going to say --

11 MR. STIVER: That's probably a good 

12 idea.

13 MR. KATZ: So ten minutes? Is that 

14 good enough. A ten minute comfort break for 

15 everyone on the phone as well. So what time 

16 is it now?

17 MR. STIVER: Three o'clock.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. So about ten past 

19 three, a little bit after. Thanks. I'm just 

20 putting the phone on mute.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 3:02 p.m. and 
279 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resumed at 3:15 p.m.)

2 MR. KATZ: So we are back. This is 

3 the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. 

4 We just took a short break, Fernald Work 

5 Group, and let me check to see. Do we have 

6 any Board Members? Do we have Bob on the 

7 line?

8 MEMBER PRESLEY: I'm still here for 

9 a little while.

10 MR. KATZ: Great. Thanks, Bob. And 

11 off we go, wherever we are.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, go ahead.

13 MR. STIVER: The next thing we'd 

14 like to talk about is Issue 6A, which is the 

15 pre-1968 thorium-232 intake estimates, based 

16 on DWE data, basically the breathing zone and 

17 general air sampling that was conducted. 

18 There have been several White Paper exchanges. 

19 The last, I believe we produced a review of 

20 Revision 2 of the NIOSH, the White Paper on 

21 DWE usage back in November.

22 Then they released Revision 3, which 
280 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 basically took care of a lot of the concerns 

2 that we had. So now, we really don't feel 

3 that this is an SEC issue anymore. It's 

4 really a Site Profile issue, the basis being a 

5 memo or a paper put out by Davis and Strom in 

6 2008, where they went back and looked at, I 

7 think it was five different uranium processing 

8 sites, a thorium processing site, and a radium 

9 processing site where radon was at issue. 

10 They did fairly elaborate Monte 

11 Carlo simulations of the DWE data. They used 

12 the discrete data. They did log-normal fits 

13 to the data, and really with the ultimate goal 

14 of determining, you know, what is the 

15 uncertainty associated with these 

16 measurements, and how do we use that in a dose 

17 reconstruction environment.

18 The most recent version of the NIOSH 

19 White Paper basically is pretty much in line 

20 with recommendations by Davis and Strom. 

21 There are only a couple of issues in our 

22 latest review. There were nine findings, but 
281 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really the ones that count, in terms of a 

2 valid modeling approach, I think, was this 

3 issue of a data validation.

4 Davis and Strom found a lot of 

5 errors. Not lots of them, but there were a 

6 lot of insignificant errors. But there were 

7 some which they called blunders, that were 

8 pretty significant. I think the very 

9 significant ones were up to a factor of ten, 

10 and this was due to mathematical errors, data 

11 transcription errors, putting in the wrong 

12 time for a particular task, things along those 

13 lines.

14 Now those guys, for whatever reason, 

15 had the advantage, and their DWE reports had 

16 the raw data with them. So they were able to 

17 go through and just look at the raw data and 

18 do their own analysis. One of the first 

19 things they did was a data purification 

20 effort, and this is where they discovered 

21 these types of errors.

22 Now I'm not sure that the Fernald 
282 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DWE data have that raw data associated with 

2 them. I know I've seen some of it, but it's 

3 certainly not contained in the reports 

4 themselves. So it may be problematic to go 

5 through and review, and conduct any kind of a 

6 search for a meaningful representative sample 

7 of that data, to do any kind of a, you know, 

8 validation exercise.

9 However, we feel that, you know, the 

10 potential for these large underestimates, and 

11 in some cases overestimates, it would warrant 

12 at least some type of preliminary attempt to 

13 scope that, the feasibility of doing that, to 

14 see whether, you know, those data are 

15 available. If so, what kind of a sample size 

16 would be statistically valid in order to -- 

17 Certainly with respect to the 

18 sample, everything single the DWE report would 

19 get through, and a representative sample would 

20 at least give some kind of an estimate of the 

21 frequency, or if it's even an issue at all at 

22 Fernald. 
283 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The other issue was that -- I 

2 believe it was for the pilot plant. You had a 

3 series of different steps, depending on the 

4 quality of data. It's kind of a hierarchy of 

5 methods, and the first being that when you've 

6 got good DWE data for a plant for a given 

7 year, you take the highest DWE for the entire 

8 plant and assign it to everybody.

9 On top of that, you get a GSD-85. 

10 So that was definitely claimant-favorable. I 

11 don't think there was any problem with that. 

12 That was recommended by Davis and Strom. It's 

13 an acceptable approach.

14 The other situation is when you 

15 don't have data for a given year, but you do 

16 have it in adjacent years for a given 

17 building, right, and you can use that as a --

18 not really as surrogate data, because it is 

19 from the same facility, but it's coming from a 

20 different operation and process. So that data 

21 could be used as well, with the same type of 

22 approach.
284 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The third situation is where you 

2 just don't have data for a period of time. 

3 You have might have some unweighted air 

4 sampling data. Davis and Strom looked at 

5 this, and they came to the conclusion that 

6 even the average value of an unweighted 

7 distribution is, I think it was higher than 

8 all the three of their 63 worker categories. 

9 So just taking the average value will get you 

10 to a bounding, certainly a 95th percentile in 

11 most cases, based on the data that they 

12 reviewed.

13 But the problem we had with the new 

14 NIOSH methodology is they're not going to go 

15 beyond that. They're going to do the 95th 

16 percentile. When you do that, I mean you're 

17 in a situation now where, you know, certainly 

18 you're bounding, but you get into the issue of 

19 is this really plausible. 

20 I think it was the pilot plant, 

21 1967, when you went into that. We would 

22 recommend possibly reconsidering and using the 
285 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 50th percentile in situations like those. 

2 Actually, I found in a line here where they 

3 talk about that exact issue in the Davis and 

4 Strom memo. I think it's, what page are we on 

5 here, page 159. It's a Health Physics Journal 

6 article. 

7 They say, clearly, the site average 

8 is a biased estimated for exposure, that can 

9 be used in making compensation decisions when 

10 it's required to be favorable to a claimant. 

11 So they -- they also say that using a 

12 distribution for all samples from a plant 

13 without tying weighting or assignment to 

14 specific jobs does not produce DWA or GSD 

15 that's representative of any individual worker 

16 at that site."

17 So the idea of one is enough or not. 

18 We feel that probably the 50th percentile 

19 would be probably more defensible in that 

20 particular situation. Those are really the 

21 only kinds of issues we have with the DWE 

22 approach.
286 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: If we had previously 

2 stated that we would use the 95th percentile 

3 to bound unmonitored workers' exposures, then 

4 that's what we're going to do. So we don't 

5 want to reduce doses.

6 MR. STIVER: The only point being is 

7 you're kind of bumping up against the notion 

8 of plausibility.

9 MR. ROLFES: If we're basically 

10 coming out on the high side, that's fine with 

11 me. I have no concerns, because it would be 

12 claimant-favorable. I don't want to go back, 

13 you know. We've never really defined, you 

14 know, "sufficiently accurate," and when we do 

15 a dose reconstruction, if the dose value's 

16 high, that's okay.

17 So that's -- I'm fine with the 95th 

18 percentile. If you would specifically like us 

19 to use the 50th, then we can certainly 

20 consider that.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Have you already 

22 done a number of these at the 95th?
287 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: This method currently 

2 has not been used for a dose reconstruction, 

3 because it's still a draft method, and the 

4 current approach that we use for thorium dose 

5 reconstruction is based on the Site Profile, 

6 where we were assigning for every year, a 30 

7 nanocurie intake of thorium-232 and a 30 

8 nanocurie intake of thorium-228, I believe.

9 We've been assigning thorium 

10 intakes, but for certain years and certain 

11 operations, that intake is actually going to 

12 be lower than we've had in the TBD. For other 

13 years, it's going to be higher. So it's a 

14 draft method that we haven't put into 

15 operation yet, I guess.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: There are some 

17 philosophical issues that I think are behind 

18 this. On the question of what's plausible 

19 versus bounding, and obviously where the fine 

20 bright line is is always a question.

21 But we've had at least a case or two 

22 where the bounding approach for some 
288 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 inhalation situations led to some proposed air 

2 loadings that were essentially impossible to 

3 defend scientifically.

4 Sure, they were bounding, and so 

5 you'd say yes, they're very claimant6 favorable. But they were so, you couldn't put 

7 that much material in the air physically, so 

8 then you're erring on the side of saying it's 

9 not scientifically defensible.

10 And I think, maybe the suggestion 

11 here is along that line, I wasn't quite clear 

12 why you felt they were --

13 MR. STIVER: Well, my point being is 

14 like we just brought up. For example, the 

15 highest DWE was for a Plant 9 production 

16 plant, in 1955 and that's for a welder's 

17 helper. The DWE for that group is 690 MACs. 

18 That much above the limit, or it should be the 

19 limit, which at that time was 70 dpm per cubic 

20 meter.

21 If you look at the -- go through all 

22 that air sampling data, you have breathing 
289 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 zone samples for really dirty jobs that are 

2 very short duration, cleaning out a reduction 

3 --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

5 MR. STIVER: And you might have, you 

6 know, millions of dpm per cubic meter in that 

7 operation, but only for five or ten minutes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. You couldn't 

9 stay in that kind of environment.

10 MR. STIVER: You couldn't stay in 

11 that kind of an environment. Then when I 

12 listed it on a paper, and that particular 

13 highest measure with seven samples was 

14 literally a million dpms.

15 But they're highly variable, and so 

16 if this is approaching the 95th percentile of 

17 the unweighted air distribution, we know the 

18 highest distributions are usually associated 

19 with this sort of, short duration task.

20 So if you take that and assign that 

21 to everybody in the plant, it's just not --

22 it's not a physiologically tenable position to 
290 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 take. That's my point. You know, it might 

2 not reach that kind of a physiological 

3 limitation or plausibility limitation for 

4 another plant with lower air concentration. 

5 But that approach, taken to its extreme --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it's sort of 

7 like breathing snootful of smoke and you can 

8 do that for a few seconds, but you can't do it 

9 on a sustained basis. In fact, people take, 

10 at some point they take avoidance measures to 

11 get out of there. And I don't know if we're 

12 there, but I think that's the question you're 

13 raising. 

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, and it's the issue 

15 of when you push so far up against the realm 

16 of impossibility that you don't want --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I was just --

18 the reason I asked if you had used it, because 

19 if you're already used it on a number of 

20 individuals, then it's harder to back away 

21 from. If you're still considering it, you 

22 might at least look at that and say all right, 
291 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's sure bounding, but is it scientifically 

2 not tenable.

3 MR. STIVER: Well, you know, as kind 

4 of an aside, we had a reviewer a few years 

5 back kind of claim that for some of these 

6 detonations at the Nevada Test Site, we should 

7 be using a resuspension factor of 10 to the 

8 minus 5th. When you go ahead and put that 

9 much dust up in the air, see if you can even 

10 breathe or even walk into it and stay upright, 

11 not suffocate.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

13 MR. STIVER: So yes, you butt up 

14 against believability.

15 MR. ROLFES: To maybe address it 

16 from a more broad scale from the dose 

17 reconstruction process, if you take a look at 

18 the cases that we've completed, you know, some 

19 of the early Fernald claims were completed 

20 with one of these types of scenarios, the 

21 OTIB-2 method, using an intake of 28 

22 radionuclides on the first day of employment 
292 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is a worst case, implausible scenario that was 

2 applied to ensure that we did not 

3 underestimate someone's dose.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

5 MR. ROLFES: Now for cases, for 

6 example, for a lung cancer, we might not even 

7 need to consider thorium, and typically don't 

8 even need to consider thorium intakes, just 

9 because the uranium intakes alone are of 

10 sufficient magnitude to complete the case.

11 You know, when you get down towards 

12 the best estimate, we might actually have to 

13 do a best estimate of the individual's actual 

14 uranium bioassay data, interpret, you know, 

15 that data using claimant-favorable 

16 assumptions, look at all sources of 

17 information in there. 

18 So I don't readily know of any best 

19 estimates off the top of my head for Fernald, 

20 and that's where we get down to, you know, the 

21 nitty-gritty. It's probably a handful of 

22 cases, where the best estimate dose 
293 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction approach would come into play, 

2 and the issues that we've been discussing over 

3 the past several years really don't 

4 generically apply to our overestimating dose 

5 reconstructions or underestimating dose 

6 reconstructions.

7 They're really focused down narrow 

8 on a very, very small portion of the Fernald 

9 claimants that we have to do dose 

10 reconstructions for, and it's the best 

11 estimates. I'm comfortable with the 

12 information that we use in those best 

13 estimates, to make sure that we still have a 

14 very claimant-favorable dose reconstruction 

15 approach, to make sure that the doses that 

16 we've calculated are not underestimated, even 

17 when it's a best estimate. 

18 To get down to, you know, whether 

19 it's the 50th or the 95th percentile in this 

20 case, all in all it's probably not going to 

21 make a difference for any but a possible small 

22 very, very small fraction of a percent of 
294 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cases, for which we complete dose 

2 reconstructions.

3 MR. STIVER: Well, that would be our 

4 suggestion, you know. It's certainly not 

5 going to be a show-stopper.

6 MR. ROLFES: We can keep it in mind. 

7 So thank you. Keep that in mind.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. That's really 

9 all I had to say about the thorium-232 DWE 

10 issue. Is Bob Anigstein still on the phone? 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I am.

12 MR. STIVER: Bob has done some work, 

13 and since Hans has become otherwise occupied, 

14 Bob has kind of taken over some of the issues 

15 regarding the K-65 silo radon emissions. Now 

16 we don't feel that this is an SEC issue, but

17 it's been a topic of contention and debate for 

18 several years. 

19 Bob has done the analysis the last 

20 time around, back in February presented a 

21 review of the dispersion model that was used 

22 by NIOSH. But Bob, if you'd like to go ahead 
295 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and go and get started.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

3 MR. MORRIS: This is Bob Morris. I 

4 have a question, please.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

6 MR. MORRIS: Didn't you say at our 

7 last meeting, you said that K-65 emissions 

8 were not going to be considered an SEC issue?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. He just 

10 repeated that, right.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. There's still 

12 some, based on the paper that Mark put out on 

13 Friday, there's still a lot of these issues 

14 that apparently, if that is the current 

15 standpoint of NIOSH, that we feel that need to 

16 be discussed at that time on this.

17 I believe there was an action item 

18 that came out of the last meeting, to review 

19 the cases that might have been impacted and 

20 potentially consider the possibility of 

21 rescinding that guidance.

22 So that's kind of where we stand. 
296 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We felt it was important to at least -- Bob 

2 has just come up with a slightly different 

3 approach to looking at the source term deficit 

4 issue, and I think that it would be good for 

5 him to be able to at least share that with us.

6 MR. MORRIS: But still my question 

7 stands. Is this an SEC issue now?

8 MR. STIVER: I think it's probably 

9 to be considered more of a Site Profile issue 

10 at this point.

11 MR. MORRIS: Because on the agenda, 

12 it's listed as an SEC issue.

13 MR. STIVER: I think it's one of 

14 those issues that started as an SEC issue, and 

15 has kind of --

16 MR. KATZ: It comes from the SEC 

17 Petition, but that wasn't meant to imply that 

18 these are all still SEC issues.

19 MR. MORRIS: Okay, thank you.

20 MR. KATZ: Sorry about that.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I don't know 

22 if anyone has had a chance to look at the 
297 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 short memo that was sent out yesterday 

2 afternoon. It was in response to the NIOSH 

3 report, which I don't know when it was 

4 officially put on the O: drive. I became 

5 aware of it late Friday, so there wasn't a

6 heck of a lot of time to go over. I went over 

7 the report, but you know, it's hard doing 

8 background research.

9 But I probably would like to start 

10 off with something that would clarify, that 

11 sort of coalesced in my mind, as I was doing 

12 this over the last couple of days. There's 

13 been a lot of back and forth with NIOSH and 

14 NIOSH's contractors and us, about what's 

15 referred to the RAC report, the RAC model. 

16 RAC stands for the Radiological 

17 Assessment Corporation, and that it was, had 

18 been worked on. It was the subject of several 

19 successive reports. 

20 Just for background, RAC was 

21 originally contracted by CDC to do an offsite 

22 risk assessment for people living in the 
298 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 vicinity of Fernald, and one of the 

2 contributors to their dose was radon, emitted 

3 from a number of courses, but again, the main 

4 source was the K-65 silos.

5 Now everything that they did was 

6 starting with data from -- there were some 

7 measurements of radon in the 80's, the late 

8 70's and 80's, at least it was in the 80's, 

9 and going into the 90's, and then Dr. Susan 

10 Pinney received a contract, originally 

11 submitted from NIOSH actually, to do a study 

12 on the effect of radon and cigarette smoking 

13 or a combination.

14 She and her coworkers used some of 

15 the RAC model or used the RAC model to 

16 estimate the radon concentrations in various 

17 buildings on the Fernald site. Now the main 

18 critique is all of the information comes from 

19 after the domes were sealed in 1979. There 

20 was no data, no radon measurements, no 

21 measurements inside the dome prior to that.

22 So consequently, what they 
299 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially did, and by the way, the model is 

2 not easy to understand, and not that I'm 

3 trying to be, make excuses. But the National 

4 Academy of Science, the committee, the 

5 National Research Council, that was engaged, 

6 hired by CDC to do a peer review of it, had 

7 difficulty understanding this model, and at 

8 first they did not understand it. Then the 

9 RAC people gave them some clarification and 

10 they said "Oh, okay. Now we get it."

11 But the way I understand the model, 

12 and I'm probably skipping something that I'm 

13 simplifying, is they both, they took a 

14 measurement of the external exposure just 

15 outside the dome using gamma radiation 

16 monitors, and also simultaneously took a gas 

17 sample from inside the dome. The dome is the 

18 air space covering the silos.

19 They made a relationship between the 

20 two and said okay, and then they said okay. 

21 They realized that some of that radiation will 

22 be coming from the radon daughter product, the 
300 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 short life inside the dome, and some of it 

2 will also be coming from the K-65, the solid 

3 K-65 material underneath.

4 So they looked at the radiation 

5 measurements that had been made earlier, when 

6 the dome was deliberately exhausted. They had 

7 a radon removal system that ran just briefly. 

8 So it was to reduce the radiation readings, 

9 so that workers could do some work, applying -

10 - sealing the dome, and applying foam to the 

11 outside, specifically to reduce radon 

12 emissions.

13 So they said okay, here's the 

14 reading that's due to the material, basically 

15 the background reading, due to everything 

16 except the radon in the air space. Here, the 

17 reading with the radon in the air space was 

18 the differences due to the radon, and they 

19 made some. 

20 Then they said we'll calculate. We 

21 know how much radon there is now with the dome 

22 sealed. We'll calculate the escape rates, 
301 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because of course it's not totally sealed. So 

2 we'll calculate the escape rate, and of course 

3 we know what the decay rate is.

4 From those two factors, and I think 

5 assuming 100 percent equilibrium with its 

6 daughter product, we'll calculate the rate at 

7 which the K-65 material generates radon. 

8 Okay. That's a straightforward and is a very 

9 simple model. It doesn't require anything, 

10 any assumptions about diffusion rates or 

11 emanation coefficients from the radium. 

12 In fact, it doesn't even require 

13 knowledge of the radium. It just says radon 

14 is coming in, radon is leaving. Here's how 

15 much is in there; we can calculate this 

16 number.

17 The problem with that in my mind is 

18 that it neglects the fact that radon 

19 generally, in a large matrix, 20 feet deep of 

20 this raffinate material that could be compared 

21 analogous to soil, the natural soil. Radon in 

22 soil does not move by diffusion. It moves by 
302 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 convection.

2 Only in conditions where there are 

3 no, there's no air movement and there are no 

4 pressure differences and no temperature 

5 differences, will diffusion be the dominant 

6 mechanism. But the air convection has been 

7 shown to the be the dominant mechanism in 

8 bringing radon into the basements of homes and 

9 modeling how to use a diffusion model has been 

10 spectacularly unsuccessful in predicting the 

11 concentration of radon in home basements.

12 There is no reason to believe it 

13 will be better here. The reason our numbers 

14 are such a magnitude, an order of magnitude 

15 difference than the RAC numbers for the 

16 emissions prior to the time the domes were 

17 sealed, is -- I mean we're basing it entirely 

18 on the deficit in the lead-210. 

19 Whereas if you have radium generally 

20 in radon, and the radon decays in place and 

21 does not move, then you should have secular 

22 equilibrium between lead-210 and radium-226. 
303 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The lead-210 activity concentration actually 

2 will be a couple of percent higher than the 

3 radium secular equilibrium condition. 

4 In reality we found that depending 

5 on -- we did two assumptions. One is let's 

6 say that when they put the waste in place 

7 about 1953, let's look at silos. We looked at 

8 Silo 1 and 2, but the researchers talk about 

9 one silo. And then the measurements were made 

10 in 1999, I believe, or the sampling was done.

11 True, there were only nine samples 

12 taken throughout the large volume of 

13 raffinate. If we were to, depending on 

14 whether we assume that there was equilibrium 

15 between lead-210 and radium, meaning that 

16 prior to the time the weights were in place, 

17 there was no radon escaping, or and therefore 

18 the lead-210 started to decrease or decay and 

19 was not being replaced because radon was 

20 escaping.

21 Or we assume that the radium had 

22 somehow been stripped of the lead-210 and 
304 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radon, that is, prior history was exposed in 

2 such a way that all of the radon escaped, both 

3 of which are unrealistic but extreme, but the 

4 reality is in between. Some radon would have 

5 escaped before; some radon would have been 

6 retained. 

7 In either case, we get a factor of 

8 magnitude, an order of magnitude, more radon 

9 having been released during this pre-sealing 

10 period than is in the model. The reason, the 

11 mechanism by which this can be explained is 

12 that you had very different conditions. You 

13 had this dome, which had this six-inch 

14 gooseneck pipe that went up, made 180 degree 

15 turn and was pointing down.

16 Now the wind blowing in a horizontal 

17 direction, that this would maximize the 

18 Venturi effect. It's a large opening that's 

19 tangential to the wind. So the wind is going 

20 across it, just like the wind going across the 

21 chimney of a home is known to increase the 

22 radon concentration, due to again, the Venturi 
305 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 effect or sometimes called in more everyday 

2 terms, the chimney effect.

3 The wind actually sucks the radon, 

4 sucks the air out of the home, creates a 

5 partial vacuum. It's like a high decrease of 

6 pressure, and if the windows and doors, it's 

7 the wintertime and all the windows and doors 

8 are closed, it increases the air flow from the 

9 soil through cracks in the basement into the 

10 basement and carries the radon along with it.

11 So that has nothing to do with the 

12 radon diffusion. It's just the air movement. 

13 The radon escapes from the soil matrix into 

14 the pores and gets carried into the house. 

15 The same thing would have happened here. The 

16 Venturi effect would have caused a decrease in 

17 the pressure of the dome.

18 The material, the air in these pore 

19 spaces would move up, will be presumably 

20 replaced, because again, there will be cracks 

21 inside of the dome, probably perhaps even in 

22 the bottom of the dome, and you would 
306 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially have air moving through the dome 

2 and pulling the radon up at a much faster rate 

3 than would account by diffusion. Diffusion is 

4 a very, very slow process.

5 So now we did not model this, 

6 because we have no idea of what the magnitude 

7 of these effects are quantitatively. This

8 would explain it and quantitatively, we find 

9 much of a 30 -- we find that, depending on 

10 which hypothesis we use about the initial 

11 conditions, we either had 36 percent as much 

12 lead-210 as expected, or at the opposite end, 

13 51 percent, 52 percent.

14 This is right within the range, 

15 incidentally. So if we assume about 60 

16 percent, this is right within the range of 

17 reasonable emanation coefficients. Obviously, 

18 the radon, the escape of the radon cannot be 

19 higher than the emanation coefficient, because 

20 it stays in the particle. 

21 But for uranium ores, and this is 

22 the closest -- I'm not saying this is uranium 
307 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ore, but it's a raffinate and no one has made 

2 a study of this, it can be as high as 58 

3 percent radium-emitting.

4 So our position is that since this 

5 deficit in the lead-210 cannot be explained 

6 away, and there is no mechanism that has been 

7 proposed to explain why it would leave other 

8 than radon emissions, the only claimant9 favorable assumption is that in fact the radon 

10 escaped.

11 Now there are possible other 

12 explanations, but they can't be proven. The 

13 explanation that the radon decayed inside the 

14 dome or in the passage through the thickness 

15 of the walls or the foam, again, in the 

16 earlier days, is not plausible, because that 

17 would mean that the radon was held up for many 

18 days and it has over three-day half life, it 

19 would take a couple of half lives.

20 It would have to be perhaps a week 

21 before the radon escapes, and even the RAC 

22 study concedes that there was very little hold 
308 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up of the radon before the domes were sealed. 

2 So that it escaped as it was being evolved, 

3 and there was a low concentration in the air 

4 space.

5 So the explanation that the lead-210 

6 faded out on the inside of the dome or in the 

7 -- or on the surface of the raffinate or in 

8 the material of the wall itself, again, is not 

9 plausible, would not answer that. 

10 So I don't think I'll go through and 

11 answer point by point the comments in the 

12 NIOSH report, because I'm not sure everyone 

13 online has even read that report, which only 

14 came out on Friday. So I think I would just 

15 like to end with this general overview, and if 

16 anyone has any questions or objections, I can 

17 discuss it in more detail.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Bob.

19 MR. STIVER: Bob, thanks a lot, and 

20 I don't know if anybody's had a chance to look 

21 at the paper. It was just released the other 

22 day, but it's definitely a nice adjunct to 
309 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 follow on to what Hans has produced in the 

2 previous two White Papers. I think it helps 

3 bolster our position about the reason for the 

4 higher escape rate and our calculations.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a couple of 

6 quick questions for Bob. Bob, this is Ziemer. 

7 For your source term, are you using the total 

8 activity in the silo?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Now of course 

11 you're still going to have the issue of how 

12 much of that radon really becomes available, 

13 even with a chimney effect. When radium 

14 decays, you actually get a recoil. The radon 

15 ion or atom recoils, but it's not necessarily 

16 available in the air spaces in the matrix.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know that.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: So do we -- are you 

19 assuming that there's some fraction of that 

20 that's available to actually be sucked out?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Again, it's a 

22 qualitative argument, because I'm not -- we 
310 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't know otherwise that we'll be doing this 

2 detailed model, which can't be done. Not only 

3 that we're constrained by not doing it; 

4 there's just not enough data on the emanation 

5 coefficient, on the porosity and on the 

6 diffusion, I wouldn't even consider it. And 

7 again, on the pressure differences. 

8 So I'm simply saying that we observe 

9 reliably with a, that the ratio of the radon 

10 of nine measurements in dome, Silo No. 1, we 

11 observed a -- depending on that we assume that 

12 the lead-210 was already in equilibrium with 

13 the radium-226 at the time of the emplacement, 

14 or that it was totally absent.

15 The reality is there will be some 

16 fraction of this, and we either get a ratio of 

17 35.7 percent or 51.6 percent, meaning 60, like 

18 going the other way around, either 64 percent 

19 or 48 percent or somewhere in between, of the 

20 lead-210 that was expected and it somehow 

21 escaped, and of the nine samples that we took, 

22 there was variation in the samples. 
311 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But the ratios showed less 

2 variation. There was only -- the ratios 

3 showed a coefficient of variation of less than 

4 20 percent. So I think that that's very 

5 indicative for every single sample, depending 

6 on which assumption we made. There would be 

7 no -- the full equilibrium with the lead-210 

8 or zero lead-210 presence in 1953.

9 In every single sample, there was a 

10 deficit of the lead-210, and the variation of 

11 the ratio is only 20 percent. So I think that 

12 given the accuracy of the data, that's a very 

13 strong argument that the deficit is real.

14 The only other arguments would be 

15 made that maybe there was some inherent bias 

16 in the assays, that somehow the radium was 

17 overestimated and/or the lead-210 was 

18 underestimated. Of course, we have no way of 

19 knowing that.

20 But presumably, data was published 

21 in the RAC reports, so they must feel that it 

22 must be sufficiently valid for them to have 
312 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reproduced it. But I admit, it's a high 

2 amount, and it assumes a relatively high, but 

3 not implausible coefficient of emanation, 

4 which you were talking about, the fact that it 

5 comes out, which has been -- 

6 There is this data collection 

7 handbook put out by the Argonne people, their 

8 environmental group, headed by Charles Yu, and 

9 it reports from the literature that the 

10 emanation coefficient in crushed, wet crushed 

11 uranium ore could be as high as 58 percent. 

12 Does that answer your question?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Where does 

14 that leave us, though, with respect to --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, that it could 

16 be that the -- there was a separate, they did 

17 a separate calculation. There was a very 

18 early report, which somehow got lost in the 

19 shuffle, and did not get actually issued. At 

20 that time, based on this, I think there was --

21 the only uncertainty -- I won't say the only 

22 uncertainty; the only, I mean the data was 
313 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 based on published data. 

2 The one item that we weren't sure 

3 about was actually the mass of the -- we knew 

4 what the concentrations were in picocuries per 

5 gram. We weren't quite sure how many grams 

6 there were. But based on one assumption about 

7 the mass, which may be subject to future 

8 revision. 

9 That over the period, the total 

10 deficit was between 1.9 million and 2.5 

11 million curies of radon, total over the period 

12 from 1953 to 1991. This is about, this is an 

13 order of magnitude higher than the model used 

14 by NIOSH. 

15 MR. STIVER: Bob, you mentioned in 

16 your paper also that it's got a misconception, 

17 it appeared on the part of NIOSH, that the 

18 equilibrium activity would be the upper limit, 

19 as opposed to the instantaneous release rate. 

20 I think you demonstrated how that 

21 misconception could give rise to the 

22 differential as well.
314 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Perhaps. I'm 

2 talking about cumulative releases, not about 

3 how much radon is out there at any one time, 

4 but about the -- you take the instantaneous 

5 rates, so many curies per second, and you 

6 simply integrate.

7 MR. STIVER: You said that's over a 

8 period of years.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, yes. I believe 

10 -- now in the RAC model, which NIOSH is using, 

11 that is how they describe it. They talk about 

12 cumulative, cumulative releases, not about the 

13 amount out there. They talk about curies per 

14 year released.

15 MR. STIVER: I was referring to the 

16 report that was posted on Friday. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, right, and my 

18 response to it was I thought that that 

19 particular point at paragraph five was just, 

20 you know, some -- that it really didn't belong 

21 there. I thought it was just a, you know. 

22 It's mathematically correct, but I don't think 
315 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's -- I think it's not what we're talking 

2 about here. 

3 MR. STIVER: It's not describing the 

4 process --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you assuming 

7 some -- you're assuming some decay during the 

8 transit time, even though it's short. What 

9 about played out?

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not, you see I'm 

11 not modeling it. I'm not, everything what I 

12 said before was a qualitative argument that 

13 explains the difference between the 

14 calculation, which is a bit of an estimate, 

15 based on the deficit of the lead-210, and why, 

16 and then I was just trying to make, you know, 

17 trying to show a possible explanation of why 

18 this is so different from the RAC model.

19 I was simply saying that if you 

20 based it on diffusion, because the RAC model 

21 also goes into diffusion and that's what the 

22 NIOSH report goes into, and this report, the 
316 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back up. It goes into making some assumptions 

2 about diffusion coefficients and emanation 

3 coefficients, and here you have these 20-foot 

4 deep pile of raffinate, and the radon is 

5 coming out by diffusion.

6 Well again, that's a very slow 

7 process, and most of it would have decayed if 

8 you assume that as the mechanism. The vast 

9 majority, particularly coming out from the 

10 lower reaches of the soil, of the raffinate, 

11 would have decayed before it ever escaped. If 

12 it decayed, where is the lead-210?

13 Once it decays to its own product, 

14 the bismuth and the whole succession of these 

15 short-lived products, these are not volatile. 

16 They don't move anywhere. They don't move by 

17 diffusion. They should remain. And yet the 

18 analysis did not find it.

19 So even for the analysis, they 

20 pointed out there is variation from spot to 

21 spot, even if it's not that bad. A 30 percent 

22 coefficient of variation isn't that terrible. 
317 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But if you look at the ratios for each 

2 individual sample, there's much less 

3 variation. Meaning when the radium is high, 

4 the lead-210 is high. When radium is lower, 

5 the lead-210 is lower.

6 But in each and every case, the 

7 lead-210 is lower than what you would predict 

8 on the basis of no radon escaping.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess I'm going to 

10 have to think about that, because I think 

11 diffusion really describes what radon is 

12 available in the air spaces to be removed. 

13 The rest of it is stuck there. So all that 

14 happens, I'm thinking off the top of my head.

15 I may be thinking wrong, but all 

16 that happens, if you bring a suction, is you 

17 pull that available radon that is in the air 

18 spaces, you pull it out. The rest of it's not 

19 available to pull out. See what I'm saying?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, into the --

21 excuse me.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: The diffusion 
318 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coefficient basically describes the fraction 

2 of the radon that's available for being 

3 removed. So I don't think you can dismiss the 

4 diffusion coefficient. Well, give that some 

5 thought. I may be understanding it wrong, 

6 Bob, but my understanding of diffusion, it 

7 really describes --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Who's speaking?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, okay. I'm 

11 sorry. I lost you for a second.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I'll just tell 

13 you. I've done a lot of studies on radon 

14 diffusion, and really --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, now I --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And really, it 

18 really talks about the fraction that's 

19 available to even come out.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think that you 

21 said it right the first time. What happens 

22 is, let me just give you my understanding of 
319 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it. What happens, my understanding is what 

2 happens is that the recoil, when the alpha is 

3 emitted, and you get small particles, the 

4 recoil kicks the radon out of the crane.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Some of the radon.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well again, some 

7 fraction of it, and it could be anything from 

8 --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: A lot of it's not 

10 available in the air space.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Up to 58 percent.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: When they talk about 

15 the diffusion coefficient, it's not the 

16 movement of the radon within the grain, within 

17 the matrix. It's the movement of the radon 

18 through the air space, through the pores.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, my only point 

20 is that I don't think that 5,000 curies is 

21 available to get out. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well --
320 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: You see what I'm 

2 saying?

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I hear you, but I --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, think 

5 about that.

6 MR. STIVER: The lead-210 deficit is 

7 a real thing --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Once you have an 

9 emanation coefficient of as much as 58 

10 percent, then that amount goes into the air 

11 space.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, okay. I'm all

13 up with that.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And it can either be 

15 removed by diffusion through the air or by 

16 convection.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But it certainly can 

19 be the net of that quantity.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 MR. STIVER: And it flows right. 

22 When you have an increase or a pressure 
321 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 differential that draws more of it out of the 

2 soil, you're not increasing the emanation; 

3 you're decreasing the concentration profile in 

4 the upper section of that silo. We saw that -

5 - 

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's pulling out 

8 what's available. It would come out anyway.

9 MR. STIVER: You could track radon 

10 concentration and barometric pressure just 

11 track each other perfectly.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

13 MR. STIVER: And when you look at 

14 the concentration profile in the soil, you'd 

15 see a compensatory decrease in the upper 

16 layer.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

18 MR. STIVER: You use kind of a 

19 simplistic wind dimension diffusion rate, and 

20 see the slope drop off.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm just trying to 

22 understand what we're looking at here.
322 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, this radon 

2 issue has gone on for a long time, and I 

3 really don't think it belongs in the SEC 

4 discussions. Perhaps it would be best to move 

5 it to the Site Profile discussion.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, and actually I 

7 was looking at my notes from last time, and we 

8 had agreed last time that it wasn't an SEC 

9 issue, according to my notes.

10 MR. STIVER: Well, I think it 

11 warrants pursuing, but you know, personally, 

12 we'd have the practical aspects of what Mark 

13 has talked about, how many cases are going to 

14 be imposed.

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Correct me if I'm 

16 wrong, but my understanding was even if you 

17 went in and sampled the silo, depending on 

18 where in that silo you take that sample, it's 

19 going to vary.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh sure. I'm sure 

21 that would be the case.

22 MR. STIVER: Well, it's not going to 
323 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be completely homogeneous.

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: That's what I 

3 mean. It's not going to be a homogeneous 

4 sample. So if you just take a one graph 

5 sample there.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes. Well, they took 

7 multiple samples they describe.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, they took 

9 nine. In Silo 1, they took nine samples, but 

10 basically they divided the silo into 12 

11 portions, 12 regions. There was north, four 

12 compass directions, north, west, south, east, 

13 northeast and southwest, because there were 

14 four access holes that were located diagonally 

15 in the principal compass directions.

16 So that gave them four, and then 

17 they took them at three different depths, 

18 which they called A, B and C. So essentially 

19 they tried to sample from 12 regions. They 

20 didn't catch all of the 12 regions. They 

21 ended up with nine samples, but they were all 

22 from different regions. So they got nine out 
324 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the 12.

2 So there was, you know, it's 

3 certainly not a complete characterization, but 

4 you know, it's the best we've got. 

5 MR. STIVER: Mark, did you want to 

6 say something?

7 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I just wrote up 

8 on our white board here well, I had the 

9 opportunity. I put up the concentrations of 

10 radium-226, lead-210 and polonium-210 in both 

11 Silos 1 and 2 at the Fernald site. If you 

12 take a look at the radium-226 concentrations 

13 for Silo 1, it's 477 nanocuries per gram, 

14 based on the analyses that were conducted, and 

15 263 nanocuries per gram for Silo 2.

16 The lead-210 value of 202 nanocuries 

17 per gram and the Silo 2 concentration of 190 

18 nanocuries per gram, we're concerned about the 

19 lead deficit, the lead-210, and so we've got 

20 the 202 and 190. However, the lead's still in 

21 there somewhere, for that measurements, you 

22 know, calls into question the measurement.
325 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because the polonium-210, which is 

2 the daughter product of lead-210, the 

3 polonium-210, which is a 138 day half life, 

4 those values of the progeny exceed the lead5 210 values. You can't have that. You can't 

6 have more progeny than the parent 

7 radionuclide.

8 So clearly, that data, the values 

9 for polonium-210 for Silo 1 and 281 nanocuries 

10 per gram and 231 nanocuries per gram, to me 

11 makes it appear that the lead-210 is in there 

12 somewhere and contributing to the 

13 concentrations of polonium-210 that are 

14 produced within the silos.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I ask a 

16 question? How can this be? I agree. I noted 

17 it, and also even if you use the polonium, 

18 even if you say the lead-210, which I don't 

19 concede by the way.

20 But even if we were to say let's 

21 ignore the lead-210 data for a second and just 

22 look at the polonium-210, you still have a 
326 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 deficit in regards to radium. Not as much, 

2 but it's still.

3 The average ratio of the polonium4 210 to the lead-210 are to be expected. 

5 Again, it's not exact. The equilibrium 

6 concentration, it will be slightly higher. 

7 But not a lot, a few percent higher. It's 

8 only 33 percent. So the deficit would now be 

9 reduced.

10 So instead of 50 percent, it would 

11 be two-thirds or three-quarters of that. So 

12 we're still saying there is a large amount of 

13 radon that's unaccounted for, and why there 

14 would be a difference between the polonium and 

15 the radium, and the lead-210 is hard to 

16 explain, because unless there was some water 

17 movement, because certainly there's no gaseous 

18 phase, or it just may be some systemic error 

19 in the measurements.

20 Polonium-210 is an alpha emitter. 

21 Maybe they were measuring alpha activity, 

22 whereas lead-210 is a beta emitter. I don't 
327 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know how they were measuring it. 

2 MR. STIVER: What are the moisture 

3 contents in the silo contents? I think they 

4 numbered 30 percent.

5 MR. ROLFES: Roughly 60 percent, I 

6 think, for Silos 1 and 2. The method that was 

7 used to get the Silo 1 and 2 material in was 

8 the slurrying system, where they would dump 

9 drums and slurry the material into the silo, 

10 decant the water and then recycle that water 

11 to slurry additional K-65 materials in. The 

12 excess water, I think in there, was decanted 

13 after the silos were loaded. 

14 MR. STIVER: Maybe there's the

15 possibility that it was like entrained in the 

16 water at some point.

17 MR. ROLFES: That's very possible.

18 MR. STIVER: Gravitational settling.

19 MR. ROLFES: It's also possible that 

20 some processing at a different site such as 

21 Mallinckrodt removed the lead. So we're never 

22 going to answer, be able to answer that, 
328 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because --

2 MR. STIVER: You had a homogeneous 

3 mix to begin with --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Like I said, we 

5 assumed, the hypothesis I was explaining was 

6 we assumed either all the lead was there or 

7 none of the lead was there, and even if none 

8 of the lead was there, we still, according to 

9 one set of calculations, based on the 

10 assumptions about the density and about the 

11 mass of the raffinate in Silo 1, we still had 

12 19, 1.9 million curies of radon emitted 

13 between 1953 and 1991. If we assume that it 

14 started out with all the lead in place, it 

15 wasn't that different, because the problem is, 

16 the reason is we're looking at a period from 

17 1953 and 1991. 

18 We're looking at a period of 48 

19 years, and with the 22 year half life of the 

20 lead, whether it's there to begin with or not, 

21 it will grow into almost the same amount. So 

22 it's not a huge. It's more than two half 
329 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lives. So whether it's there to begin with or 

2 not there to begin with is a smaller effect 

3 than might appear at first sight, if you think 

4 of over two half lives of ingrowth.

5 MR. KATZ: So Mark, do we have more 

6 response from DCAS at this point to discuss?

7 MR. ROLFES: Not at this time, since 

8 we've just received this latest, we received -

9 - the SC&A report, was it yesterday I think it 

10 came over to us, which is a little four-page 

11 response to a couple of our points here. Yes. 

12 I mean we can certainly take a look at it, 

13 and see if we can provide any kind of 

14 additional information in response.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well this --

16 well, I'm just saying this is part of the 

17 question of if it's an SEC issue or basically 

18 a Site Profile issue. If we can get our hands 

19 around it, then basically it's a Site Profile 

20 issue.

21 MR. KATZ: So it's something that 

22 the Work Group will address down the road as a 
330 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 TBD issue?

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. 

3 MR. STIVER: It's a TBD issue, I 

4 think. So there's no action item at this 

5 point.

6 MR. KATZ: Well Mark, they are going 

7 to have to respond. 

8 MR. STIVER: DCAS is going to have 

9 to respond.

10 MR. KATZ: They're going to have to 

11 respond to that. 

12 MR. STIVER: Well, on our list, we 

13 have the construction coworker. What were we 

14 going to do on that, Mark?

15 MR. ROLFES: Well, what we had done, 

16 basically I think I had alluded to what we'd 

17 done previously. We were looking to see if 

18 there was any kind of adjustment factor, or if 

19 a separate intake approach was warranted for 

20 subcontractors. Because in our initial review 

21 of the HIS-20 database, we didn't think that 

22 any subcontractor data made it into HIS-20.
331 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, that's not necessarily the 

2 case. Beginning in December of 1985, Fernald 

3 did actually begin entering subcontractor data 

4 into HIS-20. So their information is in HIS5 20, and was considered in the coworker intake 

6 model for uranium. 

7 However, prior to 1985, 

8 subcontractor urinalysis data is in hard copy 

9 data. So what we've done is checked with the 

10 Department of Energy, to determine whether 

11 they have provided all of the hard copy 

12 urinalysis data to us. Then we have received

13 a good sampling of it right now, since we had 

14 sampled to determine whether we had any 

15 concerns with the data being available to us.

16 We're waiting to hear back. I don't 

17 know. Maybe if -- I'm not sure if Mel or Bob 

18 or Gene might have anything else to add. But 

19 we're essentially waiting to hear back a 

20 response from the Department of Energy, as to 

21 whether there are additional hard copy files 

22 available for us, for subcontractors.
332 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Anybody have any additional updates 

2 besides that?

3 MR. POTTER: Mark, this is Gene 

4 Potter calling in, and I think you've 

5 summarized it pretty well. We're looking for 

6 a response. We asked for subcontractor data 

7 initially. We think there's probably more 

8 subcontractor data out there that isn't 

9 necessarily identified as subcontractor data, 

10 because the subcontractors are just mixed in 

11 with everybody else. We've also asked for 

12 some contracting documents and that sort of 

13 thing, to see if we can get a handle of the 

14 number of subs that were working on site. 

15 That might be kind of a long shot, but we're 

16 going for that as well.

17 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Thank you, Gene.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So basically, we 

19 still don't have anything yet. The last Work 

20 Group, I thought the two Work Groups, you were 

21 on the verge of creating this coworker, 

22 constructing a coworker model?
333 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ROLFES: Yes, correct. We've 

2 already got OTIB-78, but we've gone back and 

3 sampled, you know, portions of subcontractor 

4 results, and compared those to the total 

5 coworker intake model, based on HIS-20.

6 We haven't really gotten anything at 

7 this time to, you know, form -- we don't have 

8 a complete picture yet, and we need some 

9 additional data basically to, you know, get 

10 the best available picture, I guess, for 

11 subcontractors.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So basically we 

13 don't have anything as of yet that we can look 

14 at?

15 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. This 

16 was a new issue that has been identified 

17 during the Work Group discussions. It wasn't 

18 something germane to the original SEC 

19 Petition. It's been something that we've 

20 taken on in our discussions. 

21 It was first identified as an issue 

22 to us in, I believe it was in January 2010. 
334 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So we haven't been working on this issue quite 

2 as long as some of the other issues that were 

3 identified in the original Petition.

4 MR. DOLL: When you say 

5 "subcontractor," can you define that for me, 

6 what a subcontractor is?

7 MR. ROLFES: What we're referring to 

8 are not full-time employees. I mean this 

9 incorporates some of the subcontractors from 

10 places like Rust Engineering, some of the 

11 smaller. There were a lot of smaller painting 

12 operations like painting businesses, some 

13 smaller businesses that might have had 

14 employees that came onto the site for, you 

15 know, for a specific job, for maybe, you know, 

16 several months or a couple of years. 

17 It's, you know, not an NLO proper 

18 employee, I guess is what I'm referring to.

19 MR. DOLL: Okay. Now you do know 

20 that Rust Engineering was both a prime and a 

21 sub during different periods?

22 MR. ROLFES: Yes.
335 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DOLL: When you say, what they 

2 call and what the Department of Energy liked 

3 to call those people was intermittent workers, 

4 as far as like cold war warriors and the rest 

5 of it. They went through this whole process 

6 with us, and finally the Department of Energy 

7 had to back off of it, because the data that 

8 they used was wrong.

9 They said that well, any of these 

10 construction workers was this or that was only 

11 there for a short period of time. But going 

12 back, I mean, the fellow that was here at the 

13 last meeting went in there for Rust 

14 Engineering in 1982 and left in 2005, with no 

15 break in service.

16 There were a lot of people during 

17 the 80s and the 90s, and even all the way up 

18 into 2000. I have 21 years there. I wouldn't 

19 exactly say that that was an intermittent 

20 worker.

21 MR. ROLFES: Sure.

22 MR. DOLL: If you just took people 
336 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that came in, and I guess a subcontractor 

2 could be a guy that came in the gate, to go 

3 over here and work on a high lift as a 

4 mechanic and then leave. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Right.

6 MR. DOLL: You're not going to get, 

7 you know, any data out of this. I guess what 

8 I'm looking at is just like you defined the 

9 thorium workers before, if some of those guys 

10 would have had much higher uptakes, you're 

11 going to have construction workers in certain 

12 areas for certain contractors that had the 

13 same thing, Rust Engineering being one of 

14 them.

15 Because they worked on a daily, it 

16 was almost like a maintenance-type schedule, 

17 whereas the Davis-Bacon Service Contract Act 

18 construction in nature, went to Rust 

19 Engineering, and then they deployed people out 

20 into the field to get that job done. It might 

21 take three weeks, it might take a month. You 

22 might be in four different buildings in the 
337 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 same day.

2 But you were there every day, going 

3 into these different buildings inside the 

4 plant. The first one we went down there for 

5 was the pilot plant for the 6 to 4 project, 

6 lasted two and a half years. Okay. So we 

7 need to get --

8 MR. ROLFES: Could we clarify that 

9 area, because that was a new construction --

10 MR. DOLL: Building 13. 

11 MR. ROLFES: That was new 

12 construction.

13 MR. DOLL: Well, it was demolition 

14 with new construction, because we had go in 

15 and tear stuff out, the old stuff. Then we 

16 not only did new construction, but we also 

17 stayed in there during when they started 

18 processing, because we had to make sure that 

19 the thing worked while they were making green 

20 salt. 

21 There was only two people in there 

22 from the plant. One was Paul Savage and there 
338 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was another guy named Evans. Both of those 

2 guys, by the way, died of lung cancer. But 

3 those were the two guys, the two operators 

4 assigned to the plant. 

5 The rest of it was the construction 

6 people who put the process in order. When we 

7 first put it together and made the first batch 

8 of green salt in there, we had to make a lot 

9 of adjustments during the process, one of them 

10 being the cold traps didn't work.

11 So we had to go back in and demo the 

12 whole left side of that project, so we could 

13 put a big refrigeration skid in there, tear 

14 out the, you know, the "what you call it" 

15 houses, the bag houses and all the rest of the 

16 stuff, in order to put the equipment in.

17 Also, to do demolition on lines. 

18 There was still a handful of stuff, I guess, 

19 left over. We didn't know what it was. And 

20 then when they finally got the process to 

21 work, we still had to go back in there. We 

22 were talking earlier about the weigh tank. We 
339 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had go in and fix welds on the HS system.

2 So we were constantly in that 

3 building over a two and a half year, three 

4 year period, until they shut it down, because 

5 they didn't need the green salt. They also 

6 shut the other project down, which was new 

7 since the 4 plant closed, which is now the 

8 AWWT. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: So some of the subs 

10 may look like full-time regular workers, and 

11 some --

12 MR. DOLL: Well not only that, but 

13 we got a lot more exposure than a lot of the

14 people that were down there with HIS-20. Now 

15 earlier, you made a comment. You said be 

16 careful using job titles to assign dose to 

17 certain groups of workers, and I think that's 

18 very true with a lot of this stuff here.

19 Now a lot of subs came on site, and

20 they didn't have anything to do with the 

21 construction process. You know, some of them 

22 weren't -- I mean some of them were out there 
340 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as surveyors. Anybody that wasn't an employee 

2 of National Lead of Ohio worked floor, or 

3 whoever the prime was was considered a sub.

4 So when you go through this process 

5 and you start assigning doses and using, which 

6 is, I guess my point being with the 

7 individual John Doe that we talked about 

8 earlier, of having more dose from '93 on than 

9 he did prior to working in this building, 

10 because he was in that building for 2-1/2 

11 years.

12 Plus 9. We demoed 9 out to put in a 

13 process to make jewels, to make glass, and we 

14 had to demo the lines and everything out of 

15 there to put the process in. They were still, 

16 the lines that we cut out, six-inch, eight17 inch lines were still full of product from 

18 when they had shut it down in 1970-something. 

19 A lot of exposure.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But your comment 

21 that John Doe was -- the years that they had 

22 no data for him, were up to, what was it?
341 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DOLL: Well, the letter stated 

2 that he got -- the letter from NIOSH stated on 

3 his dose reconstruction, stated that he got 

4 more dose from 1993 until 2005.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Which he was 

6 monitored for.

7 MR. DOLL: Which he was monitored 

8 for.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Than the years --

10 MR. DOLL: Than he did -- now this 

11 is a superintendent working in a trailer and 

12 stuff, walking around when most of the place 

13 was clean, than he did working out in the 

14 plant as a pipefitter, during the years 1982 

15 to 1992. Now that may be true, but it doesn't 

16 make a lot of sense.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I can see how 

18 that could happen in the systems, because if 

19 you have dose records, you tend to end up with 

20 a lower dose than when you don't, because the 

21 assumptions made of maximizing dose --

22 MR. STIVER: But that's just the 
342 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 opposite.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. He said when he 

3 worked, didn't work in the restricted areas, 

4 he got higher dose.

5 MR. DOLL: But there are no records.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and where 

7 there's no records, I'm saying that they often 

8 tend to assign higher doses than some of the 

9 workers, because they use this maximizing. 

10 But we can't deal with that specifically, but 

11 I could see it happening.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR. STIVER: Well, yes. But my 

14 understanding of this was that in the years 

15 when he was out there working in the field, he 

16 had no monitoring data. When he went in as a 

17 supervisor inside the trailer, and no longer 

18 really worked out in the field, he had 

19 monitoring data.

20 Then in his monitoring, he got more 

21 dose from the time he became a supervisor with 

22 monitoring data, then he did before when he 
343 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was actually working in the field.

2 MS. LIN: Brad, everybody else here, 

3 and this is really specific personal 

4 information at this point. I know because 

5 we're trained, but if we can just -- 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. We shouldn't 

7 talk about that case. 

8 MR. DOLL: Okay. But I guess the 

9 bottom line to it was is we didn't have 

10 urinalysis, or we did have urinalysis. And 

11 when we had the urinalysis, I got urinalysis 

12 probably over maybe once a year or something 

13 like that, and I'm not sure that they have 

14 that. 

15 But mine was only for chemicals, 

16 which wouldn't -- I mean if I went in there 

17 and okay. We went in. I said before, we had 

18 an HF leak. When we go in there, if we had a 

19 HF leak, you had to go drop a urine sample. 

20 It wasn't about, it wasn't about the uranium 

21 or anything else. We had no air monitoring. 

22 In fact, you couldn't even get a rad tech down 
344 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there.

2 So some of this data that you might 

3 have might not even be related to testing the 

4 individual workers for uranium or 

5 radiological-type exposures.

6 MR. ROLFES: I don't know if I'm 

7 allowed to speak in response to your statement 

8 about no urinalyses. I mean I don't know. 

9 Can I ask him if I can discuss his specifics? 

10 We'd you prefer not to?

11 MS. LIN: Yes. I would prefer not 

12 to.

13 MR. ROLFES: In general in the past, 

14 I guess I'll put it this way, in the past 

15 we've had employees that have been concerned 

16 that they were not monitored for uranium 

17 exposures, and I've pointed out a few people 

18 that they can submit a FOIA request, for 

19 example, for that information.

20 We have actually pulled out some 

21 information to show them that yes, in fact 

22 they were monitored. So those are options for 
345 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people to determine whether or not they were 

2 in fact monitored. They can submit a FOIA 

3 request to NIOSH or to DOE, and we can 

4 certainly coordinate to provide that 

5 information to you in response.

6 MR. DOLL: I just got my FOIA 

7 request back last week. I've got a stack of 

8 papers about this big, and I've started to go 

9 through them. So I'll make sure that I get 

10 that information to you.

11 MR. ROLFES: Okay. If you have 

12 questions, I think you have my number from 

13 last meeting.

14 MR. DOLL: I've got your number.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: He changed his 

17 number.

18 MR. DOLL: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Also, last Work 

20 Group meeting, there was a draft White Paper 

21 by Bob Anigstein, Evaluation of Occupational 

22 Environmental Exposure to Radon on Fernald, 
346 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Environmental Management --

2 MR. STIVER: It's evaluating the 

3 dispersion model, and that one's another one 

4 we haven't gotten a response back on.

5 MR. ROLFES: Okay. The radon 

6 approach that we're using is documented in 

7 Report 52 here as well. 

8 MR. STIVER: All right, but if we 

9 could provide a response to Bob's previous 

10 write-up.

11 MR. ROLFES: We can respond, again, 

12 if that's what you would like for us to do. 

13 But you know, to try to explain, you know, 

14 when we've got the data that indicate that the 

15 lead-210 is still in there, because polonium16 210 is being produced.

17 I mean for us to really go back and 

18 look at something, and I think we've alluded 

19 to this previously. We're using the Pinney 

20 study, which considers the radon source term 

21 from the K-65 silos, as well as the materials 

22 in process from the Q11 ore silos at the 
347 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Fernald site.

2 So we've got individualized exposure 

3 estimates based upon the results of the RAC 

4 study, the NAS review of the RAC study, and 

5 also independent analyses of the uncertainties 

6 of the radon releases. Furthermore, we also 

7 did contain code calculations, which basically 

8 support a lower quantity of radon than what 

9 was found in the RAC report releases. 

10 You know, I don't think we can get 

11 any closer to, you know, I mean do we --

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR. ROLFES: --to review something 

14 that's been reviewed by the National Academy 

15 of Sciences.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Now wait a 

17 minute, wait a minute. I don't want to talk 

18 about the Academy of Science. You'd better 

19 read the report very good. At the very 

20 beginning, what it states, that this is not to 

21 be used for anything else. That was cursory 

22 report. You originally brought that up to us, 
348 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we're not going to do the Pinney; we're 

2 going to do the National Academy of Science. 

3 After reading that report, read that 

4 very carefully, because it does not support. 

5 It just went over what it was asked to be, 

6 basically do, and it can't be used for 

7 anything else. It's just there.

8 MR. ROLFES: Well, you know, I'm 

9 just basically pointing out that, you know, do 

10 we really want to call into question, you 

11 know, independent universities that have 

12 analyzed the data, an independent contractor 

13 that's analyzed the data, and you know, do we 

14 really want to rework a model that's already 

15 been designed as a claimant-favorable model, 

16 basically, for historical dose estimates for 

17 radon?

18 MR. STIVER: If we can go back just 

19 for a minute to Bob's previous paper, I think 

20 it has important insights into the dispersion 

21 model for transporting the radon from the 

22 silos to areas where the Pinney report 
349 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculates, just based on our views on the 

2 window data. So anyway, I think it's relevant 

3 to the discussion, and I feel it would be good 

4 for you guys to be able to respond to that.

5 But our position has been laid out 

6 in Hans Behling's two papers, and Bob's 

7 report. I think we have a pretty solid case.

8 MR. KATZ: I'm so confused, because 

9 I thought there's a four-page, right, a four10 pager. Is that what we're talking about, or 

11 are we talking about a separate --

12 MR. STIVER: There are actually two 

13 different ones. There's the one that Bob just 

14 turned in yesterday, which is --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. KATZ: And they want to respond 

17 to that. They already said they would respond 

18 to that.

19 MR. STIVER: There was also in a 

20 previous report that Bob Anigstein put out --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 MR. KATZ: You see, I thought the 
350 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 four-pager with a follow-on to the prior 

2 report, after a response from DCAS.

3 MR. STIVER: No, we haven't had a 

4 response from DCAS.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, got it. Thank you. 

6 Now I understand it, at least.

7 MR. STIVER: Tie up the loose ends 

8 here.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, their response 

10 may be that they're sticking with the model. 

11 I think that's what I'm hearing.

12 MR. STIVER: That's basically what

13 it's been. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That's basically 

15 what they're saying, so that's a response to 

16 them.

17 MR. STIVER: So that can go to the, 

18 take it to the Site Profile and we'll hash it 

19 out there.

20 MR. ROLFES: Our current response is 

21 contained in Report 52. That's the most 

22 recent and available response. So that's 
351 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where we stand at the time still.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay. We agree to 

3 disagree.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So do we have any 

5 other --

6 MR. STIVER: I just want to go 

7 through the listed action items that I've got, 

8 just to make sure that we have everything 

9 documented. As far as I know, we have no 

10 action item regarding recycled uranium at this 

11 point?

12 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay. Issue 6B, which 

14 was the NIOSH had an action item to provide 

15 the Y-12 calibration data when that becomes 

16 available. Bob Barton is going to produce a 

17 formal White Paper.

18 K-65, we need a NIOSH response. 

19 Both of Bob Anigstein's papers, this one and 

20 the one that was produced earlier that we 

21 mentioned, and I believe that's it, unless --

22 MR. KATZ: You already mentioned the 
352 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calibration data?

2 MR. STIVER: The calibration data.

3 MR. KATZ: Right, so that's it. 

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And now I guess 

5 we come back to the construction coworker 

6 model. We don't have anything there, was my 

7 understanding.

8 MR. KATZ: So they're working on 

9 that, is what I heard.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, last while 

11 there.

12 MR. STIVER: It's still in process. 

13 MR. KATZ: So do you want to talk 

14 then, are you through -- you're through all 

15 the issues, right?

16 MR. STIVER: Right.

17 MR. KATZ: You want to talk a little 

18 bit about how you're going to divvy up 

19 reporting out to the Board on the first day of 

20 the meeting. Thank you.

21 MR. STIVER: Thanks for 

22 contributing. 
353 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I guess 

2 this is a new experience, so I guess I need to 

3 bring forth, you know, where we're at. The 

4 biggest thing we've got is recycled uranium, 

5 coworker and so forth. I guess just present 

6 it, what you --

7 MR. KATZ: So well there's -- I mean 

8 there's been a lot of discussion here -- sure.

9 MR. STIVER: Well, I talked to John 

10 a little earlier, and it might be good for us 

11 to give SC&A's position on where things stand 

12 from a technical standpoint, and it wouldn't 

13 necessarily may or may not influence the 

14 Board's decision.

15 MR. KATZ: Sure, so I mean you can 

16 support, but Brad and Paul may want also to 

17 present, as sort of either an overview or just 

18 on particular points. It's however this Work 

19 Group wants to report out.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it seems to me 

21 that Brad can report that we have this 

22 recommendation from the Work Group. I'm 
354 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assume it's going to be a 3-2.

2 MR. KATZ: We hope, yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it is. It's a 

4 recommendation, but you also in fairness, you 

5 tell them that it was a split vote, right. 

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then it seems to 

8 me it would make sense for NIOSH to present 

9 their approach to the RU issue, and SC&A 

10 present their concerns. Now part of this had 

11 to do with timeliness also, and Brad, you 

12 probably want to speak to that, because I 

13 thought, aside from the 400 boxes or whatever 

14 that probably we're not going to look at, I 

15 thought that both SC&A and NIOSH were pretty 

16 close on the other issues.

17 But and, and we should be aware, 

18 going forward, if we go the SEC route, they 

19 can't use that for dose reconstruction for the 

20 rest of the cancers. That means that all of 

21 those people lose a big, big chunk of their 

22 dose. 
355 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: That certainly has 

2 consequences for the non-compensable --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, and the non4 compensable --

5 MS. LIN: Or even people who need a 

6 Class Definition generally.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. The 250 days 

8 are the wrong cancer. They cannot use that 

9 method. The recycling uranium is off the 

10 board. I think the Board Members need to know 

11 that in fairness, because when you make the 

12 decision, there's downsides both ways. If you 

13 don't go with the SEC, then there's people get 

14 left out on compensables. If you go the other 

15 way, there's some people that are going to be 

16 left out.

17 But the decision shouldn't be based 

18 on that particularly, but --

19 MR. STIVER: Based on the technical 

20 merits of the methodologies.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes. Let me just, 

22 some clarification about timeliness. This is 
356 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not a -- timeliness is not a criterion that 

2 the Board can use. The Board is free to make 

3 its decision when it feels like it has enough 

4 information to make a decision, make a 

5 recommendation. That's what we're talking 

6 about.

7 There is a time limits factor in the 

8 regs. That time on this factor has to do with 

9 the head of DCAS saying, at some point, 

10 enough is -- it's no longer practical to 

11 obtain these records and hence, I'm going to 

12 sort of call it and say the records are what 

13 they are, as we have them now. 

14 But that's really distinct from what

15 we're talking about here. Here, we're talking 

16 about at some point a Work Group decides it's 

17 investigated the issue enough, and hence, in 

18 this sense, with due diligence, it's time to 

19 report out. I just want to be clear that 

20 that's what we're saying. 

21 We're not saying that because this 

22 has taken so long, now we're making the 
357 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recommendation.

2 MR. STIVER: Thanks for clarifying 

3 that, because I wasn't aware of whether or not 

4 that that was a valid criterion for SEC.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, it is not.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: That we can make.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or the Board can 

9 make?

10 MR. KATZ: Right, the Board does not 

11 --

12 MR. STIVER: Well, I think basically 

13 that the public needs to realize that up 

14 front. You know, you said that we need to say 

15 into this. Well, we ought to tell them there 

16 is no time restraints. We could go on for 15 

17 years, right. We've got a lot of projects 

18 that are still ongoing out there. 

19 But the problem is, like you say 

20 Ted, which is correct, we haven't moved 

21 anywhere. We haven't done anything for quite 

22 a while. A little bit here, back in some 
358 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 places. We haven't moved. So you know, 

2 great. We can't do it on timeliness, but --

3 and to your question, Paul, they can't use any 

4 data on that. 

5 Is there something in the 

6 regulations that says that they can do partial 

7 doses too?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, they do 

9 partials. They'll do partials, but if we tell 

10 them that that is not an acceptable way of 

11 doing dose reconstruction for recycled 

12 uranium, I mean that's basically what we're 

13 saying. We're saying -- they will be saying 

14 that we cannot reconstruct recycled uranium 

15 doses, I think is what --

16 MR. KATZ: That's what the Board 

17 would say. 

18 MR. STIVER: You would not be able 

19 to use that data set and that methodology to 

20 reconstruct the doses.

21 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
359 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: The definition, the 

2 legal definition is you cannot reconstruct the 

3 doses.

4 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. Keep 

5 in mind that sometimes the NIOSH-proposed dose 

6 reconstruction methods resulted in a higher 

7 number of Probability of Causations greater 

8 than 50 percent than the SEC compensations. 

9 So you know, that's something to keep in mind.

10 MR. STIVER: That's the non11 compensables and the 250 day. People are not 

12 going to meet that criteria. I've seen quite 

13 a few of them be left in the lurch as a result 

14 of the unforeseen consequences.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I mean I agree 

16 with what Paul said, which is at least Paul, 

17 that these decisions should be made on the 

18 merits, not on the consequences, at the end of 

19 the day.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. STIVER: I think we're making a 

22 lot of progress on the RU issue, and 
360 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 personally I think it's possibly tractable. I 

2 would hate to see it go down. That's my 

3 personal opinion for the record here. I think 

4 that the legal approach has some merit.

5 MR. KATZ: I think part of Brad's 

6 sense too is that it's good to engage the 

7 Board on this at this point. I mean, as Brad 

8 says, having gone around and made incremental 

9 progress, but it being slow-going with the 

10 Work Group.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: This one is -- this 

12 is a complex site in a way. I mean in some 

13 regards it looks straightforward, but the 

14 issues have been complex, and I actually will 

15 be surprised if the Board will be willing to 

16 actually take action. They may want to 

17 postpone, because even the recycled uranium 

18 issue is fairly complex. I mean we've been 

19 immersed in it, but --

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, this is 

21 what I want to bring to the Board.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: But they may want to 
361 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hear it and say okay, we need to cogitate on 

2 this for another --

3 MR. STIVER: Before we can make a 

4 decision or, you know, resolve these issues.

5 MS. LIN: We also have potential 

6 compensation, which is that the proposed 

7 Class, which is not a definition at this 

8 point, ranged from 1953 to 1985, and it will 

9 be great if the Chair of the Work Group or SEC 

10 technical presentation, with applicable 

11 discussion as to why that period of time is 

12 justified.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: Right. Maybe that's 

15 something SC&A can do, just distinguish the 

16 time period and rationales as they relate to -

17 - 

18 MR. STIVER: There are a lot of 

19 different periods.

20 MR. KATZ: Well, whatever time 

21 periods might be substantially different. If 

22 there weren't substantial differences, then 
362 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you would lump it all together. 

2 MR. STIVER: In your discussion, 

3 just as regards to the SEC period or dose 

4 reconstruction potential?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well they're two 

6 sides of the same coin.

7 MR. STIVER: I think one's a little 

8 different than the other.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 MR. STIVER: I think mainly what 

11 we're looking at is that `53 and `61, right?

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Great. Then I 

13 guess we'll proceed on with that path, and 

14 then we'll go from there. Anything else that 

15 needs to be brought up before the Work Group?

16 MR. STIVER: The meeting's on the 

17 25th?

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, 24th in St. 

19 Louis. This will be the first date.

20 MR. KATZ: I assume you don't want 

21 to schedule another Work Group meeting at this 

22 point, given --
363 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I don't think we 

2 have any --

3 MR. KATZ: No, no. Not one before 

4 May. I'm just talking about next week. You 

5 might as well have the, learn what we learn 

6 from the Board meeting.

7 MR. STIVER: Probably not too far 

8 after, then, I think, while it's fresh in 

9 everybody's mind.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know, I think 

12 my biggest thing is, you know, I think how did 

13 Sam Glover put it, we've come to a loggerhead 

14 on this, and what I think we need to start 

15 involving the whole Board in it because this 

16 is a complicated site. 

17 MR. STIVER: It also has 

18 ramifications beyond Fernald, for other sites 

19 that handled recycled uranium.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, so okay. 

21 MR. KATZ: So are we adjourned?

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: We're adjourned.
364 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: We're adjourned. Thank 

2 you everyone for your hard work, as well as 

3 everyone on the line. Have a good day.

4 (Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the 

5 meeting was adjourned.)

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21